William Eyre: Neglected Figure in the History of Textual Criticism?

I recently acquired access to the substantial three-volume collection of James Ussher’s correspondence edited by Elizabethanne Boran. Ussher is most famous today for his very specific dating of creation. I’m no expert on him, but I can safely say that this was hardly his greatest contribution. He was, according to one recent biographer, “formidably learned” and kept a wide correspondence with great lights of hisday. He wrote on a wide range of subjects, including those of interest to this blog (see here). 

The particular letter I’m interested in, however, is not from Ussher but to him from a man named William Eyre (or Eyres, Aiers). Eyre was a Fellow at Emmanuel College and, according to Gordon Campbell, an overseer of the first Cambridge company of KJV translators who were assigned 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon (more here).

Emmanuel College, where Eyre was a fellow

Before introducing the letter, it’s important to remember that, at this time, the dating of the Hebrew Masoretic vowel points was hotly contested. The issue was hardly arcane as it touched on a much larger debate between Catholics and Protestants on which versions of the Bible were “authentic” and therefore authoritative for settling doctrinal debate. If the Jews added the vowel points after both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, then it was easier to argue that the Hebrew text of the 16th century was inferior to either of those translations. From this Catholics could ground their preference for the Vulgate since, it was argued, Jerome had access to a purer Hebrew text than the one Protestants claimed. (If you want a great example, take a close look at Gen. 3.15 in the Douay-Rheims vs. KJV and think about its potential to influence Mariology.)

This is the backdrop to a long and fascinating letter that Eyre sent to Ussher on 24 March, 1608. (You can find the Latin online here.) The main subject of the letter is a proposed two-volume work that would contribute to the debate by showing that “only the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, just as the Greek of the New, is authentic and pure.” The OT seems to occupy his special attention, but the NT is not left out.

What’s fascinating is the amount of detail he provides Ussher for his plan.

...here is the method of the things that I have begun to prepare — and indeed shortly (with the Lord’s help) I shall complete this work for private use. It can be called סיג התורה ‘fence around the law, or ‘Massoreth’ ’ or (as others read) ‘Masorah’, for preserving the purity of the sources, or removing corruption from the text of the sacred scriptures, and consequently for proving their authority; it is contained in two books, of which: 

1. The first, will contain general introductory material. 
2. The second, an index of variant readings, in the whole of scripture. 

The chief material of the first book (after the state of the controversy about the authentic edition of the scriptures and purity of the sources) I have covered in six propositions, which I could confirm with the firmest of reasoning, if they are rightly understood: 

• 1st proposition: only that edition of the scriptures is authentic which was divinely inspired, and written down by the prophets and apostles. 
• 2nd proposition: that prophetic scripture which was first written down is still preserved in the Church in a pure and whole state. 
• 3rd proposition: the Hebrew scripture of the Old Testament was handed down in antiquity with the same notes of vowels and accents that we use today. 
• 4th proposition: the Greek scripture of the New Testament (which was divinely inspired) still remains whole and pure in the Church. 
• 5th proposition: the Greek translation of the Old Testament is neither divinely inspired, nor pure and whole. 
• 6th proposition: the Vulgate Latin edition of the Bible is not faithful nor authentic, nor yet divinely written down.

The first volume was to include a substantial appendix that would cover the antiquity of the Hebrew characters, the Masorah, the versions, and, finally, a section on “the most corrected copies of the Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament, and Greek of the New Testament.”

By laying out the argument and the historical evidence, the first volume paved the way for the second in which Eyre would tackle specific variants. Here is his description of volume 2: 

The index and collation of variant readings through the individual books of scriptures, and the chapters of books, together with criticism on them, according to the order of particular passages: especially where the purity of the sources seems suspect to some people, or where there might be a danger of its being corrupted by the carelessness of copyists or the rashness of critics.

For Ussher’s benefit, he includes two detailed examples from Psalm 2 of his process. It’s here that things are especially interesting as Eyre anticipates key principles that still form the foundation of modern textual criticism. Consider his three criteria for judging genuine readings, which could fairly be said to describe what we now call internal and external evidence. Here is how he explains how he makes text-critical judgments:

‘I, II, III’ indicate criteria by whose help one should judge, from the previously established foundations of the propositions, the genuine reading in individual places: for they can be summarised under three headings: 

1. Codices or copies of the oldest text, both manuscript and printed. 
2. Versions and commentaries by translators, both old and more recent. 
3. Reasoning from the words themselves and the circumstances of the passage, and also from collation of other passages, and analogy of faith.

The appendix to volume two is even more interesting as it summarizes his whole case. Note how several of these points, especially the fourth, anticipate principles that are still crucial to the discipline of modern textual criticism. 

1. The reading of a passage of the Old or New Testament which is approved by the consensus and agreement of all copies which can be found, is not to be rejected on the ground of apparent contradiction, because it is difficult to fit it in, nor yet on the authority of some translators who might seem to have read the text differently, until some trustworthy copy shows the other reading: unless the circumstances of the passage, or analogy of faith, necessarily demand.
   This is clear from the things that are to be said in the first book, in the introductory material, especially in confirmation of the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth propositions. 
2. The reading of a passage of the Old Testament, which is approved by the reliability of the Masoretic and of the most correct copies, though it may be different elsewhere, should (other things being equal) be preferred.
   The reason for this should be sought in what we said in the introduction on the reasoning and reliability of the ‘Masorah’, and also from the things that are taught in the second and fourth appendices of the first book. 
3. The reading of a passage of the Old or New Testament, which is approved by the authority of translators who industriously followed their sources, that is, have illustrated Hebrew and Greek truth in their version or commentary, is better (other things being equal) that one which relies on the faith, or rather dreaming, of the translators who pursued tributaries, and translated the common Greek or Latin edition. 
   The truth of this is clear from the fifth and six propositions of the first book, and from its third appendix. 
4. The reading of a passage of the New Testament which can be proved by the authority and reliability of older and more correct copies, though they may perhaps be fewer in number, is (other things being equal) to be preferred. See the fourth appendix of the first book.
   No one will fail to support this position, who has known what should be attributed to many codices, especially ones recently printed, which scatter errors around to the public and multiply the ‘errors in writing’ of one who first slipped by carelessness or ignorance. Indeed the multitude of those who err, as Jerome said on another matter, unless I am mistaken, ought not to lend support to error.

I have looked through the books and articles I have at hand to see if any mention William Eyre and none do. That’s hardly surprising as little seems to be known about him. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, his work described to Ussher in such detail was meant for private use and may have never materialized. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know! 

In conclusion, it seems to me that William Eyre deserves at least a passing mention in the historical surveys of our discipline given how clearly he elaborates some very basic principles of modern textual criticism.

———

Update: I forgot to mention that full credit for bringing Eyre to my attention goes to Stephen Steele and that the translations above are from Boran’s edition, vol. 1, pp. 23–35.