Skip to main content

Full text of "A companion to the Greek Testament and the English version"

See other formats 


- 


LIBRARY 

Wurliffe 


TRONTO. 


O 


LK  No 


REGISTER  No..    2.6.  ../.•?. 


A   COMPANION 


TO 


THE   GREEK  TESTAMENT 


AND 


THE  ENGLISH  VERSION 


BY 


PHILIP   SCIIAFF,  D.D. 

PRESIDENT   OP  THE   AMERICAN   COMMITTEE   ON  REVISION 


WITH  FACSIMILE  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF 
Mss.  AND  STANDARD  EDITIONS  OF  THE  NEVV  TKSTAUENT 


NEW  YORK 
HARPER   &  BROTHERS,  FRAXKLIX  SQUARE 

1883 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1883.  by 

HARPER    &    BROTHERS, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


All  rights  reserved. 


tl.U  T  c<  I 'U 


TO  THE 

MEMBEES  OP  THE  AMEEICAN  EEVISION  COMMITTEE 

IN    REMEMBRANCE    OF    TEX    YEARS    OF    HARMONIOUS    CO-OPERATION 


BY  THE  AUTHOR 


PREFACE. 


A  MANUAL  of  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament 
and  its  application  to  the  English  Version  is  a  desidera 
tum  of  our  literature,  and  meets  a  demand  which  has  been 
greatly  stimulated  and  widely  extended  by  the  appearance 
of  the  new  Revision. 

This  book  has  grown  out  of  my  studies  in  connection 
with  the  Revision  Committee,  and  was  prepared  at  the 
request  of  several  fellow-Revisers  and  friends  whose  learn 
ing  and  judgment  T  highly  esteem.  It  embodies  the  sub 
stance  (thoroughly  revised)  of  my  Introduction  to  the 
American  edition  of  Wcstcott  and  Ilort's  Greek  Testa 
ment,  and  several  additional  chapters,  besides  important 
contributions  from  Bishop  Lee,  Professor  Abbot,  Dr.  Hall, 
and  Professor  Warfickl,  which  are  acknowledged  in  the 
proper  place.  The  last  chapter  contains  a  brief  history 
and  explanatory  vindication  of  the  joint  work  of  the  two 
Revision  Companies,  and  fairly  expresses,  I  believe,  their 
general  views  on  all  essential  points,  with  a  preference  for 
the  American  renderings  where  they  differ  from  the  English. 
An  official  report  of  the  American  Committee  will  appeal- 
after  the  revision  of  the  Old  Testament  is  completed. 

I  feel  under  special  obligation  to  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  of  Cam 
bridge,  who  has  kindly  aided  me  in  correcting  the  proofs 
as  they  passed  through  the  press,  and  suggested  numerous 
improvements.  In  the  department  of  textual  criticism  and 


Vl  PREFACE. 

microscopic  accuracy,  tins  modest  and  conscientious  scholar 
is  facile  princeps  in  America,  with  scarce!}7  a  superior  in 
Europe.  Every  member  of  the  American  Revision  Com 
mittee  will  readily  assent  to  this  cordial  tribute. 

The  publishers  deserve  my  thanks  for  their  liberality  in 
incurring  the  great  expense  of  fac-simile  illustrations  of 
manuscripts  and  standard  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
Some  of  the  former  and  all  of  the  latter  are  entirely  new, 
and  add  much  to  the  interest  of  the  book. 

The  extraordinary  increase  of  biblical  study,  even  among 
laymen,  since  the  Revision  of  1881,  is  one  of  the  most  en 
couraging  signs  of  the  times,  and  of  true  progress.  The 
New  Testament  is  the  greatest  literary  treasure  of  Christen 
dom,  and  worthy  of  all  the  labor  and  study  that  can  be 
bestowed  upon  it  to  make  it  clearer  and  dearer  to  the  mind 
and  heart  of  men. 

I  dedicate  this  book  to  my  brother-Revisers  as  a  memo 
rial  of  the  many  happy  days  we  spent  together,  from  month 
to  month  and  from  year  to  year,  in  the  noble  work  of 
improving  the  English  version  of  the  Word  of  God. 

PHILIP  SCHAFF. 

NEW  YORK,  August,  1883. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 
THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

LITERATURE „ 

THREE  ELECT  LANGUAGES 

SPREAD  OF  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE  . . . : 

THE  JE\VS  AND  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE 

CHRIST  AND  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE 12 

THE  APOSTLES  AND  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE 10 

THE  GREEK  AND  THE  ENGLISH 17 

THE  MACEDONIAN  DIALECT 1 ',) 

THE  HELLENISTIC  DIALECT 22 

THE  SEPTUAGINT , 2.°> 

THE  APOSTOLIC  GREEK 25 

HEBRAISMS 27 

LATIN  ISMS 35 

NUMBER  AND  VALUE  OF  FOREIGN  WORDS 38 

THE  CHRISTIAN  ELEMENT 30 

PECULIARITIES  OF  STYLE 43 

MATTHEW 40 

MARK 51 

LUKE , 54 

PAUL 62 

JOHN 60 

THE  APOCALYPSE 75 

EVIDENTIAL  VALUE  OF  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT..  80 


VI 11  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   SECOND. 

MANUSCRIPTS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  PAGE 
LITERATURE  ON  THE  SOURCES  OF  THE  TKXT  AND  ox  TEXTUAL  CRIT 
ICISM 82 

SOURCES  OF  THE  TEXT 85 

FACSIMILES  OF  MANUSCRIPTS 91 

GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  MANUSCRIPTS 93 

A .  UNCIAL  MANUSCRIPTS 98 

1.  PRIMARY  UNCIALS 102 

CODEX  SINAITICUS , 103 

"       ALEXAXDHINUS Ill 

"       VATICANUS 113 

"       EPHR/EMI 120 

"       BKZ.E 122 

2.  SECONDARY  UNCIALS 124 

B.  CURSIVE  MANUSCRIPTS 138 

LIST  OF  PUBLISHED  UNCIALS 139 

CHAPTER   THIRD. 

ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

VALUE  OF  VERSIONS 142 

LATIN  VERSIONS  : 

THE  OLD  LATIN 144 

THE  VULGATE 148 

SYRIAC  VERSIONS  : 

THE  PESHITO , . .  152 

THE  HARCLEAN 1 54 

THE  CURETONIAN 156 

THE  JERUSALEM 157 

EGYPTIAN  VERSIONS  : 

THE  MEMPIIITIC 158 

THE  THEBAIC 159 

THE  BASIIMURIC .159 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  ix 

PAGE 

VERSION...  .    159 


GOTHIC  VERSION — 
ARMENIAN  VERSION. 


CHAPTER   FOURTH. 
PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS. 

VALUE  OF  PATRISTIC  QUOTATIONS 1 G4 

GRKEK  FATHERS 167 

LATIN  FATHERS 1G9 

CHAPTER   FIFTH. 
TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

NATURE  AND  OBJECT  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 171 

ORIGIN  OF  VARIATIONS , 17;-! 

NUMBER  OF  VARIATIONS 17C, 

VALUE  OF  VARIATIONS 177 

CLASSES  OF  VARIATIONS 183 

1.  OMISSIONS 183 

2.  ADDITIONS 183 

3.  SUBSTITUTIONS 1 93 

CRITICAL  RULES 202 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  RULKS 205 

THE  GENEALOGICAL  METHOD 208 

CHAPTER   SIXTH. 

HISTORY   OF  THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

PRELIMINARY  REMARKS..  .  .    225 


I.   THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  TEXTUS  RECEPTUS  :  FROM  ERASMUS  AMI 

STEPHENS  TO  BENGEL  AND  WETSTEIN. — A.D.  1516-1750 228 

THE  TEXTUS  RECEPTUS 228 

ERASMUS 229 

COMPLUTENSIAN  POLYGLOT 232 

COLIN.EUS 236 

STEPHENS...  .   236 


X  TABLE    OF    CONTEXTS. 

PAGE 

BEZA , 237 

ELZEVIRS 240 

WALTON'S  POLYGLOT ,  241 

MILL 244 

BENTLEY 245 

BENGEI 246 

WETSTEIN 247 

II.  SECOND  PERIOD:   TRANSITION  FROM  THE  TEXTUS  RECEPTUS  TO 
THE   UNCIAL  TEXT.      FROM  GRIKSUACII  TO  LACIIMANN.  —  A.D. 
1770-1830 249 

GRIESBACII 250 

MATTH Jii 252 

SCIIOLZ 253 

III.  THIRD  PERIOD:    THE  RESTORATION  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  TEXT. 
FROM  LACHMANN  AND  TISOIIENDORF  TO  WESTCOTT  AND  HORT. — 
A.D.  1830-81 254 

LACIIMANN 254 

TlSCIIKNDORF 257 

TREGELLES 202 

ALFORD 206 

WESTCOTT  AND  HORT 208 

SCRIVENER  AND  PALMER 282 

RETROSPECT  AND  PROSPECT 287 

CHAPTER   SEVENTH. 
THE   AUTHORIZED   YERSIOX. 

LITERATURE 299 

THE  BIBLE  AND  CHRISTIANITY ,   305 

ORIGIN  OF  KING  JAMES'S  VERSION 312 

RULES  PRESCRIBED 317 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  WORK 319 

RECEPTION 325 

WAS  KING  JAMES'S  VERSION  EVER  AUTHORIZED? 330 

CRITICAL  ESTIMATE. — MERITS 337 

DEFECTS. 347 

PREPARATIONS  FOR  REVISION...  .   364 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTER  EIGHTH. 

THE  REVISED  VERSION.  PAGE 

LITERATURE 371 

ACTION  OF  THE  CONVOCATION  OF  CANTERBURY 380 

ORGANIZATION  AND  RULES  OF  THE  BRITISH  COMMITTEE 382 

WORK  OF  THE  BRITISH  COMMITTEE 387 

AMERICAN  CO-OPERATION 391 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  COMMITTEE 396 

RELATION   OF   THE    AMERICAN    AND    ENGLISH    COMMITTEES   AND 

AGREEMENT  WITH  THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESSES 398 

PUBLICATION 403 

RECEPTION,  CRITICISM,  AND  PROSPECT 411 

MERITS  OF  THE  REVISION  AS  COMPARED  WITH  THE  OLD  VERSION..  417 

THE  GREEK  TEXT  OF  THE  REVISED  VERSION 420 

SELECT  LIST  OF  TEXTUAL  CHANGES 428 

SELECT  LIST  OF  IMPROVED  RENDERINGS 434 

THE  ENGLISH  STYLE  OF  THE  REVISED  VERSION 455 

ARCHAISMS 459 

NEW  WORDS 402 

IMPROVEMENTS  IN  RHY*TIIM 464 

GRAMMATICAL  IRREGULARITIES 465 

INFELICITIES 466 

INCONSISTENCIES 468 

NEEDLESS  VARIATIONS 474 

THE  AMERICAN  PART  IN  THE  JOINT  WORK , 478 

THE  AMERICAN  APPENDIX 482 

THE  PUBLIC  VERDICT...                                                                ,.  490 


APPENDIX  I. — LIST  OF  PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE   GREEK  NEW 

TESTAMENT 497 

APPENDIX  II. — FAC-SIMILES  OF  STANDARD  EDITIONS  OF  THE  GREEK 

TESTAMENT 525 

APPENDIX  III — LIST  OF  ENGLISH  AND  AMERICAN  REVISERS 571 

APPENDIX   IV. — LIST  OF  AMERICAN   CHANGES   ADOPTED   BY  THE 

ENGLISH  COMMITTEE 579 

APPENDIX  V. — ADOPTION  OF  THE  REVISION  BY  THE  BAPTISTS...   607 

ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 609 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES  EXPLAINED...  615 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 

THE  LANGUAGE   OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Literature. 
I.  CRITICAL  EDITIONS  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT. 

BY  LACHMAXX  (1842-50,  2  vols.);  TISCHENDORF  (ed.  octava  critica 
major,  1804-72,  2  vols.,  with  a  vol.  of  Prolegomena  by  Gregory  and  Ab- 
bot,  1883);  TREGELLES  (1857-79);  WESTCOTT  and  HORT  (1881,  with  a 
separate  vol.  of  Introduction  and  Appendix,  Cambridge  and  New  York, 
Harpers'  ed.,  from  English  plates). 

Lachmann  laid  the  foundation  for  the  ancient  uncial  instead  of  the 
mediaeval  cursive  text;  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  enlarged  and  sifted 
the  critical  apparatus;  Westcott  and  Hort  restored  the  cleanest  text 
from  the  oldest  attainable  sources.  All  substantially  agree  in  principle 
and  in  results. 

Bilingual  editions :  Novum  Test  amentum  Greece  et  Germanice,  by  OSKAR 
VON  GEBHAUDT.  Lips.  1881.  (Tischendorf's  last  text  with  the  read 
ings  of  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  the  revised  version  of  Luther.) 

The  Greek- English  New  Testament,  being  Westcott  and  IforCs  Greek  Text 
and  the  Revised  English  Version  o/'188l.  New  York  (Harper  and  Broth 
ers),  1882. 

II.  GRAMMARS  OF  THE   GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

G.  B.WINER  (Professor  in  Leipsic,  d.  1858) :  Grammar  of  New-Testa 
ment  Greek  (Grammatik  des  mutest.  Sprachgebrauchs},  Leipsic,  1822;  Gth 
cd.  1855;  7th  ed.  by  G.  LUXEMANN,  18G7.  American  "  revised  and  author 
ized"  translation  from  the  seventh  edition,  bv  Prof.  J.  H.  THAYER  (of 
Andover  Theological  Seminary),  Andover,  1869  (728  pages).  English 
translation  by  Rev.  W.  F.MOULTOX  (Principal  of  The  Leys  School,  Cam 
bridge),  with  valuable  additions  and  full  indexes,  Edinb.  1870 ;  2d  ed.  1877 
(848  pages). 

Winer's  work  is  a  masterpiece  of  classical  and  Biblical  learning.  It 
marked  an  epoch  in  New-Test,  philology  by  checking  the  unbridled 
license  of  rationalistic  exegesis,  and  applying  the  principles  and  results 

1 


2  THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

of  classical  philology  to  the  Greek  of  the  Xew  Test.  Earlier  translations 
by  Stuart  and  Robinson  (Andover,  1825),  by  Agnew  and  Ebbeke  (1840), 
and  by  Masson  (Edinb.  and  Phila.  1859).  All  these  are  now  superseded 
by  Moulton  and  Thayer. 

ALEXANDER  BUTTMANN  :  Grammatik  des  neutest.  Sprachgebrauchs, 
Berlin,  1859. — A  Grammar  of  the  Neic-Testament  Greek,  translated  by  J. 
H.  THAYER.  Andover,  1873  (474  pages). 

The  German  original  was  an  Appendix  to  the  20th  ed.  of  PHILIPP 
BUTTMANN'S  (his  father's)  Griechische  Grammalik.  Prof.  Thayer  gives 
in  the  translation  references  to  the  Grammars  of  HADLEY,  CROSBY,  DON 
ALDSON,  and  JELF,  and  to  GOODWIN'S  Greek  Moods  and  Tenses. 

S.  CHK.  SCHIRLITZ:  Grundziige  der  neutest ament lichen  Grdcitdt  nach  den 
besten  Quellenfur  Studirende  der  Theologie  und  Philologie.  G lessen,  18C1 
(43(5  pages). — Anleitung  zitr  Kenntniss  der  neutest.  Grundsprache.  Erfurt, 
1863  (267  pages). 

THOMAS  SHELDON  GREEN  :  A  Treatise  on  the  Grammar  of  the  New 
Testament.  London.  1842 ;  New  ed.  1862  (244  pages). 

SAMUEL  G.  GREEN:  Handbook  to  the  Grammar  of  the  Greek  Testament; 
together  with  a  Complete  Vocabulary,  and  an  Examination  of  the  Chief  New- 
Testament  Synonyms.  London  (publ.  by  the  Religious  Tract  Society), 
revised  ed.  1880.  The  Grammar  contains  422  pages,  the  Vocabulary  180 
pages.  Intended  for  students  who  have  not  studied  the  classical  Greek, 
and  well  adapted  for  the  purpose. 

III.   DICTIONARIES. 

C.  L.  W.  GRIMM  (Professor  in  Jena) :  Lexicon  GrcEco-Laiinum  in  Libros 
Novi  Testamenti.  Ed.  2da  emendata  et  aucta.  Lipsirc,  1879.  Based  upon 
the  Clavis  Novi  Testamenti  Fhilologica  of  CHR.  G.  WILKE  (d.  1856). 

An  English  translation  with  many  improvements  by  Prof.  J.  IL  THAY 
ER.  of  Andover,  Mass.,  will  be  published  by  the  Harpers  in  New  York 
(1883?). 

S.  C.  SCHIRLITZ  :  Griechisch  -  deutsches  Wurterbuch  zum  Neuen  Test. 
Giessen,  1851 ;  3d  ed.  1868  (426  pages). 

HERMANN  CREMER  :  Biblisch-theologisches  Wdrterbuch  der  neutest.  Grd 
citdt.  Gotha,  1866  ;  2d  ed.  improved,  1872  ;  3d  ed.  1882.  English  trans 
lation,  under  the  title  Biblico-Theological  Lexicon  of  New  Testament  Greek, 
by  William  Urwick.  Edinb.  1872  ;  2cl  ed.  1878. 

EDWARD  ROBINSON  (Professor  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York,  d.  1863) :  A  Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament.  Re 
vised  ed.  New  York  (Harpers),  1850.  At  first  a  translation  of  Wahl's 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Clavis  (1825),  then  an  independent  work  (1836).  So  far  the  best  Lexicon 
in  the  English  language,  but  in  need  of  a  thorough  revision,  especially  as 
regards  textual  criticism. 

IV.  CONCORDANCES. 

CAR.  HEUM.  BRUPER:  T«/ug7ov  TUIV  rffQ  Kaivfjg  cia$t']Kr]£  \t%ewv, 
sive  Concordantiie  omnium  vocum  N.  T.  Greed,  ed.  ster.  Lips.  1842;  3d  ed. 
1867,  reprinted  1876.  Indispensable.  Based  on  the  work  of  ERASMUS 
SCHMID  (also  spelled  SCHMIDT  in  his  preface,  Prof,  at  Wittenberg,  d.  1636), 
first  published  at  Wittenberg,  1638,  and  again  with  a  new  preface  by  Ern. 
Salom.  Cyprian,  Gotha  and  Leips.  1717. 

GEORGE  V.  WIGRAM  :  The  Englishman's  Greek  Concordance  of  the  New 
Testament,  London  (James  Walton),  1844;  5th  ed.  1868.  The  Greek 
words  are  given  in  alphabetical  order  with  the  English  Version  (King 
James's).  Reprinted,  New  York  (Harpers),  1848. 

CHARLES  F.  HUDSON:  A  Critical  Greek  and  English  Concordance  of 
the  New  Testament,  revised  and  completed  by  EZRA  ABBOT.  Boston, 
1870;  7th  ed.  Boston  and  London,  1882.  Very  useful,  but  requiring 
adaptation  to  the  Revision  of  1881. 

V.  SPECIAL  TREATISES. 

DOMINICUS  DIODATI  (a  lawyer  in  Naples):  Exercitatio  de  Christo 
Graece  loquente.  Neapoli,  1767 ;  republished  by  Dr.  Dobbin  ( Prof,  of 
Trinity  College,  Dublin),  London,  1843. 

G.  BERN.  DE  Rossi  (professor  of  Oriental  languages  in  Parma)  :  Delia 
lingua  propria  di  Cristo  e  degli  Ebrei  nazionali  della  Palestina.  Parma, 
1772.  Against  Diodati. 

HEIN.  F.  PFANNKUCHE  (d.  1833) :  On  the  Prevalence  of  the  Aramcean 
Language  in  Palestine  in  the  Age  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  (in  Eichhorn's 
"Allg.  Bibliothek,"  via.  365-480),  1797.  Based  on  De  Rossi,  and  trans 
lated  from  the  German  by  Dr.  E.  Robinson,  with  introductory  art.,  in  the 
"Biblical  Repository"  (Andover,  Mass.),  vol.  i.  309-363  (1831).  Still 
valuable. 

Jon.  LEONH.  HUG  (R.  Cath.,  d.  1846) :  Zustand  der  Landessprache  in 
Palastina  als  Afatthdus  sein  Evavgelium  schrieb,  in  his  Einleitung  in  die 
Schriften  des  N.  T.,  ii.  30-56 ;  3d  ed.  Stuttgart,  1826  (a  4th  ed.  appeared 
1847).  Translated  by  Dr.  E.  Robinson  in  "  Biblical  Repository,"  Ando 
ver,  1831,  i.  530-551.  He  agrees  with  Hug  in  maintaining  that  the 
Greek  and  Aramaean  languages  were  both  current  in  Palestine  at  the  time 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 


4:  THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

G.  VON  ZEZSCHWITZ  :  Profangracitat  uml  biblischer  Sprachgeist.  Leip- 
sic,  1859. 

ALEXANDER  ROBERTS  :  Discussions  on  the  Gospels.  London,  1862 ;  2d 
ed.  18G3.  Renews  the  opinion  of  Diodati. 

WILLIAM  HENRY  GUILLEMARD:  Hebraisms  in  the  Greek  Testament. 
Cambridge,  1879.  This  contains  the  text  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
(which  appeared  first  in  1875  as  the  beginning  of  a  Hebraistic  edition  of 
the  Greek  Test.)  and  extracts  from  the  other  books. 

See  also  JAMES  HADLEY,  art.  Language  of  the  New  Test.,  in  Ilackett 
and  Abbot's  ed.  of  Smith's  "  Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  ii.  1 590.  B.  F.  WESTCOTT, 
art.  Hellenist,  ibid.  ii.  1039 ;  art.  New  Test.,  ibid.  iv.  2139.  ED.  REUSS,  art. 
Hellenistisches  Idiom,  in  Herzog's  "  Real-Encyklop.,"  v.  711  (new  ed.  1879). 
FR.  DELITZSCH,  Ueber  die  paldstinische  Vulkssprache,  in.  4i  Dalieim  "  for 
1874,  No.  27. 

TIIKEE    ELECT    LANGUAGES. 
IHZOY2    O    NAZQPAI02    O    BA2IAEY2    TQN    IOYAAIQN. 

a  ^  i_  si  n  *  n     T\  b  E     i  *n  -4  2  r?     ?  i  'r  .7 
JESUS    NAZARENUS    REX    JUDJEORUM. 

There  are  three  elect  nations  of  antiquity — the 
Jews,  the  Greeks,  and  the  Romans;  three  elect  cities 
—  Jerusalem,  Athens,  and  Rome;  and  three  elect 
languages — the  Hebrew,  the  Greek,  and  the  Latin. 

These  three  agencies  worked  together  for  the 
introduction  of  the  Christian  religion  and  for  the 
spread  of  Christian  civilization.  The  threefold  in 
scription  on  the  Cross,  which  is  recorded  with  slight 
variations  by  all  evangelists,1  proclaimed,  in  the 
name  of  the  representative  of  the  Roman  empire, 
the  universal  destination  of  the  Gospel.  What  was 
written  in  bitter  irony  proved  to  be  a  true  oracle 

1  John  xix.  19  and  the  parallel  passages. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  5 

of  heathenism ;  as  Caiaphas,  the  high-priest,  uttered 
an  involuntary  prophecy  in  the  name  of  hostile 
Judaism  when  he  said  of  Jesus:  "It  is  expedient 
that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that 
the  whole  nation  perish  not."  l 

"  In  that  inscription  of  Pilate,"  says  an  able  histo 
rian,2  "  there  seems  to  be  an  unconscious  prophecy 
of  the  future  destiny  of  the  world.  From  that  Cross, 
and  through  the  channel  of  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
Latin  languages,  have  radiated  all  the  influences 
which  have  made  modern  civilization  the  precious 
inheritance  it  is.  That  Cross  was  set  up  at  the  point 
of  confluence  of  those  three  great  civilizations  of  an 
tiquity  which  have  ever  since  profoundly  affected 
the  life,  public  and  private,  of  the  people  of  West 
ern  Europe.  The  Hebraic  monotheistic  conception 
of  the  Deity,  the  Greek  universal  reason,  and  the 
Roman  power,  and  especially  its  language,  have 
been  the  great  secondary  means  of  the  propagation 
in  that  portion  of  the  world  of  Christian  civiliza 
tion.  In  the  West,  Roman  law,  Roman  Christian 
ity,  and  Roman  power  went  together  into  the  most 
remote  regions,  and  won  their  triumphs  on  the  same 
fields  and  by  the  use  of  the  same  Latin  language. 
By  means  of  this  Latin  language  Roman  civilization 
was  presented  to  the  minds  of  the  barbarians  as 
including  many  things  outside  the  domain  of  force, 
and  conquered  them,  when  force  failed,  by  appeals 
to  their  reason  and  their  hearts.  It  was  the  Latin 

1  John  xi.  50,  51. 

*  Dr.  Charles  J.  Stille  (late  Provost  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania), 
in  Studies  on  Medieval  History  (Philadelphia,  1882),  p.  39. 


0  THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 

]angnage  in  the  service  of  the  Church,  and  in  the 
administration  of  the  law  of  the  empire,  which 
taught  the  barbarians  in  what  the  true  power  and 
glory  of  Rome  and  the  perpetuity  of  her  system 
consisted ;  and  thus  was  made  an  important  step  in 
their  preparation  for  the  reception  of  that  civiliza 
tion  of  which  the  Roman  language  was  the  vehicle, 
as  the  Roman  organization  was  the  motive  force." 

The  Hebrew  is  the  language  of  religion,  the 
Greek  the  language  of  culture,  the  Latin  the  lan 
guage  of  law  and  empire.  The  oldest  revelations 
of  God  to  one  nation  are  recorded  in  Hebrew ;  but 
the  last  revelation  to  all  nations  is  recorded  in 
Greek,  to  be  reproduced  in  the  course  of  time  in 
all  the  languages  of  the  earth. 

SPREAD    OF    THE    GREEK    LANGUAGE. 

There  is  a  remarkable  providence  in  the  general 
spread  of  this  rich  and  noble  tongue  throughout  the 
civilized  world  before  the  advent  of  our  Saviour: 
first  by  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  the  greatest  of 
Greeks,  and  afterwards  by  Julius  Caesar,  the  greatest 
of  Romans — both  of  them  unconscious  forerunners 
of  Christ. 

The  Greek  was  spoken  in  Greece,  in  the  islands 
of  the  ^Egean  Sea,  in  Asia  Minor,  in  Egypt,  Syria, 
Sicily,  and  Southern  Italy. 

It  was  at  the  same  time  the  medium  of  inter 
national  intercourse  in  the  whole  Roman  empire, 
which  stretched  from  the  Libyan  Desert  to  the 
banks  of  the  Rhine,  and  from  the  river  Euphrates 
to  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar,  and  embraced  the  civil- 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  7 

ized  world,  with  a  population  of  about  one  hundred 
and  twenty  millions  of  souls.  It  was  the  language 
of  government,  law,  diplomacy,  literature,  and  trade. 
It  occupied  the  position  and  exerted  the  influence 
of  the  Latin  in  the  Middle  Ages,  of  the  French  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  of  the  English  in  the 
nineteenth.  In  Paul's  language  the  term  "  Ilellen," 
or  Greek,  is  synonymous  with  "  the  civilized  world," 
as  distinct  from  the  barbarians,  and  with  "  Gentiles," 
as  distinct  from  the  Jews.1 

Even  in  the  capital  of  the  Roman  empire  the 
Greek  was  the  favorite  language  at  the  imperial 
court  among  literary  men,  artists,  lovers,  and  trades 
men.  The  Greeks  and  Greek-speaking  Orientals 
were  the  most  intelligent  and  most  enterprising 
people  among  the  middle  classes.  The  Latin  clas 
sics  were  but  successful  imitators  of  Greek  poets, 
historians,  philosophers,  and  orators.  Paul,  a  Roman 
citizen,  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  Greek, 
and  the  names  of  the  converts  mentioned  in  the  six 
teenth  chapter  are  mostly  Greek.  The  early  bishops 
and  divines  of  Rome  were  Greeks  by  descent  or 
education,  or  both.  Pope  Cornelius  addressed  the 
churches  in  the  Hellenic  language  in  the  middle  of 
the  third  century.  The  Apostles'  Creed,  even  in 
the  Roman  form,  was  originally  composed  in  Greek. 
The  Roman  liturgy  (ascribed  to  Clement  of  Rome) 
was  Greek.  The  inscriptions  in  the  oldest  cata 
combs,  and  the  epitaphs  of  the  popes  down  to  the 
middle  of  the  third  century,  are  Greek.  The  early 

1  Rom.  i.  14,"EX\7j)'££  nat  (3dpf3apoi]  ver.  16,  'lovddioz  KCII  "E\\rji'. 


b  THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

fathers  of  the  Western  Church— Clemens  Eonianus, 
Hennas,  Gajus,  Irenseus,  Hippolytus —  wrote  in 
Greek.  The  old  Latin  version  of  the  Bible  was  not 
made  for  Italy  (although  improperly  called  "  Itala"), 
but  for  the  provinces,  especially  for  North  Africa. 
It  was  not  till  the  close  of  the  second  century  that 
Christian  theology  assumed  a  Latin  dress  in  the 
writings  of  the  African  Minutius  Felix  and  Tertul- 
lian,  and  even  Tertullian  hesitated  a  while  whether 
he  should  not  rather  write  in  Greek.1 

THE  JEWS  AND  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE. 

The  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  were  all  more  or  less 
familiar  with  Greek,  and  hence  called  Hellenists,  in 
distinction  from  the  "  Hebrews "  in  Palestine  and 
from  the  "  Hellenes,"  or  native  Greeks.2  They  were 
very  numerous  in  all  the  cities  of  the  empire,  espe 
cially  in  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Rome,  and  en- 


1  On  the  use  of  the  Greek  language  in  imperial  Rome,  see  Friedlander, 
Sittengesch.  Itoms,  i.  142,  481  (4th  ed.) ;  Caspari,  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des 
Taiifsynibols  (with  reference  to  the  Roman  Creed),  iii.  267-4GG;  Lightfoot, 
Com.  on  Philipjrians,  p.  20;  De  Rossi,  Roma  Sotteran.  ii.  27  sqq.  (on  the 
Catacomb  of  St.  Callistus) ;  Renan,  Marc- A  urele,  p.  454  sqq.  Renan  says 
that  even  after  the  Latin  language  prevailed  Greek  letters  were  often 
employed,  and  that  the  onlv  Latin  Church  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  was  the  Church  of  North  Africa.  On  the  origin  of  the  Latin 
Bible,  see  the  editions  and  discussions  of  Vercellone,  Ronsch,  Reusch,  E. 
Ranke,  and  especially  Ziegler,  Die  lat.  Bibdubersetzungen  vor  Ilieronymus, 
Munchen,  1870. 

3  'EXA»ji/«mje,  Acts  vi.  1 ;  xi.  20,  etc.,  must  not  be  confounded  with 
"EXXijv,  comp.  Acts  xiv.  1 ;  xviii.  4;  Rom.  i.  14,  16;  ii.  9,  10;  Gal.  iii.  28, 
etc.  It  is  from  t XXfjvisw,  to  Jlellenize,  i.  e.  to  speak  the  Greek  language 
and  to  imitate  Greek  manners;  as  we  use  the  term  "to  Romanize"  of 
those  who  lean  to  the  Roman  Church. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  9 

joyed,  since  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar,  who  favored 
them  as  a  wise  and  liberal  statesman,  special  protec 
tion  for  the  exercise  of  their  religion.  In  Rome 
itself  they  numbered  from  twenty  to  thirty  thousand 
souls,  had  seven  synagogues  and  three  cemeteries 
(with  Greek  and  a  few  Latin  inscriptions).  They 
were  mostly  descendants  of  slaves  and  captives  of 
Pompey,  Cassius,  and  Antony.  They  occupied  a 
special  quarter  (the  Fourteenth  Region)  beyond  the 
Tiber.  They  were  the  same  people  then  as  they  are 
now  in  all  countries :  they  carried  on  their  little 
trades  in  old  clothes,  broken  glass,  sulphur  matches; 
they  observed  their  peculiar  customs  ;  they  emerged 
occasionally  from  poverty  and  tilth  to  wealth  and 
honor,  as  bankers,  physicians,  and  astrologers;  and 
they  attracted  the  mingled  wonder,  contempt,  and 
ridicule  of  the  Roman  historians  and  satirists.  But 
while  heathen  Rome  only  survives  in  the  memory 
of  history  and  the  shapeless  ruins  of  her  temples, 
theatres,  and  triumphal  arches,  that  despised  race 
still  lives:  a  burning  bush  which  is  never  consumed, 
an  imperishable  monument  of  a  history  of  thousands 
of  years — a  history  of  divine  revelations  and  blessings, 
of  human  disobedience  and  ingratitude,  of  honor  and 
disgrace,  of  happiness  and  misery,  of  cruel  persecu 
tion  and  martyrdom ;  a  race  without  country,  scat 
tered  among  enemies,  yet  unalterable  in  its  creed, 
alone  in  its  recollections  and  hopes,  miraculously 
preserved  for  some  important  action  in  the  conclud 
ing  chapter  of  the  history  of  Christianity. 

As  the  Hellenists  spoke  Greek,  we  need  not  won 
der  that  not  only  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but 


10         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

even  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Epistle  of 
James  "  to  the  twelve  tribes  which  are  of  the  Dis 
persion,"  were  written  in  that  language. 

Even  in  Palestine  and  among  the  strict  Hebrews 
who  preferred  their  native  Aramaic,  the  Greek  lan 
guage  was  extensively  known  and  spoken,  especially 
on  the  western  sea-coast,  in  Galilee,  and  Decapolis. 
Gaza,  Askalon,  Csesarea  Stratouis,  Gadara,  Hippos, 
Scythopolis  (Bethshan),  Sebaste,  Csesarea  Philippi 
(Paneas)  were  Greek  cities  in  which  the  Greek 
was  spoken  exclusively  or  predominantly.  The 
northern  part  of  Galilee,  owing  to  its  mixed  popu 
lation,  was  called  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  (Isa.  ix.  1 ; 
Matt.  iv.  15).  Palestine  was,  to  a  large  extent,  a 
bilingual  country,  like  some  of  the  Swiss  cantons, 
Alsace,  Lorraine,  Belgium,  Holland,  Posen,  Wales, 
Eastern  Canada,  the  German  counties  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  other  border  regions  in  modern  times. 
Many  Jews  had  Greek  names,  as  the  seven  deacons 
of  the  congregation  at  Jerusalem.1 

This  city  was  the  stronghold  of  the  Jewish  faith 
and  language,  of  prejudice  and  bigotry,2  but  could 
not  resist  altogether  the  influence  of  the  age.  The 
Herodian  family  had  foreign  tastes  and  habits. 
Jerusalem  had  over  four  hundred  synagogues,  and 
was  inhabited  and  visited  by  Jews  and  proselytes 

J  Acts  vi.  5 :  Stephen,  Philip,  Prochorus,  Nicanor,  Timon,  Parmenas, 
and  Nicolas.  They  may  have  been  Hellenists,  and  elected  in  defer 
ence  to  the  complaints  of  the  Grecian  Jews,  but  they  resided  in  Jeru 
salem. 

2  This  religious  bigotry  denounced  all  foreign  learning  as  dangerous. 
Kabbi  Eliezer  said:  "He  who  teaches  his  son  Greek  is  like  one  who  eats 
pork." 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          11 

"from  every  nation  under  heaven."1  The  number 
of  Jews  present  at  the  Passover,  according  to  Jose- 
plms,  sometimes  exceeded  two  millions.2  The  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  was  as  much  used 
as  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  original.  The  Jewish 
Apocrypha  were  written  in  Greek  (though  some  of 
them  first  in  Hebrew).  The  two  principal  Jewish 
scholars  of  the  first  century,  Philo  and  Josephus, 
wrote  their  works  in  Greek.3 

1  Acts  ii.  5.     The  Jerusalem  Talmud  gives  four  hundred  and  eighty  as 
the  number  of  synagogues.     See  Lightfoot  on  Acts  vi.  9. 

2  Josephus  mentions  even  three  millions  as  being  present  in  Jerusalem 
under  Cestius  Gallus  at  the  Passover,  A.D.  G5  (Bell.  Jud.  ii.  14,  3).     He 
dlso  states  (vi.  9,  3)  that  the  number  of  paschal  lambs  slain  at  this  Pass 
over,  as  reported  to  Nero,  was  256,500,  which,  allowing  no  more  than  ten 
persons  to  each  lamb,  would  give  us  2,565,000  as  the  number  of  persons 
present.     He  gives  the  number  2,700,200,  which  comes  nearer  his  former 
statement,  and  includes  all  others  who  could  not  partake  of  the  sacrifice. 

3  Josephus,  who  was  born  and  educated  in  Jerusalem,  wrote  his  history 
of  the  Jewish  War  first  in  Hebrew,  "for  the  barbarians  in  the  interior;'' 
afterwards  in  Greek,  for  "  those  under  Roman  dominion "   (Bell.  Jud. 
prooem.  1).     He  concludes  his  Antiquities  (xx.  11,  §  2)  with  the  following 
passage,  which  is  characteristic  of  his  vanity,  and  shows  the  proud  con 
tempt  of  the  Jews  for  foreign  languages  at  that  time  :  "  Now,  after  having 
completed  the  work,  I  venture  to  say  that  no  other  person,  whether  he 
were  a  Jew  or  a  foreigner,  had  he  ever  so  great  an  inclination  to  do  it, 
could  so  accurately  (ax-pi/Juic;)  deliver  this  history  to  the  Greeks.     For 
those  of  my  own  nation  freely  acknowledge  that  I  far  exceed  them  in 
learning  belonging  to  Jews;  I  have  also  taken  a  great  deal  of  pains  to 
acquire  the  learning  of  the  Greeks,  and  understand  the  elements  of  the 
Greek  language,  although,  on  account  of  the  habitual  use  of  the  paternal 
tongue,  I  cannot  pronounce  Greek  with  sufficient  accuracy  (_a.Kpifiuciv). 
For  with  us  those  are  not  encouraged  who  learn  the  languages  of  many 
nations,  and  so  adorn  their  discourses  with  the  smoothness  of  their  periods ; 
because  this  sort  of  accomplishment  is  regarded  as  common,  not  only  to 
all  sorts  of  freemen,  but  to  as  many  of  the  servants  as  are  inclined  to 
learn  them.     But  we  give  those  only  the  testimony  of  being  wise  men 


12         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

From  these  facts,  as  well  as  from  the  numerous 
Greek  names  of  persons  and  places,  Greek  coins  and 
inscriptions,  we  may  safely  infer  that  during  the  first 
two  centuries  of  our  era  the  higher  classes  in  Pales 
tine,  especially  in  Samaria  (Sebaste),  were  quite 
familiar  with  the  Greek  language,  and  that  the  peo 
ple  generally  had  a  partial  knowledge  of  it  sufficient 
for  practical  intercourse  and  commerce.1 

CHRIST  AND  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE. 

There  are  two  extreme  views  on  the  language 
used  by  our  Lord.  The  one  is  that  he  spoke  only 
the  Hebrew  vernacular;2  the  other,  that  he  spoke 
Greek  only,  or  more  than  Hebrew.3  The  natural 
view,  which  accords  best  with  the  facts  already 
stated,  is  that  he  used  both  languages — the  vernacu 
lar  Aramaic  in  ordinary  intercourse  with  his  disci 
ples  and  the  Jewish  people,  the  Greek  occasionally 
when  dealing  with  strangers  and  Gentiles.4 


who  arc  fully  acquainted  with  our  laws,  and  are  able  to  explain  the  sacred 
books." 

1  For  a  thorough  discussion  of  this  subject,  with  references  to  Josephus. 
Cicero,  Seneca,  Pliny,  Strabo,  Appian,  Diodorus,  and  other  authorities, 
see  Hug,  Einleit.  in  die  Sckr.  des  N.  Test.  (3d  ed.  1826),  ii.  30-60,  translated 
by  Robinson,  "  Bibl.  Repository,"  Andover,  1831,  p.  530-551.     Schiirer,  in 
his  Neutestamcntl.  Zeifgesch.,  p.  376-385,  comes  to  the  same  conclusion. 

2  So  De  Rossi  (who  wrote  against  Diodati),  Pfannkuche,  Mill,  Michaelis, 
Marsh,  Kuinol,  and  others. 

3  So  Isaac  Vossius,  Diodati,  Alex.  Roberts,  S.  G.  Green.    The  last  states 
(Grammar  of  the  Gr.  Test.  p.  168)  :  "  It  was  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint, 
in  all  probability,  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  generally  spoke.     The  dialect 
of  Galilee  was  not  a  corrupt  Hebrew,  but  a  provincial  Greek." 

4  So  Hug,  Binterim,  Wiseman  (Jlorce,  Syriacce,  Rom.  1828.  i.  69  sqq.). 
Credner,  Bleek,  Reuss,  Thiersch,  Robinson  (/.  c.  p.  316),  Westcott,  Hadley, 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         13 

Christ  was  born  in  Judaea,  but  grew  up  in  Naza 
reth,  and  spent  thirty  years  of  his  private  life  and 
the  greater  part  of  his  public  ministry  in  Galilee. 
All  his  apostles — with  the  exception  of  the  traitor 
— were  Galilaeans,  and  could  be  known  by  their  pro 
nunciation.  "  Thy  speech  bewrayeth  thee,"  said  the 
servants  of  the  high-priest  in  Jerusalem  to  Peter 
when  he  denied  his  connection  with  "  Jesus  the 
Galilsean."  J  The  woman  of  Samaria  recognized 
our  Lord  by  his  speech  and  dress  as  a  Jew,  and  the 
proud  rulers  contemptuously  called  him  a  Galilaean.8 
As  he  became  like  us  in  all  things,  sin  only  excepted, 
we  have  no  reason  to  exempt  him  from  those  inno 
cent  limitations  which  are  inseparable  from  race 
and  nationality.  He  spoke,  therefore,  in  all  proba 
bility  the  vernacular  Aramaic,  or  Syro-Chaldaic,with 
the  provincialisms  and  the  pronunciation  of  Galilee.3 

Delitzsch.     Sec  the  older  literature  on  the  subject  in  Hase,  Leben  Jesu, 
p.  72  (5th  ed.),  and  Reuss,  Gesch.  der  heil.  Schr.  N.  Test.  i.  30  (5th  ed.). 

1  Matt.  xxvi.  73,  j'y  \a\id  aov  cijXov  erg  Trout;  Mark  xiv.  70;  Luke 
xxii.  59.     See  Wetstein,  in  loc.,  for  examples  of  various  provincial  dialects 
of  Hebrew  or  Aramaic.     The  Galilaeans  (like  the  Samaritans)  confounded 
the  gutturals  X,  S,  n,  and  used  n  for  IT.     The  Babylonian  Talmud  says 
that,  they  paid  no  attention  to  the  correctness  of  speech.     The  word  for 
thunder,  ragesh,  in  Boanerges  (Mark  iii.  17),  and  Rabbuni  (Mark  x.  51 ; 
John  xx.  16)  for  Rabboni,  or  Ribboni,  are  said  to  be  Galilaean  provincial 
isms.     See  Grimm,  s.  v.,  and  Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu  von  Naz.  iii.  500  note. 

2  John  iv.  9  ;  vii.  52 ;  Luke  xxiii.  6. 

3  Prof.  Delitzsch,  who  is  excellent  authority  on  the  languages  of  the 
Bible  and  Jewish  usages  at  the  time  of  Christ,  says,  in  an  essay  in  the 
"  Daheim  "  (as  quoted  by  Bohl,  Die  A  litest.  Citate  im  N.  T.  p.  543) : 
"Der  Herr  hatte  auch  schlechthin  nur  ihm  eigenthumliche  Worte  und  Wen- 
dungen,  wie  wenn  er  besonders  feierliche  A  usspriiche  mit  amen,  amena  (bei 
Johannes:   Wahrlich,  wahrlich,  ich  sage)  zu  beginnen  pflegte,  wesshalb  er  in 
der  Apokalypse  als  der  treue  und  wahrhaftige  Zeuge,  lder  Amen'  genannt 


14:         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  Evangelists  have  preserved  a  few  examples 
of  the  speech  of  our  Lord,  and  these  isolated  sounds 
from  his  lips  still  re-echo  in  all  languages.  He  raised 
the  daughter  of  Jairus  with  the  words:  Talitlia  cumi 
("Damsel, arise").1  He  opened  the  ears  of  the  deaf 
man  with  Eplipliatha  (" Be  opened").2  He  exclaim 
ed  on  the  Cross,  in  the  language  of  the  22d  Psalm : 
J£li9  Eli,  lama  sabaclithaui  ?  ("  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me?").3  He  addressed  Paul 
on  the  way  to  Damascus  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  which 
reached  the  quick  of  his  sensibilities:  "  /Shaul,  Shaftl, 

wird  (iii.  14).  A  ber  ihrer  Grundlage,  nach  war  seine  Sprache  die  seines  Volkes 
und  Landes,  Das  Christenthum  ist  ein  galildisches  Geicdc/ts.  Schon  die 
Namen,  die  wirfuhren,  verralhen  es ;  der  Name  Thomas  ist  griechisch-ara- 
mdisch,  der  Name  Simon  ist  eigenthilmlich  palastinisch-aramaisch,  wid  der 
Name  Magdalena  stammt  aus  Magdala  in  der  schonen  Landschaft  am 
galildischen  Afeere.  Ja,  wir  alle  reden,  auch  ohne  es  zu  icisscn,  in  ara- 
maischen,  in  palastiniscken  Worten.  Wenn  wir  Jesus  als  Messias  bekennen, 
wenn  wir  des  Herrn  Mahl  das  neutestamentliche  Passa  nennen,  ivenn  wir  zu 
Gott  mil  dem  kindlichen  Abba  beten,  so  sind  dies  die  aramaischen  Worte 
MESCIIICIIA,  PASCHA,  ABBA,  und  wenn  wir  den  Namen  Jesu  aussprechen 
und  mil  dem  -Manarw/"  RABBUNI  ihm  zu  Fussen  fallen,  so  sind  dies  pald- 
stinisch-yalilaische  Formen.  Mil  dem  Friedensgrusse  SCHKLAMA  LECHON  ! 
begriisste  auch  noch  der  A  uferstandene  seine  Jiinger,  und  mil  einem  Zurvfe 
in  dieser  Sprache:  SCHAUL,  SCHAUL,  LEMA  REDAFT  JATHI?  (Saul,  Saul, 
warum  verfolgst  Du  mich  ?)  brachte  der  Erhohcte  den  Saulus  vor  Damask 
zur  Besinnung  (Apg.  xxvi.  14).  Wie  Saulus  Worte  horte,  ohne  eine  Gestalt 
zu  sehen.  so  miissen  auch  wir  zufrieden  sein,  uns  den  Klang  und  der  Art 
seiner  Rede  ndher  gebracht  zu  haben — Er  selbst  bleibt  iiber  die  Moglichkeit 
der  Beschauung  erhaben;  nicht  nur  seine  Herrlichkeitsgestalt,  auch  schon 
seine  Knechtsyestalt  blendet  uns.  dass  wir  die  A  ugen  abwenden  miissen,  ndm- 
lich  die  Ilm  sinnlich  fixiren  wollenden  A  ugen — wir  werden  Ihn  einst  sehen  von 
A  ngesicht,  aber  diesseits  Idsst  Er  sich  nur  erschauen  mit  A  ugen  des  Glaubens" 

1  Mark  v.  41  (TaXtiSd  Kovfi  in  Westcott  and  Hort). 

2  Mark  vii.  34.     'EtipaSa.  is  a  Greek  corrupt  transliteration  of  Ethpha- 
thah,  the  Syriac  imperative  Ethpael. 

8  Matt,  xxvii.  46.     Mark  (xv.  34)  gives  the  Aramaic  form,.Eloi,  Eloi. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          15 

why  persecutest  thou  me  ?" 1  In  the  sacred  heart- 
domain  of  religion  the  mother -tongue  is  always 
more  effective  than  any  acquired  speech.  Paul 
himself,  when  he  wished  to  gain  a  more  favorable 
hearing  from  the  excited  populace  at  Jerusalem, 
appealed  to  them  in  their  native  Hebrew.2 

At  the  same  time  we  cannot  suppose  that  Jesus 
was  ignorant  of  a  language  which  was  familiar  to 
the  educated  classes  even  in  the  interior  of  Palestine, 
and  in  which  his  own  disciples,  the  unlearned  fish 
ermen  of  Galilee,  preached  and  wrote.  And,  if  he 
understood  Greek,  he  must  have  spoken  it  on  all 
proper  occasions,  as  when  he  conversed  with  for 
eigners,  with  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman,3  with  the 
heathen  centurion,4  with  the  Greeks  who  called  on 
him  shortly  before  his  passion,6  and  especially  at 
the  tribunal  of  Pontius  Pilate  and  King  Herod. 
No  interpreter  is  mentioned,  and  a  Roman  governor 
liable  to  be  recalled  at  any  time  was  not  likely  to 
acquire  the  knowledge  of  a  difficult  provincial  lan 
guage  when  he  could  get  along  with  Greek.8 

1  Acts  xxvi.  14,  SaouX,  ZaouX.     In  all  other  passages  the  Greek  form 
2awXo£  is  given  ;  see  ix.  1,  etc. 

2  Acts  xxi.  40;  xxii.  2.     Josephus  did  the  same  in  the  name  of  Titus, 
as  his  interpreter,  during  the  siege.    Comp.  Bell.  Jud.  v.  9,  §  2 ;  vi.  2,  §  1,  5 ; 
vi.  6,  §  2.    From  these  examples  it  appears  that  the  common  people  either 
knew  no  Greek,  or  at  all  events  not  as  well  as  Aramaic. 

3  Who  is  called  yvvi}  'EXXqvig,  Mark  vii.  26. 
*  Matt.  viii.  5. 

5  John  xii.  20.    They  are  called  "  Hellenes  "  ("EXX/jvs c),  not  Hellenists 
('EXX/jviffrai')  or  Grecian  Jews,  and  were  probably  proselytes  of  the  gate, 
or  heathens  leaning  to  the  Jewish  religion. 

6  The  provincial  governors  gave  judgment  in  Latin  or  Greek.     Cicero, 
Crassus,  and  Mucianus  used  Greek  in  Greece  and  Asia.     The  Greek  was 


16    THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
THE  APOSTLES  AND  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE. 

As  to  the  apostles,  they  grew  up  with  a  knowl 
edge  of  both  languages,  although,  of  course,  the 
Hebrew  was  more  natural  to  them.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  pentecostal  gift  of  tongues,  they 
needed  no  miraculous  endowment  with  a  knowl 
edge  of  Greek.1  They  acquired  and  used  it  like 
other  people  of  their  age  and  nation.  They  learned 
the  Hebrew  at  home  and  in  the  synagogue ;  the 
Greek  on  the  street  and  from  living  intercourse 
with  Gentiles.  They  had  no  book  knowledge  of 
Greek,  and  cared  only  for  its  practical  use.  As 
Galilaeans,  they  were  brought  into  frequent  contact 
with  heathen  neighbors.  Matthew,  from  his  former 
occupation  as  a  tax-gatherer,  would  naturally  be  a 
homo  bilinguis.  Paul  was  of  Hebrew  parentage, 
and  brought  up  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feet  of  Gama 
liel,  so  that  he  could  call  himself  "a  Hebrew  of  the 
Hebrews  ;"  yet  he  was  not  only  a  master  of  the 
Greek  language  as  applied  to  Christian  truths,  but 
had  also,  perhaps  from  his  early  youth,  as  a  native 
of  Tarsus,  which  was  famous  for  Greek  schools, 
some  knowledge  of  secular  Greek  literature,  as  his 
quotations  from  three  poets  show.2 

the  court-language  of  the  proconsuls  of  Asia  and  Syria.  The  procurators 
of  Palestine  would  not  make  an  exception.  See  Hug,  /.  c. 

1  Eusebius,  who  as  bishop  (and  probably  a  native)  of  Coesarea,  was  well 
acquainted  with  Palestine,  declares  (Dem.  Evany,  lib.  iii.)  that  the  apos 
tles,  before  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  knew  only  their  vernacular  Syriac 
language.  But  this  was  merely  his  private  opinion,  and  he  himself  wrote 
all  his  books  in  Greek. 

a  Aratus,  Acts  xvii.  28;  Menander,  1  Cor.  xv.  35;  and  Epimenide?, 
Tit.  i.  12.  See  my  Church  History,  revised  ed.  (1882).  i.  285  sqq. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          17 

The  most  conclusive  proof  of  tlie  familiarity  of 
the  apostles  and  evangelists  with  Greek  is  the  fact 
that  they  composed  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  in  that 
language,  and  that  they  quote  the  Old  Testament 
usually  from  the  current  Greek  version. 

THE  GREEK  AND  THE  ENGLISH. 

Thus  the  language  of  a  little  peninsula,  by  its 
beauty  and  elasticity,  vigor  and  grace,  the  wealth  of 
its  literature,  and  the  providential  course  of  events, 
had  become  at  the  time  of  Christ  the  lano;uao:e  of 

O         O 

the  civilized  world,  and  conquered  even  the  conquer 
ing  Romans.  The  noblest  mission  of  this  noblest  of 
tongues  was  accomplished  when  it  became  the  organ 
of  the  everlasting  gospel  of  the  Saviour  of  mankind. 
This  fact  secures  to  the  Greek  for  all  time  to  come  a 
superiority  over  all  the  languages  of  the  earth,  and 
the  first  claim  on  the  attention  of  the  biblical  scholar. 
Next  to  the  Greek,  no  language  has  a  nobler  and 
grander  mission  for  the  extension  of  Christianity 
and  Christian  civilization  than  the  English.  It  lias 
already  spread  much  farther  than  the  Greek  or  Latin 
ever  did.  From  its  island  home  in  the  Northern 
Sea  it  has  gone  forth  to  lands  and  continents  un 
known  to  the  apostles,  fathers,  and  reformers.  It 
carries  with  it  the  energy  and  enterprise  of  the 
Saxon  race,  the  treasures  of  the  richest  literature, 
the  love  of  home  and  freedom,  and  a  profound 
reverence  for  the  Bible.  It  is  predestinated  and 
adapted  by  its  composition  and  history  to  become 
more  and  more  the  cosmopolitan  language  of  mod 
ern  times. 


18         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

"Among  all  the  modern  languages,"  says  a  dis 
tinguished  German  philologist,  "none  has,  by  giving 
up  and  confounding  all  the  laws  of  sound,  and  by 
cutting  off  nearly  all  the  inflections,  acquired  greater 
strength  and  vigor  than  the  English.  Its  fulness  of 
free  middle  sounds,  which  cannot  be  taught,  but 
only  learned,  is  the  cause  of  an  essential  force  of 
expression  such  as  perhaps  never  stood  at  the  com 
mand  of  any  other  language  of  men.  Its  entire, 
highly  intellectual,  and  wonderfully  happy  structure 
and  development  are  the  result  of  a  surprisingly 
intimate  marriage  of  the  two  noblest  languages  in 
modern  Europe — the  Germanic  and  the  Romance; 
the  former,  as  is  well  known,  supplying  in  far  larger 
proportion  the  material  groundwork,  the  latter  the 
intellectual  conceptions.  As  to  wealth,  intellectual 
ity,  and  closeness  of  structure,  none  of  all  the  living 
languages  can  be  compared  with  it.  In  truth  the 
English  language,  which  by  no  mere  accident  has 
produced  and  upborne  the  greatest  and  most  com 
manding  poet  of  modern  times  as  distinguished 
from  the  ancient  classics  —  I  can,  of  course,  only 
mean  Shakespeare  —  may  with  full  propriety  be 
called  a  world -language ;  and,  like  the  English 
people,  it  seems  destined  hereafter  to  prevail  even 
more  extensively  than  at  present  in  all  the  ends  of 
the  earth." ' 

The  English  language  is  now  the  chief  organ  for 
the  spread  of  the  Word  of  God.  This  has  been 
strikingly  illustrated  during  the  past  year  by  the 

1  Jacob  Grimm,  Ueler  den  Ursprung  der  Sprache  (Berlin,  1852),  p.  50. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          19 

extraordinary  success  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the 
New  Testament,  prepared  by  two  co-operative  com 
mittees,  in  England  and  the  United  States.  More 
than  a  million  of  copies  were  ordered  from  the 
British  University  presses  before  the  day  of  publica 
tion  (May  17, 1881),  and  more  than  twenty  reprints 
of  different  sizes  and  prices  appeared  in  the  United 
States  before  the  close  of  the  year,  so  that  within  a 
few  months  nearly  three  millions  of  copies  were 
sold.  This  fact  stands  alone  in  the  history  of  litera 
ture,  and  furnishes  the  best  proof  that  the  old  book 
which  we  call  the  New  Testament  is  more  popular 
and  powerful  than  ever,  no  matter  what  infidels  may 
say  to  the  contrary.  Among  the  two  freest  and  most 
progressive  nations  of  the  earth  the  Bible  is  revered 
as  the  guardian  angel  of  public  and  private  virtue,  the 
pillar  of  freedom  and  civilization,  the  sacred  ark  of 
every  household,  the  written  conscience  of  every  soul. 

THE    MACEDONIAN    DIALECT. 

The  Greek  language  has  come  down  to  us,  like 
the  old  Teutonic  language,  in  a  number  of  dialects 
and  sub-dialects.  The  literature  is  chiefly  deposited 
in  four :  1.  The  ./EoLic  dialect,  known  from  in 
scriptions  and  grammarians,  and  from  remains  of 
Alcteus,  Sappho,  and  Erinna.  2.  The  DOEIC,  rough 
but  vigorous,  immortalized  by  the  odes  of  Pindar 
and  the  idyls  of  Theocritus.  3.  The  IONIC,  soft 
and  elastic,  in  which  Homer  sang  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey,  and  Herodotus  told  his  history.  4.  The 
ATTIC  dialect  differs  little  from  the  Ionic,  unites 
energy  and  dignity  with  grace  and  melody,  and  is 


20         THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

represented  by  the  largest  literature,  the  tragedies 
of  JEschylus,  Sophocles,  Euripides,  the  comedies  of 
Aristophanes,  the  histories  of  Thncydides  and  Xen- 
ophon,  the  philosophical  dialogues  of  Plato,  and  the 
orations  of  Demosthenes.1 

The  Attic  dialect,  owing  to  its  literary  wealth  and 
the  military  conquests  of  Alexander  the  Great,  the 
pupil  of  Aristotle,  came  to  be  the  common  spoken 
and  written  language  not  only  in  Greece  proper, 
but  over  the  Macedonian  provinces  of  Syria  and 
Egypt.  By  its  diffusion  it  lost  much  of  its  peculiar 
stamp,  and  absorbed  a  number  of  foreign  words  and 
inflections,  especially  from  the  Orient.  But  what  it' 
lost  in  purity  it  gained  in  popularity.  It  was  eman 
cipated  from  the  trammels  of  nationality  and  intel 
lectual  aristocracy,  and  became  cosmopolitan.  It 
grew  less  artistic,  but  more  useful. 

In  this  modified  form,  the  Attic  Greek  received 
the  name  of  the  MACEDONIAN  or  ALEXANDRIAN,  and 
also  the  COMMON  or  HELLENIC  language  (?j  KOIVIJ 
£<aA£Kroc  or  *E\\r)riKii  SiaXtKTot;).  It  was  used  by 
Aristotle,  who  connects  the  classic  Attic  with  the 
Hellenic,  Poly  bins,  Plutarch,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Dio 
Cassius,  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  ^Elian,  Hero- 
dian,  Arrian,  and  Lucian. 

Examples  of  new  words:  ayaSoupyeTv,  ai'x^aXam'£eiv,  avTiXvrpor, 
iv,  tXXoytiv,  tuKaiptiv,  diKaioKpHTia,  vv^SffifJ^pov,  6X/yo- 


1  On  the  Greek  dialects,  compare  the  large  work  of  Ahrens,  De  Grcecce 
Linguae  Dialectis  (1839,  1843,  2  vols.)  ;  Merry,  Specimens  of  Greek  Dialects 
(Oxford,  1875)  ;  the  well-known  grammars  of  Prof.  G.  Curtius  of  Leipzig, 
and  Klihner;  and  Gustav  Meyer,  Griech.  Grammatik  (Leipzig,  1880),  the 
introduction  and  the  literature  there  indicated.  Also  Wilkins.  in  "  Encycl. 
Brit."  xi.  131-135. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.          21 


oiKOCtcnroTrig,  TTtTToi^riffig.  From  Egypt:  Trcnrvpog,  Trvpct/.iic, 
jBd'iov.  From  Persia:  ayyapoe;,  ya£rt,  /uayot,  TrapdStiaoc,  ridpa.  From 
the  Latin:  K/Jr<70f,  KovGTwdia,  Xtyiwv.  From  the  Semitic:  ctppafiiiv, 
Zi'Cdviov,  pajSfiei.  The  Alexandrians  had  also  a  special  orthography; 
they  exchanged  letters  —  as  ai  and  a,  t  and  77,  y  and  /.-—and  they  retained 
the  /j,  before  i|/  and  03-  (as  in  Xrjp-'^o^ai).  See  Moulton's  Winer,  p.  53. 
These  peculiarities  are  found  in  the  best  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  and  Greek 
Testament,  and  have  been  introduced  into  the  text  by  Lachmann  and 
the  recent  critical  editors. 

Professor  Immer  (Ilermeneutics  of  the  N.  T.  p.  125)  gives  the  following 
description  of  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  the  Macedonian  Greek  : 
"  Besides  the  Atticisms,  lonicisms,  Doricisms,  and  /Eolicisms,  the  cUaXf/cror 
KOIVT]  shows  still  the  following  peculiarities:  (<7.)  Words  that  occur  seldom 
or  only  in  poetical  discourse  in  the  old  Greek  now  become  more  common, 
and  pass  over  into  plain  prose,  as,  e.g.,  HLGOVVKTIOV,  3€o<m;y//e,  j3pt%w,  to 
moisten,  t'o-^w  for  «r37w,  and  others.  (b.~)  Words  in  use  receive  another 
form,  as  dvaSrepa  for  dvd3frjp,a,  ytviata  for  ytvtSXia,  t/cTraXai  for  TraXni, 
%Sf  £  for  t^Ssc,  iKEaia  for  tKiTfla,  ^i<r^aTroSoffia  for  /u«r3ocW/a,  jiovufy- 
SaXjttcg  for  tTtpo^aXfioQ,  vovStaia  for  vovSinjaic;,  orrTaaia  for  oi//ig,  t'/ 
opKo/j.oaia  for  rd  bpic.,  o  Tr\r)aiov  for  o  TrtXag,  TTOTCLTTO^  for  iroSaTrog,  etc. 
Especially  frequent  become  verbal  forms  in  -«'£w,  in  -w  pure  instead  of  in 
-jut  (f.g.  b^ivvd)  instead  of  o^i'vpt),  formed  from  the  perfect,  as  CT/)KW,  sub 
stantives  in  -jua.  (c.)  Words  entirely  new,  mostly  words  formed  through 
composition,  make  their  appearance,  as  dvrlXvTpov,  aXeKTOpO(j><i)via, 
a7roK'f0rtX/4u>,  ayaS'OTrotew,  a/^yuaXwrtt'a),  vvxSffjlJispov,  viToptTpiov,  et  cil. 
((/.)  Words  long  familiar  and  current  receive  new  meanings,  as  dva.K\iveiv 
and  dvaTTiTTTtiv,  to  recline  at  table;  diroicp&rivai,  to  answer;  diroTaa- 
fftaSrai,  to  take  leave;  daifjuov  or  daifiovtov,  evil  spirit;  fv%api<JTtiv,  to 
thank  ;  £yXov,  tree  ;  TrapctKaXt  Iv,  to  prajr  ;  are  yetv,  to  endure,  to  bear  up  ; 
03a»^ti',  to  come,  to  arrive;  xpTifiariZtiv,  to  be  called;  ^M^i^tiv,  to  eat, 
to  nourish,  et  al.  In  a  grammatical  point  of  view  the  following  may  be 
observed  :  (a.)  Inflections  of  nouns  and  verbs  occur  which  at  an  earlier 
period  were  either  entirely  unknown  or  peculiar  to  a  single  dialect  ;  e.  y. 
the  Doricism  dtytwvrai  for  dtytlvTcti,  the  ^Eolic  optative  ending  in  -eta, 
the  ending  of  the  second  person  of  the  present  and  future  passive  and 
middle  in  -a  instead  of  in  -y,  etc.  (7;.)  Infrequency  of  the  use  of  the 
dual,  as,  e.g.,  fivai  instead  of  dvolv.  (c.~)  Infrequency  of  the  employment 
of  the  optative  (in  the  Johannean  writings  it  does  not  occur  at  all). 
((7.)  The  construing  of  certain  verbs  with  other  cases,  especially  with  the 
accusative,  as  tTTiSvutiv  TL  instead  of  nvog,  (pofittffSai  diro  instead  of  VTTO 


22          THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

and  accusative,  et  aL  (?.)  The  weakening  of  'iva  in  the  formula;  3-f\o> 
iW,  Xtyui  Vi/a,  «£io£  tVa,  and  many  others.  (/.)  Use  of  the  subjunctive 
instead  of  the  optative  after  preterites,  etc.  A  still  greater  degradation 
of  the  language  finds  place  in  the  construction  of  'iva  with  the  indicative, 
and  not  with  the  future  only,  but  even  with  the  present  indicative,  of  avv 
with  the  genitive,  the  confounding  of  the  cases  and  tenses,  etc.  The 
latter  peculiarities  do  not  occur,  however,  in  authors  of  Greek  nationality, 
nor  in  educated  authors."  (The  translation  is  by  Albert  II.  Newman, 
Andover,  1877.) 

TILE    HELLENISTIC    DIALECT. 

The  Hellenic  dialect  assumed  a  strongly  Hebraiz 
ing  character  among  the  Grecian  Jews  or  Hellenists, 
and  as  spoken  by  them  it  is  called  the  Hellenistic 
dialect.  It  was  especially  current  in  Alexandria, 
where  all  nationalities  mingled  and  adopted  the 
Greek  as  their  medium  of  commercial  and  social 
intercourse.  This  city,  soon  after  its  foundation  by 
Alexander  the  Great  (B.C.  332),  became  the  chief 
seat  of  learning  next  to  Athens,  and  the  birthplace 
of  the  language  of  the  New  Testament.  Immense 
libraries  were  collected  under  the  Ptolemies,  and 
every  important  work  of  dying  Egypt  and  Oriental 
learning  was  translated  into  Greek. 

The  literature  of  the  Hellenistic  dialect  is  all  of 
Jewish  origin,  and  intimately  connected  with  re 
ligion.  It  embraces  the  Septuagint  and  the  Jewish 
Apocrypha,  which  are  incorporated  in  the  Septua 
gint,  and  passed  from  it  into  the  Latin  Yulgate. 
Philo  (B.C.  20  to  A.D.  40)  and  Josephus  (A.D.  38- 
103),  who  were  well  acquainted  with  Greek  litera 
ture,  aimed  at  a  pure  style,  which  would  commend 
their  theological  and  historical  writings  to  scholars 
of  classical  taste;  but,  after  all,  they  could  not  conceal 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         23 

the  Hebrew  spirit  and  coloring.  The  Hellenistic 
writings  express  Jewish  ideas  in  Greek  words,  and 
carried  the  religion  of  the  East  to  the  nations  of  the 
West. 

THE    SEPTUAGINT. 

The  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  was  gradually  made  by  Jewish  scholars 
in  Alexandria  during  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  II., 
B.C.  285-247,  and  has  survived  the  ravages  of  the 
Moslem  conquerors.  It  laid  the  foundation  for  the 
Hellenistic  idiom.  It  made  the  Greek  the  vehicle 
of  Hebrew  thought.  It  became  the  accepted  Bible 
of  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion,  spread  the  influence 
of  their  religion  among  the  Gentiles,  and  prepared 
the  way  for  the  introduction  of  Christianity.  Thus 
an  "  altar  was  erected  to  Jehovah"  not  only  "  in  the 
midst  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  as  the  prophet  foretold,1 
but  all  over  the  Roman  empire. 

The  Septuagint  is  the  basis  of  the  Christian 
Greek.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  not  yet  sufficiently 
explained,  that  the  great  majority  of  the  direct  cita 
tions  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  which 
amount  to  about  2SO,2  are  taken  from  the  Septua 
gint,  or  at  all  events  agree  better  with  it  than  with 
the  Hebrew  original. 

Compare  on  this  subject,  David  McCalman  Turpie,  The  Old  Testament 
in  the  New  (Lond.  1868);  Ed.  Bohl,  Die  A .  T.  lichen  Citate  im  N.  T.  (Wien, 

1  Isa.  xix.  19,  20,  25. 

2  James  Scott  (Principles  of  New  Testament  Quotation,  Edinb.  1875, 
p.  17  sq.)  says :  "  The  whole  number  of  repeated  citations  amounts  to  290. 
Seventeen  only  of  the  twenty-seven  books  of  the  New  Testament  contain 
quotations  from  the  Old.     The  single  citations  may  be  estimated  at  226, 
and  their  whole  number  by  repetition  at  284." 


24        .THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 

1878),  and  hie  Forschuiifjen  nock  einer  Volksbibel  zur  Zeit  Jesu  und  deren 
Zusammenhang  mil  der  Septuayinta-Vebersetzung  (ibid.  1873).  These  two 
scholars  have  very  carefully  examined  all  the  quotations.  Turpie  states 
the  result  (p.  266  sqq.)  in  live  tables  as  follows: 

A.  53  quotations  agree  with  the  original  Hebrew  and  with  the  Septua- 

gint  (correctly  rendered). 

B.  10  quotations  agree  with  the  Hebrew  against  the  Septuagint  (which 

is  here  incorrect). 

C.  76  quotations  differ  from  the  Hebrew  and  from   the   Septuagint 

(which  has  correctly  rendered  the  passages). 

D.  37  quotations  differ  from  the  Hebrew  and  agree  with  the  Septuagint. 

E.  99  quotations  differ  both  from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint,  which 

also  differ  from  each  other. 

Bo'hl  does  not  sum  up  his  results,  but  goes  carefully  over  the  same 
number  of  passages,  giving  the  New  Testament  quotation,  the  Hebrew 
original,  and  the  Septuagint  Version,  with  learned  notes.  He  advances 
the  novel  theory  that  Christ  and  the  apostles  quoted  from  a  popular 
Aramaic  Bible  (VolksUbel')  which  he  thinks  was  in  common  use  at  that 
time  in  Palestine,  and  which  was  substantially  the  Septuagint  Version,  or 
based  on  it :  "  Die  Scptvaginta  Uebersetzwng  ist  die  paldstinensische  Bibd 
oder  die  Bibcl  im  Vv Iff ar dialect  geicorden,  und  dalier  schrcibt  sich  die  Be- 
nutzung  der  LXX.  im  ..Neuen  Testament."'  But  there  is  no  trace  of  an 
Aramaic  Targum  before  the  time  of  Christ,  nor  of  a  Targum  authorized 
by  the  Sanhcdrin ;  and  if  it  was  based  on  the  Septuagint,  why  did  the 
apostles  use  a  translation  of  a  translation?  The  question  still  remains, 
why  did  they  not  quote  from  the  Hebrew  original,  and  how  are  the  de 
partures  of  the  Septuagint  from  the  Hebrew  to  be  accounted  for?  It 
..seems  probable  that  they  quoted  mostly  from  memory,  and  that  they 
were  more  familiar  with  the  Septuagint  than  the  Hebrew.  The  whole 
subject  requires  further  investigation,  and  a  new  critical  edition  of  the 
Septuagint  on  the  basis  of  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS.  and  all  other 
sources  combined.  Dr.  Paul  de  Lagarde,  of  Gottingen,  announces  such 
an  edition  (1882),  An  important  contribution  is  furnished  by  E.  Nestle, 
Veteris  Testamenti  Greed  Codices  Vaticanus  et  Sinaiticus  cum  textu  recepto 
collati  (Lips.  1880). 

Jesus  himself  quotes  from  the  Septuagint,  accord 
ing  to  the  evangelists.1     The  apostles  do  it  in  their 

1  Comp.  Matt.  iv.  4,  7,  10;  ix.  13;  xv.  9;  xxi.  16,42;  Mark  vii.  6;  x. 
7;  xii.  10,  11;  Luke  iii.  4-6;  iv.  18,  19;  xxii.  37.     Luke's  quotations  are 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         25 

discourses,1  and  in  their  epistles.2  Even  Paul,  who 
was  educated  at  Jerusalem  and  thoroughly  versed 
in  rabbinical  lore,  usually  agrees  with  the  Scptua- 
gint,  except  when  he  freely  quotes  from  memory, 
or  adapts  the  text  to  his  argument.3 

THE    APOSTOLIC    GKEEK. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  assign  to  the  New  Tes 
tament  idiom  its  peculiar  position.  It  belongs  to 
the  Hellenistic  dialect,  as  distinct  from  the  classical 
Greek,  and  it  shares  with  the  Septuagint  its  sacred 
and  Hebraizing  character,  as  distinct  from  the  secu 
lar  Hellenic  literature ;  but  it  differs  from  all  pre 
vious  dialects  by  its  spirit  and  contents.  It  is  the 
Greek  used  for  the  first  time  for  a  new  religion.  In 
this  respect  it  stands  alone,  and  belongs  to  but  one 
period,  the  period  of  the  first  proclamation  and  intro- 

all  from  the  Septuagint  with  the  exception  of  one,  vii.  27.  The  same  is 
the  case  substantially  with  Mark,  with  the  exception  of  i.  2,  which  is 
-from  the  Hebrew,  and  embodies  his  reflection.  Matthew  departs  from 
the  Septuagint  and  quotes  from  the  Hebrew  when  he  introduces  a  pro 
phetic  passage  with  his  formula  era  TrXrjptmSy,  as  i.  23;  ii.  6,  15,  18;  iv. 
15;  viii.  17;  xii.  18-21;  xiii.  35;  xxi.  5.  This  remarkable  difference  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Bleek  (Beitragezur  Evangelierikritik.  1846,  p.  57),  and 
-is  confirmed  by  Holtzmann  (Die  Synoptischen  Evangelien,  1863,  p.  259). 

1  Acts  i.  20;  ii.  17-21,  25-28,  34.  35;  iii.  22,  25;  iv.  25,  26;  vii.  42-50; 
xv.  15-18;  xxviii.  26,  27. 

2  James  ii.  23;  iv.  6;  1  Pet.  i.  16;  ii.  6,  22;  iii.  10-12;  iv.  18;  v.  5. 

8  Gal.  iii.  13;  Rom.  ii.24;  iii.  4, 10-18;  iv.3;  ix.27-29;  x.ll,  21 ;  xi.9, 
10,  26,  27  ;  1  Cor.  i.  19 ;  vi.  16 ;  Eph.  v.  31 ;  vi.  2.  Specimens  of  correc 
tions  of  the  Sept.  according  to  the  Hebrew :  1  Cor.  iii.  19 ;  xiv.  21 ;  xv. 
54,  55 ;  Rom.  ix.  17 ;  Eph.  iv.  8.  Comp.  Weiss,  Theol  des  N.  T.  3d  ed. 
p.  275;  Kautzsch,  De  Veteris  Test,  locis  a  Paulo  op.  alleyatis  (Lips.  1869). 
Kautzsch  maintains  that  Paul  never  intentionally  departs  from  the  Septua 
gint,  although  he  seems  to  have  in  view  sometimes  both  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Greek.  Weiss  allows  a  more  frequent  use  of  the  Hebrew. 


20          THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

ductiou  of  Christianity.  It  is  of  itself  a  strong  argu 
ment  for  the  genuineness  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  Greek  of  the  Apostolic  fathers,  the  Apolo 
gists,  and  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries  generally,  differs  considerably  from 
that  of  the  Xew  Testament:  it  has  much  less  of  the 
Hebrew  element,  and  gathered  during  the  theologi 
cal  controversies  a  number  of  new  technical  terms, 
or  infused  new  meaning  into  old  words.1 

The  New  Testament  idiom  consists  of  three  ele 
ments,  which  we  may  compare  with  the  three  ele 
ments  of  man — the  awfta,  ^X1'^  ail(^  vov$  or  Trvtv/ua. 
It  has  a  Greek  body,  animated  by  a  Hebrew  soul,  and 
inspired  and  ruled  by  a  Christian  spirit.  It  grew 
naturally  out  of  the  situation  and  mission  of  the 
Apostolic  Church,  and  was,  and  is  still,  admirably 
suited  for  its  purposes.  It  is  more  cosmopolitan 
than  any  other  Greek  dialect.  The  New  Testament 
in  classical  Greek  might  have  been  understood  and 
appreciated  by  the  learned  few,  but  not  by  the 
masses  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  And  the  same  applies 
to  translations.  King  James's  and  Luther's  versions 
reach  the  hearts  and  understandings  of  the  common 

1  Especially  in  the  Nicene  age.  Such  terms  are  ovaia,  VTTOGTCHTIC, 
irpoaunrov  (as  applied  to  the  persons  of  the  Trinity),  o/iootxriot;,  bfioiov- 
(Tiof ,  irepooiHTioQ  (of  the  Son  of  God  in  his  relation  to  the  Father),  tvaap- 
Kwcrtt;,  tvavSrpwirriGiSi  iSionjs,  aytvvrjoia,  ytwrjcrla,  iKTropevGic;,  Trsp-^ti; 
(of  the  Holy  Spirit),  SeoroKOf  (of  the  Virgin  Mary),  iVwrrte  vtroaTariKT], 
KoiVMvia  iciwfj,aTu>Vj  7r£pi%it>pr]cn(;  (of  the  inner  trinitarian  relations), 
awTTOGTaaia  or  kwiroaraaia  (the  impersonality  of  the  human  nature  of 
Christ),  etc.  For  ecclesiastical  Greek,  see  Suicer,  Thesaurus  Ecdesiasticus 
e  Patribus  Gratis,  Amst.  2d  ed.  1728, 2  vols.  fol. ;  C.  du  Fresne  (du  Cange), 
Glossarium  ad  Scriptores  Medics  et  Infimce  Grcecitatis,  Lugd.  1688,  2  torn, 
fol. ;  and  E.  A.  Sophocles,  Greek  Lex.  of  the  Roman  and  Byzantine  Periods, 
Boston,  1870. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         27 

people  as  no  classical  diction  of  Milton  or  Goethe 
could  do. 

During  the  seventeenth  century  there  was  much 
useless  controversy  between  the  "  Purists,"  who  de 
fended  the  classical  character  of  the  New  Testament 
Greek,  and  the  "  Hebraists,"  who  pointed  out  its 
Hebraisms.  Both  parties  ignored  the  necessity  and 
beauty  of  its  composite  character  for  its  cosmopoli 
tan  mission.1 

HEBRAISMS    IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  Hebrew  element  is  the  connecting  link  be 
tween  the  Mosaic  and  the  Christian  dispensation. 
It  pervades  all  the  apostolic  writings,  but  not  in  the 
same  degree.  It  is  strongest  in  Matthew,  Mark,  the 
first  two  chapters  of  Luke,  and  in  the  Apocalypse. 
The  hymns  of  the  Virgin  Mary  (Magnificat),  of 
Zacharias  (Benedictus),  arid  of  Simeon  (Nunc  Di- 
mittis)  are  entirely  Hebrew  in  spirit  and  tone,  and 
can  be  literally  rendered  so  as  to  read  like  Hebrew 
psalms.  Otherwise  Luke  and  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  Hebraize  least  of  all.  Not 
a  few  Hebrew  words  —  as  Amen,  Eden,  Messiah, 
Manna,  Ilallelvjah,  Sabbath — have  passed  into  mod 
ern  languages,  and  remain  as  perpetual  memorials 
of  the  earliest  revelations  of  God.  The  Hebraisms 
are  not  grammatical  blunders  or  blemishes,  but  neces 
sary  supplements  of  the  defects  of  the  secular  Greek. 

1  See  the  literature  on  this  controversy  in  Reuss,  p.  87.  He  says: 
"Das  neutestameniliche  Idiom  ist  nicht  aus  einer  rolien  Sprachenmischung 
hervorgegangen,  sondern  stellt  sich  uns  dar  als  der  erste  Schritt  des  im  Osten 
aufgegangenen  Lichtes  zur  Bewdltigung  und  Durchdringung  der  abendlan- 
dischen  Gesitlung"  Comp.  also  Tregelles,  in  Home's  Introd.  iv.  21-23. 


28         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

They  represent  new  ideas  which  require  new  words. 
They  impart  to  the  apostolic  writings  the  charm  of 
the  antiqueness  and  elevated  simplicity  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  pure  or  old  Hebrew 
words  (Amen,  Hallelujah,  Uosanna,  Sabbath,  which 
were  borrowed  from  the  temple  service,  and  are 
found  in  the  Septuagint),  the  Hebraisms  of  the 
^ew  Testament  belong  to  the  later  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic  ( Syro  -  Chaldaic )  dialect  which,  after  the 
return  from  the  Babylonian  exile,  had  gradually 
superseded  the  older  as  the  living  language  of  the 
people.1  The  Hebrew  still  continued  to  be  the 
sacred  language  (^7P^  V'^ ),  and  the  Scripture 
lessons  were  read  from  the  Hebrew  text,  but  were 
followed  by  Aramaic  translations  (Targumim)  and 
sermons  (Midrashim).3 

I.  Hebrew  words  for  which  the  classical  Greek 
has  no  equivalent.  I  do  not  claim  completeness  for 
this  and  the  following  lists,  but  they  embrace  the 
most  important  words. 

cJ/3/3a  =  K2X  (II cb.  Zty,  father,  Mark  xiv.  36;  Rom.  viii.  15;  Gal.  iv.  f>. 

aKt\c>a/ia  (Westcott  and  Hort,  aKi\Ca/iax)  —  ^^  ^^R.,  fidd  of 
blood,  Acts  i.  19. 

aXXTjXoum^n^-^bbri,  hallelujah,  praise  ye  Jehovah  (Ileb.),  Rev.  xix. 
1,  3,  4,  G.  Comp.  Ps.  civ.  35. 

1  The  word  t(3pa'iaTi,  hebraice,  is  used  for  chaldaice,  John  v.  2;  xix.  13, 
17,20;  Acts  ix.  11;  xvi.  16;  Rev.  ix.  11;  xvi.  16;  and  also  in  Joseph  us. 

2  The  Talmud  is  written  partly  in  Hebrew  (the  Mishna),  partly  in 
Aramaic  (the  Gemara),  but  mixed  with  exotic  words  from  various  lan 
guages — Greek,  Latin,  Coptic,  Persian,  Arabic — and  disfigured  by  gram 
matical  irregularities  and  barbarous  spelling.    See  Briill,  Fremdsprachliche 
Redensarten  in  den  Talmuden  und  Midrashim  (Leipz.  1869). 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         29 

«/iqi/  =  ',^X  (Heb.),  tiuly,  verily,  Matt.  vi.  13  (?) ;  Rom.  i.  25;  ix.  5; 
Rev.  iii.  14,  etc. 

dppaflwv  =:  **-*)"  (Heb.),  a  pledge,  earnest  (a  mercantile  term  of 
Phoenician  origin),  2  Cor.  i.  22 ;  v.  5 ;  Eph.  i.  14. 

floras  =  P.  2  (Heb.),  i«//i  (a  liquid  measure  of  about  8|  gallons),  Luke 
xvi.  5,  6. 

/3«X££/3ot'X  =  ?!Qf  ?23  (Aram.).  fortZ  of  dung  (dens  stercoris),  anil 
/3£eX£e/3oi;/3  =  S13t  b|3  (Heb.),  ford  of  flies,  the  name  of  a  god  of  the 
Philistines  at  Ekron.  The  former  is  a  contemptuous  Jewish  by-name  of 
this  idol,  and  was  applied  also  to  the  prince  of  demons,  Matt.  xii.  24,  27; 
Mark  iii.  22;  Luke  xi.  15,  18,  19. 

poai'tpyig  =  Ol'iH)  T!l"l  123,  -Sows  of  Thunder,  Mark  iii.  17.  A  name 
given  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee  (comp.  Luke  ix.  34). 

fivffoog  =.  "j^S  (Sept.),  jlme  ^e?«,  Luke  xvi.  19;  Rev.  xviii.  12.  Also 
fluaaivov,  Rev.  xix.  8. 

y<7/3/3a3pa  =  XP25  (Gr.  XiSoorpwroi'),  6ac&.  ridge,  pavement;  the  place 
where  Pilate  gave  sentence  against  Jesus,  John  xix.  13. 

ykivva  =  Ci!"1  X^S,  ^/<e  valley  of  IJinnom,  Josh.  xv.  8;  Gehenna,  hell, 
Matt.  v.  22 ;  Mark  ix.  43 ;  Luke  xii.  5,  etc.  Not  to  be  confounded  with 
Hades  or  Sheol,  as  is  done  in  the  A.  V. 

yoXyo3a  (al.  a)  =  fctr^ba  (Heb.  fib  j&5),  skull  (Kpaviov,  cah'a,  calva- 
ria,  whence  our  Calvary),  the  place  of  Christ's  crucifixion,  an  elevation 
(not  a  hill),  so  called  from  its  conical  form  (not  from  skulls),  Matt,  xxvii. 
33 ;  Mark  xv.  22 ;  John  xix.  17. 

ifipa'iaTL,  Westcott  and  Hort:  ifipa'iaTi  (from  "IS?),  Hebraice,  in  Hebrew 
(Aramaic),  John  v.  2;  xix.  13, 17,  20;  Rev.  ix.  11 ,  xvi.  16. 

tXwi  Awi  (or  r'j\(i  rj\ti,  Heb.  "1?X),  Xt^d  cra(3ax$avei,  ^fy  God,  my  God, 
u-hy  hast  (hou  forsaken  me.  Quotation  from  Ps.  xxii.  2.  See  Matt,  xxvii. 
4G;  Mark  xv.  34.  Mark  gives  the  Syriac  form,  tXwi  tXw/.  In  Matthew 
there  are  variations,  but  Westcott  and  Hort  give  tXwt  in  the  text  and 
j')\ti  in  the  margin. 

tyQaSd  (Aram.  rt!j&F,X),  diavoix^rjn,  be  opened,  Mark  vii.  34. 

Kanii\o<:  =  ^"£$  (Heb.),  camel,  Mark  i.  6;  Matt.  iii.  4;  xix.  24,  etc. 
(Sept.  Gen.  xii.  !£;  xxi.v.  10). 

KirvafjHjjfiov  =  "ji^-P  (Heb.),  cinnamon  (an  aromatic  bark  used  for 
incense  and  perfume),  Rev.  xviii.  13. 

iov£aiZ,d}  (from  iTl^n^,  Judalf),  to  Judaize,  Gal.  ii.  14;  also  'lovSa'ifffiof, 
i.  13 ;  and  iovddiicwf,  ii.  14. 

Kop(3av  and  Kop(3avas  =  "\^^  (Heb.),  KSS'Tlp  (Aram.),  an  offering, 
oblation,  Mark  vii.  11 ;  Matt,  xx'vii.  6. 


30         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Kvuirov  =  ",533  (TIcb.),  cummin  (Germ.  Kiimmel),  a  low  herb  of  the 
fennel  kind,  which  produces  aromatic  seeds. 

\ij3avoQ  =  !"!3sb  (Ileb.  from  the  verb  "j— ',  to  be  white),  frankincense, 
Matt.  ii.  11 ;  Ilev.  xviii.  13. 

HauwvaQ  =  XiN,£X~,  "pEX^,  riches,  Matt.  vi.  24;  Luke  vi.  9.  Comp. 
the  Heb.  iT^X,  Isa.  xxxiii.  G  (^Tjffavpoi,  LXX.) ;  Ps.  xxxvii.  3  (-\OVTOC). 
Augustin  says:  "  Lucrum  punice  mammon  dicitur." 

fjiavva  (Heb.  '72,  in  the  Sept.  TO  p.av),  manna,  the  miraculous  food  of 
the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  John  vi.  31,  49,  58;  Heb.  ix.  4;  Kev. 
ii.  17. 

papav  ad  a  =  inlnX  ",  ;"2,  the  Lord  cometh,  1  Cor.  xvi.  22. 

Utaa'iaq  =  Xlf1'^  (Ileb.  rPlTTS),  the  Anointed,  the  Messiah,  John  i, 
42;  iv.  25.     In  all  other  passages  the  Greek  equivalent,  XjOtorog  (from 
,  to  anoint'),  is  used. 

£  =  rr.'a  (Heb.),  r<M  (?),  Matt.  v.  22.]  » 

X)"lpQ  (Heb.  HDS),  passover,  Matt.  xxvi.  17;  John  ii.  13; 
vi.  4;  xviii.  39,  etc.  Used  in  three  different  senses:  (1)  the  paschal 
lamb ;  (2)  the  paschal  meal ;  (3)  the  paschal  feast  from  the  14th  to  the 
20th  of  Nisan.  Mistranslated  Easter  in  E.  V.,  Acts  xii.  4 ;  correct  in  K.  V. 

ptt|3/3i  or  paj3(3ti,  paj3j3ovi  or  paflfiovvi  =  "12'^  (Heb.  from  11^,  much, 
great"),  "^S*1,  "2^  (Chald.),  my  great  one,  my  master,  (jr cat  master,  John 
xx.  C:  Mark  x.  51,  etc.  The  salutation  of  Hebrew  teachers  or  doctors 
(cUoaffKaXoi).  Comp.  the  French  Monsieur,  Monseir/neur.  Rabboni  or 
Rabbuni,  John  xx.  10,  is  the  Galihtan  pronunciation  for  Ribboni. 

paKa  (or  pa^a,  Tischendorf )  =  Kp"1^  (Heb.  p"1^),  empty,  worthless, 
Matt.  v.  22. 

(Ta/3aw3=  m.ixsa:  (Ileb.),  hosts,  armies  (icvpioz  (ro/3aw3,  m;X^^  Hln^ 
Lord  of  Hosts),  Luke  ii.  13  ;  Rom.  ix.  29;  James  v.  4. 

GaflficiTov  =  TS'J  (Heb.),  rest,  day  of  rest,  Mark  ii.  27,  etc.  Also  the 
plural  ffafifiaTct  (Mark  i.  21,  etc.);  ffa/3/3arta//oc,  a  keeping  of  Sabbath, 
Sabbath  rest  (Heb.  iv.  9);  »}  ij^pa  TOV  (7«/3/3arov  (t^S'rn  Gl"1),  the 
Sabbath  day  (John  xix.  31;  Luke  iv.  16);  6^6g  (ra/3/3aroi>,  a  Sabbat h- 

1  This  is  usually  considered  as  the  vocative  of  the  Greek  fiwpoc,fool. 
The  E.  E.  recognizes  the  Hebrew  derivation  in  the  margin.  The  He 
brew  more  means  rebellious,  heretical  (Numb.  xx.  10);  but  the  Syriac  more 
means  Kvpioc,  dominus.  Dr.  Fr.  Field  objects  to  the  Hebrew  derivation 
on  the  ground  that  Christ  used  the  Syriac.  Otium  Norvicense  (Oxf.  1881), 
p.  2.  If  the  word  is  Greek  we  must  put  a  Hebrew  meaning  into  it,  with 
reference  to  Ps.  xiv.  1,  where  the  atheist  is  called  a  fool  ('S3,  LXX.  a< 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         31 

day's  journey,  i.  e.  6  stadia  or  750  Roman  paces,  equal  to  about  two  thirds 
of  an  English  mile  (Acts  i.  12) ;  and  Trpoodfifiarov,  fore-Sabbath,  Sabbath- 
eve  (Mark  xv.  42). 

aarav,  ffararag:^^'^  (Heb.),  adversary,  devil  (SiafioXog.  6  Troi'j/poc), 
Matt.  xvi.  23;  Mark  viii.  33;  Luke  xxii.  3;  2  Cor.  xii.  7,  etc. 

<Ta7r0€ipo£  =  "^SO  (Heb.),  sapphire  (a  precious  stone,  next  in  value  to 
the  diamond),  Rev.  xxi.  19  (Sept.  Ex.  xxiv.  10;  xxviii.  18). 

ai'trov  —  XrXD  (Heb.  "~!Xp),  a  seah  (a  dry  measure  of  about  a  peck 
and  a  half),  MattTxiiL  33. 

criKepa  (TO,  indecl.)  =  ^'IJ  (Heb.),  sikera,  strong  drink,  Luke  i.  15. 

avKi'imvoQ=.  Fn2p'£J  (Heb.),  a  sycamine  tree,  Luke  xvii.  G  (Sept.  1  Kings 
x.  27,  etc.). 

raXiSd,  Kovfi  =  ^p    ^n^b::,  maiden,  arise,  Mark  v.  41. 

uff<T<j>7ro£=rintX  (Heb.),  hyssop,  John  xix.  29;  Heb.  ix.  29  (1  Kings  v. 
3,  etc.). 

Xfpovfii/j-  =  D^13  (Heb.  plural  from  S^HS),  cherubim,  Heb.  ix.  5. 
Comp.  the  Greek  ypwi//,  ypvTrog. 

biaavvd  =  XS  tl^'^in  (Ps.  cxviii.  25),  Hosanna,  save  now — a  word  of 
joyful  acclamation,  Matt.  xxi.  9,  15;  Mark  xi.  9,  10;  John  xii.  13. 

Proper  names  of  persons  are  very  numerous : 

K//</>dc  (Syr.  XB^S,  Greek  Hfrpot;),  Mopi'a  (Aramaic  for  the  Hebrew 
"?'*'"?)>  Mdp3a  ((lamina).  MaX^oe  (7|i?^>  King),  Xousa  (Luke  viii.  3;  see 
Westcott  and  Hort's  text),  T«/3(3d  (Greek  Aopicac,  Acts  ix.  36,  40); 
'Iaiai>/3  or  'l«Ko»/3oc,  'irjaovg,  'itadwriQ,  MeX^tfreOs/c,  'SaovX  or  ^ai)Xoc. 
and  many  others.  Also  the  names  compounded  with  13,  so??,  as  Barabbas 
(son  of  a  father,  or  son  of  a  rabbi),  Bartholomew,  Barjesus,  Barjonas. 
Bartima3iis,  Barsabas,  Barnabas. 

Hebrew  names  of  several  places,  as, 

Armageddon  (mount  of  MegiddO,  Rev.  xvi.  16),  Bethlehem  (House  of 
Bread),  Bethany  (House  of  Dates),  Bethphage  (House  of  Figs),  Bethcsda 
(House  of  Mercy),  Bethsaida  (Place  of  Fishing),  Gethsemane  (oil-press), 
Jerusalem  (Dwelling  of  Peace),  Siloam  (n?'^,  translated  a.7rta-a\nei>oc, 
John  ix.  7,  by  Robinson,  an  aqueduct;  by  Grimm,  ejfusio,  Wasserguss),  etc. 

II.  Hebraizing  phrases  and  modes  of  construction : 

OTTO  irpoawTTov,  "VSS'Q  or  *ys2"Q,from  the  face  or  presence  of  any  one, 
from  before,  from,  Acts  iii.  19;  'v.  41 ;  vii.  45;  2  Thess.  i.  9;  Rev.  vi.  16; 
xii.  14;  xx.  11. 


32         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

fiaaiXtvtiv  kTri  (instead  of  gen.  or  dat.),  b?  "^"2,  to  reign  over,  Luke 
i.  33;  xix.  14,  17;  Matt.  ii.  22,  etc. 

ytvtaSai  Savarov  (Aram.),  to  taste  of  death,  to  die,  Matt.  xvi.  28; 
Mark  ix.  1 ;  John  viii.  52,  etc. 

duo  duo  (bini,  for  dvd  Evo  or  tit;  dvci),  pair-wise,  by  two  and  two,  Mark  vi.  7. 

tl  (for  ov),  CX,  in  forms  of  oath,  as  Mark  viii.  12,  ii  foStjatrai  an/.ieiov, 
no  sign  shall  be  (jiven;  Heb.  iv.  5,  a  ttatXtvffovTat,  if  they  shall  enter  into 
my  rest  (supply  the  apodosis,  then  will  I  not  live,  or  be  Jehovah},  i.  e,  they 
shall  not  enter.  Comp.  Gen.  xiv.  23;  Deut.  i.  35;  and  Thayer's  Winer, 
p.  500  (Moulton's  Winer,  p.  G27). 

t ic,  d-jrdvTijaiv,  FIX  jp.b,  for  meeting  (instead  of  inf.  cnravrav,  to  meet), 
Matt.  xxv.  1,  G;  Acts  xxviii.  15. 

tvooKt'tv  'iv  TIVI,  2  "/EH,  to  be  well  pleased  with,  to  take  pleasure  in  some 
one,  Matt.  iii.  17;  xvii.  5;  Mark  i.  11 ;  Luke  iii.  22,  etc. 

\oyi'£«v  ei'c  (diicaioffvvi]i'~),  b  -'rn,  to  reckon  unto,  to  impute,  Rom.  iv.  3, 
22 ;  Gal.  iii.  G ;  James  ii.  23.  Comp.  Gen.  xv.  G  (Sept.). 

bfjLoXoyiiv  tv  TIVI  (comp.  "by  FTTH,  Fs.  xxxii.  5,  slightly  differing), 
to  make  a  confession  on  or  respecting  some  one  (in  alicuius  causa~),  Matt.  x. 
32  ;  Luke  xii.  8. 

ou  .  .  .  TTCLQ,  ?b  X?,  for  ovCt'iQ,  not  one.  none,  Matt.  xxiv.  22 ;  Mark  xiii. 
20;  Rom.  iii.  20;  Gal.  ii.  1G;  Eph.  v.  5,  etc. 

TrpoawTcov  Trpbg  TrpovwTror,  C"1^  SX  f1?^?  face  to  face  (nothing 
intervening),  1  Cor.  xiii.  12.  See  Sept.  Gen.  xxxii.  31. 

irpoffijJTrov  Xafifidveiv,  C^DS  X1T3,  to  accept  the  person  of  any  one,  to 
favor,  to  be  partial.  In  the  New  Test,  only  in  a  bad  sense,  Luke  xx. 
21 ;  Gal.  ii.  6  (jrpoawTrov  3tof  avSpdjTrov  ov  Xo///3ca'£(). 

Trpaaiai  (adverbially  and  distributive!}',  areolatim,  for  di>a 
,  in  ranks. plat-wise,  by  plats  (like  beds  in  a  garden),  Mark  vi.  40. 
So  also  av/j.7roaia  av^Troaia,  by  table  parties,  by  companies,  in  ver.  39. 

lv  07T/(T(t»  TIVOQ,  llvo.1  t'lQ  Tl,  Cf.iVVf.IV  tV  TIVI,  7TpOaKVVf.Iv 

Ttvog,  the  frequent  /cat  iytvtTO  (^•7^*),  etc. 

viog,  with  the  genitive  in  the  sense  of  belonging  to,  or  exposed  to, 
deserving  of,  as  v'tbg  Sa.vd.Tov  (1"V}^?  *3),  son  of  death ;  v'toi  TOV  ^i»jU0a)- 
VOQ,  sons  of  the  bridal  chamber,  bridemen;  viol  Trjg  (3a<n\tiac,,  sons  of  the 
kingdom ;  viol  TOV  irovnpov,  subjects  and  followers  of  Satan ;  VIOQ  r//c 
diro\fia£,  son  of  perdition,  i.e.  doomed  to  perdition  (John  xvii.  12);  viol 
TIJQ  dvaaTdai o>c,  partakers  of  the  resurrection  (Luke  xx.  36),  etc. 

Foreign  derivatives  in  imitation  of  the  vernacular,  as  aya££/iari£w 
(from  dvdStna,  Heb,  Q^H,  devoted  to  God,  Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29;  but  also 
devoted  to  death,  a  thing  accursed,  Josh.  vi.  17 ;  vii.  1,  etc.),  to  anathe- 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF.  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          33 

matize,  to  lay  under  a  curse  (Mark  xiv.  71;  Acts  xxiii.  12,  14,  21); 
iyKaiv'(L,tiv  (from  iyicaivia'),  to  initiate,  to  dedicate  (Heb.  ix.  18;  x.  20; 
in  the  Sept.  for  Tt^tl,  Dent.  xx.  5);  OKavda\iZ,tiv  (?'i"2,  ?^33,  P^T-rt)^ 
to  make  stumble,  to  lead  to  sin,  and  the  passive  okavdaXi&aSai,  to  stumble, 
to  be  led  astray  (Matt.  v.  29;  xiii.  21,  etc.,  from  GKavSaXov,  a  trap-stick; 
a  snare,  a  stumbling-block,  in  the  Sept.  for  tZJj5*i33) ;  ff7r\ayxv^^a^al  (from: 
a7rXayxvai  D^ErH,  bowels),  to  have  compassion  (Matt.  xx.  34,  etc.). 

The  intensive  adverbial  use  of  the  noun  ia  the  dative  with  the  corre 
sponding  verb  is  counted  among  the  Hebraisms  (although  it  occurs  occa 
sionally  among  classical  writers,  even,  in  Plato;  see.Thayer's  Winer} 
p.  466),  as  xapy  \aipzi,  he  rejoiceth  greatly  (John  iii.  29),  ImSr-vfJiia 
kTT&t'Htfva,  I  have  earnestly  desired,  (Luke  xxii.  15). 

The  particles  'iva  and  orav  are  constructed  with  the  present  and  future 
indicative,  Luke  xi.  2;  Gal.  vi.  12  (?);  Mark  iii.  2.  'iva  in  classical  writers 
denotes  the  purpose  or  intention  (tVa  TfXiKov,  in  order  that");  but  in  later 
Greek  and  in  the  New  Test,  sometimes  simply  the  consequence  or  result 
(iva  tKfiaTiKov,  so  that').  The  ecbatic  use  has  often  been  needlessly 
pressed,  but  as  needlessly  denied  by  Fritzsche  and  Meyer.  See  Moulton's 
Winer,  p.  573  sqq.,  Thaycr,  457  sqq.,  and  Robinson  and  Grimm  sub  'iva. 

III.  Greek  words  with  Hebrew  meanings : 

ayyeXog  (a  messenger),  in  the  sense  of  angel. 

(TO)  ciyia  ajliov  (for  the  superlative,  C"1  w'^jp  ^p),  the  holy  of  holies,' 
or  the  inner  sanctuary  of  the  temple,  Ileb.  ix.  3. 

aiijjv  OVTOQ  and  aiwv  ntXXwi',  H-T^l  tsVlS/  and  XSft  tV",  for  the 
two  ages  or  eras  (dispensations)  before  and  after  the  Messiah's  advent,. 
modified  in  the  New  Test,  the  present  and  the  future  world.  So  also  the' 
expressions  to-^arai  j}pepai,  ta^arr]  wpa,  ra  rt\ri  TWV  alwviov,  avvrtXtia 
TOV  alojvoc,  refer  to  the  last  times  of  the  aiwv  OVTOQ,  in  the  New  Test, 
to  the  interval  between  the  first  and  second  advent  of  Christ,  more 
particularly  the  apostolic  period,  Matt.  xiii.  39;  xxviii.  20;  Acts  ii.  17; 
Heb.  i.  1 ;  James  v.  3  ;  1  Cor.  x.  11,  etc. 

a1p,a  tK\fiiv  or  tK-^vvtiv  (CH   7|S^),  ^  H//,  Luke  xi.  50;  Rom.  iii.  15. 

aprov  <f>ciytiv,  to  take  food,  to  eat  (fiH^  ^2^),  Mark  iii.  20;  Luke 
xiv.  1.  Also  taStfiv  dprov,  Matt,  xv.  2. 

a<j)itvai  a^apriag  (or  6<f>ti\fifjaTa,  TrapaTrrw^tarnr,  etc.),  to  forgive  sins, 
etc.r  to  pardon,  Matt.  vi.  12;  ix.  6;  Luke  xi.  4,  etc.  Comp.  the  Heb. 
*IB3,  Sept.  Isa.  xxii.  14;  Xb3,  Gen.  1.  17. 

[BanTi&iv,  /3a7m<Tjuoc,  /3a7rr«r/ia,  in  the  wider  sense  of  ceremonial 
washings,  whether  by  pouring,  or  dipping,  or  immersion,  Mark  vii.  4 ; 
Heb. •  vi.  2 ;  ix.  10.  Comp.  Sept.  2  Kings  v.  14. 

3 


34         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

yXw<T<Trt,  in  the  sense  of  nation  ('pTIJ'b),  Rev.  v.  0  ;  vii.  9,  etc. 

cJatjuoyiso/iej'Of,  possessed  ty  a  rfe»ww  or  evil  spirit.  Often  in  the 
Gospels. 

Siiiv  and  Xuav,  to  bind  and  to  Zoos?,  in  the  rabbinical  sense  to  forbid 
and  to  permit,  Matt.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18.  Comp.  John  xx.  23,  where  the 
same  idea  is  expressed  literally  by  Kpartiv  and  afyi'tvai. 

£(«/3oXoc  (accuser,  slanderer^),  for  Satan,  Matt.  iv.  1  ;  ix.  34,  etc.  Corap. 
Job  i.  7,  12;  Kev.  xii.  9,  10. 

dvva/jii^  and  dwapfie,  in  the  sense  of  miraculous  powers  (mxb£5, 
Sept.  Job  xxxvii.  14),  Matt.  vii.  22,  and  very  often.  See  Dictionaries. 

t$rt],  in  the  sense  of  Gtntiles,  heathen  (C"?;5),  as  distinct  from  the  Jew 
ish  nation  (Xao£,  C2-),  Luke  ii.  32,  etc. 

tvXoytn),  to  bless  (TpS),  Luke  i.  G4;  Matt.  v.  44,  etc. 

IK  KOL\iacj  fir)Tp6c,from  birth,  from  infancy  (152K    "—  S£),  Gal.  i.  15. 

Z,r\rCiv  rvv  Seuv,  to  seek  God,  i.e.  to  turn  to  him  as  a  sincere  worshipper, 
Acts  xvii.  27;  Rom.  x.  20.  Quoted  from  Isa.  Ixv.  1  (Sept.). 

fy]T(~iv  \l/vxi']v,  to  seek  one's  life,  i.e.  to  seek  to  kill  him  ('^S2  £p2), 
Matt.  ii.  10  ;  Kom.  xi.  3. 

itiaV,  to  see,  in  the  sense  to  experience  (to  suffer,  or  to  enjoy,  like  !"1X  ^), 
Luke  ii.  20;  Heb.  xi.  5. 

6$oc,  manner  of  life  (TP'n))  Matt.  xxi.  32;  Rom.  iii.  17;  Acts  xviii.  25; 
James  v.  20. 

pijpa,  in  the  sense  of  'thing  (as  ^D1;?),  Luke  ii.  15;  Acts  v.  32. 

<Trtjo£  (1w2l),  in  the  sense  of  man  (mortal),  or  human  nature,  or  natural 
descent  (/cara  aapKa),  or  frailty,  or  the  corrupt,  carnal  nature,  in  opposition 
to  7rj'ef'/m.  Very  often,  especially  in  Paul's  Epistles.  See  Dictionaries. 

rrapZ,  KO.I  ol//a,  for  men,  with  the  accessory  idea  of  weakness  and  frailty, 
Matt.  xvi.  17;  Eph.  vi.  12;  Gal.  i.  16. 

o-Trep/m,  seed,  in  the  sense  of  offspring,  posterity  (2?f  .!)>  Matt.  xxii.  24, 
25;  Mark  xii.  19-21  ;  Luke  i.  55;  xx.  28;  Rom.  iv.  13,  18,  etc. 

Gvi'aywyr),  a  Jewish  synagogue  (assembly),  Luke  viii.  41.  etc.;  a 
Christian  congregation,  James  ii.  2;  synagogue  of  Satan,  Rev.  ii.  9;  iii.  9. 
,  anointed,  in  the  sense  of  the  Messiah, 


1Y.  The  Hebraizing  style  and  construction  shows 
itself  in  the  simplicity  of  the  syntax,  the  absence 
of  long  and  artificial  periods,  the  rarity  of  oblique 
and  participial  constructions,  the  monotony  of  form, 
emphatic  repetition,  and  the  succession  of  sentences 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.         35 

by  way  of  a  constructive  parallelism  rather  than  by 
logical  sequence.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (es 
pecially  the  Beatitudes),  the  parables,  and  even 
Paul's  Epistles  have  that  correspondence  of  words 
and  thoughts  which  is  the  characteristic  feature  and 
charm  of  Hebrew  poetry. 

We  may  add  (with  Westcott),  that  "  calm  empha 
sis,  solemn  repetition,  grave  simplicity,  the  gradual 
accumulation  of  truths,  give  to  the  language  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  a  depth  and  permanence  of  effect 
found  nowhere  else.  .  .  .  The  character  of  the  style 
lies  in  its  total  effect,  and  not  in  separate  elements ; 
it  is  seen  in  the  spirit  which  informs  the  entire  text 
far  more  vividly  than  in  the  separate  members."  ] 

LATINISMS. 

The  Greek  of  the  apostolic  writings  is  Hebraizing, 
but  not  Romanizing.  The  Romans  imposed  their 
military  rule,  their  polity,  and  their  laws,  but  not 
their  speech,  upon  the  conquered  nations.  The 
greatest  Roman  orator  admitted  that  the  Latin  was 
provincial,  while  the  Greek  was  universal  in  the 
empire.2  Yet  a  number  of  Latin  terms  —  mostly 
military,  political,  and  monetary,  and  for  some  arti 
cles  of  dress — have  found  their  way  into  the  com 
mon  speech  with  the  Roman  conquest.  They  are 
most  frequent  in  Mark's  Gospel,  which  was  written 
in  Rome  and  for  Romans. 

1  In  Smith's  Bible  Diet.  iii.  2141  (Hackett  and  Abbot's  ed.).     Comp. 
Westcott's  Introd.  to  the  Gospels,  pp.  241-252. 

2  Cicero  (Pro  Arch.  10):  "  Grceca  legunlur  in  omnibus  fere  yentibus ; 
Latino,  suis  finibus,  exiguis  sane,  continentur." 


36         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

daaapiov,  as,  a  Roman  copper  coin,  worth  three  English  farthings,  or 
li  cent  (one  tenth  of  a  denarius),  Matt.  x.  29;  Luke  xii.  G.  Probably  the 
neuter  form  of  the  old  Latin  assarius,  as  Cijvdpiov  is  of  denarius. 

cijvdpiov,  denarius,  a  Roman  silver  coin  of  the  value  of  ten  asses  (as 
the  name  indicates),  and  afterwards  of  sixteen  asses  (the  us  being  re 
duced),  equivalent  to  the  Attic  drachma,  or  about  sixteen  cents.  In  the 
New  Test,  it  stands  for  a  large  sum,  a  day's  wages;  hence  the  transla 
tion  penny,  which  creates  the  opposite  impression,  should  have  been 
changed  by  the  Revisers  into  denarius,  or  denary,  or  shilling,  Matt, 
xviii.  28;  xx.  2,  9,  10,  13  ;  xxii.  19  ;  Mark  vi.  37  ;  John  vi.  7  ;  xii.  5;  Rev. 
vi.  G,  etc. 

,  centurio  (originally  a  commander  of  a  hundred  foot-soldiers, 

),  Mark  x\ .  39,  44,  45. 

,  census  (Greek,  (nroypa^t'i)  ;  in  the  New  Test,  tribute,  poll-tax, 
Matt.  xvii.  25;  xxii.  17;  Mark  xii.  14  (dovvai  K))VGOV  Kaiaapi). 

KodpdvTijGi  quadrans  (from  quettuor),  a  small  copper  coin,  the  fourth 
part  of  an  as,  a  farthing  (i.  e,  fourthing),  two  fifths  of  one  cent,  Matt.  v.  26 ; 
Mark  xii.  42. 

KoXwvia,  colonia,  a  Roman  colony,  Acts  xvi.  22. 

Kovffrojcia,  custodia,  custody,  guard  (of  Roman  soldiers),  Matt,  xxvii. 
G5,  GG;  xxviii.  11.  Corresponds  to  the  Greek  tyvXaKT). 

KOrt/3/3«ro£,  or  /cp«/3arroc  (Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Westcott  and 
Hurt),  c/rabatus,  a  small  couch  or  mattress,  Mark  ii.  4,  etc. 

\tytMV  (Westcott  and  ITort,  Xfyiwr),  legio.  legion,  Mark  v.  9, 15;  Matt, 
xxvi.  53;  Luke  viii.30.  Also  in  rabbinical  Hebrew  ("pV»5).  See  Buxtorf. 

Xfvriov,  linteum,  a  linen  cloth,  a  towel  or  <7/;ro»,  worn  by  servants,  John 
xiii.  4.  5.  From  the  Greek  Xirov,  ajlaxen  cord. 

\i(3ep~'ivocj,  libertinus,  nfreedman,  Acts  vi.  9. 

Xirpa,  from  libra,  the  Roman  pound  of  twelve  ounces,  John  xii.  3 ; 
xix.  39. 

/uajceXXor,  macellum,  meat-market,  shambles,  1  Cor.  x.  25. 

f.i£/ji(3pdvct,  membrana  (from  membruni),  skin,  parchment,  2  Tim.  iv.  13. 

fj-i\iov,  milliarium  (for  mille  passuum),  a  thousand  paces,  a  mile,  Matt, 
v.  41. 

/Lio^toc,  modius,  a  measure,  the  chief  Roman  measure  for  things  dry,  and 
equal  to  one  third  of  the  Roman  amphora  (nearly  one  pecK),  Matt.  v.  15; 
Mark  iv.  21;  Luke  xi.  33. 

&OTr}Q,sextarius.  in  the  New  Test,  a  small  measure,  or  vessel,  pot,  Mark 
vii.  4,  8. 

irpaiTupiov,  prcetorium,  the  general's  tent  in  a  camp ;  and  also  the  resi- 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          3  I 

dence  or  palace  of  a  provincial  governor,  Matt,  xxvii.  27;  Mark  xv.  16; 
John  xviii.  28  ;  xix.  9  ;  Acts  xxiii.  35  ;  Phil.  i.  13. 

p'jcfy,  rheda,  or  raeda,  reda  (of  Celtic  origin),  a  travelling  carriage  with 
four  wheels,  a  chariot,  Rev.  xviii.  13. 

(Tiicdptog,  sicarius  (from  sica,  dagger'),  assassin,  robber,  Acts  xxi.  38. 

(npiKivSiov,  semicinctium  (from  semi,  half,  and  cingere,  to  gird),  an  apron. 
Acts  xix.  12.  For  ii^i'^djviov. 

<rovcdpiov,sudarium  (from  sudor,  sweat},  siceat-cloth,  handkerchief,  Luke 
xix.  20;  John  xi.  44;  xx.  7;  Acts  xix.  12. 

(TTrg/conXorwp,  speculator,  a  pikeman,  a  soldier  of  the  body-guard  cm- 
ployed  as  watch  and  in  messages,  Mark  vi.  27  ;  also  in  later  Hebrew.  For 


Taflepvr],  taberna,  tavern,  Acts  xxviii.  15. 

T'LT\OQ,  titulus,  inscription,  superscription,  John  xix.  19,  20.     For  tm- 


<j)aiv6\T]c;  (^aiXuvr/c),  pmntla,  a  woollen  cloak,  or  mantle  for  travelling 
(and  also  in  rainy  weather).  2  Tim.  iv.  13. 

(j>6pov,  forum,  market;  part  of  the  name  of  the  village  Appii  forum, 
Acts  xxviii.  15. 

QpayiXXtoVjjlagellum,  a  scourge,  John  ii.  15. 

$payf\\oai,  Jlagello,  to  flagellate,  to  scourge,  Matt,  xxvii.  2G;   Mark 
xv.  15. 

,  chart  a.  paper,  2  John  12. 
.,  corns,  or  caurus,  the  northicest  wind,  Acts  xxvii.  12. 


Latin  proper  names  of  persons  : 

Agrippa,  Amplias,  Aquila,  Caius,  Cornelius,  Claudia,  Clemens,  Crcscens. 
Crispus,  Drusilla,  Felix,  Festus,  Fortunatus,  Gallic,  Julius,  Julia,  Jtinia. 
Justus,  Linus,  Lucius,  Luke  (abridged  from  Lucanus),  Marcus  or  Mark. 
Niger,  Paulus,  Pilate,  Priscilla  or  Prisca,  Publius,  Pudens,  Quartus,  Rufus, 
Sergius,  Silvanus  (abridged  Silas),  Tertius,  Tertullus,  Titus,  Urban. 
Three  names  of  Roman  emperors:  Augustus  (  26/3«<rroc  ),  Tiberius. 
Claudius.  The  generic  name  C«?sar  (Kotcrap)  is  applied  to  Augustus 
(Luke  ii.  1),  to  Tiberius  (Luke  iii.  1),  to  Claudius  (Acts  xi.  28),  and  to 
Nero  (Acts  xxv.  8;  Phil.  iv.  22). 

Names  of  places  : 

Appii  Forum,  Cresarea,  Italy,  Rome,  Spain,  Tiberias,  Tres  Tabernte. 


38         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


NUMBER   AND    VALUE    OF    FOREIGN    WORDS. 

Professor  Lemuel  S.  Pot  win  (of  Western  Reserve 
College,  Hudson,  Ohio)  lias  made  a  list  of  native 
words  of  the  Kew  Testament  not  found  in  classical 
authors  before  Aristotle  (who  is  included  among  the 
classics,  though  his  diction  is  on  the  boundary  be 
tween  the  Attic  and  the  Common  dialects),  with  the 
following  results  :  1 

O 

(1.)  The  total  number  of  words  in  the  Greek 
Testament  (according  to  Tischendorfs  text)  not 
found  in  the  classics  is  no  less  than  882  (nouns  392, 
adjectives  and  adverbs  171,  verbs  319)  ;  that  is,  nearly 
one  sixth  of  the  entire  vocabulary.  But  a  consid 
erable  number  of  these  words  are  found  in  the  Sept- 
uagint,  Josephus,  Polybius,  and  Plutarch.  In  the 
Septuagint  3G3  occur. 

(2.)  The  new  words  are,  with  few  exceptions, 
derivatives  or  compounds  from  Greek  roots.  The 
verbs  are  largely  denominatives,  but  more  largely 
multiplied  by  composition  with  prepositions.  The 
adjectives  arise  mostly  from  composition,  the  alpha 
privativum  being  very  frequent,  as  the  English 
compounds  with  un  are  constantly  increasing. 

(3.)  The  rhetorical  value  varies.  Many  of  these 
words  are  clear  and  full  of  meaning,  as 


1  See  Ribliotheca  Sacra,  Andover,  July,  1880,  pp.  503-527;  and  Oct. 
1880,  pp.  640-GGO.  The  results  are  stated  on  p.  652  sqq.  Prof.  Potwin 
lias  also  previously  published  valuable  lists  of  Latinisms  in  Bibl.  Sacra  for 
Oct.  1875,  p.  703  sqq.,  and  of  Hebraisms,  ibid.  Jan.  1876,  p.  52  sqq.,  to 
•which  Dr.  Abbot  kindly  directed  my  attention  after  my  lists  were  already 
in  type.  I  refer  to  them  here  for  comparison.  Potwin's  lists  are  less 
complete;  he  gives  only  twenty-four  Latinisms  instead  of  thirty-one. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.          39 

double-minded,  wavering,  Jas.  i.  8;  iv.  8;  also  in 
Clemens  Kom.  Ad  Cor.  c.  23  ;  vv^vyog,  or  avv^v- 
XGC,  concors,  like-minded,  congenial,  Phil.  ii.  2; 
Xoyojuaxfa,  word  -  strife,  1  Tim.  vi.  4  ;  juaKjooSvjufa, 
longanimity,  forbearance,  Rom.  ii.  4,  etc.  ;  &co$c$a- 
KTOC,  taught  of  God,  1  Thess.  iv.  9  ;  and  the  com 
pounds  with  ayaSo-,  avrt-,  trfpo-,  and  ifrtv^o-. 

(4.)  The  doctrinal  and  practical  value  is  great  in 
proportion  to  the  idea  expressed.     Such  words  as 
(caritas,  as  distinct  from  tpwc,  amor), 


*Xa(TjUoc>  TraXcyyavccr/a,  crvvticriaig,  have  a 
definite  theological  significance,  and  cannot  be  re 
placed  by  classical  words. 

THE    CHRISTIAN    ELEMENT.1 

The  language  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists  is 
baptized  with  the  spirit  and  fire  of  Christianity, 
and  thus  received  a  character  altogether  peculiar 
and  distinct  from  the  secular  Greek.  The  genius 
of  a  new  religion  must  either  create  a  new  speech, 
or  inspire  an  old  speech  with  a  new  meaning.  The 
former  would  have  concealed  the  religion  from  the 
people,  like  the  glossolalia  in  the  Corinthian  Church, 
which  required  an  interpreter.  The  Greek  was  flex 
ible  and  elastic  enough  to  admit  of  a  transformation 
under  the  inspiring  influence  of  revealed  truth.  It 
furnished  the  flesh  and  blood  for  the  incarnation  of 
divine  ideas.  Words  in  common  use  among  the 

1  Comp.  Schleiermacher,  Mermen.  66,  138;  Immer,  ffermen.  129;  Crcruer, 
Biblico-Theol.  Lexicon;  Trench,  Synonyms  of  the  N.  Test. 


40          THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

classics,  or  in  popular  intercourse,  were  clothed  with 
a  deeper  spiritual  significance  ;  they  were  trans 
planted  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  sphere,  from 
mythology  to  revelation,  from  the  order  of  nature 
to  the  order  of  grace,  from  the  realm  of  sense  to 
the  realm  of  faith. 

This  applies  to  those  characteristic  terms  which 
express  the  fundamental  ideas  of  Christianity — as 
gospel,  faith,  love,  hope,  mercy,  peace,  light,  life, 
repentance  or  conversion,  regeneration,  redemption, 
justification,  sanctification,  grace,  humility,  apostle, 
evangelist,  baptism,  kingdom  of  heaven. 
<  Gospel  .(siiayyiXiov)  to  a  Greek  Gentile  was  either 
reward  for  good  news  (as  in  Homer),  or  good  news 
of  any  kind;  but  to  a  Greek  Christian  it  meant  the 
best  of  all  news  ever  heard  on  earth,  proclaimed  by 
angels  from  heaven  to  all  the  people,  that  a  Saviour 
was  born  and  lived,  and  died  and  rose  again  for  a 
sinful  world.  The  word  church  (tKicAr?<mi,  avvaywyi'i) 
has  passed  through  a  heathen,  Jewish,  and  Christian 
stage;  it  denotes  first  a  lawful  assembly  of  free 
Greek  citizens,  then  a  religious  congregation  of 
Jews,  and  at  last  that  grand  commonwealth  of  God 
which  Christ  founded  on  a  rock,  and  which  is  to 
embrace  the  whole  human  family.  Faith  (Tn'crr/e, 
from  TTt/3-w,  to  persuade,  7ruzof.iai  rn>i,  to  trust  in) 
conveys  the  general  idea  of  confidence  in  a  person, 
or  belief  in  the  truth  of  a  report ;  but  in  the  New 
Testament  it  is  that  gift  of  grace  whereby  we  accept 
Christ  in  unbounded  trust  as  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
and  are  urged  to  follow  him  in  a  life  of  holy  obe 
dience.  Love  (ayinrr)  is  not  found  in  classical  writ- 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         41 


ers,  but  in  its  place  0/At'a  and  ^tXavCjOWTr/a,  and  the 
verb  ayctTraw,  which  expresses  regard  and  affection) 
is  much  more  than  natural  affection  and  philan 
thropy  ;  it  is  a  heavenly  flame,  kindled  by  God's 
redeeming  love,  the  crowning  gift  of  the  Spirit,  the 
surest  test  of  Christian  character,  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law,  the  bond  of  perfectness,  and  the  fountain 
of  bliss  —  a  worthy  theme  for  the  seraphic  descrip 
tion  of  the  inspired  Paul.  Hope  (i\-tc)  rises  from 
the  sphere  of  uncertain  expectation  and  desire  for 
future  prosperity  to  the  certain  assurance  of  the 
final  consummation  of  salvation  and  never-ending 
happiness  in  heaven.  The  Greek  terms  for  humility 
—tivofypwv,  Tcnrsivofypoavvri,  ra7rai>or»)Cj 
)  designate  to  the  proud  heathen  meanness 
and  baseness  of  mind,  but  in  the  New  Testament  a 
fundamental  Christian  virtue.  Conversion  (jufravota) 
signifies  not  simply  a  change  of  opinion,  or  even  a 
moral  reformation,  but  a  radical  transformation  of 
the  heart,  whereby  the  sinner  breaks  away  from  his 
former  life  and  surrenders  himself  to  the  service  of 
God.  The  words  holy  and  holiness  (aytoe,  ayia£w, 
aytaajuo£,  ayfwann'rj),  whether  applied  to  God  or  man, 
rise  as  far  above  the  cognate  terms  of  secular  Greek 
(ayvoc,  <T£/iV(>f-,  oatoc,  lepnt;)  as  the  God  of  the  Bible 
rises  above  the  gods  of  Homer,  and  a  Christian  saint 
above  a  Greek  sage. 

The  purifying,  spiritualizing,  and  elevating  influ 
ence  of  the  genius  of  Christianity  was  exerted 
through  the  Greek  and  Latin  upon  all  other  lan 
guages  into  which  the  gospel  is  translated.1  It  per- 

1  For  the  influence  of  Christianity  on  the  Teutonic  language,  see 


42         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

vades  the  whole  moral  and  religious  vocabulary.  It 
meets  us  in  every  inscription  and  salutation  of  the 
apostolic  letters.  The  formula  of  greeting,  "  Mercy 
and  peace  be  unto  you,"  transforms  the  idea  of 
physical  health  and  temporal  happiness,  as  conveyed 
in  the  Greek  -^aipnv  and  the  Hebrew  skalom  lecha, 
into  the  idea  of  spiritual  and  eternal  welfare,  so  that 
X«j°'C  and  ilpi'ivri  comprehend  the  blessings,  objec 
tive  and  subjective,  of  the  Christian  salvation.  Yet 
Aristotle's  definition  of  \api£  (which  usually  means 
gracefulness  in  form  or  manner,  also  favor,  good 
will)  is  not  far  from  the  Christian  conception  when 
he  lays  the  whole  emphasis  on  the  disinterested 
motive  of  the  giver  without  expectation  or  hope  of 
return.1  Language  is  in  some  measure  prophetic, 
and  the  first  and  lower  meaning  of  words  often 
points  to  a  higher  spiritual  meaning;  as  the  whole 
realm  of  nature  points  to  the  truths  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  The  parables  of  our  Lord  are  based 
upon  this  typical  correspondence. 

For  the  proper  understanding  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  in  the  fulness  of  its  religious  meaning,  much 

Rudolph  von  Raumer,  Die  Einwirkung  des  Christenilmms  (wf  die  althoch- 
deutsche  /Sprache  (Stuttgart,  1845).  German  and  English  words  which 
refer  to  the  external  aspect  of  the  church  are  borrowed  from  the  Greek  or 
Latin,  as  Kirche,  church  (KvpiaKov),  Bischof,  bishop  (f-Tn'rrKOTrof;),  Priesler, 
priest  (:T|0£(T/3t'rfpot;),  Almosen,  alms  (i\ti]iio<jvvi]),  Predigt,  preaching 
(prcedicatio*) ;  but  terms  which  express  the  inner  life  of  religion  are 
originally  German  or  Saxon,  and  impregnated  with  a  far  deeper  meaning; 
as  Jleiland  (Heliand),  Ileil,  Erlosung^  Bekehrunrj,  Wiederyeburt,  Glaube, 
Liebc,  JJoffnunrj,  Ilimmel:  atonement,  new  birth,  love,  hope,  heaven. 

1  Rhet.  ii.  7,  quoted  bv  Trench  (p.  252),  who  says,  "  the  freeness  of  the 
outcomings  of  God's  love  is  the  central  point  of  xf'Pl£"  comp.  Rom.  iii.  24 
ry  avrov  %dpiTi)  and  other  passages. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         43 

more  is  required  than  mere  knowledge  of  the  lan 
guage.  The  most  extensive  and  thorough  familiar 
ity  with  Greek,  Hebrew,  and  Roman  literature  is 
unable  to  penetrate  from  the  surface  of  the  letter 
to  the  depth  of  the  spirit  without  sympathy  with 
the  lofty  and  heavenly  ideas  of  that  book.  Philo 
logical  exegesis  is  the  necessary  basis,  but  only  the 
basis,  of  theological  and  religious  exposition  which 
requires  faith  and  spiritual  insight.  The  gram 
matical  sense  is  but  one  —  definite,  specific  ;  the 
spiritual  sense  is  as  high  and  deep  and  infinite  as 
the  truth  which  the  word  feebly  indicates,  and  the 
application  of  the  truth  is  universal  for  all  time. 
It  is  as  true  to-day  as  it  was  in  the  da_ys  of  Paul  that 
"the  natural  man"  (^VXIKOCJ  aV^wTroc),  who  is  guid 
ed  only  by  the  light  of  reason  (though  he  may  not 
be  (TapuKoe),  "receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  ;  and  he 
cannot  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually 
judged."  ' 


The  general  unity  of  language  admits  of  great 
variety  of  style.     Every  man  has  his  style,  and  "  the 

1  Or,  examined,  Tri'iv/jartKuiQ  draicpu'erai,  1  Cor.  ii.  14. 

2  On  tliis  subject  the  following  works  may  be  consulted :   Christoph 
Gotthelf  Gersdorf,  Beitraye,  zur  Sprach-Charakteristik  tier  Schriftsteller 
des  N.  Ttst.  (Leipz.  1816  ;  only  the  first  part  published).     This  work  was 
suggested  by  Griesbach,  and  opened  the  way  for  this  kind  of  investigation. 
T.  G.  Seyffarth,  Beitrag  zur  Spccial-Characteristik  der  Johann.  Schriften 
(Leipz.  1823).     Credner,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  vol.  i.  (Halle,  1836).    Wilke, 
Der  Urevangelist  (Dresden  and  Leipzig,  1838),  NeutestamentL  Rhetorik 
(1843),  and  Hermcneutik  des  N.  T.  (Leipzig,  1843-44,  2  Parts).     Luthardt, 


44         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

style  is  the  man/'  The  apostolic  writers  were  guided 
by  the  same  Spirit,  but  in  accordance  with  their  pe 
culiarities  of  temper,  mode  of  thought,  and  speech. 
Divine  grace  purifies,  elevates,  and  sanctities  nature, 
and  is  destructive  only  to  sin  and  error.  A  gentle 
man  is  the  perfection  of  a  man ;  a  Christian  is  the 
perfection  of  a  gentleman.  !N"o  two  human  beings 
are  precisely  alike ;  every  one  is  a  microcosmos,  has 
his  individuality  more  or  less  marked,  and  his  special 
work  more  or  less  important,  though  many,  alas,  fail 
to  perceive  and  to  perform  it.  There  are  different 
types  of  apostolic  teaching,  and  different  styles  of 
apostolic  writing  to  suit  different  tastes,  objects,  and 
classes  of  readers. 

The  idiosyncrasies  of  the  sacred  writers  have  been 
more  or  less  felt  from  the  beginning,  and  incidentally 
pointed  out  by  Irenseus,  Jerome,  Augustin,  Chrys- 
ostom,  Luther,  Calvin,  and  other  great  biblical  scliol- 

J)as  Johann.  Evany,  (revised  cd.  1875;  Engl.  translation  by  Gregory, 
Edinb.  187G,  vol.  i.  pp.  20-G3).  Westcott,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels 
(Lond.  and  Cambr.  I860;  Gth  ed.  1881;  Amer.  ed.  by  Ilackett,  Boston, 
18G2,  pp.  264  sqq.).  Iloltzraann,  Die  Synopt.  Evangelien  (Leipz.  18G3, 
pp.  271-358).  Holtzmann,  on  the  Ephesians  and  Colossinns  (Leipz.  1872), 
and  on  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (ibid.  1880,  pp.  84-117),  where  the  linguistic 
peculiarities  and  hepax  legomena  of  Ephesians  and  Pastoral  Epistles  are 
investigated  for  the  purpose  of  proving  their  un-Pauline  character.  The 
two  critical  works  of  Weiss  on  Marie  and  Matthew  (1872  and  1876).  Im- 
mer,  Hermeneutics  of  the  N.  Test.,  translated  by  A.  H.  Newman  (Andover, 
1877,  pp.  132-144).  Scholten,  Das  Faulinische  Evangelium,  translated 
from  the  Dutch  by  Redepenning  (Elberf.  1881,  pp.  18,  31,  87,  188  sqq.). 
Scholten  is  all  wrong  in  ascribing  Luke's  Gospel  and  the  Acts  to  two  dif 
ferent  authors— the  first  to  a  polemical,  the  second  to  an  irenical  Paulinist 
—and  in  assuming  a  proto-Luke  which  preceded  the  canonical  Luke. 
I  have  found  Holtzmann  on  the  Synoptists  and  Luthardt  on  John  very 
helpful. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         45 

ars;  but  a  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  pre 
vented  an  unbiased  examination  of  the  subject  till 
the  nineteenth  century.  Our  English  version  here 
errs  in  two  opposite  directions:  by  its  vicious  prin 
ciple  of  variation  it  unnecessarily  increases  the 
verbal  differences  of  the  writers ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  obscures  and  obliterates  characteristic  pecu 
liarities  by  using  the  same  English  term  for  differ 
ent  Greek  words.  It  is  one  of  the  chief  merits  of 
the  revision  of  1881,  that  it  introduces  consistency 
of  rendering. 

It  is  the  strength  and  merit  of  rationalism  (whether 
German,  Dutch,  French,  or  English)  to  investigate 
the  human  character  and  history  of  the  Bible ;  it  is 
its  weakness  and  error  to  ignore  or  undervalue  its 
divine  character  and  history.  It  takes  its  stand 
outside  of  the  Bible,  and  treats  it  like  any  other 
book  of  antiquity  from  a  purely  critical  standpoint. 
It  denies  its  sanctity  in  order  to  subject  it  to  a  heart 
less  process  of  anatomical  dissection.  It  handles 
the  disjointed  members,  but  the  life  and  spirit  has 
escaped  ;  as  Goethe  says  of  the  logician  : 

" Er  hat  die  The'de  in  seiner  Hand, 
Fehlt  leider  nur  das  geistiye  Band.'1 

Rationalism  lias  a  keen  eye  for  all  the  diversities 
of  thought  and  style  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists, 
but  is  blind  to  the  underlying  unity  and  harmony. 
It  stretches  the  differences  between  the  Synoptists 
and  John,  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  the  Apocalypse,  Galatians  and  Acts,  between 
James  and  Paul,  Peter  and  Paul,  Paul  and  John, 
into  irreconcilable  contradictions,  and  thus  tends  to 


4:6         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

destroy  all  confidence  in  the  divine  origin  and  au 
thority  of  the  New  Testament. 

But,  fortunately,  this  is  only  the  negative  part  of 
the  process.  Whether  willing  or  unwilling,  ration 
alism  contributes  to  a  better  understanding  and 
deeper  appreciation  of  that  old  and  ever  new  Book 
of  books,  in  which,  as  Ileinrich  Ewald  once  said,  "is 
contained  the  wisdom  of  the  whole  world."  Ex 
treme  theories  and  errors  are  refuted  one  after 
another  by  the  different  schools  of  rationalism,  and 
the  sacred  writers  come  out  of  the  fire  of  critical 
purgatory  unsinged,  and  with  a  stronger  claim  than 
ever  upon  the  intelligent  reverence  and  faith  of  the 
Christian  world.  A  profounder  search  from  the 
surface  to  the  deep  discovers  unity  in  diversity, 
concord  in  discord,  a  divine  spirit  animating  the 
human  body,  and  sees  in  the  very  variety  of  the 
sacred  writers  only  the  manifold  wisdom  and  grace 
of  God.1 

The  sinless  perfection  of  Christ's  humanity  is  the 
best  proof  of  his  divinity,  and  brings  his  divinity 
nearer  and  makes  it  dearer  to  the  heart  of  the  be 
liever.  What  is  true  of  the  personal  Word  may  be 
applied  to  the  written  wrord, 

"Jesus,  divincst  when  Thou  most  art  man." 
MATTHEW. 

Matthew  wrote  a  Gospel  first  in  Hebrew  for 
Hebrews.  But  the  Greek  Gospel  under  his  name 
is  a  free  reproduction  and  substitution  rather  than 

1  Eph.  iii.  10.  TroAi'TTonciAoc  (rotyia   TOV   $eoi',  1  Pet.  iv.  10, 
Seov.     Com  p.  Rom.  xii. ;  1  Cor.  xii.-xiv. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.          47 

a  translation.1  No  independent  author  would  liter 
ally  translate  himself.  The  originality  of  the  canon 
ical  Matthew  is  evident  from  the  discrimination  in 
Old  Testament  quotations  which  are  freely  taken 
from  the  Septuagint  in  the  course  of  the  narrative, 
but  adapted  to  the  Hebrew  when  they  contain  im 
portant  Messianic  prophecies.2  It  appears  also  from 
his  use  of  words  and  phrases  which  have  no  equiva 
lent  in  Hebrew,  as  the  paronomasia  of  purest  Demos- 
thenian  Greek:  KCIKOU?  KUKWC,-  (pessimos  pessime) 
oTroAtcra  avrovr,  "  Those  wretches  he  will  wretchedly 
destroy"  (xxi/41).3 

Matthew's  style  is  simple,  calm,  dignified,  even 
majestic.  He  Hebraizes,  but  less  than  Mark  and 
the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke.  He  is  less  vivid  and 
picturesque  than  Mark,  more  even  and  uniform  than 
Luke,  who  varies  in  expression  with  his  sources. 

1  The  ancient  witnesses,  from  Papias  to  Euscbius  and  Jerome,  agree 
both  in  ascribing  to  Matthew  a  Hebrew  gospel,  and  in  accepting  the 
Greek  Matthew  of  our  canon  whenever  they  mention  it  as  the  work  of 
an  apostle  without  any  doubt  of  its  genuineness. 

2  This  distinction  has  been  first  observed  by  Credner  and  Blcek,  and 
further   examined    and   accepted   by   Holtzmann  (Die  Synopt.  Evany. 
p.  259),  Ritschl,  and  Westcott.     From  this  fact  we  must  infer  that  the 
author  was  a  Jew  well  acquainted  both  with  the  Hebrew  Bible  and  the 
Septuagint. 

3  Or,  as  the  E.  Rev.  renders  the  Greek,  "  He  will  miserably  destroy 
those  miserable  men."     The  E.  V.  obliterates  the  paronomasia  which 
brings  out  the  agreement  of  the  punishment  with  the  deed.     Other  ren 
derings:  "The  naughty  men  he  will  bring  to  naught"  (Rheims  V.); 
malos  male  perdet  (Vulgate) ;  iibel  wird  er  die  UMen  vernichten  (Ewald) ; 
schlimm  wird  er  die  Schlimmen  umbringen  (Lange).    Other  paronomasias : 
vi.  16,  a.<f>aviZ,ovaiv  TU  TrpoawTra  ctvruiv  OTTMQ  (pavwffiv  rolg  ctvSpw^ 
TTOIQ  ri](FTtvovT£c,  "  they  disfigure  their  faces  that  they  may  figure  as 
men  fasting ;"  vi.  7,  /3arroXoye< v  and 


48         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

He  lias  a  preference  for  rubrical  arrangement,  prob 
ably  in  accordance  with  bis  previous  habits  of  book 
keeping  at  the  custom-house.  lie  gives  headings  to 
some  of  his  sections,  as  B//3Xoc  ytviatMQ  'Irjaou  Xpi- 
arov  (i.  1-18,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  Scplier 
tJtoJedoth  ;  comp.  Gen.  v.  1 ;  ii.  4),  Twi/  §w§Etca  «TTO- 
orroAwv  T«  ovojaara  lanv  ravra  (x.  2).  He  pays  most 
attention  to  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  and  strings 
them  together  like  so  many  precious  jewels ;  one 
weighty  sentence  follows  another  till  the  effect  is 
overwhelming.1  His  Gospel  is  eminently  didactic, 
and  in  this  respect  quite  different  from  that  of 
Mark,  which  deals  more  with  facts  and  incidents. 
lie  alone  uses  the  term  "the  kingdom  of  heaven" 
(i]  jSaaiXc/a  TMV  ovpavuv,  thirty-two  times);  while 
the  other  evangelists  and  Paul  speak  of  "the  king 
dom  of  God"  (fi  fiaviXtia  TOV  Stov).  With  this  cor 
responds  his  designation  of  God  as  "  the  heavenly 
Father"  (o  7rar/)/>  o  ovpaviog,  or  6  ti>  ro?£  ovpavofci)? 
lie  lias  a  peculiar  formula  of  citing  Messianic  pas 
sages,  tVa  ( or  OTTWC  )  7r\r]pw^y  TO  jorj3"f  v,  or  rore 
tn-\r]fjw^r]  TO  fasti',  which  occurs  twelve  times  in  his 
Gospel,3  but  only  once  in  Mark,4  seven  times  in  John,5 


1  Chs.  v.-vii.;  x. ;  xiii. ;  xxiii.;  xxiv. ;  and  xxv. 

2  v.  1G,  45,  48;  vi.  1,  9.  14,  26,  32;  vii.  11,  21 ;  x.  32,  33;  xv.  13;  xvi. 
17;  xviii.  14,  19,  35. 

3  i.  22;  ii.  15,  17,  23;  iv.  14;  viii.  17;  xii.  17;  xiii.  35;  xxi.  4;  xxvi. 
56  (iu  the  plural,  'ii>a  TrXiipwSuJcriv  at  ypafyai} ;  xxvii.  9. 

4  Mark  xiv.  49,  i'j/a  TrXqpwSujaiv  at  -ypa^al.     The  passage  xv.  28. 
k7r\i]pM$rj  ?'/  ypa<f>i}  ij  \syovffct,  is  omitted  by  critical  editors  on  the  author 
ity  of  XBC*,  etc.,  as  a  probable  insertion  from  Luke  xxii.  37. 

5  xii.  38;  xiii.  18;  xv.  25;  xvii.  12;  xviii.  9;  xix.  24,  26;  besides  a 
passage  without  iVa,  xviii.  32. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


and  nowhere  in  Luke.1  He  uses  rore  ninety-one 
times  (Mark  only  six  times,  Luke  fourteen  times). 
Matthew  alone  calls  Jerusalem  "  the  holy  city,"  and 
a  "  city  of  the  Great  King."  2  This  is  one  of  the 
indications  that  his  Gospel  was  written  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  (A.D.  70),  which  is  fore 
told  in  the  eschatological  discourses  of  our  Lord 
(ch.  xxiv.)  as  &  future,  though  fast-approaching  judg 
ment,  without  the  least  hint  of  the  evangelist  at  the 
striking  fulfilment;  while  yet  he  is  very  particular 
in  marking  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophecies. 

WORDS  PECULIAR  TO  MATTHEW,  and  not  found 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  They  number 
about  seventy,  as  I  collected  them  from  the  con 
cordances  of  Bruder  and  Hudson  : 


oyyaor,  vessel,  xxv.  4. 

ayyoc  (plur.  ayy?j),  vessel,  xiii.  48 

(Tisch.,Treg.,W.andH.). 
ajKivrpov,  hook,  xvii.  27. 
aijom'^w,  to  choose,  xii.  18. 
aK[ifiv,  yet,  xv.  16. 
dvctj3i[3tt'£(jj,  to  draw,  xiii.  48. 
dvainoc;,  guiltless,  xii.  5,  7. 
tt7rayx<>jwa»,    to    hang    one's    self, 

xxvii.  5. 

o^m,  to  wash,  xxvii.  24. 
very    precious,    xxvi. 

fig,  tormentor,  xviii.  34. 


/3arroXoy«w,  to  use  vain  repetitions, 

vi.  7. 

/3iaor»7£,  violent,  xi.  12. 
cftu'a,  such  a  man,  xxvi.  18. 
8iciKu>\vw,  to  hinder,  iii.  14. 
£<«XXarrojuo(,  to  be  reconciled,  v.  24. 
tUrt<T«0£w,  to  explain,  to  tell,  xiii. 

36;  xviii.  31. 
£i££o<5og,  with  TMV  oPtiv,  highway, 

xxii.  9. 

SitrrjQ,  two  years  old,  ii.  16. 
c*i0r«£u»,  to  doubt,  xiv.  31;  xxviii. 

17. 
£iv\i%ii),  to  strain  out,  xxiii.  24.   (To 


1  Except  the  somewhat  similar  phrase,  TO 
iv  i/jioi,  xxii.  37. 

8  ?'/  ay/a  TroXic?  iv.  5 ;  xxvii.  53 ;  7roXt£  row  /ifyaXov  /SaatXt'wf;,  v.  35. 
The  temple  or  the  hill  of  Moriah  is  called  -oTrot;  «ytoc,  xxiv.  15. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


strain  at  in  the  E.  V.  is  a  typo 
graphical  error  perpetuated). 
X«£w,  to  set  at  variance,  x.  35. 
cof.tr]KovrciKi^,    seventy     times, 
xviii.  22. 

gjOcrie,  resurrection,  xxvii.  53. 
viKoc i  heathen,  v.  47  (correct  read 
ing  for  T-iXwy//r);  vi.  7;  xviii.  17 
(the  plural  occurs  once  in  3  John, 
ver.  7,  and  the  adverb  t^rucwc,'  in 
Gal.  ii.  1-4). 

ioi;,  peacemaker,  v.  9. 
,  to  shine  forth,  xiii.  43. 
,  to  adjure,  xxvi.  63. 
ptiHo,  to  intermarry,  to  mar 
ry  a  brother's  widow  (with  refer 
ence  to  levirate  marriage,  accord 
ing  to  Jewish  law),  xxii.  24. 

tw,  to  forswear  one's  self,  v.  33. 
ipM,  to  sow  among,  xiii.  25. 
,  to  agree,  v.  25. 
xi^dj,  to  make  a  eunuch,  xix. 
12;  iuvou%i%£iv  iavrov,  to  make 
one's  self  a  eunuch,  i.  e.  to  live  in 
voluntary  celibacy  and  abstinence, 
xix. 12.  " 

c,  broad,  vii.  13. 
g,  wonderful,  xxi.  15. 
),  to  be  wroth,  ii.  10. 
jot,  v.  18. 

i^at,  to  curse,  xxvi.  74. 
vd),  to  consider,  vi.  28. 
KaTct7rovT(%a>,  Mid.  or  Pass.,  to  sink, 
xiv.  30 ;  to  be  drowned,  xviii.  G. 
K/J-of,  whale,  xii.  40. 
KovtrrwCia,  watch,   xxvii.   65,   66; 

xxviii.  11. 

Kwvwty,  gnat,  xxiii.  24. 
/ittXadrt,  disease,  iv.  23:  ix.  35;  x.  1. 
/utXtoj',  mile,  v.  41. 

tiw,  to  hire,  xx.  1,  7. 


Xwv  (jUuXoe),  mill,  xxiv.  41  (but 
see  Rev.  xviii.  22,  0wy/}  pvXov). 
dafiwg,  by  no  means,  ii.  6. 
euw,  entangle,  xxii.  15. 
Xiyy£^€(7('rt,   restitution,   xix.  28 
(also  in  Tit.  iii.  5,  but  in  a  differ 
ent  sense,  regeneration  of  the  in 
dividual  by  the  Holy  Spirit). 
pciKovw,  neglect  to  hear,  xviii.  17 
(add  Mark  v.  36  for  fiKouw). 
po/Jioid^dJ  (o^uoia£o>),  to  be  like 
unto,  xxiii.  27. 

ic,  platter,  xxiii.  25.  26. 
uc,  wide,  vii.  13. 

7roXwXoy/rt,  much  speaking,  vi.  7. 

7rpo03oj'w,  to  anticipate,  xvii.  25. 

TTVppdZw,  to  be  red,  xvi.  2.  3. 

paTriZw,  to  smite  with  the  palm  of 
the  hand,  v.  39;  xxvi.  67. 

ffayrjvij,  net,  xiii.  47. 

crgXj/vfrtsGyUtti,  to  be  lunatic  (epilep 
tic),  iv.  24;  xvii.  15. 

(rmoToc;  (from  airoe,  grain),  fatted, 
plur.  TO.  (nriaTct,  fallings,  xxii.  4. 

avvdvrrjffic,  with  f/f,  to  meet,  viii. 
34.  L.,  Tr.,  W.  and  II.  read  VTTCLV- 
rt]tnc,  meeting ;  which  occurs 
also  in  xxv.  1 ;  John  xii.  13. 

(Tvvav£,dvw  (Mid.),  to  grow  together, 
xiii.  30. 

raXavTov,  talent,  xviii.  24 ;   xxv. 
15,  16,  20,  22,  24.  25,  28. 
ii,  death,  ii.  15. 

c:,  exchanger,  xxv.  27. 
inrrj^a,  eye  of  a  needle  (/.  q.  rp7]- 
fj.a,  Luke  xviii.  25),  xix.  24. 
(Pass.),  to  smoke,  xii.  20. 

0pa£<u,  to  declare,  xiii.  36  (dtaaa- 
0£w) ;  xv.  15. 

0i>re<'«,  plant,  xv.  13. 

\\afivc,  robe,  xxvii.  28,  31. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.         51 


MARK. 

Mark's  Greek  is  perhaps  the  poorest,  judged  by  a 
classical  standard,  but  it  has  a  peculiar  vivacity  and 
freshness  which  prove  his  originality  and  indepen 
dence.  The  judgment  of  St.  Augustin,  Griesbach, 
and  Baur,  that  he  was  a  mere  abbreviator  of  Matthew, 
or  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  has  been  thoroughly 
reversed  by  modern  research.1 

Mark,  the  companion  and  "interpreter"  of  Peter, 
faithfully  recorded,  "  without  omission  or  misrepre 
sentation  "  (as  Papias  says),  the  preaching  of  Peter, 
and  reflects  his  first  observations  and  impressions. 
There  was  a  natural  sympathy  between  the  teacher 
and  the  pupil.  Both  had  a  sanguine  temperament 
and  a  gift  of  quick  observation  ;  both  were  fresh 
and  enthusiastic,  but  liable  to  sudden  changes ;  both 
erred  and  recovered — Peter  in  denying,  and  again 
laboring  and  dying  for  Christ ;  Mark  in  running 
away  in  his  youth  at  the  betrayal,  and  leaving  Paul 
on  his  first  mission  tour,  but  returning  to  him  as  a 
useful  companion,  and  faithfully  serving  Peter,  who 
calls  him  his  "  son."  Both  had  a  restless  energy 
which  urged  them  on  to  preach  the  Gospel  from 
place  to  place  and  land  to  land  till  they  reached 
Rome,  the  centre  of  the  world.  They  were  men  of 
action  rather  than  thought,  practical  workers  rather 
than  contemplative  divines. 

Mark  records  few  of  the  speeches  of  our  Lord, 
and  dwells  chiefly  on  his  works,  selecting  those  which 

1  Especially  by  Weisse,  Wilke,  Holtzmann,  Ewald,  Weiss. 


52        THE   LANGUAGE   OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 

excite  astonishment  and  amazement,  and  would  ap 
peal  with  peculiar  force  to  the  Roman  mind,  so  fond 
of  displays  of  conquering  power.  In  this  respect 
Mark  is  the  very  reverse  of  Matthew. 

Mark  is  brief  and  sketchy,  but  has  a  number  of 
graphic  touches,  not  found  in  the  other  evangelists, 
which  give  vividness  to  the  scene,  as  i.  13  ("he  was 
with  the  wild  beasts  ")  ;  ii.  2  ("  there  was  no  longer 
room  for  them,  no,  not  even  about  the  door");  iii. 
10  ("  they  pressed  upon  him  ")  ;  iii.  20  ("  they  could 
not  so  much  as  eat  oread");  iv.  37;  v.  3,  4.  He  is 
fond  of  pictorial  participles,  as  ova/SXt^a 


a7roaT£vo£«c.  He  expresses  the  emo- 
tions  of  astonishment  by  a  reduplication  of  the 
questions  and  by  exclamations.  He  quotes  words 
and  phrases  in  the  original  Aramaic,  as  Talitka,Jcumi9 
Ephphatliali,  and  Eloi,  Eloi.  He  characterizes  the 
acting  persons  by  names,  relations,  company,  or  situ 
ation.  He  repeats  again  and  again  the  adverb  yb^A- 
withi  straightway  (si^lwc,  or  cuS-up),  which  is  char 
acteristic  of  the  rapidity  and  rushing  energy  of  his 
movement.  This  word  occurs  more  frequently  in 
his  Gospel  than  in  all  the  other  Gospels  combined, 
and  may  be  called  his  motto,  like  the  American 
"  Go  ahead  !"  With  this  is  connected  his  prefer 
ence  for  the  historical  present.  He  loves  affection 
ate  diminutives,  as  iraiS'iov  (little  child),  Kopaaiov 
(damsel),  Kwapiov  (little  dog),  Zvyarpiov  (little 
daughter),  iTfivStov  (small  fish),  wrapiov  (little  ear). 
He  uses  several  Latin  terms,  as  ^'a-jjc  (sextarius,  a 
measure),  KtvTvpiwv  (centurio),  KTIVGOG  (census), 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


rttip  (speculator,  a  pikeman),  and  the  Latin 
phrases  ta^arM^  ^\flv  (*'n  0%tremis  esse,  to  be  at  the 
point  of  death,  v.  23),  and  TO  IKUVOV  iroisiv  (satisfa- 
cere,  to  make  satisfaction,  xv.  15).  This  is  all  the 
more  natural  if  lie  wrote  in  Rome  for  Romans,  as 
the  ancient  tradition  uniformly  affirms;  bnt  most 
of  these  Latinisms  occur  also  in  Matthew  and  Luke, 
and  even  in  the  Talmud. 

PECULIAR  WORDS   OF  MARK,  not  occurring   else 
where  in  the  Xe\v  Test,  (forty-five) : 


ayptveiv,  to  catch,  xii.  13. 

f  ,  dumb,  vii.  37  ;  ix.  17,  25. 

ia,  cockcrowing,   xiii. 
35. 

ai/aAoe,  saltless,  insipid,  ix.  50. 
,  to  leap  up,  x.  50. 

,  to  sigh  deeply,  viii. 


12. 

CITTO 


,  from  far,  viii.  3. 
going  abroad,  xiii.  34. 

,  to  uncover,  ii.  4. 
cuppifeiv,  to  foam,  ix.  18,  20. 
yajui<T/c«v,togiveinmarriage,xii.25. 
(Tisch.,  W.  and  H.  read  y«jut£ov- 
rai  for  the  text,rec.ya/it<m>jTai.) 
yvafavg,  fuller,  ix.  3. 

,  two  thousand,  v.  13. 
,  hard,  x.  24.     The  adverb 
cvaicu\ioQ  (hardly,  with  difficulty) 
occurs  once  in  all  the  Synoptists, 
in  the  discourse  of  Christ  on  the 
difficulty  for  rich  men  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God  (Matt.  xix.  23  ; 
Mark  x.  23  ;  Luke  xviii.  24). 
vdffi^oQ,  deadly,  xvi.  18. 
Kara  a£,  one  by  one,  xiv.  19. 
(This  occurs  also  in  the  disputed 


passage,  John  viii.  9,  and  'iv  KCC&' 
tv  in  Rev.  iv.  8.) 
ej',  then,  iv.  28. 

3a/i/3B<r3at,  to  be  greatly  amazed, 
ix.  15;  xiv.  33;  xvi.  5,  G. 
ayKa\i%eff$ai,  to   take   in    one's 
arms,  ix.  36  ;  x.  16. 
eiXt  w,  to  wrap  in,  xv.  4G. 

,  in  the  night,  i.  35. 
t^c'nriva,  suddenly,  ix.  8. 

6w,  to  set  at  naught,  ix.  12. 

,  from  without,  vii.  15,  18. 


iirippd7rT(t),  to  sew  on,  21. 

»cw/i07roXi£,  town,  i.  38. 

piSopia,  border,  vii.  24.  (But  Tisch., 

Treg.,  W.  and  H.  read  TO.  opta.) 
juoytXaXoc,  having  an  impediment 

in  his  speech,  vii.  32. 
vovvtxwc;,  discreetly,  xii.  34. 
Trpaatai  irpaaiai,  in  ranks,  vi.  40. 
7rpojj.tpinvav,  to  take  thought  be 

forehand,  xiii.  11. 

TrpoffcififlciTov,  Sabbath-eve,  xv.  42. 
TrpoffKi  (j)d\aiov,  cushion,  iv.  38. 
7T|00(70jO/i«^£(T^ai,   to    draw    to   the 

shore,  vi.  63. 


54         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


, with  the  fist  (up  to  the  elbow), 
K.  V.  diligently,  A.  V.  oft,  vii.  3. 
i&iv,  mingle  with  myrrh,  xv. 


23. 


,  a  soldier  of  the  guard, 


v. 


fictQ  ,  twig,  XI.  8. 

'SXifitiv,  to  throng,  v.  24,  31. 


,  clearly,  viii.  25. 

;,  beyond  measure,  vii. 


37. 
vTro\i}viov,  wine-vat,  the  under-vat 

of  a  wine-press,  into  which  the 

juice  of  the  grapes  flowed,  xii.  1. 

\Kioj'y  brazen  vessel,  vii.  4. 
(jjTapioi>,  ear.  xiv.  47. 


LUKE. 

Luke  is  the  most  literary  among  the  evangelists.1 
He  was  evidently  a  man  of  considerable  education, 
and  a  congenial  companion  of  Paul,  the  scholar 
among  the  apostles.  He  was  as  admirably  suited 
for  Paul  as  Mark  was  for  Peter.  He  pays  regard 
to  contemporary  secular  history,  refers  to  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Herod ian  family,  the  emperors  Augustus, 
Tiberius,  Claudius,  the  census  of  the  Syrian  gov 
ernor  Quirinius,  the  procurators  Felix  and  Festus, 
and  furnishes  us  the  key  for  several  important 
chronological  dates. 

He  was  a  physician  (Col.  iv.  14).  His  medical 
vocabulary  in  the  accounts  of  miracles  of  healing, 
and  throughout  the  general  narrative,  shows  famil 
iarity  with  the  ancient  medical  writers,  or  at  all 
events  agrees  with  technical  usage.2 

1  Renan  (Les  Evangiles,  p.  232):  "  UEvangile  de  Luc  est  le  plus  litteraire 
des  Evanrjilcs"    He  also  calls  it  "  le  f)lus  beau  livre  qu'il  y  ait "  (p.  283).    He 
admires  the  classic  style,  the  joyful  tone,  and  charming  poetry  of  the  book. 

2  Rev.  W.  K.  Hobart,  LL.D.,  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  has  published  a 
work  on  The  Medical  Language  of  Sf.  Luke  (Dublin  University  Press.  1882, 
305  pages),  in  which  he  proves,  from  internal  evidence,  that  "the  Gospel 
according  to  St.  Luke  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  written  by  the  same 
person,  and  that  the  writer  was  a  medical  man."     For  this  purpose  over 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         55 

He  is  equally  familiar  with  nautical  terms,  which 
are  correct  without  being  strictly  technical.  His 
account  of  the  voyage  and  shipwreck  of  Paul  in  the 
last  two  chapters  of  Acts,  according  to  the  testi 
mony  of  experts,  gives  us  fuller  and  more  accurate 
information  about  ancient  navigation  than  any  other 
single  document  of  antiquity.1 

Luke's  style  varies  considerably.  Where  he  writes 
independently,  he  uses  the  best  language.  The  brief 
historiographic  preface  to  his  Gospel — the  only  one 
in  the  Gospels — is  a  period  of  purest  Greek,  and 
admired  for  its  grace,  modesty,  and  dignity.  It  may 
be  favorably  compared  with  the  prefaces  of  Herod 
otus  and  Thucydides.  They  excel  alike  in  brevity, 
tact,  and  point;  but  the  anonymous  preface  of  the 
Evangelist  is  as  striking  for  its  modesty  and  love  of 
truth  as  the  prefaces  of  the  great  heathen  historians 
are  for  vanity  and  love  of  glory.2  In  the  second 

four  hundred  words  and  phrases,  for  the  most  part  peculiar  to  these  two 
books,  are  compared  with  the  use  of  the  same  words  and  phrases  in 
Hippocrates,  Aretseus,  Dioscorides,  and  Galen. 

1  See  .Tames  Smith,  The  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul,  4th  ed.  1880 
(revised  hy  Walter  E.  Smith,  with  a  Preface  by  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Carlisle);  the  respective  chapters  in  the  biographical  works  of  Conybeare 
and  Ilowson,  Lewin,  and  Farrar,  on  St.  Paul;  and  the  commentaries  of 
Ilackett,  Lechler,  Howson  and  Spence,  and  others,  on  Ads,  ch.  xxvii.  and 
xxviii.     James  Smith,  of  Jordanhill,  Scotland  (b.  1782,  d.  18G7),  was  not 
a  professional  theologian,  but  a  commodore  of  the  Royal  Northern  Yacht 
Club,  and  familiar  by  long  residence  in  Gibraltar  and  Malta  with  naviga 
tion  in  the  Mediterranean.     His  book  is  a  classic  in  this  department,  and 
has  a  permanent  evidential  value. 

2  The  preface  of  Herodotus  has  nearly  the  same  number  of  words  (40) 
as  that  of  Luke  (42),  and  is  as  follows:  'Hpocorov  ' 

5e  '   wf  /Jirjrt  ~d  ytvop.f.ra  t%  dvSrpioTr 
///';-£  tpya  /ztyaXo  TS  Kai  SavfiaaTa,  ~d  ptv  "E\\i)<n  TCI 


56         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

part  of  the  Acts,  where  Luke  writes  as  an  eye 
witness,  lie  likewise  uses  pure  Greek.  But  where 
he  translates  from  the  Hebrew,  as  in  the  history  of 
the  infancy,  in  the  songs  of  Zachariah,  Mary,  and 
Simeon,  his  language  has-  a  strongly  Hebraizing 
and  highly  poetic  coloring.  This  proves  his  con 
scientious  fidelity.  The  greater  part  of  the  Gos 
pel  and  the  first  part  of  the  Acts  occupy  a  mid 
dle  position  between  classic  Greek  and  Hebrew 
Greek,  and  show  the  frequent  use  of  documentary 
sources. 

Among  the  minor  peculiarities  of  Luke,  as  com 
pared  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  we  may  mention 
the  following.  He  has  VOJKKOC  or  vo^o&Sadk-aXoe 
for  ypa[A[jiaTtv£,  TO  iiprjjun'ov  in  quotations  for  pri&ev, 
for  iip-i,  \ifj.vr]  of  the  lake  of  Galilee  for  ^aXao-o-a, 
for  o^/a.  He  frequently  uses  the  attraction 
of  the  relative  pronoun  and  the  participial  construc 
tion.  He  likes  the  word  \apa,  in  accordance  with 
the  spirit  of  cheerfulness  which  animates  his  books.1 
He  very  often  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  especially 
in  the  Acts,  which  may  be  called  the  History  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  apostolic  age  ;  and  he  alone  relates  the 
pentecostal  miracle.2 

There  is  a  striking  resemblance  between  the  spirit 
and  style  of  Luke  and  Paul.  They  agree  in  the  re- 


vvv 


,  d/cXta  yerjjrai,  TO.  re  aXXa  KCIL  Si  r} 

a\\Y)\Ol(Tl. 

1  Luke  i.  14  ;  ii.  10  ;  viii.  13  ;  x.  17  ;  xv.  7.  10  ;  xxiv.  41,  52  ;  Acts  viii.  8  ; 
xiii.  52  ;  xv.  3. 

2  Trvti'iia,  either  \vith  of  without  a'yior,  occurs  in  the  Acts  no  less  than 
fifty  times  (if  I  counted  right). 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         57 

port  of  the  words  of  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
They  are  fond  of  such  characteristic  words  as 

ci-ytov, 


Luke  has  the  richest  vocabulary  among  the  Sy- 
noptists.  The  total  number  of  words  in  his  Gospel 
is  19,209  ;  that  of  Matthew,  18,222  ;  that  of  Mark, 
11,158.  The  number  of  words  peculiar  to  Luke, 
and  not  found  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  is  12,969,  or 
26f  per  cent.  ;  that  of  Matthew,  10,363,  or  21  J  per 
cent.  ;  that  of  Mark,  4314,  or  9  per  cent.2  Luke's 
Gospel  has  55,  and  the  Acts  135  aira^  Xtyu/umta. 
The  number  of  words  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  which 
do  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  Greek  Testament  is 
about  180. 

WORDS  PECULIAR  TO  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE.  (It 
would  take  too  much  space  to  add  the  peculiar 
vocabulary  of  the  Acts.) 


dywvta,  agony,  xxii.  44. 


i,  arms,  ii.  28.  I  dvn/<5«a,  importunity,  xi.  8. 

aypa,  draught,  haul,  v.  4,  9.  ch'OTTTjpof,  maimed,  xiv.  13,  21. 

j,  to  abide  in  the  field,  ii.  8.     di/aTrruffcrw,  to  unroll,  to  open,  iv.  17 
(but    the    critical    editors    read 

at,  to  set  forth  in  order, 

,  to  speak  out,  i.  42. 
dvtK\ii7TTO£,  unfailing,  xii.  33. 
dvBvdeKTog,  impossible,  xvii.  1. 
di'Sro/j.o\oytof^at,  to  give  thanks,  ii. 
38. 


i,  to  perceive,  ix.  45. 
o£,  captive,  iv.  18  (19). 
,  stranger,  xvii.  18. 
,  recovery  of  sight,  iv. 


18. 


avddet%ic,  showing,  i.  80. 


,  gift,  xxi.  5  (di'd3e^a  oc 
curs  several  times  in  Paul). 


i.  1. 


1  See  a  long  list  of  parallel  passages  in  Holtzmann,  I.  c.  316  sqq. 

2  The  above  estimate  is  made  from  Tischendorfs  Greek  Testament,  as 
printed  in   Eushbrooke's   Synopticon  (1882).     See  my  Church  History, 
revised  ed.  1882,  vol.  i.  p.  596. 


58 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


rt/3aXXw,  to  cast  back  and  forth, 

to  exchange,  xxiv.  17. 

ctXto),  to  bid  again,  xiv.  12. 

,  completion,  with  tig,  to 

complete,  xiv.  28. 
a7Tfc\7n^w,  hope  for  again,  vi.  35. 
ciTToS-X/'/Soi,  to  press,  to  crowd,  viii. 

45. 

a7ro/c\6i'w,  to  shut,  xiii.  25. 
aTToXe/xw  (fcTTiXei'xw),  to  lick,  xvi. 

21. 

a7ro/,ia(T(Topai,  to  wipe  off,  x.  11. 
oTTOTrXwrw,  to  wash,  v.  2 ;  but  Tisch. 

(ed.  viii.)  reads  (with  X)  tTrXv- 

vav,  Lachm.  and  W.  and  II.  tTrXv- 

vov  (with  B).     See  Kcv.  vii.  14. 
cjTrorrro^ar/^w,  provoke   to   speak, 

xi.  53. 
cnro\^v\M    (cxpiro),   to   leave    off 

breathing,  to  faint,  xxi.  26  (comp. 

wffa  J'£/C|00<,  Matt,  xxviii.  4). 
ajO/YirfXwi'//c,  chief  among  the  pub 
licans,  xix.  2. 
«orp«-rw,  to  lighten,  to  flash,  xvii. 

24;  to  shine,  xxiv.  4. 
aawrwc,  riotously,  xv.  13. 
arejcrot-,  childless,  xx.  28,  29. 
auroTTT^c,  eye-witness,  i.  2. 
d(f>avTO£,  with  yn'o/iai,  to  vanish 

out  of  sight,  xxiv.  31. 
aippoc,  froth,  foam,  ix.  39. 
cttyvTrvou),  to  fall  asleep,  viii.  23. 
/3a3»;i'w,  to  deepen,  vi.  48. 
j3aX\ai>Tiov,  purse,  x.  4;   xii.  33; 

xxii.  35,  36. 
flapvi'oficu,  to  be  overcharged,  xxi. 

34. 
/3tXor?7,  needle,  xviii.  25. 

r),  a  cast,  a  throw,  xxii.  41. 
voQ,  hill,  iii.  5;  xxiii.  30. 
daj,  to  laugh,  vi.  21,  25. 


,  rng,  xv.      . 
/i6w  (text.  rec.  and  Lachmann), 
to  bind,  viii.  29.      Tisch.,  Treg., 
W.  H.  read   dtapEVM,  which    is 
also  used  by  Matthew  (xxiii.  4), 
and  Luke  in  Acts  xxii.  4. 
yoyyi'£w,  to  murmur,  xv.  2  ;  xix. 
7. 

XaXfw,  to  commune,  to  converse, 
i.  65;  vi.  11. 

,  to  cease,  vii.  45. 
£to,  to  divide,  xi.  17,  18;  xii. 
52,  53 ;  xxii.  17. 

oc,  division,  xii.  51. 
uw,  to  beckon,  i.  22. 

viavoi]/.ia,  thought,  xi.  17. 

Siai'vKTfptvu,  to  continue  all  night, 
vi.  12. 

^laTrpay/jarfvoficti,  to  gain  by  trad 
ing,  xix.  15. 

CiaGtiw,  to  shake  throughout,  to  do 
violence  to,  iii.  14. 

Ciarapaacno,  to  trouble,  i.  29. 

?ia(j>vXaaauj,  to  keep,  iv.  10. 

tU«YCt)i°'£0A'ai5  ^0  depart,  ix.  33. 

eU//y;7<Tj£,  narration,  i.  1. 

^°X*7>  feast,  v.  29 ;  xiv.  13. 

tyKaStTcg,  spy,  xx.  20. 

tyKvoc,  great  with  child,  ii.  5. 

tt>a</><£o>,  lay  even  with  the  ground, 
xix.  44. 

t3i'£w,  to  accustom;  pass.,  to  be  cus 
tomary,  ii.  27. 

iK/eo/u«£a»,  to  carry  out,  vii.  12. 

kK}JivKTi]piZ,(iJ,    to    deride,    xvi.    14; 
xxiii.  35. 

tKTtXtw,  to  finish,  xiv.  29,  30. 

fcK-/3«XXw,  with  £/(,-,  to  cast  into,  xii. 
5. 

t/c^wpsw,  to  depart  out,  xxi.  21. 

ivvivii),  to  make  signs  to.  i.  62. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


59 


i,  to  be  gathered  thick 
together,  xi.  29. 
kTreiCrjTrepj  forasmuch  as,  i.  1. 
tTTtloov,  to  look  on,  i.  25. 

),  to  give  sentence,  xxiii.  24. 
a),  for  a7ro\a'\;a;,tolick  over, 
xvi.  21 ;  see  a7ro\ci'^;w.) 
Tt^iiAwf ,  diligently,  xv.  8. 
mroptvonai,  with  Trpoc,  to  come 
to,  viii.  4. 

,  victuals,  ix.  12. 
l,  to  be  more  fierce,  xxiii.  5. 
to-37/tTif ,  garment,  xxiv.  4. 
t^airiofiai,  to  ask  for,  xxii.  31. 
tiittOTjoaTrrw,  to  glister,  ix.  29. 
fvQoptw,  to  bring  forth  plentifully, 

xii.  10. 

Jl/juSavTiG,  half  dead,  x.  30. 
Sopv(3dZ,w  (text.  rec.  Tvpj3d^w),  to 
confuse  by  noise,  to  disturb,  x.  41. 
SpauM,  to  bruise,  iv.  18. 

;,  large  drop,  xxii.  44. 
),  to  burn  incense,  i.  9. 
wf ,  sweat,  xxii.  44. 

»,  to  arm,  xi.  21. 
l^u),  to  cast  down  head 
long,  iv.  29. 
aTa\i3rd%u>,  to  stone,  xx,  G. 

iH*},  to  beckon  unto,  v.  7. 
,  to  arrive,  viii.  26. 
j,  to  drag,  xii.  58. 
w,  to  slaughter  down,  to 
slay,  xix.  27. 

,  to  cool,  xvi.  24. 
^  tiling,  v.  19. 
Kkpdriov,  husk,  carob-pod,  xv.  16. 
icXividiov,  couch,  v.  19,  24. 
Kopa.%,  raven,  xii.  24. 
icopog,  a  measure,  xvi.  7. 
KpanrdXr],  surfeiting,  xxi.  34. 

,  sumptuously,  xvi.  19. 


Xa&vTOQ,  hewn  in  stone,  xxiii.  53. 
\ao£,  smooth,  iii.  5. 
\jypof,  idle  tales,  xxiv.  11. 
Q,  far,  xv.  13;  xix.  12. 
i'ig,  divider,  xii.  14. 
oc;,  hired  servant,  xv.  17, 19. 
,  hardly,  ix.  39. 
j'o<T<7ia,  brood,  xiii.  34. 

iu),  to  be  steward,  xvi.  2. 
,  shower,  xii.  54. 
oTr-og,  broiled,  xxiv.  42. 
opeiroc,  hilly,  i.  39,  65. 
ctypvc,  brow,  iv.  29. 
7Tttju7rX?;3ei',  all  at  once,  xxiii.  18. 
7ravCo%tiov,  inn,  x.  34. 
TravCo-)(tvQ,  host,  x.  35. 
TrapddoZog,  strange   thing    (neut.), 
v.  26. 

Trrw,  to  hide,  ix.  45. 
,  sea  coast,  vi.  17. 
ia,  virginity,  ii.  36. 
e,  with  TOTTO£,  plain,  vi.  17. 

oG,  Poor>  xxi-  2- 

,  fifteenth,  iii.  1. 
,  to  hide.  i.  24. 
7rtpiKVK\6it),  to  compass  around,  xix. 

43. 
TTtpioiKiu,  to  dwell  round  about,  i. 

65. 

TTtpioiKoc,  neighbor,  i.  58. 
TreptrTTraw,  to  distract,  x.  40. 
Trivaicidtov,  writing-tablet,  i.  63. 
7r\i]fj,/j.vpa,  flood,  vi.  48. 
7rpE<r(3tia,  embassy,  message,  xiv. 

32 ;  xix.  14. 

Trpoaavafiaivw,  to  go  up,  xiv.  10. 
Trpoaava\i(TK<t),  to  spend,  viii.  43. 
Trpoadcnravdd),  to  spend  more,  x.  35. 
7rpo(T€|Oya£ojuat,  to  gain,  xix.  16. 
7rpo<f>tpw,  to  bring  forth,  vi.  45. 
to  roll  up,  iv.  20. 


60 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


(W//y/ia,  ruin,  vi.  49. 
<ra\o£,  waves,  xxi.  25. 
aiKtpa,  strong  drink,  i.  15. 
,  to  sift,  xxii.  81. 
,  fatted,  xv.  23,  27,  30. 

,  portion  of  meat,  xii.  42. 
cr/ca7rroj,to  dig,vi,48,  xiii.  8;  xvi.  3. 
,  to  leap,  i.  41,  44;  vi.  23. 
,  spoil,  xi.  22. 
of ,  bier  (coffin),  vii.  14. 

),  to  wrap  in  swaddling 
clothes,  ii.  7,  12. 
avyyevic,  kinswoman  (forayyyaj'jjc'), 

i.36. 

cvyKaXvTTTtj),  to  cover,  xii.  2. 
<Tvymr«rr3re/mt,  to  deposit  together, 
to  consent  to,  xxiii.  51  (with  tip}. 
avyKinrTw,  to  be  bowed  together, 

xiii.  11. 

ffvyicvpia,  cliance,  x.  31. 
avKa/Mt'oc,  sycamine  tree,  xvii.  G. 
avKOj-uopta,  or  -opta  (the  spelling 
of  W.  and  II.  for  -wpaia),  syca 
more  tree,  xix.  4. 

auKotyai'THo,  to  accuse  falsclv,  iii. 
14 ;  xix.  8. 


(pass.),  to  spring  up  with, 


musc,  xv.      . 
,  to  be  tetrarch,  iii.  1. 
a,  wound,  x.  34. 
,  a  hole,  the  eye  of  a  needle, 
xviii.  25  (the  reading  of  Lachm., 
Tisch.,  Treg.,  W.  and  H.  for  the 
text.  rec.  rpv{Jia\id). 
rpvywv,  turtle-dove,  ii.  24. 
(rvp(3a%w,  see  SropvpdZw.) 
vypog,  green,  xxiii.  31. 
vdpwTTiKos,  dropsical,  xiv.  2. 
,  to  feign,  xx.  20. 

,  to  spread,  xix.  36. 
o^wptw,  to  withdraw  one's  self, 
v.  1G;  ix.  10. 
aivai,  to  weave,  to  spin,  xii.  27. 

Z,  valley,  iii.  5. 
(barvri,  manger,  ii.  7,  12,  1G;  xiii.  15. 
0<X/7  (fern.),  friend,  xv.  9. 
^fAoj'afcia,  strife,  xxii.  24. 

,  fearful  sight,  xxi.  11. 
,  wisely,  xvi.  8. 
,  gulf,  xvi.  26. 
,  egg,  xi.  12. 


THE  NAUTICAL  VOCABULARY  of  Luke  is  rich  and 
remarkable.  It  is  used  mostly  in  the  last  two  chap 
ters  of  Acts.  lie  describes  the  voyage  and  ship 
wreck  of  Paul  evidently  as  an  eye-witness,  like  a 
man  who  was  often  at  sea  as  a  close  and  accurate 
observer,  but  not  as  a  professional  seaman ;  he  no 
tices  effects  and  incidents  which  a  seaman  would 
omit  as  unimportant,  but  he  omits  to  notice  causes 
and  details  which  would  appear  prominently  in  an 
official  report.  He  uses  no  less  than  sixteen  verbs, 
and  uses  them  (as  James  Smith  has  conclusively 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 


61 


shown)  most  appropriately,  to  describe  the  motion 
and  management  of  a  ship ;  and  all  of  them  are 
nautical  terms,  and  with  the  exception  of  three  are 
peculiar  to  his  two  writings.  They  are  as  follows 
(seven  being  compounds  of 


TfXtw,  to  sail,  Luke  viii.  23;   Acts 

xxi.  3  ;  xxvii.  6,  24. 
aTTOTrXsw,  to  sail  from,  Acts  xiii.  4 ; 

xiv.  26;  xx.  15;  xxvii.  1. 
(3paSvir\okb)  (from  (3paCi>^,  slow), 

to  sail  slowly,  Acts  xxvii.  7. 
CiaTrXtuj,  to  sail  through  (not  "over," 

as  in  the  A.  V.),  Acts  xxvii.  5. 
t/cTrXew,  to  sail  away,  Acts  xv.  39; 

xviii.  18;  xx.  G. 

Ka.Tcnr\'ujj,  to  arrive,  Luke  viii.  2G. 
{iTTOTrXsw,  to  sail  under  the  lee,  Acts 

xxvii.  4,  7. 
TrapaTrXsw,    to    sail   by,   Acts   xx. 

1G. 


avayopai,  to  get  under  way,  to  put 

to  sea,  Acts  xxvii.  4. 
SiaTTf  paw,  to  sail  over,  Acts  xxi.  2. 
SiaQepojJiai,  to  be  driven  to  and  fro, 

Acts  xxvii.  27. 
iTTi/aXXw,  to  run  the  ship  ashore, 

Acts  xxvii.  41. 

w,   to    make    a    straight 

course,  Acts  xvi.  11 ;  xxi.  1. 

paXgyojUoi   (middle),  to  sail  by, 

Acts  xxvii.  8,  13. 

Torptxo)  (aor.  2,  vTricpapov),  to 

run  under  the  lee,  Acts  xxvii.  1C.1 

pof-iai  (pass.),  to  be  driven,  Acts 

xxvii.  15,  17. 


To  these  may  be  added  the  phrases  for  lightening 
the  ship  :  tjc/SoXt/v  ITTOIOVVTO,  they  began  to  throw 
the  freight  overboard,  Acts  xxvii.  18;  and  tKov^i^ov 
TO  TrAoiW,  they  lightened  the  ship,  Acts  xxvii.  38. 
Julius  Pollux  mentions  EjcjSoXijy  Trotriaaa&a 


and  Kovfyiaai  TIIV  vavv  among  the  technical 
terms  for  taking  cargo  out  of  a  ship.  See  Smith, 
I.  c.  pp.  114,  139. 


1  Smith,  /.  c.  p.  103,  remarks  on  vTrodpapoi'Ttc,  having  run  under  the 
lee  of:  "  St.  Luke  exhibits  here,  as  on  every  other  occasion,  the  most 
perfect  command  of  nautical  terms,  and  gives  the  utmost  precision  to  his 
language  by  selecting  the  most  appropriate ;  they  ran  before  the  wind  to 
leeward  of  Clauda,  hence  it  is  inro^pa^iovrtQ :  they  sailed  with  a  side  wind 
to  leeward  of  Cyprus  and  Crete,  hence  it  is 


62    THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


PAUL. 

The  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  had  a  cosmopolitan 
preparation  for  his  work,  being  a  Hellenist  by  birth, 
a  Roman  citizen,  and  a  Hebrew  scholar.  He  is  the 
only  apostle  who  enjoyed  a  regular  rabbinical  edu 
cation,  and  was  trained  to  logical  reasoning.  He 
was  also,  to  a  limited  extent,  acquainted  with  classi 
cal  literature,  and  quotes  from  three  heathen  poets 
(Aratus,  Menander,  and  Epimenides) — the  only  ex 
amples  of  the  kind  in  the  Kew  Testament.1  He  is 
the  founder  of  Christian  theology;  he  had  to  create 
a  theological  vocabulary  by  stamping  a  peculiar 
meaning  upon  a  number  of  words  which  express 
fundamental  Christian  ideas,  as  StKaioavvrj, 
TTiffTtQ,  ayairri, 
KaraAAcryr), 

The  style  of  Paul  reflects  the  strongly  marked 
individuality  of  his  nature  purified  and  ennobled 
by  divine  grace.  Its  chief  characteristics  are  fire 
and  force,  lie  is  intensely  in  earnest,  and  throws 
his  whole  soul  into  his  epistles.  His  ideas  overflow 
the  ordinary  boundaries  of  speech.  The  pressure 
of  thought  is  so  strong  that  it  breaks  through  the 

~  O  O 

rules  of  grammar.  Hence  the  anacolutha.  His 
style  is  dialectic  and  argumentative.  He  reasons 
now  from  Scripture,  now  from  premises,  now  from 
analogy,  or  from  experience,  from  effect,  from  objec- 

1  Jerome  hit  the  proper  medium  between  the  two  extremes  of  an  undue 
overestimate  and  an  underestimate  of  Paul's  Greek  learning,  when  he 
said,  ad  Gal.  iv.  24,  that  Paul  knew  secular  literature  (liter as  saculares), 
but  imperfectly  (licet  non  ad  perfectuni). 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          63 

tions,  and  ex  absurdo.  He  frequently  uses  logical 
particles  and  phrases,  as  ovv,  apa,  apa  ovv  (hinc  iyi- 
tur,  therefore,  then,  so  then,  twelve  times),  yap,  a  70/0, 
a  of,  OVK£TI,  Ti  ovv,  ri  ovv  tpovu,ai,  tpttq  ovv,  ov  fjiovov 
§i  .  .  .  ctAAa.  He  introduces  and  answers  objections, 
and  drives  the  opponent  to  the  wall  by  close  argu 
ment.  He  is  fond  of  antitheses,  paradoxes,  oxymora, 
and  paronomasias.  Farrar  counts  "  upwards  of  lift}7 
specimens  of  upwards  of  thirty  Greek  rhetorical 
figures  "  in  Paul.1 

Here  are  some  of  these  antithetic  and  paradoxical 
phrases  :  ae  TO  eivai  avrov  SiKaiov  Kal  SIKCIIOVVTCI  TOV 
IK.  7ri(jTt(ji)c;  'IrjrroD  (Horn.  iii.  26)  :  c)ia  vouov  vo[J.ty  cnrt- 
Savov  (Gal.  ii.  19)  :  £w  St  OVKZTI  IJM,  fyj  ^£  tv  t/nol 
XpifTTOQ  (Gal.  ii.  20) :  (j>S6vo£  and  Quvoc; :  aavvsroc; 
and  aavv^troc; :  aQpwv  and  fypovi/uoz :  avo/mog  and 
jn^i  VTrspQpovtiv  Trap"  o  3tt  typovuv,  a\\a 
u;  TO  awtftpovtiv  (not  to  be  high-minded 
above  what  we  ought  to  be  minded,  but  to  be  so 
minded  as  to  be  sober-minded,  Rom.  xii.  3):  TO. 
aopara  .  .  .  KaSoparai  (invisibilia  videntur,  unseen 
things  are  seen,  Horn.  i.  20) :  Trap  tXirtSa  £TT'  IXiriSi 
(Rom.  iv.  18)  :  ra  firj  ovra  we  ovra  (Rom.  iv.  17)  : 

TO    [J.WpOV   TOV    3"fOW    (TO(j)(jL)T£pOV   TWM    ClV^pWTTWV    (1    Coi*. 

i.  25)  :  o-av  .  .  .  aa^ivw,  TOTS  SvvaroQ  tljjit  (2  Cor. 
xii.  10).  Specimens  of  cutting  sarcasm:  Kararo^i 
(Phil.  iii.  2,  with  reference  to  the  TTCJOITOJUTJ  of  the 
carnal  Judaizers  of  the  malignant  type :  concision, 
circumcision) ;  anoKoi^ovTaL  (Gal.  v.  12,  with  refer- 


1  The  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  i.  629  sq.     His  two  Excursuses  on 
the  style  and  rhetoric  of  Paul  are  able  and  instructive. 


G-i         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

ence  to  the  same  Judaizing  perverters  of  the  Gos 
pel). 

Paul  disclaims  classic  elegance,  and  calls  himself 
"rude  in  speech"  (i&wrije  TM  Aoy^),  though  not  in 
knowledge  (ou  TTJ  yvwatt).1  lie  knew  that  he  car 
ried  the  heavenly  treasure  in  earthen  vessels,  that 
the  power  and  grace  of  God  might  become  more 
manifest.2  Ilis  speech  is  at  times  rugged  and  irreg 
ular,  but  always  vigorous,  bold,  terse,  expressive. 
It  rises  now  to  lofty  eloquence,  as  at  the  close 
of  the  eighth  chapter  of  Romans,  now  to  more 
than  poetic  beauty,  as  in  the  description  of  love  in 
1  Cor.  xiii.,  which  has  no  equal  in  all  literature. 
We  may  compare  his  style  to  a  thunderstorm  with 
zigzag  flashes  of  lightning  that  strike  every  project 
ing  point;  or  to  a  Swiss  mountain  torrent  that  nowr 
rushes  over  precipices  in  foaming  rapids,  now  rests 
before  taking  a  new  leap,  then  calmly  flows  through 
green  meadows. 

Longinus,  a  heathen  rhetorician  of  the  third  cen 
tury,  counted  HauAoc  6  Tapatvg  among  the  greatest 
orators,  and  a  master  of  dogmatic  style.  Jerome 
charges  him  with  using  Oilician  provincialisms 
(solecisms),  but  felt  when  reading  his  epistles  as  if 
he  heard  "non  verla  sed  tonitrua"  Erasmus  com 
pares  Paul's  style  to  thunder  and  lightning :  "  tonat, 
fulgurat,  meras  flammas  loquitur  Paulus"  He 

1  2  Cor.  xi.  G.     Comp.  1  Cor.  i.  17 ;  ii.  1  sqq.     We  must  remember  that 
he  thus  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  who  overestimated  the  arts  of  rhetoric. 
Meyer  quotes  Xenophon,  who  describes  himself  as  an  Iciwrrj^  as  com 
pared  with  the  Sophists  (De  Venut.  14,  3). 

2  2  Cor.  iv.  7. 


THE   LANGUAGE   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.         65 

judged  the  closing  verses  of  the  eighth  chapter  of 
Romans  to  be  equal  in  eloquence  to  any  passage 
in  Cicero :  "  Quid  u-nquatn  Cicero  dixit  grandilo 
quentius"  Calvin  says  of  his  writings:  "fulmina 
sunt,  non  verba"  but  he  properly  adds,  in  the  very 
spirit  of  Paul  and  in  view  of  his  numerous  anacolutha 
and  ellipses,  that  by  a  singular  providence  of  God  the 
highest  mysteries  have  been  committed  to  us  "sub 
contemptibili  verborum  humilitate"  that  our  faith 
may  rest  not  on  the  power  of  human  eloquence,  but 
solely  on  the  efficacy  of  the  divine  Spirit.  Baur 
finds  the  peculiar  stamp  of  Paul's  language  in  pre 
cision  and  compression  on  the  one  hand,  and  in 
harshness  and  roughness  on  the  other,  which  sug 
gests  that  the  thought  is  far  too  weighty  for  the 
expression,  and  can  hardly  find  a  fit  form  for  the 
abundance  of  matter.  lie  compares  him  to  Thucyd- 
ides.  Farrar  does  the  same,  and  says  that  Paul  has 
the  style  of  genius,  if  he  has  not  the  genius  of  style.1 
Kenan,  a  good  judge  of  rhetoric,  but  blinded  by 
prejudice  against  Paul's  theology,  speaks  disparag 
ingly  of  his  prose,  as  Voltaire  did  of  the  poetry  of 
Shakespeare,  which  he  deemed  semi-barbarous ;  yet 
Renan  is  obliged  to  mix  praise  with  censure.  "  The 

i  L.  c.  i.  G23.  Farrar  thinks,  with  Baur,  that  the  style  of  Paul  "  more 
closely  resembles  the  style  of  Thucy elides  than  that  of  any  other  great 
writer  of  antiquity."  The  great  historian  of  the  Peloponnesian  war  is  by 
no  means  free  from  solecisms  or  barbarisms,  obscurities,  and  rhetorical  ar 
tificialities.  Jowett  (Thuc.  vol.  i.  Intr.  p.  xiv.)  justly  says :  "  The  speeches 
of  Thucydides  everywhere  exhibit  the  antitheses,  the  climaxes,  the  plays 
of  words,  the  point  which  is  no  point,  of  the  rhetorician,  yet  retain  amid 
these  defects  of  form  a  weight  of  thought  to  which  succeeding  historians 
can  scarcely  show  the  like." 

5 


66         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

epistolary  style  of  Paul,"  he  says,1  "  is  the  most  per 
sonal  that  ever  existed.  His  language  is,  if  I  dare 
call  it  so,  hackled  (broyee),  not  a  connected  phrase. 
It  is  impossible  to  violate  more  boldly,  I  do  not  say 
the  genius  of  the  Greek  language,  but  the  logic  of 
the  human  language.  It  is  a  rapid  conversation, 
stenographically  reported,  and  reproduced  without 
correction.  .  .  .  With  his  wonderful  warmth  of  soul, 
Paul  has  a  singular  poverty  of  expression.  ...  It  is 
not  barrenness,  it  is  the  vehemence  of  mind,  and  a 
perfect  indifference  as  to  the  correctness  of  style." 
Another  Frenchman,  Pressense,2  judges  more  just 
ly  :  "  Paul's  own  moral  life  struggled  for  expres 
sion  in  his  doctrine;  and  to  give  utterance  to  both 
at  once,  Paul  created  a  marvellous  language,  rough 
and  incorrect,  but  full  of  resource  and  invention, 
following  his  rapid  leaps  of  thought,  and  bending 
to  his  sudden  and  sharp  transitions.  His  ideas  come 
in  such  rich  abundance  that  they  cannot  wait  for 
orderly  expression  ;  they  throng  upon  each  other, 
and  intermingle  in  seeming  confusion ;  but  the  con- 
f u-sion  is  seeming  only,  for  through  it  all  a  powerful 
argument  steadily  sustains  the  mastery.  The  tongue 
of  Paul  is,  indeed,  a  tongue  of  fire." 

JOHN. 

If  Paul's  style  resembles  a  rushing,  foaming, 
storming  Alpine  torrent,  John's  style  may  be  com 
pared  to  a  calm,  clear,  deep  Alpine  lake  in  which 

1  Saint  Paid,  ch.  ix.  p.  232. 

3  Ajyostolic  Era,  p.  254. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          67 

the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  are  reflected  as  in  a  mirror. 
The  one  sounds  like  a  trumpet  of  war,  the  other  like 
an  anthem  of  peace.  Simplicity  and  depth  char 
acterize  the  Gospel  and  the  first  Epistle  of  John. 
He  is  "  verbis  fadttimuS)  sensu  difficillimus" 

He  writes  pure  Greek  as  far  as  words  and  gram 
mar  are  concerned,  but  he  thinks  in  Hebrew ;  the 
Greek  is,  as  it  were,  only  the  thin,  transparent  veil 
over  the  face.  Renan,  looking  at  the  outside,  says 
correctly  that  the  style  of  the  fourth  Gospel  "has 
nothing  Hebrew,  nothing  Jewish,  nothing  Tal- 
mudic ;"  but  Ewald,  looking  deeper  into  the  inside, 
is  more  correct  when  he  affirms  that  "in  its  true 
spirit  and  afflatus,  no  language  can  be  more  genu 
inely  Hebrew  than  that  of  John."  Keim  speaks  of 
the  remarkable  combination  of  genuine  Greek  facil 
ity  and  ease  with  Hebrew  simplicity  and  figurative- 
ness.1  Westcott  thinks  that  it  is  "  altogether  mis 
leading"  to  speak  of  John's  Gospel  as  "written  in 
very  pure  Greek ;"  that  it  is  free  from  solecisms 
because  it  avoids  all  idiomatic  expressions ;  and  that 
its  grammar  is  common  to  all  language.  Godet 


1  Keim  (Geschichte,  Jesu  von  Nazara,  i.  116)  :  "  Die  Sprache  des  Bucks  " 
[the  4th  Gospel]  "ist  ein  merlcwiirdiges  Gefuge  achtgriechischer  Leichtig- 
keit  und  Gewandtheit  und  hebraischer  Ausdrucksweisen  in  Hirer  ganzen 
Schlichtheit,  Kindlichkeit,  Bildliclike.it  und  wohl  auch  Unbeholfenheit.  So 
hat  sich  die  Union  der  Gegensdtze  der  Parteien  selbst  in  der  Sprache  rer- 
kurpert."  What  follows  in  Keim  is  a  strange  mixture  of  truth  and  error, 
owing  to  his  want  of  sympathy  with  the  spiritual  character  of  this 
Gospel,  in  which  he  must  acknowledge  the  simplicity  of  nature,  the 
purest  morality,  and  celestial  glories  (Jiimmlische  Iferrlichkeiten),  while 
yet  he  discovers  in  it  the  hidden  arts  of  a  post-apostolic  literary  forger. 
The  contradiction  is  not  in  John,  but  in  the  judgment  of  his  critic. 


63         THE   LANGUAGE   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

characterizes  the  style  of  John  as  altogether  unique 
in  all  literature,  profane  and  religious,  for  childlike 
simplicity,  transparent  profundity,  holy  sadness,  and 
holy  vivacity,  and  calls  it  a  Hebrew  body  with  a 
Greek  dress.1  Weiss,  in  his  recently  published 
'•Life  of  Jesus,"  likewise  emphasizes  the  Hebrew 
genius  which  animates  the  pure  Greek  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  and  derives  from  it  an  argument  for  its  Jo- 


1  "La  tongue  de  Vevangeliste  napas  d?  analogue  dans  toute  la  litterature 
profane  ou  sacree:  simplicity,  enfantine  et  transparente  profondeur,  sainte 
inclancolie  et  vivacite  non  moins  sainte;  par  dessus  tout,  suavite  d'un  amovr 
pur  et  doux.  .  .  .  Dana  la  langue  de  Jean,  le  v  element  seul  est  grec.  le  corps 
cst  hebreu  ;  ou,  comme  le  dit  Luthardt,  il  y  a  une  time  hebra'ique  dans  le  ton- 
rnge  grec."— Com.  sur  Vevang.  de  Saint  Jean,  3d  cd.  thoroughly  revised 
(Paris,  1881),  vol.  i.  pp.  22G.  232. 

2  The  passage  is  worth  quoting  in  full  as  a  contribution  to  the  solution 
of  the  Johannean  problem  :  "  Man  hat  einst  wolil  gemeint,  das  reine  Grie- 
cliisch  des  Eveingeliums  passe  nicht  zu  dem  Fischer  vom  Gennezaretsee. 
Ileute  zweifelt  Niemand  melir  daran,  dass  gerade  die  niederen  Stdnde  Gali- 
Ida^s  im  taglichen  Verkehr  mit  dem  umwohnenden  mid  iiberallbereits  mitten 
in  das  eigene  Volksthum  eingedrungenen  Griechenthum  sich  des  Verstdnd- 
nisses  der  griechischen  Spr ache  gar  nicht  entrathen  konnten.     llatte  vollends 
Johannes  einige  zwanzig  Jahre  bereits  in  griechisch&r  Umgebung  gelebt,  so 
musste  er  sich  eine  geioisse  Gewandtheit  im  Gebrauch  der  griechischen 
Sjirache  angeeignet  haben.     In  der  That  aber  blickt  durch  das  griechische 
Gewand  dieses  Evangeliums  iiberall  der  Stilcharakter  des  Paldstinensers 
hindurch.     Diese  unperiodische  Satzbildung,  diese  einfachste  Verkniipfiing 
der  Sdtze,  die  von  dem  reichen  griechischen  Partikelschatz  zur  Andeutung 
ihrer  logischen  Beziehung  keinen  Gebrauch  macht,  diese  Vorliebefdr  Anti- 
thesen  unel  Parallelismen,  diese  Umstdndlichkeit  der  Erzahlungsiceise  und 
Wortarmuth  im  Ausdruck,  diese  ganz  hebrdisch-artige  Wortstellung  zeigen 
nehr  als  einzelne  Verstosse  gegen  griechisches  Sprachgefuhl,  die  doch  auch 
nicht  ganz  fehlen,  dass  das  Evangelium  wohl  griechisch  geschrieben,  aber 
hcbrdisch  gedacht  ist.     Die  mit  Vorliebe  eingestreutcn  aramdischen  Aus- 
driicke,  die  etymologisirende  Deutung  eines  hebrdischen  Namens  (ix.  7)  lassen 
deutlich  den  Paldstinenser  erkemuui,  dem  nach  einigen  seiner  Citate  selbst  der 


THE   LANGUAGE    OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.         GO 

John's  sentences  are  short  and  weighty — we  may 
say.  the  shorter  the  weightier.  They  are  co-ordinat 
ed,  not  subordinated.  They  follow  each  other  by  a 
sort  of  constructive  parallelism,  or  symmetrical  and 
rhythmical  progression,  after  the  manner  of  Hebrew 
poetry.  There  is  no  dialectical  process  of  argu 
mentation,  no  syllogistic  particles  (like  apa),  no  in 
volved  periods,  as  in  Paul,  but  a  succession  of  asser 
tions  which  have  the  self-evidencing  force  of  truth 
as  perceived  by  immediate  intuition.  Hence  he 
often  uses  the  words  StaaSai,  ^cwjoeTv,  tupaKivai, 
/mapTvpia.  Sometimes  he  moves  by  contrasts,  or 
antithetic  parallelisms,  without  connecting  links : 
"The  law  was  given  by  Moses:  grace  and  truth 
came  by  Jesus  Christ"  (i.  17);  "~No  one  ever  saw 
God  :  the  only  begotten  Son  revealed  him  "  (i.  18) ; 
"Ye  are  from  beneath :  I  am  from  above"  (viii.  23); 
"  I  am  the  vine :  ye  are  the  branches  "  (xv.  5). 

John's  ideas  and  vocabulary  are  limited ;  but  he 
has  a  number  of  key-words  of  unfathomable  depth 
and  transcendent  height,  and  repeats  them  again  and 
again— as  "  life,"  «  light,"  "  truth,"  «  love."  1  He 

Grundtext  derheiligen  Schrift  nichtganz  unbekannt  gewesen  zu  sein  sclieinl.'' 
Das  Leben  Jesu,  Berlin,  1882,  Bd.  i.  90. 

1  %<*)Tj  occurs  36  times  in  the  Gospel  (with  the  verb  %f)v  16  times),  <pwg 
23  times,  dXjfitia  25  times,  aXrjSivog  9  times,  £o£a  20  times  (with 
do£d£e<r&u  24  times),  p.ap-rvpia  14  times  (with  naprvpiiv  33  times). 
yivwcr/ca>  55  times,  Triarevav  98  times  (but  TTIGTIQ  only  in  1  John  v.  4). 
See  Luthardt,  i.  20  sq.  (Gregory's  translation);  Godet,  i.  227  (3d  ed.). 
Hase  (Geschichte  Jesu,  1876,  p.  43)  makes  a  striking  remark  on  this  repe- 
titiousness  of  John :  "Er  ist  nicht  ein  beweglicher,  der  Rede  machtiger  Geist, 
sondern  still  und  tief,  festhangend  an  Wenigem;  aber  dieses  Wenige  ist  das 
Gottliche  selbst.  dem  sein  Sirmen  und  seine  Liebe  gilt,  ein  A  dler  der  still  in 
der  Hohe  schicebt." 


TO         THE    LANGUAGE   OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 

kisses  a  divine  and  eternal  meaning  into  these 
terms,  and  hence  he  is  never  weary  of  them.  God 
himself,  as  revealed  in  Christ,  is  life,  light,  and  love. 
And  what  more  can  philosophy  and  theology  say  in 
so  few  words?  John  likes  grand  antitheses,  under 
which  he  views  the  antagonistic  forces  of  the  world 
— as  life  and  death,  light  and  darkness,  truth  and 
falsehood,  belief  and  unbelief,  love  and  hatred, 
Christ  and  Antichrist,  God  and  the  Devil.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  look  in  vain  in  his  Gospel  for  some 
of  the  most  important  terms,  as  ck*icX))<n'a,  tvayytXiov, 
jus-avoia,  TrapajSoX//,  aotyia,  but  the  substance  is  there 
in  different  form.  lie  uses  few  particles,  but  uses 
them  very  often — namely,  KCU,  &',  d>£,  Vva,  and  espe 
cially  ovv,  which  with  him  is  not  syllogistic,  but 
marks  simply  the  progress  in  the  narrative  or  re 
sumes  the  train  of  thought  (like  the  German  nun).1 
lie  never  employs  the  optative.  He  is  fond  of  di 
minutives  (as  traiSapiov,  valuta,  rcicv/a),  and  the  last 
word  reported  of  him  is  the  address,  "Little  chil 
dren,  love  one  another."  He  gives  many  circum 
stantial  details  in  his  narratives,  as  in  the  healing  of 
the  man  born  blind,  whose  character  is  drawn  to  the 
life. 

He  alone  applies  the  significant  term  "  Logos" 
(which  means  reason  and  speech,  ratio  and  oratio) 
to  Christ  as  the  revealer  and  interpreter  of  God ; 2 
he  calls  him  the  "only  begotten  Son,"  "the  Light  of 

1  The  English  Revision  renders  ovv  usually  by  "  therefore,''  but  this  is 
heavy  and  pedantic  in  English.  "  So"  and  "  then"  would  answer  as  well 
in  many  cases,  as  in  John  iv.  5,  28 ;  xiii.  6. 

-  John  i.  1, 14 ;  1  John  i.  1 ;  comp.  Rev.  xix.  13. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.         71 

the  world,"  "  the  Bread  of  life,"  "  the  good  Shep 
herd,"  "  the  Vine  " — figures  which  have  guided  the 
Church  ever  since  in  her  meditations  on  Christ.  He 
uses  the  double  CI/UT/V  (verily)  in  the  speeches  of  our 
Lord.  lie  never  calls  the  forerunner  of  Christ  "  the 
Baptist,"  but  simply  "  John."  lie  represents  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  the  "Paraclete"  or  Advocate  who 
pleads  the  cause  of  the  believer  here  on  earth,  while 
Christ,  who  is  also  called  "Paraclete,"  represents  him 
at  the  throne  of  God.1 

Westcott  calls  the  Gospel  of  John  "  the  divine 
Hebrew  Epic,"  and  says  of  his  style : 2  "  The  sim 
plicity,  the  directness,  the  particularity,  the  emphasis 
of  St.  John's  style,  give  his  writings  a  marvellous 
power,  which  is  not  perhaps  felt  at  first.  Yet  his 
words  seem  to  hang  about  the  reader  till  he  is  forced 
to  remember  them.  Each  great  truth  sounds  like 
the  burden  of  a  strain,  ever  falling  upon  the  ear 
with  a  calm  persistency  which  secures  attention. 
And  apart  from  forms  of  expression  with  which  all 
are  early  familiarized,  there  is  no  book  in  the  Bible 
which  has  furnished  so  many  figures  of  the  Person 
and  Work  of  Christ  which  have  passed  into  the 
common  use  of  Christians  as  the  Gospel  of  St.  John." 
Luthardt 3  speaks  of  "  the  calmness  and  serenity " 
which  are  spread  over  this  marvellous  book,  and 
reveal  a  soul  that  has  reached  peace  and  tranquil 
lity  at  mature  age  after  a  long  struggle  with  a  fiery 

1  John  xiv.  16,  20 ;  xv.  26 ;  xvi.  7 ;  1  John  ii.  1. 

2  In  his  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gosjxlg,  p.  278.     Com  p.  the 
remarks  in  his  Com.  on  John,  Introd.  p.  i.-iii. 

3  Com.  on  John,  i.  62  (Gregory's  translation). 


72 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


and  violent  temper.  "  We  can  see  his  natural  char 
acter  in  his  short  decisive  sentences,  his  emphatic 
way  of  building  sentences,  the  want  of  connection 
in  his  array  of  sentences,  and  in  the  use  of  contrasts 
in  his  speech.  His  nature  is  not  destroyed.  It  is 
purified,  brightened,  raised  to  the  truth,  and  so  taken 
into  the  service  of  the  loved  Master.  It  came  to 
rest  on  the  bosom  of  Jesus,  and  found  peace  as  his 
own.  The  fire  of  youth  has  left  its  calm  light  and 
its  warm  enthusiasm.  It  breathes  through  the  most 
quiet  speech,  and  raises  the  language  to  the  rhyth 
mical  beauty  of  Hebrew  poetry  and  to  a  very  hymn 
of  praise." 

WORDS  PECULIAR  TO  JOHN  (i.  <?.,  the  Gospel  and 
the  Epistles ;  for  the  Apocalypse,  see  next  para 
graph)  : 

(hebraice*),  v.  2;  xix.  13,  17,  20; 
xx.  1G  (also  in  Rev.  ix.  11;  xvi. 

•K/ctJTEw,  to  pierce,  xix.  37   (also 

Rev.  i.  7). 
tfnropiov,  merchandise,  ii.  1G. 

j,  in  the  very  act,  viii.  4 
(in  the  disputed  pericope). 

,  sheath,  xviii.  11. 
Spknnct,  cattle,  iv.  12. 
Kfp/j,a,  money,  ii.  15. 
K£pjuarioTi7f ,  money-changer,  ii.  14. 

5c,  gardener,  xx.  15. 
,  branch,  xv.  2, 4.  5,  G. 
,  taking  rest,  xi.  13. 
Ko\v/j(3f]$pa,  pool,  v.  2,  4  (?),  7 ;  ix. 

7,11. 

Kp&ivoQ ,  of  barley  (ctfT/.),  vi.  9, 13. 
XtVrior,  towel,  xiii.  4,  5. 
\6y\r],  spear,  xix.  34. 


to  fish  (rendered  in  A.  V. 
and  K.  V.  "  to  go  a-fishing  >r),  xxi. 


,  from  elsewhere,  x.  1. 
a\6r],  aloe,  aloe-wood  (greatly  prized 

as  a  perfume),  xix.  39. 
[avaftapTTjTOQ,  sinless    ("without! 

sin  "  in  A.  V.  and  R.  V.),  viii.  7.] 
dvrXtd),  to  draw,  ii.  8  ;  iv.  7,  15. 
dvT\r]fia,  haustrum,  a  bucket,  iv. 
11. 

(oppa^oc),  seamless,  xix. 


23. 


,  to  eat,  vi.  13. 

an  old  man  (seiiex),  iii.  4. 

,  to  weep,  xu  35. 

,  to  be  afraid,  xiv.  27. 
joa/Vrrt'  (so  W.  and  Hort,  but  the 
usual  spelling  is  tfifxiiori),  He 
brew,  or  in  the  Hebrew  tongue 


THE   LANGUAGE    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 


fiij  TIQ  ;  or  ni]Tt£  ;  any  one  ?  iv.  33 ; 
vii.  48. 

/ti'y/ia,  mixture,  xix.  39. 

(VIKI],  victory,  1  John  v.  4.) 

vnrrrjp,  basin,  xiii.  5. 

[vooT/^a,  disease,  v.  4.] 

vvaaw  (vvrro»),  to  pierce,  xix.  34. 

5su>,  to  stink,  xi.  39. 

TrapaK\r]TO(;,  advocate,  xiv.  16,  26; 
xv.  26  ;  xvi.  7  (of  the  Holy  Spir 
it);  1  John  ii.  1  (of  Christ). 

irerSffOog,  father-in-law,  xviii.  13. 

Tcpo<JKvvr]Ttic,,  worshipper,  iv.  23. 

TTTvafia,  spittle,  ix.  6. 

pgu»,  to  flow,  vii.  38. 

JOHN  IN  HEBREW.  The  following  faithful  and 
idiomatic  translation  of  the  Prologue  to  John's 
GospeJ,  by  Professor  Delitzsch,  will  illustrate  the 
Hebrew  genius  of  his  Greek  style.  It  is  from  the 
Hebrew  New  Testament,  published  by  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  (1880). 
John  i.  1-18. 

'EN    dp%y    f(v    o    Xoyof,   Kai    o  1 


,  leg,  xix.  31,  32,  33. 

aKTjvoTTijyia,  least    of   tabernacles, 

vii.  2. 
rerpuprjvof;,  —  vov,  quadrimestris, 

of  four  months,  iv.  35. 
n'rXo£,  title,  xix.  19,  20. 
tyavoQ,  lantern,  xviii.  3. 
QoiviZ,  palm-tree,  xii.  13  (also  Rev. 

vii.  9). 

(ppayt\\iov,  scourge,  ii.  15. 
,  paper,  2  John  12.) 

,  brook,  \rady,  xviii.  1.     • 
,  to  be  angry,  vii.  23. 
a,  unction,  1  John  ii.  20,  27.) 
,  sop,  xiii.  26,  27,  30. 


2  rx     rwrx^a 


trnna  ^rx 


nx  rnr; 


n't  xri 


5 


TGV  2 


i{V  rcpoQ  TOV 

Qtuq  f(V  o  Xoyof  . 
Ovrog    iiv   Iv    dpxy 

Qtov. 
Hurra    di    auTOV    tyn'iTO,   Kai  3 

X<optQ  avrov  i^'fvtTO  ovdf  ev  5 

yeyovtv  [or,  'iv.  o  y'tyovkv  iv]. 
'Ev  ctVTiji  ^a»j)  i\v,  Kai  t}  £wr)  fjv  4 


al  TO  fy&Q  iv  TTJ    GKOTIO.   00f(V6t,   5 

/cat  77  (TKOTta  avro  ov 
Bev. 


7i         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


c  nir'sxn  rx^  rn?~  -" 
:':n 


"prn 
err  *:^N 


"i-xn  rnrrx?  x 
:  -"•'xrrbr  nx'n 


tof',  uvopa 


TO  ^>wf,  o\\' 


/.taprvpjay  Trepj  rou 


ixn  !  *Hv  TO  $(*><;  TO  ci\T]$iv6v,'o  tyuiTi-    9 


jufroy  ei't;  TOV  Koa/.ior. 

10  !"TT"!I     "'"T'-b"*     !"Pn     db"i;"2  '  'Ei'  r<p  Kocrp<^  ?/j',  Km'  o  ArdfTjiioc  10 
',  ""'i^in   XD  E5*"ri^   2b"rn  ?i' ai'TOu  lytvtTOjKai  oK^a^og 

11  !-!?X'     "b    -,rX'?X    X2    Xin  !  Els  TO.  i?ta  i/X^ev,  KOI  ot  Toot  11 

I  ?np2J?    X?    *?~"1'I."X  avTov  ov  7Tflp*Xo/3oi'. 

12  "'^3   *i.'"'r:    "TX    ZTSX^ni  |  "Oaot  £i  tXafiov  CIVTOV,  tCioKfv  12 

tti'ro?£   t^oi'crmv  r^j-a  Otov 

ti't  TO  oi'0/.ia  avTOv  ' 

13  ",*E~"2     X-"     2T2     X3     "l~"X    01    oi'/c     ^4     aijuarwr    orct     IK  13 


ovct    t/c 
ug,   a\X'    ts 


15  x^p^    ^2?    n^r-:    li 
irx  x?n  nt  nri^  i^x 


Ka«  o  Xoyof  (rap^  iy^j'ero,  /cat  14 

IV    >/Uf,  KTOt    fc^fa- 

aurov, 

?rapd 
Trarpoc,  7r\>'jpr]Q  ^dptTog  /cat 


papTi'pti   TTfpi    ai'TOt',  15 
icat  jct'/cpayfv  Xeyaii'  "  Oi 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          <l> 


:  irn 

10  nan    ?:ss    "rs-b    •x-bs's 
;  ncn-br 


j/i'  ov  tcTrov  •    [  W.  an<l  II.:  o 

il'TTdJvJ    O    OTTlffM    /1(JV    ift^OfJLt- 

vor  tftirpooJtv  p.ov  yiyovtv 

OTl   TTfitoTor  fJLOV   //V." 

()TI  tK  TUU  ir\T)fJWp.ciTO£  UIJTOU   10 
iff* tic   TTUVTCJ   i\aftop.tv,  KUI 
\a(nv  avn  x<'ifjtTor  • 

n  <'j  vouof  cid  ^luttiijuijr  ft(;.j7j,   17 
''/  X('l!)l~    Kitl   '/    n^rj-'titi    tiu 
'itfirov  Xpt*rroD  tytVtro. 

ovcttf    iwpaiCEV    TTiii-ort  •   18 
o  /uovoyti>//c  wto'j  [  ^  •  ami  II. : 
HOVOyiVTIZ     ^K'^ly    <>     i>>V    tir 
riv  KO\7TOV  THU  TTarfJi'i'J,  tKti- 


18  c*ix    FIX  —  x~    -""'"•  xn   rx 
Trx    ""--    -jan    -^"~^ 
:  r-T'r;  x-n  -xn  p^na 


THE    APOCALYPSE. 

The  Apocalypse  differs  in  temper  and  style  very 
strikingly  from  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  first 
Epistle  of  John.  This  fact  has  divided  modern 
critics  who  reject  the  traditional  view  of  the  iden 
tity  of  authorship  into  two  hostile  camps — the  one 
contending  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel,1  the 
other  with  equal  force  for  that  of  the  Apocalypse." 

1  So  Schleiennacher  and  his  followers,  Ncamler.  Lilcke,  lileck,  Do  Wottc, 
Meyer,  also  Ewald  and  Dilsterdieck.  Mofct  of  them  are  disposed  to  assign 
the  Apocalypse  to  the  mysterious  "  Prthbyter"  John,  whose  very  existence 
is  doubtful 

*  So  Uaur,  Kenan,  and  the  whole  Tubingen  and  Leyden  school*,  and 
their  followers  in  England  (Davidson,  and  the  author  of  "Supernatural 
Religion"),  who  defend  the  Apocalypse  as  the  genuine  work  of  one  of  the 
three  pillars  of  the  Jewish  Christian  party  described  by  Paul  (Gal.  ii.), 
while  they  surrender  the  Gospel  as  an  ideal  poem  of  an  anonymous  genius 
of  the  second  century. 


76         THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  Apocalypse  is  as  vehement  and  warlike  as 
the  polemic  Epistles  of  Paul.  We  hear  the  battle 
cry  and  the  shouts  of  victory.1  It  is  the  rolling  of 
thunder  from  the  Son  of  Thunder.2  But  the  Gospel 
is  as  sharp  and  uncompromising  in  drawing  the  con 
trast  between  Christ  and  his  enemies.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Apocalypse  has  pauses  of  repose  and  an 
thems  of  peace.  What  can  be  more  soothing  and 
calming  than  the  description  of  the  heavenly  Jeru 
salem  ? 

The  Apocalypse,  moreover,  has  a  stronger  Hebrew 
coloring,  and  departs  further  from  classical  Greek, 
than  any  book  of  the  ]Nrew  Testament.3  But  this 
does  not  arise  from  ignorance ;  on  the  contrary,  with 
all  the  irregularities  and  solecisms,  the  author  shows 
a  remarkable  command  of  the  Greek  vocabulary 
and  syntax.4  The  Hebraizing  character  is  the  natti- 


1  The  words  "war"  and  "to  make  war,"  TroXf/uog  and  TroXtyitew,  occur 
more  frequently  in  the  Apocalypse  than  in  any  other  book  of  the  New 
Test.     See  ii.  16;  ix.  7.  9;  xi.  7 ;  xii.  7,  17  ;  xiii.  5,  7;  xvi.  14;  xvii.  14; 
xix.  11,  19;  xx.  8. 

2  "  Un  eternal  roulement  de  tonnerre  sort  du  trone.  .  .  .  Une  sorte  de 
Uturfjie  divine  sepoursuit  sang  Jin"  (Kenan,  UAntechrist.  p.  381). 

3  W.  IT.  Guillemard  (Hebraisms  in  the  Greek   Testament,  1879,  p.  116) 
says :  "  The  deviations  from  grammatical  correctness  in  the  Apocalypse 
are  so  violent  and  so  astonishing  as  to  defy  explanation.     Some  few  of 
them  may  be  traceable  to  Hebraic  influences.     The  style  of  St.  John  Ln 
the  Gospel  and  Epistles  is  so  remarkably  pure — so  comparatively  free  from 
Hebraism,  or  non-classical  words  and  forms ;  so  much  more  like  the  lan 
guage  of  the  best  Greek  authors— that  these  peculiarities  are  all  the  more 
perplexing.     They  have  given  rise  to  innumerable  speculations,  ancient 
and  modern ;  but  no  satisfactory  explanation  of  them  has  hitherto  been 
found."    Guillemard's  judgment  of  the  Greek  of  John's  Gospel  is  incorrect. 
See  above,  p.  67. 

4  The  most  striking  apparent  irregularity  occurs  in  i.  4 :  OTTO  '0  "QN 


THE    LANGUAGE   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.         77 

ral  result  of  the  prophetical  contents  and  the  close 
affinity  to  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Ezekiel.  The 
classical  Greek  offered  no  precedent  to  this  species 
of  literature.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Greek  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  although  much  purer  in  form,  is  yet, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  profoundly  Hebrew  in 
spirit,  and  the  absence  of  solecisms  arises  from  the 
avoidance  of  idiomatic  expressions. 

The  difference  between  the  two  books,  therefore, 
lies  more  on  the  surface  than  in  the  deep.  It  is 
largely  neutralized  by  a  striking  agreement  in  lan 
guage  and  thought,  especially  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  who  is  in  both  styled  Logos,  and  represented 
as  the  atoning  Lamb  and  the  conquering  Lion, 
combining  gentleness  and  strength,  innocence  and 
majesty  in  perfect  harmony.  The  resemblance  is 
admitted  by  the  master  of  the  Tubingen  school, 
who  calls  the  fourth  Gospel  the  Apocalypse  spir- 


Kai  6  ijv  Kctl  6  tpxo/jifvog,  ';from  Him  who  is  and  who  was  and  who  is  to 
come."  But  this  is  evidently  a  periphrasis  of  the  divine  name  i"P!"n 
(comp.  Exod.  iii.  14,  Sept, :  tyw  t Ifii  'O  "QN,  and  in  the  same  verse  'O  "UN 
aTTfcrraX/cs  /ZE  irpbg  wyuac),  and  the  nominative  reflects  his  eternal  un- 
changeableness ;  hence  we  need  neither  insert  TOV  with  Erasmus  and  the 
textus  receptus  (against  the  authority  of  X  A  C  P),  nor  supply  TOV  \tyo- 
n'tvov  before  6  ojv.  The  great  cod.  B  (cod.  Yat.  1209)  does  not  contain 
the  Apoc. ;  but  B  of  the  Apoc.  (cod.  Vat.  20GG)  has  the  passage,  and  reads 
Srtov  (BY)  before  6  wv.  Other  Hebraisms  are  more  easy,  and  not  con 
fined  to  the  Apocalypse,  as  bvo^ara  (names),  for  persons  (iii.  4); 
\if.Ta  (CS>  GhP5),  instead  of  Kara,  to  make  war  against  (ii.  16); 
£WTJJ£  (for  £wffa )  =  ("ITI  £3£3,  "a  living  soul"  (xvi.  3).  Comp.  for 
further  particulars  the  most  recent  discussion  of  this  subject  by  Dr. 
William  Lee,  in  his  Com.  on  the  Revel.  (1882,  in  Speaker's  C*om.),  pp.  454- 
464.  Lee  accepts  the  identity  of  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and 
the  Apocalypse. 


78         THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


itualized  or  transfigured.1  He  thinks  that  only  a 
post-apostolic  writer  could  rise  to  such  a  superior 
height.  But  why  not  much  rather  John  himself  \ 
If  we  assume  that  nearly  a  generation  intervened 
between  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  (A.D.  68 
or  69)  and  that  of  the  Gospel  (about  A.D.  90),  the 
identity  of  authorship  comes  certainly  within  the 
reach  of  literary  possibilities,  and  is  not  without 
analogies.  What  a  difference  between  the  first  and 
the  second  part  of  Goethe's  Faust,  the  undoubted 
productions  of  one  and  the  same  poet  —  the  one 
heated  by  the  fiery  passions  of  his  youth,  the  other 
reflecting  the  calm  serenity  of  his  old  age.  Similar 
differences  in  style  may  be  noted  in  Isaiah,  Dante, 
Shakespeare,  Milton,  and  nearly  all  writers  of  great 
genius  and  long  experience. 

WORDS  PECULIAR  TO  THE  APOCALYPSE  : 


the  abyss,  explained  by  the  Greek 
cnroXXvwv,  the  destroyer,  ix.  11. 


(Hebrew  "'H—X,  destruc 
tion),  the  name  of  the  angel  of 


1  Baur,  Die  Evangelien,  p.  380 .  "  Man  kann  mit  Rccht  sayen,  das  vierte 
Evanyelium  sei  die  vergeistiyte  Apokalypse"  And  in  his  Gesch.  der  christl. 
Kirche,  vol.  i.  p.  147,  he  says:  " Man  kann  nur  die  tiefe  Genialitdt  undfeine 
Kunst  bewundern,  mit  icelcher  der  Evanyelist  die  Elemente,  welche  vom  Stand- 
punkt  der  Apokalypse  auf  den  freiern  und  Iwhem  des  Evanyeliums  hinuber- 
leiteten,  in  sich  anfyenommen  hat,  urn  die  Apokalypse  zum  Evanfjelium  zu 
veryeistiyen.  Nur  vom  Standpunkt  des  Evanyeliunis  aus  Idsst  sich  das  Ver- 
haltniss,  in  das  sich  der  Verfasser  desselben  zu  der  Apokalypse  setzte,  richtvj 
begreifen"  Weiss  turns  this  confession  against  Baur,  and  says  most 
admirably  (Leben  Jesu,  i.  101):  "  Ja,  das  Evanyelium  ist  die  veryeistiyle 
Apokalypse,  aber  nicht  weil  ein  Geistesheros  des  ziceiten  Jahrhunderts  dem 
Apokalyptiker  yefolyt  ist,  sondern  weil  der  Donnersohn  der  Apokalypse 
unter  der  Leitung  des  Geistes  und  unter  den  ydttlichen  Fiihrunyen  zum 
Mystiker  verklart  und  heranyercift  ist,  in  dem  die  Flammen  der  Juyend  zur 
Gluth  einer  heiliyen  Liebe  herabycddmpft  sind," 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


79 


TO  *A\0a  Kai  TO  ""Q  (Westcott  and 
Hort ;  TO  «X0a  Kai  TO  w,  Tisch- 
endorf,  ed.  viii.),  "  The  Alpha  and 
the  Omega"  (the  first  and  the  last 
letters  in  the  Greek  alphabet),  or 
the  Beginning  and  the  End.  A 
name  applied  to  God  or  Christ,  as 
a  symbol  of  eternal  divinity,  three 
times — i.  8;  xxi.  G;  xxii.  13  (in 
the  text.  rec.  also  i.  11)  ;  comp.  a 
similar  designation  of  Jehovah 
("  the  first  and  the  last"),  Isa.  xli. 
4;  xliv.  6. 

dX\t]\ovia,  alleluia  ( Hebrew 
FP~>!'lbbi~l),  i.e.  praise  ye  Jehovah. 
xix.  1,  3,  4,  6.  Comp.  Ps.  civ.  35. 

aTToXXtwy,  Apollyon  (i.  e.  Destroy 
er),  ix. 11. 

dpKoc;  (so  Tischend.,  \V.  and  Hort, 
for  tipKTOQ  of  the  text,  rec.),  a 
bear,  xiii.  2. 

/3a<raj't<Tjuof ,  torment,  ix.  5;  xiv.  11 ; 
xviii.  7, 10,  15. 

/3drprt%0£,  frog,  xvi.  13. 

flrjpvXXoQ,  beryl  (a  precious  stone 
of  sea-green  color),  xxi.  20. 

(3i(3\ap(Ciov,  a  little  book,  x.  2,  8,  9, 
10.  In  ver.  8,  W.  and  H.  read 
(3if3\iov. 

(3i>Tpv£,  cluster  (of  grapes),  xiv.  18. 

fiuaaivog,  byssine,  of  fine  linen,  xviii. 
12, 10 ;  xix.  8  (/SiWoc,  fine  linen, 
occurs  xviii.  12  in  text.  rec.  for 
PVGVLVOG,  and  also  in  Luke  xvi. 
19). 

,  dragon,  xii.  3,  4,  7,  13,  1C, 
17 ;  xiii.  2,  4,  11 :  xvi.  13 ;  xx.  2. 
xpiw,  to  anoint,  iii.  18. 
KtvTtw,  to  pierce,  i.  7  (also  John 
xix.  37). 

oc,  miserable,  iii.  17  (the  corn- 


par.  tXttivoTtpoi   in   1  Cor.  xv. 
19). 

•,  building,  xxi.  18. 
tot,  six  hundred,  xiii.  18. 
,  jasper,  iv.  3. 

,  a  curse  (for  the  text.  rec. 

xxii.  3. 
,  to  seal,  v.  1. 
f'//a,  heat,  vii.  1C ;  xvi.  9. 
lavvvfJii  (KtpctwiHi)^),  to  mix  (wine 
with  water),  to  pour  out,  to  fill  (a 
cup  with  the  wine  already  pre 
pared),  xiv.  10;  xviii.  G. 
{£//,  barley,  vi.  6. 

rtXX«£o»,  to  be  as  crystal,  xxi. 
11. 

Kpv(TTaXXo£,  crystal,  iv.  C ;  xxii.  1. 
KvicXuStv,  round  about,  iv.  3,  4,  8 ;  v. 

11. 

Xi/3avwro£,  censer,  viii.  3.  5. 
XiTrapoc,  dainty,  xviii.  14. 
liaZ,oQ,  breast  (for  fiaoToc),  i.  13. 
,  marble,  xviii.  12. 
u,  to  gnaw,  xvi.  10. 
3£,  thigh,  xix.  16. 
6/xiXog,  company,  xviii.  17. 
op/i?//*a,  violence,  xviii.  21. 
opvtor,  bird,  xviii.  2;  xix.  17,  21. 
ovpa,  tail,  ix.  10,  19;  xii.  4. 
7Tc<p£aXic,  leopard,  xiii.  2. 

£sw,  to  bind  about,  xi.  44. 

,  garment  down  to  the  foot 
ii/),  i.  13. 

gw,  to  make  war,  ii.  16 ;  xii.  7 ; 
xiii.  4;   xvii.  14;   xix.  11    (only 
once  besides  in  Jas.  iv.  2). 
irvpivoQ,  of  fire,  ix.  17. 
TrvppoQ,  red,  vi.  4 ;  xii.  3. 
peSa,  chariot,  xviii.  13. 
puTrrtpei'Ojuai,  to  be  filthy,  xxii.  11. 
(TaX7riOT//t;>  trumpeter,  xviii.  22. 


so 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


<ra7r$£(|0oc,  sapphire,  xxi.  19. 

cdpdiog,  adpdiov,  sardius,  iv.  3  (for 
cdpCivoc} ,  xxi.  20. 

aapdowZ,  sardonyx,  xxi.  20. 

aefiifiaXig,  fine  flour,  xviii.  13. 
,  iron,  xviii.  12. 

,  emerald,  xxi.  19. 

(TTpijvoc,  luxury,  xviii.  3. 

cr0a£w,  (T^drrw,  to  slay,  v.  6,  9.  12; 
vi.  4,  9  ;  xiii.  3,  8 ;  xviii.  24  (also 
3  John  iii.  12). 

ToXavriaioQ  (adj.),  weighing  a  tal 
ent,  xvi.  21. 

rc£oy,  bo\v,  vi.  2. 

roirduov,  topaz,  xxi.  20. 

VO.KIV&OQ,  jacinth,  xxi.  20. 

vdXivoc;,  of  glass,  iv.  6 ;  xv.  2. 
,  glass,  xxi.  18,  21. 


<pap/j.aKtvc,  (pappaKuc;,  sorcerer,  xxi. 

8,15. 

•%a\Ki]cd)v,  chalcedony,  xxi.  19. 
X\tapoc,  lukewarm,  iii.  16. 
\>t''  —  QctKoaioi    it,i]KovTa    t£,   six 
hundred  and  sixty-six,  xiii.  18. 
The    mystical    number    of    the 
beast.     Irenaeus  already  mentions 
another  reading,  616.     It  is  re 
markable  that  both  numbers-give 
the  name  Nero  (ji)  Cwsar  (666  — 
the  Hebrew  *1D5  "p"1.?,  616  =  the 
Latin  Nero  Ccesar~). 
%,  measure,  vi.  6. 

,  chrysolite,  xxi.  20. 

,  chrysoprase,  xxi.  20. 
,  to  deck,  xvii.  4  ;  xviii.  16. 
Q,  Omega,  i.  8 ;  xxi.  6 ;  xxii.  13. 


THE  EVIDENTIAL  VALUE  OF  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE 
GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

The  idiosyncrasies  of  the  New  Testament  writers 
furnish  a  strong  argument  for  the  apostolic  author 
ship.  They  differ  in  vocabulary  and  style,  as  well 
as  in  the  depth  and  power  of  thought,  from  all  the 
preceding  and  all  the  succeeding  authors.  The 
Christian  Church  has  always  felt  this,  and  hence 
has  given  to  the  New  Testament  a  conspicuous 
isolation  among  religious  books. 

The  Apostolic  Fathers,  so  called  (Clement  of 
Rome,  Polycarp,  Ignatius),  and  the  Apologists  of 
the  second  century  (Justin  Martyr  and  others),  be 
long  to  another  generation  of  Christians ;  their 
Greek  has  no  more  the  informing  Hebrew  spirit 
and  coloring  of  men  born  and  bred  on  the  soil  of 


THE    LANGUAGE   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.         81 

the  old  dispensation  ;  they  allude  to  secular  and 
ecclesiastical  surroundings  which  did  not  exist  in 
the  apostolic  age,  and  altogether  they  breathe  a  dif 
ferent  atmosphere.  The  epistle  of  Clement  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  that  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians, 
come  nearest  to  the  epistles  of  Paul  and  John,  but 
even  they  are  separated  from  them  by  a  very  great 
distance.  Barnabas,  Ignatius,  Hennas,  Papias,  Jus 
tin  Martyr  are  still  further  off,  and  bear  no  com 
parison  with  the  apostles  and  evangelists.  As  to 
the  apocryphal,  compared  with  the  canonical,  Gos 
pels,  the  difference  between  them  is  as  between 
night  and  day. 

ISro  transition  in  the  history  of  the  Church  is  so 
sudden,  abrupt,  and  radical  as  that  from  the  apos 
tolic  to  the  post-apostolic  age.  They  are  separated 
by  a  clear  and  sharp  line  of  demarcation.  The  Chris 
tian  spirit  is  the  same  in  kind,  yet  with  an  astonish 
ing  difference  in  degree;  it  is  the  difference  between 
inspiration  and  illumination,  between  creative  genius 
and  faithful  memory,  between  the  original  voice  and 
the  distant  echo,  between  the  clear  gushing  fountain 
from  the  rock  and  the  turbid  stream.  God  himself 
has  established  an  impassable  gulf  between  his  own 
life-giving  word  and  the  writings  of  mortal  men, 
that  future  ages  might  have  a  certain  guide  and 
standard  in  finding  the  way  of  salvation.  The 
apostolic  age  is  the  age  of  miracles,  and  the  New 
Testament  is  the  life  and  light  of  all  subsequent 
ages  of  the  church. 

6 


CHAPTER  SECOND. 

MANUSCRIPTS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Literature  on  the  Sources  of  the  Text  and  on  Textual  Criticism 

of  the  New  Testament. 
I.   PROLEGOMENA  TO  THE  CKITICAL  EDITIONS. 

Jo.  JAC.  WETSTKIN  :  'H  Kaivf)  AiaSijicr].  Novum  Testamentum  Grcecum 
editionis  receptce  cum  Icctionibus  variant  ibus,  etc,  Amstel.  1751-52,  2  torn, 
fol.  Prolegomena  in  torn.  i.  pp.  1-222;  torn.  ii.  pp.  3-15,  449-454,  741- 
743. 

Jo.  JAC.  GRIESBACII:  Novum  Testamentum  Greece.  Ed.  secunda.  liaise 
Sax.  et  Loncl.  1796-1806,  2  vols.  8vo.  Ed.  tertiam  emend,  ct  auctam  cur. 
David  Schulz  (vol.  i.  Berolini,  1827).  Prafationes  ct  Prolegomena  (vol.  i. 
pp.  iii.-lvi.,  i.-cxxvii.).  Also  his  Symbolic  Critical  (1785-93),  with  his 
Mektemata,  and  Commentarius  Criticus  in  Textum  Grcecum  N.  T.  (1798 
and  1811). 

I.  MART.  AUGUSTIN.  SCHOLZ  :  N.  T.  Gr.  Textum  adfidem  testium  criti- 
corum  recensuit,  etc.  Lips.  1830-36,  2  vols.  4to.  Prolegg.  vol.  i.  pp.  i.-clxxii. ; 
vol.  ii.  pp.  i.-lxiii.  Also  his  Biblisch-Kritische  Raise,  Leipzig  u.  Sorau.  1823. 

CAR.  LACIIMANN:  Novum  Testamentum  Greece  et  Latine.  Berolini, 
1842  and  1850,  8vo ;  Prcefatio,  vol.  i.  pp.  v.-lvi. ;  vol.  ii.  pp.  iii.-xxvi. 
Comp.  also  Lachmann's  article  in  explanation  and  defence  of  his  critical 
system,  in  the  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1830,  No.  IV.  pp.  817-845. 

AENOTII.  (  Germ.  LOBEGOTT  )  FRID.  CONST.  TISCIIENDORF  :  Novum 
Testamentum  Greece.  Ad  antiquissimos  testes  denuo  recensuit,  apparatum 
criticum  omni  studio  perfecium  apposuit.  comment ationem  isagogicam  pra- 
tcxuit.  Editio  septima.  Lips.  1859,  2  vols.  8vo.  Prolegomena,  vol.  i. 
pp.  xiii.-cclxxviii.  The  text  of  this  edition  is  superseded  by  the  editio 
octava  critica  maior  (Lips.  1869-72,  2  vols.).  The  new  Prolegomena,  which 
the  author  did  not  live  to  finish,  have  been  prepared  by  Dr.  Gregory,  with 
the  aid  of  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  and  are  now  in  course  of  publication  at  Leipsic, 
When  published,  they  will  supersede  the  Prolegg.  of  the  7th  ed. 

SAMUEL  PRIPEAUX  TREGELLES  :  The  Greek  New  Testament,  edited 
from  A  ncicnt  Authorities,  with  the  Latin  Version  of  Jerome,  from  the  Codex 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  So 

Amiatinus,  London,  published  in  parts  from  1857  to  1879,  1  vol.  4 to. 
The  7th  part  (published  in  1879,  after  the  death  of  Dr.  Tregelles)  contains 
the  Prolegomena,  with  Addenda  and  Corrigenda,  compiled  and  edited  by 
Rev.  Dr.  Hort  and  Rev.  A.  W.  Streane.  Other  works  of  Tregelles,  see 
below,  sub  II. 

HENRY  ALFORD  :  The  Greek  Testament.  London.  6th  ed.  1868,  etc.; 
Prolegomena,  vol.  i.  chs.  vi.  and  vii.  pp.  73-148.  See  also  vols.  ii.-iv. 

WESTCOTT  and  HOKT:  Introduction  and  Appendix  to  their  New  Testa 
ment  in  Greek,  forming  a  separate  vol.,  Cambridge  and  London,  1881. 
Amer.  ed.  (from  English  plates),  New  York  (Harpers),  1882.  Dr.  Hort 
prepared  the  In  trod,  and  Append.  They  are  of  the  greatest  value. 

II.   SPECIAL  WORKS  ON  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

SAM.  PRID.  TREGELLES:  An  Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek 
New  Testament,  with  Remarks  on  its  Revision  upon  Critical  Principles. 
London  (Bagster  &  Sons),  1854.  By  the  same:  Introduction  to  the 
Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Test.  London,  1860.  This  is  a  separate 
reprint  of  the  first  part  of  the  fourth  volume  of  Home's  Introd.,  10th  ed. 
London,  1856;  with  "Additions"  and  "Postscript"  in  the  llth  ed.  18GO, 
14th  ed.  1877.  Very  valuable. 

SAMUEL  DAVIDSON  :  A  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism,  Exhibiting  a  Sys 
tematic  View  of  that  Science.  Edinb.  and  London,  1852,  2  vols.  The  sec 
ond  vol.  treats  of  the  New  Test. 

J.  SCOTT  PORTER  :  Principles  of  Text.  Criticism.    Lond.  1848  (pp.  515). 

AB.  KUENEN  :  Critices  et  Hermeneutices  N.  T.  Lineamenta.   L.  Bat.  1858. 

ED.  REUSS:  Btbliotheca  Novi  Testamenti  Greed.  Brunsvigte,  1*72 
(pp.  318).  The  most  complete  list  of  all  the  printed  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  supplemented  in  this  book.  See  below. 

FR.  H.  AMBROSE  SCRIVENER:  A  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism 
of  the  New  Testament,  1861 ;  2d  ed.,  thoroughly  revised,  Cambridge  and 
London,  1874  (607  pages);  3d  ed.  in  press  (1882).  Upon  the  whole  the 
best  separate  work  on  the  subject  in  the  English  language.  Comp.  also 
Scrivener's  Six  Lectures  on  the  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  Cambridge  and 
London,  1875 ;  his  Collation  of  about  Twenty  Greek  MSS.  of  the  Holy 
Gospels,  deposited  in  the  British  Museum,  etc.,  with  a  Critical  Introduction, 
Cambridge.  1853;  his  Exact  Transcript  of  the  Codex  Avgiensis,  to  which 
is  added  a  Full  Collation  of  Fifty  Manuscripts,  with  a  Critical  Introduc 
tion  (the  latter  also  issued  separately),  Cambridge,  1859,  8vo ;  and  his 
Collation  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  with  the  Received  Text  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  Cambridge,  2d  ed.  1867. 


84:  MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

THOMAS  SHELDON  GREEN:  A  Course  of  Developed  Criticism  on  Passages 
of  the  N.  T.  materially  affect.ed  by  Various  Readings.  London  (S.  Bagster 
&  Sons),  no  date,  but  published  in  1856. 

C.  E.  HAMMOND  :  Outlines  of  Textual  Criticism  Applied  to  the  Xew 
T(siament.  Oxford,  1872;  2d  ed.  187G ;  3d  ed.  1880. 

EDWARD  C.  MITCHELL  :  Critical  Handbook  to  the  Xew  Testament. 
London  and  Andover.  1880  (the  part  on  textual  criticism,  pp.  67-143, 
revised  by  EZRA  ABBOT);  French  translation,  Paris,  1881.  Very  brief, 
but.  convenient. 

GEORGE  E.  MERRILL:  The  Story  of  the  Manuscripts.  Boston,  1881, 
ud  ed.  Popular. 

III.  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTIONS  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

The  Critical  Introductions  usually  incorporate  an  account  of  the  written 
and  printed  text  of  the  New  Test.,  and  discuss  the  principles  of  criticism. 
So  EICHHORN,  MICHAKLIS  (ed.  by  HERBERT  MARSH,  Lond.  1823,  6  vols.), 
HUG,  DE  WETTE,  BLEEK  (3d  ed.),  KEUSS  (5th  ed.  1874,  ii.  §§  351-420), 
and  HORNE  (in  the  14th  ed.  of  the  4th  vol.,  which  was  prepared  by 
TIIEGELLES,  1856  and  1860,  see  above,  sub  II.). 

IV.  ARTICLES  ON  BIBLE  TEXT. 

TISCIIENDORF  and  VON  GEBHARDT,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyk.  (new  ed. 
ii.  400-437);  translated  and  revised  by  Dr.  EZRA  ABBOT  for* Schaff's 
"  Relig.  Encycl."  1882,  vol.  i.  268  sqq. 

Canon  WESTCOTT  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (vol.  iii.  2112-2139, 
Amer.  ed.  by  Hackett  and  Abbot). 

Dr.  FREDERIC  GARDINER  (Prof,  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School, 
Middletown,  Conn.) :  The  Principles  of  Textual  Criticism,  in  the  "  Biblioth. 
Sacra"  of  Andover  for  April,  1875,  reprinted  and  revised  as  an  Appendix 
to  his  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospds  in  Greek,  Andover,  1876  and  1880. 

Two  essays  of  Dr.  EZRA  ABBOT  (Prof,  in  Cambridge,  Mass.) :  one  in 
Anglo -American  Bible  Revision,  Philadelphia,  2d  ed.  1879  (pp.  86-98), 
twice  reprinted  in  London,  1880;  and  another  in  The  New  Revision  and  its 
Study  (reprinted  from  "  The  Sunday-School  Times"),  Phila.  1881  (pp.  5-37 ; 
reprinted  in  part  in  Dr.  B.  II.  Kennedy's  Ely  Lectures  on  the  Revised  Ver 
sion  of  the  N.  T.,  London,  1882,  pp.  91-100). 

The  Revision  of  1881  has  called  forth  a  large  number  of  essays  on  the 
subject  in  nearly  all  the  leading  English  and  American  Reviews,  notably 
among  them  the  attacks  of  Dean  BURGON  in  three  articles  in  the  London 
"  Quarterly  Review  "  for  Oct.  1881,  and  Jan.  and  April,  1882 ;  with  replies 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  15 O 

from  Dr.  W.  SANDAY  in  the  "  Contemporary'  Review"  for  Dec.  1881 ;  Canon 
FAKRAK,  ibid.  March,  1882;  from  an  anonymous  writer  in  "The  Church 
Quarterly  Review,"  London,  for  Jan.  1882 ;  from  Prof.  B.  B.  WARFIELD  in 
the  "Presbyterian  Quarterly  Review,"  N.York,  for  April,  1882;  from  r.vo 
members  of  the  New  Testament  (English)  Company  (supposed  to  bn 
Bishop  ELLICOTT  and  Archdeacon  PALMER)  in  The  Rtcisers  and  the  GretL- 
Text  of  the  New  Testament,  London,  1882,  etc.,  etc. 

SOURCES    OF    THE    TEXT. 

The  text  of  the  Ne\v  Testament  is  derived  from 
three  sources — Greek  Manuscripts,  ancient  Transla 
tions,  and  Quotations  of  the  Fathers  and  other 
ancient  writers.  The  Manuscripts  are  the  most  di 
rect,  and  hence  the  most  important,  source ;  although 
in  special  cases  the  other  two  may  be  of  equal  im 
portance.  The  concurrent  testimony  of  all  three 
sources  is  conclusive. 

The  original  autographs1  of  the  apostolic  writers, 
whether  written  by  themselves  or  dictated  to  clerks,'2 
are  lost  beyond  all  reasonable  hope  of  discovery. 
They  are  not  even  mentioned  by  the  post-apostolic 
authors  as  being  extant  anywhere,  or  as  having  been 
seen  by  them.3  They  perished  probably  before  the 

1  Autogrophct,  c'tp^rvTra,  ISio^fipa. 

2  Xotarii,  amanuenses,  raxuypo^ot,  KaXXiypatyoi.    Such  are  mentioned 
or  implied,  Rom.  xvi.  22 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  21 ;  Col.  iv.  18 ;  Gal.  vi.  11 ;  2  Thess. 
iii.  17.    A  distinction  was  made  between  the  notarius,  or  the  rapid  writer, 
the  librariiis,  or  calligraphisf,  the  beautiful  writer,  who  carefully  trans 
cribed  the  first  copy,  and  the  corrector,  who  answered  to  our  modern 
proof-reader. 

3  Tertullian  (De  Prcescr.  IIce,r.  c.  36),  with  his  usual  rhetorical  fervor, 
points  the  heretics  to  "  the  apostolic  churches  in  which  the  very  thrones 
of  the  apostles  still  preside  in  their  places  (cathedra:  apostolorum  suis  locis 
pr&sident},  in  which  their  own  authentic  letters  are  read  (apud  quas  ipsw 
authenticte  litterce  eorum  recitantur),  uttering  the  voice  and  representing 


80  MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

close  of  the  first  century,  or  soon  after  they  were 
published,  that  is,  copied  and  distributed.  The  apos 
tles  and  evangelists  did  not  write  on  Babylonian 
bricks,  or  Sinaitic  rocks,  or  Egyptian  walls,  or  stones, 
or  tablets  of  wood  or  brass,  but  on  paper,  with  the 
reed-pen  and  ink.1  The  paper  then  in  common  use 
was  made  of  Egyptian  papyrus  (hence  our  word 
paper),  and  very  brittle  and  perishable.2  Jerome 


the  face  of  every  one  of  them."  These  "authentic  letters"  or  writings 
may  be  either  the  autographs,  or  the  Greek  originals  as  distinct  from 
translations,  or  genuine  and  complete  copies  as  opposed  to  the  mutilated 
copies  of  the  heretics  (e.y.  Marcion's  Luke);  but  in  any  case  the  testimony 
is  too  isolated  and  rhetorical  to  be  entitled  to  credit.  Ircmous.  Avho  wrote 
twenty  years  earlier  (about  A.D.  180),  knew  different  copies  with  two  dif 
ferent  readings  of  the  mystical  number  in  Apoc.  xiii.  18.  without  being 
able  to  appeal  to  John's  autograph  (Adv.  Hcer.  v.  30.  1);  and  Origen 
knew  no  older  text  of  the  Gospel  of  John  than  the  copy  of  Heracleon 
(In  Joli.  torn.  xiii.  11).  The  knowledge  of  the  autographs  seems  to  have 
vanished  with  the  autographs  themselves.  How  few  of  the  MSS.  of  mod 
ern  books  are  preserved  after  they  have  been  used  by  the  printer.  See 
TLschcndorf,  in  Herzog,  ii.  400;  Tregclles,  in  Home,  iv.  24;  Scrivener, 
]..  440. 

1  These  three  writing  materials  are  mentioned  in  2  John  12;  3  John  13  ; 
2  Cor.  iii.  3  :  o  ^apr^e  (Lat.  chart  a),  a  leaf  of  paper,  made  of  the  layers 
of  papyrus,  o  KaXa/iot,*  (calamus'),  the  reed-pen,  and  TO  fitXav  (neuter 
snbst.  from  /isXae,  black),  the  ink  (atramentuiri).  The  best  qualities  of 
paper  used  for  letter-writing  were  called  by  the  Romans  chart  a  Augusta, 
from  their  emperor;  Liviana,  from  his  wife;  Saitica,  etc.  See  Pliny's 
Nat.  Hist.  xiii.  12  (23,  24). 

"  The  papyrus  (from  the  Egyptian  papu)  is  a  water-plant  or  reed 
which  was  abundantly  cultivated  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  especially  the 
Delta  (but  not  now),  and  which  still  grows  freely  in  Sicily,  on  the  Lake 
of  Merom  in  Palestine,  the  Niger,  and  the  Euphrates.  The  paper  was 
made  of  slices  of  its  stem.  All  the  Egyptian  books,  even  of  the  earliest 
Pharaonic  times,  are  written  on  such  paper;  in  Europe  it  came  into 
common  use  at  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  and  prevailed  till  the 
tenth  century,  when  cotton  and  linen  paper  took  its  place. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  87 

mentions  that  in  his  day  the  library  of  Pamphilus 
of  Cgesarea,  which  then  was  not  a  century  old,  was 
already  partially  destroyed.  All  ancient  books 
written  on  that  material  have  perished,  with  the 
exception  of  the  papyrus  rolls  that  were  accidentally 
preserved  in  Egyptian  tombs  and  mummies,  or  un 
der  the  ashes  of  Mount  Vesuvius  at  Ilerculaneum 
(since  79).1  Parchment,2  made  from  the  skin  of 
animals,  is  far  more  costly  and  durable,  and  was 
used  for  the  manuscripts  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
time  of  Josephus,  but  not  for  ordinary  purposes ; 
we  have  no  MSS.  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  older 
than  the  tenth  century,3  and  no  parchment  copies 
of  the  £s"ew  Testament  older  than  the  fourth.  The 
"parchments"  which  Paul  ordered  were  probably 
sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament.4 

God  has  not  chosen  to  exempt  the  Bible  from  the 
fate  of  other  books,  but  has  wisely  left  room  for  the 


1  The  papyri  of  Egypt  arc  well  preserved,  and  contain  poems,  novels, 
prayers  for  the  dead,  etc.     Those  of  Herculaneum  have  suffered  much 
from  the  eruption  of  Vesuvius,  and  are  of  little  account  if  we  judge  from 
the  specimens  which  have  been  unrolled,  and  published  in  15  vols.  fol. 

2  The  name  (Fr.  parchemin,  from  Pergamenci)  is  derived  from  the  city 
of  Pergamum  in  Asia  Minor,  and  the  invention  is  traced  to  Eumenes,  King 
of  Pergamum,  197-159  B.C.,  but  skins  of  animals  were  so  used  long  before 
that  time.   The  common  parchment  is  prepared  from  sheepskins;  the  finer 
variety,  called  vellum,  from  the  skins  of  young  calves,  goats,  and  antelopes. 

3  The  oldest  MS.  known  is  the  MS.  of  the  Prophets  with  the  Baby 
lonian  punctuation,  from  the  year  A.D.  916;  the  oldest  complete  MS.  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  preserved  in  the  library  of  St.  Petersburg,  dates  from 
A.D.  1009.     See  Dillmann,  in  Herzog,  ii.  397. 

4  1  Tim.  iv.  13.     Paul  ordered  his  cloak  (0e\or7/7');  and  the  books  (TO. 

ia,  probably  papyrus   rolls),  and   especially  the  parchments  (rag 


88  MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

diligence  and  research  of  man,  who  is  responsible 
for  the  use  of  all  the  facilities  within  his  reach  for 
the  study  of  the  Bible.  He  has  not  provided  for 
inspired  transcribers  any  more  than  inspired  print 
ers,  nor  for  infallible  translators  any  more  than 
infallible  commentators  and  readers.  He  wastes  no 
miracles.  He  desires  free  and  intelligent  worship 
pers.  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth 
life."  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh 
profited),  nothing :  the  words  that  I  have  spoken 
unto  you  are  spirit  and  are  life."  The  Bible,  in  its 
origin  and  history,  is  a  human  as  well  as  a  divine 
book,  and  must  be  studied  under  this  twofold  aspect. 
It  is  the  incarnation  of  God's  truth,  and  reflects  the 
divine-human  person  of  Christ,  to  whom  it  bears 
witness  as  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  as  the  Way,  the 
Life,  and  the  Truth.  Even  if  we  had  the  apostolic 
autographs,  there  would  be  room  for  verbal  criticism 
and  difference  in  interpretation,  since  they,  like 
other  ancient  books,  were  probably  written  as  a 
continuous  whole,  without  accents,  with  little  or  no 
punctuation,  without  division  of  sentences  or  words 
(except  to  indicate  paragraphs),  without  titles  and 
subscriptions,  without  even  the  name  of  the  author 
unless  it  was  part  of  the  text  itself.  "  Spirit "  may 
be  the  human  spirit,  or  the  Divine  Spirit  (the  Holy 
Ghost),  and  the  distinction  which  we  mark  by  cap 
italizing  the  first  letter  cannot  be  decided  from  an 
uncial  manuscript  where  all  letters  are  capital. 
The  punctuation,  likewise,  can  be  determined  not 
by  manuscript  authority,  but  only  by  the  meaning 
of  the  context,  and  is  often  subject  to  doctrinal 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  89 

considerations,  as  notably  so  in  the  famous  passage 
affecting  the  divinity  of  Christ,  Icom.  ix.  5,  which 
admits  of  three,  if  not  seven,  different  punctuations 
and  constructions.1 

The  first  and  second  generation  of  Christians 
must  not  be  judged  after  our  modern  standard. 
Twenty  years  elapsed  before  the  first  book  of  the 
New  Testament  was  written.  The  spoken  word, 
which  carries  with  it  the  magnetic  power  of  per 
sonality,  was  the  chief  instrument  of  promoting 
Christianity  (as  it  is  to-day  in  heathen  lands).2 
The  disciples  of  the  apostles  continued  to  live  in 
the  element  of  their  living  teaching  and  example. 
Hence  there  are  but  few  literal  quotations  from  the 
New  Testament  in  the  scanty  writings  of  the  Apos 
tolic  Fathers  and  Apologists  down  to  the  middle  of 
the  second  century.  The}7  had  no  bibliographical 
curiosity  ;  they  cared  more  for  the  substance  than 
the  form  ;  they  expected,  at  least  most  of  them,  the 
speedy  end  of  the  world,  when  Christ  himself  would 

1  Much  has  been  written  on  this  passage.     The  doctrinal  question  in 
volved  is  whether  Paul  calls  Christ  God,  or  not ;  in  other  words,  whether 
3re ot;  refers  to  the  preceding  6  Xjoiorof ,  or  to  God  the  Father.     The  A.  V. 
and  the  R.  V.  (in  text)  take  the  former  view.      The  R.  V.,  however, 
recognizes  the  other  construction  in  the  margin.     The  whole  subject  has 
been  ably  and  exhaustively  discussed  on  both  sides  by  two  members  of 
the  American  Revision  Committee,  Dr.  Dwight  and  Dr.  Abbot,  in  the 
Journal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Lit.  and  Exeyesis  for  1881,  Middletown, 
Conn.,  1882,  pp.  22-55  and  87-154. 

2  Clement  of  Alexandria  records  the  curious  and  almost  incredible  tradi 
tion  that  when  the  Romans  requested  Mark  to  write  his  Gospel  from  the 
.lips  of  the  apostle  Peter,  he  neither  hindered  nor  encouraged  it,  as  if  in 
his  estimation  it  was  a  matter  of  little  importance.     Euseb.  //.  E.  vi.  14; 
see  the  note  of  Heinichen,  i.  279. 


90  MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

appear  in  glory ;  their  chief  concern  was  to  prove 
the  power  of  Christ's  teaching  by  holy  living  and 
dying. 

But  this  fact,  of  course,  does  not  detract  one  iota 
from  the  inestimable  value  of  the  primitive  text 
and  the  extreme  importance  of  its  restoration.  For 
us  the  written  or  printed  New  Testament  is  the 
only  reliable  substitute  for  the  personal  teaching  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles. 

In  the  absence  of  the  autographs,  we  must  depend 
upon  copies,  or  secondary  sources.  But  these  are, 
fortunately,  far  more  numerous  and  trustworthy  for 
the  Greek  Testament  than  for  any  other  book  of 
antiquity.  "In  the  variety  and  fulness  of  the  evi 
dence  on  which  it  rests,  the  text  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  stands  absolutely  and  unapproachably  alone 
among  ancient  prose  writings."  ]  "  In  all  classical 
literature,"  says  Tischendorf,  "  there  is  nothing 
which  even  distantly  may  be  compared  in  riches 
with  the  textual  sources  of  the  New  Testament."  2 
Of  some  of  the  first  Greek  and  Roman  classics  barely 
half  a  dozen  manuscript  copies  have  come  down  to 
us;  while  of  the  Greek  Testament  we  have  hundreds 
of  copies,  besides  many  ancient  translations  and 
innumerable  patristic  quotations. 

For  all  intents  and  purposes,  then,  the  New  Testa 
ment  has  been  preserved  to  the  Christian  world  by 
its  own  intrinsic  value,  and  by  a  Providence  which 
is  equal  to  a  miracle,  without  violating  the  ordinary 
laws  of  history  or  superseding  human  exertion. 

1  Westcott  and  Hort,  Gr.  Test.  p.  561. 
a  Die  Sinaibibel,  p.  73. 


SPECIMENS  OF  THE  CHIEF  MSS.  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


t 


5  V_J 

5- 


Codex  VATICAXUS:  Fourth  Century.  —  Mark  xvi.  8. 
raaiQ  Kai  ovCtin  ov  \  ctv  ti-ov  ityopwv  \  TO  yap  :  | 

Kara  \  papKOV. 
(The  accents  and  breathings  are  by  a  later  hand.) 


Codex  ALEXANDBINUS  :  Fifth  Century.  —  John  i.  1. 
Ev  apx1!  nv  °  ^°y°£  KaioXoyog  rj  \  Trpoc  TOV  ^[tQ^i'  '  KaiS\_eo^c  i]i>  o  Xoyog. 


H  \rXnH 


Codex  CLAROMONTANUS  :  Sixth  Century  ;  Greek  Text.—  1  Cor.  xiii.  8. 
r)  aycnrr]  \  ovcl/rore  iKTriT 


.CXTilTXS 

u  nr»  q  iLixrh  exc  i  d  e  7 


Codex  CLAKOMONTANUS  :  Sixth  Century;  Latin  Text.—  1  Cor.  xiii.  8. 
caritas  j  numquam  excidet 


OK  KAH  GI*N 
Toyicy 

Codex  LAUDIANUS  :  Sixth  Century  ;  Greek  Text.  —  Acts  xx.  28. 

TT]V  tKK\t]<JtaV  \  TOV 


to 

o  s 


o  ^ 


E11 

H  II 

O  ?£ 

£ll 


roy 

ntury.—  John  xv. 


C 

v 


Six 

V  X 


> 

0' 

h' 


John  i.  18 
TOV 


11 


t    e 

It: 

" 


§r 
ir 

x 
•3 


/C/l  1 

01 


\ure 

.  of 
]s 


known  MS. 
utem  d[eu 


0) 

co  s 

33 

SI 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  93 

GENERAL    CHARACTER    OF    MANUSCRIPTS.1 

Before  the  invention  of  the  art  of  printing — that 
is,  before  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century — books 
could  be  multiplied  only  by  the  laborious  and  costly 
process  of  transcription.  This  was  the  work  of 
slaves,  professional  scribes,  and  monks.  For  the 
preservation  of  the  priceless  treasures  of  ancient 
Greek  and  Roman  literature,  and  the  apostolic  and 

1  The  art  of  reading  ancient  MSS.  and  determining  their  age  and  value 
is  a  special  science,  called  diplomatics,  and,  in  a  wider  sense,  palaeography. 
The  founder  of  it  is  Jean  Mabillon,  of  the  Benedictine  order,  in  his  De  Re 
Diplomatica,  Paris,  1681,  fol. ;  with  a  supplement,  1704;  new  ed.  1789,  2 
vols.  fol.  The  most  important  work  on  diplomatics  is  the  Nouveau  traite 
de  diplomatique,  par  deux  reliyieux  benedictins  [Toustain  and  Tassin], 
Par.  1750-65,  G  vols.  4to.  The  principal  works  on  Greek  palaeography 
are :  Montfaucon,  Palceographia,  Grccca,  sive  de  ortu  et  progressu  littera- 
rum  Grcecarum,  Par.  1708,  fol. ;  Bast,  Commentatio  PaloBographica,  ap 
pended  to  G.  H.  Schaefer's  edition  of  Gregorius  Corinthius  De  Dialectis, 
Leipz.  1811;  Silvestre,  PaUoyraphie  unicerselle,  Par.  1839,  fol.,  torn.  ii. 
(splendid  fac-similes) ;  Westwood,  PaldBographia  Sacra  Pictoria,  Lond. 
1843;  Wattenbach,  Anleitung  zur  griech.  PalceograpJiie,  2d  ed.  Leipz. 
1877,  4to,  and  12  plates,  fol. ;  id.,  Schrifttafeln  zur  Gesch.  der  griech. 
Sclirift  und  zum  Stud  turn  der  griech.  Palceogr.,  2  vols.,  Berl.  1876-77,  fol. ; 
'Wattenbach  and  A.  von  Velsen,  Exempla  Codicum  Grcecorum  litt.  minusc. 
scriptorum,  Heidelb.  1878,  fol.,  50  photogr.  plates;  "  Paloeographical  So 
ciety  of  London."  Fac-similes  of  Ancient  MSS.,  edited  by  Bond  and 
Thompson,  Parts  i.-xi.,  Lond.  1873-81,  fol.,  still  continued ;  Wattenbach, 
Das  Schriftivesen  im  Mittelalter,  2d  ed.  Leipz.  1875,  8vo  (an  excellent 
work);  Gardthausen,  Griechische  Pal(KOfjraphie^  Leipz.  1879,  large  8vo 
(the  most  important  recent  treatise). 

A  good  compendious  introduction  to  Latin  palaeography  is  Wattcnbach's 
Anleitung  zur  lat.  Palwoff?:,  3d  ed.  Leipz.  1878,  4to  (90  pages).  L.  A. 
Chassant's  Diet,  des  abreviations  lat.  et  franqaises,  3e  ed.  Par.  1866,  16mo, 
is  very  helpful  in  reading  Latin  MSS.  or  earl)7  printed  books.  Comp.  also 
the  great  works  of  Wailly,  Elements  de  paleographie ;  Zangemeister  and 
Wattenbach's  Exempla  Codicum  Latinorum,  etc. 


91  MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

patristic  writings,  the  world  is  chiefly  indebted  to 
the  monks  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

"  The  hand  that  wrote  doth  moulder  in  the  tomb ; 
The  book  abideth  till  the  day  of  doom." 

The  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament  have 
come  down  to  us  not  in  continuous  rolls,  like  those 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  and  the  Egyptian  and 
Herculaneum  papyri,  but  in  ordinary  book  form  of 
folio,  quarto,  or  octavo,  or  smaller  size,  in  sheets 
folded  and  stitched  together.  Hence  they  are  called 
Codices.1  The  pages  are  usually  broken  into  two, 
very  rarely  into  three  or  four  columns. 

The  number  of  MSS.  now  known  is  over  seven 
teen  hundred,  including  all  classes,  and  is  gradually 
increasing  with  discoveries  in  ancient  libraries  and 
convents,  especially  in  the  East.  But  many  of  them 
have  not  yet  been  properly  examined  and  utilized 
for  textual  criticism.2 

They  differ  in  age,  extent,  and  value.  They  were 
written  between  the  fourth  and  sixteenth  centuries; 


1  Codex,  or  caudex,  means,  originally,  the  trunk  of  a  tree,  stock,  stem ; 
then  a  block  oficood  split  or  sawn  into  planks,  leaves,  or  tablets  (tabeUai), 
and  fastened  together ;  hence  a  book,  as  the  ancients  wrote  on  tablets  of 
wood  smeared  with  wax,  the  leaves  being  laid  one  upon  another.     The 
word  was  afterwards  applied  to  books  of  paper  and  parchment. 

2  The  total  number  of  MSS.  recorded  by  Dr.  Scrivener,  including 
Legionaries,  is  158  uncials  and  1G05  cursives  {Introduction,  p.  269,  comp. 
p.  x.).     But  his  list  is  incomplete.     He  gives  an  Index  of  about  1277 
separate  Greek  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  arranged  according  to  the 
countries  where  they  are  now  deposited  (pp.  571-584).     He  assigns  3  to 
Denmark,  293  to  England,  238  to  France,  96  to  Germany,  6  to  Holland, 
3  to  Ireland,  368  to  Italy,  81  to  Russia,  8  to  Scotland,  23  to  Spain,  1  to 
Sweden,  14  to  Switzerland,  104  to  Turkey,  39  unknown.    See  also  Edward 
C.  Mitchell,  Critical  Handbook,  Tables  viii.  ix.  and  x. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  9o 

the  oldest  date  from  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen 
tury,  and  rest,  of  course,  on  still  older  copies.  Few 
manuscripts  of  Greek  or  Roman  classics  are  older 
than  the  ninth  or  tenth  century.  The  Medicean 
MS.  of  Vergilius  (Virgil)  is  of  the  fourth  century, 
the  Vatican  MS.  of  Dion  Cassius  of  the  fifth.  The 
oldest  MSS.  of  /Eschylus  and  Sophocles  date  from 
the  tenth,  those  of  Euripides  from  the  twelfth,  those 
of  the  Annals  of  Tacitus  from  the  eleventh  century 
(Mediceus  I.  for  the  first  half,  and  Mediceus  II.  for 
the  second  half).  The  oldest  complete  copy  of 
Homer  is  from  the  thirteenth  century,  though  con 
siderable  papyrus  fragments  have  been  recently  dis 
covered  which  may  date  from  the  fifth  or  sixth.  Of 
the  Meditations  of  the  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius 
only  one  complete  MS.  is  known  to  exist,  that  in 
the  Vatican  library,  and  it  has  no  title,  and  no  in 
scriptions  of  the  several  books ;  the  other  Vatican 
and  three  Florentine  MSS.  contain  only  extracts  of 
the  imperial  book. 

It  is  not  impossible,  though  not  very  probable,  that 
MSS.  of  the  Kew  Testament  may  yet  be  discovered 
that  are  older  than  any  now  known.  But  we  must 
remember  that  the  last  and  most  cruel  persecution 
of  the  Church  under  Domitian  in  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century  was  especially  destructive  of 
Bibles,  which  were  correctly  supposed  to  be  the 
main  feeders  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Some  MSS.  cover  the  whole  New  Testament, 
some  only  parts;  and  hence  they  are  divided  into 
five  or  six  classes,  according  as  they  contain  the 
Gospels,  or  the  Acts,  or  the  Catholic  Epistles,  or  the 


96  MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Pauline  Epistles,  or  the  Apocalypse,  or  only  the 
Scripture  lessons  from  the  Gospels  or  Acts  and 
Epistles  (the  lectionaries).  Those  which  cover  more 
than  one  of  these  classes,  or  the  whole  Xew  Testa 
ment,  are  numbered  in  the  lists  two,  three,  or  more 
times.  The  Gospel  MSS.  are  the  most  numerous, 
those  of  the  Apocalypse  the  least  numerous.  Some 
MSS.  are  written  with  great  care,  some  contain  many 
errors  of  transcribers  ;  no  one  is  free  from  error  any 
more  than  a  printed  book.  Many  of  them  are  orna 
mented  with  illustrations  and  pictures.  Words  of 
frequent  occurrence  are  usually  abridged,  as  £rr  = 
£fioe  (God),  Ka  =  Ki>pio£  (Lord),  w  —  woe_(§on),  t(T  — 

'Irj(TOU£  (Jesus),  ^o-  =  Xptoroe   (Christ),  7rr]p  = 
(Father),  7rva  =  7rvzv/uLa  (Spirit);  also  arjp  for 


(Saviour),  avoc;  for  avSpwirot;  (man),  and  ovvov  for 
ovpavoQ  (heaven).1  Most  of  them  give  the  Greek 
text  only,  a  few  the  Latin  version  also  (hence  called 
codices  Itilinyues  or  GrcBCO-Latini),  e.  g.  Cod.  D  (or 
Bezre)  for  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  Cod.  D  (Claromon- 
tanus)  for  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  Cod.  A  (San- 
gallensis)  for  the  Gospels. 

They  were  mostly  written  in  the  East,  where  the 
Greek  continued  to  be  a  living  language,  chiefly  in 
Alexandria,  Constantinople,  and  the  convents  of 
Mount  Athos,  but  the  best  have  found  their  way  to 
the  libraries  of  Rome,  Paris,  London,  and  St.  Peters 
burg.  In  Europe  (with  the  exception  of  Greece, 
Lower  Italy,  and  Sicily)  the  knowledge  of  Greek  dis 
appeared  after  the  fifth  century  till  the  revival  of 

1  See  on  these  abbreviations  Scrivener,  pp.  46,  47. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  9< 

learning  in  the  fifteenth,  and  the  Latin  Vulgate  sup 
plied  the  place  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  Bible. 
A  few  Greek  Testaments  may  have  been  written  in 
Italy  or  Gaul,  as  the  Codex  Bezge;  perhaps  also  the 
Codex  Rossanensis,  which  was  discovered  in  Calabria 
in  18TD,  but  Von  Gebhardt  and  Ilarnack  date  it 
from  the  East  as  a  gift  of  a  Byzantine  emperor. 
Westcott  thinks  it  not  unlikely  that  Codex  B  repre 
sents  the  text  preserved  in  the  original  Greek  Church 
at  Rome.1 

All  the  MSS.,  whether  complete  or  defective,  are 
divided,  according  to  the  size  of  letters,  into  two 
classes,  uncial  and  cursive.  The  former  are  written 
in  large  or  capital  letters  (littcroe  uncialcs  or  majus- 
culce),  the  latter  in  small  letters  (litter<%  minuscules) 
or  in  current  hand.2  The  uncial  MSS.  are  older, 
from  the  fourth  to  the  tenth  century,  and  hence 
more  valuable,  but  were  discovered  and  used  long 
after  the  cursive.  Two  of  them,  the  Sinaitic  and 
the  Vatican,  date  from  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century.  One  only  is  complete,  the  Sinaitic. 

Besides  the  distinct  MSS.,  there  are  over  four 
hundred  Lectionaries  or  service-books,  which  contain 
only  the  Scripture  lessons  read  in  public  worship, 

1  Com.  on  St.  John,  Introd.  p.  Ixxxix. 

2  Uncialis  (adj.  from  uncia,  the  twelfth  part  of  anything;  hence  the 
English  ounce  and  the  German  Unze)  means  containing  a  twelfth,  and,  as 
a  measure  of  length,  the  twelfth  part  of  afoot,  or  an  inch.     It  is  not  to  be 
taken  as  literally  describing  the  size  of  the  letters.    Jlfajusculus  (adj.  dimin. 
from  major),  somewhat  greater  or  larger,  when  applied  to  letters,  had  the 
same  meaning,  and  was  opposed  to  minusculus  (from  minus),  rather  small. 
But  there  are  also  very  small  uncials,  as  on  the  papyrus  rolls  of  Her- 
culaneum. 

7 


98  MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

cither  from  the  Gospels  alone  (called  Evangelistaria 
or  Evangeliaria\  or  from  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
(Praxapostoli),  or  from  the  Epistles  (Epistolaria\ 
or  from  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  (Apostoloevangelia). 
They  are  sometimes  important  witnesses  to  the  text 
as  far  as  they  contain  it. 

A.    UNCIAL    MANUSCRIPTS. 

The  uncial  MSS.  are  designated  (since  Wetstein, 
1751),  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  by  the  capital  letters 
of  the  Latin  alphabet  (A,  B,  C,  D,  etc.),  with  the  help 
of  Greek  letters  for  a  few  MSS.  beyond  Cod.  Z,  and 
the  Hebrew  letter  Aleph  (x)  for  the  Sinaitic  MS., 
which  was  discovered  last  and  precedes  Cod.  A.1 
As  there  are  different  series  according  to  the  books 
they  contain,  the  same  letter  is  sometimes  used  two 
or  three  times.  Thus  D  designates  Codex  Bezse  in 
Cambridge  for  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  but  also  Codex 
Claromontanus  in  Paris  for  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
E  is  used  for  three  MSS.,  one  for  the  Gospels  (at 
Basle),  one  for  the  Acts  (at  Oxford),  and  one  for  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  (at  St.  Petersburg).  To  avoid  con- 


1  The  present  usage  arose  from  the  accidental  circumstance  that  the 
Codex  Alexandrimis  was  designated  as  Cod.  A  in  the  lower  margin  of 
Walton's  Polyglot  (Scrivener,  loc.  cit,  p.  72,  2d  ed.).  A  far  better  system 
would  be  to  designate  them  in  the  order  of  their  age  or  value,  which 
would  place  B  and  X  before  A.  But  the  usage  in  this  case  can  as  little 
be  altered  as  the  traditional  division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters  and  verses. 
Mill  cited  the  copies  by  abridgments  of  their  names,  e.g.,  Alex.,  Cant., 
Mont. ;  but  this  mode  would  now  take  too  much  space.  Wetstein  knew  14 
uncial  MSS.  of  the  Gospels,  which  he  designated  from  A  to  O.  and  about 
112  cursives,  besides  24  Evangelistaries.  See  the  list  at  the  close  of  his 
Prolegomena,  I.  pp.  220-222,  and  II.  3-15. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

fusion,  it  has  been  proposed  to  mark  the  difference 
by  adding  a  number ;  thus  B  is  the  famous  Vatican 
Codex  which  extends  to  Heb.  ix.  14 ;  but  B  (2)  or 
B2  is  the  Vatican  MS.  which  contains  the  Apoca 
lypse  ;  D  is  the  Codex  Bezse  for  the  Gospels  and 
Acts,  I)  (2)  or  D2  the  Cod.  Claromont.  for  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  The  cursive  MSS.  are  designated  by  Arabic 
numerals,  but  with  the  same  inconvenience  of  sev 
eral  series. 

The  uncials  are  written  on  costly  and  durable 
vellum  or  parchment,  on  quarto  or  small  folio  pages 
of  one  or  two,  very  rarely  of  three  or  four,  columns. 
The  older  ones  have  no  division  of  words  or  sen 
tences  except  for  paragraphs,  no  accents  or  orna 
mented  letters,1  and  but  very  few  pause -marks. 
Hence  it  requires  some  practice  to  read  them  with 
ease.  The  following  would  be  a  specimen  in  English 
from  the  Gospel  of  John  (i.  1,2): 

INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORD 
ANDTHE  WORDWASWITH  GODAX  D 
THEWORDWASGODTHESAMEWAS 
INTHEBEGINNINGWITHGODALL 

The  date  and  place,  which  were  not  marked  on 
MSS.  earlier  than  the  ninth  century,2  can  be  only 
approximately  ascertained  from  the  material,  the 

1  The  arabesques  at  the  end  of  the  books  in  X  B,  etc.,  might  be  con 
sidered  ornaments. 

2  The  earliest  dated  New  Test,  uncial  seems  to  be  F  of  the  Gospels,  with 
the  date  844  (according  to  Tischendorf's  explanation  of  the  inscription; 
see  Scrivener,  p.  140),  or  979  (according  to  Gardthausen,  p.  159) ;  S  of  the 
Gospels  is  dated  949.     The  oldest  dated  cursives  are  Cod.  461  of  the  Gos 
pels,  dated  A.D.  835,  Cod.  429,  A.D.  978,  and  Cod.  148  of  the  Acts,  A.D. 
984.     See  Scrivener,  p.  39,  and  Gardthausen,  pp.  181, 344. 


100         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

form  of  letters,  the  style  of  writing,  the  presence  or 
absence  of  the  Ammonian  sections  (Kt<j>a\aia,  capitu- 
Id)  in  the  Gospels,  the  Euscbian  Canons  (or  tables 
of  references  to  the  Ammonian  sections,  after  340, 
when  Eusebius  died),  the  Euthalian  sections  in  the 
Acts  and  Epistles,  and  the  stichometric  divisions  or 
lines  ((jTi\oi)  corresponding  to  sentences  (both  used, 
if  not  first  introduced,  by  Eutlialhis,  cir.  A.D.  453, 
in  his  editions  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles),1  marks 
of  punctuation  (ninth  century),  etc.  Sometimes  a 
second  or  third  hand  introduced  punctuation  and 
accents  or  different  readings.  Hence  the  distinc 
tion  of  Icctlones  a  prima  mami,  marked  by  a  star  (*); 
a  secunda  manu  (**,  or  2,  or  b) ;  a  tertia  manu  (•-**, 
or  3,  or  c).  In  Cod.  C  Tischendorf  used  small  figures 
(C*,  C2,  C3),  in  Cod.  x  he  used  small  letters  (x*?  xb,  xc). 
The  Codex  Sinaiticus  has  been  corrected  as  late  as 
the  twelfth  century. 

Some  MSS.  (as  Codd.  C,  P,  Q,  E,  Z,  £)  have  been 
written  twice  over,  owing  to  the  scarcity  and  costli 
ness  of  parchment,  and  are  called  codices  rescript^ 
or  palimpsests  (iraXt^ijaToi) ;  the  new  book  being 
written  between  the  lines,  or  across,  or  in  place  of 
the  old  Bible  text. 

Constantino  the  Great  ordered  from  Eusebius, 
for  the  churches  of  Constantinople,  the  prepara 
tion  of  fifty  MSS.  of  the  Bible,  to  be  written  "on 
artificially  wrought  skins  by  skilful  calligraphists."  ; 

1  Afterwards  these  stichometric  divisions  were  abandoned  as  too  costly, 
and  gave  way  to  dots  or  other  marks  between  the  sentences. 

2  Eusebius,   Vita   Const,  iv.  3G,   HfvrtiKovTa   aw/icino   iv   diQ&kpaiQ 

t-yKO.Ta.GKt.VQlG    ,    .    .    V7TO 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.         101 

To  judge  from  this  fact,  the  number  of  uncials  was 
once  very  large,  but  most  of  them  perished  in  the 
Middle  Ages. 

The  whole  number  now  known  is  less  than  one 
hundred.  Scrivener  reckons  56  for  the  Gospels 
(most  of  them  only  fragmentary),  14  for  the  Acts, 
6  for  the  Catholic  Epistles,  15  for  the  Pauline  Epis 
tles,  5  for  the  Apocalypse,  exclusive  of  the  uncial 
lectionaries,  which  are  not  marked  by  capitals,  but 
by  Arabic  numerals,  like  cursive  MSS.  of  all  classes.1 
Tischendorf  and  Yon  Gcbhardt  count  67 — namely,  2 
of  the  fourth  century,  7  of  the  fifth,  17  of  the  sixth, 
6  of  the  seventh,  8  of  the  eighth,  23  of  the  ninth, 
4  of  the  tenth  (Cod.  I  being  counted  three  times, 
according  to  its  different  parts).2  The  latest  and 
most  complete  list  was  kindly  furnished  to  me  in  a 
private  letter  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  of  Cambridge,  as 
the  result  of  his  own  careful  researches.  lie  states 
the  number  of  distinct  uncial  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament  (not  including  lectionaries)  at  present 
known  as  83.  We  have  for  the  Gospels  62;  for  the 
Acts  15;  for  the  Catholic  Epistles  7;  for  the  Pauline 
Epistles  20 ;  and  for  the  Apocalypse  5.  This  in 
cludes  the  Codex  Eossanensis^  the  Sunderland  pa 
limpsest,  and  three  or  four  small  fragments  not  used 
by  Tischendorf.  Dr.  Abbot's  list  is  as  follows : 

Gospels:  X  A  B  C  D  E  FFa  G  H  li.s.4.7.  jb  K  I.  M  NO  Oabcdef  PQ 

RST  Twoi  Tbcde  U  V  Wabcdef  X  YZ  T  A  eabcdefeh  A  A 
n  2  and  the  Sunderland  MS.  (W*,  Gregory)  =  62. 

1  Scrivener,  Introd.  p.  72  (2d  ed.  1874). 

'2  In  Herzog,  revised  ed..  ii.  410  sq.    That  art.  was  written  in  1878.    Dr. 
Abbot  revised  it  again  in  1882  for  Schaff  's  Rd.  EncycL  and  for  this  work. 


102         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Acts :  S  A  B  C  D  E  CO  F  «  G  (•/)  G  b  II  (•->)  1 2- 5- c-  L  (-.•)  P  (2)  =  15. 
Cath. :  K  A  B  C  K  (•-')  L  (-.-)  P  (2)  =  7. 

Paul :  K  A  B  C  D  Q  E  (s)  F  Q  F iv  G  (=<)  II  (3)  I  -•  K  (2)  L  (•.')  M  (-0  X  (•->) 

0  0  O  b  (0  P  CO  Q  CO  KCO  =  20. 
Apoc. :  X  A  B  («)  C  P  =  o. 

Whole  number  of  distinct  MSS. : 

X  A  B  B  nP°c  C  D evv- act  D  ranl  E  E act  E  Paul  F  F  raul  F  a  G  G act  (G  Paul) 

Gb(act)  n  nm:t  IlPaul  I  1.2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  Jb  K  K  cath.  pnul    L  L  act.  c.»th.  paul  M 
MPaul  N  NPnul  Q  OabcJef  QPaul  Ob(Paul>  P  Pact.  cath.  paul   aPoc  Q  Q  paul 

E  Rpa»i  S  T  (or  T»)  Twoi  Tbcdc  U  V  Wabcjef  X  Y  Z  T  A  eabcde/vh 
A  S  II  2  and  the  Sunderland  MS.  (W=,  Gregory)  =83. 

(T  paul  and  A  are  parts  of  the  same  MS.,  and  are  here 
counted  as  one.  The  Codex  Sunderlandianus,  as 
we  may  call  it,  consists  of  considerable  palimpsest 
fragments  of  all  the  four  Gospels  in  uncial  writing 
of  perhaps  the  ninth  century,  found  in  a  Mencewn 
belonging  to  the  Sunderland  Library  (No.  3252  of 
the  Catalogue),  and  recently  sold  to  the  British  Mu 
seum  (Add.  MSS.  31,  919).  They  have  been  de 
ciphered  by  Processors  T.  K.  Abbott  and  J.  P.  Ma- 
haffy  of  Dublin.  The  text  is  not  of  great  value. 

i.    PRIMARY    UNCIALS. 

There  are  four  nncial  MSS.  which  for  antiquity, 
completeness,  and  value  occupy  the  first  rank — two 
of  the  fourth,  two  of  the  fifth  century ;  one  complete 
(x),  two  nearly  complete  (A  and  B),  one  defective  (C). 
To  these  is  usually  added  Cod.  D,  as  the  fifth  of  the 
great  uncials,  but  it  contains  only  the  Gospels  and 
Acts,  and  has  strange  peculiarities.  In  the  Gospels 
the  text  of  C,  L,  T,  Z,  &,  and  of  A  in  Mark,  is  better 
than  that  of  A,  but  in  the  rest  of  the  New  Testa- 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          103 

mcnt  A  is  undoubtedly,  after  x  and  B,  the  most  im 
portant  MS. 

CODEX    SINAITICUS. 

x  (Aleph).  Codex  SINAITICUS,  formerly  in  the 
Convent  of  Mount  Sinai  (hence  its  name),  now  in 
the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  It  dates 
from  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  is  written 
on  fine  parchment  (13^  inches  wide  by  14|  high),  in 
large  uncials,  with  four  columns  to  a  page  (of  4:8  lines 
each).  It  has  346^-  leaves.  It  was  discovered  and 
secured  by  the  indefatigable  Prof.  C.  Tischendorf, 
in  the  Convent  of  St.  Catharine,  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Sinai,  from  which  the  law  of  Jehovah  was 
proclaimed  for  all  generations  to  come,  and  where 
this  precious  document  had  been  providentially  pre 
served  for  many  centuries  unknown  and  unused  till 
the  fourth  of  February,  1859.  It  was  transferred  first 
to  Cairo,  then  to  Leipsic,  and  at  last  to  St.  Peters 
burg,  where  it  is  sacredly  kept.  The  text  was  printed 
at  Leipsic,  and  published  at  St.  Petersburg  at  the 
expense  of  the  Czar,  Alexander  II.,  in  celebration  of 
the  first  millennium  of  the  Russian  empire,  by  typo 
graphic  imitation  from  types  specially  cast,  in  four 
folio  volumes.1  A  photographic  fac-simile  edition 

1  Bibliorum  Codex  Sinaiticus  Petropolitanus.  A  uspiciis  august issi mis 
Imperatoris  A  lexandri  II.  ex  tenebris  protraxit  in  Europam  transtulit  ad 
iuvandas  atque  illustrandas  sacras  litteras  edidit  CONSTANTINUS  TISCHEX- 
DOUF.  Petropoli,  MDCCCLXII.  The  first  volume  contains  the  dedica 
tion  to  the  Emperor  (dated  Lips,  'jy^i'  1862),  the  Prolegomena,  Notes  on 
the  corrections  by  later  hands,  and  twenty-one  plates  (in  fac-simile); 
vols.  ii.  and  iii.  contain  the  Septuagint;  vol.  iv.  the  Greek  Testament 
leaves),  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (foil.  135-141),  and  a  part  of  the 


104         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

would  be  still  better,  but  would  have  cost  over 
§100,000,  and  presented  many  blurred  pages. 

The  New  Testament,  together  with  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  and  the  fragment  of  Hennas,  was  also 
separately  edited  by  Tischendorf  in  smaller  type  in 
quarto  (Leipsic,  1SG3),  in  four  columns;  and  an 
octavo  edition  in  ordinary  type  (ibid.  18G5).  He 
issued  a  Collatio  Critica  of  the  Sinaitic  with  the 
Elzevir  and  Vatican  texts  (Lips.  pp.  xxii.  and  109). 
Dr.  Scrivener  also  published  a  "  Full  Collation  of  the 
Sinaitic  MS.  with  the  Received  Text  of  the  New 
Testament"  (Cambridge,  1864;  2d  ed.  1867). 

Codex  x  is  the  most  complete,  and  also  (with  the 
exception,  perhaps,  of  the  Vatican  MS.)  the  oldest, 
or,  at  all  events,  one  of  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  although 
it  was  last  found  and  used.  Tischendorf  calls  it 
"omnium  codicum  uncial'mm  solus  integer  omni- 
umque  antiquissimus"  lie  assigns  it  to  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  or  to  the  age  of  Eusebius,  the 
historian,  who  died  in  340.  He  thinks  it  not  im 
probable  that  it  was  one  of  the  fifty  copies  which 
Constantino  had  ordered  to  be  prepared  for  the 
churches  of  Constantinople  in  331,  and  that  it  was 
sent  by  the  Ernperor  Justinian  to  the  Convent  of 


Pastor  Ilermse  (full.  142-14:<i).  Three  hundred  copies  of  this  rare  and 
costly  edition  were  printed  and  distributed  among  crowned  heads  and 
large  libraries,  except  one  third  of  the  number,  which  were  placed  at  the 
disposal  of  Prof.  Tischendorf  for  his  private  use.  There  are  probably 
about  a  dozen  copies  of  this  edition  in  the  United  States — in  the  library 
of  the  Am.  Bible  Society,  in  the  libraries  of  the  Theol.  Seminaries  at  New 
York  (Union  Sem.),  Princeton,  Andover,  in  the  Astor  Library,  the  Lenox 
Library,  in  the  University  libraries  of  Harvard.  Yale,  Rochester,  Auburn, 
etc. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          105 

Mount  Sinai,  which  he  founded.1  It  contains  large 
portions  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Septuagint 
Version  (199  leaves),  and  the  whole  New  Testa 
ment,  without  any  omission,  together  with  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas,  all  in  Greek,  and  a  part  of  the  Pastor 
Hernias  in  Greek  (IttTi  leaves).  It  is  much  disfig 
ured  by  numerous  corrections  made  by  the  original 
scribes  or  several  later  writers,  especially  one  of  the 
fourth  century  (sa),  whose  emendations  are  very  valu 
able,  and  one  of  the  seventh  (sc).  It  often  confirms 
Cod.  Yaticanus  in  characteristic  readings  ( 
•v£oc  for  wo£,  in  John  i.  18  J  r/}i>  t/cKArj 
for  Kvptov,  in  Acts  xx.  28),  and  omissions,  as  the  dox- 
ology  in  Matt.  vi.  13  ;  the  end  of  Mark  (xvi.  9-20) ; 
the  passage  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  (John 
vii.  53-viii.  11) ;  lv  'E^W,  Eph.  i.  1.  It  frequently 
agrees,  also,  with  the  Old  Latin  Version ;  but  in 
many  and  important  cases  it  supports  other  witness 
es,  and  thereby  proves  its  independence.2  In  1  Tim. 


1  See  Tischendorfs  edition  of  the  English  New  Test.,  Loips.  1869, 
p.  xii.,  and  Die  Sinaibibel  (1871),  p.  77.    After  a  more  careful  inspection  of 
the  Vatican  MS.  in  I860,  he  somewhat  modified  his  view  of  the  priority 
of  the  Sinaitic  over  the  Vatican  MS.,  and  assigned  them  both  to  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  maintaining  even  that  one  of  the  scribes  of  X  (who 
wrote  six  leaves,  and  whom  he  designates  D)  wrote  the  New  Testament 
part  of  B.     Compare  the  learned  and  able  essay  of  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot 
(against  Dean  Burgon):    Comparative   Antiquity  of  the   Sinaitic   and 
Vatican  MSS.,  in  the  "Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society,"  vol.  x. 
(1872),  pp.  189-200,  and  p.  G02.     Von  Gebharclt,  in  Herzog's  Real-Ency- 
klopiidie  (new  ed.),  vol.  ii.  p.  414,  pronounces  Burgon's  attempt  to  prove 
the  higher  antiquity  of  the  Vatican  MS.  by  fifty  to  one  hundred  years 
an  entire  failure. 

2  Tischendorf  says  (Waffen  der  Finsterniss,  etc.,  p.  22) :  "A  thousand 
readings  of  the  Sinaiticus,  among  them  exceedingly  remarkable  and  im- 


106         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

iii.  1G  it  supports  the  Alexandrian  and  Ephraem 
MSS.  in  reading  oc  tyavtpvSri  for  ^to^,  but  in  this 
place  all  three  MSS.  have  been  corrected  by  a  later 
hand.  It  has  contributed  very  much  towards  the 
settlement  of  the  text,  and  stimulated  the  progress 
of  the  revision  movement  in  England,  in  connec 
tion  with  Tischendorf  s  Tauchnitz  edition  of  King 
James's  Version  (1SG9),  which  gives  in  foot-notes 
the  chief  readings  of  the  three  great  uncials  x,  B, 
and  A. 

Tischendorf  first  copied  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  with 
the  help  of  two  German  scribes  (a  physician  and  a 
druggist),  at  Cairo  in  two  months.1  But  afterwards, 
when  he  had  secured  its  permanent  possession  for  the 
Russian  government,  the  whole  of  the  great  edition 
was  printed,  as  Tischendorf  assures  us,  from  a  copy 
made  by  himself;  and  in  the  final  revision  of  the 
proof-sheets  he  personally  compared  every  line  twice 
with  the  original  manuscript.2  Tregelles  inspected 

portant  ones  (ausserst  merkiviirdige  und  wichliye),  which  are  sustained  by 
the  oldest  fathers  and  versions,  are  found  neither  in  the  Vaticanus  nor  the 
Alexandrinus." 

1  Nov.  Test.  Greece  ex  Sinaitico  Codice  .  .  .  ed.  Lips.  1865,  Prolegg.  p.  xii. : 
"  Ut  erat  constitution,  sine  mora  suscepta  est  totius  textus  antiquissimi  tran- 
scriptio  alque  labor-is  sociis  adsumptis  duobus  popularibus,  altero  medicines 
doctore,  altero  medicament ario,  intra  duo  menses  absoluta." 

2  He  says  (Vorwort  zur  Sin.  Bibdhandschrift,  etc.,  Lips.  1862,  pp.  19, 
20) :  "  In  die  Druckerei  gelangte  nichts  anderes  als  A  bschriften  meiner 
Hand,  die  bei  erneuerter  Vergleichung  des  Originals,  das  nie  aus  meinen 
Jfdnden  Team,  durch  vielfache  Zeichen  fur  das  Verstdndniss  der  Setzer 
eingerichtet  ivurden.   Ilierzu  Team  eine  andere  nichtgeringe  A  rbeit.    Nachdem 
die  ersten  Correkturabztige  von  anderer  /Seite,  besonders  durch  Dr.  M'uhl- 
mann,  den  Ilerausgeber  eines  Thesaurus  der  classischen  Latinitat,  nach 
meiner  Abschrift  beric/itet  worden  waren,  blieb  mir  allein  die  Aujgabe, 
diesdben  Druckbogen  noch  zwei  Mai  nach  dem  Original  zu  revidiren" 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          107 

the  original  at  Leipsic  in  1862  in  Tischendorf's 
house,  and  supposed  himself  to  have  discovered  a 
number  of  errors  in  the  St.  Petersburg  edition  ;  but 
Tischendorf  maintains  that  the  English  critic  (whose 
eyesight  had  become  seriously  impaired),  and  Scriv 
ener  likewise,  in  his  proposed  corrections  in  the  first 
edition  of  his  Collation  (1864),  were  wrong  in  every 
instance.1  Considerable  portions  of  it  have  been 
photographed,  and  real  fac-  similes  are  given  in 

KAJ  O  M  OAOFOyMe 

N  CD  c  H  er^ecri  N 
TOTHceyceBeixc 

MYCTHplONOCe 


n  N  ICD<£>e 


OHeNKOCMCJD 


SPECIMEN  OF  THE  CODEX  SINAITICUS,  CONTAINING  1  TIM.  in.  16: 
/cat  o/ioXoyovjwe  |  vuig  jwfya  tanv  \  TO  TH]Q  ivatfitiaQ  \  pvaTrjpiov  og  e 
0av£pa»$jj  f  v  oap  \  KI  '  £^t/caia>3»/  iv  \  nvi  ai^rj  ayyfXoit; 
tv  £  |  Svwiv  f  7ri<mv  I  ^TJ  tv  KOfffiw  '  \  av(\t]fj-(f>^r]  tv  \  So^rj. 


1  See  Tischendorf's  Nov.  Test.  Greece  ex  Sinaitico  Codice  (Lips.  1865), 
Proleyg.  pp.  xliii.-li. 


108         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Tischendorf  s  three  editions,  and  in  Scrivener's  In 
troduction.  Mr.  Burgon,  also,  in  his  book  on  the 
Last  Twelve  'Verses  of  J\IarJi^  gives  an  exact  fac 
simile  of  a  page,  taken  at  St.  Petersburg,  which 
shows  the  last  two  columns  of  Mark  (to  xvi.  8)  and 
the  first  two  columns  of  Luke. 

NOTE  ON  THE  DISCOVERY  OF  CODKX  SINAITICUS. — The  story  of  this 
great  discovery,  which  made  Dr.  Tischendorf  one  of  the  happiest  men  I 
ever  knew,  reads  like  an  heroic  romance :  his  three  journeys  from  Leipsic 
to  Mount  Sinai,  in  pursuit  of  manuscript  treasures,  in  1844.  1853,  and 
1859 ;  his  first  rescue  of  forty-three  leaves  of  the  Septuagint  from  a  waste- 
basket  in  the  library  of  the  Convent  of  St.  Catharine  in  1844  (published 
as  ''Codex  Friderico-Augustanus  "  in  1846);  his  fruitless  journey  in  1853; 
his  final  discovery  of  the  whole  Cod.  Sinaitictis  in  1859.  with  the  powerful 
aid  of  the  recommendation  of  the  Russian  Czar,  who  met  such  a  terrible 
death  at  the  hands  of  the  Nihilists  in  1881 ;  his  patient  labor  in  transcrib 
ing  the  priceless  document  first  at  Cairo,  then  at  Leipsic,  and  in  its  pub 
lication  in  four  magnificent  volumes,  in  connection  with  a  great  national 
event  of  the  Russian  empire  (1862);  his  controversy  with  the  Greek 
Simonides,  who  impudently  claimed  to  have  written  the  codex  on  Mount 
Athos  in  1839  and  1840;  his  successful  vindication;  his  two  smaller  edi 
tions  of  the  New  Testament  with  ample  Prolegomena;  and  his  thorough 
utilization  of  the  Codex  and  all  other  available  sources  in  the  eighth  and 
last  critical  edition  of  his  Greek  Testament  (completed  in  1872),  so  soon 
followed  by  a  stroke  of  apoplexy  and  death  (in  1874).  All  these  advent 
ures  and  incidents  form  one.  of  the  most  remarkable  chapters  in  the  history 
of  biblical  discoveries  and  scholarship.  He  has  told  the  story  repeatedly 
and  fully  himself,  not  without  some  excusable  vanity,  in  his  lieise  in  den 
Orient  (1845-46),  and  Avs  dem  keil.  Lande  (1862,  sections  9,  10.  15,  25); 
his  Notitia  Codicis  Sinaitici  (1860);  the  Prolegomena  to  his  editions 
(1862  and  1865);  his  two  controversial  pamphlets.  Die  Anfechtunyen  der 
Sinaibibel  (1863),  and  Waffen  der  Finsterniss  wider  die  Sinaibibel  (1863) ; 
and  most  fully  in  his  Die  Sinaibibel,  Hire  Entdeckuny,  Herausyabe  und 
Erwerbung  (Leipzig,  1871). 

He  thus  describes  his  delight  when,  on  his  third  journey,  he  discovered, 
almost  by  an  accident  on  the  eve  of  his  departure,  the  entire  MS.,  and 
was  permitted  to  examine  it  in  his  room  : 

"  Not  till  I  reached  my  chamber  did  I  give  myself  up  to  the  over- 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    TIIE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          109 

powering  impression  of  the  reality ;  my  wildest  hopes  and  dreams  were 
more  than  accomplished.  I  knew  that  in  my  hands  I  held  an  incompar 
able  treasure  for  Christian  learning.  While  in  the  deepest  emotion  I  now 
recognized,  too,  on  the  leaves  before  my  eyes,  in  pale  characters,  the 
superscription  '  The  Shepherd.'  In  fact,  there  lay  before  me  not  only  the 
entire  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  but  also  a  portion  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias. 
Both  these  writings  were  regarded  by  many  congregations  before  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  as  constituent  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
but  had  well-nigh  disappeared  after  the  Church  had  once  declared  them 
apocryphal.  The  books  of  our  New  Testament  were  complete  :  what  an 
immense  advantage  over  our  most  renowned  Bible  manuscripts— the  Vat 
ican  and  the  Alexandrine!  Of  the  Old  Testament,  not  only  were  those 
eighty-six  leaves  recovered,  but  —  and  how  precious  was  every  single 
leaf — one  hundred  and  twelve  others  besides,  including  all  the  poetical 
books. 

"It  was  past  eight  in  the  evening;  one  lamp  feebly  lit  my  chamber; 
there  was  no  means  of  warming,  although  in  the  morning  it  had  been  icy 
cold  in  the  convent.  But  in  the  presence  of  the  found  treasure  it  was  not 
possible  for  me  to  sleep.  I  immediately  set  myself  to  work  to  copy  off  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  whose  first  part  was  hitherto  known  only  in  a  de 
fective  Latin  translation.  It  was  clear  to  me  that  I  must  copy  the  whole 
manuscript,  if  I  should  not  be  able  to  get  possession  of  the  original."  1 


1  Die  Sinaibibel  (1871),  pp.  13,  14.  As  this  book  (one  of  the  last  from 
his  pen)  may  become  very  rare,  I  will  add  the  original :  "Erst  avfmeinem 
Zimmer  (jab  ich  mick  dem  iibericdltigenden  Eindruck  der  Thatsache  Jiin  ; 
meine  kiihnsten  Hoffnunyen  und  Trdume  waren  iibertroffcn.  Ich  wusste, 
dass  ich  einen  unvergleichlichen  Schatz  fur  die  christliche  Wissenschuft  in 
meinen  lldnden  hielt.  Mitten  in  der  tiefsten  Ruhrunrj  erkannf  ich  jet zt  auch 
anf  Bldttern  vor  meinen  Augen  in  blassen  Schriftziigen  die  Aufschrift: 
(Der  IJirte.'  In  der  That  lag  aitsscr  dem  vollstdndigen  Brief e  des  Barna 
bas  auch  ein  Theil  vom  Ilirten  des  Hermas  vor  mir :  beide  Schriften  wur- 
den  vor  der  Mitte  des  4.  Jahrhunderts  von  vielen  Seiten  als  Bestandtheile 
des  Neuen  Testaments  angesehen,  waren  dann  aber.  da  sie  die  Kirche  fiir 
apokryph  erkltirte,  fast  verschwunden.  Die  Biicher  unseres  Neuen  Testa 
ments  waren  vollstdn dig :  welch  ausserordentlicher  Vorzvg  vor  unseren 
beriihmtesten  Bibelhandschriften,  der  Vatikanischen  und  der  A  lexandrini- 
schen.  Vom  A  Iten  Testament  waren  nicht  nurjene  86  Blatter  wiedergefunden, 
sondern — und  wie  kostbar  war  jedes  einzelne  Blatt — noch  112  andere  mil 
sdmmtlichen  poetischen  Buchern. 


110         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

He  secured  first  the  temporary  loan  of  the  Codex.  It  was  carried  by 
Bedawln  on  camel's  back  from  Mt.  Sinai  to  Cairo.  There  he  copied, 
with  the  help  of  two  of  his  countrymen,  the  110,000  lines  of  the  Codex, 
and  marked  the  changes  by  later  hands,  which  amount  in  all  to  over 
12,000.  In  October  of  the  same  year  he  was  permitted  to  take  it  with 
him  to  Europe  as  a  conditional  present  to  the  Czar  for  the  purpose  of  pub 
lication.  He  showed  it  first  to  Emperor  Francis  Joseph  at  Vienna,  then 
to  King  John  of  Saxony,  and  to  the  King  of  Prussia  (now  Emperor  of 
Germany)  in  Berlin,  and  his  minister  of  worship  (Herr  von  Bethmann 
Holweg,  who  recognized  a  special  providence  in  the  discovery  of  such  a 
treasure  at  the  foot  of  Mt.  Sinai  by  a  German  Professor  of  the  Evangelical 
Church).  In  November  he  laid  it  before  Alexander  II.  and  the  Holy 
Synod  at  St.  Petersburg,  where  it  was  kept  for  a  while  in  the  Foreign 
Office.  Then  it  was  used  by  Tischendorf  in  the  preparation  of  his  edition 
in  Leipsic,and  at  last  (18G9)  permanently  transferred  to  the  imperial  library. 

Thus  the  four  great  Eastern  uncials  arc  distributed  throughout  Europe 
—the  Sinaitic  is  in  St.  Petersburg  and  the  Greek  Church,  the  Vatican  in 
liome  and  the  IJoman  Church,  the  Alexandrian  in  London  and  the 
Anglican  Church,  Codex  Ephraem  in  Paris  and  the  Galilean  Church. 
Germany  has  none  of  these  treasures,  but  has  done  more  to  secure  and  to 
utilize  them  for  the  benefit  of  Christendom  than  any  other  country. 

In  March,  1877,  it  was  my  privilege  to  visit  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine 
on  Mount  Sinai— that  awfully  sublime  granite  pulpit  of  Jehovah  for  the 
proclamation  of  his  hoi}7  law  to  all  future  generations.  Two  of  the  thirty 
monks  kindly  showed  me  that  curious  building  which  unites  the  charac 
teristics  of  a  fort,  a  church,  a  mosque,  and  a  monastic  retreat,  and  calls  to 
mind  some  of  the  greatest  events  in  the  history  of  the  race.  I  saw  the 
library  of  several  hundred  written  and  printed  volumes,  ascetic  and  homi- 
letic  treatises,  mostly  in  Greek,  some  in  Arabic,  some  in  Eussian,  many 
of  them  worm-eaten,  soiled,  and  torn.  On  a  dusty  table  lay  Champollion's 
Pictorial  Egypt  (presented  to  the  Convent  by  the  French  government), 


"  Es  war  Abends  nach  acht,  eine  Lampe  erleuclitete  mtr  sparlich  mein 
Zimmer ;  ein  Mittel  zur  Ileiznng  gab  es  nicht,  obsckon  es  am  Morgen  im 
Kloster  sogar  Eis  gefroren  hatte.  A  her  es  war  mir  nicht  mdglich,  gegeniiber 
dem  entdecTcten  Reichthume  zu  schlafen.  Ich  setzte  mich  vielmehr  sqfort 
daran,  den  Brief  des  Barnabas,  dessen  erstcr  Theil  nur  erst  aus  eimr 
mangelhaften  lateinischen  Uebersetzung  bekannt  war,  abzuschreiben,  Es 
war  mir  Mar,  dass  ich  die  ganze  Handschrift  abschreiben  musste,  wenn  ich 
sie  nicht  im  Original  sollte  erwerben  konnen." 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          Ill 

a  copy  of  Tischendorf's  edition  of  the  Septnagint  (which  was  presented  by 
himself),  and  a  copy  of  the  imperial  four-volume  edition  of  the  Codex 
Sinaiticus  (no  doubt  a  present  of  the  Czar).  A  beautiful,  but  rather  late, 
copy  of  an  Evangelistary  ( the  Codex  Aureus ),  written  in  gold  uncial 
letters  in  double  columns,  with  illuminated  pictures  of  the  Saviour,  the 
Virgin,  and  the  Evangelists,  is  preserved  in  the  chapel,  and  adorns  a 
reading-desk.  When  I  inquired  about  the  original  Codex  Sinaiticus, 
and  mentioned  the  name  of  Tischendorf,  the  sub -prior  kindled  up  in 
indignation  and  unceremoniously  called  him  a  thief,  who  had  stolen 
their  greatest  treasure  on  the  pretext  of  a  temporary  loan.  When  I  re 
minded  him  of  the  large  reward  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  who  had  fur 
nished  a  new  silver  shrine  for  the  coffin  of  St.  Catherine,  he  admitted  it 
reluctantly,  but  remarked  that  they  did  not  want  the  silver,  but  the 
manuscript — the  manuscript,  of  which  these  ignorant  monks  had  actually 
burned  several  leaves  before  Tischendorf  came  to  the  rescue  of  the  rest  in 
1844.  But  the  charge  of  theft  is  false.  After  long  delays  and  Oriental 
formalities  the  Codex  was  formally  presented  (not  sold)  to  the  Czar  in 
1809  by  the  new  prior,  Archbishop  Kallistratos,  and  the  monks  of  the 
Convents  of  St.  Catherine  and  Cairo.  The  usual  Oriental  expectation 
of  backsheesh  was  fulfilled,  although  perhaps  not  to  the  extent  which 
Dr.  Tischendorf  desired.  So  he  assured  me  in  1871,  and  showed  me,  at 
Leipsic,  two  letters  of  Kallistratos  full  of  Oriental  compliments  and  ex 
pressions  of  gratitude  to  the  German  Professor,  and  stating  that  the  Codex 
was  presented  to  the  Autocrat  of  the  Eussias  as  "a  testimony  of  eternal 
devotion  "  (t/£  tvEtigiv  ri}£  d'iciov  t'/^wv  KCII  TOV  *2iva 
See  his  own  account  of  the  final  delivery  in  Die  SinaiUbd,  p.  91. 


CODEX    ALEXANDKINUS. 

A.  Codex  ALEXANDRINUS  of  the  fifth  century,  in 
quarto  and  two  columns  (12f  inches  high,  10J  broad), 
given  by  Patriarch  Cyril  Lucar  of  Constantinople 
(the  unlucky  Calvinistic  reformer,  formerly  of  Alex 
andria)  to  King  Charles  I.  (1628),  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  London,  where  the  open  volume  of  the 
New  Testament  is  exhibited  in  the  MS.  room.  It 
was  probably  written  in  Alexandria.  It  contains 
on  773  leaves  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  Septuagint 


112         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Version  (edited  by  Baber,  London,  1816-28),  and  the 
New  Testament ;  but,  unfortunately,  with  the  omis 
sion  of  Matt.  i.  1-xxv.  G,  John  vi.  50-viii.  52,  and 
2  Cor.  iv.  13-xii.  G.  It  has  also  at  the  end  the  Greek 
Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians, 
with  a  fragment  of  a  second  epistle,  or  rather  homily. 
This  was  the  only  MS.  extant  of  Clement  before 
the  discovery  by  Philotheos  Bryennios  of  the  copy 
at  Constantinople  (1S75).  The  New  Testament  of 


V XN 


i  e  n  o 

KJPHN 

oc. 
KOTOCG  n ^N  UL>T~HC  &3  y  c  c  o y 


oc  exe~re  e  XYT-O  i  c 
no  i  rvfl  rvi  ICU-CMCOV^ 
xr  i  o  M  e  O e-roenm  c  KOTTO vc 

Kl< 

MC 


SPECIMENS  OF  THE  CODEX  ALEXAXDKINUS. 

The  first  is  in  bright  red,  with  breathings  and  accents,  and  contains 
Gen.  i.  1,  2,  Sept.  (Ev  (\pxn  tTrtitjatv  o  3cr  TOV  6v  \  pavuv  KCIL  Trjv 
y//j'  »/  ct  y>)  f/i>  ao  \  paroa  KCU  ciKciTanKtvaaTOG'  \  KCII  GKOTCHF  iiravd) 
Ti](j  afjvffffov.').  The  second  specimen  is  in  common  ink,  and  contains 
Acts  xx.  28  (rTpoerf^fre  eavroiff  /cat  TTO.VTI  rw  \  Troiftvid) '  tv  w  i'yuacr 
TO  Trva  TO  \  ayiov  e3fro  t iriaKOTrovcr '  \  Troifiaivtiv  TI]V  iKK\r]aiav  I  TOV 
KV  rjv  TreptfTTOtT/craro  £ia  \  TOV  ai}JiaTOQ  TOV  ifiiov.*),  A  favors  Kvp'iov 
versus  Seov. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          113 

the  Alexandrian  MS.  was  published  by  Charles  G. 
"Woide  in  uncial  type  (London,  1786),  and  by  B.  II. 
Cowper,  in  common  type  (ibid.  1860).  We  have  it 
now  in  a  most  beautiful  photographic  fac-simile, 
issued  by  the  Trustees  of  the  British  Museum,  Lon 
don,  1879.  The  Old  Testament  part  is  in  course  of 
publication  in  the  same  style  (1882). 

Cod.  A  is  the  first  uncial  MS.  that  was  used  by 
biblical  scholars  (although  Cod.  D  was  knoion  be 
fore  to  Beza).  It  stands  in  the  third  or  fourth 
rank  of  the  large  uncials.  It  presents  a  text  which 
in  the  Gospels  occupies  an  intermediate  position  be 
tween  the  oldest  uncial  and  the  latter  cursive  text, 
and  which  seems  to  have  been  most  circulated  in 
the  fourth  century;  but  in  the  rest  of  the  New  Test. 
it  stands  next  to  K  and  B.  In  several  books  it  agrees 
with  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  many  peculiar  readings 
which  are  not  attested  by  the  older  Latin  ;  hence 
Dr.  Hort  (ii.  152)  infers  that  Jerome,  in  his  revision, 
must  have  used  to  a  great  extent  a  common  original 
with  A. 

CODEX    VATICANUS. 

B.  Codex  VATICANUS,  of  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  on  very  fine  thin  vellum,  in  small  but  clear 
and  neat  uncial  letters,  in  three  columns  (of  42  lines 
each)  to  a  quarto  page  (10  inches  by  10-J),  preserved 
in  the  Vatican  Library  at  Borne  (No.  1209).  It  is 
the  most  valuable  of  the  many  valuable  treasures  of 
this  great  repository  of  ecclesiastical  learning  and 
literature.  It  is  more  accurately  written  than  the 
Sinaitic  MS.,  and  probably  a  little  older,  but  not  so 
8 


fJ.1v  TOV  \i$OV  tK  r/}<7 

|  Supav   TOV    juj'/j- 
KCLI     dva 


aiv  OTL  dvaKEKv  '. 
XiffTai  o  XiSotT  i\v 
•yap  |  jutyatr  a<po- 
?pa  K-dt  tX  \  Sovaai 
HIT  TO  juyfj/m  ov 
ilcov  vtaviffKOv  \ 

V    kV  TOlCf 


\fVKt]V     |     K"ai      t%£- 

$anj3!i3i]aai>  \  o  Si 
Asyei  ouratff  JLU)  j 
kS'a^/Sti^i  '  iv  l,r]- 
TII  \  Tt  TOV  ra~a- 
prjvuv  TO-  !  i 


OI»K  kanv  tt>C£  ice 

\     6        TOTTOCT        OTTOV 

t$i]Kd  dvTov  aXX« 


vTOV     KCU    TM    7T£- 

Titi  I  ort 


tiff    Ttjv  yci- 
\i\diav     tKki      dv 


\   TOV      0£.GS      KCt- 
SaJff     tl    j    TTEV 

KCU     i^X^ov      ff 

CtTTO     TOV 


•yap  \  dvTacr  Tpo- 
fioa  KCII  tK  1  araaia 
KUL  ovdtvi  6v  \  §iv 
tiirov  ttyofidvv  j  ro 
yap: 


H 


AJ 

v«  e'r  xc  ccb  6 


OM  e  I  AO  K»  M  €  ^  M  fc  KOM 
MM6WOJ 


^C  TO  KH  M  Aey  KH  Kl 

H  OH  CAM 


e  i 


M 


T»  rrp.OAjre/'Y 

-THN  TAAI  AXlA 


C  A  i  ed>xro  Nj^n  b-rpy 


M  N  Hx   e  i  o-^ 

o  M  o  C  K  A  /  e 


-&  -»  ^^ 

V  s  '  = 


SPECIMEN  OF  THE  CODEX  VATICANUS,  CONTAINING  MAUK  xvi.  3-8. 
/Jc'cittced  />-om  Dean  Burgon's  photograph  of  the  whole  page.    By  permission]. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          115 

complete.1  It  was  apparently  copied  in  Egypt  by 
two  or  three  skilful  scribes.  Tischendorf  has  ob 
served  the  fact  that  the  scribe  of  the  New  Test,  was 
the  same  who  wrote  a  few  pages  in  the  New  Test, 
of  x,  together  with  the  opening  verses  of  the  Apoc 
alypse,  besides  corrections.  This  fact  seems  to  point 
to  the  same  age  and  country  of  the  two  MSS. ;  while 
o-n  the  other  hand  the  corrections,  the  remarkable 
difference  in  the  order  of  the  books  of  the  New  Test.,2 
and  other  peculiarities,  as  clearly  indicate  different 
and  independent  sources  from  which  they  were  de 
rived.  This  makes  their  united  testimony  all  the 
stronger.  The  corrections  in  both  enable  us  to 
some  extent  to  follow  the  history  of  the  text. 

Cod.  B  was  brought  to  Home  shortly  after  the 
establishment  of  the  Vatican  Library  by  Pope  Nich 
olas  V.  in  IMS  ;  perhaps  ( as  Dr.  Scrivener  and 
others  conjecture)  by  the  learned  Cardinal  Bes- 
sarion,  formerly  archbishop  of  Nicsea,  who  labored 
at  the  Council  of  Ferrara- Florence  with  great  zeal, 
but  in  vain,  for  the  reunion  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
churches  (d.  1472).  It  was  entered  in  the  earliest 
catalogue  of  that  library,  made  in  1475.  It  contains 

1  Dr.  Tregellcs  was  so  much  impressed  with  the  antiquity  of  B  that 
he  thought  it  was  written  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea  (325).     He  so 
informed  Dr.  Scrivener  (Six  Lect.  p.  28).     The  Roman  editors  contend, 
of  course,  for  the  primacy  of  the  Vatican  against  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  but 
admit  that  they  are  not  far  apart,  "non  magnam  intercedere  cetatem  inter 
utriusque  libri  editionem."     See  Tom.  vi.  p.  vii. 

2  In  Cod.  X  the  Pauline  Epistles  precede  the  Acts,  and  the  Hebrews 
are  placed  between  2  Thessalonians  and  1  Timothy.    In  Cod.  B  the  Catholic 
Epistles  are  between  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  the  Hebrews 
precede  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (which  are  lost).    Both  differ  from  the  order 
of  the  Vulgate. 


116         MANUSCRIPTS.  OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  Septuagint  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  with 
some  gaps,1  arid  the  New  Testament  as  far  as  Heb. 
ix.  11  (inclusive),  and  breaks  off  in  the  middle  of  the 
verse  and  of  the  word  KaSu  \  put.  The  Pastoral 
Epistles  (1  and  2  Timothy  and  Titus),  Philemon,  and 
the  Apocalypse  are  lost.  Cod.  B  for  the  Apocalypse 
(likewise  in  the  Vatican,  as  No.  2066)  is  a  different 
MS.,  of  the  eighth  century,  and  is  marked  Q  by 
Tregelles. 

Cod.  B  became  first  known  about  1533,2  when 
Sepulveda  directed  the  attention  of  Erasmus  to  it, 
but  it  was  watched  with  jealous  care  by  the  papal 
authorities,  and  kept  from  public  use  till  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  was  first  partially 
and  imperfectly  collated,  under  considerable  restric 
tions,  by  Bartolocci,  librarian  of  the  Vatican  (1669), 
then  by  the  Abbate  Mico  for  Richard  Bentley  (about 
1720,  published  1799),  and  by  Andrew  Birch  of 
Copenhagen  (1781,  published  1788,  1798,  1801). 
When  the  MS.  was  transferred  to  Paris  during  the 
empire  of  the  first  Napoleon,  Dr.  Hug,  a  Roman 
Catholic  scholar,  inspected  it  in  1809,  and  first  fully 
recognized  its  paramount  value  (1810). 

After  the  MS.  was  restored  to  Rome,  it  was  for  a 
long  time  almost  inaccessible,  even  to  famous  schol 
ars.  Dr.  Tregelles  was  not  even  permitted  to  use 
pen  and  ink,  although  he  was  armed  with  a  letter 
from  Cardinal  Wiseman.  The  MS.  was  nevertheless 


1  Gen.  i.  1-xlvi.  28  is  wanting,  and  supplied  by  small  type  in  the 
Roman  edition;   also  Ps.  cv.  (cvi.)  27-cxxxvii.  (cxxxviii.)  6.  and  the 
Books  of  Maccabees. 

2  If  not  already  in  1522,  as  Tregelles  thinks,  Home's  Intr.  iv.  107. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          117 

examined  to  some  extent  by  Muralt  (1844),  more 
thoroughly  by  Tischendorf  (1843, 1844, 1866),  Tre- 
gelles  (1845),  Dressel  (1855),  Burgon  (1860),  Alford 
(1861),  and  his  secretary,  Mr.  Cure  (in  1862).  It  was 
at  last  printed  under  the  supervision  of  the  celebrat 
ed  Cardinal  Angelo  Mai  (d.  1854),  Rome,  1828-38, 
but  not  published  till  1857  (in  5  vols.,  the  fifth  con 
taining  the  !New  Testament) ;  and  so  inaccurately 
that  this  edition  is  critically  worthless.  The  New 
Testament  was  again  published  separately,  with  some 
improvements,  by  Vercellone,  Rome,  1859;  more 
critically  by  Tischendorf,  Leipsic,  1867,  from  a  par 
tial  inspection  of  fourteen  days  (three  hours  each 
day)  in  1866  under  the  constant  supervision  of  C. 
Vercellone,  who  learned  from  the  German  expert 
some  useful  lessons  in  editorial  work.1  Xo\v,  at  last, 
we  have  a  complete  and  critical,  though  by  no  means 
infallible,  quasi  fac-simile  edition  of  the  whole  Vat 
ican  MS.  by  Vercellone  (d.  1869),  Jos.  Cozza,  and 
Gaetano  Sergio  (who  was  associated  for  a  short  time 
with  Cozza  after  Vercellone's  death),  Rome,  1868-81, 
in  six  stately  folio  volumes.  The  type  used  was  cast 
in  Leipsic,  at  the  expense  of  the  Propaganda,  from 
the  same  moulds  as  that  employed  for  Tischendorf 's 
edition  of  the  Codex  Sin aiticus,  although  the  Vatican 
Codex  is  written  in  much  smaller  letters.  Tischen 
dorf  complained  of  the  bad  use  which  the  Roman 
printers  made  of  his  type.  A  real  fac-simile,  like 

1  Novum  Testamentum  Vaticanum  .  .  .  ed.  Tischendorf,  Lips.  18G7,  with 
Prolegomena.  Comp.  his  Appendix  N.  Ti  Vaticani,  1869,  and  his  Responsa 
ad  calumnias  Romances,  1870  (in  refutation  of  the  charges  of  the  "  Civilta 
cattolica  "). 


118         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  one  which  the  British  Museum  published  of 
Cod.  A,  would  be  far  preferable.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
a  magnificent  publication,  for  which  the  papal  gov 
ernment  deserves  the  thanks  of  the  whole  Church.1 
The  Vatican  is  upon  the  whole  the  best  as  well 
as  the  oldest  of  MSS.  now  known,  but  must  be  used 
with  proper  regard  to  all  other  sources  of  evidence. 
In  this  judgment  most  modern  critics  agree.  Lach- 
mann  and  Tregelles  made  it  the  chief  basis  of  their 
text  as  far  as  they  then  knew  it.  Westcott  and  Hort 
have  used  it  more  thoroughly  and  systematically  since 
it  has  been  published  in  full.  Tischendorf  pays  the 
greatest  attention  to  it  throughout,  although,  in  his 
last  critical  edition,  he  shows  in  many  conflicting 
cases  a  natural  preference  for  the  Sinaitic  Codex  of 
his  own  discovery.  B  has  numerous  corrections  by 
a  contemporaneous  hand,  and  was  supplied  with 

1  The  full  title  of  the  Roman  quasi  fac-simile  edition  reads:  "J3iblioriim 
Sacrorum  Grwcus  Codex  Vaticunus  auspice  Fio  IX.  Pontijice  Afaximo 
collatis  studiis  Caroli  Vercellone  Sodalis  BarnaMtm  et  Josephi  Cozza 
Monachi  Basiliani  editus.  Eoma1,  typis  et  impensis  S.  Congregations  de 
Propaganda  Fide."  18G8  to  1881.  Beautifully  printed  on  vellum  paper. 
Four  volumes  contain  the  Scptuagint  (i.  Pentateuch  and  Jos.;  ii.  Judges, 
etc. ;  iii.  The  Psalms,  etc.;  iv.  Esther,  etc.)  ;  one  volume  the  New  Testa 
ment,  which  appeared  in  18G8  as  torn.  v.  It  gives  the  original  MS.  down 
to  Heb.  ix.  14,  in  284  large  pages,  3  columns.  The  rest  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse  (from  pp.  285  to  302)  are  supplied  from 
a  later  text  (recentiori  manu)  in  ordinary  Greek  type,  and  have  therefore 
less  critical  value.  The  Pastoral  Epistles  and  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  are 
wanting  altogether.  The  sixth  volume,  which  was  published  in  1881, 
"  auspice  Leone  XIII."  contains  xxxvi.  and  170  pages,  prolegomena  and 
commentaries  by  Canon  Fabiani  and  Jos.  Cozza,  together  with  four  plates 
of  fac-similes  selected  from  the  Septuagint.  I  used  the  copy  in  the  Astor 
Library.  The  last  volume  is  disappointing.  Tischendorf  would  have 
made  much  more  thorough  work. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          119 

accents  and  breathings  by  a  third  hand  in  the  tenth 
century  or  later.1  It  is  more  free  from  Western  or 
Alexandrian  readings  than  x.  It  presents  on  the 
whole,  with  tf,  the  simplest,  shortest,  and  concisest 
text.  The  charge  of  omissions  of  many  words  and 
whole  clauses  is  founded  on  the  false  assumption 
that  the  Elzevir  text  is  the  standard.  Westcott  and 
Hort  say  (p.  557) :  "  The  fondness  for  omissions, 
which  has  sometimes  been  attributed  to  the  scribe 
of  the  "Vatican,  is  imaginary,  except,  perhaps,  single 
petty  words."  The  agreement  of  B  and  N  is  (with 
few  exceptions)  a  strong  presumptive  evidence  for 
the  genuineness  of  a  reading,  and,  when  supported  by 
other  ante-Kiceue  testimony,  it  is  conclusive.  Their 
concurrent  testimony  from  independent  sources 
gives  us  the  oldest  attainable  text,  which  may  be 
traced  to  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  or  the 
generation  next  to  that  of  the  autographs. 

NOTE.— We  need  not  be  surprised  that  B,  as  well  as  X,  should  have 
incurred  the  special  hostility  of  the  admirers  of  the  common  text,  from 
which  it  so  often  departs.  Dr.  Dobbin,  as  quoted  by  Scrivener  (p.  108), 
calculated  that  B  leaves  out  2556  words  or  clauses.  Dean  Burgon  (in  the 
"  Quarterly  Review  "  for  Oct.  1881,  p.  164)  asserts  that,  in  the  Gospels 
alone,  B  omits  at  least  2877  words,  adds  536,  substitutes  935,  transposes 
2098,  modifies  1132  (total  changes,  7578)  •,  the  corresponding  figures  in  X 
being  severally  3455,  839,  1114,  2299,  1265  (in  all  8972).  This  is  one  of 
the  reasons  for  which  the  Dean,  in  defiance  of  the  best  judges,  condemns 
X  and  B  as  the  most  corrupt  of  MSS.,  and  of  course  all  the  critical 
editions  based  on  them.  His  list  of  departures  is  indeed  formidable,  but 
all  the  worse  for  the  common  text  which  is  his  standard ;  for  in  nine  cases 

1  Tischendorf  says  "not  earlier  than  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century." 
The  Roman  editors  think  they  have  identified  the  man  (a  certain  monk, 
Clemens  or  KXr//ijje),  and  assign  his  date  (conjecturally)  as  "  about  the 
beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century." 


120         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

out  of  ten  it  is  easier  to  account  for  additions  and  interpolations  than  for 
omissions.  Dean  Burgon  often  refers  to  Dr.  Scrivener,  the  conservative 
editor  of  the  textus  receptus,  as  an  authority;  but  even  Scrivener  accords 
u  to  Cod.  B  at  least  as  much  weight  as  to  any  single  document  in  existence" 
(IntroJ.  p.  108),  and  calls  it,  "in  common  with  onr  [his]  opponents,  the 
most  weighty  single  authority  we  possess"  (p.  471).  For  a  true  estimate 
of  the  comparative  value  of  united  testimony,  see  the  convincing  exposi 
tion  of  Dr.  Ilort's  Introduction,  pp.  212-22-4.  lie  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that,  with  some  specified  exception?,  the  united  readings  of  these  two 
oldest  MSS.  should  be  accepted  as  the  true  readings  until  strong  internal 
evidence  is  found  to  the  contrary,  and  that  no  readings  of  X  and  13  can 
safely  be  rejected  absolutely,  though  it  is  sometimes  right  to  place  them 
only  on  an  alternative  footing,  especially  where  they  receive  no  support 
from  Versions  or  Fathers. 

On  this  line  the  great  battle  for  the  purest  text  of  the  New  Testament 
must  be  fought  out.  The  question  is  between  the  oldest  MSS.  and  the 
latest,  between  the  uncial  text  and  the  Stephanie  or  Elzevir  text,  The 
conflict  has  fairly  begun  in  the  Revision  year  1881,  with  a  rare  amount 
of  learning  and  zeal  on  both  sides,  and  before  a  far  larger  audience  in  two 
hemispheres  than  ever  listened  to  a  discussion  on  a  dry  and  intricate, 
yet  very  important,  department  of  biblical  scholarship.  We  accept  the 
alternative  put  by  the  Dean  of  Cliichester,  whose  learning  is  only  equalled 
by  his  dogmatism,  but  we  come  to  the  opposite  conclusion.  "  Codices  B  and 
N,"  he  says.1  "are  either  among  the  purest  of  manuscripts,  or  else  they 
are  among  the  very  foulest.  The  text  of  Drs.  Westcott  and  Hort  is 
either  the  very  best  which  has  ever  appeared,  or  else  it  is  the  very  worst ; 
the  nearest  to  the  sacred  autographs,  or  the  furthest  from  them.  There 
is  no  room  for  loth  opinions;  and  there  cannot  exist  any  middle  view. 
The  question  will  have  to  be  fought  out,  and  it  must  be  fought  out  fairlv.'' 

Magna  est  veritas  et  prcevctlebit. 


CODEX    EPIIR/EMI. 

C.  Codex  REGIUS,  or  EPHR.EMI  SYRI,  in  the  Nation 
al  Library  at  Paris,  is  a  codex  rescriptns,  and  Las  its 
name  from  the  fact  that  the  works  of  the  Syrian 


1  See  his  third  article  on  the  New  Test.  Revision  in  "  The  Quarterly 
Review  "  for  April,  1882,  at  the  close,  p.  377, 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


121 


father,  Eplirsem  (d.  372),  were 
written  over  the  original  Bible 
text,  which  is  scarcely  legible.1 
It  dates  from  the  fifth  century, 
and  probably  from  Alexandria. 
Tischendorf  regards  C  as  older 
than  A,  and  in  the  Gospels  it  has 
a  much  better  text.  Unfortunate- 
]y  it  is  very  defective,  and  con- 
tains  only  64  leaves  of  the  Old 
Test,  and  about  three  fifths  of 
the  New  Test.  (145  out  of  238 
leaves),  one  or  more  sheets  having 
perished  out  of  almost  every  quire 
of  four  sheets.  It  was  first  collated 
by  Wetstein  (1716),  and  edited  by 
Tischendorf  (Leipsic,  1843-45,  2 
vols.).  Its  text  "  seems  to  stand 
nearly  midway  between  A  and  B, 
somewhat  inclining  to  the  latter" 
(Scrivener).  Two  correctors,  one 
of  the  sixth,  the  other  of  the  ninth 
century  (designated  by  Tischendorf 
as  C**,  C***,  or  C2,  C3),  have  been 
at  work  on  the  MS.  (e.  g.,  in  1  Tim. 
iii.  16)  to  the  perplexity  of  the 
critical  collator. 

__ 

1  The  owner  of  that  MS.  must  have  had  a  very 
low  idea  of  the  Bible  to  replace  it  by  the  writings 
of  Ephrsem.  It  was  making  void  the  Word  of 
God  by  the  traditions  of  men.  Comp.  Matt. 
xv.  6. 


122         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


CODEX    BEZ.E. 

D,  for  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  is  Codex  BEZ.E,  or 
CANTABRIGIENSIS,  in  the  Library  of  the  University 
at  Cambridge  (to  which  Beza  presented  it  in  1581). 
It  dates  from  the  sixth  century,  and  was  written  in 
the  Occident,  probably  in  Gaul,  by  a  transcriber 
ignorant  of  Greek.  It  contains  only  the  Gospels 
and  Acts,  with  a  Latin  version;  edited  in  fac-simile 
type  by  Thomas  Kipling,  Cambridge,  1793,  2  vols. 
fol.,  and  more  accurately  by  Dr.  Scrivener,,  in  com 
mon  type,  with  a  copious  introduction  and  valuable 
critical  notes',  Cambridge,  1864. 

Cod.  D  is  the  second  of  the  uncial  MSS.  which 
was  known  to  scholars  (B  being  the  first).  Beza 
procured  it  from  the  monastery  of  St.  Irenaens  at 
Lyons  in  1562,  but  did  not  use  it  on  account  of  its 
many  departures  from  other  MSS.  It  is  generally 
ranked  with  the  great  uncials,  but  is  the  least  valu 
able  and  trustworthy  of  them.  Its  text  is  very 
peculiar  and  puzzling.  It  has  many  bold  and  ex 
tensive  interpolations,  e.  </.,  a  paragraph  after  Luke 
vi.  4  (which  is  found  nowhere  else) :  "  On  the  same 
day  he  [Jesus]  beheld  a  certain  man  working  on  the 
Sabbath,  and  said  unto  him,  Man,  blessed  art  thou 
if  thou  knowest  what  thou  doest;  but  if  thou  know- 
est  not,  thou  art  cursed  and  a  transgressor  of  the 
law."  It  differs  more  than  any  other  from  the  re 
ceived  Greek  text,  but  it  often  agrees  in  remarkable 
readings  with  the  ancient  Latin  and  Syriac  versions. 

Dr.  Tregelles  remarks  that  "  its  evidence,  when 
alone,  especially  in  additions,  is  of  scarcely  any  value 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         123 

as  to  the  genuine  text ;  but  of  the  very  greatest 
when   corroborated  by  other  very  ancient  author- 

itj." 

Dr.  Hort  attaches  great  importance  to  this  singu 
lar  MS.  as  a  means  of  tracing  textual  corruptions  up 
to  the  fourth,  and  even  the  second  century.  He 
says  (ii.  149) :  "  In  spite  of  the  prodigious  amount 
of  error  which  D  contains,  these  readings,  in  which 
it  sustains  and  is  sustained  by  other  documents  de 
rived  from  very  ancient  texts  of  other  types,  render 
it  often  invaluable  for  the  secure  recovery  of  the 
true  .text;  and,  apart  from  this  direct  applicability, 
no  other  single  source  of  evidence,  except  the  quota 
tions  of  Origen,  surpasses  it  in  value  on  the  equally 
important  ground  of  historical  or  indirect  instruc- 
tiveness.  To  what  extent  its  unique  readings  are 
due  to  license  on  the  part  of  the  scribe,  rather  than 
to  faithful  reproduction  of  an  antecedent  text  now 
otherwise  lost,  it  is  impossible  to  say ;  but  it  is  re 
markable  how  frequently  the  discovery  of  fresh 
evidence,  especially  Old  Latin  evidence,  supplies  a 
second  authority  for  readings  in  which  D  had  hith 
erto  stood  alone.  At  all  events,  when  every  allow 
ance  has  been  made  for  possible  individual  license, 
the  text  of  D  presents  a  truer  image  of  the  form  in 
which  the  Gospels  and  Acts  were  most  widely  read 
in  the  third  and  probably  a  great  part  of  the  second 
century  than  any  other  extant  Greek  MS." 

The  same  remarks  apply  with  little  deduction  to 
Cod.  D  (2)  for  the  Pauline  Epistles,  which  deserves 
a  place  among  the  primary  uncials,  but  is  usually 
ranked  with  the  secondary.  It  likewise  gives  the 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Western  text,  which  in  the  Epistles  of  Pan!  is  of 
inferior  value.     (See  below.) 

2.    SECONDARY  t'NCIALS. 

The  secondary  uncial  MSS.  are  defective  and  of 
later  date — from  the  fifth  century  (Q  and  T)  to  the 
nintli  and  tenth  centuries.  Most  of  them  contain 
the  Gospels,  only  five  the  Apocalypse.  "None  of 
them  show  signs  of  having  formed  part  of  a  com 
plete  Bible,  and  it  is  even  doubtful  whether  any  of 
them  belonged  to  a  complete  New  Testament.  Six 
alone  are  known  to  have  contained  more  than  one 
of  the  groups  of  books,  if  we  count  the  Acts  and 
the  Apocalypse  as  though  they  were  each  a  group."  ' 

In  giving  a  brief  account  of  these  secondary 
uncials  I  follow  chiefly  the  latest  descriptive  list  of 
Tischendorf,  as  revised  by  Dr.  Gebhardt  (1878),  and 
again  revised  and  completed  by  Dr.  Abbot  (1882).2 

B  (2),  for  the  Apocalypse :  Codex  YATICAXTS  2066  (formerly.  Basilian 
Codex  105) ;  eighth  century.  Edited  by  Tischendorf,  imperfectly  184G, 
carefully  1869.  after  a  fresh  collation  made  in  1866.  Cozza  published  a 
few  unimportant  corrections  to  this  latest  edition  in  Ad  editionem  Apoca- 
lypseos  S.  Johannis  juxta  vetustissimum  codicem  Basil.  Vat.  2066  Lips,  anno 
1869  evulyatam  anitnadversiones,  Rom.  1869.  Tregelles  marked  this  MS. 
with  the  letter  Q,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  far  more  valuable  and  famous 
Cod.  B. 

D  (2),  for  the  Pauline  Epistles  (including  Hebrews) :  Codex  CLAUO- 
MOXTAXUS  ;  of  the  second  half  of  the  sixth  century ;  slightly  defective, 
but  very  valuable :  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  Collated  by  Tregelles, 
1849  and  1850.  Edited  by  Tischendorf,  Leipsic,  1852.  Beza  procured  it 

1  Westcott  and  Hort,  ii.  75. 

2  For  Schaff's  Rdirj.  Encyclopaedia,  vol.  i.  271-273  (published  in  New 
York  and  Edinburgh,  Nov.  1882).    The  additions  of  Dr.  Abbot  are  marked 
by  his  initials  in  brackets. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.         125 

from  the  monastery  of  Clermont  (hence  the  name),  and  made  some  use 
of  it  (1582).  It  is  Greek  and  Latin,  stichometric,  with  accents  by  a  later 
hand,  but  no  division  of  words.  It  was  retouched  at  different  times. 
The  Latin  text  represents  the  oldest  version  (of  the  second  century). 

E  (1),  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  BASILEEXSIS  ;  eighth  century;  in  the 
library  at  Basle ;  defective  in  Luke.  Erasmus  overlooked  it.  Collated 
by  Tischendorf  and  Miiller  (1843),  and  by  Tregelles  (184G).  It  is  better 
than  most  of  the  second-class  uncials.  It  approaches  to  the  Textus  Re- 
ceptus, 

E  (-2),  for  the  Acts:  Codex  LAUDIANCS;  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at 
Oxford;  a  present  from  Archbishop  Laud  in  1G36  (hence  the  name),  with 
a  close  Latin  version  on  the  left  column ;  of  the  end  of  the  sixth  century; 
probably  brought  from  Tarsus  to  England  by  Theodore  of  Canterbury 
(d.  690),  and  used  by  the  Venerable  Bede  (d.  735) ;  newly  published  by 
Tischendorf,  in  the  ninth  vol.  of  his  3Io:mmenta  Sacra,  1870.  Very  valu 
able  for  the  Greek-Latin  text  of  the  Acts. 

E  (3),  for  the  Pauline  Epistles:  Codex  SAXGERMANEXSIS  ;  Grneco- 
Latin;  formerly  at  Saint-Germain  dcs  Pres  (hence  the  name),  near  Paris; 
now  at  St.  Petersburg.  In  the  Greek  a  mere  copy  of  D  (Claromont.) 
after  it  had  been  altered  by  several  hands.  Ninth  or  tenth  century.  Of 
no  critical  value  except  for  the  Latin  text. 

F  (1),  for  the  Gospels :  Codex  BOKEKLIANUS;  once  possessed  by  John 
Boreel  (d.  1629),  Dutch  ambassador  in  London  under  James  I.;  now  in 
the  library  of  the  University  at  Utrecht.  Not  important. 

F  (2),  for  the  Pauline  Epistles :  Codex  AUGIENSIS  (named  from  A  uyia 
Dives  or  Major,  a  monastery  at  Eeichenau  in  Switzerland);  bought  bv 
Richard  Bentley  at  Heidelberg,  and  bequeathed  by  his  nephew  to  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge;  Graeco- Latin  (but  the  Latin  no  translation  of  the 
Greek) ;  collated  by  Tischendorf,  1842,  by  Tregelles,  1845 ;  carefully  edited 
by  Dr.  Scrivener,  1859,  in  common  type.  Ninth  century. 

Fa :  designates  those  passages  of  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Pauline  Epistles 
found  copied  on  the  margin  of  the  Coislin  Octateuch  in  Paris,  dating  from 
the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century.  Printed  by  Tischendorf  in  1846 
(Monum.  s.  ined^). 

G  (1),  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  HAKLEIANUS;  collated  by  Wetstein, 
Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles.  Ninth  or  tenth  century.  It  has  many  breaks. 
Now  in  the  British  Museum. 

G  (2),  for  the  Acts  (ii.  45-iii.  8);  seventh  century;  now  in  St.  Peters 
burg,  taken  there  by  Tischendorf  in  1850.  It  has  a  few  rare  and  valu 
able  readings. 


126         MANUSCRIPTS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Gb,  for  the  Acts  (fragments  of  chapters  xvi..xvii.,xviii.);  ninth  century 
or  earlier;  now  called  Codex  Vaticanus  9671,  formerly  Cryptoferratensis. 
Edited  by  Cozza,  1877. 

G  (3),  for  the  Pauline  Epistles:  Codex  BOERNERIANUS  ;  was  either 
copied  from  F  (Ilort),  or  from  the  same  archetype  (Tischendorf,  Scriv 
ener).  Ninth  century.  It  is  a  part  of  the  same  IMS.  as  A  of  the  Gospels. 
Purchased  by  Prof.  C.  F.  Boerner  at  Leipsic,  1705;  in  the  Royal  Library 
at  Dresden. 

H  (1),  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  SKIDEIJI  ,  tenth  century;  beginning 
Matt.  xv.  30,  and  defective  in  all  the  Gospels.  Now  in  the  Public  Library 
of  Hamburg.  Collated  by  Trcgelles,  1850,  and  examined  in  1854  by 
Tischendorf. 

H  (2),  for  the  Acts:  Codex  MUTIXEXSIS;  ninth  century;  lacks  about 
seven  chapters.  Now  at  Modena.  Carefully  collated  by  Tischendorf, 
1843,  and  by  Tregelles.  1845. 

H  (3),  for  the  Pauline  Epistles:  Codex  COISLIXIAXUS;  sixth  century; 
fragments  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  thirty-one  leaves,  all  found  in  the 
binding  of  manuscripts  at  or  from  the  Monastery  of  St.  Athanasius  at 
Mount  Athos.  Twelve  of  these  leaves  are  in  the  National  Librarv  at 
Paris;  and  two  formerly  there  are  now  at  St.  Petersburg.  These  fourteen 
leaves,  containing  fragments  of  1  Corinthians.  Galatians,  1  Timothy,  Titus, 
and  Hebrews,  were  published  by  Montfaucon  in  1715,  in  his  Bibliotheca 
Coisliniana.  Two  more  leaves  at  Moscow  (Bibl.  S.  Syn.  Gl),  containing 
parts  of  Heb.  x.,  were  first  described  and  collated  by  Matthaei  (1784),  and 
have  been  edited  in  fac-simile  by  Sabas  (Specim. palceogr,,  Moscow,  1863). 
They  are  designated  as  N c  in  Tischendorf 's  Greek  Testament,  seventh 
edition  (1859).  Four  more  leaves,  belonging  to  Archbishop  Porfiri  and 
the  Archimandrite  Antony,  are  cited  by  Tischendorf  in  his  last  (eighth) 
critical  edition  on  2  Cor.  iv.  4-6;  Col.  iii.  5-8;  1  Thess.  ii.  9-13,  iv.  6-10. 
Still  more  recently  nine  new  leaves  have  been  discovered  at  Mount  Athos. 
Their  text,  containing  parts  of  2  Corinthians  and  Galatians,  has  been 
published  by  Duchesne  in  the  Archives  des  missions  scient.  et  lit.,  3e  se'r., 
torn.  iii.  p.  420  sqq.,  Paris,  1876.  Two  more  leaves,  containing  1  Tim.  vi. 
9-13,  and  2  Tim.  ii.  1-9,  have  been  found  attached  to  a  MS.  in  the  National 
Library  at  Turin  in  1881.  [E.  A.] 

I,  for  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Pauline  Epistles:  Codex  TISCHEXPORFI- 
AXUS  II.,  at  St.  Petersburg,  designates  a  manuscript  in  which,  under  later 
Georgian  writing,  there  are  twenty-eight  palimpsest  leaves  of  seven  dif 
ferent  codices,  containing  fragments  of  the  New  Testament,  as  follows: 
I1,  of  John  xi.,  xii.,  xv.,  xvi.,  xix.  I2,  of  1  Cor.  xv.,  xvi. ;  Tit.  i. ;  Acts 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          127 

xxviii.  I3,  of  Matt,  xiv.,  xxiv.,  xxv.,  xxvi. ;  Mark  ix.,  xiv.  I*,  of  Matt, 
xvii.-xix. ;  Luke  xviii. ;  John  iv..  v.,  xx.  I5,  of  Acts  ii.,  xxvi.  I6,  of 
Acts  xiii.  1 7,  of  Luke  vii.,  xxiv.  I l-2-3  are  of  the  fifth  century ;  I*-7  of 
the  sixth ;  I5-6  of  the  seventh.  The  text  of  I1-2-3  *-7  has  a  close  affinity 
with  X  A  B  C  D  L.  Published  by  Tischendorf  in  his  Mon.  sacr.  ined.  N.  C., 
vol.  i.  (1855). 

Ib,  for  John's  Gospel,  formerly  Nb;  beginning  of  fifth  century;  four 
palimpsest  leaves  in  the  British  Museum,  containing,  under  two  layers 
of  Syriac  writing,  fragments  of  seventeen  verses  of  John  xiii.  and  xvi. 
Deciphered  by  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  and  published  by  the  former 
in  his  Mon.  sacr.  ined.  N.  C.,  vol.  ii.  (1857).  [E.  A.] 

K  (1),  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  CYPRIUS;  complete;  middle  or  end  of 
ninth  century;  now  in  Paris.  Text  somewhat  remarkable.  Collated  by 
Tischendorf  (1842)  and  Tregelles  (1849  and  1850). 

K  (2),  for  the  Pauline  and  Catholic  Epistles:  Codex  MOSQUEXSIS; 
ninth  century;  brought  from  Mount  Athos  to  Moscow.  Lacks  a  part  of 
Romans  and  1  Corinthians.  Collated  by  Matthan. 

L  (1),  for  the  Gospels :  Codex  REGIUS  ;  published  by  Tischendorf,  1846 ; 
written  in  the  eighth  century ;  full  of  errors  in  spelling,  but  very  remark 
able  for  its  agreement  with  X,  B,  and  Origen  ;  now  in  Paris. 

L  (2),  for  the  Acts,  Pauline  and  Catholic  Epistles:  Codex  ANGEMCUS, 
or  PASSIONEI  (formerly  G  and  I) ;  ninth  century ;  now  in  the  Angelica 
Library  of  the  Augustinian  monks  at  Rome.  Contains  Acts  vii.  10  to 
Heb.  xiii.  10.  Collated  by  Tischendorf  (1843)  and  Tregelles  (1845). 

M  (1),  for  the  Gospels :  Codex  CAMPJAXUS  ;  complete ;  end  of  ninth 
century;  now  in  Paris.  Copied  and  used  by  Tischendorf  (1849). 

M  (2),  for  the  Pauline  Epistles:  Codex  RUBER;  ninth  century.  Two 
folio  leaves  at  Hamburg  (Heb.  i.  1-iv.  3,  xii.  20-xiii.  25).  and  two  at 
London  (1  Cor.  xv.  52-2  Cor.  i.  15 ;  2  Cor.  x.  13-xii.  5).  Written  in  red. 
Edited  by  Tischendorf  in  Anecdot.  sacr.  et  prof..  1855,.  and,,  with  a  few 
corrections,  1861. 

N  (1),  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  PURPUREUS;  end  of  the  sixth  century; 
a  beautiful  manuscript  written  on  the  thinnest  vellum,  dyed  purple,  with 
silver  letters  (the  abbreviations  6C  =  .Sr<of,  K.C  =  Kvpioc;,  etc.,  in  gold); 
four  leaves  in  London,  two  in  Vienna,  six  in  the  Vatican,  and  thirty- 
three  in  the  Monastery  of  St.  John  in  Patmos.  Tischendorf  used  in  his 
eighth  edition  of  the  New  Testament  the  readings  of  the  thirty-three 
Patmos  leaves  transcribed  by  John  Sakkelion,  containing  Mark  vi.  53-xv. 
23,  with  some  gaps.  These  have  since  been  published  by  Duchesne  in 
the  Archives  des  missions  scientifques,  3e  sen,  torn.  iii.  1876. 


128         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

N  (2),  for  Galatians  and  Hebrews:  two  leaves;  ninth  century;  con 
taining  Gal.  v.  1'2-vi.  4  and  Heb.  v.  8-vi.  10.  Brought  by  Tischcndorf  to 
St.  Petersburg. 

N  b.     The  manuscript  now  marked  by  Tischendorf  I b. 

O  (1),  for  John's  Gospel:  eight  leaves;  ninth  century;  containing  a 
part  of  John  i.  and  xx.,  with  scholia;  now  in  Moscow  (£.  Syn.  120). 
Edited  by  Matthoei  (1785),  and,  after  him,  by  Tregelles,  Cod.  ZACYNTHIUS 
(1861),  Appendix.  Text  valuable. 

O  (2),  for  2  Corinthians:  two  leaves;  sixth  century;  containing  2  Cor. 
i.  20-ii.  12.  Brought  from  the  East  to  St.  Petersburg  by  Tischendorf  in 
1859. 

Oa  Ob  (1)  Oc  Od  Oe  Of:  Psalters  or  other  manuscripts,  containing 
some  or  all  of  the  hymns  of  Luke's  Gospel  (i.  46  sqq.,  08  sqq.,  ii.  29  sqq.). 
O  a  is  at  Wolfenbiittel  (ed.  Tischendorf,  Anecd.  sacr,  et prof.,  1855).  Ob  at 
Oxford.  Oc  at  Verona,  the  Greek  text  in  Roman  letters  (ed.  Bianchini, 
1740).  Od  at  Zurich,  on  purple  vellum  in  silver  letters  (ed.  Tischen 
dorf,  Mon.  sacr.  ined.  X.  C.,  vol.  iv.).  Oe  and  Of  at  St.  Gall  and  St.  Peters 
burg  (collated  by  Tischendorf).  O  c  is  of  the  sixth  century;  O  d  of  the 
seventh  ;  O  a  b  e  f  of  the  ninth. 

Ob  (2),  for  the  Pauline  Epistles:  sixth  century;  a  leaf,  which  imperfect 
ly  presents  Eph.  iv.  1-18.  Collated  by  Tischendorf  at  Moscow  in  18G8. 

P  (1),  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  GuELriiERBYTAXus  I.;  sixth  century; 
a  palimpsest  at  Wolfenbiittel.  containing  portions  of  all  the  Gospels  (518 
verses).  Edited  by  Tischendorf  {Mon.  sacr.  ined.  N.  C.  vol.  vi.  1869). 

P  (2),  for  the  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Revelation,  with  some  defects :  Codex 
PORFIRIANUS,  a  palimpsest  of  the  ninth  century,  in  possession  of  Arch 
bishop  Porfiri  at  St.  Petersburg  (now  at  Kiev) ;  the  text  is  particularly 
good  in  the  Revelation.  Edited  by  Tischendorf,  1865  and  1869.  It  gen- 
erallv  confirms  A  and  C,  but  often  N  against  all  the  rest. 

Q(l),  for  Luke  and  John:  Codex  GuKLPHERBYTANUS  II. ;  fifth  century; 
a  palimpsest  containing  fragments  (247  verses)  of  Luke  and  John;  now 
at  Wolfenbiittel.  Edited  by  Tischendorf,  Man.  sacr.  ined.  N.  C.,  iii.  1860. 

Q  (2)  :  PORFIRIANUS,  fifth  century;  papyrus  fragments  of  1  Cor.  i.  17- 
20 ;  vi.  13-18 :  vii.  3,  4, 10-14.  Collated  by  Tischendorf. 

R,  for  Luke :  Codex  NITRIENSIS  ;  sixth  century ;  a  fragmentary  pal 
impsest  of  Luke  from  a  Coptic  Monastery  of  the  Nitrian  Desert;  now  in 
the  British  Museum.  Collated  by  Tregelles  (1854),  and  edited  by  Tischen 
dorf  {Mon.  sacr.  ined.  N.  C.,  vol.  i.  1855). 

R  (2),  a  palimpsest  leaf  of  about  the  seventh  century,  containing  2  Cor. 
xi.  1-9 ;  convent  of  Grotta  Ferrata,  near  Rome ;  published  by  Cozza  in  1867. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          129 

S,  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  VATICANUS  354  (A.D.  949);  a  complete 
manuscript  of  the  Gospels.  Collated  by  Tischendorf  for  the  eighth  edi 
tion  of  his  Greek  Testament. 

T,  for  Luke  and  John :  Codex  BORGIANUS  I. ;  fifth  century;  now  in  the 
College  of  the  Propaganda  in  Home;  fragments  of  Luke  xxii.,  xxiii.,  and 
John  vi.-viii.,  the  Greek  text  accompanied  by  a  Sahidic  or  Thebaic  ver 
sion.  The  fragments  of  John  were  published  by  Giorgi  in  1789.  Those 
of  Luke  were  first  collated  by  B.  II.  Alford. 

Two, .  fragments  of  Luke  xii.  15-xiii.  32,  John  viii.  23-32,  formerly 
owned  by  Woide,  and  published  by  Ford  in  his  Append.  Cod.  Alex.  (1799). 
Similar  to  the  preceding,  but  shown  by  Lightfoot  to  belong  to  a  different 
manuscript. 

Tb:  fragments  of  the  first  four  chapters  of  John;  sixth  century;  now 
at  St.  Petersburg. 

Tc:  a  fragment  of  Matthew  (xiv.  19-xv.  8),  resembling  the  above. 

Td:  fragments  of  a  Greek -Sahidic  Evangelistary  (seventh  century) 
found  by  Tischendorf  (18GG)  in  the  Borgian  Library  at  Koine.  Con 
tains  Matt.  xvi.  13-20;  Mark  i.  3-8;  xii.  35-37;  John  xix.  23-27;  xx. 
30,  31. 

Te:  a  bit  of  an  Evangelistary,  of  about  the  sixth  century,  from  Upper 
Egypt ;  now  in  the  Library  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  England.  It 
contains  Matt.  iii.  13-1G.  Readings  given  in  the  Postscript  to  Tregelles's 
Greek  Testament,  p.  1070.  [E.  A.] 

U,  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  NANIANUS;  end  of  ninth  or  beginning  of 
tenth  century ;  now  in  Library  of  St.  Mark,  Venice.  Contains  the  Gospels 
complete.  Collated  by  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles. 

V,  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  MOSQI:ENSIS,  of  the  Gospels  to  John  vii.  39; 
ninth  century;  almost  complete.  Written  at  Mount  Athos.  Matthau 
collated  and  described  it  in  1779. 

Wa  and  Wb:  the  former  designates  two  leaves,  with  fragments  of 
Luke  ix.,  x.,  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris;  probably  of  the  eighth 
century;  edited  by  Tischendorf  in  his  Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  1846.  The  latter 
is  a  palimpsest  of  fourteen  leaves  found  by  Tischendorf  at  Naples,  and 
fully  deciphered  by  him  in  18GG. 

Wc:  three  leaves  (ninth  century),  containing  Mark  ii.  8-1G;  Luke  5. 
20-32;  64-79 ;  now  at  St.  Gall.  Edited  by  Tischendorf,  Mon.  sacr.  ined., 
N.  C.,  vol.  iii.  (I860). 

Wd:  fragments  of  Mark  vii.,  viii.,  ix.  (ninth  century),  found  in  the 
binding  of  a  volume  in  the  Library  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  The 
readings  are  remarkable. 


130         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

AY  e :  a  fragment  containing  John  iv.  9-14.  discovered  in  18G5  in  the 
Library  of  Christ  Church  College  at  Oxford.  Closely  resembles  O,  and  is 
perhaps  a  part  of  the  same  manuscript.  Alford  calls  it  Frag.  Ath.  b;  and 
his  Frag.  Ath.  a.  containing  John  ii.  17-iii.  8,  found  by  P.  E.  Pusey  in  the 
cover  of  a  manuscript  at  Mount  Athos.  probably  belongs  to  the  same  Codex. 

Wf:  so  we  may  designate  a  palimpsest  leaf  (ninth  century),  contain 
ing  Mark  v.  16-40,  found  by  Mr.  Yansittart  in  Cod.  192  of  the  Acts. 

\V  £  :  the  Sunderland  palimpsest,  ninth  century;  see  above,  p.  102. 

X,  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  MONACENSTS;  fragmentary;  end  of  ninth 
or  beginning  of  tenth  century;  now  in  the  Munich  University  Library. 
Collated  by  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles. 

Y,  for  the  Gospel  of  John :  Codex  BAKP.KIUNI;  fragmentary:  eighth 
century;  now  in  the  Library  of  the  Prince  Barberini  at  Koine.  Tischen 
dorf  published  it  in  J\Ion.  sacr,  ined.,  1846. 

Z,  for  Matthew:  Codex  DUKLINENSIS;  rcscriptus;  sixth  century;  one 
of  the  chief  palimpsests;  text  in  value  next  to  N  and  15.  Edited  by 
Barrett,  1801,  in  faulty  fac-simile;  Tregellcs  supplemented  his  edition  in 
18G3 ;  re-edited  with  great  care  by  T.  K.  Abbott,  Lond.  1880.  See  notice 
by  Dr.  Gregory  in  Schiirer's  "  Thcologische  Literaturzeitung,"  Lcips.  1881, 
col.  228  sq. 

T,  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  TISCIIENDORFIANUS  IY. ;  ninth  or  tenth 
century;  discovered  by  Tischendorf  in  an  Eastern  monastery;  sold  to  the 
Bodleian  Library  in  1855.  Another  portion  of  the  same  MS.  was  discovered 
by  Tischendorf  in  1859,  and  taken  to  St.  Petersburg.  The  two  together 
make  a  nearly  complete  copy  of  the  Gospels.  An  inscription  at  the  close 
of  John  fixes  the  date  probably  at  Nov.  27,  844  (according  to  Tischendorf), 
or  979  (according  to  Gardthausen). 

A,  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  SANGAU.KNSIS  (St.  Gall);  ninth  century; 
probably  written  by  Irish  monks  at  St.  Gall.  Complete,  lacking  one  leaf, 
with  a  Latin  interlinear  translation,  somewhat  conformed  to  the  Yulgate. 
Published  by  IJettig  in  lithographed  fac-simile,  Zurich,  1836. 

6a,  for  Matthew:  Codex  TISCHENDORFIANUS  I.;  seventh  century; 
now  in  the  Leipsic  University  Library;  containing  fragments  of  Matt, 
xiii.,  xiv.,  xv.  Found  by  Tischendorf  in  the  East  in  1844,  and  published 
in  his  Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  1846,  with  a  few  lines  of  Matt,  xii.,  published  by 
Tischendorf  in  Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  N.  C.,  vol.  ii.  (1857). 

0b:  six  leaves  (sixth  or  seventh  century),  fragments  of  Matt,  xxii., 
xxiii.,  and  Mark  iv.,  v.  Brought  by  Tischendorf  to  St.  Petersburg  in 
1859. 

6C:  two  folio  leaves  (sixth  century),  with  Matt.  xxi.  19-24,  and 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          131 

John  xviii.  29-35.  Tischemlorf  brought  the  first,  and  Archbishop  Porfiri 
the  second,  to  St.  Petersburg. 

B(1:  a  fragment  (eighth  century)  of  Luke  xi.  87-45.  Brought  to 
St.  Petersburg  by  Tischendorf. 

6  e :  a  fragment  (sixth  century)  of  Matt.  xxvi.  2-4,  7-9. 

9f:  fragments  (sixth  century)  of  Matt,  xxvi.,  xxvii.,  and  Mark  i.,  ii. 

6e:  a  fragment  (sixth  century)  of  John  (vi.  13, 14,  22-24),  like  O  (2). 

6  h  :  Grrcco- Arabic  fragments  (ninth  century)  of  Matt.  xiv.  and  xxv., 
which,  together  with  9  e  f  s,  belong  to  the  collection  of  Archbishop  Poriiri 
formerly  at  St.  Petersburg  (now  at  Kiev  ?). 

A.  for  Luke  and  John  :  Codex  TISCHEXDORFIAXUS  III.;  ninth  century; 
now  in  the  Bodleian  Library;  collated  by  Tischendorf  (who  brought  it 
from  the  East)  and  Tregelles.  The  portion  of  this  MS.  containing 
Matthew  and  Mark  is  written  in  cursive  characters,  and  was  brought  by 
Tischendorf  to  St.  Petersburg  in  1859. 

£?,  for  Luke  i.  1-xi.  33  (with  some  gaps) :  Codex  ZACYXTIIIUS;  a  pal 
impsest  of  the  eighth  century,  formerly  at  the  island  of  Zante;  presented 
in  1821  to  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  in  London ;  deciphered 
and  published  by  Tregelles,  186 1.  The  text  is  very  valuable,  and  is  sur 
rounded  by  a  commentary. 

IT.  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  PETROPOT.ITAXUS  :  ninth  century;  brought 
by  Tischendorf  from  Smyrna  ;  collated  by  him,  18G4  and  18G5.  The  MS. 
is  nearly  complete,  lacking  77  verses. 

2,  for  Matthew  and  Mark:  Codex  ROSSAXEXSIS;  found  by  two  German 
scholars,  Dr.  Oscar  von  Gebhardt,  of  Gottingen,  and  Dr.  Adolf  Harnack, 
of  Giessen,  in  March,  1879,  at  Kossano,  in  Calabria,  in  possession  of  the 
archbishop,  who  got  it  from  the  library  of  the  former  convent.  It  is 
beautifully  written,  in  silver  letters,  on  very  line  purple-colored  vellum, 
with  the  three  first  lines  in  both  columns,  at  the  beginning  of  each 
Gospel,  in  gold  (very  rare  among  Greek  MSS.).  It  is  also  richly  orna 
mented  with  eighteen  remarkable  pictures  in  Avater-colors,  representing 
scenes  in  the  gospel  history;  hence  important  for  the  history  of  early 
Christian  art.  Its  miniatures  bear  a  striking  resemblance  to  those  of  the 
celebrated  Vienna  purple  MS.  of  Genesis.  It  consists  of  188  leaves  of  two 
columns  of  twenty  lines  each,  and  contains  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 
Mark  (Luke  and  John  are  lost).  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  ends  with  the 
words,  ETAITEAION  KATA  MAT0AION.  Gebhardt  and  Harnack 
assign  it  to  the  sixth  century.  The  text  shows  a  departure  from  the 
oldest  MSS.  (X  and  B),  and  an  approach  to  the  amended  text  of  A  A  IT. 
It  frequently  agrees  with  D  and  the  old  Latin  against  the  mass  of  later 


TTO  Kj  H  P  O  Y O"T  « 


NACAMHM 

AM  PA   Ac 


p  Ac 
AKiOr 


TTAPATT 


>l-     iO/       xe       T^Y 


SPECIMEN  OF  THE  CODEX  EOSSANEXSIS,  CONTAINING  MATT.  vi.  13. 14. 

TTOVrjpOV    OTl  |  (TOW    tGTIV   t]   (3a  \  (JlXtia    KCtl  T)  CV  \  VClfllQ   KO.I    f)    $0  \  Z,a    flQ 

TOVI;  at(jj  \  fag  a^i]v.  \  Eav  yap  cupiiTe  j  TOIQ  a)'[^(OU)7r]oic  TCI  \  —apctTT- 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         133 

MSS.  It  contains,  however,  the  doxology  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Matt.  vi. 
13,  which  is  omitted  in  the  old  Latin  and  Vulgate,  as  well  as  in  X  13  D  Z, 
Origen,  Tertullian,  and  Cyprian,  and  originated  in  liturgical  use  in  Syria. 
It  accords  most  remarkably  with  N  of  the  Gospels  (Cod.  Purpureus). 

See  Evanr/eliorum  Codex  argenteus  jmrjmreus  Rossanensis  (£),  litteris 
aryenteis  sexto  lit  ridetur  sceculo  script  us  picturisque  ornatus,  by  O.  von 
(.Jebhardt  and  Adolf  Harnack,  Leipsic,  1880;  with  fac-similes  of  portions 
of  the  text  and  outline  sketches  of  the  pictures.  A  full  edition  of  the 
codex  is  promised. 

We  give  a  fac-simile  from  this  work  on  the  preceding  page. 


B.    THE    CURSIVE    MANUSCRIPTS. 

The  cursive  MSS.  are  indicated  by  Arabic  numer 
als.  They  were  written  in  current  hand  on  vellum 
or  parchment  (membrana)  ;  or  on  cotton  paper 
(charta  lomltycina,  also  charta  Damasccna,  from 
the  place  of  manufacture),  which  came  into  use  in 
the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries ;  or  on  linen  paper 
(charta  proper),  which  was  employed  first  in  the 
twelfth  century.  Some  are  richly  illuminated. 
They  date  from  the  ninth  to  the  middle  of  the  fif 
teenth  century,  when  the  invention  of  the  art  of 
printing  substituted  a  much  easier  and  cheaper 
mode  of  multiplying  books.  A  few,  however,  were 
written  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

They  are  much  more  numerous  than  the  uncials, 
and  amount  in  all,  in  round  sum,  to  about  1000.1 
About  30  of  them  contain  the  whole  New  Testa 
ment,  others  two  or  more  groups  of  books.  We 
have,  in  round  figures,  more  than  600  cursive  MSS. 
of  the  Gospels ;  over  200  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic 

1  Dr.  Hort  (ii.  7G)  says:  "If  each  MS.  is  counted  as  one,  irrespectively 
of  the  books  contained,  the  total  number  is  between  900  and  1000." 


134:         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Epistles;  nearly  300  of  the  Pauline  Epistles;  and 
about  100  of  Revelation.1 

To  these  should  be  added  over  400  catalogued 
Lectionaries —  namely,  about  350  Evangelistaries 
and  SO  Praxapostoli,  which  contain  only  the  Script 
ure  lessons  for  public  service,  and  were  written 
mostly  between  the  tenth  and  twelfth  centuries. 
About  70  of  these  Lectionaries  are  uncials,  the  rest 
are  cursives.  None  of  them,  however,  are  believed 
to  be  older  than  the  seventh  or  eighth  century. 
Uncial  writing  continued  to  be  used  for  Lectiona 
ries  some  time  after  it  had  become  obsolete  for 
ordinary  copies  of  the  Xew  Testament  or  parts 
thereof. 

Of  the  cursive  MSS.  a  considerable  number  have 
been  collated  in  whole  or  in  part  by  Mill,  Wet- 
stein,  Griesbach,  Birch,  Alter,  Scholz,  Matthrei,  Mu 
ral  t,  Tregelles,  Tischendorf,  and  Scrivener.  Many 
others  are  entirely  unknown,  but  would  not  be 
likely  to  affect  present  conclusions  or  the  ascer 
tained  relations  between  the  existing  documents.2 

The  critical  value  of  the  cursives  is,  of  course,  not 
near  so  great  as  that  of  the  uncials,  because  they  are 

1  See  the  art.  of  Tischendorf  in  Herzog  (i.  272).     In  this  last  reckoning 
the  same  MS.  may  be  counted  more  than  once. 

2  Dr.  Scrivener  gives  a  careful  description  of  4G9  cursive  MSS.  for  the 
Gospels  (pp.  164-209),  and  of  a  large  number  of  MSS.  for  the  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament  (pp.  209-249).     Then  follows  a  section  on  the 
lectionaries  or  manuscript  service-books  of  the  Greek  Church  (250-2G9), 
which  have  as  yet  received  little  attention  from  Biblical  critics.     Dean 
Alford  gives  also  a  list  of  469  cursive  MSS.  of  the  Gospels  in  convenient 
columns  {Froleyg.  i.  120-137).     Compare  Table  IX.  in  Mitchell,  pp.  119- 
132,  Tischendorf,  L  c.,  and  Wcstcott  and  Hort,  ii.  7G  sqq. 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


135 


much  further  removed  from  the  primitive  source. 
But  some  twenty  or  thirty  of  them  are  very  im 
portant  for  their  agreement  with  the  oldest  authori 
ties,  or  for  some  other  peculiarity. 

The  following  are  the  most  valuable  cursive  MSS. : 

1,  for  the  Gospels:  Codex  BASILEENSIS;  of  the  tenth  century;  in  the 
University  Library  at  Basle;  known  to  Erasmus,  but  little  used  by  him; 
collated  by  Wetstein,  C.  L.  Koth,  and  Tregclles. 


SPECIMEN  OK  THE  CODEX  BASILEENSIS,  OF  THE  TENTH  CENTURY,  CON 

TAINING   LUKE  I.  1,  2,  NEARLY  AS   IN   ALL   GREEK   TESTAMENTS. 

tvayyk\\iov~\  Kara  XOVKO.V: 
TroXXoi   kTrtxtip^aav  apara^affjai  \  ^i/yy?;rrtv  irtpi   TUIV  m- 

\   tV    IJfJLlV    TTpCtypCtTtoJV.        KCtSll>^    TTCtft'ctiOGdV    l'/fJ.i  \  01 

civTOTTTCn  KCII  yTTJypgrot  ytvofJitvoi. 


13,  for  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles;  identical  with  No.  33  of  the 
Gospels  (see  below). 

17,  for  the  Pauline  Epistles  ;  identical  with  No.  33  of  the  Gospels, 

31,  for  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles;  identical  with  No.  69  of  the 
Gospels. 

33,  for  the  Gospels  (the  same  as  No.  13  for  Acts  and  Cath.  Epp.,  and 
No.  17  for  Pauline  Epp.):  Codex  COLBERTINUS;  in  the  National  Library 
at  Paris  (Regius  14,  Colbertinus  2844)  ;  of  the  eleventh  century  ;  called 
"the  queen  of  the  cursive  MSS.,"  or  by  Tregelles,  "the  most  important 
of  the  Biblical  MSS.  in  cursive  letters  extant,"  and,  as  Scrivener  says, 


136         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

"deserving  the  utmost  attention."  It  contains  the  whole  New  Testament 
except  the  Apocalypse,  but  has  suffered  much  "from  damp  and  decay" 
(Home,  iv.  200).  Collated  by  Gricsbach,  Scholz  (cursorily),  and  especially 
by  Tregellcs  in  1850.  It  agrees  most  with  15,  D,  and  L.  "It  has  an 
unusual  proportion  of  pre-Syrian  readings,  chiefly  non-Western"  (Hort, 
ii.  154). 

37,  for  the  Pauline  Epistles;  identical  with  No.  09  of  the  Gospels. 

47,  for  the  Pauline  Epistles:  Codex  BODL.  KOK  16;  eleventh  or  twelfth 
century.  Collated  by  Tregellcs. 

61,  for  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles:  Codex  TISCIIENDORF. ;  in  the 
British  Museum;  dated  April  20,  1044.  Collated  by  Tischendorf.  who 
discovered  it,  Tregelles,  and  Scrivener.  Formerly  called  loli,  that  is,  Londi- 
nensis  Tischendorfianus,  Dr.  Hort  says  (ii.  154):  It  "contains  a  very 
ancient  text,  often  Alexandrian,  rarely  Western,  with  a  trifling  Syrian 
element,  probably  of  late  introduction." 

G9,  for  the  Gospels  (Acts  31,  Paul  37):  Codex  LEICESTRENSIS;  eleventh 
century;  collated  by  Tregelles  (1852)  and  Scrivener  (1855).  "  This  manu 
script,  together  with  13,  124,  346  of  the  Gospels,  are  regarded  as  derived 
from  an  uncial  archetype  resembling  Codex  D." 

81.  for  the  Gospels;  at  St.  Petersburg;  called  2?e  by  Tischendorf,  as 
standing  second  in  a  list  of  documents  collated  by  Muralt.  It  is  pronounced 
by  Dr.  Hort  (ii.  154)  "the  most  valuable  cursive  for  the  preservation  of 
Western  readings  in  the  Gospels." 

95,  for  the  Apocalypse:  Codex  PARIIAM  17;  twelfth  or  thirteenth  cen 
tury  ;  collated  by  Scrivener. 

209 :  Codex  VENETUS,  a  vellum  MS.  of  the  fifteenth  century,  formerly 
the  property  of  Cardinal  Bessarion,  containing  the  Gospels;  perhaps 
copied  from  the  Vatican  MS.  It  contains  also  the  Acts  and  Catholic 
Epistles  (No.  95),  Paul's  Epistles  (No.  108),  and  Revelation  (No.  46),  but 
by  different  hands,  and  of  no  special  value. 

Other  cursives  deserving  mention  are : 

For  the  Gospels:  22,  28,  59,  66.  102,  118,  124.  157,  201;  for  the  Acts 
and  Catholic  Epistles:  15, 18,  36.40,  73. 180;  for  the  Pauline  Epistles:  46, 
67**,  73,  109;  for  the  Apocalypse:  7,  14,  38,  47,  51,  82. 

One  more  cursive  MS.  must  be  mentioned  for 
its  historical  and  dogmatic  interest.  This  is  the 
Codex  MoNTFORTiANUSj  probably  written  in  Eng 
land  during  the  sixteenth  century  (certainly  not 


MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          137 

before  1500),  formerly  the  property  of  Dr.  Mont- 
fort,  then  of  Archbishop  Ussher,  now  in  the  Trinity 
College  Library  at  Dublin,  numbered  61  in  the 
Gospels,  3±  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  40  in 
Paul's  Epistles,  and  92  in  Tregelles's  edition  of  the 
Apocalypse.  It  has  no  intrinsic  importance,  but  is 
celebrated  in  the  controversy  on  the  spurious  passage 
1  John  v.  7,  which  it  contains  on  a  glazed  page  to 
protect  it.  From  this  codex  the  three  heavenly 
witnesses  passed  into  the  third  edition  of  Erasmus 
(1522),  who  had  promised  to  insert  them,  if  any 
Greek  MS.  were  found  containing  them,  and  so  be 
came  part  of  the  textus  receptus  and  all  the  transla 
tions  made  from  it.  Erasmus,  however,  was  not 
convinced  of  its  genuineness,  and  suspected  that  it 
was  interpolated  by  translation  from  the  Latin 
Yulgate.  Luther  did  not  translate  the  passage. 
See  a  full  account  by  Tregelles  in  Home,  iv.  213- 
217,  with  a  fac-simile.  The  only  other  Greek  MSS. 
which  contain  the  passage  in  any  form  are  I^o.  162, 
the  Codex  Ottobonianus,  a  Graeco- Latin  MS.  in 
the  Vatican  Library  (]X~o.  298)  of  the  fifteenth  or 
sixteenth  century,  and  'No.  173,  the  Codex  Regius 
Neapolitanus,  which  contains  the  passage  on  the 
margin  by  a  hand  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
Other  MSS.  which  were  formerly  quoted  in  favor 
of  the  passage  are  only  transcripts  from  some  print 
ed  Greek  Testament.  The  Codex  Eavianus  at  Ber 
lin  is  a  literary  forgery,  being  almost  entirely  a  mod 
ern  transcript  from  the  Complutensian  Polyglot, 
with  a  few  readings  from  the  text  of  Erasmus.  See 
Tregelles,  I.  c.  iv.  218,  also  356  sqq.  On  the  con- 


138         MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

troversy  concerning  this  passage,  see  particularly 
the  Memoir  of  the  Controversy  respecting  the  Three 
Heavenly  Witnesses,  1  John  v.  7,  including  Critical 
Notices  of  the  Principal  Writers  on  Both  Sides  of  the 
Discussion,  It/  Criticus  [i.  e.,  Rev.  William  Onnc]. 
A  New  Edition,  with  Notes  and  an  Appendix,  Ijy 
Ezra  Allot.  New  York,  1SGG,  12mo  (xii.  and  213 
pages).  Also  the  note  of  Dr.  Ilort,  N.  T,  in  Greek, 
vol.  ii.  App.  p.  103  sqq. 


PUBLISHED   UNCIAL    MANUSCRIPTS.  139 


LIST  OF  PUBLISHED  UNCIAL  MANUSCRIPTS. 
BY  PROFESSOR  ISAAC  H.  HALL,  Hi.D. 


[NOTE. — This  list  is  intended  to  include  only  those  publications  which  give  ac 
curately  the  whole  contents  of  Uncial  Manuscripts  of  tho  N.  T. ,  whether  in  fac 
simile  or  not;  together  with  certain  editions  of  the  N.  T.  based  on  a  single  MS. 
and  containing  it  completely  in  text  and  notes. 

The  SMALL  CAPITALS  added  to  the  large  one  which  designates  the  MS.  denote, 
respectively  :  A,  Acts  ;  P,  Paul's  Epistles  ;  R,  Revelation.  Where  no  small  capi 
tal  is  attached,  the  MS.  contains  the  Gospels,  or  a  part  thereof,  and  sometimes 
much  more.  I.  contains  palimpsest  fragments  of  seven  different  MSS.  Capitals 
with  small  superior  letters  designate  small  fragments. — Ei>.] 


Date  of  MS.  Name  of  MS.  Date  of  Publication,  and  Editor. 

Cent.  IV.     X.  SIXAITICUS.  1862.  Tischendorf,  St.  Petersburg, 

i'ol.     (Facsimile  type.} 

1863.  Tischendorf,  Leipzig,  4to. 

1865  (1864).  Tischendorf,  Leipzig, 

8vo;  Addenda,  etc.,  1869. 

B.VATiCANUs(n.  1209).  1857.  Mai,  Rome,  4 to.  Reprinted 
(1859)  in  Leipzig  (London, 
New  York)  in  Svo,  and 

1860.  Kuenen  &  Cobct  (with  cor 
rections),  Lcyden,  small  Svo. 

1859.  Yercellone,  Rome,  Svo. 
1867.  Tischendorf,     Leipzig,    4to. 

Appendix,  1869,  fol. 
1 868-1881.  Yercellone    &    Cozza 
(and    Sergio),    Rome,    fol. 
Quasi  facsimile  type.) 

Cent.  V.      A.  ALEXAXDRIXUS.  1786.  Woide,  London,  fol.     (Fac 

simile  type.) 

1860.  Cowper,  London,  Svo. 
1879.  Brit.  Mus.,  Lond.  (Autotype.) 

C.  EPIIRAEMI.  1843.  Tischendorf,  Leipzig,  4to. 

Q.  GuELPHERBYTAXUsB.  (1762.)  Knittcl,  Brunswick,  4to. 

1860.  Tischendorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Incd. 
vol.  iii.),  Leipzig,  4 to. 


1-iO  PUBLISHED    UXCIAL    MANUSCRIPTS. 

I>ate  of  MS.  Name  of  MS.  Date  of  Publication,  and  Editor. 

Cent.  V.      T.  BORGIANUS  I.  1789.  (iiorgi,  Koine,  4to. 

Twoi         "  1790.  Ford  (App.  Cod.  Alex.},  Ox 

ford,  fol. 
I.  TISCHENDORFIANCS  II.  1855.  Tischendorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Incd. 

vol.  i.),  Leipzig,  4to. 
Ib.  liusEi  BRITAXXICI.     1857.  Tischendorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Incd. 

vol.  ii.),  Leipzig,  4to. 

Cent.  VI.     D.  BEZJE.  1 793.  Kipling,  Cambridge,  fol.  (Fac 

simile  type.} 

1864.  Scrivener,  Cambridge,  4to. 
F.  GUELPHERBYTAXUS  A.  (1702.)  Knittel,  Brunswick,  4to. 

1809.  Tischendorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Incd. 

vol.  vi.),  Leipzig,  4to. 
R.  XITRIEXSIP.  1857.  Tischendorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Incd. 

vol.  ii.),  Leipzig,  4to. 

Z.  DruuxExsis.  1801.  Barrett,  Dublin,  4to.     (Sup 

plement,  Tregelles,  London, 
1863,  4to.) 

1880.  Abbott,  Dublin,  4to. 
I.  TISCHEXDORFIAXUS  II.  1855.  Tischendorf  ( Mon.  Sac.  Lied. 

vol.  i.),  Leipzig,  4to. 

X.  PURPUREUS.  (Portions  scattered.)  1846.  Tischendorf 
(Mon.  Sac.  Incd.},  Leipzig, 
4to. 

1870.  Archives  dcs  Missions  Scicn- 
tif.  etc.,   Paris.      (Patmos 
Fragments.) 
Oa.  TISCIIEXDORFIAXUS  I.  1846.  Tischendorf       (Mon.      Sac. 

Ined.},  Leipzig,  4to. 
1857.  Tischendorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Incd. 

vol.  ii.),  Leipzig,  4to. 
EA.  LAUDIAXUS,  35.         1715.  Hearne,  Oxford,  8vo. 

1870.  Tischendorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Incd. 

vol.  ix.),  Leipzig,  4to. 

Dp .  CLAROMONTAXUS.       1852.  Tischendorf,  Leipzig,  4to. 
Hp.  COISLIXIAXUS.    a,  b.  1715.  Montfaucon        (  Bibliotheca 

Coislin.),  Paris,  fol. 

(«,  b,  c,  d,  e,f,  are         c.  1863.  Sabas  (Specimina  Palccorjr.}, 
scattered  portions.)  Moscow,  4to. 

e.  1876.  Archives  dcs  Missions  Scicn- 
tif.  et.  Litter.,  Paris. 


PUBLISHED    UNCIAL    MANUSCRIPTS.  lil 

Date  of  M.S.  Name  of  MS.  Date  of  Publication,  and  Editor. 

Cent,  VII.  Fa.  COISLIXIANUS  I.         1846.  Tischendorf  (Jfo?i.£ae.7n«/.), 

Leipzig,  4to. 
L.  REGIUS.  184G.  Yischendorf(]lfon.SacJned.), 

Leipzig,  4to. 
I.  TISCHEXDORFIAXUS  II.  1855.  Tischcndorf  ( Hon.  Site.  Lied. 

vol.  i.),  Leipzig,  4  to. 
Rp.  CRYriOFEiuiATEXSis.  (1867.)  Cozza  (Sacror.  Blbl.  Vdust. 

Frag.,  pars  2),  Rome. 

Cent.VIII.  E.  ZACYXTIIIUS.  18G1.  Tregelles,  London,  sm.  fol. 

F.  KHEXO-TRAJECTIXUS  (Boreeli).  1843.  Viukc,  Utrecht,  4to. 
Y.  BARBERIXI.  1846.  Tischendorf(Mon.Sac.Ined.), 

Leipzig,  4to. 
Wa.  REGIUS,  314.  184G.  TischQndorf(Mon.  Sac.  Lied.}, 

Leipzig,  4to. 
\YC.       "  I860.  Tischcndorf  (Mon.  Sac.  Lied. 

vol.  iii.),  Leipzig,  4to. 
GA.  VATICAXCS,  9671.     1877.  Cozza  (Sacror.  Bill.  Vetust. 

Frog,  pars  3),  Rome,  8vo. 
BR.  VATICAXUS,  2066.      1846.  Tiscbendorf  (3fon.Sac.Licd.), 

Leipzig,  4to. 
1869.  Tischendorf  (4jt>p.CW.  rat.}, 

Leipzig,  4to. 

Cent.  IX.     A.  SAXGALLEXSIS.  1836.  Rettig,  Zurich.    (Facsimile.) 

0.  MOSQUEXSIS,  120.         1785.  Matthaci    (Epp.    Pauli    ad 

Tlicss.,  etc.,  and  facsimile 

in    Joannis    Apoc.    etc.  ), 

Riga,  Svo. 
1861.  Tregelles  (App.  to  Coil  Za- 

cynth.),  London,  4to. 
\Yd.  (Trinity  Coll.,  Cambridge.)    ?    Photographs  by  Brad- 

shaw. 

Gp .  BOERXERIAXUS.          1791.  Matthaci,  Meissen,  4to. 
Fp.  AUGIEXSIS.  1859.  Scrivener,  Cambridge,  4to. 

pAPR  PORFIRIANUS.  1865-69.  Tischendorf   (Mon.  Sac. 

Lied.  vols.  v.  £  vi.),  Leipzig, 

4to. 
Mp.  RUBER.  1800.  Henke,    Progr.    Ilelmstadt, 

4to. 
1855.  (ed.  alt.  1861).     Tischendorf 

(Anecd.  Sac.  et  Prof.),  Leip 
zig,  4to. 


CHAPTER  THIRD. 

THE   ANCIENT   VERSIONS. 
VALUE    OF    VERSIONS. 

XEXT  to  the  study  of  the  MSS.,  the  most  impor 
tant  aids  in  textual  criticism  are  the  ancient  versions, 
or  translations  of  the  Xew  Testament  from  the 
Greek  into  vernacular  languages.  They  are,  how 
ever,  only  indirect  sources,  as  we  must  translate 
them  back  into  the  original,  except  in  omissions  and 
additions,  which  are  apparent  at  once.  If,  for  in 
stance,  the  Latin  versions  in  Luke  ii.  14  read  homini- 
hus  IfoncG  voluntatis,  it  is  evident  that  the  translators 
found  in  their  Greek  copy  the  genitive  ei/Soiaae,  and 
not  the  nominative  tvSoKia  (voluntas).  The  transla 
tion  imiycnitus  Filius,  in  John  i.  18,  supports  VIOQ 
instead  of  S-to'c  (Dens).  The  translation  hdbeamus 
paccrn,  in  Rom.  v.  1,  presupposes  the  reading  of  the 
subjunctive  I\M^V  (let  us  have),  and  not  the  indica 
tive  t^oju£v  (hdbemuS)  we  have). 

In  point  of  age,  some  versions,  being  made  in  the 
second  century,  antedate  our  oldest  Greek  MSS., 
which  are  not  earlier  than  the  fourth.  But  they 
have  undergone  similar  textual  corruptions,  and  no 
MS.  copy  of  a  version  is  earlier  than  the  fourth  cen 
tury.  Yet  in  general  they  represent  the  Greek  text 
from  which  they  were  made.  Some  of  them  are  as 
yet  imperfectly  edited.  Even  a  satisfactory  critical 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  43 

edition  of  the  Vulgate  is  still  a  desideratum.  But, 
notwithstanding  these  drawbacks,  the  ancient  ver 
sions  are  more  important  to  the  textual  critic  than 
to  the  exegete.  As  Dr.  Westcott  says,  "While  the 
interpreter  of  the  New  Testament  will  be  fully 
justified  in  setting  aside  without  scruple  the  author 
ity  of  early  versions,  there  are  sometimes  ambiguous 
passages  in  which  a  version  may  preserve  the  tradi 
tional  sense  (John  i.  3,  9  ;  viii.  25,  etc.),  or  indicate 
an  early  difference  of  translation ;  and  then  its  evi 
dence  may  be  of  the  highest  value.  But  even  here 
the  judgment  must  be  free.  Versions  supply  au 
thority  for  the  text,  and  opinion  only  for  the  ren 
dering."  '  It  matters  comparatively  little  whether 
they  be  elegant  or  wretched,  so  long  as  they  reflect 
with  accuracy  the  original  text.  One  service  of 
great  importance  they  can  be  manifestly  depended 
upon  to  render — to  tell  where  insertions  or  omis 
sions  occur  in  the  original  text  before  the  translator. 
It  is  therefore  very  weighty  evidence  against  the 
genuineness  of  any  particular  passage  that  it  is  not 
found  in  the  most  ancient  versions,  representing  as 
they  do  the  text  current  in  widely  separated  regions 
of  the  Christian  world. 

The  most  important  of  these  versions  are  the 
Latin,  the  Syriac,  the  Egyptian,  the  ^Ethiopic,  the 
Gothic,  and  the  Armenian. 

The  Vulgate  was  the  first  version  made  use  of  as 
a  collateral  witness  in  the  printed  editions  of  Eras 
mus  and  the  scholars  of  Complutum. 

1  Smith's  Diet,  of  (he  Bible,  Amer.  ed.,  vol.  iv.  p.  3479,  art,  "  Vulgate." 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 
LATIN    VERSIONS. 

1.  The  OLD  LATIN  (!TALA).  This  version  is  not 
found  complete  ;  but  from  the  quotations  of  the 
Latin  fathers,  especially  those  in  Tertullian,  Cyprian, 
Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  Hilary  the 
deacon  or  Arnbrosiaster,  Ambrose,  Victorinus,  Je 
rome,  Rufinus,  Augustin,  Pelagius,  and  in  the 
Apocalypse  Primasius,  its  text  can  be  in  large  meas 
ure  restored.  See  Hermann  llonsch,  Das  JY.  T.  Ter- 
tidliarfS)  aus  den  Schriften  des  letztercn  moglichst 
vollstdndig  reconstruct,  Leipsic,  1871  (731  pages). 

The  version  is  nearest  in  age  to  the  earliest  form 
of  the  Peshito,  and  may  be  assigned  to  the  middle 
or  latter  half  of  the  second  century.  It  was  not  the 
work  of  one  man,  nor  suffered  to  go  uncorrected  by 
many.  Hence  the  different  accounts  of  it  by  differ 
ent  scholars ;  some  holding  that  there  were  many 
versions  before  Jerome,  in  proof  of  which  statement 
they  quote  Augustin,  De  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  11 ;  oth 
ers  holding  that  there  was  only  one  version,  and 
citing  in  proof  Jerome.  But  by  the  simple  and 
natural  explanation  that  there  were  many  revisions 
of  the  one  old  translation,  Augustin  and  Jerome  can 
be  reconciled. 

The  version  is  made  from  the  Septuagint  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  is  verbal,  rough,  and  clumsy ;  the 
language  is  the  degenerate  Latin  of  the  second  cen 
tury,  with  admixture  of  colloquial  and  provincial 
forms.  In  the  New  Testament  it  underwent  many 
changes  in  different  provinces ;  partly  made  to  im 
prove  the  style,  partly  to  bring  it  into  conformity 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  145 

with  Greek  manuscripts.  The  great  want  of  uni 
formity  in  the  copies  current  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  fourth  century  led  to  the  revision  undertaken 
by  Jerome,  which  now  bears  the  name  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate. 

The  balance  of  probability  is  in  favor  of  North 
Africa  as  the  place  of  its  origin,  because  there, 
rather  than  in  Italy,  there  was  an  immediate  demand 
for  a  Latin  translation ;  while  in  the  Roman  Church 
the  Greek  language  prevailed  during  the  first  and 
second  centuries.  Hence  the  name  "Italic"  or 
"Vetus  Itala"  is  incorrect.  Augustin  (De  Doctr. 
Christ,  ii.  15)  speaks  of  a  translation  which  he  calls 
the  Itala,  and  which  he  preferred  to  all  the  others. 
This  was  manifestly  a  recension  of  the  same  Old 
Latin  version,  made  or  used  in  Italy. 

The  Old  Latin  version  never  attained  to  much 
authority ;  the  Greek  being  regarded  as  the  authen 
tic  text,  even  in  the  early  Latin  Church.  At  the 
same  time,  the  version  is  one  of  the  most  significant 
monuments  of  Christian  antiquity,  the  medium  of 
divine  truth  unto  the  Latin  peoples  for  centuries, 
and  of  great  value  to  the  Bible  critic  by  reason  of 
its  antiquity  and  literalness.  The  Apocryphal  books 
of  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  1  and  2  Maccabees,  Ba- 
ruch,  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  and  4  Ezra  (2  Esdras) 
were,  in  a  substantially  unchanged  form,  embodied 
in  the  Vulgate.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  Psalms 
were  similarly  transferred.  Jerome's  translation  of 
the  Psalms  from  the  original  Hebrew  could  not 
force  its  way. 

There  is  still  lacking  a  really  trustworthy  edition 
10 


146  THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

of  the  existing  portions  of  the  Old  Latin  version. 
For  the  New  Testament  there  exist,  however,  more 
than  twenty  very  ancient  but  fragmentary  MSS.  of 
the  Gospels,  and  some  (imperfect)  of  the  Acts  and 
the  Pauline  Epistles ;  while  there  is  only  one  com 
plete  MS.  yet  known  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  of  the 
Catholic  Epistles  but  few  fragments  remain.  The 
codices  of  this  version  are  cited  by  small  Latin  let 
ters,  but  there  is  more  variation  in  the  use  of  these 
letters  than  in  the  use  of  the  capital  letters  for  the 
Greek  codices.  The  principal  MSS.  of  the  Gospels 
generally  regarded  as  representing  the  African  text 
are — 

Codex  VERCELL.ENSIS  (a),  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Eusebius, 
Bishop  of  Vercelli,  cir.  A.D.  3G5. 

VEUOXKNSIS  (b),  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century. 

COLIJEIITINUS  (c),  at  Paris,  of  the  eleventh  century,  the  only  complete 
MS. 

Codex  BRIXIANUS  (f),  at  Brescia,  of  the  sixth  century,  represents  a  later 
revision,  probably  Augustine's  Itala, 

Codex  BOBBIENSIS  (k),  now  in  Turin,  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century, 
collated  bv  Tischendorf,  has  a  remarkable  and  valuable  text,  and  the 
same  is  true  of  Codex  PAL.ATIXUS  (e),  at  Vienna,  fifth  century. 

The  last  two  MSS.  agree  in  a  striking  manner  with 
the  quotations  of  Cyprian,  and  Dr.  Hort  therefore 
regards  them  as  the  best  representatives  of  the 
African  text ;  the  type  of  text  found  in  a  b  c  he 
would  designate  as  European,  while  f  and  q  are 
classed  as  Italian. 

The  most  complete  edition  of  the  Old  Latin  ver 
sion  is  Peter  Sabatier's  jBibliorum  Sacrorum  Latince 
Versiones  Antiques,  sen  Veins  Italica  et  cceterce  quce- 
cunque  in  Codd.  MS/S.  et  Antiquorum  Libris  reperiri 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  147 

potuerunt  (Remis,  i.  e.  Kheims,  1743-49,  3  torn.  fol. ; 
new  title-page,  Paris,  1751).  But  many  parts  of 
each  Testament  have  been  carefully  collated  or 
edited  subsequently.  Worthy  of  special  mention, 
for  the  Gospels,  are  Bianchini's  Evangeliarium 
Quadruplex  Latinos  Versionis  Antiquce,  sen  Veteris 
lialicce,  editum  ex  Codicibus  Manuscriptis,  Romse, 
17494  2  torn.  fol. ;  Scrivener's  Codex  JBezce,  Cam 
bridge,  1864;  Tischendorf's  Evangelium  Palatinum, 
Lips.  1847;  and  Haase's  Codex  Itehdigeranus,  Bres- 
lau,  1865-66.  For  the  Acts,  see  Scrivener's  Codex 
Hezce,  and  Belsheim's  Die  Apostelgeschichte  und  die 
Offenbarung  Johannis  in  einer  alien  lat.  Uebersetzung 
cms  dem  Gigas  Librorum,  Christiania,  1879.  For  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  Tischendorf's  Codex  Claromonta- 
nus,  1852 ;  Matthaei's  Codex  Bo&rnerianus,  Misense, 
1791;  and  Scrivener's  Codex  Augiensis,  Cambridge, 
1859.  For  the  Catholic  and  Pauline  Epistles  (mere 
ly  fragments),  see  Ziegler's  Italafragmente,  Marburg, 
1876.  For  the  Apocalypse,  see  Belsheim,  as  above. 
Belsheim's  Codex  Aureus  of  the  Gospels  (Chris 
tiania,  1878)  is  rather  a  MS.  of  the  Vulgate  than  of 
the  Old  Latin,  though  the  text  is  mixed,  as  it  is  in 
not  a  few  other  MSS.  The  Graeco-  Latin  MSS. 
pew  act  DPaul  Eact  GP&UI  FPaul  (mostly  Vulgate),  have 
no  independent  authority  except  where  the  Latin 
differs  from  the  Greek. 

The  Codex  Lugdunensis,  published  by  Ulysse 
Robert,  Paris,  1881,  contains  a  version  apparently 
of  African  origin  (comp.  Renan,  Marc  Aurele,  p.  456, 
note  2).  This,  however,  is  a  MS.  of  the  Pentateuch. 

On  the  whole  subject,  consult  Hermann  Ronsch, 


148  THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

Itala  und  Vulgata.  Das  SpracJiidiom  der  urchrist- 
liclicn  Itala  und  der  katholischen  Vulgata,  2d  ed., 
revised,  Marburg,  1875  ;  L.  Ziegler,  Die  latein.  J2i- 
belubersetzungen  vor  Ilieronymus  und  die  Itala  des 
AugustlnuSjM\iuclieu7 1879  (he  maintains  the  exist 
ence  of  several  Latin  versions  or  revisions  before 
Jerome) ;  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  Latein.  Hibelubersetzun- 
gen,  in  the  new  ed.  of  Ilerzog,  vol.  viii.  1881,  pp.  433- 
472;  Westcott's  art.  "Vulgate,"  in  Smith's  Diet,  of 
the  Bible ;  and  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testa 
ment^  vol. ii.,  Tntrod.,  pp.  78-84.  There  is  a  good  con 
densed  account,  revised  by  Dr.  Abbot,  in  Mitchell's 
Critical  Handbook  (1880),  p.  133  sq. 

2.  The  Latin  VULGATE.  In  the  course  of  time 
the  text  of  the  Old  Latin  became  so  corrupt  that  a 
thorough  revision  was  imperative,  and  was  intrusted 
by  Pope  Damasus,  in  383,  to  Jerome  (d.  419),  the 
most  learned  scholar  of  his  day,  and  of  all  the  Latin 
fathers  best  qualified,  by  genius,  taste,  and  knowl 
edge  of  Hebrew  and  Greek,  for  this  difficult  task. 
He  began  upon  the  Xew  Testament,  and  proceeded 
cautiously,  making  as  few  changes  as  possible,  so  as 
not  to  arouse  the  opposition  of  those  who,  as  he 
says,  "  thought  that  ignorance  was  holiness."  But 
his  scholarly  instincts,  no  less  than  his  convictions 
of  duty  towards  the  Divine  Word,  impelled  him  to 
go  beyond  his  instructions,  and  make  a  new  version 
of  the  Old  Testament  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  of 
which,  however,  it  does  not  concern  us  at  present 
to  speak.  In  the  Kew  Testament  he  used  "old" 
Greek  MSS.,  and  made  no  alterations  except  such 
as  were  required  by  the  sense.  He  removed  numer- 


THE   ANCIENT   VERSIONS.  149 

ous  interpolations  of  parallel  passages  in  the  Gos 
pels.  "  Internal  evidence  shows  that  the  Latin  MSS. 
which  he  took  as  a  basis  for  his  corrections  contained 
an  already  revised  text,  chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  Italian 
in  character"  (Hort,  ii.  80). 

Jerome's  revision  and  new  translation  (finished 
405)  encountered  much  opposition,  which  greatly 
irritated  his  temper  and  betrayed  him  into  con 
temptuous  abuse  of  his  opponents,  whom  he  styled 
"lipedcs  asellos"  But,  by  inherent  virtues,  rather 
than  by  external  authority,  it  passed  into  such  cur 
rent  use  that  in  the  eighth  century  it  was  the  Vul 
gate,  the  common  version,  in  the  Western  churches. 
It  became  much  corrupted  by  frequent  copying. 
Alcuin,  at  the  instance  of  Charlemagne,  revised  it 
circa  802,  by  the  collation  of  various  good  MSS.,  and 
substantially  in  this  form  it  passed  down  to  the  time 
of  the  invention  of  printing. 

The  first  book  printed  was  the  Vulgate — the  so- 
called  Mazarin  Bible  (Gutenberg  and  Fust,  Mayence, 
1455).  Printing,  however,  fixed  errors  and  gave 
them  wider  currency,  and  revision  was  felt  once 
more  to  be  imperative. 

In  the  Council  of  Trent  (Dec.  13, 1545,  to  Dec.  4, 
1563)  the  matter  was  introduced  Feb.  4,  1546,  and 
the  recommendation  of  revision  passed  on  April  8 ; 
but  it  was  not  until  1590,  in  the  pontificate  of  Six- 
tus  V.,  that  the  revised  edition  of  the  Vulgate  ap 
peared.  The  scholarly  pope  took  active  interest  in 
the  work,  rejecting  or  confirming  the  suggestions  of 
the  board  of  revisers,  and  corrected  the  proof-sheets 
with  his  own  hand.  It  was  prefaced  by  the  famous, 


150  THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

and,  as  the  event  showed,  by  no  means  infallible, 
constitution  ^Eternus  ille  (dated  March  1, 1589),  in 
which  the  pope  said,  "  By  the  fulness  of  apostolical 
power,  we  decree  and  declare  that  this  edition  of  the 
sacred  Latin.  Vulgate  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa 
ments,  which  has  been  received  as  authentic  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  ...  be  received  and  held  as  true, 
legitimate,  authentic,  arid  unquestioned,  in  all  public 
arid  private  disputation,  reading,  preaching,  and  ex 
planation."  He  further  forbade  any  alteration  what 
ever;  ordered  this  text,  and  none  other,  henceforth 
to  be  printed ;  and  hurled  anathemas  against  every 
one  disobeying  the  constitution.  But,  alas  for  the 
pope !  the  immaculate  edition  was  full  of  errors  and 
blunders;  and  no  sooner  was  he  dead  (Aug.  27, 
1590)  than  the  demand  for  a  new  edition  arose. 
Bellarmine  suggested  an  ingenious  though  dishon 
orable  escape  from  the  awkward  predicament  in 
which  Sixtus  had  placed  the  Church — viz.,  that  a 
corrected  edition  should  be  hastily  printed  under 
the  name  of  Sixtus,  in  which  the  blame  of  the  errors 
should  be  thrown  upon  the  printer!  His  recom 
mendation  was  adopted,  but  it  was  not  until  1592, 
under  Clement  VIII. ,  that  the  revised  edition  ap 
peared.  The  Clementine  edition  is  the  standard  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  which  this  Latin 
translation  takes  precedence  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  originals,  as  the  support  of  doctrine  and  guide 
of  life. 

The  materials  for  a  more  critical  edition  of  the 
Vulgate  than  the  Clementine  are  very  abundant. 
There  are  numerous  MSS.,  and  much  labor  has  al- 


THE   ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  151 

ready  been  expended  upon  the  work.     The  most 
famous  of  these  MSS.  are — 

(a)  Codex  AMIATINUS,  from  the  Cistercian  Monastery  of  Monte  Amia- 
tino,  in  Tuscany,  now  in  the  Laurentian  Library  at  Florence;  it  contains 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  almost  complete,  dates  from  541,  and  is  the 
oldest  and  best  MS.  The  New  Testament  was  edited  by  Tischendorf, 
Leipsic,  1850,  2d  ed.  1854,  and  by  Tregelles  (in  his  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  with  the  variations  of  the  Clementine  text). 

(U)  Codex  FULDENSIS,  in  the  Abbey  of  Fulda,  Hesse-Cassel ;  contains 
the  New  Testament;  dates  from  546.  Collated  by  Lachmann  for  his 
large  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  and  edited  by  E.  lianke,  Marburg 
and  Leipsic,  1868. 

(c)  Codex  FOUOJULIEXSIS  (sixth  century),  at  Friuli;  Matthew,  Luke, 
and  John  published  by  Bianchini,  Evany.  Quadruplex,  Appendix.  Part 
of  the  same  MS.  is  at  Prague  (PKAGENSIS). 

(W)  Codex  HAKLEIAX.  1775  (seventh  century),  of  the  Gospels,  partially 
collated  by  Griesbach,  Symb.  Crit.  vol.  i. 

(e)  Codex  TOLETANUS,  at  Toledo;  written  in  Gothic  letters  in  the 
eighth  century;  collated  by  the  Sixtine  correctors  and  by  Vercellone.  It 
contains  both  Testaments.  Its  readings  are  given  by  Bianchini,  Vindicice 
Canon.  Scripturarum,  Home,  1740. 

The  best  edition  of  the  variations  is  that  of  Carlo 
Yercellone,  Varice  Lectiones  Vulg.  Lat.  Bibliorum 
Editionis,  Rom.  torn.  i.  1860;  torn.  ii.  pars  1, 1862 ; 
pars  2, 1864.  Unfinished.  A  very  important  work, 
but,  unfortunately,  without  either  the  authorized  or 
the  corrected  text.  Fritzsche  says  (loc.  cit.  p.  458), 
"  Even  to-day  there  is  wanting  a  text  which  answers 
the  demands  of  science ;  and  Protestantism  alone 
can  and  ought  to  accomplish  this  work,  already  too 
long  neglected." 


152  THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 


SYRIAC    VERSIONS. 

1.  The  PESIIITO  (or  PESHITTO,  PESIIITTA,  as  spelled 
by  many  Syriac  scholars),  the  "simple" — so  called 
because  of  its  simple  Syriac  style,  or  its  simple  form, 
in  distinction  from  the  Grecized  versions  replete 
with  asterisks  and  obeli  derived  from  Origen — in  its 
present  shape,  dates  from  the  fourth  or  third  cen 
tury.  It  supplied  the  wants  of  the  Syrian  Chris 
tians  before  the  unhappy  schism  in  that  church 
(fifth  century),  and  by  its  use  in  common  has  always 
been  a  bond  of  union  between  the  different  sects, 
who  still  read  it  in  their  church  services  and  as  a 
sacred  classic,  though  its  language  is  no  longer  the 
vernacular.  The  Peshito  has  been  justly  called 
"  the  queen  of  (ancient)  versions,"  since,  while  it 
yields  to  none  in  accuracy  and  faithfulness,  it  is 
idiomatic,  and  as  unfettered  as  an  original  composi 
tion  in  Syriac.  Its  genius  is  strikingly  like  that  of 
Luther's  matchless  German ;  generally  close  and 
literal,  but  not  shrinking  from  a  paraphrase  when 
necessary.  It  was  first  used  for  critical  purposes  by 
Beza,  but  only  occasionally  and  indirectly  (through 
the  Latin  version  of  Trernellius),  more  fully  by  Wal 
ton,  Mill,  Wetstein,  and  wTith  great  care  by  Tregel- 
les.  The  text  connects  it  in  sundry  places  with  D 
and  the  Latin  versions,  though  in  more  with  A.  Its 
critical  value  is  very  great,  but  has  been  somewhat 
diminished  since  the  discovery  of  the  still  older 
Curetonian  Syriac.  It  had  undergone  a  revision  be- 

1  See  especially  Tregelles,  in  Home's  Introd.  (14th  ed.  1877),  vol.  iv. 
258-284,  and  on  the  Syrian  text,  Westcott  and  Hort,  ii.  132-146. 


TIIE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  153 

fore  it  assumed  its  present  shape,  like  that  of  the 
Old  Latin  by  Jerome.  According  to  the  investiga 
tions  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  the  revision  took  place 
in  the  fourth  century  or  sooner  (between  250  and 
350),  adapting  it  to  the  Greek  copies  current  at  An- 
tiocli.1 

Notwithstanding  its  age  and  value,  the  Peshito 
was  not  known  to  Europe  until  1552 ;  and  in  1555, 
at  Vienna,  the  first  edition  appeared,  at  the  expense 
of  the  emperor,  Ferdinand  I.,  edited  by  Albert  Wid- 
manstadt,  the  imperial  chancellor.  This  edition  is 
the  basis  of  all  its  European  successors,  and  is  not 
inferior  to  any.  It  contained  all  that  is  now  known 
of  the  Peshito  version — that  is,  all  of  the  New  Test, 
except  2d  Peter,  2d  and  3d  John,  Jude,  and  the 
Apocalypse.  There  is  testimony,  however,  to  the 
fact  that  these  books  existed  in  a  Syriac  translation 
before  the  fourth  century,  and  were  used  by  Syrian 
fathers  who  quoted  the  Peshito.  The  missing  epis 
tles  were  supplied  in  the  modern  editions  from  an 
other  version  (otherwise  unknown),  first  brought,  to 
light  by  Pococke,  and  published  at  Leyden  in  1630. 
The  Apocalypse,  likewise  of  unknown  origin,  was 
first  published  by  De  Dieu,  at  Leyden  in  1627,  from 
a  late  Indian  MS.  owned  by  Scaliger.  Its  text  is 
not  of  great  value.  The  best  European  editions  of 
the  Peshito,  with  the  additions  just  specified,  are 
those  of  Lee,  published  by  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  and  of  Greenfield,  published  by  Bag- 

1  Gr.  Test.,  p.  552;  comp.  Introd.  p.  135  sqq.  Dr.  Hort's  view  has  been 
independently  confirmed  by  Dr.  Schiirer  in  the  "Theol.  Literaturzeitung" 
for  1881,  No.  25,  p.  594. 


154:  THE    ANCIENT   VERSIONS. 

ster,  in  the  Polyglot  and  separately.  Rather  better 
than  either  are  the  American  editions,  one  edited 
by  Dr.  Justus  Perkins  at  Urmiah,  or  Ooroomeyah,  in 
Persia,  184:1,  and  its  reprint  in  Xew  York  in  1874, 
both  in  Nestorian  type,  and  both  by  the  American 
Bible  Society.  Dr.  Murdock  has  published  a  "Lit 
eral  Translation  from  the  Syriac  Peshito  Version  " 
(New  York,  1851).  A  translation  of  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  from  the  Peshito,  by  J.  W.  Etheridge,  ap 
peared  in  London,  1849.  Better  than  either  is  the 
familiar  Latin  translation  by  Tremellius.  In  Schaaf 
and  Leusden's  edition,  Leyden,  1708  (also  with  title- 
pages  dated  1709,  1717,  but  no  other  change),  the 
Syrian  text  is  accompanied  with  a  close  Latin  ver 
sion,  and  an  appendix  of  various  readings.  Schaaf  s 
Lexicon  Syriacwn  Concordantiale,  published  as  a 
companion  volume,  is  an  invaluable  help  to  the  stu 
dent. 

2.  The  PHILOXENIAN  or  HARCLEAN  version,  so 
called  from  its  patron  Philoxenus,  Monophysite 
bishop  of  Mabug  (Hierapolis),  in  Eastern  Syria 
(488-518),  and  from  Thomas  of  Harkel,  a  subsequent 
reviser,  who  was  probably  likewise  a  Monophysite 
bishop  of  Mabug.  Scrivener  calls  it  "  the  most 
servile  version  of  Scripture  ever  made."  It  may  be 
compared  in  this  respect  to  the  literal  English  ver 
sion  of  Robert  Young.  It  is  based  upon  the  Peshi 
to,  and  forces  it  into  rigorous  conformity  with  the 
letter  of  the  Greek,  even  to  the  linguistic  phenome 
na.  It  dates  from  A.D.  508,  and  was  revised  by 
Thomas  of  Harkel,  or  Heraclea,  A.D.  616,  who  com 
pared  it  with  several  ancient  Greek  MSS.  belonging 


THE    ANCIENT   VERSIONS.  155 

to  a  library  at  Alexandria,  the  readings  of  which  he 
often  notes  in  his  margin.  These  are  as  important 
as  the  text  itself.  It  contains  the  whole  New 
Testament,  except  the  Apocalypse,  and  is  therefore 
more  complete  than  the  Peshito.  The  only  edi 
tion  of  the  Ilarclean  (improperly  called  the  Philox- 
enian)  is  that  of  Joseph  White,  printed  by  the 
Clarendon  Press,  Oxford,  1778-1803,  4  vols.  4to. 
Bernstein  has  published  the  Gospel  of  John  (Leips. 
1853). 

This  version  was  chiefly  used  by  the  Jacobites. 
The  nrirevised  Philoxenian  was  thought  by  Adier1 
to  exist  in  a  Florence  Codex  (in  the  Medicean 
Library)  of  the  eighth  century ;  but  this  opinion  is 
disputed  by  Bernstein,2  who  thought  the  claims  of 
the  Vatican  Codex  Angelicus  (twelfth  to  fourteenth 
century)  to  be  superior.  But  a  Jacobite  MS.  of  the 
ninth  century,  originally  from  Mardin,  at  present 
belonging  to  the  Syrian  Protestant  College  at  Beirut, 
brought  to  light  by  Prof.  Isaac  II.  Hall  in  1870,  pos 
sesses  claims  superior  to  either,  and  is  the  nearest 
representative  of  the  unrevised  Philoxenian  thus  far 
known,  if  indeed  it  is  not  identical  with  it.  This 
MS.  originally  consisted  of  the  Gospels  in  that  ver 
sion,  with  the  other  books  in  the  Peshito,  so  far  as 
the  latter  contained  them.  At  present  the  MS.  con 
tains  nearly  the  entire  Gospels  from  Matt.  xii.  20; 
and  of  the  rest  of  the  New  Test,  lacks  all  of  Phile 
mon  and  Hebrew's,  with  large  portions  of  the  Pas- 


1  N.  T.  Versiones  Syriaca,  p.  55. 

3  Das  heilige  Ev.  d.  Johannes,  pp.  25-30. 


156  THE    ANCIENT   VERSIONS. 

toral  Epistles,  besides  a  few  other  lacunce  where  a 
leaf  is  lost.1 

3.  The  CUKETONIAN  Syriac  is  a  mere  fragment  of 
the  Gospels  (consisting  of  S2-J-  leaves),  but  very  old 
and  valuable;  though  overestimated  by  Canon  Cure- 
ton,  who  thought  it  "retained,  to  a  great  extent,  the 
identical  terms  and  expressions  of  St.  Matthew's 
Hebrew  Gospel."  It  is  regarded  by  most  scholars — 
as  Cureton,  Payne  Smith,  Ilermansen,  Ewald,  Crow 
foot,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Ilort — as  the  oldest 
form  of  the  Syriac  version;  the  "Peshito"  in  its 
present  form  holding  a  relation  to  it  similar  to  that 
of  the  Vulgate  to  the  Old  Latin.  Dean  Alford  calls 
it  "  perhaps  the  earliest  and  most  important  of  all 
versions."  Dr.  Scrivener,  however,  places  it  decid 
edly  below  the  Peshito.  It  was  found  by  Archdeacon 
Tattain  in  1842,  with  550  other  MSS.,  in  a  convent 
of  the  Nitrian  Desert  (seventy  miles  northwest  of 
Cairo),  and  brought  to  the  British  Museum  ;  and 
was  published  by  Cureton  in  1858,  with  a  literal 
English  translation.  It  agrees  remarkably  with  D 
and  the  Old  Latin,  while  the  Peshito  mostly  favors 
A.  It  contains  large  portions  of  Matthew,  Luke, 
and  John,  and  the  last  four  verses  of  Mark. 

Dr.  Brugsch,  the  celebrated  Egyptologist,  after 
wards  discovered  three  additional  leaves  in  the  bind 
ing  of  a  MS.  of  the  Peshito  which  came  from  the 
Nitrian  convent  (1871).  They  were  published  by 


1  Trofessor  Hall  read  a  carefully  prepared  paper  on  this  MS.  before  the 
Am.  Society  of  Bibl.  Lit.  and  Exegesis  at  its  meeting  in  New  Haven, 
June,  1882.  It  will  be  published  in  the  Journal,  vol.  ii.  1883. 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  157 

Rodiger  in  the  Monatsbericht  of  the  Berlin  Academy 
of  Sciences  for  July,  1872 ;  and  also  by  Prof. Wright, 
as  an  appendix  to  Cureton's  volume.  The  leaves 
contain  Luke  xv.  22-xvi.  12 ;  xvii.  1-23 ;  John  vii. 
37-viii.  19,  not  including,  however,  the  disputed 
passage  respecting  the  woman  taken  in  adultery 
(vii.  53-viii.  11).  The  Curetonian  Syriac,  including 
these  new  leaves,  has  been  translated  into  Greek  by 
J.  H.  Crowfoot  in  his  Fragmenta  Evangelica,  2  parts, 
London,  1870-71[72]. 

4.  The  JERUSALEM  Syriac.  The  principal  MS. 
known  is  an  Evangelistary  in  the  Vatican,  dated 
A.D.  1030.  This  has  been  published  at  Verona 
(1861-64:,  2  vols.  4to)  by  Count  Francesco  Miniscalchi 
Erizzo.  Fragments  of  two  other  MSS.  are  in  the 
British  Museum,  and  of  two  more  at  St.  Petersburg. 
The  text  of  these  has  been  published  by  Land, 
Anecdota  Syriaca,  vol.  iv.  (1875).  The  version  is 
quite  independent  of  the  Peshito,  and  is  referred  by 
Tischendorf  to  the  fifth  century.  It  is  in  a  peculiar 
dialect,  and  seems  to  have  been  little  used. 

OLD    EGYPTIAN,   OR    COPTIC,  VERSIONS.1 

There  are  three  Egyptian  translations  in  three 
different  dialects  —  the  THEBAIC  or  SAHIDIC,  the 

1  Copt  (comp.  Arabic  Kebf)  is  supposed  to  be  of  the  same  origin  as  the 
Greek  Al-yvTrr-ot;  (Kahi  Ptah,  "  country  of  Ptah  ").  Another  derivation 
is  from  the  city  Ko7rri£  or  KoTrrog  in  Upper  Egypt,  a  city  of  so  vast 
importance  as  to  give  its  name  to  most  articles  of  Egyptian  commerce, 
to  the  Egyptian  numeral  system,  and  (as  many  not  unreasonably  think) 
even  to  AlyvTr-oq  itself.  See  the  authorities  collected  in  Athanasius 
Kircher's  Prodromus  Coptus  (Romae,  1636),  cap.  I.,  De  Etymo  Coptos, 
pp.  7-15.  The  name  Copt  (Ko;rnV7j£,  Latin  Coptiles)  is  far  older  than 


158  THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

MEMPHITIC  or  BAIIIRIC,  and  the  BASIIMUKTC.  The 
Thebaic  and  Memphitic  versions  are,  as  Bishop 
Lightfoot  declares/  "  entirely  independent ;"  the 
former  is  "rougher,  less  polished,  and  less  faithful 
to  the  original"  than  the  latter.  Both  contain  many 
Greek  words,  and  are  of  great  textual  value,  as  they 
independently  preserve  a  very  ancient  text  from 
different  manuscripts,  with  the  adoption  of  many 
Greek  words.  Schwartze  and  Lightfoot  infer  from 

O 

historical  notices  that  the  greatest  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  if  not  all,  was  translated  into  these 
Egyptian  dialects  in  the  second  century.  We  have 
no  satisfactory  edition  of  either  version. 

1.  The  cditio  princeps  of  the  MEMPHITIC  Torsion 
for  Lower  Egypt  is  that  of  Wilkins  (Oxford,  1716), 
based  upon  copious  materials,  but  not  carried  out 
with  much  critical  sagacity.  Still,  nothing  better 
than  his  work  has  yet  appeared,  except  an  edition 
of  the  four  Gospels  by  M.  G.  Schwartze  (Leips.  1846 
and  1847,  2  vols.),  and  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles  by 
P.  Boetticher,  alias  P.  A.  de  Lagarde,  of  Gottingen 
(Halle,  1852).  The  Apocalypse  is  omitted  (but  is 
contained  in  Wilkins's  ed.).  The  New  Testament 
in  Coptic  (Memphitic)  arid  Arabic  was  published 
by  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge 
(1847-52),  under  the  editorial  care  of  "Henry  Tat- 
tam,  the  presbyter  of  the  Anglican  Church  for  the 

the  Arabian  dominion  of  Egypt.  It  is  now  applied  to  the  descendants 
of  the  ancient  Egyptians,  mostly  Christians,  who  inherited  the  old  Egyp 
tian  (demotic)  language,  together  with  their  religion. 

1  In  the  chapter  on  the  Egyptian  Versions,  which  he  prepared  for 
Dr.  Scrivener's  Introduction,  pp.  319-357. 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  159 

Holy  Patriarch  and  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Egypt." 
It  is  beautifully  printed,  but  of  no  critical  value, 
because  no  various  readings  are  recorded.  The 

O 

basis  of  this  edition  is  a  copy  belonging  to  the  Cop 
tic  Patriarch. 

2.  The  editio  prlnceps  of  the  TIIEBAIC  Version 
for  Upper  Egypt  is  that  of  C.  G.  Woide,  completed 
by  Ford  (Oxford,  1799).     The  version  is  yet  in  a 
very  fragmentary  condition,  and  there  is  need  of  an 
edition  in  which  the  fragments  shall  all  be  collected. 
The  Thebaic  Version  is  less  valuable  than  the  Mem- 
phitic ;  its  text  is  less  pure,  and  shows  a  certain  in 
fusion  of  those  readings  which  are  called  Western, 
though  to  nothing  like  the  same  extent  as  the  Old 

O  O 

Latin  and  the  Old  Syriac. 

3.  Of  the   BASHMUEIC   or   ELEAKCIIIAN  Version 
(end  of  third  century?)  we  have  a  fragment  of 
John's  Gospel  (iv.  28-53),  and  some  portions  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles  published  from  MSS.  in  the  Borgian 
Museum  at  Rome  by  Zoega  (Catalogus,  1810)  and 
Engelbreth  (Fragmenta  Basmurico-Coptica  Vet.  et 
Nov.  Test.,  Havniae,  1811).     It  is  a  secondary  ver 
sion  made  from  the  Thebaic,  but  useful  in  passages 
where  that  is  defective. 

^ETHIOPIC    VERSION. 

There  must  have  been  a  call  for  a  translation  of 
the  New  Testament  very  shortly  after  Christianity 
entered  Abyssinia.  So,  although  the  tradition  which 
assigns  it  to  Abba  Salama  (Frumentius),  the  first 
bishop,  be  unreliable,  the  version  probably  dates 
from  the  fourth  century,  as  Dillinann  asserts.  This 


160  THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

scholar  likewise  praises  the  version  for  its  fidelity 
and  general  smoothness. 

The  text  in  Walton's  Polyglot  is  taken  from  the 
first  edition  of  this  version,  printed  at  Home,  1548- 
49.  The  MS.  used  for  it  was  defective  in  the  larger 
part  of  the  Acts,  and  its  gaps  were  supplied  by  the 
Abyssinian  editors  from  the  Latin  Yulgate  or  the 
Greek.  Bode's  Latin  translation  (1753)  of  Walton's 
text  is  the  only  accurate  one.  The  Kew  Testament 
has  been  better  edited  by  Thomas  Pell  Platt  for  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  (1826-30);  but 
a  really  critical  edition  is  still  a  desideratum.  There 
are  considerable  differences  in  the  yEthiopic  MSS., 
but  they  are  all  comparati\7ely  modern.  Gilde- 
meister,  Professor  in  Marburg,  collated  some  por 
tions  of  the  yEthiopic  New  Testament  for  Tischen- 
dorf's  edition  of  1859. 

GOTHIC    VERSION. 

It  is  the  work  of  Ulphilas,  Yulfila,  or  Wulfila 
(311-381,  or  313-383),1  the  apostle  of  Christianity 
to  the  Goths,  who  in  the  fourth  century  translated 
the  Old  Testament  from  the  Septuagint  and  the 
New  Testament  from  the  Greek  into  Gothic,  and 
founded  the  Gothic  alphabet  (resembling  partly  the 
Greek,  partly  the  Runic  letters).  It  is  uncertain 
whether  he  translated  the  whole  Bible  or  only  por 
tions  ;  the  ancient  report  that  he  omitted  the  books 
of  Kings,  because  they  would  excite  the  warlike 

1  The  true  spelling  is  Wuljila,  i.  e.  Wolflein,  Little  Wolf.  The  date 
318-388  is  exploded;  but  it  is  not  certain  whether  we  should  adopt 
311-381  (Stamm,  Bernhardt)  or  313-383  (Krafft  in  Herzog,  Davidson). 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  161 

passions  of  the  Goths,  sounds  like  a  myth.  Bishop 
Wulfila  was  a  semi-Arian,  and  all  the  Germanic 
tribes,  except  the  Franks,  received  Christianity  first 
in  that  form  during  the  Arian  ascendency  in  the 
East.  His  Bible  accompanied  the  Goths  on  their 
migrations  from  the  lower  Danube  to  the  West. 
The  Gothic  language  and  people  have  perished,  but 
this  version  has  been  fortunately  recovered  in  mod 
ern  times.  It  is  the  earliest  specimen  of  Teutonic 
literature,  and  the  starting-point  of  comparative 
Teutonic  philology,  for  which  it  is  even  more  im 
portant  than  for  biblical  learning.  Comp.  J.  Esberg : 
Uljilas,  Gothorum  Episcopus  ( Holm.  1700 ) ;  G. 
"VVaitz :  Vebcr  das  Leben  und  die  Lehre  des  IJljila. 
JBruchstucke  aus  dem  mcrten  Jahrh.  (Hann.  1840); 
W.  L.  Krafft :  De  Fontibus  Ulfilce  Arianismi  (Bonn, 
1860);  W.  Bessell:  Das  Leben  des  Ulfilas  und  die 
Bekehrung der Gothen sum  Christenthum(G'6iii\\^Qi\^ 
1860) ;  Edinb.  Review  for  October,  1877. 

There  are  seven  famous  codices  of  this  version : 
(a)  Codex  Argenteus,  beautifully  written  on  pur 
ple  vellum  in  gold  and  silver  letters,  containing 
fragments  of  the  Gospels ;  it  dates  from  the  earlier 
part  of  the  sixth  century,  was  discovered  in  the 
library  of  the  Benedictine  abbey  of  Werden,  on 
the  Ruhr,  in  1597,  and,  after  changing  hands,  trans 
ferred  in  1648  from  Prague  to  the  University  Library 
at  Upsala  in  Sweden. 

(I)  Codex  Carolinus,  in  the  library  at  Wolfen- 
bu'ttel,  discovered  by  Knittel  in  a  palimpsest,  1756, 
published  1762  and  1763;  contains  forty  verses  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
11 


162  THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

(c)  Palimpsest  fragments  of  five  codices  in  the 
Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan,  discovered  and  pub 
lished  by  Angelo  Mai  and  Castiglione,  Milan,  1819- 
39 ;  portions  of  Esther,  Nehemiah,  the  Gospels,  and 
Paul's  Epistles. 

The  best  editions  of  all  these  fragments  are  by 
II.  C.  von  der  Gabelentz  and  J.  Loebe :  Ulfilas.  Vet. 
et  N.  Test.  Versionis  Gothicce  Fragmenta  quce  super- 
sunt  (Leipsic,  1836-46),  with  a  Latin  version,  and  a 
very  copious  grammar  and  lexicon;  and  by  E.  Bern- 
hard  t  (Halle,  1875),  in  which  the  Gothic  is  accom 
panied  by  the  Greek,  with  full  critical  notes. 
Stamm's  Vljilas,  7th  ed.  by  Moritz  Ileyne,  with 
grammar  and  lexicon  (Padcrborn,  1878),  is  the  most 
convenient  manual  edition  for  the  student  of  the 
language.  Bernhardt's  is  the  best  for  text-critical 
purposes.  Massmann's  edition  (1855-1857)  deserves 
honorable  mention. 

The  Swedish  scholar,  Andreas  Uppstrom  (d.  1865), 
has  published  the  text  of  all  the  Gothic  MSS.  line 
for  line,  with  the  most  painstaking  accuracy,  cor 
recting  many  errors  of  his  predecessors,  in  his  Codex 
Argentem,  Upsala,  1854;  Decem  Cod.  Argentei  re- 
diviva  folia,  ibid.  1857  ;  Fragmenta  Gothica  selecta, 
1861;  and  Codices  Gotici  Ambrosiani,  Stockholm 
and  Leipsic,  1864-68.  Compare  also  The  Gothic  and 
Anglo-Saxon  Gospels  in  Parallel  Columns  with  the 
Versions  of  Wydiffe  and  Tyndale,  by  Jos.  Bos- 
WORTII,  assisted  by  GEORGE  WARING,  2d  ed.  Lond. 
1874,  with  a  fac-simile  of  the  Codex  Argenteus. 

Dr.  R.  Miiller  and  Dr.  II.  Iloeppe  have  published 
the  Gothic  Gospel  of  Mark  with  a  grammatical  com- 


THE    ANCIENT    VERSIONS.  163 

mentary :  Ulfilas:  Evangelium  Marci  yrammatisch 
erldutert,  Berlin,  1881  (pp.  72),  unfortunately  dis 
figured  not  only  by  typographical  errors,  but  by 
gross  mistakes  in  the  notes.  On  the  other  hand, 
W.W.  Skeat's  The  Gospel  of  Saint  Mark  in  Gothic, 
with  grammar,  notes,  and  glossary  (Oxford,  1882),  is 
excellent. 

ARMENIAN    VERSION. 

It  belongs  to  the  fifth  century,  and  is  the  work 
of  Miesrob  and  Moses  Chorenensis.  It  was  based 
on  Greek  MSS.  probably  obtained  from  Cappadocia, 
the  mother  of  Armenian  Christianity.  It  has  con 
siderable  critical  value,  though  the  existing  MSS. 
are  not  very  ancient,  and  there  are  wide  differences 
among  them  ;  some  modern  copies  contain  corrup 
tions  from  the  Latin  Yulgate.  The  version  em 
braces  the  entire  Bible.  The  first  edition  appeared 
at  Amsterdam,  1666,  under  the  care  of  Bishop  Uscan 
of  Erivan  ;  in  this  the  text  has  been  more  or  less 
conformed  to  the  Latin  Vulgate.  The  best  edition, 
founded  on  manuscripts,  is  by  Zohrab — Xew  Testa 
ment,  1789 ;  whole  Bible,  1805,  and  again  1816.  It 
is  now  published  by  the  British  arid  Foreign  Bible 
Society. 

On  the  Armenian  Version,  see  Tregelles  in 
Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Am.  ed.,  vol.  iv.  p.  3374. 

We  pass  by  the  Slavonic,  Arabic,  Persic,  and  sev 
eral  other  versions,  which  are  of  too  late  a  date  to 
be  of  value  for  the  restoration  of  the  primitive  text. 
Most  of  them  are  derived  from  other  versions,  chief 
ly  the  Latin  and  Syriac.  The  Slavonic  bears  traces 
of  ancient  texts. 


CHAPTER  FOURTH. 

PATRISTIC  QUOTATIONS. 
VALUE  OF  THE  FATHERS  AS  WITNESSES  OF  THE  TEXT. 

THE  third  source  of  textual  criticism  is  furnished 
by  the  quotations  in  the  early  Christian  writers, 
from  •which  the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testament 
might  be  reconstructed.  The  Greek  fathers  give 
direct,  the  Latin  (and  Syriac)  fathers  indirect,  testi 
mony  to  the  original  text.  The  former  rank  with 
the  Greek  MSS. ;  the  latter  with  the  Versions. 
Some  of  them — as  Irenseus,  Origen,  Tertullian — are 
older  than  our  oldest  MSS.,  and  therefore  of  the 
greatest  value.  Sometimes  their  silence  furnishes 
negative  evidence  of  the  absence  of  a  passage  in 
their  copies. 

But  the  fathers  must  be  used  with  great  care  and 
discrimination.  They  were  theologians  and  Chris 
tians  rather  than  critics.  They  often  quote  very 
loosely,  simply  from  memory,  and  more  for  doctri 
nal,  polemical,  and  practical  than  critical  purposes. 
They  had  no  concordances  and  other  modern  con 
veniences  which  facilitate  the  finding  of  passages. 
Their  testimony  is  fragmentary,  and  fails  us  wThere 
we  most  wish  and  need  information.  Besides,  their 
editors  have  so  frequently  thought  they  were  doing 
a  service  when  they  corrected  their  quotations  that 


PATEISTIC    QUOTATIONS.  165 

it  is  often  difficult  to  tell  just  what  was  the  text  be 
fore  them.  The  chief  benefit  of  patristic  quotations 
consists  not  so  much  in  their  independent  value  as 
in  their  corroborative  force,  by  establishing  a  reading 
which  rests  on  good  authority  of  MSS.  or  versions. 
When  they  are  single  and  unbupported,  they  deserve 
little  or  no  credit.1 

Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Chrysostom  are  the  most 
learned  biblical  scholars  among  the  earlier  Greek 
fathers,  and  have  more  weight  than  all  the  rest  as 
witnesses  of  the  text.  They  note  occasionally  that 
"  some  "  or  "  many  "  or  "  the  most  accurate  "  "  copies '' 
contain  or  omit  a  certain  reading,  or  that  the  true 
reading  has  been  perverted  by  heretics  or  for  some 
special  purpose. 

The  most  valuable  works  for  critical  purposes  are 
commentaries  and  homilies  which  explain  the  text 
consecutively.  They  are  scanty  in  the  ante-Nicene 
age.  The  first  commentator  and  the  father  of 
Christian  exegesis  is  the  great  Origen,  from  whom 
we  have  expositions  of  several  chapters  of  Matthew, 
Luke,  and  John  in  the  original  Greek  (partly  in  a 
condensed  Latin  translation ),  of  Romans  in  the 
abridged  and  altered  version  of  Rufinus,  and  of 
many  scattered  verses  of  the  Epistles.  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  commented  on  the  Minor  Epistles  of 
Paul  (extant  only  in  a  Latin  translation) ;  Chrysos 
tom  preached  Homilies  on  Matthew,  John,  Acts,  and 


1  See  the  judicious  remarks  of  Tregelles,  in  Home's  Introduction  (14th 
ed.  London,  1877),  vol.  iv.  pp.  329-342.  Comp.  also  Reuss,  Gesch.  der  h. 
Schr.  N.  T.  ii.  p.  125  (5th  ed.). 


166  PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS. 

all  the  Epistles  of  Paul ;  Theodoret  wrote  notes  on 
the  Epistles  of  Paul,  based  chiefly  on  Theodore  and 
Chrysostom  ;  from  Cyril  of  Alexandria  we  have 
Homilies  on  Luke  (partly  in  Greek,  partly  in  a 
Syriac  translation)  and  on  John.  Fragments  of 
other  Greek  commentators  are  contained  in  the 
Catencc  Patrwn,  which  arc  chiefly  compiled  from 
Chrysostom  and  Theodoret. 

Of  the  Latin  fathers.  Tertullian  is  the  richest 
source  for  quotations  from  the  old  Latin  (African) 
Version,  and  Jerome  for  the  whole  New  Testament 
as  retranslated  by  him  (the  Vulgate),  besides  much 
valuable  information  scattered  through  his  exegetical 
and  other  writings.  Jerome  was  a  born  linguist  and 
critic,  and  thoroughly  at  home  in  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  Scriptures  and  in  Bible  Lands,  but  somewhat 
fettered  by  orthodox  and  ascetic  prejudices.  Angus- 
tin  was  a  profounder  theologian,  and  had  more  spir 
itual  insight  into  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  than 
Jerome  or  any  of  the  fathers ;  but  he  was  neither  a 
Greek  scholar  nor  a  textual  critic,  and  relied  on  the 
old  Latin  version  witli  all  its  imperfections  and 
errors.  Primasius,  an  African  writer  of  the  sixth 
century,  has  preserved  to  us,  in  a  commentary,  al 
most  the  entire  text  of  the  Apocalypse  in  an  old 
African  Latin  version.  "  Thus,  singularly  enough, 
the  Apocalypse  possesses  the  unique  advantage  of 
having  been  preserved  in  a  Latin  text  at  once  con 
tinuous  and  purely  African."  1 

The  number  of  ecclesiastical  writers  that  have 

1  Ilort,  ii.  84. 


PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS.  167 

been  consulted  by  various  critics  considerably  ex 
ceeds  one  hundred,  but,  with  the  exception  of  those 
we  have  mentioned,  only  a  few  yield  substantial 
results.1 

A.    GREEK    FATHERS. 

FIRST  CENTURY  till  the  middle  of  the  SECOND  : 
The  apostolic  fathers,  so  called — Clement  of  Rome. 
Barnabas,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  also  Hennas  and 
Papias. 

These  writers,  as  pupils  of  the  apostles,  would  be 
the  oldest  and  most  important  witnesses;  but  they 
still  lived  in  the  element  of  oral  tradition  within  the 
hearing  of  the  apostles,  and  hence  they  quote  few 
passages  from  the  Xew  Testament.  The  first  literal 
quotation  from  the  Xew  Testament  with  the  solemn 
formula,  "  It  is  written,"  occurs  in  the  Greek  Epistle 
of  Barnabas — namely,  the  passage  in  Matt.  xxii.  M: 
"  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen."  '  Clement 
and  Polycarp  have  allusions  to  Epistles.  Papias, 
who  is  also  ranked  with  the  apostolic  fathers,  gives 
us  valuable  testimonies  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Mark,  preserved  by  Eusebius,  but  no  quotations. 
His  work  on  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord  is  lost. 

SECOND  CENTURY:  Justin  Martyr  (d.  167)  comes 
next  in  the  order  of  time,  and  makes  much  use  of 

1  Alford  (i.  140-143)  gives  an  alphabetical  list  of  over  one  hundred  and 
fifty  ancient  writers.     See  also  the  lists  in  Scholz,  Tischendorf,  Scrivener 
(p.  372  sq.),  and  Mitchell  (Tables  XI.  and  XII.). 

2  Ep.  Barn.  c.  4:    7rpoa^w/<ev  HTITTOT£,  w£   ysypoTrrat,  TroXXoi 
/cXr/roi,    oXi'yoi    Ce    iK\EKToi    u'>,0£3u>/if v.       In   ch.  5   Barnabas 
quotes  also  from  Matt.  ix.  13  (but  without  naming  the  writer  or  the  book): 
"  He  came  not  to  call  righteous  men,  but  sinners." 


168  PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS. 

the  four  Gospels,  particularly  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
(also  from  John  iii.  5,  the  passage  on  regeneration), 
but  in  a  very  free  and  loose  way.  Irenaeus  of  Lyons 
(d.  202)  is  the  most  important  witness  of  the  second 
century,  and  his  great  work  against  the  Gnostic 
heresies  is  replete  with  quotations  from  the  "New 
Testament,  but  exists  for  the  most  part  only  in  a 
Latin  version.1 

THIRD  CENTURY  :  Clemens  Alexandrinns  (d.  220), 
and  still  more  Origen  (184-254).  See  p.  105.  Next 
to  them  Ilippolytus  (disciple  of  Irenreus,  about  220), 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus  (disciple  of  Origen,  243), Dio- 
nysius  Alexandrinus  (265),  and  Methodius  (d.  311). 

In  the  FOURTH  and  FIFTH  CENTURIES:  Eusebius 
the  historian  (d.  310,  much  used  by  Tischendorf  and 
Tregelles),  Athanasius  (d.  373),  Basilius  Magnus 
(d.  379),  Gregory  J^azianzen  (d.  389),  Gregory  Xys- 
sen  (d.  371),  Epiiraem  Syrus  (d.  373),  Cyril  of  Jeru 
salem  (d.  386),  Didymus  of  Alexandria  (d.  395), 
Chrysostom  (d.  407),  Epiphanius  (d.  403),  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  (d.428),  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (d.  444), 
and  Theodoret  (\\.  458). 

About  the  SIXTH  CENTURY  (or  perhaps  later)  we 
have  the  commentary  of  Andreas,  bishop  of  Csesarea 
in  Cappadocia,  on  the  Apocalypse,  which  he  divided 
into  twenty-four  chapters  and  seventy-two  sections. 


1  He  testifies,  e.g.,  to  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark,  and  to  the  exist 
ence  of  two  readings  of  the  mystic  number  in  Rev.  xiii.  18 :  the  one  is 
666,  which  he  found  in  the  best  copies,  and  explains  to  mean  Lateinos 
(while  several  modern  exegetes  make  it  out  to  mean,  in  Hebrew  letters, 
Neron  Ccesar} ;  the  other  616,  -which  is  the  numerical  value  of  Nero 
(without  the  final  11)  Cocsar. 


PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS.  169 

With  him  is  closely  connected  a  later  bishop  of 
Oresarea,  Arethas,  who  likewise  wrote  a  full  com 
mentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  based  in  part  on  the 
former;  but  his  age  is  uncertain  (probably  the  tenth 
century).1 

In  the  SEVENTH  CENTURY  the  most  important 
writer  is  Maximus  the  Confessor  (d.  662). 

In  the  MIDDLE  AGES  :  John  of  Damascus  (about 
750,  see  his  Parallcla  Sacra),  and  the  later  com 
mentators,  (Ecumenius  (bishop  of  Tricca  in  Thessa- 
ly,  end  of  the  tenth  century),  Theophylact  (arch 
bishop  of  Bulgaria,  1071),  Euthymius  Zygadenus  or 
Zigabenus  (d.  after  1118). 

B.    LATIN    FATHERS. 

SECOND  CENTURY  :  Tertullian  (about  200),  impor 
tant  for  the  Old  Latin  Version,  though  he  often 
translates  independently,  or  quotes  loosely. 

THIRD  CENTURY:  Cyprian  (d.  258),  whose  numer 
ous  quotations  (in  his  Testimonies  etc.)  are  in  gen 
eral  carefully  made  from  the  African  Old  Latin 
current  in  his  time,  Novatian  (fl.  251),  Lactantius 
(306),  and  the  anonymous  writer  of  the  treatise  De 
Rebaptismate,  printed  with  the  writings  of  Cyprian. 

1  Rcttig  (Die  Zevgnisse  dcs  Andreas  imd  Arethas,  in  the  "Studicn  und 
Kritiken"  for  1831)  assigns  him  to  the  close  of  the  fifth  or  early  part  of 
the  sixth  century.  But  Dr.  Otto  (in  Corpus  Apol.  iii.  p.  xi.,  and  more 
recently  in  his  DCS  Patriarchen  Gennadios  Confession,  nebst  einem  Excurs 
iiber  Arethas'  Zeitalter,  Wien,  1864)  quotes  a  MS.  which  states  that  it  was 
written  by  Baanes,  VOTCJOIOQ  of  Arethas,  archbishop  of  Cazsarea,  in  the  year 
of  the  world  6422  (A.D.  914).  See  the  article  Arethas  in  Smith  and  Wace, 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  i.  154  sq.,  and  especially  Harnack.  Die 
UberUfferung  der  griech.  Apoloyeten  u.s.w.,  Leipz.  1882,  p.  36  sqq. 


170  PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS. 

FOURTH  and  FIFTH  CENTURIES:  Hilary  of  Poitiers 
(354:),  Lucifer  of  Cagliari  (d.  cir.  370),  Victorinus 
Afer  (d.  cir.  370),  Ambrose  (d.  379),  Ambrosiaster 
or  Pseudo-Ambrose,  probably  to  be  identified  with 
Hilary  the  deacon  (about  384),  Pelagius  (417), 
Augustin  (d.  430),  and,  most  of  all,  Jerome,  the 
translator  of  the  Latin  Bible  from  the  original 
Hebrew  and  Greek  (d.  419). 

SIXTH  CENTURY:  Primasius,  already  mentioned  as 
important  for  the  text  of  the  Apocalypse. 

The  MEDIAEVAL  commentators  of  the  Latin  Church 
depend  almost  exclusively  on  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and 
have  therefore  no  value  for  textual  criticism. 


CHAPTEK   FIFTH. 

TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 
NATURE    AND    OBJECT    OF    TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

THE  variety  of  documentary  sources,  from  which 
the  original  text  of  the  New  Testament  must  be 
derived,  calls  for  a  special  branch  of  biblical  learn 
ing,  called  TEXTUAL  or  YERBAL  CRITICISM.  Its  ob 
ject  is  to  ascertain  and  restore,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
very  text  of  the  apostolic  writers,  and  thus  to  furnish 
a  faithful  substitute  for  the  lost  autographs.  It  is 
distinct  from  "  higher  criticism,"  which  deals  with 
questions  concerning  the  origin,  authenticity,  and 
theology  of  these  writings,  and  their  organic  place 
in  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age.  It  does  not 
enter  into  the  province  of  herrneneutics  and  inter 
pretation,  but  furnishes  a  solid  basis  for  the  com 
mentator.  It  is  confined  to  the  original  form  and 
integrity  of  the  text,  as  far  as  it  can  be  established 
by  documentary  evidence.  It  aims  to  show,  not 
what  the  apostles  and  evangelists  might  have  writ 
ten  or  ought  to  have  written,  but  simply  what  they 
actually  did  write.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  secta 
rian  notions  and  tenets,  or  subjective  likes  and  dis 
likes,  but  only  with  facts. 

Criticism  is  a  dry  study,  and  requires  an  unusual 
amount  of  patience  and  attention  to  the  minutest 
details.  A  £0od  critic  must  have  full  command  of 


172  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

all  sources  of  evidence,  an  acute  mind,  and  a  clear, 
sound  judgment.  lie  must  combine  microscopic  ac 
curacy  and  judicial  impartiality.  In  the  nature  of 
the  case  the  number  of  real  critics  is  very  limited. 

The  science  of  textual  criticism  is  of  compara 
tively  recent  origin.  It  was  matured  with  the  dis 
covery  and  collection  of  the  material  during  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  reached  its  height  within 
the  last  fifty  years.  It  has  been  cultivated  mostly 
by  Protestant  scholars — Swiss,  German,  Dutch,  and 
English.  It  has  received  a  mighty  impulse  by  the 
recent  discovery  and  publication  of  the  most  ancient 
manuscripts,  and  by  the  Anglo-American  Revision 
of  1881,  and  is  beginning  to  excite  the  interest  of 
the  Christian  laity,  who  have  a  right  to  know  the 
results  of  learned  investigation,  especially  if  they 
affect  the  vernacular  versions  of  the  Word  of  God. 
A  few  Catholics — like  Hug  and  Scholz,  Yercellone 
and  Cozza — have  nobly  taken  part  in  the  work;  but, 
upon  the  whole,  the  Roman  Church  cares  more  for 
tradition  and  the  living  church  than  for  the  Bible, 
and  is  satisfied  with  the  Latin  Yulgate  sanctioned 
by  the  Council  of  Trent.  Protestant  Bible  Societies 
have  been  denounced  as  dangerous  and  pestiferous 
by  several  Popes. 

The  importance  of  this  branch  of  biblical  learn 
ing  can  hardly  be  overestimated  ;  for  a  pure  text  is 
the  basis  of  exegesis,  and  exegesis  is  the  basis  of 
dogmatics  and  ethics.  Protestant  theology  makes 
the  New  Testament  the  supreme  and  only  infallible 
rule  of  the  Christian  faith  and  practice,  and  must 
stand  or  fall  with  this  final  test. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  173 


ORIGIN    OF    VARIATIONS. 

The  necessity  of  criticism  arises,  as  lias  just  been 
stated,  from  the  vast  number  of  variations  in  the 
documentary  sources  of  the  New  Testament  text. 
It  would  have  required  a  perpetual  miracle  to  keep 
the  transcribers  from  error.  iNo  MS.,  either  of  the 
Greek  original  or  of  any  translation,  is  faultless  any 
more  than  any  printed  book.  The  errors  are  even 
more  numerous,  since  the  MSS.  had  not  the  benefit 
of  repeated  proof-readings;  many  of  them,  however, 
have  the  marks  of  one  or  more  correctors  of  a  later 
date. 

The  variations  of  the  Greek  text  are  partly  unin 
tentional  or  accidental,  partly  intentional  or  designed. 
Errors  of  the  first  class  proceed  either  from  misread 
ing,  or  from  mishearing  (in  case  of  dictation),  or 
from  fault  of  memory.  Errors  of  the  second  class 
are  due  either  to  misjudgment,  or  to  an  innocent 
desire  to  correct  supposed  mistakes,  to  supply  de 
fects,  to  harmonize  apparent  discrepancies,  or  to 
wilful  corruption  for  sectarian  or  ascetic  purposes. 
Examples  of  wilful  mutilation  or  corruption  of  the 
text  are,  however,  exceedingly  rare.  Transcribers 
had  too  much  reverence  for  the  words  of  Christ 
and  his  inspired  apostles  to  be  guilty  of  it,  though 
in  making  their  choice  between  conflicting  readings 
they  would  naturally  be  biassed  by  their  theological 
opinions.  The  wide  diffusion  of  MSS.  and  versions 
was  a  safeguard  against  the  reception  of  corruptions, 
whether  heretical  or  orthodox.  The  case  of  Marcion, 
who  mutilated  the  Gospel  of  Luke  to  suit  it  to  his 


174  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

Gnostic  notions,  is  exceptional,  and  was  generally 
understood  in  its  true  character.  The  mutual  charges 

O 

of  corruption  made  by  the  orthodox  and  heretical 
parties  in  times  of  heated  controversy  were  mostly 
unfounded.1 

The  variations  began  very  early,  with  the  first 
copies,  and  continued  to  increase  till  the  art  of 
printing  superseded  the  necessity  of  transcribing, 
and  substituted  typographical  errors  for  errors  of 
copyists.  Origen  (d.  254)  complained  of  the  great 
corruption  of  the  text  about  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  Jerome,  the  greatest  scholar  of  the  last 
quarter  of  the  fourth  century  (d.  419),  says  that  in 
his  days  there  were  nearly  as  many  distinct  forms 
of  the  text  as  codices  of  the  Latin  Testament  (tot 
ptme  exemplar-la  quot  codices),  and  that  the  text  of 


1  Examples  of  possible  changes  in  the  interest  of  dogma :  the  omission 
or  insertion  of  Trpwroroicoc;  in  Matt.  i.  25  (the  best  authorities  omit  it)  ;  of 
ouHi  6  vide,  Mark  xiii.  32  (which  Ambrosius  charged  the  Arians  with 
having  inserted,  De  Fide,  v.  7);  of  the  tears  of  Christ  and  his  drops  of 
blood  in  Gethsemane,  Luke  xix.  41;  xxii.  43,  44  (com p.  Epiphanius, 
Ancor.  31);  the  substitution  of  "Joseph"  for  "father''  (jrari]p},  Luke  ii. 
33.  Dr.  Abbot  writes  on  this  subject  (in  a  private  letter)  :  "  The  charges 
against  the  heretics  of  wilful  corruption  of  the  text  (setting  aside  avowed 
excision  like  that  of  Marcion)  rest  on  no  good  foundation.  In  the  definite 
instances  alleged  by  ancient  writers  (John  i.  13 ;  iii.  G ;  Mark  xiii.  32)  the 
'heretical'  reading  turns  out  to  be  the  true  one.  Epiphanius  charges  the 
orthodox  with  omitting  Luke  xxii.  43.  44,  to  remove  a  difficulty.  This 
is  the  most  plausible  case  of  alleged  wilful  corruption.  But  Westcott  and 
Hort,  with  Mr.  Norton  and  Granville  Perm  (comp.  Weiss),  regard  the 
passage  as  a  later  addition,  and  I  am  disposed  to  agree  with  them.  No 
case  of  deliberate,  wilful  corruption,  affecting  any  considerable  number  of 
MSS.,  on  the  part  either  of  the  heretics  or  the  orthodox,  can  be  anywhere 
made  out.  Rash  attempts  to  correct  supposed  error  must  not  be  con 
founded  with  wilful  corruption." 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  175 

the  Gospels  especially  was  in  confusion  (apud  nos 
mixta  sunt  omnia).  The  further  up  we  go,  the 
greater  were  the  freedom  and  carelessness  of  the 
transcribers.  Copies  were  made  first  for  private 
use ;  ecclesiastical  copies  were  written  with  greater 
care,  and  tended  to  settle  the  text,  until  it  became 
stationary,  or,  as  it  were,  stereotyped.  The  changes 
date  nearly  all  from  the  first  four  centuries,  as 
we  may  infer  from  patristic  quotations.  Varia 
tions  of  later  origin  are  mostly  unimportant,  and 
changes  in  the  distribution  of  existing  readings 
rather  than  new  readings.  A  text  agreeing  in 
great  measure  with  that  which  Erasmus  first  print 
ed,  was  already  current  in  Antioch  at  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century,  and  is  virtually  identical  with  the 
text  used  by  Chrysostom  (d.  407).  This  Antiochian 
or  Syrian  text  stands  out  in  opposition  to  the  text 
of  older  date.  The  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John 
have  suffered  least,  the  Acts  and  the  Apocalypse 
most,  from  textual  corruption. 

Attempts  for  a  restoration  of  the  pure  text  were 
made  by  learned  fathers  as  early  as  the  third  cen 
tury,  especially  by  Origen,  Hesychius  (an  Egyptian 
bishop),  and  Lucian  (a  presbyter  of  Antioch) ;  but 
we  are  not  well  informed  as  to  the  character  and 
result  of  their  labors,  which  were  looked  upon  with 
suspicion.  Jerome  knew  beforehand  that  he  would 
be  abused  as  &falsari'us  and  sacrilegus  for  his  im 
provement  of  the  Latin  text. 

It  was  natural  that  the  copies  prepared  in  the 
same  city  or  district — as  Antioch,  Alexandria,  Con 
stantinople — should  assume  a  local  coloring  or  cer- 


176  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

tain  textual  peculiarities.  Hence  we  are  justified 
in  dividing  the  authorities  into  different  families, 
and  to  speak  of  an  Alexandrian  or  Egyptian,  a  Con- 
stantinopolitan  or  Byzantine  (also  called  Antiochian 
or  Syrian),  a  Western,  and  a  neutral  text  (chiefly 
represented  by  B  and  next  by  K,  and  presumably  the 
oldest  extant).  Bengel  first  suggested  the  division 
into  families  or  recensions;  Griesbach  carried  it  fur 
ther,  and  with  some  excesses  which  created  a  reac 
tion  in  Germany  against  it ;  "Westcott  and  Ilort 
modified  and  completed  it.  This  classification  is 
an  essential  prerequisite  for  a  just  estimate  of  the 
value  of  documents  according  to  their  representative 
weight  rather  than  their  number. 

O 

NUMBER    OF    VARIATIONS. 

The  variations  were  gradually  found  out  as  the 
collection  and  examination  of  the  sources  progressed. 
The  first  editors  had  no  idea  of  the  number,  but  it 
accumulated  with  every  standard  edition.  Dr.  John 
Mill,  in  1707,  roughly  estimated  the  number  at 
30,000.  Since  that  time  it  has  risen  to  "at  least 
fourfold  that  quantity,"  as  Dr.  Scrivener  wrote  in 
1871,  and  now  cannot  fall  much  short  of  150,000,  if 
we  include  the  variations  in  the  order  of  words,  the 
mode  of  spelling,  and  other  trifles  which  are  ignored 
even  in  the  most  extensive  critical  editions. 

This  number  far  exceeds  that  of  any  ancient 
book,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  New  Testa 
ment  was  far  more  frequently  copied,  translated, 
and  quoted  than  the  most  celebrated  works  of  Greek 
and  Roman  genius.  While  we  have  but  a  few  copies 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  177 

of  the  Greek  and  Eoman  classics,  on  which  we  must 
rely  for  the  text,  we  have  hundreds  of  copies  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  and  these  are  only  a  remnant  of 
many  thousand  copies  which  were  destroyed  during 
the  early  persecutions  (especially  that  of  Diocletian), 
or  perished  by  use  or  neglect.  Moreover,  our  old 
est  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament  are  by  several 
hundred  years  nearer  the  original  autographs  than 
the  oldest  copies  of  the  Greek  classics  are  to  their 
originals. 

VALUE    OF    VARIATIONS. 

This  multitude  of  various  readings  of  the  Greek 
text  need  not  puzzle  or  alarm  any  Christian.  It  is 
the  natural  result  of  the  great  wealth  of  our  docu 
mentary  resources ;  it  is  a  testimony  to  the  immense 
importance  of  the  Xew  Testament;  it  does  not  af 
fect,  but  it  rather  insures,  the  integrity  of  the  text ; 
and  it  is  a  useful  stimulus  to  study. 

Only  about  400  of  the  100,000  or  150,000  varia 
tions  materially  affect  the  sense.  Of  these,  again, 
not  more  than  about  fifty  are  really  important  for 
some  reason  or  other;  and  even  of  these  fifty  not 
one  affects  an  article  of  faith  or  a  precept  of  duty 
which  is  not  abundantly  sustained  by  other  and  un 
doubted  passages,  or  by  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture 
teaching.  The  Tcxtus  Receptus  of  Stephens,  Beza, 
and  Elzevir,  and  of  our  English  Yersion,  teach  pre 
cisely  the  same  Christianity  as  the  uncial  text  of 
the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS.,  the  oldest  versions, 
and  the  Anglo-American  Revision. 

Richard  Bentley,  the  ablest  and  boldest  of  classi- 
12 


ITS  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

cal  critics  of  England,  affirms  that  even  the  worst  of 
MSS.  does  not  pervert  or  set  aside  "  one  article  of 
faith  or  moral  precept." 

Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  who  ranks  among  the  first  textual 
critics,  and  is  not  hampered  by  orthodox  bias  (being 
a  Unitarian),  asserts  that  "  no  Christian  doctrine  or 
duty  rests  on  those  portions  of  the  text  which  are 
affected  by  differences  in  the  manuscripts ;  still  less 
is  anything  essential  in  Christianity  touched  by  the 
various  readings.  They  do,  to  be  sure,  affect  the 
bearing  of  a  few  passages  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ;  but  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  doctrine  by 
no  means  depends  upon  the  reading  of  those  pas 
sages."  ]  The  same  scholar  speaks  on  the  subject 
more  fully  with  special  reference  to  the  English 
Revision  :  u  This  host  of  various  readings  may  startle 
one  who  is  not  acquainted  with  the  subject,  and  he 
may  imagine  that  the  whole  text  of  the  Xew  Testa 
ment  is  thus  rendered  uncertain.  But  a  careful 
analysis  will  show  that  nineteen  twentieths  of  these 
are  of  no  more  consequence  than  the  palpable  errata 
in  the  first  proof  of  a  modern  printer;  they  have  so 
little  authority,  or  are  so  manifestly  false,  that  they 
may  be  at  once  dismissed  from  consideration.  Of 
those  which  remain,  probably  nine  tenths  are  of  no 
importance  as  regards  the  sense ;  the  differences 
either  cannot  be  represented  in  a  translation,  or  af 
fect  the  form  of  expression  merely,  not  the  essential 
meaning:  of  the  sentence.  Though  the  corrections 

^  ^ 

made  by  the  revisers  in  the  Greek  text  of  the 

S . 

1  A  nylo-A  merican  Bible  Revision,  p.  92. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  179 

Testament  followed  by  our  translators  probably  ex 
ceed  two  thousand,  hardly  one  tenth  of  them,  per 
haps  not  one  twentieth,  will  be  noticed  by  the  ordinary 
reader.  Of  the  small  residue,  many  are  indeed  of 
sufficient  interest  and  importance  to  constitute  one 
of  the  strongest  reasons  for  making  a  new  revision, 
which  should  no  longer  suffer  the  known  errors  of 
copyists  to  take  the  place  of  the  words  of  the  evan 
gelists  and  apostles.  But  the  chief  value  of  the 
work  accomplished  by  the  self-denying  scholars  who 
have  spent  so  much  time  and  labor  in  the  search  for 
manuscripts,  and  in  their  collation  or  publication, 
does  not  consist,  after  all,  in  the  corrections  of  the 
text  which  have  resulted  from  their  researches. 
These  corrections  may  affect  a  few  of  the  passages 
which  have  been  relied  on  for  the  support  of  certain 
doctrines,  but  not  to  such  an  extent  as  essentially  to 
alter  the  state  of  the  argument.  Still  less  is  any 
question  of  Christian  duty  touched  by  the  multitude 
of  various  readings.  The  greatest  service  which  the 
scholars  who  have  devoted  themselves  to  critical 
studies  and  the  collection  of  critical  materials  have 
rendered  lias  been  the  establishment  of  the  fact  that, 
on  the  whole,  the  New  Testament  writings  have 
come  down  to  us  in  a  text  remarkably  free  from 
important  corruptions,  even  in  the  late  and  inferior 
manuscripts  on  which  the  so-called  'received  text' 
was  founded;  while  the  helps  which  we  now  possess 
for  restoring  it  to  its  primitive  purity  far  exceed 
those  which  we  enjoy  in  the  case  of  any  eminent 
classical  author  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us. 
The  multitude  of  6  various  readings,'  which  to  the 


180  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

thoughtless  or  ignorant  seems  so  alarming,  is  simply 
the  result  of  the  extraordinary  richness  and  variety 
of  our  critical  resources."  ! 

Moreover,  the  large  number  of  various  readings 

'  ~  O 

is  a  positive  advantage  in  ascertaining  the  true  text. 
The  word  of  the  wise  man  may  be  applied  here : 
"In  the  multitude  of  counsellors  there  is  safety" 
(Prov.  xi.  14).  The  original  reading  is  sure  to  be 
preserved  in  one  or  more  of  these  sources.  Hence 
we  need  not,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ancient  classics, 
resort  to  subjective  conjectural  criticism,  which  never 
leads  to  absolute  certainty. 

The  very  multitude  of  readings  is  the  best  guar 
antee  of  the  essential  integrity  of  the  New  Testa- 

O          ^ 

rnent. 

This  fact  was  long  ago  clearly  stated  b}T  Richard 
Bentley,  when  the  resources  of  the  text  were  not 
nearly  so  abundant  as  now.  Fertile  and  ingenious 
as  he  was  in  his  conjectural  emendations  of  classical 
authors,  he  yet  declares,  in  his  Prospectus  for  a  new 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  (1720),  that  "in  the 
sacred  writings  there  is  no  place  for  conjectures  and 
emendations.  Diligence  and  fidelity,  with  some 
judgment  and  experience,  are  the  characters  here 
requisite."  And  in  another  place  : 2  "  If  there  had 
been  but  one  MS.  of  the  Greek  Testament  at  the 
restoration  of  learning,  about  two  centuries  ago,  then 

1  See  "Sunday-school  Times."  Philadelphia,  May  28,  1881. 

3  In  his  reply,  under  the  pseudonym  of  Phileleutherus  Lipsiensis,  to  the 
deist  Anthony  Collins,  who,  in  his  Discourse  of  Free -thinking  (1713), 
represented  the  30,000  variations  of  Mill  as  fatal  to  the  authority  of  the 
New  Testament, 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  181 

we  had  had  no  various  readings  at  all.  And  would 
the  text  be  in  a  better  condition  then  than  now  we 
have  30,000?  So  far  from  that,  that  in  the  best 
single  copy  extant  we  should  have  some  hundreds 
of  faults  and  some  omissions  irreparable.  Besides 
that,  the  suspicions  of  fraud  and  foul  play  would 
have  been  increased  immensely.  It  is  good,  there 
fore,  to  have  more  anchors  than  one.  ...  It  is  a 
good  providence  and  a  great  blessing  that  so  many 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  are  still  amongst 
us;  some  procured  from  Egypt,  others  from  Asia, 
others  found  in  the  Western  churches.  For  the 
very  distances  of  places,  as  well  as  numbers  of  the 
books,  demonstrate  that  there  could  be  no  collusion, 
no  altering,  nor  interpolating  one  copy  by  another, 
nor  all  by  any  of  them.  In  profane  authors  whereof 
one  manuscript  only  had  the  luck  to  be  preserved, 
as  Yelleius  Paterculus  among  the  Latins,  and  Ilesy- 
chius  among  the  Greeks,  the  faults  of  the  scribes 
are  found  so  numerous,  and  the  defects  so  beyond 
all  redress,  that,  notwithstanding  the  pains  of  the 
learnedest  and  acutest  critics  for  two  whole  centu 
ries,  these  books  still  are,  and  are  like  to  continue,  a 
mere  heap  of  errors.  On  the  contrary,  where  the 
copies  of  any  author  are  numerous,  though  the  vari 
ous  readings  always  increase  in  proportion,  there 
the  text,  by  an  accurate  collation  of  them,  made  by 
skilful  and  judicious  hands,  is  ever  the  more  correct, 
and  comes  nearer  to  the  true  words  of  the  author." 
And  again :  "  Make  your  30,000  ( variations )  as 
many  more — if  numbers  of  copies  can  ever  reach 
that  sum — all  the  better  to  a  knowing  and  a  serious 


1S2  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

reader,  who  is  thereby  more  richly  furnished  to 
select  what  he  sees  genuine.  But  even  put  them 
into  the  hands  of  a  knave  or  a  fool,  and  yet  with 
the  most  sinistrous  and  absurd  choice,  he  shall  not 
extinguish  the  light  of  any  one  chapter,  nor  so  dis 
guise  Christianity  but  that  every  feature  of  it  will 
still  be  the  same." 

Modern  editors  are  almost  unanimous  on  the  in 
applicability  of  subjective  conjectural  criticism  in  the 
formation  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Xew  Testament.1 
"  We  possess,"  says  Dr.  Tregelles,  "  so  many  MSS., 
and  we  are  aided  by  so  many  versions,  that  we  are 
never  left  to  the  need  of  conjecture  as  the  means  of 
removing  errata." 2  "  So  far,"  says  Dr.  Scrivener,3 
"  is  the  copiousness  of  our  stores  from  causing  doubt 
or  perplexity  to  the  genuine  student  of  Holy  Script 
ure,  that  it  leads  him  to  recognize  the  more  fully  its 
general  integrity  in  the  midst  of  partial  variation. 
What  would  the  thoughtful  reader  of  ^Eschylus 
give  for  the  like  guidance  through  the  obscurities 
which  vex  his  patience  and  mar  his  enjoyment  of 
that  sublime  poet?"  Dr.  Hort,4  however,  thinks 
that  the  evidence  for  corruption  of  texts  antecedent 
to  extant  authorities  is  "  often  irresistible,"  and  im 
poses  on  an  editor  the  duty  of  indicating  the  pre 
sumed  unsoundness  of  the  existing  text,  although 

1  Comp.  Tischendorf  's  popular  tract :  Ildben  wir  den  achten  Schrifttext 
der  Evany,  und  Apostel?  Leipzig,  1873.     Dr.  O.  von  Gebhardt  (Arof.  Test. 
G'r.  p.  viii.)  mentions  two  special  Dutch  essays  on  the  subject,  by  W.  H. 
van  de  Sande  Bakhuyzen  and  W.  C.  van  Manen,  Haarlem,  1880. 

2  Gr.  N.  Test.,  Prolegomena,  p.  x. 

3  Introd.,  p.  4.  «  Vol.  ii.  p.  71. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  183 

he  may  be  wholly  unable  to  propose  any  endurable 
way  of  correcting  it,  or  have  to  offer  only  suggestions 
in  which  he  cannot  place  full  confidence. 


CLASSES    OF    VARIATIONS. 

The  variations  which  really  involve  the  sense 
may,  with  Dr.  Tregelles,  be  reduced  to  three  classes 
— omissions,  or  additions,  or  substitutions,  of  words 
or  phrases. 

1.  OMISSIONS. 

Omissions  occur  frequently  from  like  endings 
called  homoeoteleuton  (o/io/ort-Xfuroy).  When  two 
lines  or  sentences  end  with  the  same  word,  the  in 
tervening  words  were  often  unconsciously  overlooked 
and  omitted.  A  very  important  case  of  this  kind 
is  the  sentence  in  1  John  ii.  23 :  6  o^uoAoywv  TOV  viov 
Ka\  TOV  TTurtpa  t'xa  (the  same  ending  as  in  the  pre 
ceding  clause),  which  is  not  found  in  the  Textus 
Reccptus,  and  is  italicized  in  the  English  Arersion ; 
but  sustained  by  x,  A,  B,  C,  P,  and  other  authori 
ties,  and  properly  restored  in  the  English  Revision. 
Here  the  older  text  restores  what  the  later  lost. 

2.  ADDITIONS. 

Additions  are  very  numerous  in  the  later  MSS. 
and  in  the  Textus  Receptus,  and  must  be  elimina 
ted  according  to  the  oldest  and  best  authorities. 
They  may  be  divided  into  several  classes. 

(a.)  Additions  caused  by  transferring  a  genuine 
word  or  passage  from  one  book  to  another ;  first  on 
the  margin  or  between  the  lines,  and  then  into  the 


184  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

text.  These  cases  are  most  frequent  in  the  parallel 
sections  of  the  Gospels.1  They  began  probably 
with  the  Gospel  Harmonies,  the  oldest  of  which  is 
Tatian's  Diatessaron,  from  the  second  century.  By 
such  interpolations  the  idiosyncrasy  of  style  and 
manner  is  more  or  less  obliterated. 

For  examples,  see  in  the  Text.  Itec.,  Matt.  i.  25 
(supplemented  from  Luke  ii.  7) ;  Matt.  v.  44  (from 
Luke  vi.  27,  28) ;  Matt.  ix.  13  (from  Luke  v.  32) ; 
Matt.  xvii.  21  (from  Mark  ix.  29);  Matt,  xviii.  11 
(from  Luke  xix.  10) ;  Matt.  xix.  16, 17  (corn p.  Mark 
x.  17,  18;  Luke  xviii.  18,  19);  Matt.  xix.  20  (from 
Mark  x.  20  and  Luke  xviii.  21);  Matt.  xxi.  44 
(from  Luke  xx.  18) ;  Mark  iii.  5  and  Luke  vi.  10 
(from  Matt.  xii.  13);  Mark  vi.  11  (from  Matt.  x.  15); 
Mark  xiii.  14  (from  Matt.  xxiv.  15) ;  Mark  xv.  28 
(from  Luke  xxii.  37);  Luke  iv.  2,  4,  5,  8  (comp. 
Matt.  iv.  2,  4,  8,  10);  Luke  xi.  2,  4  (from  Matt.  vi.  9, 
10,  13);  John  vi.  69  (from  Matt.  xvi.  16);  Acts  ix. 
5,  6  (from  xxvi.  14,  15;  xxii.  10),  etc.  By  removing 
these  interpolations  of  words  and  clauses,  otherwise 
genuine,  we  lose  nothing  and  gain  a  better  insight 
into  the  individuality  of  each  Gospel. 

(I.)  Amplifications  of  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament,  as  in  Matt.  ii.  18;  xv.  8;  Luke  iv.  18, 


-  As  was  observed  by  Jerome  in  his  Preface  to  the  Gospels  (Ad  Dama- 
sum) :  "  Magnus  in  nostris  codicibus  error  inolevit  dum,  quod  in  eadem  re 
alius  evangelista  plus  dixit,  in  alio  quia  minus  putaverint  addiderunt;  vel 
dum  eundem  sensum  alius  aliter  cxpressit,  ille  qui  unnm  e  quatuor  primum 
legerat  ad  ejus  exemplar  cceieros  quoque  existimaverit  emendandos :  itnde 
accidit  ut  apud  nos  mixta  sunt  omnia  et  in  Marco  plura  Lucas,  atque  Mat- 
thcei,  rursus  in  Matthceo  plura  Joannis  ct  Marci  ,  .  .  inveniantur." 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  185 

19  ;  Rom.  xiii.  9 ;  Heb.  ii.  7;  xii.  20,  etc.  These  are 
all  right  in  the  Septuagint. 

(c.)  Insertions  of  words  and  proper  names  (instead 
of  pronouns)  from  Lectionaries  for  the  Church  ser 
vice,  especially  those  of  the  Gospels  (Evangelistaria 
or  Evangeliaria).  Hence  the  frequent  interpolation 
or  changed  position  of  'Irjo-oue  (e.  £/.,  Matt.  iv.  18 ; 
viii.  5  ;  xiv.  22;  John  i.  44).  Coinp.  also  Luke  vii. 
31  (the  prefix  ^TTE  £t  6  Kvpioc;},  and  X.  22  (KCU  arpaty^z 
7T|Oor;  roi)£  ^a^rjrac  tine,  omitted  by  Tregelles,  West- 
cott  and  Hort,  but  retained  by  Tischendorf  and 
Yon  Gebhardt). 

(d.)  Additions  from  a  love  of  paraphrase,  which 
characterizes  all  the  sources  embraced  by  Westcott 
and  Hort  under  the  designation  of  the  "  Western  " 
text,  of  which  the  bilingual  Codex  Bezre  (D)  and 
Codex  Claromontanus  (D(2))  are  the  best  known 
representatives.  "  The  chief  and  most  constant 
characteristic  of  the  Western  readings,"  says  Dr. 
Hort,  "  is  a  love  of  paraphrase.  Words,  clauses, 
and  even  whole  sentences  were  changed,  omitted, 
and  inserted  with  astonishing  freedom,  wherever  it 
seemed  that  the  meaning  could  be  brought  out  with 
greater  force  and  definiteness."  '•  Examples  of  this 
paraphrastic  tendency  are  found  in  the  enlarged 
readings  in  Matt.  xx.  28 ;  xxv.  1  (KCU  rr\q  vu^rjc, 
after  rou  wjuQtov)',  Luke  iii.  22;  xx.  34;  Eph.  v.  30; 
in  many  curious  interpolations  in  the  Acts ;  and  in 
John  v.  3, 4,  and  viii.  1  sqq.,  which  will  be  considered 
separately  under  the  next  head. 

1  Vol.  ii.  p.  122. 


186  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

In  this  love  for  explanatory  expansion  of  the 
sacred  text,  as  if  the  Holy  Spirit  was  too  brief  and 
terse  for  the  common  understanding,  the  authors  of 
the  Authorized  English  Version  have  imitated  the 
old  Western  copyists  and  translators,  but  have  acted 
more  honestly  by  printing  their  numerous,  mostly 
useless,  and  sometimes  misleading,  interpolations  in 
italics.1 

(<?.)  Additions  from  oral  tradition,  ancient  litur 
gies,  and  explanatory  glosses.  They  were  usually 
noted  on  the  margin  and  then  incorporated  with 
the  text.  Jerome  expressed  his  wonder  at  the  large 
number  of  such  interpolations  by  the  temerity  of 
transcribers  in  his  day.2  But  in  many  cases  it  was 
done  ignorantly  and  innocently. 

Under  this  head  we  may  place  the  most  impor 
tant  and  serious  interpolations,  which  are  rejected 
by  the  severer  class  of  critics,  although  some  may 
be  defended  with  solid  arguments.  They  are  as 
follows : 

1.  The  doxology  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Matt.  vi.  13, 
which  was  unknown  to  Origen,  Tertullian,  and  Cyp 
rian  (in  their  commentaries  on  the  Lord's  Prayer), 

1  This  method  has  been  retained,  but  on  a  greatly  reduced  scale,  in  the 
Revision.     It  is  open  to  objection,  as  conflicting  with  modern  usage  of 
italicizing  for  the  purpose  of  emphasizing.     Smaller  type  or  brackets 
would  obviate  misunderstanding.     I  heard  of  a  famous  sensation  preacher 
taking  two  words  in  italics  for  his  text,  as  if  they  contained  the  gist  of 
the  passage. 

2  A  d  Suniain  et  Fretelam :  "  Miror  quomodo  e  latere  annotationem  no- 
stram  nescio  quis  lemerarius  scribendam  in  corpora  putaverit  quam  nos  pro 
eruditions  leyentis  scripsimus.  ,  .  .  Si  quid  pro  studio  ex  latere  additum  est, 
non  debet  poni  in  corpore," 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  187 

and  is  missing  in  the  oldest  MSS.  («,  B,  D,  Z),  in  the 
Itala  and  Yulgate.1  It  probably  came  in  from  1 
Chron.  xxix.  11,  and  from  ancient  liturgical  usage 
in  Syria,  as  a  response  of  the  congregation.  It  is 
found  in  the  Syriac  Version,  and  thence  passed  into 
the  Greek  text  at  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  who  has 
the  doxology.  The  Jewish  response  to  the  prayers 
in  the  temple  is  said  to  have  been :  "  Blessed  be  the 
name  of  the  glory  of  his  kingdom  forever  and  ever." 
In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James  the  doxology  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer  is  expanded  into  a  trinitarian  shape : 
UTL  CTOU  iariv  17  fiaaiXfia  KOI  77  ^vva/ni^,  KOL  77  3o£a, 

TOV   TTOTjOOC    KCH    TOV    VlOV    KOL    TOV    CLJIOV   7TV tV fJLCLT O £ ,  VVV 

KOI  act'.  But  in  all  the  extant  Latin  liturgies  the 
doxology  is  omitted.2 

2.  The  passage  on  the  periodical  descent  of  the 
angel  of  the  Lord,  troubling  the  pool  of  Bethesda 
for  the  healing  of  the  sick,  John  v.  3,  4  (from  cicSe- 
\ofjifvwv,  ver.  3,  to  KUT^I^TO  vocrYj^ari,  ver.  4),  is  un 
doubtedly  an  interpolation  (at  least  ver.  4),  probably 


1  Cod.  A  cannot  be  quoted  for  or  against,  as  the  first  twenty -four 
chapters  of  Matthew  are  lost.     The  newly  discovered  Codex  Kossanensis 
has  the  doxology,  but  belongs  to  the  sixth  century.     See  p.  131. 

2  The  English  Revision  puts  the  doxology  in  the  margin.     It  was  a 
case  of  honesty  versus  prudence.     No  change  seems  to  have  given  wider 
dissatisfaction  than  this,  and  the  substitution  of  "the  evil  one"  (the 
tempter)  for  "evil,"  in  the  same  prayer  hallowed  by  daily  use.     The 
doxology  is  very  appropriate,  and  will  always  be  used  ;  but  this,  of  course, 
does  not  affect  the  critical  question,  which  is  simply  one  of  evidence. 
Its  insertion  from  liturgical  usage  is  far  more  easily  accounted  for  than  its 
omission.     The  internal  evidence  also  is  rather  against  it;  for  our  Lord 
immediately  proceeds  with  "for"  (iav  yap)  in  ver.  14.     His  object  was 
to  suggest  proper  topics  for  prayer  rather  than  to  give  a  complete  formula. 


188  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

of  Syrian  and  Western  origin,  and  expresses  a  popu 
lar  superstition,  for  which  John  cannot  be  held  re 
sponsible.  The  first  Greek  father  who  shows  any 
knowledge  of  the  interpolation  is  Chrysostorn  (d. 
407),  but" it  is  wanting  in  x,  B,  C*,  (D),  33,  and  other 
authorities,  and  omitted  by  the  critical  editors,  and 
the  Revisers  of  18S1.1 

3.  The  section  on  the  woman  taken  in  adultery, 
John  vii.  53-viii.  11,  in  ten  cursive  MSS.  at  the  end 
of  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  four  (13,  69, 124,  346)  at 
the  end  of  Luke  xxi.  It  no  doubt  rests  on  a  primi 
tive  and  authentic  tradition,  but  was  not  written  by 
John.  It  is  omitted  by  s  and  B,  and  other  Greek 
MSS. ;  there  is  no  room  for  it  in  A  and  C,  which 
are  here  defective ;  it  was  unknown  to  the  Greek 
and  older  Latin  fathers,  but  widely  current  in  Latin 
Gospels  of  the  fourth  century.  It  interrupts  the 
context,  departs  from  the  style  of  John,  and  pre 
sents  an  unusual  number  of  variations  in  the  MSS. 
Nevertheless,  the  story  itself  is  eminently  Christ- 
like,  and  found  its  way  into  the  Gospels  of  John 
and  Luke  from  apostolic  teaching,  perhaps  from  the 
lost  work  of  Papias  of  Hierapolis,who  collected  from 
primitive  disciples  various  traditional  discourses  of 
our  Lord  with  comments,  and  who  (according  to 
Eusebius  iii.  39)  set  forth  "a  narrative  concerning  a 
woman  maliciously  accused  before  the  Lord  touch- 

1  The  Revision  relegates  it  to  the  margin  with  this  note:  "Many 
ancient  authorities  insert,  wholly  or  in  part,  ic  ait  ing  for  the  moving  of  the 
water :  4  for  an  angel  of  the  Lord  went  doivn  at  certain  seasons  into  the 
pool,  and  troubled  the  water:  whosoever  then  first  after  the  troubling  of  the 
water  stepped  in  was  made  whole,  with  whatsoever  disease  he  was  holden." 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  189 

ing  many  sins,1  which  is  contained  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews."  The  English  Revision 
properly  retains  the  section,  but  in  brackets,  with  a 
marginal  note,  and  with  space  between  it  and  the 
genuine  part.  The  Christian  world  will  never  lose 
it.  Its  best  place  would  be  at  the  end  of  the  Gospel 
of  John  as  an  appendix.2 

4.  The  concluding  twelve  verses  of  Mark  (xvi.  9- 
20)  present  a  peculiar  case.  The  section  is  wanting  in 
the  two  oldest  MSS.  (&*  and  B),  and,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  in  almost  all  the 
Greek  MSS.  of  their  day  ;  it  contains  seventeen  un 
usual  words  or  phrases  not  elsewhere  found  in  Mark 
or  not  in  that  sense ;  and  there  is  a  shorter  conclu 
sion  in  L  and  in  the  important  old  Latin  MS.k,  which 
presupposes  the  same  defect  in  older  MSS.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  section  is  found  in  most  of  the  uncial 

1  tTTi  TroXXttic  apapTiaiQ,  not  one  ufiapTia,  as  in  the  text. 

2  For  the  details  the  reader  may  consult  the  critical  editions  (Tregelles, 
p.  236-243 ;  Tischendorf,  ed.  viii. ;  Hort,  ii.  Notes,  ii.  82-88),  and  the  com 
mentaries  of  Liicke,  Meyer  (6th  ed.  by  Weiss),  Lange,  Alford,  Wordsworth, 
Godet,  and  Westcott.     In  my  annotations  to  Langc's  Com.  on  John  (1872), 
pp.  267  sqq.,  I  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion — namely,  that  "  the  critical 
evidence,  especially  from  the  Eastern  church,  is  against  the  section,  the 
moral  evidenced/or  it;   in  other  words,  it  is  no  original  part  of  John's 
written  Gospel,  but  the  record  of  an  actual  event,  which  probably  hap 
pened  about  the  time  indicated  by  its  position  in  John  viii.     The  story 
could  not  have  been  invented,  as  it  runs  contrary   to  the  ascetic  and 
legalistic  tendency  of  the  ancient  church.     It  is  full  of  comfort  to  penitent 
outcasts.     It  breathes  the  Saviour's  spirit  of  holy  mercy  which  condemns 
the  sin  and  saves  the  sinner.     It  is  a  parallel  to  the  parable  of  the  prodi 
gal,  the  story  of  Mary  Magdalene,  and  that  of  the  Samaritan  woman,  and 
agrees  with  many  express  declarations  of  Christ  that  he  came  not  to  con 
demn,  but  to  save  the  lost  (John  iii.  17;  xii.  47;  Luke  ix.  56;  xix.  10 ; 
comp.  John  v.  14;  Luke  vii.  37  sqq.)." 


190  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

and  in  all  the  cursive  MSS.,  in  most  of  the  ancient 
versions,  in  all  the  existing  Greek  and  Syriac  lection- 
aries  as  far  as  examined  ;  and  Irenaeus,  who  is  a  much 
older  witness  than  any  of  our  existing  MSS.,  quotes 
ver.  19  as  a  part  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (Adv.  Ifccr. 
iii.  10,  6).  A  strong  intrinsic  argument  for  the 
genuineness  is  also  derived  from  the  extreme  im 
probability  (we  may  say  impossibility)  that  the 
evangelist  should  have  intentionally  closed  his  Gos 
pel  with  £0oj3oviro  yap,  "for  they  were  afraid" 
(ver.  8). 

These  facts  leave  us  two  alternatives :  (1)  The 
conclusion  is  from  the  pen  of  Mark,  but  was  not  in 
his  first  draft,  which  may  have  been  published  before 
he  completed  the  work,  or  it  was  lost  from  some 
very  early  copy  (being  written,  perhaps,  on  a  separate 
leaf),  which  was  transcribed  in  this  incomplete  form. 
(2)  Mark  was  prevented  by  some  accident  (perhaps 
the  Keronian  persecution  of  64)  from  concluding 
his  Gospel,  and  the  twelve  verses  were  supplied  by 
the  friendly  hand  of  the  last  editor,  perhaps  from 
the  Gospel  of  Luke,  or  from  one  of  his  Gospel  frag 
ments  (comp.  i.  1),  or  from  oral  teaching.  I  take 
the  second  alternative,  and  regard  the  conclusion  as 
authentic  or  historically  true,  but  not  as  genuine. 
The  critical  editors  (and  the  English  Revisers)  prop 
erly  retain  the  section,  but  include  it  in  brackets,  or 
leave  some  space  between  vers.  8  and  9,  to  indicate 
the  uncertainty  of  its  origin.1 


1  For  full  information  on  this  interesting  case  we  refer  to  the  critical 
apparatus  of  Tischendorf  and  Tregdles,  to  the  monograph  of  Weiss  on. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  191 

5.  The  baptismal  confession  of  the  eunuch,  Acts 
viii.  37,  came  in  from  very  ancient  ecclesiastical  use. 
It  supplies  Philip's  answer  to  the  eunuch's  question, 
"  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  It  appears 
in  Western  sources  (Greek,  Latin,  and  Arm.)  and 
in  some  good  cursives,  but  is  absent  from  the  best 
Greek  MSS.  and  the  Vulgate,  though  it  soon  found 
its  way  from  the  Old  Latin  into  the  later  text  of  the 
Vulgate.  Erasmus  transferred  it  from  the  margin 

"Marie  (Das  Marcusevang.  pp.  512-515),  and  especially  to  the  exhaustive 
discussion  of  Westcott  and  Hurt  in  the  second  volume  (Append,  pp.  29-51). 
All  these  eminent  critics,  as  well  as  Griesbach  and  Lachmann,  reject  the 
genuineness  of  the  section,  though  they  retain  it  in  the  text.  The  chief 
defenders  of  the  genuineness  are  Bleek,  Lange,  Ebrard,  Hilgenfeld, 
Broadus  ("Baptist  Quarterly,"  Phila.  1869),  Wordsworth,  McClellan. 
Scrivener  (Jntrod.  pp.  507-513),  M orison  (Coin,  on  Mark,  pp.  446  and 
463  sqq.),  Canon  Cook  (in  the  Speaker's  Com.  on  Mark,  pp.  301-308),  and 
especially  Dean  Burgon  of  Chichester,  in  his  very  learned  and  very  dog 
matic  monograph.  The  Last  Twelve  Verses  of  the  Gospel  according  to 
8.  Mark  Vindicated  a  gainst  Recent  Critical  Objections  and  Established, 
Oxf.  and  Loud.  1871  (334  pages);  comp.  his  article  in  the  "Quarterly 
Review"  for  Oct.  1881.  Burgon  lays  great  stress  on  the  Lectionaries, 
and  on  the  fact  that  Cod.  B  (which  he  otherwise  hates  with  a  personal 
animosity)  leaves  a  blank  column  between  ver.  8  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
which  seems  to  imply  the  scribe's  knowledge  of  a  fuller  conclusion  of  the 
Gospel.  But  it  is  the  last  (third)  column,  and  the  second  has  the  sub 
scription,  after  ver.  8,  KATA  MAPKON,  which  indicates  the  close.  Nor 
is  it  the  only  blank  column  in  the  whole  MS.,  as  Burgon  asserts;  for  (as 
Dr.  Abbot  has  first  pointed  out)  two  columns  are  left  blank  at  the  end  of 
Nehemiah,  and  a  column  and  a  half  at  the  end  of  Tobit.  There  are 
similar  blanks  in  the  Alexandrian  and  Sinaitic  MSS.  In  the  "Quarterly 
Review,"  Burgon  makes  a  savage  attack  upon  Wrestcott  and  Hort  and  the 
English  Revisers  for  daring  (in  common  with  the  ablest  critics)  to  dissent 
from  what  he  regards  his  unanswerable  "  demonstration "  and  infallible 
judgment.  He  calls  the  marginal  note  of  the  Revisers  in  Mark  xvi.  8, 
which  simply  states  a  fact,  "  the  gravest  blot  of  all."  Then  the  other 
blots  must  be  very  slight  indeed. 


192  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

of  one  of  his  Greek  MSS.,  as  "  having  been  omitted 
by  the  carelessness  of  scribes."  The  Revision  rele 
gates  it  to  the  margin  with  the  note :  "  Some  ancient 
authorities  insert,  wholly  or  in  part,  ver.  37,  And 
Philip  said,  If  tliou  Itelievcst  with  all  thy  heart, 
tliou  mayest.  And  lie  answered  and  said,  f  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God" 

6.  The  passage  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses, 
1  John  v.  7,  8,  is  wanting  in  all  the  Greek  MSS., 
uncial  and  cursive,  written  before  the  fifteenth  cen 
tury,  in  all  the  ancient  versions  (including  the  best 
MSS.  of  the  Vulgate),  and  in  all  the  Greek  fathers, 
who  in  the  Nicene  age,  during  the  Arian  and  semi- 
Arian  controversies,  quoted  every  available  proof- 
text  of  the  Bible  from  Genesis  to  Revelation  for 
the  dogma  of  the  Trinity,  and  could  not  possibly 
have  overlooked  this,  had  they  known  it  or  found  it 
in  any  MS.  It  first  appeared  in  Latin  copies,  and 
from  them  passed  into  two  very  late  Greek  MSS., 
of  no  authority.  The  internal  evidence  alone  is  con 
clusive  against  it;  for  John  would  not  have  written 
"  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,"  but 
either  "  the  Father,  the  Son,"  or  "  God,  the  Word," 
etc.  Moreover,  there  is  no  real  correspondence  be 
tween  "the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit" 
in  heaven,  and  "  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood" 
on  earth ;  the  supposed  analogy  originated  in  the 
fancy  of  some  African  father  of  the  fifth  century 
(possibly  Cyprian  in  the  third  century),  and  was  put 
on  the  margin  by  some  copyist  of  the  Latin  text. 
For  these  reasons  the  passage  is  now  given  up  by 
all  critical  editors  and  commentators.  Erasmus  at 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  193 

first  omitted  it;  Luther  did  not  translate  it,  though 
it  crept  afterwards  into  his  German  Bible.1  Truth, 
honesty,  and  piety  demand  its  expulsion  from  the 
Word  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
does  not  need  the  support  of  a  spurious  interpola 
tion  ;  it  rests  on  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Bible  doc 
trine  of  a  God  revealed  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit.2 

3.    SUBSTITUTIONS. 

Very  often  one  word  is  substituted  for  another 
similar  in  spelling  or  sound,  or  apparently  better 
suited  to  the  context.  The  most  remarkable  varia 
tions  under  this  head  are  the  following : 

1.  John  i.  18  :   6  juoi/oycw/c  wi'c   (abridged  TC), 


1  Strange  to  say,  it  is  retained  in  the  recent  authoritative  revision  of 
Luther's  text,  though  in  brackets  and  with  the  note:  "Die  eingeklammer- 
ien  Worte  fehlen  in  der   Uebersefzitnr/  Luthers  und  sind  ihr  erst  spater 
be'typfuyt  irorden."    The  English  Revision  very  properly  ignores  the  inter 
polation  altogether,  reading  simply,  with  John:  "For  there  are  three  who 
bear  witness,  the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood :  and  the  three  agree 
in  one."     All  the  rest  from  "  in  heaven,"  ver.  7,  to  "  on  earth,"  ver.  8,  is 
spurious. 

2  See  above,  p.  136  sq.     More  than  fifty  volumes  and  pamphlets  have 
been  written  for  and  against  the  three  witnesses.     It  was  once  considered 
a  sure  mark  of  heresy  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  passage;  now  it  is 
difficult  to  summon  a  corporal's  guard  of  old  fogies  for  its  defence.     Even 
Dr.  Scrivener,  one  of  the  most  conservative  critics,  says  ( p.  561 ),  "  To 
maintain  the  genuineness  of  this  passage  is  simply  impossible."     It  is  a 
wonder  that  Dean  Burgon  has  not  come  up  to  the  defence  of  this  forlorn 
post.    He  might  summon  any  number  of  Latin  witnesses.    Many  sermons 
on  the  Trinity,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent,  have  been  preached  from  this 
text.     A  high  American  dignitary  and  scholar  (?)  honestly  believes  that 
the  passage  was  written  by  St.  John,  and  will  yet  be  dug  up  from  the  dust 
of  some  Egyptian  convent.    0  sancta  simitlidtas  !  O  for  another  Tischen- 
dorf  or  Simonides ! 

13 


194  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

the  only-Icy  otten  Son  (text,  rec.),  or  /uoyoytv/'/e  £to'c 
(abridged  60),  an  Only-begotten  One  who  is  God.  (A. 
third  reading,  6  /movoytinic;  Stog^'the  only-begotten 
God,"  found  in  xc,  i.  e.,  x  as  corrected  by  the  third 
hand,  and  in  K"o.  33,  arose  simply  from  a  combination 
of  the  two  readings,  the  article  being  improperly  trans 
ferred  from  the  first  to  the  second.)  The  two  readings 
are  of  equal  antiquity  :  Stop  is  supported  by  the  old 
est  Greek  MSS.,  nearly  all  Alexandrian  or  Egyptian 
(x*,  i.  e.,  the  original  or  un  corrected  x,  B,  C*,  L,  also 
the  Peshito  Syr.);  wo^  DJ  tne  oldest  versions  (Itala, 
Vulg.,  Curet.  Syr.,  also  by  the  secondary  uncials, 
and  all  known  cursives  except  33).  The  patristic 
evidence  is  uncertain  and  conflicting.  The  usual 
abbreviations  in  the  uncial  MS.,  90  and  TO,  may 
easily  be  confounded.  The  connection  of  juovoyeWje 
with  £coe  is  less  natural  than  with  woV,  although 
John  undoubtedly  could  call  the  Son  Sto^,  and  did 
so  in  ver.  1.  Moi-oyti^/c  &£«V  simply  combines  the 
two  attributes  of  the  Logos,  3-coc,  ver.  1,  and  JUQVO- 
•yji'j/C,  ver.  14. 

For  a  learned  and  ingenious  defence  of  £*or;,  see 
Ilort's  T'wo  Dissertations  (Cambridge,  1877),  West- 
cott  in  the  Speakers  Commentary  on  John  (p.  71), 
and  Westcott  and  Ilort's  Or.  Test.  vol.  ii.  (Notes, 
p.  74);  also  Weiss  in  the  6th  ed.  of  Meyer's  Com.  on 
John  (1880).  l  It  is  urged  that  the  substitution  of 
for  S'toc  is  easily  explained  as  being  suggested 


1  Weiss  renders  the  passage  (p.  86)  thus:  '•  Gotlliches  Wesen  hat 
memand  je  gesehen  ;  ein  Eingeborenr  gottlichen  Wesens  .  .  .  hat  davon 
Kunde  ffebracht"  i.  e..  "  the  Divine  Being  no  one  has  ever  seen  ;  an  Only- 
begotten  One  of  Divine  essence  .  .  .  has  brought  knowledge  of  it." 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  195 

by  the  primary  meaning  of  novoytvfa,  while  the 
converse  substitution  is  inexplicable  by  any  ordi 
nary  motive  likely  to  affect  transcribers.  But  3-a>e 
in  connection  with  [iovoytvi'ic;  is  not  sustained  by 
any  parallel  passage  in  the  Xew  Test.,  and  sounds 
strange.  Tischendorf  adopts  V'UJG,  and  Dr.  Abbot 
ably  defended  this  reading  in  two  essays — one  in 
the  "Bibliotheca  Sacra"  for  1861,  pp.  810-872,  and 
one  printed  for  the  American  Revision  Committee 
(and  afterwards  published  in  the  "  Unitarian  He- 
view"  for  June,  1875,  at  Boston).  The  Westmin 
ster  Revisers  first  adopted  "God"  in  the  text,  but 
afterwards  put  it  on  the  margin,  as  the  American 
Committee  suggested.  Both  readings  give  essential 
ly  the  same  sense,  but  the  common  reading  is  more 
natural  and  free  from  objection.  Movoytvfa  does 
not  necessarily  convey  the  Nicene  idea  of  eternal 
generation,  but  simply  the  unique  character  and 
superiority  of  the  eternal  and  uncreated  sonship  of 
Christ  over  the  sonship  of  believers,  which  is  a  gift 
of  grace.  It  shows  his  intimate  relation  to  the 
Father,  as  the  Pauline  rrpwroTOKoc  (Col.  i.  15)  his 
sovereign  relation  to  the  world. 

2.  Luke  ii.  14:  tvtioKta  (nominative),  or  mSoKtag 
(genitive),  in  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis.  The  textus 
receptus  gives  us  an  anthem  with  three  clauses,  or  a 
triple  parallelism,  the  third  being  a  substantial  repe 
tition  of  the  second  : 

"  Glory  be  to  God  in  the  highest, 
And  on  earth  peace, 
Good  pleasure  among  men."  1 

1  iv  av5pb)iroi£  evSoKia.     The  A.  V.  is  certainly  wrong  in  ignoring 


196  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

The  other  reading  gives  us  a  double  parallelism 
of  somewhat  unequal  length  (as  often  in  the  Psalms): 

"Glory  be  to  God  in  the  highest, 
And  on  earth  peace  among  men  of  (his)  good  pleasure,"  l 

with  three  corresponding  ideas— glory  and  peace, 
God  and  men,  in  the  highest  (heaven)  and  on  earth.2 
Intrinsically  this  reading  is  preferable,  the  parallel 
ism  being  complete  without  a  repetition.  It  is  sup 
ported  by  x*,  A,  B,  D,  all  the  Latin  copies  (bonce 
voluntatis),  the  Gothic  Version  (godis  viljins,uof 
good  will"),  Origen,  Jerome;  while  the  nominative 
evSoKta  is  sustained  by  the  cursive  MSS.,  the  Syriac, 
Coptic,  and  other  versions,  and  many  Greek  fathers, 
and  the  Greek  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  as  appended  to 
Cod.  A  (which,  however,  in  Luke  ii.  li  reads  the 
genitive),  and  in  the  Apost.  Constitutions.  Tischen- 
dorf  adopts  tucWae,  so  also  Westcott  and  Ilort,  and 
the  Revisers,  but  with  the  other  reading  on  the 


the  preposition  (as  the  Vulgate  and  Luther  do),  and  translating  "Good 
will  towards  men"  as  if  it  were  the  dative. 

1  evSoKiaQ,  bonce  volnntatis,  not  as  a  predicate  of  men,  but  men  of  God's 
good  will,  men  in  whom  he  takes  delight,  to  whom  his  favor,  his  benevo 
lent  purpose,  is  shown  by  the  birth  of  the  Saviour.     All  men  are  meant, 
not  a  particular  class  (comp.  John  iii.  16;  Tit.  ii.  11).     This  relieves  the 
passage  of  a  great  difficulty.     Comp.  tvdoicia  in  Phil.  i.  15 ;  ii.  13 ;  Eph.  i. 
5,  9;  2  Thess.  i.  11;  and  tvSoKtw  in  Matt.  iii.  17;  xvii.  5;  Mark  i.  11; 
Luke  iii.  22. 

2  Dr.  Hort  (Azotes  on  Select  Readings,  ii.  p.  5G)  suggests  a  more  equal 
division,  by  connecting  "and  on  earth"  with  the  first  clause: 

Ao£a  iv  v\[/i<JTOiQ  Sufi  Kal  tTrl  y/]£, 
tiprjvj]  iv  dv5pii)Troi(;  evSoKias- 

3  The  famous  "Quarterly  Reviewer"  (Oct.  1881),  of  course,  denounces 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  197 

3.  Rom.  v.  1 :  t  \OJUEIS  we  have  (hdbemus),  £t/»'jvi)r, 
peace,  or  €\wju£v  (the  hortative),  &?£  -MS  have  (halea- 
mus),  peace.      Here  the  intrinsic  evidence  rather 
favors  the  received  text,  since  the  apostle  states  the 
result  of  justification  by  faith ;  moreover,  it  is  re 
spectably  supported  by  K%  B3,  F,  G,  P,  Didymus, 
Epiphanius,  etc.;  and  o  and  w  may  easily  be  con 
founded.     Hence  Lachmann  in  his  ed.  major,  and 
Tischendorf  in  his  former  editions,  favored  e'xo/ia', 
and  the  American  Committee  decided  to  retain  "we 
have  "  in  the  text,  and  to  put  "  let  us  have  "  in  the 
margin.    But  the  English  Committee  decided  the  oth 
er  way,  following  Lachmann  in  his  ed.  minor,  Tisch 
endorf  in  his  last  edition,  and  Westcott  and  Hort. 
In  his  Critical  Notes  Hort  does  not  even  mention 
this  variation.     It  must  be  admitted  that  t^M/utv  is, 
upon  the  whole,  better  supported  by  s*  (uncorrect- 
ed),  A,  B*,  C,  D,  Itala,  Yulgata,  and  other  versions ; 
and  it  gives  also  good  sense,  since  peace,  like  every 
other  gift,  must  be  held  fast  and  regained  ever  anew 
to  be  fully  possessed  and  enjoyed.     Anxious  and 
timid  Christians  must  be  exhorted  to  realize  the 
benefit  of  the  merits  of  Christ  which  are  theirs  by 
faith. 

4.  Acts  xx.  28  :  "  to  feed  the  church  of  God"  (r>)i> 


the  reading  of  tuSoKiag  as  a  "grievous  perversion  of  the  truth  of  Scrip 
ture,"  and  holds  the  evidence  for  tvdoKia  to  be  "absolutely  decisive." 
Canon  Cook,  the  editor  of  the  Speaker's  Comment  a  ?-y,  agrees  with  Dean 
Burgon's  general  position,  but  admits  at  least  that  "the  Revisers  have 
manuscript  authority  sufficient  to  prove  that  their  reading  was  known  and 
adopted  by  many  churches  at  a  very  early  time."  (The  Revised  Version 
of  the  First  Three  Gospels,  Lund.  1882,  p.  27.) 


198  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 


tKK\ri<riav  TOV  Sfiou),  or  "the  church  of  the  Lord" 
(TOV  Kvpiov).  The  difference  derives  doctrinal 
importance  from  the  addition:  "which  he  purchased 
with  /US  own  'blood"  (rjv  TrtpitTrou'icraTO  c)m  TOV  ai/uaTOQ 
TOV  l$iov).  The  reading  Ztov  would  furnish  a  strong 
argument  for  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but  also  an  al 
most  patripassian  or  monophysitic  view  of  his  death.1 
The  two  lie  vision  Companies  are  divided  here—  the 
English  put  "  God  "  in  the  text,  and  "  tlie  Lord  "  in 
the  margin;  the  Americans  reverse  the  order.  The 
critical  editors  are  also  divided  —  Westcott  and  Hort 
adopt  TOV  3-fou,  Tischendorf  TOV  Kvpiov.  The  former 
is  supported  by  N,  B,  a  number  of  cursives,  Vulg.  ; 
the  latter  by  A,  C*,  D,  E,  13,  and  other  cursives, 
and  by  the  Old  Latin,  Coptic,  and  Sahidic  versions. 
The  testimony  of  the  fathers  is  divided.8  The  ablest 
arguments  on  the  two  sides  of  the  question  are  by 
Dr.  Hort,  in  favor  of  3-sou,  in  Notes  on  Select  Read 
ings,  pp.  08-100,  and  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  in  favor 
of  Kvpiov,  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  Andover,  for 
1876,  pp.  313  sqq.3  Dr.  Hort  suggests  at  the  end  of 
his  note  that  possibly  vlov  may  have  dropped  out 


1  Comp.  Watts's  "When  God  the  mighty  Maker  died;"  and  the  old 
German  hymn,  "  0  welche  Noth  !  Gott  selbst  ist  todt." 

2  Chrysostom  is  quoted  on  both  sides;  but  Dr.  Abbot  writes  me  the 
following  note :  "  The  case  in  regard  to  Chrysostom  must  be  considered 
clear.     He  not  only  reads  Kvpiov  without  variation  among  the  MSS.  in 
his  Horn,  on  Eph.  iv.  11,  but  (what  I  did  not  know  when  I  wrote  my  arti 
cle)  the  best  MSS.  of  Chrysostom  read  Kvpiov  in  his  homily  on  Ihis passage 
of  the  Acts,  and  that  reading  is  accordingly  adopted  in  the  translation  of 
his  Homilies  on  the  A  cts  in  the  Oxford  Library  of  the  Fathers." 

3  The  essay  was  first  privately  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Am.  Revision 
Committee, 


TEXTUAL    CKITICISM.  199 

after  TOV  iSiov  at  some  very  early  transcription,  af 
fecting  all  existing  documents.  This  conjecture 
would  relieve  the  passage  of  all  difficulty,  and  make 
it  conform  to  the  apostolic  doctrine  that  God  pur 
chased  to  himself  a  universal  church  by  the  precious 
blood  of  his  dear  Son.  But  since  conjecture  cannot 
be  allowed  a  place  in  view  of  the  multitude  of  read 
ings,  except  in  an  extreme  case,  which  does  not  exist 
here,  I  prefer  the  reading  Kvpiov.  Paul  often  speaks 
of  "  the  church  of  God  "  (1  Cor.  i.  1 ;  xi.  22  ;  2  Cor. 
i.  1 ;  Gal.  i.  13 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  5),  but  nowhere  of  the 
blood  of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Church  is 
usually  represented  as  the  institution  of  Christ,  as 
his  body,  and  his  bride  for  which  he  shed  his  blood 
(Matt.  xvi.  18  ;  1  Cor.  iii.  11 ;  Eph.  i.  22,  etc.). 

5.  1  Tim.  iii.  16 :  Sto?  (0~C),  or  6'c  (O  C),  "  God  was 
manifested  in  the  flesh,"  or  "  He  who  [/.  <?.,  Christ] 
was  manifested  in  the  flesh."  Here  the  weight  of 
external  and  internal  evidence  is  decidedly  in  favor 
of  oc,  and  this  reading  has  been  adopted  by  all  the 
critical  editors  (Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tregelles, 
Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Hort),  critical  commenta 
tors  (including  Alford  and  Ellicott),  and  by  the 
English  and  American  Revisers.1  The  arguments 


1  Dean  Burgon's  dictatorial  protest  against  the  nearly  unanimous  con 
sensus  of  scholars  is  mere  brutum  fulmen,  and  can  only  have  weight  with 
ignoramuses.  Even  Bishop  Wordsworth,  the  most  conservative  of  English 
commentators,  adopts  the  reading  oq.  So  does  the  Bishop  of  London  in 
the  Speaker's  Commentary  (which  is  likewise  very  conservative,  yet  ad 
mits  that  "  the  evidence,  external  and  internal,  seems  to  require  the 
admission  of  oq  into  the  text  instead  of  Stog  or  o,"  Neio  Test.  iii.  780) ; 
also  Canon  Spence,  in  Ellicott's  Com.,  and  Dean  Plumptre,  in  Schaffs 
Popular  Com,  vol.  iii.  (1882),  p.  570. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

are :  (1)  The  best  MSS.  (x,  A*,  C*,  E,  G)  read  5ff, 
although  some  have  been  corrected  by  later  hands. 
In  x  the  letters  £E  were  added  above  the  line,  in  the 
twelfth  century.  The  correction  in  C  is  older.  A 
is  defaced,  but  has  been  examined  by  Bishop  Ellicott 
and  other  scholars  with  the  aid  of  the  microscope, 
and  found  to  have  had  originally  OC  without  a  bar 
above  and  without  a  transverse  stroke  in  O,  though 
both  were  added  in  comparatively  recent  times.1 
B  cannot  be  quoted  here,  as  it  does  not  contain  the 
Pastoral  Epistles.2  (2)  All  the  ancient  versions  of 
any  weight  have  a  relative  pronoun  here.  (3)  The 
Western  o,  quod,  which  is  a  manifest  correction 
of  oc  and  adaptation  to  the  preceding  fjtvarfiptov. 
(4)  The  oldest  fathers:  Origen  (qui  manifestatus 
cst),  Epiphanius,  Cyril,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
Jerome.  The  reading  3"£0(,'  seems  not  to  have  been 
known  before  the  last  third  of  the  fourth  century ; 
and  even  Chrysostom  is  here  doubtful,  though  in  one 
place  he  probably  read  Scoe,  as  certainly  did  Theo- 
doret.  (5)  It  is  much  easier  to  account  for  the 
change  of  the  difficult  o^  into  the  easy  ccoc,  than 
vice  versa,  although  the  mechanical  resemblance  of 
OC  and  0C  made  the  other  change  more  easy. 
(6)  While  Stoc;  well  suits  the  first  of  the  six  verbs, 


1  Dean  Burgon  boldly  perverts  this  testimony  of  experts,  and  asserts 
without  a  shadow  of  proof:  "A  and  C  exhibited  BO  until  ink,  dirt,  and 
the  injurious  use  of  chemicals  obliterated  what  once  was  patent."     lie 
does  not  tell  us  when  and  to  whom  it  was  patent. 

2  Not  "  because  the  jealousy  of  Rome  has  prevented  accurate  collation," 
as  the  Speaker's  Com.  (iii.  780)  strangely  remarked  in  the  year  1881, 
thirteen  years  after  the  publication  of  the  fac-simile  edition  of  Yercellonc ! 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  201 

it  docs  not  naturally  harmonize  with  the  other  five. 
We  may  say  that  God  "  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh,"  but  not  that  lie  was  "justified  in  the  spirit/' 
"seen  of  angels,"  "received  up  in  glory."  All  this, 
however,  can  be  said  with  perfect  propriety  of 
Christ  as  the  God-  man.  And  he  is  undoubtedly 
meant  by  the  relative  pronoun.  And  even  the  first 
verb  suits  better  to  the  language  of  John,  who  does 

^         ^>  7 

not  say  "  God  was  made  flesh,"  but  "  the  Word  was 
made  flesh."  We  have  in  this  passage  no  doubt  a 
quotation  from  a  primitive  creed  or  hymn  in  praise 
of  Christ,  and  this  accounts  not  only  for  the  rela 
tive  oc,  but  also  for  the  rhythmical  structure  of  the 
whole  passage,  which  can  be  arranged  in  three  par 
allel  pairs  : 


The  doctrinal  importance  of  this  variation  has 
been  much  overrated.  The  divinity  of  Christ  loses 
nothing  by  the  change.  It  implies  in  any  case  his 
pre-existence.  He  is  the  personal  embodiment  of 
the  mystery  of  godliness.1 


1  Comp.  a  sermon  of  Dr.  Vaughan  (Master  of  the  Temple),  Authorized 
or  Revised?  Lond.  1882,  p.  17 :  "The  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  says  this  to  us— and  if  it  were  its  only  change,  it  would  have  been 
worth  ten  years  of  labor :  The  mystery  of  godliness,  the  revealed  secret 
which  has  in  it  'reverence,'  the  right  feeling  and  attitude  of  the  soul 

towards  God  its  Author  and  Object  of  being,  is  a  Person incarnate, 

justified,  attested,  heralded,  believed,  glorified— a  Person  whom  to  know 


202  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

G.  Apoc.  xvii.  8 :  Ka'nrep  tor/v,  or  KOL  Trapiarai.  Here 
the  textus  receptus,  by  the  fault  of  a  transcriber, 
gives  nonsense:  ';  The  beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  and 
yet  is" — while  the  true  reading  adopted  by  all  the 
modern  editors  makes  it  quite  clear:  "  The  beast  was, 
and  is  not,  and  shall  come"  (lit.,  shall  be  present). 

Other  substitutions  are  due  to  the  aim  of  harmon 
izing  passages,  or  of  correcting  a  supposed  error,  as 

£l>    TQl£    TTpO^llTQig    fOF     tV    TdJ     'HdCUtt    TliJ    TT/0007/ry,    ill 

Mark  i.  2;    'Br^aftapa  for   Brfiavia,  in   John  i.  28 
(due,  perhaps,  to  the  conjecture  of  Origen). 


CRITICAL    RULES. 

Since  Bengel,Wetstein,  and  Griesbach,  the  critical 
process  has  been  reduced  to  certain  rules,  but  there 
is  considerable  diversity  in  the  mode  and  extent  of 
their  application.  It  is  not  a  mechanical  process, 
and  does  not  lead  to  mathematical  certainty.  The 
critic  has  often  to  reason  upon  mere  probabilities, 
and  to  ascertain  what  hypothesis  best  explains  ail 
the  phenomena.  Here  the  judgment  may  vary,  and 
absolute  unanimity  cannot  be  expected  in  every  case. 

The  following  rules  may  be  regarded  as  being 
sound,  and  more  or  less  accepted  by  the  best  mod 
ern  critics : 

(1.)  Knowledge   of  documentary  evidence   must 


precede  the  choice  of  readings. 


(2.)  All  kinds  of  evidence,  external  and  internal, 
must  be  taken  into  account,  according  to  their  in 
trinsic  value. 

is  life,  whom  to  serve  is  freedom.     He  is  not  a  doctrine,  nor  a  book,  nor  a 
creed,  nor  a  church — He  is  a  Person." 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  203 

(3.)  The  sources  of  the  text  must  be  carefully 
sifted  and  classified,  and  the  authorities  must  be 
weighed  rather  than  numbered.  One  independent 
manuscript  may  be  worth  more  than  a  hundred 
copies  which  are  derived  from  the  same  original. 

On  closer  inspection,  the  witnesses  are  found  to 
fall  into  certain  groups,  and  to  represent  certain 
tendencies.  Westcott  and  Hort  have  revived,  modi 
fied,  and  perfected  Griesbach's  system  of  families  or 
recensions.  They  distinguish  between  the  Western, 
the  Alexandrian,  the  Syrian,  and  the  neutral  texts, 
and  enter  minutely  into  the  genealogical  relations 
of  the  ancient  documents.  The  Western  text  is 
specially  represented  by  D,  the  Old  Latin  versions, 
the  Greek  copies  on  which  they  were  based,  and  in 
part  by  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  and  is  characterized 
by  a  tendency  to  paraphrase  and  to  interpolate  from 
parallel  passages  or  other  sources.  The  Alexandrian 
or  Egyptian  text  is  much  purer,  but  betrays  a  ten 
dency  to  polish  the  language;  it  is  found  in  Origen, 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  other  Alexandrian  fathers, 
and  in  the  two  principal  Egyptian  versions,  especially 
the  Memphitic.  The  Syrian  text  is  mixed,  and  the 
result  of  a  recension  of  editors  who  borrowed  from 
all  sources  and  were  anxious  to  remove  stumbling- 
blocks,  and  to  present  the  New  Testament  in  a 
smooth  and  attractive  form.  The  neutral  (pre- 
Syrian)  text  is  best  represented  by  B  and  largely 
by  x,  and  comes  nearest  to  the  apostolic  original. 
From  a  careful  comparative  examination,  Westcott 
and  Hort  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  these 
two  oldest  extant  MSS.,  the  Vatican  and  the  Sinaitic, 


204:  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

are  derived  from  ancestries  which  "diverged  from 
a  point  near  the  autographs,  and  never  came  into 
contact  subsequently;  so  that  the  coincidence  of  N 
and  13  marks  those  portions  of  text  in  which  two 
primitive  and  entirely  separate  lines  of  transmis 
sion  had  not  come  to  differ  from  each  other  through 
independent  corruption  in  the  one  or  the  other."  ' 
They  pay  supreme  respect  to  the  Vatican  MS.,  while 
Tischendorf,  in  his  last  edition,  often  gives  the  pref 
erence  to  the  Sinaitic  readings. 

(4.)  The  restoration  of  the  pure  text  is  founded 
on  the  history  and  genealogy  of  the  textual  corrup 
tions.  See  the  special  discussion  of  the  genealogical 
method  below,  p.  208  sqq. 

(5.)  The  older  reading  is  preferable  to  the  later, 
because  it  is  presumably  nearer  the  source.  In  ex 
ceptional  cases  later  copies  may  represent  a  more 
ancient  reading.  Mere  antiquity  is  no  certain  test 
of  superiority,  since  the  corruption  of  the  text  be 
gan  at  a  very  early  date. 

(0.)  The  shorter  reading  is  preferable  to  the 
longer,  because  insertions  and  additions  are  more 
probable  than  omissions.  "  J3rcvior  lectio prcefer en- 
da  est  verbosiori"  (Griesbach).  Person  regarded 
this  as  the  "  surest  canon  of  criticism."  Transcrib 
ers  were  intent  upon  complete  copies,  and  often 
inserted  glosses  on  the  margin  or  between  the  lines, 
and  others  put  them  into  the  text. 

(7.)  The  more  difficult  reading  is  preferable  to 
the  easier.  " Lectio  difficilior  principatum  tenet" 

1  Gr.  Test.  i.  556  sq. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  205 

or  "  Proclivi  scriptioni  praesiat  ardua"  This  was 
Bengel's  first  rule.  It  is  always  easier  to  account 
for  the  change  of  a  really  or  apparently  difficult  and 
obscure  reading  into  an  easy  and  clear  one,  than 
vice  versa.  Transcribers  would  not  intentionally 
substitute  a  harsh,  un grammatical,  or  unusual  read 
ing  for  one  that  was  unobjectionable. 

(8.)  The  reading  which  best  explains  the  origin 
of  the  other  variations  is  preferable.  This  rule  is 
emphasized  by  Tischendorf. 

(9.)  "  That  reading  is  preferable  which  best  suits 
the  peculiar  style,  manner,  and  habits  of  thought  of 
the  author ;  it  being  the  tendency  of  copyists  to  over 
look  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  writer"  (Scrivener). 

(10.)  That  reading  is  preferable  which  shows  no 
doctrinal  bias,  whether  orthodox  or  heretical. 

(11.)  The  agreement  of  the  most  ancient  witness 
es  of  all  classes  decides  the  true  reading  against  all 
mediaeval  copies  and  printed  editions. 

(12.)  The  primary  uncials,  x,  B,  C,  and  A — espe 
cially  x  and  B — if  sustained  by  other  ancient  Greek 
uncials  (as  D,  L,  T,  S,  Z)  and  first-class  cursives  (as 
33),  by  ancient  versions,  and  ante-Nicene  citations, 
outweigh  all  later  authorities,  and  give  us  presuma 
bly  the  original  text  of  the  sacred  writers. 

APPLICATION    OF    THE   RULES. 

The  application  of  these  critical  canons  decides, 
in  the  main,  against  the  Textus  Receptus,  so  called, 
from  which  the  Protestant  versions  were  made,  and 
in  favor  of  an  older  uncial  text.  The  former  rests 
on  a  few  and  late,  mostly  cursive  MSS.,  which  have 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

very  little  or  no  authority  when  compared  with  much 
older  authorities  which  have  since  been  brought  to 
light.  It  abounds  in  later  additions,  harmless  as 
they  may  be.  It  is  essentially  the  Byzantine,  or 
Constantinopolitan,  text  which  almost  exclusively 
prevailed  in  the  Greek  state- church.  It  is  the 
mixed  text  of  the  Syrian  fathers  of  the  fourth  cen 
tury,  especially  of  Chrysostom,  who  spent  the  greater 
part  of  his  life  in  Antioch,  and  the  last  ten  years  as 
patriarch  at  Constantinople  (d.  407).  This  text  was 
almost  exclusively  copied  during  the  ascendency  of 
Constantinople  in  the  East,  while  the  West  confined 
itself  to  the  Latin  version,  and  remained  ignorant 
of  the  Greek  Testament  till  the  fall  of  Constantino 
ple  and  the  revival  of  letters.  This  text  was  intro 
duced  in  the  West  in  printed  form  by  Erasmus  in 
1516,  with  some  additions  from  the  Latin  version. 
It  passed  with  many  changes  into  the  editions  of 
Stephens,  Beza,  and  Elzevir,  before  the  material  for 
the  science  of  criticism  was  collected  and  examined. 
Erasmus,  Stephens,  and  Beza  were  good  scholars, 
but  could  accomplish  little  with  the  scanty  resources 
at  their  command.  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tregelles, 
Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Hort  have  the  advantage 
over  them  in  the  possession  of  an  immense  critical 
apparatus  which  has  been  accumulating  for  three 
hundred  years.  This  apparatus  includes  not  only 
the  oldest  Greek  MSS.,  but  also  the  oldest  versions 
— Syriac,  Latin,  Egyptian  —  and  numerous  quota 
tions  of  ante-Nicene  and  Nicene  fathers  (older  than 
Chrysostom);  and  among  these  various  sources  there 
is  a  very  remarkable  agreement  and  departure  from 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  207 

the  received  text,  though  mostly  of  a  verbal  charac 
ter,  and  seldom  touching  a  doctrine.  We  are  now 
able  to  go  back  from  the  printed  text  of  the  fifteenth 
century  and  its  basis,  the  Byzantine  text  of  the  fifth 
century,  to  a  text  of  the  ante-Nicene  age  up  to  the 
time  of  Irenaeus  or  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

It  has  taken  a  long  time  for  scholars  to  become 
emancipated  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Textus  Recep- 
tuSj  and  it  will  be  a  long  time  before  the  people  can 
be  weaned  from  the  authority  of  the  vernacular  ver 
sions  based  upon  it.  The  German  Version  of  Luther 
and  the  English  Version  of  1611  are  so  idiomatic 
and  classical,  and  so  full  of  faith  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  they  have  deservedly  a  most  powerful 
hold  on  the  popular  mind  and  heart ;  and  every 
serious  departure  from  them  is  apt  to  disturb  asso 
ciations  and  cherished  recollections  of  the  dearest 
and  most  sacred  character.  But  the  truth  must  pre 
vail  at  last  over  tradition  and  habit.  Amicus  Eras 
mus,  amicus  Stephanus,  amicus  Bcza,  scd  magis 
arnica  veritas. 

The  loss  of  the  traditional  text  is  more  than  made 
up  by  the  gain.  The  substance  remains,  the  form 
only  is  changed.  The  true  text  is  shorter,  but  it  is 
also  older,  purer,  and  stronger. 

By  that  we  must  abide  until  new  discoveries  bring 
us  still  nearer  to  the  inspired  original.  If  we  can 
not  have  the  very  best,  let  us  have  at  least  the  next 
best.  If  the  apostolic  autographs  should  ever  be 
discovered,  which  is  extremely  improbable,  it  would 
create  a  new  epoch  in  biblical  learning,  but  it  would 
scarcely  alter  the  text,  which  no  doubt  has  been 


208  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

providentially  preserved  from   all  essential  altera 
tions. 

THE    GENEALOGICAL    METHOD. 

[This  section  was  kindly  contributed  to  this  work  by  Professor  BEN.T. 
B.  WAUFIELD,  D.D.,  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Allegheny,  Pa.  He 
has  made  textual  criticism  a  special  study,  and  prepared  a  careful  review 
of  Westcott  and  Ilort's  Greek  Testament  in  the  ''Presbyterian  Review" 
for  April,  1882.— P.  S.] 

IN  attempting  to  recover  the  original  form  of  any 
ancient  text,  the  first  step  must  always  be  to  gather 
the  testimony,  which  in  the  Xew  Testament  is  found 
in  the  MSS.,  citations  and  versions.  Just  as  inevita 
bly  the  next  step  must  be  the  sifting,  weighing,  and 
classifying  of  the  testimony.  It  is,  indeed,  conceiv 
able  that  all  witnesses  might  be  equally  important ; 
but  most  certainly  this  is  not  a  priori  probable.  It 
is  altogether  likely  prior  to  examination,  rather,  that 
.one  witness  is  more  weighty  than  another;  it  is  far 
from  improbable  that  many  apparently  important 
witnesses  may  prove  simply  a  body  of  repeaters. 
Suppose,  for  instance,  that  printed  as  well  as  manu 
script  copies  were  included  in  the  collected  material : 
one  edition  may  have  comprised  ten  thousand  im 
pressions  ;  another,  equally  good  or  better,  only  one 
hundred ;  and  it  would  be  clearly  unfair,  merely  on 
account  of  this  accident  of  the  number  of  impres 
sions,  to  allow  one  hundred  times  more  weight  to 
the  one  edition  than  to  the  other.  Similarly,  from 
one  MS.  there  may  have  been  made  a  thousand 
copies ;  from  another,  equally  good  or  better,  only 
ten ;  and  it  would  be  equally  unfair,  merely  on  ac 
count  of  this  accident  of  the  number  of  copies  taken, 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  209 

to  allow  one  hundred  times  more  weight  to  the  one 
group  than  to  the  other.  Unless,  however,  before 
using  our  testimony  at  all,  we  begin  by  sifting  and 
classifying  it,  we  run  continual  and  unavoidable 
risk  of  perpetrating  this  gross  injustice. 

An  imaginary  case,  illustrated  by  a  diagram,  may 
make  these  results  more  apparent : 

Autograph. 


MM     M     Ml 

1234     56     789 

Suppose  three  copies,  A,  B,  C,  are  made  of  the  auto 
graph,  which  is  then  destroyed.  Suppose,  further, 
that  C  remains  uncopied  ;  of  B  three  copies,  s,  t,  v, 
are  made ;  and  of  A  four,  w,  x,  y,  z,  of  which,  again, 
x,  y,  z  become  themselves  the  parents  of  the  further 
copies  represented  by  numerals  in  the  diagram. 
We  have  now  nineteen  representatives  of  the  auto 
graph  from  which  WTC  are  to  reconstruct  it.  Shall 
we  allow  equal  weight  to  each  ?  Clearly  A  and  9, 
say,  for  instance,  stand  in  very  different  relations  to 
the  autograph,  and  it  would  be  manifestly  unfair  to 
allow  them  equal  weight.  Clearly,  again,  in  the 
presence  of  A,  all  its  copies — sons  and  grandsons 
alike — are  useless  to  us;  they  contain  legitimately 
nothing  not  already  in  A.  and  therefore,  both  in  the 
cases  where  they  are  like  it  and  in  those  where  they 
are  unlike  it,  must  be  absolutely  neglected.  The 
U 


210  TEXTUAL    CKITICISM. 

same  is,  of  course,  true  of  the  relation  of  s,  t,  v  to  13. 
In  other  words,  \\\&  fourteen  JM8/S.,  A,  w,  x,  y,  z,  1-9, 
can  rank  in  combination  as  only  one  'Witness ;  the 
four,  B,  s,  t,  v,  again  as  only  one  ;  and,  although  we 
possess  nineteen  documents,  we  have  at  last  only 
three  witnesses. 

Let  us  take  another  step,  and  suppose  that  as  well 
as  the  autograph,  A,  B,  x.  y,  z  are  lost,  so  that  we 
possess  only  the  fourteen  MSS.,  C,  s,  t,  v,  w,  1-9 : 
how  would  the  case  be  altered  ?  We  certainly  do 
not,  in  thus  decreasing  the  number  of  our  copies, 
increase  the  number  of  our  witnesses,  s,  t,  v  would 
still  represent  only  three  repeating  witnesses  of 
what  was  in  the  one  witness  B;  w,  1-9  would  be 
still,  in  all  their  divergencies  from  one  another,  only 
corruptions  from  A,  and  hence  worthless  —  in  all 
their  agreements  with  one  another  only  witnesses 
to  what  was  in  A,  and  hence  only  one  witness. 
There  are  thus  still  only  three  witnesses  to  consider. 
And  it  would  be  still  manifestly  misleading  to  treat 
our  documents  as  together  constituting  more  wit 
nesses  than  three.  We  could  not,  indeed,  now  as  in 
the  former  case  neglect  the  testimony  of  s,  t,  v,  or 
of  w,  1-9 ;  but  we  should  not  be  able  to  treat  each 
of  them  as  a  direct  witness  to  the  autograph  co-or 
dinate  with  the  others  or  with  C.  The  true  method 
of  procedure  would  be  to  compare  the  various  copies 
among  themselves,  noting  their  affiliations,  and  thus 
discovering  that  s,  t,  v  constituted  one  group,  while 
1,  2,  3,  4, — 5,  6, — 7,  8,  9,  each  formed  a  sub-group, 
which  then  united  with  each  other  and  with  w  to 
frame  another  group,  while  C  stood  alone.  Thus, 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  211 

working  backward  on  the  simple  and  almost  self- 
evident  principle  that  community  in  readings  means 
community  in  origin,  we  would  discover  by  the  irre 
fragable  evidence  of  the  mutual  resemblances  and 
divergences  of  documents  what  we  know  from  the 
diagram — namely,  that  we  have  three  witnesses  only 
to  consider,  and  that  the  whole  group  w,  1-9  is,  in 
point  of  originality,  equal  only  to  the  one  MS.  C  in 
value.  The  qualifying  phrase,  "  in  point  of  original 
ity,"  has  been  designedly  inserted  ;  for,  although 
this  grouping  of  the  documents  is  decisive  as  to 
the  question  "  how  many  witnesses  have  we?"  and 
necessarily  reduces  them  to  three,  it  says  not  one 
word  as  to  the  relative  values  of  those  three  witness 
ing  groups.  A,  represented  by  the  extant  w,  1-9, 
may  be  far  better  than,  or  it  may  be  far  worse  than 
C,  represented  by  itself  alone.  The  relative  values 
of  the  various  witnesses  cannot  be  determined  until 
after  the  grouping  has  been  thoroughly  done,  and 
then  must  be  sought  by  testing  the  groups  as  wholes 
by  internal  and  transcriptional  evidence. 

By  means  of  our  diagram  we  have  thus  obtained 
the  two  first  and  most  important  rules  of  critical 
procedure:  1,  First  classify  the  witnesses  by  means 
of  a  careful  study  of  the  affiliation  of  the  documents, 
thus  discovering  how  many  real  witnesses  there  are ; 
and,  2,  Then  determine  the  relative  values  of  these 
witnesses  through  the  use  of  the  only  applicable 
evidence — i.  <?.,  intrinsic  and  transcriptional.  Thus 
alone  can  we  mount  to  the  autographic  form  of  any 
ancient  text  by  secure  steps. 

The  application  of  this  method — universally  in 


212  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

use  elsewhere — to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
was  first  hinted  at  by  Mill  and  Bentley,  and  first 
actually  made  by  Bengel,  followed  especially  by 
Griesbach.  It  has  been  reserved,  however,  to  our 
own  day  and  to  Dr.  Ilort  to  perfect  it.  Dr.  Hort 
has  pointed  out  that  the  extant  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament  fall  naturally  into  four  great  groups, 
which  he  names  Syrian,  Western,  Alexandrian,  and 
Neutral.  The  Syrian  is,  however,  demonstrably  of 
late  origin,  and  the  result  of  a  combination  of  the 
other  three.  And  therefore,  just  as  in  our  imagi 
nary  case  all  derivative  evidence  was  to  be  rejected 
in  the  presence  of  its  sources,  so  also  here  the  whole 
Syrian  group  is  of  no  value  as  testimony  to  us  in 
the  presence  of  the  groups  out  of  which  it  was 
made.  In  the  reconstruction  of  the  autographic 
text  we  are  concerned  thus  only  with  the  three  co 
ordinate  groups,  called  Western,  Alexandrian,  and 
Neutral.  We  have  but  to  distribute  the  various 
documents  which  have  come  down  to  us,  each  to  its 
proper  group,  in  order  to  lay  beneath  us  an  impreg 
nable  basis  for  our  reconstruction  of  the  autographic 
text  of  the  New  Testament. 

This  task  of  distribution  proves  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  to  be  a  very  difficult  and  complicated  one. 
The  different  portions  of  the  volume — Gospels,  Acts, 
Catholic  Epistles,  Pauline  Epistles,  and  Revelation- 
must  be  treated  separately.  Allowance  must  be 
made  for  progressive  growth  of  corruption  within 
the  bounds  of  each  class.  And,  above  all,  the  prob 
lem  is  to  an  unparalleled  degree  complicated  by 
mixture  between  the  groups,  so  that  in  many  pas- 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  213 

sages  it  is  exceedingly  difficult,  and  sometimes  im 
possible,  to  classify  the  readings  with  any  certainty. 
These  difficulties  and  complications  limit  the  appli 
cation  of  the  genealogical  method,  as  it  is  called, 
so  far,  but  cannot  affect  it  in  general,  and  do  not 
throw  doubt  upon  it  wherever  it  is  applicable. 
They  force  us  to  call  to  our  aid  other  methods  to 
decide  between  readings  in  special  passages  and  to 
test  our  results  in  all  passages;  but  in  the  main 
portion  of  the  New  Testament,  genealogical  evi 
dence  is  thoroughly  applicable  and  entirely  decisive. 
The  vast  majority  of  the  extant  documents — all 
those  of  the  later  or  cursive  type  —  are  assigned 
definitively  to  the  Syrian  class,  and  hence  are  con 
victed  as  of  secondary  value  as  witnesses,  and  of  no 
value  at  all  in  the  presence  of  the  primary  sources. 
Only  five  MSS.  are  found  to  be  throughout  pre- 
Syrian — viz.,  B,  x,  D,  D2,  G% — of  which  B  seems 
purely  Neutral  in  the  Gospels,  and  D,  D2,  G3  purely 
Western  throughout.  In  the  rest  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  B  has  a  Western  element;  and  s,  though  large 
ly  Neutral,  has  Western  and  Alexandrian  elements 
throughout.  Such  MSS.  as  A,  C,  L,  P,  Q,  E,  T,  Z,  T, 
A,  and  some  few  cursives,  contain  a  larger  or  smaller 
pre-Syrian  element.  The  Old  Latin  Version  seems 
purely,  the  Curetonian  Syriac  predominatingly. 
Western.  The  Memphitic  was  originally  in  all 
probability  purely  pre-Syrian,  and  predominatingly 
non- Western;  the  Thebaic  is  similar,  but  with  a 
larger  Western  element.  The  pre-Syrian  element 
among  citations  is  largest  in  those  from  Origen, 
Didymus,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  The  following 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 


very  rough  and  ideal  genealogical  diagram  may 
perhaps  exhibit  the  above  facts  to  the  eye,  as  con 
cerning  some  of  the  chief  documents  in  the  Gospels. 

Autograph.1 


iv  wan'=rai 


avi        waan      = 

I 


nx     nv"=wan  \van'       \va"  wvlii  wvi 


waaann=wa!ii  wix     D 


avn_-waann    Memfi.    waann 


waaann  =  wa1 


[LJ 


Old  Latin. 


The  Alexandrian,  "Western,  and  Xeutral  groups — 
which  each  originated  in  a  single  document  —  are 
represented  by  the  letters  a,  w,  and  n,  respectively ; 
the  pure  or  mixed2  representatives  of  each  being 


1  This  diagram  is  meant  to  represent  the  kind,  not  the  degree,  of  rela 
tionship  between  documents.    The  reader  must  avoid  being  led  to  suppose, 
for  instance,  that  C,  L,  and  Memplt.  are  as  closely  related  to  one  another 
as  the  diagram  represents  them  to  be. 

2  The  usual  genealogical  sign  of  marriage  (=)  is  used  in  the  diagram 
to  denote  mixture. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  215 

designated  by  the  primed  or  combined  letters.  If 
a  reading  now,  for  instance,  is  attested  by  D,  x,  Old 
Latin — seeing  that  D  and  the  Old  Latin  are  pure 
descendants  of  w,  and  x  a  mixed  one,  their  common 
inheritance  of  this  reading  may  be  accounted  for  as 
coming  from  w,  and  they  may  therefore  constitute 
but  a  single  witness  for  it.  On  the  other  hand,  if 

O 

a  reading  is  supported  by  B,  N,  13,  it  necessarily  has 
the  support  of  both  n  and  w  —  two  out  of  three. 
On  the  hypothesis  that  a,  n,  and  w  are  of  equal 
value,  the  latter  reading  would  be  probably  right, 
and  the  former  probably  wrong. 

Of  course,  however,  the  three  original  sources — 
w,  n,  and  a — are  not  of  equal  value.  On  testing  the 
groups  that  represent  them  by  intrinsic  and  tran- 
scriptional  evidence — which,  we  must  remember,  is 
the  only  applicable  evidence  —  w  betrays  itself  as 
most  painfully  corrupt,  and  a  as  quite  so,  while  n 
approves  itself  as  unusually  pure.  In  cases  of  ter 
nary  variation  between  the  groups,  that  reading 
which  represents  n  is  probably,  therefore,  correct, 
and  is  usually  supported  as  such  by  internal  evi 
dence;  in  cases  of  binary  variation  that  reading  for 

«/  t5 

which  the  group  representing  n  throws  its  weight 
is  almost  certainly  correct,  and  is  almost  uniformly 
proved  to  be  such  by  internal  evidence.  (The  ex 
ception  consists  mainly  of  those  few  passages  classed 
as  Western  non-interpolations.)  The  relative  diver 
gence  from  the  autograph  of  the  several  groups  may 
be  roughly  represented  to  the  eye  by  the  following 
diagram,  in  which  also  we  may  observe  anew  the 
value  of  certain  combinations  in  the  Gospels. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

Trur  Tert 


If  x  y  represents  the  line  of  absolutely  true  de 
scent,  z  q,  along  the  course  of  which  the  various 
Western  documents  may  be  ranged  in  growing  cor 
ruption,  will  roughly  represent  the  Western  diver 
gence,  t  s  the  Neutral,  and  k  v  the  Alexandrian  ;  w  p 
represents  the  Syrian.  Now,  it  is  evident  that  B, 
placed  at  a  point  between  k  and  t,  or  just  beyond  t 
on  the  line  t  s,  is  the  nearest  to  the  originals  of  any 
MS.  B  x  will  carry  us  back  to  a  point  on  st  x,  or  to 
a  point  at,  or  prior  to,  k  or  z.  B  I)  will  take  us  to, 
or  prior  to,  z.  x  D,  on  the  contrary,  may  le  equal 
to  B  D,  and  so  land  us  on  z  x;  or  may  be  equal  to 
D  alone,  and  so  carry  us  only  amid  the  abounding 
corruption  of  z  q.  And  so  on  through  the  list. 

In  putting  the  genealogical  method  to  practical 
use  in  determining  the  text  in  individual  passages, 
the  central  problem  is  to  translate  testimony  ex 
pressed  in  terms  of  individual  manuscripts  into 
testimony  expressed  in  terms  of  classes  of  manu 
scripts.  It  would  be  a  great  help  to  have  in  our 
hands  a  trusty  edition  of  the  New  Testament  pre 
senting  in  parallel  columns  the  four  great  classes  of 
text,  each  wi-th  its  own  various  readings.  In  such 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  217 

case  we  should  have  only  to  turn  to  the  passage  in 
our  Testament  and  see  the  testimony  marshalled 
in  order.  Such  an  edition  is,  however,  still  a  de 
sideratum,1  and,  indeed,  is  by  no  means  a  necessity. 
The  information  given  in  any  good  digest  of  read 
ings  is  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  deal  with  most 
passages  at  the  expense  of  a  little  trouble  and 
thought,  as  if  they  had  place  in  such  an  edition  and 
we  could  turn  to  them  there  and  see  at  a  glance  the 
readings  of  each  class.  Let  us  suppose,  for  instance, 
that  we  wished  to  deal  with  a  passage  in  the  Gospels 
in  which  one  reading  was  supported  by  B,  s,  C,  L, 
Memph.,  Theb.,  Orig.,  and  its  rival  by  the  remainder 
of  the  witnesses :  it  is  easy  to  see  that  in  our  desid 
erated  edition  the  former  reading,  supported  as  it  is 
by  the  typical  Neutral  and  Alexandrian  documents, 
would  stand  in  those  columns,  and  the  latter,  for  the 
same  reason,  in  the  Western  and  Syrian  columns. 
By  simply  noting  the  grouping  of  the  documents 
we  can  proceed,  therefore,  just  as  if  all  this  pre 
liminary  work  had  been  already  done  to  our  hand 
by  somebody  else. 

The  proper  procedure  is  something  like  this: 
First,  let  the  Syrian  testimony — which  as  collusive 
testimony  is  no  testimony  —  be  sifted  out.  This 
may  be  done  roughly  by  confining  our  attention 
for  the  moment  to  the  pre-Syrian  documents — that 
is,  to  the  earlier  versions,  the  fathers  before  250  A. D., 
and  to  such  MSS.  as  B,  x,  C,  L,  D,  T,  &,  A,  Z,  R,  Q,  33 

1  Its  place  is,  especially  in  the  Gospels,  supplied  for  many  purposes  in  a 
general  way  by  Mr.  E.  H.  Hansell's  parallel  edition  of  the  four  great 
MSS.,  A,  B,C,IX 


218  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

in  the  Gospels  ;  B,  x,  A,  C,  D,  E,  13,  Gl  in  Acts  ;  B, 
tf,  A,  C,  13  in  the  Catholic  Epistles  ;  B,  «,  A,  C,  D, 
G,  P,  17,  67**  in  Paul ;  and  x,  A,  C,  P,  05,  in  Rev 
elation.  Very  frequently  the  reading  will  be  found 
to  be  already  settled  on  the  completion  of  this  first 
step;  on  sifting  out  the  Syrian  testimony  the  varia 
tion  is  sifted  out  too.  As  this  amounts  to  proving 
the  non-existence  of  the  variation  before  A.D.  250, 
the  text  thus  acquired  is  very  certain.  An  example 
may  be  seen  in  John  v.  8,  where  the  received  text 
reads  lyttpai  with  support  which  disappears  entirely 
with  the  Syrian  documents,  while  its  rival,  ty^of,  is 
left  with  the  support  of  B,  x,  C,  I),  L,  etc.  A  like 
case  is  Mark  i.  2,  where  "the prophets"  is  read  only 
by  documents  which  sift  out  by  this  process,  leaving 
its  rival,  "Isaiah,  the  prophet"  still  testified  to  by 
B,  N,  D,  L,  A,  33,  Latt.,  Memph.,  and  Syrr.  Pst,  Hlc. 
mg.  and  Ilier.  We  add  three  further  examples 
from  Mark :  iv.  2-i,  where  B,  s,  C,  D,  L,  A,  Latt., 
Memph.  omit  "  that  hear"  against  Syrian  witness 
only ;  xv.  28,  where  the  whole  verse  is  omitted  by 
B,  N,  A,  C,  D,  Theb.,  against  Syrian  (and  late  West 
ern)  witness;  iii.  29,  where  "sin"  is  read  instead  of 
"judgment"  by  B,  x,  L,  A,  33  (C,  D),  Latt.,  Memph., 
against  purely  Syrian  opposition.  In  such  cases, 
our  procedure  cannot  be  doubtful. 

Often,  however,  after  this  first  step  has  been 
taken,  we  seem  hardly  nearer  our  goal  than  at  the 
outset ;  there  are  still  rival  readings — two  or  some 
times  three — among  which  we  are  to  find  the  orig 
inal  one.  The  next  step  in  such  case  is  to  assign 
these  remaining  readings  to  their  own  proper  classes. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  219 

This  is  done  by  noting  carefully  the  attestation  of 
each,  with  a  view  to  determining  the  class  to  which 
the  group  supporting  each  belongs.  This  is  not 
always  an  easy  task,  but  it  is  usually  a  possible 
one.  Suppose,  for  instance,  we  have  before  us  at 
this  stage  two  readings  in  a  passage  of  the  Gos 
pels — the  one  supported  by  D,  Old  Lat.,  Cur.  Syr., 
and  the  other  by  B,  x,  C,  L — it  is  very  easy  to  see 
that  the  former  would  stand  in  our  wished -for 
edition  in  the  Western  column,  and  the  latter  in 
the  Neutral  and  Alexandrian  columns;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  the  former  would  take  us  in  our  diagram 
only  somewhere  on  the  line  z  q,  while  the  latter 
would  carry  us  to  the  point  of  juncture  of  the 
Neutral  and  Alexandrian  lines.  So,  also,  if  the  at 
testation  were  divided  rather  thus :  B,  x,  D,  Old  Lat., 
Vulg.,Memph.,  Theb.,  against  C,  L,  it  would  be  easy 
to  see  that  the  former  was  Neutral  and  Western,  and 
the  latter  Alexandrian  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the 
former  would  take  us  to  point  z  on  the  diagram,  the 
latter  only  somewhere  on  the  line  t  v.  Our  pro 
cedure  in  such  cases,  again,  could  not  be  doubtful. 
The  following  are  examples  of  such  cases :  In  John 
i.  4,  ianv  is  read  by  x,  I),  Codd.  mentioned  by  Origen, 
Old  Lat.,  Cur.  Syr.,  Theb. ;  that  is,  by  documents  typi 
cally  Western  in  conjunction  with  others  containing 
larger  or  smaller  Western  elements:  it  belongs  on  the 
line  z  q.  Its  rival,  r>,  is  read  by  B,  C,  L,  r,  Memph., 
Yulg.,  Syrr. ;  or,  in  other  words,  by  documents  Neu 
tral,  or  Neutral  and  Alexandrian  :  to  it,  therefore, 
the  genealogical  argument  points  as  probably  the 
correct  reading.  The  interesting  reading  of  Mark 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

ix.  23,  adopted  by  the  Revisers  of  the  English  New 
Testament,  is  another  case  in  point — restoring  the 
vivid  form  of  the  original,  as  it  does,  against  the 
flatter  corruption  supported  by  D,  33,  Old  Lat., 
Vulg.,  Syrr.,  ?*.  <?.,  by  the  Western  class.  Other  ex 
amples  from  Mark  are :  Mark  ix.  44,  last  clause  of  45, 
and  46,  omitted  by  B,  x,  C,  L,  A,  Mem  ph. = Neutral 
and  Alexandrian,  inserted  by  1),  Old  Lat.,  Vulg., 
Syrr.  =  Western  ;  Mark  ix.  49,  last  clause,  omitted  by 
B,  x,  L,  A,  and  inserted  by  C,  D,  Latt.,  Syrr.,  where 
the  defection  of  C  to  the  Western  side  introduces 
no  complication,  seeing  that  C  has  a  Western  ele 
ment  ;  Mark  xi.  26,  omitted  by  B,  K,  L,  A,  and  insert 
ed  by  C,  D,  Latt.,  Syrr.  Other  examples  may  be 
found  in  all  the  clauses  omitted  by  the  Revised 
English  Version  from  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  recorded 
by  Luke. 

It  is  not  asserted,  of  course,  that  the  genealogical 
method  will  do  everything ;  or  that  there  are  no 
passages  in  which  it  leaves  the  true  reading  in  doubt 
or  in  darkness.  But  it  is  asserted,  as  is  illustrated 
by  the  foregoing  examples,  that  it  is  easy  to  apply 
it  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  and  that  it  is  sound 
wherever  applicable.  Its  results  ought  to  be  always 
tested  by  other  methods — by  internal  evidence  of 
groups  first,  and  internal  evidence  of  readings  after 
wards.  From  this  testing  the  method  emerges  tri 
umphant  ;  although  in  a  few  rare  cases  we  are 
preserved  by  it  from  a  wrong  application  of  the 
genealogical  argument.  Extreme  and  very  interest 
ing  instances  of  this  may  be  found  in  those  passages 
which  are  technically  called  by  Dr.  Hort  "  Western 


TEXTUAL    CKITICISM.  221 

non- interpolations."  There  are  only  some  half- 
dozen  of  these,  but  they  are  very  instructive. 
Matt,  xxvii.  49  is  a  fair  sample.  Here  B,  fct,  C,  L, 
(U),  F,  etc.,  unite  in  inserting  the  sentence,  "But  an 
other,  taking  a  spear, pierced  his  side,  and  there  came 
forth  water  and  blood"  against  the  opposition  of 
Western  (and  Syrian)  documents  only.  Now  it  is 
quite  impossible  to  accept  this  sentence :  it  looks 
strange  in  this  context,  it  has  the  appearance  of 
coming  from  John  xix.  34,  and  it  is  very  surprising 
that  the  "Western  class,  the  chief  characteristic  of 
which  is  insertion,  should  here  be  the  sole  omitter. 
Both  intrinsic  evidence  and  transcriptional  evidence 
speak  so  strongly  against  the  sentence,  indeed,  that 
the  editors  unanimously  reject  it.  Is  the  genealog 
ical  method  here  at  fault?  No;  our  application 
of  it  only  is  corrected.  We  must  remember  that 
genealogical  investigation  does  not  itself  determine 
for  us  the  relative  values  of  the  different  classes;  it 
merely  distributes  the  documents  into  these  classes, 
and  leaves  to  internal  evidence  the  other  task  (see 
p.  210).  And  internal  evidence  determines  general 
and  usual  relations,  not  invariable  ones.  It  tells  us 
that,  the  documents  having  been  distributed  into 
the  Neutral,  Alexandrian,  and  Western  classes  on 
genealogical  considerations,  the  Neutral  class  is  the 
best,  and  hence  is  usually  to  be  trusted — the  West 
ern  the  worst,  and  hence  is  usually  to  be  distrusted. 
It  does  not  tell  us  that  the  Western  reading  is  neces 
sarily  always  wrong.  The  significance  of  such  ex 
ceptions  as  the  one  under  discussion  is  simply  this: 
in  a  few  rare  cases  the  stern  from  which  the  classes 


222 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 


diverge  received  corruption  after  the  Western  diver 
gence,  and  before  the  Neutral  or  Alexandrian  diver 
gence  ;  in  other  words,  between  z  and  k  on  the 
diagram.  A  glance  at  the  diagram  will  show  how 
consistent  this  result  is  with  the  method;  it  informs 
us  only  that  B  D  takes  us  to  an  earlier  point  than 
B  pins  non-Western  C,  and  warns  us  never  to  be 
satisfied  with  a  mechanical  application  of  a  rule, 
however  generally  valid  it  may  appear.  So  far 
from  such  exceptions  to  the  ordinary  application 
of  genealogical  evidence  proving  destructive  of  its 
principle,  therefore,  they  form  one  of  the  best  and 
strongest  confirmations  of  it.  They  are  the  jags-  in 
the  papers'  edges,  the  fitting  of  which  proves  that 
we  are  on  the  right  track. 

A  list  of  the  chief  variations  in  one  chapter  of 
the  Gospels  is  added  below  for  the  examination  of 
the  student. 

READINGS  OF  TJIK  FIFTH  CHAPTER  OF  ST.  MATTHEW.! 


(!)  Vcr.    1 

7rpoa?i\3rav 

W.,  T.,  Tr. 

13,  S. 

TrpoafiXSov 

C,  D,  T,  A—  Western. 

(2)    «   4,5 

order  of  verses  (5,  4) 

T.,  Tr. 

D,33,01dLat.,Vulg.,C»r. 

Syr.  —  Western. 

"     «      «      (4,5) 

W. 

B,X,C,r,A,Mcmph.,Syrr. 

(3)    «       9 

add  avroi 

[W.,Tr.] 

B,  T,  A,  Cur.  Syr.,  Mempli. 

omit     " 

T. 

X,  C,  D,  Latt.,  Pst.—  West 

ern. 

(4)    «     11 

add  filjfia 

C,  r,  A,  Syrr.jOrig.—  .4  lex- 

andrian. 

omit    " 

W.,  Tr.,  T. 

B,  X,  D,  Latt,,  Mempli. 

1  In  this  list  the  third  column  gives  the  editors  who  have  accepted 
each  reading — W.  standing  for  Westcott  and  Hort,  T.  for  Tischendorf 
(latest  text),  and  Tr.  for  Tregelles.  The  fourth  column  gives  the  wit 
nesses  for  each  reading. 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 


223 


(5)  Ver.  11 

add  \l/tvd6[A£voi 

W.,  T.,  Tr. 

omit      "                       '  [Tr.  mg.] 

(6)    «     13 

j3\^«v  t^w  car.          \V.,Tr..T. 

(7)    «     22 

omit  £i'«^ 
insert  " 

W.,Tr.mg, 
T. 

[Tr.] 

(8)    «      « 

^a 

T. 

(0)    «     23  Kdm 

KGti    fcK-ft 

(10)    "     25  1  omit  (re  TTorpaOrp 
insert  "        " 

W.,  Tr. 
W.,  T.,  Tr. 
Tr.  mg. 
W.,  T. 
[Tr.J 

(11)    «     27 

omit  ro7f  (tpX' 

W.,T.,Tr. 

add      "       '- 

(12)    "     28 
(13)    «     30 

omit  avTtjv  (1st) 
insert     " 
t  .  y.  a-jikX^y 

T. 

[W.],Tr. 
W..Tr.,T. 

/3x^;£.y. 

(14)    «     32 

TTOQ.  O  «7ToX. 
Off  tCLV  aTToX. 

Tr.,  T. 
[W.] 

(15)    «      « 

uoi%£V&r]VCti 

W.,T.,Tr. 

(1C)    «     37 

tOTdi 

W.,  T.,  Tr. 

(17)    "     39 

tffTat 
pcnri^a  ticj 

paTTlfff.1  tTTl 

W.  mg. 
W.,T.,Tr. 
Tr.  mg,    j 

B,  X,  C,  r,  A,  Vulg.,  Cur. 

Syr.,  Pst.,  Mem  ph. 
D,    Old    Lat.,    Origen.— 

Western, 

R,S,C,33,Syr.IIcl.,Orig. 
D,  r,  A  (Latt.)—  Western. 
B,  X,  Vulg.,  Grig. 

D.  L,  r,  A,  33,  Old  Lat., 
Cur.  Syr.,  Syrr.,  Memph. 
—  Western. 

X,  1),  Old  Lat.,  etc.—  West 
ern. 

B,  etc. 

B.  X,  L,  T,  33,  Orig. 

D,  A,  etc.— Western. 

B,X. 

(D),  L,  r,  A,  33,  Old  Lat.. 
Vulg.,  Cur.  Syr.,  Theb., 
Memph.,  Pst. —  Western. 

B,  X,  D,  r,  Old  Lat., 
Memph.,  Fst. 

L,  A,  33,  Cur.  Syr.,  Hcl., 
Vulg. — A  lexandrian  ? 

X,  A,  Clems.,  Orig.  3  times. 

B,  D,  L,  r. 

B,  X,  33,  Old  Lat,,  Vulg., 
Cur.  Syr.,  Memph. 

L,  r,  A,  Syrr. — Alexan 
drian. 

B,  X,  L,  A,  33,  Vulg.,  Syrr. 

D,  Old  Lat.,  Cur.  Syr., 
Memph. —  Western. 

B,  X,  D,  33,  Orig. 

L,  A — A  lexandrian  ? 

X,D,L,A,OldLat.,Vulg., 
Clems,  (once). 

B,  Clems,  (once). 

B,  X  (33). 

D,L,A—  Western. 


224:                                TEXTUAL    CKITICIS] 

(18)  Vcr.39 

omit  <roi> 

T. 

add      " 

[W.]  Tr. 

(19)    «     41 

dyyaptvffei 

W.,  Tr.,  T. 

(20)    "     42 

Soy 

W.,  Tr.,  T. 

didov 

(21)    "     44 

omit  clauses 

W.,  Tr.,  T. 

add  clauses 

(22)    "     4G 

TO   OVTQ 

W.,  T. 

OVTUS 

\V.rng.,Tr. 

(23)    «     47 

^. 

W.,  T.,  Tr. 

(24)    "      " 

fatl' 

W.,  Tr.,  T. 

Tt\wvctl 

(25)    «      « 

TO   (IV  TO 

W.,  Tr.,  T. 

ovrtay 

(2G)    •'     48 

UJQ 

\V.,  Tr.,  T. 

(27)    «      « 

o  ovpdviog 

W..  Tr.,  T. 

iv  T.  ovpavoiq 

[ 

X,  33,  Orig. 
B,  D,  L,  A,  Latt. 
B,L,  (D). 

X,  A,  33—  Western? 
B,  X,  D. 

!L,  A— Alexandrian? 
B,  X,  Latt.,  Mcmph.,  Cur. 

Syr.,  Oritf. 

D,  L,  A,  33,  etc.— West 
ern. 

B,  N,  L,  A,  Syrr.,  (Latt.). 
D.  Z,  33,  Cur.  Sy  r.,  Memph. 

—  Western. 
B,  X,  D,  Latt.,  Cur.  Syv., 

Pst.,  Mcmph. 
L,  A — A  lexandrian  ? 
B,  X,  D,  Latt.,  Memph., 

Cur.  Syr. 

L,  A,  Pst. — A  lexandrian  1 
B.  X,D,  33,  Pst.,  (Latt.). 
L,  A,  Memph.,  Cur.  Syr. — 

A  lexandrian  ? 
B,  X,L,Z,  33,  Clems.,  Orig. 
D,  A — Wesfern. 
B,  X,  L,  Z,  33,  Vulg.,  Syr. 

Hcl. 
(D),4,01dLat.;Pst.,Cur. 

Syr. —  Western. 


CHAPTER   SIXTH. 

HISTORY   OF   THE    PRINTED   TEXT   OF   THE    GREEK   TES 
TAMENT. 

THE  history  of  the  printed  text  of  the  Greek 
Testament  may  be  divided  into  three  periods: 

(1.)  The  period  of  the  unlimited  reign  of  the 
Received  Text,  so  called,  from  1516  to  1750  or  1770. 

(2.)  The  transition  period  from  the  Received  Text 
to  the  older  Uncial  Text,  1770  to  1830. 

(3.)  The  restoration  of  the  oldest  and  purest  text, 
1830  to  1881. 

More  than  half  a  century  elapsed  after  the  inven 
tion  of  the  art  of  printing  before  the  Kew  Testament 
was  published  in  the  original  Greek.1  The  honor 

1  I  moan  the  whole  Greek  Testament.  For  the  celebrated  printer,  Aldo 
Manuzio  (the  elder,  1447-1515),  had  previously  published  the  first  six 
chapters  of  the  Gospel  of  John  at  Venice  in  1504;  and  the  Magnificat  of 
Mary,  Luke  i.  46-55,  and  the  Benedictus  of  Zacharias,  Luke  i.  68-79,  were 
added  to  a  beautiful  Greek  Psalter  in  the  year  148G.  The  Latin  Vulgate 
was  first  published  at  Mayence,  in  1455  (the  Mazarin  Bible),  before  any 
other  book.  The  German  Bible  was  also  printed  before  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  original.  No  less  than  fourteen  editions  of  the  German  Bible  in 
the  High-German  dialect  were  printed  before  1518  (at  Mayence,  1462 ;  at 
Strassburg,  1466;  at  Augsburg,  1475;  at  Niirnberg  or  Basle,  1470,  etc.), 
and  four  in  the  Low-German  dialect  from  1480  to  1522  (at  Cologne,  1480; 
at  Liibeck,  1494,  etc.).  See  Fritzsche's  art.  Deutsche  Bibelubers.  in  Herzog 
(new  ed.),  iii.  545  sqq.,  and  Kehrein,  Gesch.der  deutschen  Bibdubersetzutifj 
vor  Luther,  Stuttg.  1851.  England,  which  now  far  surpasses  all  other 
countries  in  the  publication  and  circulation  of  the  Scriptures,  was  far 
behind  the  Continent  in  the  sixteenth  century.  Wiclif's  version  existed 

15 


226   PKIXTEI)  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

of  pioneersliip  in  this  great  enterprise  is  divided 
between  a  Human  Catholic  cardinal  of  Spain  and  a 
semi -Protestant  scholar  of  Switzerland  (originally 
of  Holland).  The  former  began  first,  with  a  num 
ber  of  helpers  and  boundless  resources  of  money; 
but  the  latter,  single-handed  and  poor,  overtook  him 
by  superior  learning  and  enterprise.  The  same 
pope,  Leo  X.,  who  personally  cared  more  for  letters 
and  arts  than  for  religion,  authorized  the  publica 
tion  of  both  editions,  and  thus  unconsciously  pro 
moted  the  cause  of  Protestantism,  which  appeals  to 
the  Greek  Testament  as  the  highest  and  only  infalli 
ble  authority  in  matters  of  faith,  and  which  claims 
the  right  and  owns  the  duty  to  print  and  spread  the 
Word  of  God  in  every  language  on  earth.  The 
Jews  had  anticipated  the  Christians  by  publishing 
the  Hebrew  Bible  several  years  before  (in  1488  at 
Soncino  in  Lombardy,  and  again  at  Brescia,  1494). 

Dr.  Eeuss,  of   Strassburg,  who   is   in   possession 
of  the  largest  private  collection  of  editions  of  the 


then  only  in  manuscript.  The  first  edition  of  William  Tyndnle's  English 
New  Testament  was  printed  on  the  Continent  (partly  at  Cologne,  partly 
at  Worms)  in  1520,  secretly  smuggled  into  England,  and  burned  by  order 
of  the  bishop  of  London  (Tunstall)  in  St.  Paul's  churchyard,  not  far  from 
the  Oxford  Bible  Warehouse  in  Paternoster  Row  and  the  Bible  House  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  on  the  banks  of  the  Thames,  from 
which  thousands  and  millions  of  Bibles  in  all  languages  are  now  sent  to 
the  ends  of  the  earth.  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Warham)  bought 
a  large  number  of  copies  at  an  expense  of  nearly  a  thousand  pounds  sterling 
for  destruction,  but  thereby  furnished  the  translator  the  means  for  printing 
a  new  edition.  Hence  the  scarcity  of  the  first  edition,  of  which  only  two 
copies  and  a  fragment  survive.  Tyndale  "  caused  the  boy  who  driveth 
the  plough  to  know  more  of  the  Scriptures  than  did  all  the  priests"  of  his 
day.  See  Eadie,  History  of  the  English  Bible,  i.  129,  161,  173  sq.,  184. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   227 

Greek  Testament,  gives  a  chronological  list  of  584 
distinct  and  151  title  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa 
ment  (501  and  139  being  complete),  which  were 
printed  from  1514  to  1870.  He  divides  them  into 
twenty-seven  families.1  This  list  has  been  enlarged 
in  1882  to  the  number  of  919  by  Professor  Hall  (sec 
First  Appendix).  lie  estimates  the  total  number  of 
printed  copies  of  the  entire  Greek  Testament,  as  far 
as  he  can  trace  them,  on  the  basis  of  1000  to  each 
edition,  to  be  over  one  million.  A  large  number, 
and  yet  very  small  as  compared  with  that  of  the 
English  New  Testament,  of  which  the  American 
Bible  Society  alone  issues  nearly  half  a  million  of 
copies  every  year.2 

1  See  his  Bibliotheca  Novi  Test.  Greed  (1872),  and  Appendix  I.     Reuss 
classifies  his  editions  as  follows: 

I.  Editio  Complutensis;  II.  Editiones  Erasmicne;  III.  Editio  Compluto- 
Erasmica;  IV.  Editio  Colinaei ;  V.  Editiones  Stephanicae;  VI.  Editiones 
Erasmo-Stephanicje ;  VII.  Editiones  Compluto-Stephanicae;  VIII.  Edi 
tiones  Bezaiuc;  IX.  Editiones  Stephano-Bezanae ;  X.  Editiones  Stephano- 
riantinianse ;  XI.  Editiones  Elzevirianae;  XII.  Editiones  Stephano- 
ElzevirianjE ;  XIII.  Editiones  Elzeviro  -  Plantinianae ;  XIV.  Editiones 
criticae  ante-Griesbachianrc;  XV.  Editiones  Griesbachianaa ;  XVI.  Edi 
tiones  Matthaeianae;  XVII.  Editiones  Griesbachio-Elzevirianae;  XVIII. 
Editiones  Knappianae;  XIX.  Editiones  critics?  minores  post-Gries- 
bachianae;  XX.  Editiones  Scholzianse  (including  the  Bloomfield  and  the 
Bagster  editions,  London);  XXI.  Editiones  Lachmannianas ;  XXII.  Edi 
tiones  Griesbachio-Lachmannianrc;  XXIII.  Editiones  Tischendorfiansc : 
XXIV.  Editiones  mixtse  recentiores  (Theile,  Mnralt,  Reithmayr,  Anger. 
Wordsworth,  Hahn) ;  XXV.  Editiones  nondum  collatse;  XXVI.  Editi 
ones  dubiae;  XXVII.  Editiones  spuriae.  To  these  should  be  added  the 
Tregelles  editions;  the  Westcott  and  Hort  editions;  the  Oxford  and 
Cambridge  editions  of  the  Revisers'  text.  The  American  editions  (over 
eighty)  are  reprints  of  European  families,  mostly  of  the  textus  receptus 
and  its  derivatives. 

2  The  issues  of  the  New  Testament  in  English  from  the  Bible  House 


228      PRINTED   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

I  confine  myself  here  to  the  standard  editions, 
which  mark  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  textual  crit 
icism.  Compare  the  full  titles  and  specimen  pages 
in  the  Second  Appendix. 


I.  THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  TEXTUS  RECEPTTJS  :  FROM 
ERASMUS  AND  STEPHENS  TO  BENGEL  AND  WET- 
STEIN.— A.D.  1516-1750. 

THE    TEXTUS    RECEPTUS. 

This  period  extends  from  the  Reformation  to  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  text  of 
Erasmus,  with  various  changes  and  improvements 
of  Stephens,  Beza,  and  the  Elzevirs,  assumed  a  stere 
otyped  character,  and  acquired  absolute  dominion 
among  scholars.  No  two  editions  are  precisely 
alike,  any  more  than  the  editions  of  the  Authorized 
English  Version ;  but  all  present  substantially  the 
same  text.  The  changes  are  numerous,  but  rarely 
affect  the  sense.  The  Greek  Testaments  printed  in 
England  arc  usually  based  on  Stephens  and  Beza; 
those  on  the  Continent,  on  the  Elzevirs. 

The  Protestant  versions  of  the  sixteenth  and  sev 
enteenth  centuries  (German,  French, Dutch,  English) 
in  common  use  were  made  from  this  Erasmo-Elze- 


nt  New  York,  by  sale  and  donation,  for  successive  years  ending  with  the 
31st  of  March  (according  to  information  kindly  furnished  by  Dr.  Gilman. 
one  of  the  secretaries)  are  as  follows : 

12  months,  to  March  31,  1879,  458.385  copies. 
"         "         "  1880,  540,065      " 

"         "         «  1881,  491,105      « 

«         "         «          1882,  424,642      " 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   229 

virian  text,  and  gained  the  same  authority  among 
the  laity  which  the  former  enjoyed  among  scholars. 
Both  were  practically  considered  to  be  the  inspired 
Word  of  God,  and  every  departure  from  them  was 
looked  upon  with  distrust.  This  pious  superstition, 
although  gradually  undermined  during  the  present 
century,  still  lingers,  and  will  die  very  reluctantly; 
for  religious  prejudices  and  habits  are  exceedingly 
tenacious. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  not  bound  to  a 
particular  Greek  text,  but  holds  instead  with  even 
greater  tenacity  to  Jerome's  Vulgate,  which,  as  a 
translation,  is  still  further  removed  from  the  foun 
tain  of  inspiration,  though  based  in  part  on  an  older 
text  than  the  textus  receptus.  The  Council  of  Trent 
has  put  this  defective  version  even  on  a  par  with, 
and  virtually  above,  the  sacred  original,  and  thus 
checked  all  serious  progress  in  biblical  criticism  and 
exegesis.  Roman  Catholic  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament  are  behind  the  age,  and  mostly  mere  re 
prints  of  the  Compluterisian  text,  either  alone  or 
combined  with  the  Erasmian,  both  having  the  quasi- 
sanction  of  the  pope  (Leo  X.).  The  edition  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  scholar,  Scholz,  contains  a  vast  crit 
ical  apparatus,  but  has  no  ecclesiastical  sanction. 
The  only  duly  and  fully  authorized  Roman  Catholic 
Bible  is  the  Clementine  Yulgate,  and  that  needs  a 
thorough  critical  revision. 

ERASMUS. 

The  first  published  (not  printed)  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  is  that  of  the  famous  DESIDERIUS 


230   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

ERASMUS  (urged  by  his  enterprising  publisher,  Fro- 
benius,  who  offered  to  pay  him  as  much  "  as  any 
body  "),  at  Basle,  Switzerland,  1516,  fol. 

It  was  a  most  timely  publication,  just  one  year 
before  the  Information.  Erasmus  was  the  best 
classical  scholar  of  his  age  (a  better  Latinist  than 
Hellenist),  and  one  of  the  forerunners  of  the  Refor 
mation,  although  he  afterwards  withdrew  from  it, 
and  died  on  the  division  line  between  two  ages  and 
two  churches  (1536).  He  furnished  Luther  and 
Tyndale  the  text  for  their  vernacular  versions,  which 
became  the  most  powerful  levers  of  the  Reforma 
tion  in  Germany  and  England.1 

The  first  edition  was  taken  chiefly  from  two  in 
ferior  Basle  MSS.,  one  of  the  Gospels  and  one  of 
the  Acts  and  the  Epistles :  they  are  still  preserved 
in  the  University  library  at  Basle,  and  have  the 
corrections  of  Erasmus  and  the  marks  of  the  print 
er's  pas;es  (as  I  myself  observed  on  a  visit  in  18T9). 
They  date  from  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century. 
Erasmus  compared  them  with  two  or  three  others 
on  the  same  books.  For  the  Apocalypse  lie  had 
only  one  MS.,  of  the  twelfth  century,  borrowed  from 
Reuchlin,  then  lost  sight  of,  but  found  again  in 


''  The  Sorbonne  in  1527  condemned  thirty-two  articles  of  Erasmus 
extracted  from  his  works,  after  having  previously  forbidden  the  circula 
tion  of  his  Colloquia  in  France.  But  he  enjoyed  the  pope's  friendship  to 
the  last,  and  was  even  offered  a  cardinal's  hat,  which  he  declined  on 
account  of  old  age.  He  died  without  a  priest,  but  invoking  the  mercy 
of  Christ,  and  lies  buried  in  the  Protestant  Minster  of  Basle.  Comp.  on 
Erasmus  the  monographs  of  Mliller  (1828),  Drummond  (1873),  Gilly  (1879), 
and  the  article  "Erasmus"  by  Stiihelin  in  Herzog's  "Encykl.''  vol.  iv. 
278-290,  new  ed.  (abridged  in  Schaff's  "  Encycl."  i.  753). 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   231 

1861  ;  l  defective  on  the  last  leaf  (containing  the 
last  six  verses,  which  he  retranslated  from  the  Vul 
gate  into  poor  Greek).  Made  in  great  haste,  in  less 
than  six  months,  and  full  of  errors.  Elegant  Latin 
version,  differing  in  many  respects  from  the  Vulgate, 
with  brief  annotations.  Dedicated  to  Pope  Leo  X., 
who  is  reminded  of  his  duty  to  "  make  known  to 
the  Christians  again  the  commandments  of  their 
Master  out  of  the  evangelical  and  apostolic  writings 
themselves." 

Erasmus  prepared,  with  the  aid  of  OEcolampadius 
(the  friend  of  Zwingli  and  reformer  of  Basle),  in 
all  five  successive  editions,  with  improvements,  all 
Grseco-  Latin.  Second  edition,  1519  (the  basis  of 
Luther's  translation);  third,  1522;  fourth,  much  im 
proved,  152T;  fifth,  1535.  Besides,  more  than  thirty 
unauthorized  reprints  are  said  to  have  appeared  at 
Venice,  Strassburg,  Basle.  Paris,  etc. 

The  entire  apparatus  of  Erasmus  never  exceeded 
eight  MSS.  The  oldest  and  best  of  them  lie  used 
least,  because  he  was  afraid  of  it  —  namely,  a  cursive 
of  the  tenth  century,  numbered  1,  which  agrees 
better  with  the  uncial  than  with  the  received  text. 
He  also  took  the  liberty  of  occasionally  correcting 
or  supplementing  his  text  from  the  Vulgate  ;  and 
hence  in  more  than  twenty  places  his  Greek  text  is 
not  supported  by  any  known  Greek  MS. 

NOTE.—  Retiss  gives  the  titles  of  the  five  Erasmian  editions,  and  says 
(Biblioth.  p.  26)  that  they  vary  in  sixty-two  out  of  a  thousand  places 
which  he  compared.  Mill's  estimate  of  the  variations  (four  hundred  in 


1  By  Dr.  Delitzsch,  in  the  library  of  the  princely  house 
Wallerstein.    See  his  Handschriftliche  Funde,  Heft  i.  and  ii.,  18C1  and  1862. 


the  second  edition)  is  far  below  the  mark ;  see  Scrivener,  IntroJ.  p.  385. 
Of  the  first  edition,  Erasmus  himself  says  that  it  was  prepared  with  head 
long  haste  ^ prcedpitatum  fuit  verius  quam  editum"),  in  order  that  his 
publisher  might  anticipate  the  publication  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot. 
There  was  therefore  some  rivalry  and  speculation  at  work.  The  second 
edition  is  more  correct,  but  even  this  (as  Dr.  O.  von  Gebhardt,  in  his  Gr. 
Germ.  Test.,  p.  xvi.,  says)  contains  several  pages  of  errors,  some  of  which 
have  affected  Luther's  German  version.  The  third  edition  n'rst  inserted 
the  spurious  passage  of  the  three  witnesses  (1  John  v.  7),  "  e  codice  Brit  an- 
irico"  i.  e.,  from  the  Codex  Montfortianus  of  the  sixteenth  century;  but 
Erasmus  did  not  consider  it  genuine,  and  admitted  it  only  from  policv 
"tie  cui  furtt  unset  calumniandi."  The  Complutensian  Polyglot  had  it 
with  two  slight  variations.  The  fourth  edition  of  Erasmus  adds,  in  a 
third  parallel  column,  the  Latin  Vulgate,  besides  the  Greek  and  his  own 
version ;  it  has  also  many  changes  and  improvements  from  the  Complu 
tensian  Polyglot,  especially  in  Revelation.  The  fifth  edition  omits  the 
Vulgate,  but  otherwise  hardly  differs  from  the  fourth ;  and  from  these 
two,  in  the  main,  the  Textus  Receptus  is  ultimately  derived. 


THE    COMPLUTENSIAN    POLYGLOT. 

The  Complutensian  New  Testament  is  a  part  of 
the  Polyglot  Bible  of  Complutnm,  or  Alcala  de 
Ilenares,  in  Spain.  This  opus  magnum,  the  great 
est  of  the  kind  since  the  Ilexapla  of  Origen,  was 
prepared  under  the  direction  and  at  the  expense  of 
Cardinal  FRANCIS  XIMENES  DE  CISNEROS,  Archbishop 
of  Toledo,  Great  Inquisitor,  and  Prime-minister  of 
Spain,  and  published  in  1520,  with  papal  approba 
tion,  in  6  vols.  fol.1  The  work  was  begun  in  1502,  in 
celebration  of  the  birth  of  Charles  V.,  and  the  New 
Testament  was  completed  Jan.  10,  1514  (two  years 


1  See  a  full  account  of  the  University  of  Alcala,  founded  by  the  cardinal 
(1508),  in  Hefele's  Der  Cardinal  Ximenes,  Tubingen,  1844,  pp.  101  sqq., 
and  of  the  Polyglot,  pp.  120  sqq.  Also  in  Tregelles,  Account  of  the  Printed 
Text,  etc.,  pp.  1-19. 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   233 

before  the  issue  of  the  edition  of  Erasmus) ;  the 
fourth  volume  July  10, 1517  (the  year  of  the  Refor 
mation),  but  not  published  till  1520  or  1521  (four 
years  after  the  first  edition  of  Erasmus,  who  did  not 
see  the  Polyglot  till  1522),  and  three  years  after  the 
cardinal's  death  (who  died  1517,  at  the  age  of  eighty- 
one).  Pope  Leo  would  not  give  his  approbation  till 
March  22,  1520 ; '  even  then  there  was  some  delay, 
and  the  work  did  not  get  into  general  circulation 
before  1522. 

The  cardinal  desired  by  this  herculean  work  to 
revive  the  study  of  the  Bible,  which  was  so  deplora 
bly  neglected  before  the  Reformation.  Every  the 
ologian,  he  says,  should  draw  the  water  of  life  from 
the  fountain  of  the  original  text.  He  was  willing 
to  give  up  all  his  knowledge  of  civil  law  for  the 
explanation  of  a  single  passage  of  the  Bible.  He 
acquired  some  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Chaldee 
in  his  ripe  years.  lie  employed  for  the  Polyglot 
the  best  scholars  lie  could  get,  at  a  high  salary; 
among  them  three  converted  Jews.  The  most  emi 
nent  were  Lopez  de  Zufiiga  (Stunica,  or  Astunga, 
known  from  his  controversies  with  Erasmus),  De 
metrius  Dukas  of  Crete,  and  Nunez  de  Guzman. 
They  again  employed  pupils  and  scribes.  The  cost 
of  the  work  for  manuscripts,  salaries,  and  printing 
expenses  exceeded  the  enormous  sum  of  50,000 
ducats,  or  about  $150,000.  But  this  was  only 
one  fourth  of  the  cardinal's  annual  income.  "He 


1  This  is  the  correct  date ;  not  March  20,  1521  (as  Hug  gives  it).     See 
Hefele,  /.  c.  p.  142. 


231   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT. 

had   the   income   of  a  kin^   and    the   wants    of  a 


monk. 


Only  six  hundred  copies  were  printed,  and  sold 
at  6J-  ducats  per  copy;  so  that  the  total  sale  would 
not  have  refunded  the  twelfth  part  of  the  cost. 
Copies  are  exceedingly  rare  and  dear.  (See  the  fac 
simile  in  Append.  II.) 

The  New  Testament  forms  vol.  v.,  and  gives  the 
Greek  and  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  two  columns  (the 
Greek  being  broader),  with  parallel  passages  and 
quotations  on  the  Latin  margin.  The  chapters  are 
marked,  but  no  verses  (which  were  not  known  be 
fore  1551).  Several  prefaces  of  Jerome  and  other 
additions  are  appended,  among  them  five  Greek  and 
Latin  poems  in  praise  of  Ximenes.  The  second, 
third,  and  fourth  volumes  contain  the  Old  Testa 
ment  with  the  Apocrypha.  The  canonical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  given  in  three  languages: 
the  Latin  Vulgate  characteristically  holds  the  place 
of  honor  in  the  middle,  between  the  Greek  Septua- 
gint  and  the  Hebrew  original.  This  signifies,  ac 
cording  to  the  Prolegomena,  that  Christ,  i.  ^.,  the 
Roman  or  Latin  Church,  was  crucified  between  two 
robbers,  i.  e.,  the  Jewish  Synagogue  and  the  schis- 
matical  Greek  Church  ! 2  The  sixth  volume  contains 
lexica,  indexes,  etc. 

The  text  of  the  Xew  Testament  is  mostly  derived 


1  Hefele,  p.  126. 

2  Some  have  denied  that  Ximenes  wrote  this  preface,  since  he  elsewhere 
gave  the  preference  to  the  original  text.     Ilefele  (p.  136)  vindicates  it  to 
the  cardinal,  but  thinks  that  he  meant  only  to  disparage  the  Synagogue 
and  the  Greek  Church,  but  not  the  Hebrew  text  nor  the  Septuagint. 


FEINTED    TEXT    OF   THE    GKEEK   TESTAMENT.       235 

from  late  and  inferior  MSS.  not  specified,  and  not  de 
scribed  except  in  the  vague  and  exaggerated  terms 
"  very  ancient  and  correct"  (antiquissima  ct  emenda- 
ti8sima),a,nd  procured  from  Home,  for  which  Leo  X. 
is  thanked  in  the  Preface.1 

The  Complutensian  text  was  reprinted,  though 
not  without  some  changes,  by  Christopher  Plantin 
at  Antwerp  (1564:?  1573,  1574,  1584,  1590,  etc.),  at 
Geneva  (1609,  1619,  1620,  1628,  1632),  in  the  Ant 
werp  Polyglot  (edited  by  Spaniards  under  Philip  11., 
1571  and  1572),  in  the  great  Paris  Polyglot  (1630-33, 
in  the  ninth  and  tenth  volumes),  and  by  Goldhagen 
at  Mayence  (1753).  More  recently  it  was  carefully 
re-edited  by  P.  A.  Gratz  (Roman  Catholic  Professor 
at  Tubingen,  afterwards  at  Bonn),  with  changes  in 
the  orthography  and  punctuation,  and  with  the  Clem 
entine  Vulgate  (Tubingen,  1821 ;  2d  ed.  Mayence, 
1827;  3d  ed.  1851,  in  2  vols.),  and  by  Lcander  van 
Ess  (1827),  who,  however,  incorporated  the  text  of 
Erasmus  with  it.2  By  the  third  edition  of  Stephens 
it  is  to  some  extent  connected  with  the  textus  rc- 


1  On  the  textual  sources  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  see  Tregelles. 
/.  c.  pp.  12-18.     Hefele  (p.  132)  says,  the  Greek  text  of  the  Polyglot 
stands  there  without  any  authority,  as  if  it  were  fallen  from  heaven. 
Retiss  (B'Mloth.  pp.  16-24)  gives  a  list  of  the  readings  peculiar  to  this 
Greek  Testament.     The  great  Vatican  MS.  (B)  was  not  used. 

2  The  title  of  this  editio  Compluto-Erasmica  is  Novum  Test.  Gr.  et  Lot. 
expression  ad  binas  editiones  a  Leone  X.  P.  M.  adprobatus  Compliitensem 
scilicet  et  Erasmi  Roterod.,  with  the  Clementine  text  of  the  Vulgate  in 
parallel  columns,  and  readings  from  Stephens,  Matthsei,  and  Griesbach  in 
foot-notes.    Tubingne,  1827.     Leander  van  Ess  was  a  zealous  promoter  of 
the  study  of  the  Bible  among  Roman  Catholics.     His  invaluable  library 
was  acquired  for  the  library  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  New 
York  through  the  agency  of  Dr.  Edward  Robinson. 


236   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

ceptus  of  Protestants ;  but  in  its  original  shape  it 
may  be  called  the  Roman  Catholic  text,  as  far  as 
there  is  such  a  text. 

COLIN.EUS. 

SIMON  COLIX.EUS  (SIMON  DE  COLLIES),  a  printer  at 
Paris,  and  step -father  of  Robert  Stephanus,  pub 
lished  at  Paris,  1534,  a  Greek  Testament,  which  is 
in  part  an  eclectic  mixture  of  the  Erasmian  and 
Complutensian  texts,  but  contains  many  readings  in 
troduced  for  the  first  time  on  manuscript  authority.1 

STEPHANUS. 

The  editions  of  the  great  printer  and  scholar, 
ROBERT  STEPHANUS,  or  STEPHENS2  (1503-59),  were 
published  at  Paris  in  1546  and  1549,  16mo  (called, 
from  the  first  words  of  the  preface,  the  0  mirificam 
editions);  1550,  in  folio;  and  at  Geneva,  in  1551, 
16mo.  His  son  Henry  (1528-98)  collated  the  MSS. 
employed  for  these  editions,  which  were  greatly  ad 
mired  for  their  excellent  type,  cast  at  the  expense 
of  the  French  government. 

Stephens's  "royal  edition"  (editio  regid)  of  1550 
is  the  most  celebrated,  and  the  nearest  source  of  the 
textus  receptus,  especially  for  England.3  The  text 
was  mainly  taken  from  Erasmus  (the  editions  of 

1  See  Reuss,  p.  4C,  who  indicates  the  sources  of  Colinaeus.     His  edition 
was  not  reprinted,  and  was  superseded  by  the  editions  of  Stephanus. 

2  This  is  the  usual  English  spelling.     Stephen  or  Stephanus  would  be 
more  correct.     His  French  name  was  Estienne. 

3  Reuss  (p.  53) :  "  Est  ha>c  ipsa  editio  ex  qua  derivatur  quern  nostri 
textum  receptum  vulgo  vocant,  nomine  rei  minus  bene  aptato" 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   237 

1527  and  1535),  with  marginal  readings  from  the 
Complutensian  edition,  and  fifteen  MSS.  of  the 
Paris  library,  two  of  them  valuable  (D(2)  and  L),  but 
least  used.  It  was  republished  by  F.  H.  Scrivener, 
1859,  at  Cambridge;  new  edition  1877,  with  the 
variations  of  Beza  (1565),  Elzevir  (1624:),  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles.1 

The  edition  of  1551,  which  was  published  at 
Geneva  (where  Robert  Stephens  spent  his  last  years 
as  a  professed  Protestant),  though  chiefly  a  reprint 
of  the  Royal  edition  of  1550  in  inferior  style,  is  re 
markable  for  the  versicular  division  which  here  ap 
pears  for  the  first  time,  and  which  Robert  Stephens 
is  said  to  have  made  on  horseback  on  a  journey 
from  Paris  to  Lyons.2  The  edition  contains  the 
Greek  text  in  the  middle  of  the  page,  with  the 
Latin  Vulgate  on  the  inner  side,  and  the  Erasmian 
version  on  the  outer.  The  versicular  division  is 
injudicious,  and  breaks  up  the  text,  sometimes  in 
the  middle  of  the  sentence,  into  fragments,  instead 
of  presenting  it  in  natural  sections ;  but  it  is  con 
venient  for  reference,  and  has  become  indispensable 
by  long  use.  The  English  Revision  judiciously 
combines  both  methods. 

BEZA. 

THEODORE  DE  BEZE  (Beza,  1519-1605),  Calvin's 
friend  and  successor  in  Geneva,  and  the  surviving 

1  Nov.  Test,  textus  Stephanid  A .  D.  1550.     A  ccedunt  varies  lectiones 
editionum  Bezce,  Elzeviri,  Lackmanni,  Tischendorfti,  Treyellesii.     Ed.  nova 
et  emend.  Cantabr.  et  Lond.  1877,  IGmo. 

2  He  first  introduced  the  present  verse-division  into  his  edition  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate  of  the  whole  Bible,  in  1555  (not  1548). 


238   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

patriarch  of  the  Reformation,  prepared  four  folio 
editions  of  Stephens's  Greek  text,  with  some  changes 
and  a  Latin  translation  of  his  own,  Geneva,  1565, 
1582, 1588  (many  copies  dated  1589),  1598  (reprint 
ed  in  Cambridge,  1642).  lie  also  issued  several 
octavo  editions  with  his  Latin  version  and  brief 
marginal  notes  (1565,  1567,  1580, 1590,  1604). l  lie 
came  into  possession  of  two  bilingual  (Grseco-Latin) 
uncials  of  great  value,  D(i)  and  D(2)  (Cod.  Bezse,  or 
Cantabrigiensis,  for  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  Cod. 
Claromontanns  for  the  Pauline  Epistles),  but  made 
very  little  nse  of  them,  because  they  differed  very 
much  from  the  Erasmian  and  Stephanie  texts.  The 
time  had  not  yet  come  for  the  safe  operation  of  the 
art  of  textual  criticism. 

Beza  was  an  eminent  classical  and  biblical  schol 
ar,  and  enjoyed,  next  to  Calvin  and  Bullinger,  the 
greatest  respect  and  authority  in  the  Church  of 
England  during  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James 
I.  He  presented  Codex  D  to  the  University  of 
Cambridge  (1581),  and  received  in.  return  a  letter  of 
thanks  with  the  highest  compliments.2 


1  Boza  called  the  edition  of  15G5  the  second;  but  his  first,  1557,  was 
only  his  Latin  version  with  annotations,  for  which  he  cared  more  than 
for  the  Greek  text.     Scrivener  (fntrod.  2d  ed.  p.  390)  gives  1559  as  the 
date  of  the  first  edition ;  but  this  is  an  error;  see  Reuss,  Bibliolh.  pp.  72  sqq. 
Others  speak  of  an  edition  of  1576;  but,  this  was  edited  by  Henry  Stephens. 
For  a  description,  see  Masch's  Le  Long,  Bibl.  Sacra,  pars  i.  pp.  307-316. 

2  "  Nam  hoc  scito,  post  unices  Scriptures  sacratissimam  cognitionem,  radios 
nnquam  ex  omni  memoria  temporum  scriptores  extitisse,  quos  memorabili 
viro  Johanni  Cali'ino  tibique  prceferamus"     Dr.  Scrivener,  the  editor  of 
Cod.  D,  in  quoting  this  passage  (Introd.  p.  112),  makes  the  strange  re 
mark  that  this  veneration  for  Calvin  and  Beza  ';  boded  ill  for  the  peace  of 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   239 

His  editions  were  chiefly  used  for  the  Authorized 
Version  of  1611,  in  connection  with  the  two  last 
editions  of  Stephens.  This  fact  gives  to  them  a 
peculiar  historical  value. 

NOTK. — Beza  had  already,  by  his  Latin  version  and  notes,  suggested 
several  improved  renderings  to  the  authors  of  the  Geneva  Version  (1557 
and  15GO),  from  which  they  passed  into  King  James's  (as  in  Mark  xiv. 
72;  Luke  xi.  17;  Acts  xxiii.  27;  xxvii.  9;  James  i.  13);  but  also  some 
arbitrary  explanatory  or  harmonistic  corrections  of  the  text  (as  in  Luke 
ii.  22,  "Mary's  purification,"  or  "  her  purification,"  for  •'  their  purification  ;" 
Mark  xvi.  2,  "  when  the  sun  u-as  yet  rising"  or  "at  the  rising  of  the  sun," 
for  "when  the  sun  was  risen:"  Rev.  xi.  1,  "ami  the  angel  stood  saying," 
Kcti  o  ayytXof  €<0T///m,  for  "one  said,''  \iyiov  or  Xt'yti).  A  more  serious 
charge  has  been  inferred,  though  unjustly,  from  the  probable  influence  of  his 
predestinarianism  in  the  rendering  of  some  passages,  as  Matt.  xx.  23  (the 
insertion,  but  it  shall  be  gicen};  Acts  ii.  47  ("such  as  should  be  saved," 
which  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  TOVQ  aw^o^tvov(;,  but  it  is  the  rendering 
from  Tyndale  down,  and  the  Rhemish  Version  gives  likewise  the  future, 
"  them  that  should  be  saved  ") ;  Heb.  x.  38  ("  if  any  man  draw  back," 
"  SIQUIS  se  abduxerit,"  for  iav  wTroorei'Xfjrai).  This  charge  is  noi  well 
founded,  as  has  been  shown  by  Archbishop  Trench  in  his  treatise  on 
Revision.  Bcza  was  undoubtedly  the  best  cxegetical  scholar  on  the 
Continent  at  the  time  the  Authorized  Version  was  made,  and  his  in 
fluence  upon  it  was,  upon  the  whole,  very  beneficial.  "In  the  interpreta 
tion  of  the  text,"  says  Westcott,  "  he  was  singularly  clear-sighted ;  in 
the  criticism  of  the  text  he  was  more  rash  than  his  contemporaries  in 
proportion  as  his  self-reliance  was  greater.  But  though  it  is  a  far  more 
grievous  matter  to  corrupt  the  text  than  to  misinterpret  it,  the  cases  in 

the  English  Church.''  But  the  University  of  Cambridge  could  not  have 
bestowed  its  respect  on  worthier  men  at  that  time.  Even  Hooker,  who 
led  the  way  in  the  high-church  reaction  against  the  Reformation,  speaks 
in  most  appreciative  terms  of  John  Calvin  as  being  "incomparably  the 
wisest  man  that  ever  the  French  Church  did  enjoy"  (Laics  of  Ecclesias 
tical  Polity,  vol.  i.  pp.  158  sqq.,  ed.  Keble).  On  the  life  and  labors  of 
Beza,  see  the  works  of  La  Faye  (Gen.  1606),  Schlosser  (Meidelb.  1809), 
Baum  (Leipsic,  1843  and  1851),  and  Heppe  (Elberfeld.  1861);  also  the  art. 
"Beza"  in  Schaff's  Herzog,  vol.  i.  pp.  255-257. 


240   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

which  Beza  has  corrected  the  renderings  of  former  translators  are  incom 
parably  more  numerous  than  those  in  which  lie  has  introduced  false 
readings;  and,  on  the  whole,  his  version  is  far  superior  to  those  which 
had  been  made  before,  and  so,  consequently,  the  Genevan  revisions  which 
follow  it"  (Hist,  of  the  English  Jiible,  pp.  290,  297).  A  work  on  the  precise 
Greek  text  of  the  Authorized  Version,  as  far  as  it  can  be  ascertained,  was 
recently  edited  by  Dr.  Scrivener  (The  New  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek, 
according  to  the  Text  followed  in  the  Authorized  Version,  together  with  the 
Variations  adopted  in  the  Revised  Version,  Cambridge,  1881).  The  Ap 
pendix,  pp.  G48-65G,  gives  a  list  of  the  passages  wherein  the  Authorized 
Version  departs  from  the  readings  of  Bcza's  New  Test.  (1598).  This  list 
is  more  complete  and  more  correct  than  that  published  by  Dr.  Scrivener 
in  his  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible  (1873),  Introd.,  Appendix  K. 

ELZEVIR. 

The  brothers  BONAVENTURE  and  ABRAHAM  ELZE 
VIR,  enterprising  publishers  in  Holland,  issued,  with 
the  aid  of  unknown  editors,  several  editions  at  Ley- 
den,  1024,  1G33,  1641 ;  originally  taken  (not  from 
Stephens,  but)  from  Beza's  smaller  edition  of  1565, 
with  a  few  changes  from  his  later  editions.  Neatly 
printed,  and  of  handy  size,  they  were  popular  and 
authoritative  for  a  long  period.  The  preface  to 
the  second  edition  boldly  proclaims :  "  Textum  ergo 
hdbcs,  mine  ab  omnibus  rcccptum:  in  quo  nihil  im- 
mutatum  aid  corruptum  damns."  Hence  the  name 
teidus  rcccptm,  or  commonly  received  standard  text, 
which  became  a  part  of  orthodoxy  on  the  Con 
tinent;  while  in  England  Stephens's  edition  of  1550 
acquired  this  authority ;  but  both  agree  substantial 
ly.1  Erasmus  is  the  first,  Elzevirs'  editor  the  last 

1  Mill  observed  but  twelve  variations.  Tischendorf  (p.  Ixxxv.  Froleg. 
7th  ed.)  gives  a  list  of  150  changes;  Scrivener  (p.  392)  states  the  number 
as  287.  Most  of  these  variations,  however,  are  as  unimportant  as  the 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   2il 

author,  so  to  say,  of  the  textus  rcceptus.  All  the 
Holland  editions  were  scrupulously  copied  from  the 
Elzevir  text,  and  Wetstein  could  not  get  authority 
to  print  his  famous  Greek  Testament  (1751-52)  ex 
cept  on  condition  of  following  it.1 

WALTON'S  POLYGLOT. 

BRIAN  WALTON'S  Polyglot  Bible,  Lond.  1657,  6 
torn.  fol.  The  New  Testament  (torn,  v.)  gives  the 

variations  of  the  different  editions  of  King  James's  English  Version, 
which  number  over  20,000. 

1  For  a  history  of  the  Elzevir  family  and  a  list  of  their  publications,  see 
Les  Elzevier.  Histoire  et  A  nnales  typographiques,  par  ALPHONSE  WILLEMS, 
Brux.  et  Paris,  1880,  2  vols.  The  titles  of  the  first  two  editions  (1624  and 
1G33)  are  as  follows: 

H'  Kcnm}  Aia3/7/oj.  Novum  Testamentvm,  ex  Regijs  aUjsque  optimis 
editionibus  cum  curd  expressum.  Lvgdvni  Batavorvm,  ex  Officina  Elze- 
viriana.  do  ID  c  xxiv.  12mo,  or  24mo. 

("  Cede  edition  du  N.  T.  est  reputee  correct  e,  metis  die  a  etc.  ejfacee  par 
celle  de  1633."  Willems,  i.  98.) 

H'  Kan'r)  AiaSt'jKr).  Novum  Testamentum.  Ex  Regiis  aliisque  optimis 
editionibus.  hue  nova  expressum:  cui  quid  accesscrit,  Prcpfcitio  docebit.  Lvgd. 
Batavorvm,  ex  Officina  Elzeviriorum.  cl.)  la  c  xxxin.  12mo,  or  24mo. 

The  second  is  the  most  beautiful  and  correct  edition.  An  edition  was 
printed  by  the  Elzevirs  for  Whittaker  of  London  in  1633,  8vo,  with  notes 
of  Robert  Stephens,  Joseph  Scaliger,  Isaac  Casaubon,  etc.  It  was  also  is 
sued  at  Ley  den  with  anew  title-page  dated  1641.  Four  later  editions  (1G56, 
16G2, 1670, 1678)  were  printed  at  Amsterdam.  Dr.  Abbot  says  (in  Schaff's 
"Rel.  Encycl."  i.  274):  "The  text  of  the  seven  Elzevir  editions,  among 
which  there  are  a  few  slight  differences,  is  made  up  almost  wholly  from 
Beza's  smaller  editions  of  1565  and  1580  (IJeuss):  its  editor  is  unknown. 
The  textus  receptus,  slavishly  followed,  with  slight  diversities,  in  hun 
dreds  of  editions,  and  substantially  represented  in  all  the  principal  modern 
Protestant  translations  prior  to  the  present  century,  thus  resolves  itself 
essentiall}'  into  that  of  the  last  edition  of  Erasmus,  framed  from  a  few 
modern  and  inferior  manuscripts  and  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  in  the 
infancy  of  biblical  criticism." 

16 


242   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT. 

Greek  text  of  Stephens,  1550,  with  the  Latin  Vul 
gate,  the  Peshito  Syriac,  the  /Ethiopia,  and  Arabic 
versions.  In  the  Gospels  a  Persic  version  is  added, 
and  it  has  the  later  Syriac  version  of  the  five  books 
not  contained  in  the  Peshito.  Each  Oriental  ver 
sion  has  a  collateral  Latin  translation.  At  the  foot 
of  the  Greek  text  are  given  the  readings  of  Cod.  A. 
The  sixth  or  supplementary  volume  furnishes  a  crit 
ical  apparatus  gathered  from  sixteen  authorities  (in 
cluding  D(i)  and  D(2)  cited  as  "Cant."  and  "  Clar."), 
by  the  care  of  the  celebrated  Archbishop  Ussher 
(1580-1656),  who  had  been  appointed  a  member  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  but  never 
attended.  Walton  (1600-1661)  was  a  royalist,  dur 
ing  the  civil  war,  and  chaplain  to  Charles  L,  and  after 
the  Restoration  consecrated  bishop  of  Chester  (1661). 
But  the  Polyglot  was  published  under  the  patronage 
of  Cromwell,  who  allowed  the  paper  to  be  imported 
free  of  duty.  This  patronage  was  afterwards  dis 
owned  ;  hence  there  are  two  kinds  of  copies — the 
one  called  "republican"  (with  compliments  to  Crom 
well  in  the  preface,  but  no  dedication),  the  other 
"loyal,"  and  dedicated  to  Charles  II.1 


1  "Twelve  copies  were  struck  off  on  large  paper.  By  Cromwell's  per 
mission  the  paper  for  this  work  was  allowed  to  be  imported  free  of  duty, 
and  honorable  mention  is  made  of  him  in  the  Preface.  On  the  Restora 
tion  this  courtesy  was  dishonorably  withdrawn,  and  the  usual  Bible 
dedication  sycophancy  transferred  to  Charles  II.  at  the  expense  of  several 
cancels;  and  in  this,  the  'Loyal'  copy,  so  called  in  contradistinction  to 
the  '  Republican,'  Cromwell  is  spoken  of  as  'Maximus  ille  Draco.'  This 
is  said  to  have  been  the  first  work  printed  by  subscription  in  England." 
(Henry  Stevens,  The  Bibles  in  the  Caxton  Exhibition,  London,  1877, 
pp.  119  sq.)  Comp.  H.  J.  Todd's  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT.   24:3 

Brian  Walton  was  involved  in  a  controversy  with 
Dr.  John  Owen,  the  famous  Puritan  divine,  who 
labored  to  defend,  from  purely  dogmatic  premises, 
without  regard  to  stubborn  facts,  the  scholastic  the 
ory  that  inspiration  involved  not  only  the  religious 
doctrines  and  moral  precepts,  but  "every  tittle  and 
iota,"  including  the  Hebrew  vocalization,  and  that 
"  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  ~New  Testaments  were 
immediately  and  entirely  given  out  by  God  himself, 
his  mind  being  in  them  represented  unto  us  without 
the  least  interveniency  of  such  mediums  and  ways 
as  were  capable  of  giving  change  or  alteration  to 
the  least  iota  or  syllable."  J  To  this  Walton  re 
plied,  forcibly  and  conclusively,  in  The  Consider ator 
Considered,  London,  1659.  lie  maintained  that  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  as  a  certain  and  sufficient 
rule  of  faith,  does  not  depend  upon  any  human  au 
thority  or  any  human  theory  of  inspiration,  and  that 
Owen's  view  was  contrary  to  undeniable  facts,  and 
contrary  to  the  judgment  of  the  Reformers  and  the 
chief  Protestant  divines  and  linguists  from  Luther 
and. Calvin  down  to  Grotius  and  Cappellus.  "The 
truth  needs  not  the  patronage  of  an  untruth." 

Walton's  Polyglot  is  less  magnificent  than  the 

•/  C5  O 

Brian  Walton,  together  icith  tlie  Bishop's  Vindication  of  the  London  Poly- 
glott  Bible,  London,  1821,  2  vols. 

1  Of  the  Integrity  and  Purity  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Scriptures,  with 
Considerations  on  the  Prolegomena  and  Appendix  to  the  late  "  Biblia  Poly- 
glotta"  Oxford,  1659.  See  Owen's  Works,  edited  by  Goold  and  Quick, 
vol.  ix.  pp.  63-139.  His  theory  was  held  by  eminent  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  divines  in  the  seventeenth  century,  including  the  learned 
Buxtorfs  (father  and  son),  and  was  even  symbolically  endorsed  by  the 
'•Formula  Consensus  Helvetia,"  1675. 


FEINTED    TEXT    OF   THE    GKEEK   TESTAMENT. 

Antwerp  Polyglot  (Plantin.  1569-1573,  in  9  vols.), 
and  the  Paris  Polyglot  (Paris,  162S-1645,  in  10  vols.), 
but  more  ample,  commodious,  and  critical. 

MILL. 

JOHN  MILL'S  Novum  Testamentum  Grcecum,  Oxon. 
1T07,  fol. ;  often  reprinted,  especially  in  England. 
The  fruit  of  thirty  years'  labor.  The  text  is  from 
Stephens,  1550.  A  vastly  increased  critical  appa 
ratus,  gathered  from  manuscripts,  versions,  and  espe 
cially  from  patristic  quotations.1 

It  had  been  preceded  by  the  New  Testament  of 
Bishop  JOHN  FELL,  Oxford,  1675  ;  an  edition  "  more 
valuable  for  the  impulse  it  gave  to  subsequent  in 
vestigators  than  for  the  richness  of  its  own  stores 
of  fresh  materials"  (Scrivener,  p.  395). 

Mill  may  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  textual 
criticism.  He  did  not  construct  a  new  text,  but 
provided  a  large  apparatus  of  about  30,000  various 
readings  for  the  use  of  others.  He  expressed  the 
hope,  in  his  very  learned  Prolegomena  (p.  clxvii.  b), 
that  the  stock  of  evidence  at  the  foot  of  his  pages 
would  enable  the  reader  to  discover  the  true  read 
ing  in  almost  every  passage. 

BENTLEY. 

Proposed  edition,  1720.  Dr.  Richard  Bentley 
(1662-1742),  the  illustrious  classical  scholar  and 

1  See  the  list  of  Mill's  MSS.  in  Scrivener,  p.  398.  Kiister's  reprint  of 
Mill,  with  additions  and  improvements,  Amsterdam  and  Leipsic,  also 
Rotterdam,  1710,  deserves  to  be  mentioned.  Some  copies  are  dated  1723 
and  1746.  See  on  Mill  and  Kiister  the  Proleg.  of  Wetsteiu,  vol.  i.  pp.  176  sq. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   215 

critic,  made  extensive  and  expensive  preparations 
for  a  new  edition  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Testa 
ment.  He,  unfortunately,  failed  to  execute  his  de 
sign  ;  but  he  discovered  the  true  principle  which,  a 
century  afterwards,  was  reasserted  and  executed  by 
the  critical  genius  of  Lachmann. 

Bentley  proposed  to  go  back  from  the  textus  re- 
ceptus  to  the  oldest  text  of  the  first  five  centuries, 
hoping  that  "  by  taking  2000  errors  out  of  the 
Pope's  Yulgate  and  as  many  out  of  the  Protestant 
Pope  Stephens's,"  he  could  "  set  out  an  edition  of 
each  in  columns,  without  using  any  book  under  900 
years  old,  that  shall  so  exactly  agree  word  for  word, 
and  order  for  order,  that  no  two  tallies,  nor  two  in 
dentures,  can  agree  better." 

He  issued  his  Proposals  for  such  an  edition  in 
1720,  with  the  last  chapter  of  Revelation  in  Greek 
and  Latin  as  a  specimen.  The  scheme  was  frustrated 
by  an  angry  controversy  between  him  and  Conyers 
Middleton,  and  other  contentions  in  which  he  was 
involved,  by  his  unruly  temper,  at  Cambridge.  The 
money  paid  in  advance  (two  thousand  guineas)  was 
returned  to  the  subscribers  by  his  nephew,  whom 
he  made  his  literary  executor.  All  that  is  left  is  a 
mass  of  critical  material  in  the  library  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge,  including  the  collation  of  the 
Codex  Yaticanus,  which  was  transcribed  by  Woide 
and  edited  by  Ford  in  1799. 

Bentley  was  too  sanguine  in  his  expectations,  and 
too  confident  and  hasty  in  his  conclusions ;  but  his 
edition,  as  Tregelles  says,  "  would  have  been  a  valu 
able  contribution  towards  the  establishment  of  a 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

settled  text :  it  would  at  least  have  shaken  the 
foundations  of  the  tcxtns  receptus  j  and  it  might 
well  have  formed  the  basis  of  further  labors." 

After  Bentley's  death  active  interest  in  Biblical 
criticism  in  England  ceased  for  nearly  a  century,  and 
the  work  was  carried  on  mainly  by  German  scholars. 

BENGEL. 

JOIIANN  ALBRECIIT  BENGEL  (16S7-1752),  "Pra'l- 
at,"  or  Superintendent,  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  of  Wiirtemberg,  was  a  most  original,  pro 
found,  pregnant,  and  devout  commentator,  and  au 
thor  of  the  invaluable  Gnomon,  which  is  a  marvel  of 
midtiim  in  parvo.  He  edited  a  Greek  Testament 
at  Tubingen,  173^,  4to,  together  with  an  Apparatus 
Criticus,  containing  in  three  parts  critical  disserta 
tions.1 

Bengel  became  a  critic  from  conscientious  scru 
ples,  but  was  confirmed  in  his  faith  by  thorough 

t/  O 

research.  When  he  studied  theology  at  Tubingen, 
his  inherited  faith  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Bible  was  disturbed  by  the  thirty  thousand  varia 
tions  in  Mill's  Greek  Testament,  and  he  determined 
to  devote  several  years  to  the  study  of  the  text,  and 
at  last  to  prepare  a  new  edition,  lie  found  that  the 


1  A  small  octavo  edition  appeared  in  the  same  year  at  Stuttgart  with 
out  the  critical  apparatus.  For  an  account  of  his  biblical  labors,  see  the 
biography  written  by  his  great-grandson,  J.  Chr.  Fr.  Burk,  Dr.  Johann 
Albrecht  BengeVs  Leben  und  Wirken,  Stuttgart,  1831,  pp.  19  sqq.  and  200 
sqq.  Com  p.  also  Oskar  \Vtichter,  Bengel 's  Lebensabriss,  1865 ;  and  a  good 
article  by  Hartmann  and  Burk  in  Herzog's  "  Encykl."  vol.  ii.  pp.  295-301 
(abridged  in  Scbaff's  "  Rel.  Encycl."). 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   24:7 

variations  leave  the  evangelical  faith  intact.  His 
excellent  motto  in  biblical  criticism  and  exegesis 
was : 

"Tc  totum  applica  ad  textum, 
Kem  totam  applica  ad  te.'' 

lie  retained  the  received  text  except  in  the  Apoc 
alypse  (his  favorite  study),  but  noted  the  value  of 
the  variations  in  the  margin.  He  always  preferred 
the  more  difficult  reading.  Most  of  his  cautions 
changes  have  been  approved.  He  first  divided  the 
textual  witnesses  into  families ;  facilitated  the  meth 
od  of  comparing  and  weighing  the  readings ;  sug 
gested  true  principles  of  criticism ;  and  set  the  ex 
ample  of  recording  the  testimonies  for  and  against 
the  received  reading,  but  he  did  it  only  in  rare  in 
stances.  "  The  peculiar  importance  of  Bengel's 
New  Testament,"  says  Scrivener,1  "  is  due  to  the 
critical  principles  developed  therein.  Not  only  was 
his  native  acuteness  of  great  service  to  him  when 
weighing  the  conflicting  probabilities  of  internal 
evidence,  but  in  his  fertile  mind  sprang  up  the 
germ  of  that  theory  of  families  or  recensions  which 
was  afterwards  expanded  by  J.  S.  Semler,  and  grew 
to  such  formidable  dimensions  in  the  skilful  hands 
of  Griesbach." 

WETSTEIN. 

Jo.  JAC.  WETSTEIN  (1693-1754):  JVovum  Testa 
ment  um  Grcecum  Editionis  Reccptce  cum  Lectioni- 
bus,  etc.,  Arnstel.  1751-52,  2  torn,  fol.2  A  herculean 

1  Introd.  p.  403. 

3  His  family  name  was  Wettstein,  but  he  signed  himself  in  Latin  Wet- 
stenius ;  and  hence  English,  Dutch,  and  most  German  writers  spell  the 


248       PRINTED    TEXT    OF    THE    GREEK   TESTAMENT. 

and  magnificent  work  of  forty  years.  The  text  is 
mainly  from  the  Elzevir  editions,  with  some  read 
ings  from  Fell :  but  he  <jives  his  critical  iudffinent 

~  '  Jo 

in  the  margin  and  the  notes.  He  made  large  addi 
tions  to  the  apparatus,  and  carefully  described  the 
MSS.  and  other  sources  in  the  copious  Prolegomena, 
i.  1-222;  ii.  3-15,  440-454,  741-743.  His  edition 
contains  also  a  learned  commentary,  with  illustra 
tions  of  the  language  and  sentiment  from  Hebrew, 
Greek,  and  Latin  authors. 

Wetstein  was  far  inferior  to  Bengel  in  judgment, 
but  far  surpassed  him  in  the  extent  of  his  resources 
and  collations.  He  was  neither  a  sound  theologian 
nor  a  safe,  critic,  but  a  most  industrious  worker  and 
collator.  He  had  a  natural  passion  for  the  study  of 
MSS.;  made  extensive  literary  journeys ;  collated 
about  102  MSS.  (among  then/  A,  C,  and  D)  with 


name  Wetstein.  He  was  a  native  of  Basle,  in  Switzerland,  and  for  some 
time  assistant  pastor  of  his  father  at  St.  Leonhard's;  but,  being  suspected 
of  Arian  and  Socinian  heresy,  he  was  deposed  and  exiled  from  his  native 
city  (1730).  His  departure  from  the  iexlus  rcceplm  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16 
(3^o£),  in  favor  of  the  reading  o,  was  made  one  of  the  grounds  of  this 
charge.  In  the  inquisitorial  process  his  former  teachers,  Iselin  and  Frey, 
who  compared  the  Basle  MSS.  for  Bengel,  figured  as  his  accusers.  The 
Acta  were  published  at  Basle,  1730  (466  pages,  4to,  besides  preface).  He 
obtained  a  professorship  at  the  Arminian  College  at  Amsterdam  (1733), 
where  he  died,  March  2'2,  1754,  at  the  age  of  sixty-one.  His  colleague, 
J.  Krighout,  published  a  memorial  discourse  (Sermo  funebris),  which  pro 
voked  his  old  antagonist,  Frey,  to  a  new  attack  (Epistola  ad  J.  Krighout, 
Bas.  1754),  whereupon  Krighout  vindicated  his  memory  (Memoria  Wet- 
stcniana  Vindicate!,  Amst.  1755).  See  Hagenbach,  J.  J.  Wettstein  der 
Kritiker  und  seine  Gcyner,  in  Illgen's  "  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  hist.  Theologie," 
for  1839,  No.  1,  pp.  13  sqq.,  and  his  article  in  the  first  edition  of  Herzog's 
"Encykl."  vol.  xviii.  pp.  74-76. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   249 

greater  care  than  had  been  done  before,  and  intro 
duced  the  present  system  of  citing  the  uncials  by 
Latin  capitals  and  the  cursives  and  lectionaries  by 
Arabic  numerals.  His  Prolegomena  are  disfigured 
by  the  long  and  painful  history  of  his  controversy 
with  his  narrow  and  intolerant  orthodox  opponents, 
Iselin  and  Frey ;  he  depreciated  the  merits  of  Ben- 
gel  ;  his  text  is  superseded,  but  his  Kew  Testament 
is  still  indispensable  to  the  scholar  as  a  storehouse 
of  parallel  passages  from  the  ancient  classics  and 
the  rabbinical  writers.  Bishop  Marsh  calls  it  "  the 
invaluable  book." 

During  the  next  twenty  years  little  was  done  for 
textual  criticism.  JOIIANN  SALOMO  SEMLER,  the 
father  of  German  rationalism  (1725-91),  but,  in 
what  he  called  "  Privat-Frornmigkeit "  (personal 
piety),  a  pietist  and  an  earnest  opponent  of  deism, 
re -edited  Wetstein's  Prolegomena  with  valuable 
suggestions  (Halle,  1764),  and  stimulated  the  zeal 
of  his  great  pupil  Griesbach. 


II.  SECOND  PERIOD:  TRANSITION  FROM  THE  TEXTUS 
RECEPTUS  TO  THE  UNCIAL  TEXT.  FROM  GRIES- 
BACII  TO  LACHMANN. — A.D.  1770-1830. 

This  period  shows  enlarged  comparison  of  the 
three  sources  of  the  text,  the  discovery  of  critical 
canons,  a  gradual  improvement  of  the  text  us  rccep- 
tus,  and  approach  to  an  older  and  better  text ;  but 
the  former  was  still  retained  as  a  basis  on  a  pre 
scriptive  right. 


250       FEINTED    TEXT   OF   THE    GEEEK   TESTAMENT. 


GEIESBACII. 

The  period  is  introduced  by  the  honored  name  of 
JOIIANN  JACOB  GEIESBACII  (1745-1812),  Professor  of 
Divinity  at  Halle  and  then  at  Jena.1  lie  made  the 
study  of  textual  criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament 
his  life-work,  and  combined  all  the  necessary  quali 
fications  of  accurate  learning,  patient  industry,  and 
sound  judgment.  His  editions  (from  1775  to  1807) 
and  critical  dissertations  (Symbolce  Criticce,  1785-93 ; 
Commentarius  Criticus,  and  Meletemata  Critica, 
1798-1811)  mark  the  beginning  of  a  really  critical 
text,  based  upon  fixed  rules.  Among  these  are, 
that  a  reading  must  be  supported  by  ancient  testi- 


1  Gricsbach  was  the  son  of  a  Protestant  pastor  in  Hesse-Darmstadt ; 
educated  in  Tubingen,  Leipsic,  and  Halle,  -where  he  became  an  ardent 
disciple  of  Semler.  lie  travelled  in  France,  Holland,  and  England;  was 
appointed  professor  in  Halle,  1773,  and  called  to  Jena  in  1775,  where  he 
spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  usefulness  and  well-deserved  honor. 
Besides  his  critical  works  on  the  Greek  Testament,  he  published  little  of 
importance.  His  Opuscula,  edited  by  Gabler,  Jena,  1824-25,  in  2  vols.,  con 
sist  chiefly  of  university  programmes  and  addresses.  See  Augusti,  Ueber 
Griesbac/ts  Verdienste,  Breslau,  1812 ;  Reuss,  Itiblioili.  pp.  193-204,  and  his 
article  "Griesbach"  in  Herzog,  new  ed.  vol.  v.  pp.  430-432.  Dr.  Hort 
(Gr.  Test.  ii.  185)  venerates  his  name  "above  that  of  every  other  textual 
critic  of  the  New  Testament,"  and  pays  him  the  following  tribute  (ii.  181)  : 
"  What  Bengel  had  sketched  tentatively  was  verified  and  worked  out 
with  admirable  patience,  sagacity,  and  candor  by  Griesbach,  who  was 
equally  great  in  independent  investigation  and  in  his  power  of  estimating 
the  results  arrived  at  by  others.  .  .  .  Unfortunately  he  often  followed 
Semler  in  designating  the  ancient  texts  by  the  term  '  recension,'  and  thus 
gave  occasion  to  a  not  yet  extinct  confusion  between  his  historical  analysis 
of  the  text  of  existing  documents  and  the  conjectural  theory  of  his  con 
temporary,  Hug,  a  biblical  scholar  of  considerable  merit,  but  wanting  in 
sobriety  of  judgment." 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   251 

mony ;  tliat  the  shorter  reading  is  preferable  to  the 
longer,  the  more  difficult  to  the  easy,  the  unusual  to 
the  usual.  He  sifted  Wetstein's  apparatus  with 
scrupulous  care  ;  enlarged  it  by  collecting  the  cita 
tions  of  Origen,  and  utilizing  the  Old  Latin  texts, 
published  by  Bianchini  and  Sabatier;  improved  and 
developed  Bengel's  system  of  families,  classifying 
the  authorities  under  three  heads — the  Western  (D, 
Latin  versions,  fathers),  the  Alexandrian  (B,  C,  L, 
etc.,  a  recension  of  the  corrupt  Western  text),  and 
the  Con stan tin opolitan  or  Byzantine  (A,  flowing 
from  both,  and  the  mass  of  later  and  inferior  manu 
scripts)  ;  but  recognized  also  mixed  and  transitional 
texts,  decided  for  the  readings  of  the  largest  relative 
extent,  but  departed  from  the  Elzevir  text  only  for 
clear  arid  urgent  reasons.  His  critical  canons  are 
well-considered  and  sound ;  but  he  was  too  much 
fettered  by  his  recension  theory,  which  was  criticised 
and  modified,  but  not  improved,  by  Hug,  a  Roman 
Catholic  scholar  (1765-1846). 

Principal  editions,  Halle,  1775-77;  Halle  and 
London,  1796-1806,  2  torn.  Svo;  Leipsic,  1803-1807, 
4  torn.  fol.  (called  by  Renss,  p.  200,  "  editio  omnium 
quce  exstant  spcciosissima  " ) ;  reprinted,  London, 
1809  and  1818  (a  very  fine  edition) ;  an  improved 
third  edition  of  the  Gospels  by  David  Schnlz,  1827, 
with  Prolegomena  and  an  enlarged  apparatus  (but 
differing  from  Griesbach's  text,  as  Renss  says,  p.  200, 
only  in  two  places,  Matt,  xviii.  19  and  Mark  iv.  18). 

Griesbach's  text  is  the  basis  of  many  manual 
editions  by  SCHOTT,  KNAPP,  TITTMANN,  HAHN  (re- 
published  at  New  York  by  Dr.  Edward  Robinson, 


252   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

1842),  TIIEILE  (lltli  eel.  Leipz.  1875),  and  of  several 
English  and  American  editions.1 

While  Griesbach  was  engaged  in  his  work,  several 
scholars  made  valuable  additions  to  the  critical  ap 
paratus,  the  results  of  which  he  incorporated  in  his 
last  edition. 

MATTHJEI. 

C.  F.  MATTII^EI  (Professor  at  Wittenberg,  then  at 
Moscow;  d.  1811),  Griesbach's  opponent,  ridiculed 
the  system  of  recensions,  despised  the  most  ancient 
authorities,  and  furnished  a  text  from  about  a  hun 
dred  Moscow  MSS.,  all  of  Constantinopolitan  origin, 
to  which  he  attributed  too  great  a  value.  The  re 
sult  by  no  means  justified  his  pretensions  and  pas 
sionate  attacks  upon  others.  His  Nomim  Test.  Greece 
ct  Latine  (Vulg.)  was  published  at  Riga,  1782-88, 
12  vols.  Svo;  an  edition  with  the  Greek  text  only, 
in  3  vols.  Svo  (1803-7).  "  Matthsei  was  a  careful 
collator,  but  a  very  poor  critic;  and  his  manuscripts 
were  of  inferior  quality  "  (Abbot). 

The  Danish  scholars  BIRCH,  ADLER,  and  MOL- 
DENHAUER  collected,  at  the  expense  of  the  King  of 
Denmark,  a  large  and  valuable  amount  of  new  crit 
ical  material  in  Italy  and  Spain,  including  the  read 
ings  of  the  Vatican  MS.,  published  by  Birch,  1788- 
1801.  During  the  same  period  Codd.  A,  D,  and 
other  important  MSS.  were  published. 


1  Bloomfield's  editions,  London,  1832,  9th  cd.  1855,  are  only  in  part  based 
on  Griesbach  and  in  part  on  Scholz,  but  mostly  on  Mill.  He  censures 
Griesbach  for  "  his  perpetual  and  needless  cancellings,"  etc. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   253 

F.  C.  ALTER,  in  his  Greek  Testament  (Vienna, 
1786-87,  Svo),  gave  the  readings  of  twenty -two 
Vienna  MSS.,  and  also  of  four  MSS.  of  the  Slavonic 
version. 

The  new  discoveries  of  these  scholars  went  far  to 
confirm  Griesbach's  critical  judgment. 

SCIIOLZ. 

J.  M.  A.  SCIIOLZ  (a  pupil  of  Hug,  and  Roman 
Catholic  Professor  in  Bonn ;  d.  1852):  Novwn  Testa- 
mentum  Greece,  etc.,  1830-36,  2  vols.  4to;  the  text 
reprinted  by  Bagster,  London,  with  the  English 
version. 

Scholz  was  a  poor  critic,  but  an  extensive  traveller 
and  collator.  He  examined  many  new  Greek  MSS., 
written  after  the  tenth  century,  in  different  coun 
tries,  though  not  very  accurately,  and  gave  the 
preference  to  the  Byzantine  family,  as  distinct  from 
the  Alexandrian,  lie  frequently  departed  from  the 
received  text,  yet,  upon  the  whole,  preserved  it  in 
preference  to  that  of  the  Vulgate  (which  is  remark 
able  for  a  Roman  Catholic).  His  judgment  and 
ability  were  not  equal  to  his  zeal  and  industry, 
and  all  the  critics  who  have  examined  his  collations 
(Tischendorf,  Bleek,  Tregelles,  and  Scrivener)  charge 
him  with  a  great  want  of  accuracy. 

His  edition  has  found  much  more  favor  in  England 
than  in  Germany,  and  was  republished  by  Bagster 
in  London.1  It  marks  no  advance  upon  Griesbach. 


1  In  several  editions,  including  The  English  JJexapla  (wliich  gives,  with 
Scholz's  Greek  Testament,  the  versions  of  Wiclif,  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Gene- 


254      PRINTED    TEXT    OF   THE    GREEK   TESTAMENT. 

At  a  later  date  (1845)  Scliolz  retracted  his  prefer 
ence  for  the  Byzantine  text,  and  said  that  if  a  new 
edition  of  his  Greek  Testament  were  called  for,  he 
should  receive  into  the  text  most  of  the  "  Alexan 
drian"  readings  which  he  had  placed  in  his  margin. 

III.  THIRD  PERIOD:  THE  RESTORATION  OF  THE  PRIM 
ITIVE  TEXT.  FROM  LACIIMANN  AND  TISCIIEN- 
DORF  TO  WESTCOTT  AND  HORT. — A.D.  1830-81. 

LACIIMANN.1 

CARL  LACIIMANN  (Professor  of  Classical  Philology 
in  Berlin;  b.  1793,  d.  1851):  Novum  Testamentwn 
Greece  et  Latine,  Berol.  1842 -50, 2  vols.  Compare  his 
article  in  the  Studien  und  HEritiken,  1830,  No.  4, 
pp.  817-845.  Lachmann  had  previously  published 
a  small  edition  in  1831,  with  the  variations  of  the 
textus  reccptm  (Elz.  1624)  at  the  end.  In  the  larger 
edition  he  was  aided  by  the  younger  PHILIP  BUTT- 
MANN,  who  added  the  critical  apparatus  of  the  Greek 
text,  and  published  also  another  small  edition  based 
on  the  Vatican  MS.,  1856,  1862,  and  1865.  The 
Latin  text  of  the  Vulgate  is  derived  from  Codd. 
Fuldensis,  Amiatinus,  and  other  manuscripts. 

Lachmann  was  not  a  professional  theologian,  and 
not  hampered  by  traditional  prejudice.  He  was  a 

van,  Rhenrish,  and  King  James's),  and  a  pocket  ed.  of  the  Greek  Test, 
with  the  Authorized  Version  and  a  dictionary.  See  on  Bagster's  and 
Bloomfield's  editions  the  lists  in  the  first  Appendix,  and  in  Reuss,  fiib- 
liotheca.  235-238. 

1  See  his  Biography,  by  Hertz,  Berlin,  1851 ;  also  the  article  Bibdtext 
dcs  N.  T.9  by  O.  von  Gebhardt  in  Herzog,  Encykl.  (ed.  ii.),  ii.  425  sqq. 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   255 

classical  and  Teutonic  philologist,  and  gifted  with  a 
rare  faculty  for  textual  criticism.  He  distinguished 
himself  by  critical  editions  of  Propertius,  Catullus, 
Tibullus,  Lucretius,  Gaius,  the  Nicbelimgenlied^W&l- 
ther  von  der  Yogelweide,  and  Wolfram  von  Eschen- 
bach,  and  edited  Lessing's  complete  works.  He  was 
a  friend  of  Schleiermacher,  Liicke,  Bleek,  and  other 
eminent  theologians.  He  approached  the  task  of 
biblical  criticism,  like  Richard  Bentley,  with  the 
principles  and  experience  of  a  master  in  classical 
criticism.  His  object  was  purely  historical  or  diplo 
matic — namely,  to  restore  the  oldest  attainable  text, 
i.  c.  the  text  of  the  fourth  century,  as  found  in  the 
oldest  sources  then  known  (especially  in  Codd.  A,  B, 
C,  D,  P,  Q,  T,  Z,  Itala,  Yulgate,  ante-Nicene  fathers, 
especially  Irenseus,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Hilary  of  Poi 
tiers) ;  yet  not  as  a  final  text,  but  simply  as  a  sure 
historical  basis  for  further  operations  of  internal 
criticism,  which  might  lead  us  in  some  cases  still 
nearer  to  the  primitive  text,  lie  therefore  ignored 
the  printed  text  and  cursive  manuscripts,  and  went 
directly  to  the  oldest  documentary  sources  as  far  as 
they  were  made  accessible  at  his  time.  He  went 
also  beyond  the  Latin  Yulgate  to  the  Old  Latin. 
He  ranged  the  Greek  Western  uncials  on  the  Latin 
or  Western  side.  He  distinguished  only  two  types 
of  text— the  Oriental  (A,  B,  C,  Origen),  and  the  Occi 
dental  (D,  E,  G,  oldest  Lat.  Yerss.,  a,  b,  c,  Yulg.,  and 
Western  fathers  from  Irenseus  down  to  Primasius 
for  the  Apocalypse)  —  and  took  no  notice  of  the 
Byzantine  authorities.  As  his  text  was  intended  to 
be  preparatory  rather  than  final,  he  gave,  with  diplo- 


256   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

matic  accuracy,  even  palpable  writing  errors  if  suf 
ficiently  attested  ;  not  as  proceeding  from  the  orig 
inal  writers,  but  as  parts  of  the  textus  traditus  of  the 
fourth  century. 

His  range  and  selection  of  authorities  were  lim 
ited.  When  he  issued  his  large  edition,  the  Sinaitic 
manuscript  had  not  yet  been  discovered,  and  Cod.  13 
and  other  uncials  not  critically  edited.  But  to  him 
belongs  the  credit  of  having  broken  a  new  path,  and 
established,  with  the  genius  and  experience  of  a  mas 
ter  critic,  the  true  basis.  His  judgment  was  clear, 
sound,  and  strong,  but  at  times  too  rigid.  He  car 
ried  out  the  hint  of  Bentley  and  Bengel,  and  had  the 
boldness  to  destroy  the  tyranny  of  the  textus  reccptits, 
and  to  substitute  for  it  the  uncial  text  of  the  Nicene 
or  ante-Nicene  age.  His  chief  authority  is  B. 

Lachmann  met  with  much  opposition  from  the 
professional  theologians,  even  from  such  a  liberal 
critic  as  De  AVettc,  who  thought  that  he  had  wasted 
his  time  and  strength.  Such  is  the  power  of  habit 
and  prejudice  that  every  inch  of  ground  in  the 
march  of  progress  is  disputed,  and  must  be  fairly 
conquered.  But  his  principles  are  now  pretty  gen 
erally  acknowledged  as  correct.  Tischendorf,  Tre- 
gelles,  "Westcott  and  Hort,  build  on  his  foundation, 
but  with  vastly  increased  resources  and  facilities.1 


1  Tregellcs  says  (p.  99) :  "Lachmann  led  the  way  in  casting  aside  the 
so-called  textus  rcceptits,  and  boldly  placing  the  New  Testament  wholly 
and  entirely  on  the  basis  of  actual  authority."  Reuss  calls  him  (Biblioth. 
p.  239)  "  vir  doctissimus  et  KpmKwrarog."  The  conservative  Dr.  Scrivener 
(p.  422  sqq.)  depreciates  his  merits,  for  he  defends  as  far  as  possible  the 
traditional  text.  But  Dr.  Hort  (Or.  Test.  ii.  13)  does  full  justice  to  his 


PRINTED    TEXT    OF   THE    GREEK   TESTAMENT.        257 


TISCHENDORF. 
CONSTANTIN   VON   TlSCHENDORF   (ProfeSSOr  of  The- 

ology  at  Leipsic ;  b.  1815,  d.  1874) :  Novum  Testa- 
menturn  Greece,  etc.,  ed.  octava  critica  maior,  Lips. ; 
issued  at  intervals,  in  eleven  parts,  from  186-i  to 
1872,  2  vols.,  with  a  full  critical  apparatus.  A 
smaller  edition  (ed.  critica  minor)  in  one  vol.  gives 
the  same  text  with  the  principal  readings.  The 
best  manual  edition  of  Tischendorf,  with  the  read 
ings  of  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  is  by  OSCAR 
YON  GEBIIARDT:  Novum  Testamentum  Greece  Reccn- 
sionis  Tischendorfianw  ultimo®  Textum  cum  Tre- 
gellesiano  et  Westcottio  -  Tlortiano  contulit  et  brevi 
adnotatione  critica  additisque  locis  parallelis  illus- 
tramt  O.  DE  G.  Ed.  stereot.  Lipsise,  1881.  The 
same  text  appeared  also  with  Luther's  revised  Ger 
man  version,  Leipz.  1881  (Bernh.  Tauchnitz). 

Tischendorf  is  by  far  the  most  industrious,  enter 
prising,  and  successful  textual  critic  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  He  may  be  called  the  Columbus  of  the 
textual  department  in  the  New  Testament  litera- 

memory:  "A  new  period  began  in  1831,  when  for  the  first  time  a  text 
was  constructed  directly  from  the  ancient  documents  without  the  inter 
vention  of  any  printed  edition,  and  when  the  first  systematic  attempt  was 
made  to  substitute  scientific  method  for  arbitrary  choice  in  the  discrimina 
tion  of  various  readings.  In  both  respects  the  editor,  Lachmann,  rejoiced 
to  declare  that  he  was  carrying  out  the  principles  and  unfulfilled  inten 
tions  of  Bentley,  as  set  forth  in  1716  and  1720."  Abbot  says  of  Lach 
mann  (in  Schaff 's  Relig.  Encyd.  i.  275) :  "  He  was  the  first  to  found  a 
text  wholly  on  ancient  evidence;  and  his  editions,  to  which  his  eminent 
reputation  as  a  critic  gave  wide  currency,  especially  in  Germany,  did 
much  toward  breaking  down  the  superstitious  reverence  for  the  textus 
receptus" 


258   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GEEEK  TESTAMENT. 

ture.  His  working  power,  based  on  vigorous  health 
and  a  hopeful  temperament,  was  amazing.  lie  had 
the  advantage  of  the  liberal  support  of  the  Saxon, 
and  afterwards  of  the  Russian,  government  in  his 
expensive  journeys  and  publications.  lie  began  his 
preparations  for  a  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  text 
of  the  New  Testament  in  1839  and  1840,  and  was 
appointed  to  a  chair  of  theology  in  the  University 
of  Leipsic  in  18-13.  He  was  stimulated  by  the  in 
dustry  of  Scholz  and  by  the  principles  of  Lachmann, 
and  aimed  at  a  text  based  on  the  oldest  authorities 
from  the  fourth  to  the  sixth  century.  lie  visited 
the  principal  libraries  of  Europe  in  search  of  docu 
ments;  made  repeated  journeys  to  France,  England, 
Turkey,  and  three  to  the  Orient  (1844,  1853,  and 
1859) ;  discovered,  collated,  copied,  and  edited  many 
most  important  MSS.  (especially  x,  B,  B(2),  C,  D(2), 
E(2),  L);  and  published,  between  1841  and  1873,  no 
less  than  twenty-four  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa 
ment  (including  the  reissues  of  his  stereotyped  editio 
acadcmica).  Four  of  these — issued  1841, 1849, 1859 
(editio  septima  critica  major),  and  1872  (ed.  octavo) 
—mark  a  progress  in  the  acquisition  of  new  mate 
rial.  His  editions  of  the  texts  of  biblical  manuscripts 
(including  some  of  the  Septuagint)  embrace  no  less 
than  seventeen  large  quarto  and  five  folio  volumes, 
besides  the  Anecdota  Sacra  et  Prof  ana  (1855,  new  ed. 
1861),  etc.,  and  the  catalogue  of  his  publications,  most 
of  them  relating  to  biblical  criticism,  covers  more 
than  twelve  octavo  pages  in  Gregory'B  Prolegomena.1 


1  Statement  of  Dr.  Abbot  in  Schaff's  Relig.  Encycl  i.  27G. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT.   259 

Tischendorf  started  from  the  basis  of  Lachmann, 
but  with  a  less  rigorous  application  of  his  principle, 
and  with  a  much  larger  number  of  authorities.  He 
intended  to  give  not  only  the  oldest,  but  also  the 
best,  text,  with  the  aid  of  all  authorities.  His  judg 
ment  was  influenced  by  subjective  considerations  and 
a  very  impulsive  temper;  hence  frequent  changes  in 
his  many  editions,  which  he  honestly  confessed,  quot 
ing  Tischendorf  versus  Tischendorf,  but  they  mark 
the  progress  in  the  range  of  his  resources  and 
knowledge.  In  the  first  volume  of  his  seventh 
critical  edition  (1859)  he  showed  a  more  favorable 
leaning  towards  the  received  text  as  represented  by 
the  cursives  and  later  uncials ;  but  he  soon  found 
out  his  mistake,  and  returned  in  the  second  volume 
to  the  older  uncial  text.  Soon  afterwards  followed 
his  crowning  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic  manuscript 
at  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of  Legislation  (1859),  a 
closer  examination  of  the  Vatican  manuscript  (1866), 
and  the  acquisition  of  other  valuable  material.  His 
resources  far  exceeded  those  at  the  disposal  of 
any  former  editor,  and  were  all  utilized  in  his 
eighth  arid  last  critical  edition,  completed  in  1872. 
Here  he  shows  a  decided,  though  by  no  means 
blind,  preference  for  his  favorite  Sinaitic  and  other 
uncial  manuscripts  of  the  oldest  date.  His  crit 
ical  apparatus  and  digest  below  the  text  is  the 
richest  now  extant,  and  will  not  soon  be  super 
seded.  The  edition  of  1859  differs  from  that  of 
1849  in  1296  places,  595  of  them  being  misim- 
provements  in  favor  of  the  textus  receptus  /  the 
edition  of  1872  differs  from  the  one  of  1859  in 


260   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

3369  places,  mostly  in  favor  of  the  oldest  uncial 
text.1 

Unfortunately  lie  did  not  live  to  prepare  the  in 
dispensable  Prolegomena  to  his  edition,  which  were 
to  give  a  full  description  of  his  critical  material 
and  a  key  to  the  multitudinous  and  at  times  almost 
hieroglyphic  abbreviations,  together  with  such  a  list 
of  Addenda  and  Emendanda  as  might  be  suggested 
by  his  own  further  researches  and  the  labors  of  other 
scholars.  For  in  such  a  vast  forest  of  quotations 
numerous  errors  must  be  expected.  A  stroke  of 
apoplexy  (May  5,  1873),  followed  by  paralysis  and 
death  (Dec.  7, 1874),  arrested  his  labors,  and  termi 
nated  a  career  of  indomitable  industry  and  great 
usefulness. 

The  preparation  of  the  critical  Prolegomena  was, 
after  some  delay,  intrusted  in  1876  to  an  American 
scholar  residing  at  Leipsic,  Dr.  CASPAR  RENE  GREG 
ORY,  who  with  the  efficient  aid  of  Dr.  EZRA  ABBOT, 
of  Cambridge,  Mass.,  has  nearly  finished  this  delicate 
and  difficult  task  of  completing  the  noblest  monu 
ment  of  German  scholarship  in  the  line  of  textual 
criticism.2 

Thus  America,  which  has  none  of  the  ancient 
manuscript  treasures  of  the  Bible,  is  permitted  to 


1  Scrivener,  Introd.  p.  470,  made  the  last  calculation  to  the  disparage 
ment  of  Tischendorf ;    O.  von  Gebhardt,  I.  c.  vol.  ii.  431  sq.,  gives  both 
figures  to  his  credit  as  showing  his  willingness  to  progress  in  the  right 
direction  and  to  learn  from  new  sources  of  information. 

2  The  Prolegomena  will  be  published  probably  early  in  the  year  1883. 
I  regret  that  I  could  make  no  use  of  them  for  this  work.    I  have  only  seen 
a  few  proof-sheets. 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   261 

take  a  share  in  the  great  and  noble  work  of  restor 
ing  the  oldest  and  purest  text  of  the  Book  of  books. 

NOTE. — Compare,  on  the  discovery  of  Cod.  Sinaiticus,  p.  108  sqq. ;  and 
on  the  life  and  labors  of  Tischendorf,  besides  his  own  numerous  works, 
the  following  publications :  J.  E.  Volbeding,  Constantin  Tischendorf  in 
seiner  Id-jahrigenschrifistellerischen  Wirksamkeit,  Leips.  1862;  Dr.  Abbot's 
article  on  Tischendorf  in  the  Unitarian  Review  for  March,  1875;  Dr.  Greg 
ory's  article  in  the  Biblioiheca  Sacra  for  January,  1876;  Dr.  Von  Gebhardt 
in  Herzog's  Encyli.  (new  ed.  1878).  vol.  ii.  429  sqq.;  and  for  his  moral 
and  religious  character,  the  addresses  of  his  pastor,  Dr.  Ahlfeld,  and  his 
colleagues,  Drs.  Kahnis  and  Luthardt,  Am  Sarye  und  Grabe  Tischendorf '&•, 
with  a  list  of  his  writings,  Leips.  1874.  These  addresses  bring  into  prom 
inence  his  noble  qualities,  which  were  somewhat  concealed  to  the  superficial 
observer  by  a  skin  disease — his  personal  vanity  and  overfondness  for  his 
many  and  well-earned  titles  (covering  ten  lines  on  the  title-pages  of  some 
of  his  books),  and  twenty  or  more  decorations  from  sovereigns  which 
were  displayed  in  his  parlor.  He  was  a  sincere  believer  in  the  truth  of 
the  Bible  and  the  Lutheran  creed.  He  regarded  himself  as  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  Providence  for  the  discovery  and  publication  of  docu 
mentary  proofs  for  the  vindication  of  the  original  text  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  and  to  God  he  ascribed  the  glory,  "/j'ei  allem"—lie  says,  in  self- 
defence  against  a  malignant  attack  (  Wajfen  der  Finslerniss,  p.  28)—"  was 
mir  yelungen  in  der  Fremde  icie  in  der  Heimath.  beim  unermiidlichen  ent- 
behrungsvollen  Wandern  durch  Lander  und  Vulker,  Wiisten  und  Meere,  unter 
den  mannigfaltigsten  Erfahrungen  und  Gefahren,  unter  Arbeiten  bei  Tag 
und  Nacht,  war  ich  freilich  von  yanzer  Seele  gliicHich  mich  des  Herrn 
riihmen  zu  konnex,  des  Herrn  der  in  dem  Schwachen  mdchtig  gewesen.  Und 
dieses  Riihmen,  trotz  Neider,  Spotter  und  Verleumder,  soil  mir  denn  auch 
bleiben  mein  Lebelany,  bis  an  des  Lebens  letzten  A  themzug.  '  0  dass  ich 
tausend  Zungen  hdtte  und  einen  tausendfachen  Mund:  so  stimmt'1  ich  damit 
in  die  Wette  vom  allertiefsten  Herzensgrund  ein  Loblied  nach  dem  andern 
an,  von  dem  was  Gott  an  mir  gethan."1 " 

Tischendorf  did  good  service  to  the  cause  of  evangelical  truth  by  his 
able  vindication  of  the  genuineness  of  our  canonical  Gospels  against  the 
attacks  of  modern  scepticism  (especially  Strauss  and  Renan),  in  his  tract, 
When  were  our  Gospels  written?  (1865).  It  was  translated  into  all  the 
languages  of  Europe,  and  had  an  immense  circulation  and  considerable 
weight  as  coming  from  one  who  had  the  most  extensive  knowledge  of  the 
oldest  documentary  sources  of  the  New  Testament,  which  he  summoned 


262   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

as  witnesses  for  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Gospels.  One  of  his  last 
public  acts  was  the  noble  part  he  took  in  the  united  deputations  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  to  the  Russian  Czar  and  Prince  Gortschakoff,  at 
Friedricbshafen,  in  behalf  of  the  persecuted  Lutherans  in  the  Baltic 
provinces,  in  1871.  I  was  brought  into  close  personal  contact  with  him 
on  that  occasion,  and  I  know  his  zeal  for  the  cause  at  the  risk  of  his 
popularity  at  the  Russian  court.  The  Archduke  Constantine,  who  was 
with  the  emperor,  expressed  his  great  surprise  that  he  should  have  joined 
the  deputation  and  remonstrance.  (See  Report  of  the  Alliance  Deputation 
in  be.half  of  Reliyions  Liberty  in  Russia,  New  York,  1871.)  In  view  of  this 
participation,  and  his  eminent  services  to  the  cause  of  biblical  learning,  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  of  the  United  States  invited  Dr.  Tischendorf  to  the 
General  Conference  at  New  York  in  1873,  and  sent  him  free  tickets  for  the 
voyage,  which  he  gratefully  accepted.  He  offered  to  prepare  and  read  a 
paper  on  the  "Influence  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  on  the  Formation  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Mariology  and  Mariolatry."  He  had  already  engaged 
passage  for  himself  and  one  of  his  sons  in  a  Bremen  steamer,  when  a  fatal 
stroke  of  apoplexy  confined  him  to  his  home.  He  would  have  been  treated 
with  great  respect  and  kindness  in  America,  and  I  had  to  decline  a  number 
of  competing  invitations  for  his  hospitable  entertainment  during  the  con 
ference.  I  may  also  mention,  as  a  mark  of  his  interest  in  America,  that 
he  had  promised  to  prepare  a  special  American  Grseco-Latin  edition  of  his 
last  recension  of  the  Greek  Testament,  with  a  limited  critical  apparatus 
such  as  I  thought  would  best  answer  the  wants  of  the  American  student. 
He  actually  began  the  work  in  1872,  and  finished  about  fifty  pages,  which 
were  set  in  type.  It  was  probably  his  last  literary  work.  His  death 
prevented  the  execution. 


TREGELLES. 

SAMUEL  PRIDEAUX  TREGELLES  (b.  Jan.  30,  1813, 
d.  April  24,  1875):  The  Greek  New  Testament, 
edited  from  Ancient  Authorities,  with  the  Latin  Ver 
sion  of  Jerome  from  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  London ; 
issued  in  parts  from  1857  to  1879,  4to.  He  had 
previously  edited  The  Book  of  Revelation  in  Greek, 
with  a  New  English  Version  and  Various  Readings, 
London,  1844,  and  issued  a  Prospectus  for  his  Greek 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT.   263 

Testament  in  184S.1  He  was  of  Quaker  descent,  and 
associated  for  a  time  with  the  "Plymouth  Brethren/' 
He  was  very  poor,  but  in  his  later  years  he  received 
a  pension  of  £200  from  the  civil  list.  His  Greek 
Testament  was  published  by  subscription. 

Dr.  Tregelles  has  devoted  his  whole  life  to  this 
useful  and  herculean  task,  with  a  reverent  and  de 
vout  spirit  similar  to  that  of  Bengel,  and  with  a 
perseverance  and  success  which  rank  him  next  to 
Tischendorf  among  the  textual  critics  of  the  present 
century.  He  entered  upon  his  work  with  the  con 
viction,  as  lie  says,2  that  "the  New  Testament  is  not 
given  us  merely  for  the  exercise  of  our  intellectual 
faculties,"  but  "  as  the  revelation  of  God,  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  teach  the  way  of  salvation 
through  faith  in  Christ  crucified."  His  belief  in 
verbal  inspiration  made  him  a  verbal  critic.  He 
visited  many  libraries  in  Europe  (in  1845, 1849,  and 
1862),  collated  the  most  important  uncial  and  cursive 
MSS.,  and  published  (1861)  the  palimpsest  Codex 
Zacynthius  ( &  on  Luke ).  He  was  far  behind 
Tischendorf  in  the  extent  of  his  resources,  but 
more  scrupulously  accurate  in  the  use  of  them.3 

1  Dr.  Tregelles  (pronounced  Tre-ghel'les)  wrote  also  An  Account  of  the 
Printed  Text  of  the  Gr.  New  Test.  (1854),  and  an  Introd.  to  the  Textual 
Criticism  of  the  New  Test.,  for  the  10th  edition  of  Home's  Introd.  (vol.  iv., 
also  issued  separately).    These  two  excellent  works  supply  to  some  extent 
the  place  of  his  Prolegomena.     He  contributed  many  articles  for  Kitto's5 
Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  made  a  translation  of  Gesenius's  Hebrew  and 
Chaldee  Lexicon  (1847),  and  aided  in  several  useful  biblical  publications. 

2  See  his  Preface  to  10th  edition  of  Home's  Introd.  vol.  iv.  p.  xiii.,  dated 
Plymouth,  Sept.  18,  1856. 

8  Dr.  Scrivener  remarks  (p.  431) :  "  Where  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles 


264:   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

He  followed  Lachmann's  principle,  but  gives  a  full 
er  critical  apparatus.  He  ignores  the  received  text 
and  the  great  mass  of  cursive  MSS.  (except  a  few), 
and  bases  his  text  on  the  oldest  uncial  MSS.,  the 
Versions  down  to  the  seventh  century,  and  the  early 
fathers,  including  Eusebius.  Within  these  limits  he 
aims  at  completeness  and  accuracy  in  the  exhibition 
of  evidence. 

He  left  behind  him  a  monumental  work  of  pains 
taking,  conscientious,  and  devout  scholarship.  But 
it  needs  to  be  corrected  and  supplemented  from  the 
Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  the  critical  edition  of  the 
Codex  Yaticanus,  which  he  was  not  permitted  to 
collate  jn  Home  by  the  jealous  authorities.1  Like 
Tischendorf,  he  was  prevented  from  completing  his 
work,  and  was  struck  down  by  paralysis  while  en 
gaged  in  concluding  the  last  chapters  of  Revelation 
(in  1870).  He  never  recovered,  and  could  not  take 
part  in  the  labors  of  the  English  Revision  Commit 
tee,  of  which  he  was  appointed  a  member.  The 
Prolegomena  with  Addenda  and  Corrigenda  were 

differ"  (in  collation),  "the  latter  is  seldom  in  the  wrong."  Dr.  Abbot 
(in  Schaff's  "Encycl."  i.  277):  "In  many  cases  Tregelles  compared  his 
collations  with  those  of  Tischendorf,  and  settled  the  differences  by  a  re- 
examination  of  the  manuscript."  See  Dr.  Hort's  notice  of  Tischendorf 
and  Tregelles  in  the  "  Journal  of  Philology  "  for  March,  1858. 

1  The  Gospels  were  printed  1857  and  1860,  before  the  publication  of  X 
(which  he  first  inspected  in  Tischendorf 's  house  at  Leipsic  in  1862),  and 
the  printing  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  had  begun  in  1865,  before  Vercel- 
lone's  edition  of  B  (which  appeared  in  1868).  Tregelles  retained  a  number 
of  traditional  misreadings  of  B.  O.  von  Gebhardt  mentions  as  examples, 
Mark  iii.  1,  ijv  (which  B  does  not  omit) ;  xiii.  7,  aKovtrt  (B,  aKOvrjre)  • 
xiii.  21,  tiTnj  vulv  (B  has  vptv  £<TTA/).  See  the  long  list  of  corrections  in 
the  Appendix. 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   265 

compiled  and  edited  in  a  supplementary  volume 
four  years  after  bis  death  by  Dr.  Hort  and  Ilev.  A. 
W.  Streane,  1879. 

NOTE. — TREGELLES  and  TISCHENDORF.  The  relation  of  these  two 
eminent  critics  to  each  other  is  very  well  stated  by  Dr.  O.  von  Gebhardt 
in  his  article  Bibeltext  (in  the  new  edition  of  Herzog's  "Encykl."  vol.  ii. 
p.  428  sq.) :  "  The  justly  censured  want,  in  the  labors  of  Lachmann  and  his 
predecessors,  of  a  secure  basis  for  the  settlement  of  the  New  Testament 
text,  must  first  of  all  be  supplied;  the  familiar  ancient  witnesses  must  be  ex 
amined  in  a  far  more  conscientious  method  than  had  hitherto  been  done, 
before  any  further  progress  could  be  thought  of.  To  this  problem,  during 
the  last  decades,  two  men  of  chief  prominence  have  applied  their  whole 
strength — Tischendorf  and  Tregelles.  Both  were  in  like  measure  equipped 
•with  the  requisite  qualities — sharp-sightedness  and  an  accuracy  that  gave 
heed  to  the  smallest  particulars;  and  both,  with  their  whole  soul,  fixed 
their  eyes  upon  the  goal  set  before  them,  and  strove  with  like  zeal  to 
reach  it.  That  it  was  not  their  lot  to  attain  equal  success,  lay  in  the  fact 
that  Tischendorf  was  much  more  enterprising,  more  keen-eyed  for  new 
discoveries,  and  far  better  favored  by  fortune.  But  the  success  which 
each  of  them  reached,  at  the  same  time,  is  so  great  that  they  leave  far 
behind  them  everything  that  had  been  hitherto  done  in  this  realm.  In 
the  toilsome  work  of  collating  manuscripts  and  deciphering  palimpsests, 
both  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  spent  many  years  of  their  life,  being 
thoroughly  persuaded  that  the  restoration  of  the  New  Testament  text 
could  be  striven  for  with  success  only  upon  the  basis  of  a  diplomatically 
accurate  investigation  of  the  oldest  documents.  But  while  it  was  Tischen- 
dorf's  peculiarity  to  publish  in  rapid  succession  the  swiftly  ripened  fruits 
of  his  restless  activity,  and  so  to  permit  his  last  result  to  come  into  exist 
ence,  so  to  speak,  before  the  eyes  of  the  public,  Tregelles  loved  to  fix  his 
full  energy  undisturbed  upon  the  attainment  of  the  one  great  aim,  and  to 
come  into  publicity  only  with  the  completest  which  he  had  to  offer.  So 
we  see  Tischendorf  editing  the  New  Testament  twenty  times  within  the 
space  of  thirty  years,  not  to  mention  his  other  numerous  publications; 
while  Tregelles  did  not  believe  that  he  could  venture  on  the  publication 
of  the  only  edition  of  the  New  Testament  which  we  possess  from  him,  until 
after  a  twenty  years'  preparation.  It  is,  however,  a  tragic  fate,  and  an 
irreparable  loss  for  science,  that  to  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  was  it 
vouchsafed  to  crown  the  toilsome  work  of  many  years  with  its  capstone. 


266   FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

As  Tischendorf  bequeathed  to  us  the  Editio  VIII.  Critica  Major  of  his 
Greek  Testament,  without  Prolegomena,  so  also  did  Tregelles." 

Dr.  Hort  says  (The,  N.  T.  in  Gr.  ii.  13)  :  "  Lachmaim's  two  distinguished 
successors,  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  have  produced  texts  substantially 
free  from  the  later  corruptions,  though  neither  of  them  can  be  said  to 
have  dealt  consistently,  or,  on  the  whole,  successfully,  with  the  difficulties 
presented  by  the  variations  between  the  most  ancient  texts.  On  the 
other  hand,  their  indefatigable  labors  in  the  discovery  and  exhibition  of 
fresh  evidence,  aided  by  similar  researches  on  the  part  of  others,  provide 
all  who  come  after  them  with  invaluable  resources  not  available  half  a 
century  ago." 

Dean  Burgon,  of  Chtchester  (formerly  Vicar  of  S.  Mary-the-Virgin's 
at  Oxford),  who  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  principles  of  Tregelles 
and  Tischendorf.  nevertheless  acknowledges  their  great  merits.  In  his 
learned  vindication  of  the  genuineness  of  The  Last  Ticelve  Verses  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark  (Oxford.  1871,  Pref.  pp.  viii.,  ix.).  he  says: 
"Though  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  the  published  texts  of  Drs.  Tisch 
endorf  and  Tregelles  as  texts  are  wholly  inadmissible  [?],  yet  is  it  equally 
certain  that  by  the  conscientious  diligence  with  which  those  distinguished 
scholars  have  respectively  labored,  they  have  erected  monuments  of  their 
learning  and  ability  which  will  endure  forever.  Their  editions  of  the 
New  Testament  will  not  be  superseded  by  any  new  discoveries,  by  any 
future  advances  in  the  science  of  textual  criticism.  The  MSS.  which 
they  have  edited  will  remain  among  the  most  precious  materials  for  future 
study.  All  honor  to  them  !  If  in  the  warmth  of  controversy  I  shall  ap 
pear  to  have  spoken  of  them  sometimes  without,  becoming  deference,  let 
me  here  once  for  all  confess  that  I  am  to  blame,  and  express  my  regret. 
When  they  have  publicly  begged  St.  Mark's  pardon  for  the  grievous 
wrong  they  have  done  him,  I  will  very  humbly  beg  their  pardon  also." 
More  recently  (in  the  "London  Quarterly  Review"  for  Oct.  1881,  American 
edition,  p.  1(57)  he  says  of  Tregelles:  "  Lachmann's  leading  fallacy  has  per 
force  proved  fatal  to  the  value  of  the  text  put  forth  by  Dr.  Tregelles.  Of 
the  scrupulous  accuracy,  the  indefatigable  industry,  the  pious  zeal  of  that 
estimable  and  devoted  scholar,  we  speak  not.  All  honor  to  his  memory ! 
As  a  specimen  of  conscientious  labor,  his  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
(1857-72)  passes  praise,  and  will  never  lose  its  value." 

ALFORD. 

Among  the  recent  English  commentators  on  the 
Kew  Testament  who  embody  the  Greek  text,  Dr. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   267 

HENRY  ALFORD,  the  genial,  many-sided,  evangelical, 
and  liberal-minded  Dean  of  Canterbury  (1810-1871), 
deserves  honorable  mention  as  a  textual  critic  and 
most  zealous  promoter  of  the  revision  of  the  English 
Version,  in  which,  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Canterbury  Convocation,  he  took  an  active  part 
till  his  death,  eight  months  after  its  organization.1 
In  his  Greek  Testament  (London,  1849,  6th  ed. 
1868)  he  gives  a  critically  revised  text  with  a  digest 
of  various  readings,  and  improved  it  in  successive 
editions.  At  first  he  paid  too  much  attention  to 
the  traditional  text  and  to  internal  and  subjective 
considerations.  But  in  the  fifth  edition  he  nearly 
rewrote  the  text  and  digest,  chiefly  on  the  basis  of 
the  labors  of  Tregelles  and  Tischendorf,  and  in  the 
sixth  he  collated  also  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  and  in 
corporated  its  readings.  lie  praises  Lachmann  and 
Tregelles  for  "  the  bold  and  uncompromising  demoli 
tion  of  that  unworthy  and  pedantic  reverence  for 


1  He  issued  a  revised  translation  of  the  New  Testament  (1869),  and  was 
the  first  among  the  four  Anglican  clergymen  (with  Moberly,  Humphry, 
and  Ellicott)  who  prepared  a  tentative  revision  several  years  before  the 
appointment  of  the  Canterbury  Committee.  Dean  Stanley,  shortly  be 
fore  his  death  (July,  1881),  in  a  letter  on  Revision  to  the  "London  Times," 
paid  the  following  handsome  and  well-deserved  tribute  to  the  memory 
of  his  fellow-Reviser:  "  If  there  is  any  one  name  which  must  be  especially 
connected  with  this  Revision,  it  is  that  of  Dean  Alford.  Henry  Alford, 
while  Dean  of  Canterbury,  by  incessant  writing  and  preaching  on  the 
defects  of  the  existing  version,  as  well  as  by  his  well-known  labors  on  the 
New  Testament,  had  constantly  kept  the  need  and  the  possibility  of  such 
a  revision  before  the  eyes  of  the  public,  and,  by  a  happy  coincidence,  he 
was  also  deeply  interested  in  all  attempts  at  more  friendly  communion  in 
all  matters  with  Protestant  Nonconformists."  See  Alford's  Life,  by  his 
widow,  London,  1873. 


268   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

the  received  text  which  stood  in  the  way  of  all 
chance  of  discovering  the  genuine  word  of  God ; 
and  the  clear  indication  of  the  direction  which  all 
future  sound  criticism  must  take,  viz.,  a  return  to 
the  evidence  of  the  most  ancient  witnesses."  He 
became  "disposed,  as  research  and  comparison  went 
on,  to  lay  more  and  more  weight  on  the  evidence 
of  our  few  most  ancient  MSS.  and  versions,  and  less 
on  that  of  the  great  array  of  later  MSS.  which  are 
so  often  paraded  in  digests  as  supporting  or  impugn 
ing  the  commonly  received  text."  His  confidence 
in  subjective  considerations  was  shaken,  because 
"  in  very  many  cases  they  may  be  made  to  tell  with 
equal  force  either  way.  One  critic  adopts  a  reading 
because  it  is  in  accord  with  the  usage  of  the  sacred 
writer;  another  holds  it,  for  this  very  reason,  to 
have  been  a  subsequent  conformation  of  the  text. 
One  believes  a  particle  to  have  been  inserted  to  give 
completeness  ;  another,  to  have  been  omitted  as  ap 
pearing  superfluous."  ' 

WESTCOTT    AND    IIORT. 

WESTCOTT  and  HORT  :  The  New  Testament  in  the 
Original  Greek,  Cambridge  and  London  (Macmillan 
&  Co.),  1881,  2  vols.  The  first  volume  contains 
the  text  (580  pages),  the  second  the  Introduction 
(324  pages)  and  Appendix  (i.  e.,  Notes  on  Select 
Readings,  140  pages,  and  Notes  on  Orthography 
and  Quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  which  are 
marked  by  uncial  type  in  the  text,  pp.  141-188). 


Gr.  Test.  vol.  i.  pp.  76,  85,  87,  88. 


PRINTED   TEXT   OF   THE    GREEK  TESTAMENT.       269 

Both  volumes  are  republished  from  duplicate  Eng 
lish  plates,  New  York  (Harper  &  Brothers),  1881.1 

The  same  American  firm  has  also  published,  in 
superior  style,  with  large  margin,  a  very  convenient 
diglot  edition  of  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  text 
and  the  English  revision  in  exactly  corresponding 
pages,  with  a  list  of  noteworthy  variations  between 
the  two  texts,  under  the  title :  The  Revised  Greek- 
English  New  Testament,  New  York,  1882.  Dr.  Oscar 
von  Gebhardt  has  issued  a  similar  diglot  edition 
which  presents  Tischendorf's  last  text  and  the  recent 
revision  of  Luther's  German  version  (Novum  Testa- 
mentum  Greece  et  Germanice.  Das  JV.  Test,  griechisch 
uncl  deutsch,  Leipzig,  1881).  These  two  diglot  edi 
tions  are  exceedingly  helpful  for  the  comparative 
study  of  the  two  best  Greek  texts  with  the  two 
most  important  modern  versions  revised. 

The  Greek  Testament  of  Westcott  and  Hort  pre 
sents  the  oldest  and  purest  text  which  can  be  attained 
with  the  means  of  information  at  the  command  of 
the  present  generation.  It  cannot,  indeed,  supersede 
the  editions  of  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  which  will 
long  continue  to  be  indispensable  for  their  critical 

1  The  first  volume  of  the  American  edition  (as  also  the  American  diglot 
edition)  contains  an  Introduction  of  87  pages  by  Philip  Schaff,  which  was 
prepared  in  May  and  June.  1881,  by  previous  arrangement  with  the 
editors  and  publishers,  before  the  second  volume  appeared,  but  it  does  not 
interfere  with  it,  still  less  supersede  it.  It  contains  preliminary  informa 
tion  applicable  to  every  Greek  Testament;  while  Westcott  and  Hort's 
second  volume  is  an  elaborate  exposition  and  vindication  of  their  system 
of  textual  criticism,  and  indispensable  to  the  advanced  student,  but  pre^ 
supposes  most  of  the  elementary  information  contained  in  the  shorter 
Introduction  prefixed'to  the  first  volume  of  the  American  edition. 


270   FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

apparatus,  and  may  deserve  preference  in  a  number 
of  readings,  but,  upon  the  whole,  it  is  a  decided  ad 
vance  towards  a  final  text  on  which  scholars,  it  is 
hoped,  may  before  long  unite  as  a  new  textus  recep- 
tus.  It  is  the  joint  work  of  two  biblical  scholars  and 
theological  professors  in  the  University  of  Cain- 
bridge,  who  have  devoted  to  it  nearly  twenty-eight 
years  (from  1853  to  1881),  and  who  combine  in  an 
eminent  degree  the  critical  faculty  with  profound 
learning  and  reverence  for  the  word  of  God.  Their 
mode  of  co-operation  was  first  independent  study, 
and  then  conference,  oral  and  written.  This  com 
bination  gives  a  higher  degree  of  security  to  the 
results.  The  second  volume  was  prepared  by  Dr. 
Hort,  with  the  concurrence  of  his  colleague,  and 
occasional  dissent  in  minor  details  is  always  indicat 
ed  by  brackets  and  the  initials  II.  or  "W.  It  speaks 
from  the  summit  of  scientific  criticism  to  professional 
students.  The  Introduction  would  be  more  intel 
ligible  and  helpful  if  its  statements  were  oftener 
illustrated  by  examples. 

The  aim  of  the  editors  is  not  only  to  restore  the 
Nicene  text  as  a  basis  for  further  operations  (as 
Lachmann  did),  but  to  reproduce  at  once  (with 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles)  the  autograph  text,  that 
is,  "  the  original  words  of  the  ]N"ew  Testament  so  far 
as  they  now  can  be  determined  from  surviving  docu 
ments."  They  rely  for  this  purpose  exclusively  on 
documentary  evidence,  without  regard  to  printed 
editions.  They  make  no  material  addition  to  the 
critical  apparatus  (like  Wetstein,  Scholz,  Tischen 
dorf,  and  Tregelles),  but  they  mark 'a  decided  prog- 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  TUE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   271 

ress  in  the  science  of  criticism  (like  Bentley,  Bengel, 
Griesbach,  and  Lachmann).  They  follow  with  in 
dependent  judgment  and  sound  tact  in  the  path  of 
Lachmann  in  the  pursuit  of  the  oldest  text,  but  go 
beyond  the  Nicene  age  and  as  near  the  apostolic 
age  as  the  documents  will  carry  them  with  the  use 
of  the  critical  material  of  Tregelles  and  Tischendorf ; 
they  build  on  Griesbacli's  classification  and  estimate 
of  documents;  they  advance  upon  all  their  predeces 
sors  in  tracing  the  transcriptional  history  of  the  text 
and  in  the  application  of  the  genealogical  method  as 
the  only  way  to  rise  up  to  the  autograph  fountain- 
head.  This  prominent  feature  of  their  work  has 
been  already  discussed  and  tested  in  a  special  sec 
tion,  and  need  not  be  explained  again.1 

"Westcott  and  Hort  distinguish  four  types  of  text 
in  the  surviving  documents  : a 

(1.)  The  SYRIAN  or  ANTiocniAN.3  It  was  matured 
by  the  Greek  and  Syrian  fathers  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  best  represented  by  the 
uncial  Cod.  A  in  the  Gospels  (but  not  in  the  Acts 
and  Epistles),  and  by  the  Syriac  Peshito  (in  its  re 
vised  shape,  as  distinct  from  the  older  Curetonian 
Syriac) ;  it  is  found  in  Chrysostom  (who  was  first 

1  See  pp.  208-224. 

2  The  classification  of  the  documentary  sources  was  begun  by  Bengel, 
who  divided  them  into  two  families — the  Asiatic  and  the  African ;  it  was 
enlarged  and  improved  by  Griesbach,  who  distinguished  three  recensions — 
the  Constantinopolitan,  Alexandrian,  and  Western ;  it  is  perfected  up  to 
this  time  by  Westcott  and  Hort.     On  the  older  system  of  recensions,  see 
Tregelles  in  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  iv.  pp.  66-107  (14th  edition,  1877). 

3  Bengel  called  it  "Asiatic,"  Griesbach  and  Scholz  "  Constantinopolitan," 
or  "  Byzantine."     The  best  term  would  be  "  Grseco-Syrian." 


979 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT. 


presbyter  at  Antioch  till  398,  and  then  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  till  his  death,  407), '  in  the  later  Greek 
fathers,  and  the  mass  of  the  cursive  MSS.  (most  of 
which  were  written  in  Constantinople) ;  and  it  is 
in  the  main  identical  with  the  printed  textus  recep- 
tus.  It  is  an  eclectic  text,  which  absorbs  and  com 
bines  readings  from  the  early  texts  of  different  lands. 
It  seems  to  be  the  result  of  an  authoritative  "recen 
sion,"  or  rather  two  recensions  (between  250  and 
350),  i.  e.,  an  attempted  criticism  performed  by  edi 
tors  who  wished  to  harmonize  at  least  three  conflict 
ing  texts  in  the  same  region  and  to  secure  lucidity 
and  completeness ;  hence  the  removal  of  obscurities, 
the  frequent  harmonistic  interpolations,  and  the 
large  number  of  what  are  called  "conflate"  readings 
selected  from  the  three  principal  texts.  "  Entirely 
blameless  on  either  literary  or  religious  grounds  as 
regards  vulgarized  or  unworthy  diction,  yet  show 
ing  no  marks  of  either  critical  or  spiritual  insight, 
it  presents  the  New  Testament  in  a  form  smooth 
and  attractive,  but  appreciably  impoverished  in 
sense  and  force,  more  fitted  for  cursory  perusal  or 
recitation  than  for  repeated  and  diligent  study"  (ii. 
135).  The  distinctively  Syrian  readings  must  at  once 
be  rejected  and  give  way  to  "  Pre-Syrian  "  readings. 
It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  assump 
tion  of  a  deliberate  and  authoritative  Gneco-Syrian 

1  We  may  add  his  friend  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (d.  429).  See  the  re 
cent  edition  of  his  Commentaries  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  by  Dr.  H.  B.  Swete 
(Cambridge,  1880-82),  and  the  Excursus  on  the  text,  vol.  ii.  pp.  340-345, 
Compare  Schiirer's  review  in  the  "  Theol.  Lit.  Zeitung,"  1882,  No.  19, 
col.  444. 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   273 

recension  is  based  upon  a  critical  conjecture  of 
Westcott  and  Hort  rather  than  historical  evidence. 
The  only  trace  of  it  is  an  obscure  remark  of  Jerome 
concerning  Lucianus,  a  presbyter  and  reputed  foun 
der  of  the  Antiochian  school  (martyred  A.D.  312), 
and  Ilesychius,  an  Egyptian  bishop,  that  certain 
copies  of  the  New  Testament  with  questionable 
readings  were  called  after  them.1  An  authoritative 
recension  by  the  learned  fathers  of  the  Kicene  and 
post-^icene  age,  who  had  access  to  much  older  man 
uscripts  than  we  now  possess,  would  enhance  rather 
than  diminish  the  value  of  the  textus  receptus,  unless 
it  is  counterbalanced  by  internal  and  other  document 
ary  evidence.  This,  however,  is  strongly  against  it. 
A  careful  comparison  shows  that  the  Pre- Syrian 
readings  are  preferable,  and  best  explain  the  Syrian 
readings.  Tiscliendorf  emphasizes  the  rule  that  the 
reading  which  explains  the  variations  is  presumably 
the  original. 

It  is  very  natural  that  the  Antiochian  or  Constan- 
tinopolitan  text  became  the  ruling  text.  Constanti 
nople  wras  the  heiress  of  Antioch,  the  centre  of  the 


1  Epist.  ad  Damasum :  "  Hoc  certe  cum  in  nostro  sermone  discordat  et  in 
diver sos  rivulorum  tramites  ducif,  uno  de  fonte  quccrendum  est.  Prceter- 
mitto  eos  codices  quos  a  Luciano  et  Hesychio  nuncupates  paucorum  hominum 
adserit  perversa  confentio,  quibus  utique  nee  in  toto  Veieri  Instrumento  jwst 
LXX  interprets  emendare  quid  licuit  nee  in  Novo  prof  ait  emendasse,  cum 
multarum  gentium  linguis  Scriptura  ante  translata  doceat  falsa  esse  quce 
addita  sunt."  In  De  Viris  illuslr.  77,  Jerome  says :  "  Lucianus.  vir  doc- 
fissimus,  Antiochence  ecclesice  presbyter,  tantum  in  Scripturarum  studio 
labor avit,  ut  usque  nunc  qucedam  exemplaria  Scripturarum  Lucianea 
nuncupentur."  Comp.  Decret.  Gelas.  vi,  14  :  ';  Evaiiyelia  quce  falsavit 
Lucianus  apocrypha.'" 

18 


274   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

Eastern  Church,  and  the  guardian  of  Greek  learning, 
which  after  the  migration  of  nations  died  out  in  the 

o 

West ;  and  the  capture  of  Constantinople  by  the 
Turks  was  overruled  by  Providence  for  the  revival 
of  Greek  learning  by  fugitive  scholars  and  the  im 
portation  of  biblical  and  classical  manuscripts  to 
Europe. 

(2.)  The  WESTERN  text.  It  is  most  easily  recog 
nized  in  the  Old  Latin  version,  and  in  the  few  extant 
bilingual  uncials  which  were  written  in  the  West  (in 
Italy  and  Gaul),  as  D(i}  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and 
D(2>  of  the  Epistles.  It  spread  very  rapidly,  and 
diverged  from  the  original  standard  before  the  mid 
dle  of  the  second  century.  The  text  of  the  ante- 
jSTicene  fathers  not  connected  with  Alexandria  is 
substantially  Western  (Justin,  Irenseus,  Hippolytus, 
Methodius,  even  Eusebius).  Its  prevailing  charac 
teristics  are  a  love  of  paraphrase  (as  Matt.  xxv.  1 ; 
Luke  xx.  34;  Eph.  v.  30),  and  a  disposition  to  enrich 
the  text  by  parallel  passages  in  the  Gospels  and  ad 
ditions  from  traditional  (and  perhaps  apocryphal) 
sources  (as  in  John  v.  4;  vii.  53-viii.  11;  Matt.  xx. 
28).  "  Words,  clauses,  and  even  whole  sentences 
were  changed,  omitted,  and  inserted  with  astonish 
ing  freedom,  wherever  it  seemed  that  the  meaning 
could  be  brought  out  with  greater  force  and  definite- 
ness"  (ii.  122).  Jerome's  Vulgate  removed  some  of 
these  defects,  which  was  one  of  the  motives  of  his 
revision.  We  find  analogous  phenomena  in  some 
of  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
exist  in  two  texts,  the  one  being  an  amplified  and 
interpolated  modification  of  the  other ;  also  in  some 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   Z<O 

post-apostolic  writings,  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
the  Shepherd  of  Hennas,  and  the  Ignatian  Epistles. 

(3.)  The  ALEXANDRIAN  or  Egyptian  text.1  It  is 
found  in  the  abundant  quotations  of  the  Alexandrian 
fathers,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Dionysius, 
Didymus,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  partly,  also,  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea,  and  in  the  Egyptian  versions  (especially 
the  Memphitic).  It  is  characterized  by  the  absence 
of  extraneous  matter  and  a  delicate  philological  tact 
in  changes  of  language.  "We  often  find  the  Alex 
andrian  group  opposed  to  all  other  documents,  often 
the  Alexandrian  and  Syrian  groups  combined  in  op 
position  to  the  others,  implying  an  adoption  of  an 
Alexandrian  reading  by  the  Syrian  text"  (ii.  132). 

(4.)  The  NEUTRAL  text.  This  is  most  free  from 
later  corruption  and  mixture,  and  comes  nearest  the 
autographs.  It  is  best  represented  by  B  (which  is 
complete  except  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the  Apoca 
lypse,  and  the  last  four  chapters  of  Hebrews),  and 
next  by  x  (which  contains  the  whole  New  Testa 
ment  without  a  gap).  These  two  MSS.,  the  oldest 
and  most  important  of  all,  though  fully  known  only 
in  our  day,  seem  to  be  independently  derived  from 
a  common  original  not  far  from  the  autographs,  and 
their  concurrence  is  conclusive  in  determining  the 
text  when  not  contravened  by  strong  internal  evi 
dence.  Dr.  Hort  surmises  (ii.  267)  that  both  were 
written  in  the  West,  probably  at  Rome  (where  the 
Greek  language  prevailed  in  the  Church  during  the 
first  two  centuries),  that  the  ancestors  of  B  were 

1  Called  the  African  text  by  Bcntloy  and  Bcngel. 


276   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

wholly  Western  (in  the  geographical,  not  the  textual 
sense),  and  the  ancestors  of  x  partly  Alexandrian.1 
The  later  corrections  of  clerical  errors  and  textual 
readings  in  these  MSS.  by  different  hands  (especially 
those  of  Ka,  xb,  and  KC)  furnish  at  the  same  time 
important  contributions  to  the  history  of  the  text. 
Next  to  them  in  authority  are  C,  L,  P,  T,  D,  £,  A  (in 
the  Acts  and  Epistles,  but  not  in  the  Gospels),  Z,  33, 
and  in  Mark  A.  Among  these,  C  and  L  have  the 
largest  Alexandrian  element.  Many  Pre-  Syrian 
readings  are  supported  by  ancient  versions  or  fa 
thers,  and  commended  by  internal  evidence,  though 
not  contained  in  Greek  MSS.  Ainoncr  the  fathers 

O 

the  Pre-Syrian  and  Neutral  element  is  strongest  in 
Origen,  Didymus,  to  a  considerable  extent  in  Euse- 
bius,  and  in  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 

From  these  various  types  the  apostolic  text  is  to 
be  restored,  not  by  mechanical  adjustment,  but  by 
the  genealogical  method  or  the  careful  study  of  the 
history  of  the  written  text  and  the  relations  of  de 
scent  and  affinity  which  connect  the  several  witnesses. 
Not  any  of  them  can  be  exclusively  and  implicitly 
trusted.  All  the  extant  documents  are  more  or  less 
mixed,  and  embody  a  certain  number  of  departures 
from  the  autographs,  which  began  to  be  corrupted 
in  the  first  generation  after  the  apostles.  The  vast 
majority  of  changes  date  from  the  first  and  second 

1  The  Roman  origin  of  B  would  most  naturally  account  for  its  being  in 
the  Vatican  Library  from  its  very  beginning,  and  the  absence  of  any  trace 
of  its  being  imported.  But  if  X  was  likewise  written  in  Rome,  it  is  not 
easy  to  explain  how  it  ever  was  transported  to  the  Convent  at  Mount 
Sinai. 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   277 

centuries,  and  were  current  in  the  fourth,  when  the 
text  began  to  assume  a  stereotyped  form  in  the  East 
through  the  controlling  influence  of  Constantinople. 
Patristic  quotations,  being  definitely  chronological, 
are  the  oldest  witnesses,  going  up  to  the  third  and 
second  centuries,  but  they  are  often  free  and  loose, 
and  poorly  edited ;  next,  those  versions  (Syriac,  Latin, 
Egyptian)  which  go  back  to  the  same  date,  but  they 
have  undergone  revisions;  and  lastly,  Greek  MSS., 
a  few  of  which  date  from  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  but  are  based  again  upon  older  copies,  prob 
ably  from  the  second  century,  and  hence  they  are 
in  fact  as  old  witnesses  as  the  oldest  fathers  and 
versions,  besides  being  more  complete  and  direct. 

The  process  of  restoration  is  very  complicated  and 
difficult,  and  much  remains  confused  or  doubtful. 
But  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  true  reading  can  be 
fixed  with  certainty,  as  is  shown  by  the  increasing- 
consensus  of  the  most  competent  critics  and  com 
mentators.  With  all  the  variations,  the  texts  of 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf  (his  eighth  and  last  edition), 
Tregelles,  and  Westcott  and  Hort,  are  substantially 
one  and  the  same.  If  Westcott  and  Hort  have 
failed,  it  is  by  an  overestimate  of  the  Vatican  Codex, 
to  which  (like  Lachmann  and  Tregelles)  they  assign 
the  supremacy,  while  Tischendorf  may  have  given 
too  much  weight  to  the  Sinaitic  Codex.  Absolute 
unanimity  in  cases  where  the  evidence  is  almost 
equally  divided  cannot  be  expected  among  scholars 
of  independent  judgment,  nor  is  it  at  all  necessary 
for  the  practical  purposes  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  the  absence  of  the  apostolic  autographs,  and  the 


278   FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

extreme  improbability  of  their  recovery,  we  must 
be  content  with  an  approximation  to  the  original 
text.  Future  discovery  and  future  criticism  may 
diminish  the  doubts  concerning  alternative  readings, 
but  will  not  materially  alter  the  text. 

Westcott  and  Ilort's  Greek  Testament  derives  an 
additional  interest  from  its  close  connection  and 
simultaneous  publication  with  the  Anglo-American 
Revision  of  the  English  Testament.  Both  editors 
were  prominent  members  of  the  British  New  Tes 
tament  Company  of  Revisers,  and  Dr.  Hort  took  a 
leading  part  in  the  discussion  of  all  textual  ques 
tions,  which  were  always  settled  before  the  transla 
tion.  The  method  pursued  was  to  hear  first  Dr. 
Scrivener,  as  the  champion  of  the  traditional  text, 
and  then  Dr.  Hort  for  additional  remarks  and  in 
favor  of  any  changes  that  seemed  desirable.  The 
task  could  not  have  been  intrusted  to  more  compe 
tent  hands.  Dr.  Ilort  advocated  his  side  with  con 
summate  skill  and  complete  mastery  of  the  whole 
field,  yet  he  was  never  followed  slavishly  by  the 
Revisers,  several  of  whom  are  experienced  textual 
critics  as  well  as  exegetes,  and  were  thoroughly  pre 
pared  for  each  meeting.  The  American  Company 
likewise  devoted  many  days  and  hours  to  discussions 
of  various  readings,  and  sent  a  few  elaborate  papers 
to  their  English  brethren.  Parts  of  the  Greek  text 
were  printed  for  private  and  confidential  use  of  the 
English  and  American  Revisers — the  Gospels,  with 
a  temporary  preface,  in  1871,  the  Acts  and  Catholic 
Epistles  in  1873,  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  1875,  the 
Apocalypse  in  1876;  but  the  second  volume  was 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GEEEK  TESTAMENT.   279 

withheld  till  the  Revision  was  completed.  The 
editors,  while  thus  materially  aiding  the  two  Com 
panies  of  Revisers,  received  in  turn  the  benefit  of 
their  criticism,  which  enabled  them  to  introduce 
into  the  stereotype  plates  "  many  corrections  deal 
ing  writh  punctuation  or  otherwise  of  a  minute  kind, 
together  with  occasional  modifications  of  reading" 
(ii.  18).  The  result  is  that  in  typographical  accuracy 
the  Greek  Testament  of  Westcott  and  Hort  is  prob 
ably  unsurpassed,1  and  that  it  harmonizes  essentially 
with  the  text  adopted  by  the  Revisers;  for,  although 
they  differ  in  about  two  hundred  places,  nearly  all 
these  variations  are  recognized  in  the  margin  either 
of  the  Greek  text  or  the  English  Revision  as  alter 
nate  readings.2  It  is  one  of  the  chief  merits  of  the 
Revised  Version  that  it  puts  the  English  reader  in 
possession  of  an  older  and  purer  text  than  any  other 
version,  ancient  or  modern.  It  is  the  first,  and  so 
far  the  only,  popular  version  which  embodies  the 
results  of  the  latest  discoveries  arid  investigations 
of  the  original  form  of  the  Greek  Testament. 


NOTE.—  Dr.  BROOKE  Foss  WESTCOTT  was  born  in  1825  ;  educated  at 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge;  appointed  Canon  at  Peterborough  in  18G9, 
and  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge  in  1870.  He  has  written 

1  A  few  insignificant  errors  of  the  first  edition,  as  wp.a>v  for  v^ujv  in 
Matt.  x.  9  (p.  23),  have  since  been  corrected. 

3  E.g.,  Westcott  and  Hort  read  in  John  i.  18,  fj,ovoytvr)g  Stog  in  the 
text,  6  novoytvf)Q  V'LUQ  on  the  margin  ;  while  the  Revisers  read  "  the  only 
begotten  Son  "  in  the  text,  and  "  God  only  begotten"  on  the  margin.  In 
Acts  xvi.  32,  Westcott  and  Hort:  rov  Stov,  text,  Kvpiov,  margin;  Revis 
ers  :  "  of  the  Lord,"  margin  "  God."  See  the  convenient  list  of  noteworthy 
variations  in  Harpers'  diglot  edition,  pp.  xci.-cii. 


280   FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

a  number  of  able  and  useful  works,  as  a  History  of  the  English  Bible,  a 
History  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  an  Introduction  to  the  Study 
of  the  Gospels  (republished  by  H.  B.  Hackett,  Boston),  a  Commentary  on 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John  (which  ranks  among  the  very  best  parts  in  the 
"  Speaker's  Commentary,"  and  is  also  separately  printed),  and  valuable 
contributions  to  Smith's  "  Bible  Dictionary."  Dr.  FENTON  JOHN  ANTHONY 
Hour  was  educated  at  Rugby  School,  and  at  Trinity  College,  Cambridge, 
and  appointed  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Cam 
bridge  in  1878.  He  wrote  Tico  Dissertations  on  fjiovoytv)}Q  Beot;  and  on 
the  Constantinopolitan  Creed  (a  singularly  able  and  acute  plea  for  the  read 
ing  "only  begotten  God,"  in  John  i.  18),  the  Introduction  and  Appendix  to 
the  Greek  Testament  (a  masterpiece  of  critical  learning  and  sagacitv), 
and  a  number  of  valuable  articles  in  Smith  and  Cheetham's  "Dictionary 
of  Christian  Antiquities,"  and  Smith  and  Wace's  "  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography."  Both  belong  to  what  may  be  called  the  Evangelical  Cath 
olic  School  of  Anglican  Divines,  but  they  take  no  part  in  the  ecclesiastical 
party  controversies  of  the  age. 

The  Greek  Testament  of  Wcstcott  and  Ilort  was  well  received  by 
competent  scholars  in  England  and  other  countries.  It  was  virtually 
(not  formally)  endorsed  even  before  its  publication  by  the  English  Re 
vision  Company,  which  includes  some  of  the  ablest  biblical  critics  and 
exegetes  of  the  age.  This  is  the  highest  commendation.  Bishop  Light- 
foot  acknowledged  the  benefit  of  their  assistance  in  the  revision  of  the 
text  of  his  Commentary  on  Galatians  (p.  viii.)  as  early  as  18G5.  When 
the  work  was  at  last  given  to  the  public,  the  somewhat  captious  and 
fault-finding  "Saturday  Review"  for  May  21,  1881,  greeted  it  as  "prob 
ably  the  most  important  contribution  to  biblical  learning  in  our  genera 
tion."  "The  Church  Quarterly  Review"  (for  Jan.  1882,  pp.  419-450), 
and  other  leading  organs  of  public  opinion  in  England  too  numerous 
to  mention,  with  one  signal  exception  ("  The  Quarterly  Review,"  of 
which  we  shall  speak  in  the  next  section),  contained  highly  appre 
ciative  notices.  In  America,  it  met  likewise  a  warm  welcome.  Dr.  Ezra 
Abbot  (a  most  competent  judge)  says:  "It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that 
their  [Wcstcott  and  Hort's]  work  is  the  most  important  contribution  to 
the  scientific  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  text  which  has  yet  been 
made"  (Schaff's  "Rel.  Encycl."  i.  277).  Prof.  Benj.  B.  Warfield  con 
cludes  a  lengthy  notice,  which  betrays  a  thorough  mastery  of  the  sub 
ject,  with  the  judgment  that  the  text  of  Westcott  and  Hort  is  "the 
best  and  purest  that  has  ever  passed  through  the  press,  and,  for  the 
future,  must  be  recognized  as  the  best  basis  for  further  work"  ("The 


PRINTED    TEXT    OF   THE    GREEK   TESTAMENT.        281 

Presbyterian  Review  "  of  New  York  for  April,  1882.  p.  355).  The  new 
text  has  already  secured  a  recognized  status  on  the  Continent.  It  was 
hailed  as  an  "epoch-making"  work  by  the  most  competent  textual  critic 
of  Germany,  since  the  death  of  Tischendorf,  and  his  successor  in  this 
department,  Dr.  Oscar  von  Gebhardt.  He  has  incorporated  Westcott  and 
Hurt's  readings  in  his  recent  issue  of  Tischendorf's  latest  text  (both  the 
Greek  and  the  Graco-German  edition,  Lips.  1881),  and  pays  them  this 
weighty  tribute  (A'or.  Test,  Gr.  et  Germ.,  In  trod.  p.  vii.) :  "  Wie  Treyelles, 
so  huldigen  auch  Westcott  und  llort  irn  wesentlichen  den  Grundsatzen,  welche 
in  die  Kritik  des  Neuen  Testaments  einyefiihrt  zu  haben,  das  bleibende  Ver- 
dienst  Lachmanns  ist.  Was  aber  die  neuste  enylische  A  usyabe  ror  alien  iJiren 
Vorgangerinnen  auszeichnet,  ist  die  systematische,  in  solchem  Umfang  bisher 
unerreichte  Verwerthung  der  Textesycschichte  zur  Classfficirung  und  Ab- 
schiitzung  der  verschiedenen  Zeuyen,  und  die  consequente  Ilandhabuiiy  der  so 
gewonnenen  Grundsdtze  bei  A  usfilhruny  der  kritischen  Operation"  Dr.  Carl 
Bertheau  notices  Westcott  and  Hort  most  favorably  in  Harnack  and 
Schiirer's  "  Theologische  Litcratur-Zeitung"  for  Oct.  21,  1882,  col.  487, 
and  places  their  text  not  only  on  a  par  with  those  of  Tregelles  and 
Tischendorf  (ed.  viii.),  but  even  above  them  in  regard  to  method  and 
extraordinary  accuracy  ("wcgen  der  anyewandten  Methode  und  der  aus- 
serordentlichen  Genauiykeit  der  Arbeit").  The  same  critic  (col.  494)  ex 
presses  his  amazement  at  the  vehement  attack  of  Dean  Burgon  in  the 
"  Quarterly  Review,"  which  he  thinks  needs  no  refutation.  I  may  add 
that  Professor  Bernhard  Weiss,  of  Berlin,  one  of  the  ablest  living  com 
mentators,  and  editor  of  the  new  editions  of  Meyer  on  the  Gospels  and  on 
Romans,  not  only  agrees  Avith  the  uncial  text  as  a  whole,  but  frequently 
sides  with  Cod.  B  and  Westcott  and  Hort  versus  Cod.  N  and  Tischendorf, 
e.g.,  in  John  i.  18  (^ovoyun^  Stoc)  ;  Rom.  i.  27,  29;  ii.  2,  16;  iii.  28. 

These  are  Protestant  judgments.  But  what  is  even  more  remarkable, 
is  the  equally  favorable  judgment  of  Roman  Catholic  scholars.  Dr.  II  und- 
hausen,  of  Mainz,  declares  in  the  "  Literarischcr  Ilandweiserfiir  das  Katlio- 
lische  Deutschland,"  Minister,  1882,  No.  19,  col.  590:  "  Unter  alien  bisher 
avf  dem  Gebiete  der  neutestamentlichen  Textkriiik  erschienenen  Werken 
yebuhrt  dem  Westcott- JTortschen  unstreiiig  die  Palme"  The  same  intel 
ligent  writer  says  (col.  585):  "Die  einfachcn  undklaren  Grundprincipien 
Lachmann's  in  Verbinduny  mil  den  verbesserten  und  richtiy  anyewandten 
Ideen  Griesbactis.  die  umfassenden  und  zuverldssigen  documentarischen 
Forschunyen  Tischendorf  s,  Tregelles1  u.  A.  und  die  eindrinyenden  krit- 
ischen  Operationen  der  beiden  Cambridyer  Professoren  haben  sich  vereiniyt, 
urn  in  den  vorlieyenden  zwei  Bdnden  ein  Werk  von  grosser  Volknduny  zu 


282   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

schaffen"  He  objects,  as  a  Catholic,  to  the  critical  treatment  of  Mark 
xvi.  9-20,  and  John  vii.  53-viii.  11,  but  adds  (col.  58G)  that,  as  to  the 
rest,  Westcott  and  Hort  present  the  New  Testament  text  "  in  a  purity 
and  primitiveness  (in  einer  Reinheit  und  Urspriinylichkeit}  as  no  other 
critical  edition  which  has  as  yet  appeared."  The  same  opinion  has  been 
expressed  by  an  eminent  French  Catholic  scholar.  Louis  Duchesne  opens 
a  review  of  Westcott  and  Hort  in  the  "  Bulletin  Critique  "  of  Paris  for 
Jan.  15,  1882  (as  quoted  by  Hundhausen),  with  the  words:  "  Void  un 
lirre  destine  a  fair e  epoqiie  dans  la  critique  du  Xuiiveau-7'estament." 

SCRIVENER    AND    PALMER. 

Simultaneously  with  the  edition  of  Westcott  and 
Hort  there  appeared  two  other  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  which  make  no  claim  to  be  independent 
critical  recensions  of  the  text,  but  have  a  special 
interest  and  value  in  connection  with  the  English 
Revision,  and  supplement  each  other.  They  were 
carefully  prepared  by  two  members  of  the  New 
Testament  Company  of  the  Canterbury  Revisers ; 
but  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  "  the  Revisers  are  not 
responsible"  for  the  publication.  They  were  under 
taken  by  the  English  University  Presses. 

The  first  is  by  Dr.  F.  II.  A.  SCRIVENER  (Prebenda 
ry  of  Exeter  and  Vicar  of  Hendon),  and  is  published 
by  the  University  Press  of  Cambridge  under  the 
title :  The  NEW  TESTAMENT  in  the  Original  Greek, 
according  to  the  Text  followed  in  the  Authorized 
Version  [i.  e.,  the  textus  receptus  of  Beza's  edition 
of  1598],  together  with  the  Variations  adopted  in  the 
Itevised  Version.  He  puts  the  new  readings  at  the 
foot  of  the  page,  and  prints  the  displaced  readings 
of  the  text  in  heavier  type.  In  an  Appendix 
(pp.  648-656),  he  gives  a  list  of  the  passages  where 
in  the  Authorized  Version  departs  from  Beza's  text 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT.   283 

of  1598,  and  agrees  with  certain  earlier  editions  of 
the  Greek  Testament.  The  departures  of  King 
James's  Version  from  Beza  are  only  about  a  hun 
dred  and  ninety  in  all,  and  of  comparatively  little 
importance ;  while  the  departures  of  the  Revision 
from  the  textus  receptus  are  said  to  number  over 
five  thousand.1 

Dr.  Scrivener  is  favorably  known  from  his  pre 
vious  edition  of  the  Received  Text  with  the  varia 
tions  of  modern  editors,  and  from  valuable  contribu 
tions  to  the  material  as  well  as  the  science  of  textual 
criticism,  to  which  we  have  often  referred.  He  is 
the  most  learned  representative  of  the  conservative 
school  of  textual  criticism,  but  is  gradually  and  stead 
ily  approaching  the  position  of  the  modern  critics  in 
exchanging  the  textus  receptus  for  the  older  uncial 
text.  He  frankly  confesses  "  that  there  was  a  time 
when  he  believed  that  the  inconveniences  and  dan 
gers  attending  a  formal  revision  of  the  Bible  of  1611 
exceeded  in  weight  any  advantages  which  might  ac 
crue  from  it;"  that  "his  judgment  has  been  influ- 


1  I  have  not  seen  an  authentic  estimate  of  the  whole  number  of  textual 
changes;  but  the  following  are  two  specimens:  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  (Matt,  v.-vii.),  which  contains  111  verses,  the  Revisers  have  made 
44  changes  of  text,  in  38  of  which  they  agree  with  Lachmann,  Tischen- 
dorf,  and  Tregelles ;  in  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  they  have  made  in 
about  the  same  number  of  verses  nearly  the  same  number  of  changes— viz., 
48,  of  which  41  had  been  previously  adopted  by  the  three  eminent  critics 
named.  See  The  Revisers  and  the  Greek  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  Loud. 
1882, p.38  sq.  Dean  Burgon  asserts  ("Quarterly  Review,"  No.304, Oct.  1881, 
p.  307)  that  "  the  textus  receptus  has  been  departed  from  (by  the  Revisers) 
far  more  than  5000  times, almost  invariably  for  the  worse."  According  to  Dr. 
Scrivener  and  Canon  Cook  the  whole  number  of  textual  changes  is  5788. 


284      PRINTED    TEXT    OF   THE    GREEK   TESTAMENT. 

enced,  though  slowly  and  with  some  reluctance,  by 
the  growing  necessity  for  a  change  imposed  by  the 
rapid  enlargement  of  the  field  of  biblical  knowledge 
within  the  last  forty  years;"  and  that  "his  new 
opinion  has  been  not  a  little  confirmed  by  the  ex 
perience  he  has  gained  while  actually  engaged  upon 
the  execution  of  the  work."  J  And  as  regards  the 
text,  he  says,  after  enumerating  the  recent  discov 
eries  of  MSS. :  "  When  these  and  a  flood  of  other 
documents,  including  the  more  ancient  Syriac,  Latin, 
and  Coptic  versions,  are  taken  into  account,  many 
alterations  in  the  Greek  text  cannot  but  be  made, 
unless  we  please  to  close  our  eyes  to  the  manifest 
truth.  Of  these  changes  some  will  not  influence 
the  English  version  at  all,  many  others  very  slight 
ly  ;  some  are  of  considerable,  a  few  of  great,  im 
portance  ;  yet  not  one  of  them  sufficient  to  disturb 
a  single  article  of  the  common  faith  of  Christen 
dom."  3 

1  In  an  article  written  for  the  "Sunday-School  Times"  of  Philadelphia, 
1880,  and  reprinted  in  The  Bible  and  its  /Study,  Philadelphia  (725  Chestnut 
Street),  p.  '29. 

2  /,.  c.  p.  33  sq.     His  Six  Lectures  on  the  Text  of  the  New  Testament, 
published  in  1875,  mark  a  little  progress  beyond  the  second  edition  of  his 
Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  1874,  and  the  third 
edition,  now  in  course  of  preparation,  will  probably  mark  a  still  greater 
advance.     He  gives  up  the  spurious  interpolation  of  the  three  witnesses 
as  hopelessly  untenable,  and  on  the  disputed  reading  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16, 
where  his  friend,  Dean  Burgon,  so  strenuously  insists  on  S'eoc,  Scrivener, 
in  his  Lectures,  p.  192  sq.,  makes  the  following  admission:  "  On  the  whole, 
if  Codd.  A,  C,  be  kept  out  of  sight  (and  we  know  not  how  more  light  can 
be  thrown  on  their  testimony),  this  is  one  of  the  controversies  which  the 
discovery  of  Cod.  X  ought  to  have  closed,  since  it  adds  a  first-rate  uncial 
witness  to  a  case  already  very  strong  through  the  support  of  versions. 


PRINTED   TEXT   OF   TIIE    GREEK  TESTAMENT.       285 

The  other  edition  is  edited  by  Dr.  E.  PALMER 
(Archdeacon  of  Oxford),  and  published  by  the  Clar 
endon  Press  under  the  title:  H  KAINH  AIA0HKH. 
The  GREEK  TESTAMENT  with  the  Readings  adopted 
by  the  Revisers  of  the  Authorised  Version,  Oxford, 
1881.1 

Palmer  pursues  the  opposite  method  from  that 
of  Scrivener:  he  presents  the  Greek  text  followed 
by  the  Revisers,  and  puts  the  discarded  readings  of 
the  textus  receptus  (i.  <?.,  the  edition  of  Stephens, 
1550) 2  and  of  the  version  of  1611  in  foot -notes. 
The  Revisers  state,  in  the  Preface  from  the  Jerusa 
lem  Chamber  (p.  xiii.,  royal-octavo  edition),  that  they 
did  not  esteem  it  within  their  province  "  to  construct 
a  continuous  and  complete  Greek  text.  In  many 
cases  the  English  rendering  was  considered  to  repre 
sent  correctly  either  of  two  competing  readings  in 
the  Greek,  and  then  the  question  of  the  text  was 

Slowly  and  deliberately,  yet  in  full  confidence  that  God  in  other  passages 
of  his  written  word  has  sufficiently  assured  us  of  the  Proper  Divinity  of 
his  Incarnate  Son,  we  have  yielded  up  this  clause  as  no  longer  tenable 
against  the  accumulated  force  of  external  evidence  which  lias  been 
brought  against  it."  And  yet  Dean  Burgon  discharges  his  heaviest  guns 
of  five  pages  against  the  reading  of  the  Revisers  in  this  famous  passage. 

1  The  University  Presses  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  have  also  published 
The  Parallel  Neiv  Testament,  Greek  and  English,  giving  the  Authorised 
Version,  the  Revised  Version,  the  Revised  Greek  text,  and  the  Readings 
displaced  by  the  Revisers,  in  parallel  columns  (with  space  for  MS.  notes), 
Nov.  1882.  Very  elegant  and  useful  editions. 

*  The  text  of  Stephens,  as  reprinted  by  Mill  in  1707,  formed  the  basis 
of  all  Oxford  editions  down  to  Scrivener's  edition  (1877),  of  which  Palmer 
has  made  free  use.  But  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611  follows  Beza's 
text  (1598)  rather  than  that  of  Stephens,  although  the  difference  is  not 
very  great. 


286   FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT. 

usually  not  raised."  Palmer,  with  the  aid  of  lists 
of  readings  prepared  by  the  Revisers  in  the  progress 
of  their  work,  has  constructed  a  continuous  text, 
taking  for  the  basis  the  third  edition  of  Stephens 
(1550),  and  following  it  closely  in  all  cases  in  which 
the  Revisers  did  not  express  a  preference  for  other 
readings ;  even  the  orthography,  the  spelling  of 
proper  names,  and  the  typographical  peculiarities 
or  errors  of  Stephens  are,  with  a  few  exceptions,  re 
tained.  The  chapters  are  marked  as  in  Stephens's 
edition,  the  distribution  into  verses  accords  with 
that  in  the  Authorized  Version,  and  the  division  into 
paragraphs  is  conformed  to  the  English  Revision. 


The  year  1881  has  been  fruitful  above  any  other 
in  editions  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  the 
Revised  English  Version  ;  and  the  demand  for  the 
latter  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  has 
been  beyond  all  precedent  in  the  history  of  litera 
ture.  AVre  may  well  call  it  the  year  of  the  repub- 
lication  of  the  Gospel.  The  immense  stimulus  thus 
given  to  a  careful  and  comparative  study  of  the 
words  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  must  bear  rich 
fruit. 

The  first  printed  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
in  1516  was  followed  by  the  great  Reformation  of 
1517.  May  the  numerous  editions  of  1881  lead  to  a 
deeper  understanding  and  wider  spread  of  the  Chris 
tianity  of  Christ ! 


FEINTED    TEXT    OF   THE    GREEK   TESTAMENT.       287 


RETROSPECT    AND    PROSPECT. 

The  history  of  the  printed  text  from  Erasmus 
down  to  the  Westminster  Revision  is  a  gradual  re 
covery  of  the  original  text.  It  follows  the  stream 
of  tradition  from  late  copies  of  the  Middle  Ages  np 
to  Nicene  and  ante-Nicene  copies,  and  as  near  as  pos 
sible  to  the  very  fountain  of  the  autographs,  as  fast 
as  ancient  documents  come  to  light  and  as  the  science 
of  textual  criticism  advances.  But  every  inch  of 
progress  had  to  be  conquered  against  stubborn  op 
position.  The  story  of  the  crucifixion  and  resurrec 
tion  is  repeated  again  and  again  in  the  history  of 
the  Bible,  which  is  the  standard-bearer  of  the  Church 
militant.  Every  new  truth,  every  discovery  and  in 
vention,  has  to  tight  its  way  through  hostile  prejudice 
and  ignorance,  and  pass  the  ordeal  of  martyrdom  be 
fore  it  is  recognized.  "No  cross,  no  crown."  The 
word,  "  Blood  is  the  seed  of  Christians,"  1  was  liter 
ally  or  figuratively  true  in  all  ages.  Persecution 
may  proceed  from  priest  or  people,  from  the  San- 
hedrin  or  the  Sorbonne  or  the  mob ;  it  may  be 
orthodox  or  heretical,  bloody  or  unbloody,  accord 
ing  to  circumstances  and  the  spirit  of  the  times. 
The  persecution  of  the  Bible  and  Bible  versions  has 
been  of  all  kinds. 

The  first  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  was 
deprecated  by  the  crowd  of  monks  as  a  great  calam 
ity,  and  Erasmus  was  violently  assailed  by  the  arro 
gant  ignorance  of  Archbishop  Lee  of  York  and  the 

1  This  is  the  literal  rendering  of  Tertullian's  well-known  "Semen  est 
sanyuis  Christianorum  "  (Apologeticus,  last  chapter). 


288   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

envious  traditional  learning  of  the  Complntensian 
rival  editor,  Stunica,  who  charged  him  with  the 
crime  of  omitting  the  spurious  witnesses  in  1  John 
v.  7,  and  even  with  intentional  insult  to  Spain  for 
misspelling  2-cm'a  for  'lairavia  in  Horn.  xv.  28. 
Robert  Stephanas  had  to  tiee  from  the  wrath  of 
the  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne  to  Protestant  Geneva. 
Walton's  critical  apparatus  roused  the  orthodox  op 
position  of  the  great  Puritan,  Dr.  Owen.  Mill  was 
assailed  after  his  death,  which  soon  followed  the 
issue  of  his  Greek  Testament  with  30,000  various 
readings,  by  the  distinguished  commentator  Whit- 
by ;  Bentley  by  Conyers  Middleton  ;  Bengel  by 
Wetstein  (who  could  not  appreciate  the  classifica 
tion  of  authorities  into  families) ;  Wetstein  in  turn 
by  Frey  and  Iselin,  who  charged  him  with  heresy 
and  drove  him  from  Basle  to  Amsterdam.  Gries- 
bach  was  overwhelmed  with  abusive  epithets  by  his 
rival.  Matthcei.  Lachmann  was  scornfully  criticised 
by  the  learned  rationalist,  C.  F.  A.  Fritzsche,  wTho 
called  him  "  the  ape  of  Bentley."  Tregelles  was 
long  ignored  and  allowed  almost  to  starve  in  rich 
England,  till  he  lost  his  eyesight  in  deciphering 
old  MSS.  for  his  Greek  Testament.  Tischendorf 
was  annoyed  and  slandered  by  Simonides,  who  im 
pudently  claimed  to  have  written  the  Codex  Sinaiti- 
cus  with  his  own  hand. 

Translations  of  the  Bible  made  for  public  use 
have  fared  still  worse  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  their  judges.  Jerome's  irritable  temper  was 
sorely  tried  by  the  braying  of  "  the  two-legged  don 
keys"  (bipcdes  aselli),  as  he  rather  coarsely  called 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT.   289 

his  ignorant  opponents ;  even  the  great  and  good 
St.  Augustin  feared  more  harm  than  good  from  his 
friend's  attempt  to  revise  the  Latin  Bible  after  the 
Hebraica  veritas,  and  continued  to  use  the  old  ver 
sion  with  all  its  blunders,  which  he  had  not  Greek 
or  Hebrew  learning  enough  to  correct.  He  was 
hisrhlv  offended  at  Jerome's  substituting  hedera 

C*         «/  O 

(ivy)  for  cucurbita  (gourd)  in  the  Book  of  Jonah 
(iv.  6) ;  and  a  certain  bishop  nearly  lost  his  charge 
for  venturing  to  defend  the  new  rendering.  For 
two  hundred  years  the  old  Itala  was  quoted,  even 
by  popes.  But  eleven  centuries  after  Jerome's  death 
(419),  the  Council  of  Trent  (April  8,1546)  raised  his 
Vulgate  to  equal  dignity  with  the  original  (which, 
of  course,  was  a  most  serious  blunder  in  the  opposite 
direction). 

John  Wiclif  of  Oxford,  "the  Morning  Star  of  the 
Reformation,"  and  the  chief  author  of  the  first  com 
plete  version  of  the  whole  Bible  into  the  English 
tongue  (though  only  from  the  Latin  Vulgate),  was 
denounced  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
High  Chancellor  of  England  (Arundel)  as  "that 
pestilent  wretch  of  damnable  memory,  son  of  the 
old  serpent,  yea  the  forerunner  and  disciple  of  anti 
christ,  who,  as  the  complement  of  his  wickedness, 
invented  a  newr  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into 
his  mother  tongue."  The  Council  of  Constance 
(1415),  which  burned  John  Hus  and  Jerome  of 
Prague,  condemned  both  the  writings  and  the  bones 
of  Wiclif  to  the  flames ;  and  in  1428  his  remains 
were  solemnly  ungraved,  burned  to  ashes,  arid  cast 
into  the  brook  Swift,  which,  as  Fuller  says,  "  con- 
19 


290   FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GKEEK  TESTAMENT. 

veyed  them  into  the  Avon,  Avon  into  Severn,  Severn 
into  the  narrow  seas,  they  into  the  main  ocean ;  and 
thus  the  ashes  of  Wiclif  are  the  emblem  of  his  doc 
trine,  which  now  is  dispersed  all  the  world  over." 
In  1880,  five  hundred  years  after  the  completion  of 
his  English  Bible,  Wiclif's  memory  was  celebrated 
in  five  continents. 

The  first  edition  of  William  Tyndale's  translation 
of  the  Greek  Testament  from  the  newly  published 
text  of  Erasmus  had  to  be  smuggled  into  England, 
and  was  publicly  burned  by  order  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  (Tunstall),  in  St.  Paul's  Church-yard :  the 
next  five  editions  which  were  printed  before  1530 
fared  not  much  better ;  hence  there  remain  of  the 
first  edition  only  one  fragment,  of  the  second  one 
copy,  wanting  the  title-page,  and  another  very  im 
perfect,  and  of  the  other  four  two  or  three  copies.1 
Tyndale  himself  was  strangled  and  then  burned  at 
the  stake  in  Antwerp  (Oct.  1536),  praying,  "  Lord ! 
open  the  King  of  England's  eyes."  Yet  he  is  now 
universally  revered  as  the  chief  author  of  the  idiom 

1  See  Wcstcott,  Jiist.  of  the  E.  Bible,  p.  45.  The  final  edition  of  Tyndale's 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  hailed  from  his  prison  (1535).  Luther's 
German  Version  met  with  extraordinary  success  in  Germany.  Yet  it 
was  forbidden  in  the  Duchy  of  Saxony  (by  Duke  George),  in  Bavaria, 
Austria,  Brandenburg,  and  other  countries.  The  theological  faculty  of  the 
University  of  Leipsic  pronounced  unfavorable  judgment;  and  the  Roman 
Catholic,  Emser,  wrote  a  book  against  it  in  1523,  in  which  he  charged  it 
with  no  less  than  1400  errors  and  heresies  (mostly  departures  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate  on  the  ground  of  the  Greek  original).  Afterwards  Emser 
published  a  translation  of  his  own.  in  which  he  copied  whole  pages  of 
Luther's  version,  adapting  it  only  to  the  Latin  Vulgate.  The  very  enemies 
of  Luther  when  writing  in  German  were  forced  to  use  his  language.  See 
Kostlin,  Martin  Luther,  i.  G07. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GEEEK  TESTAMENT.   291 

of  our  English  Bible,  and  as  the  man  who  "  caused  u 
boy  that  driveth  the  plough  to  know  more  of  the 
Scripture"  than  the  priest  and  the  pope  of  his  day. 
And  from  the  banks  of  the  Thames,  near  the  very 
spot  where  his  English  Testament  went  up  in  a  fiery 
chariot,  like  Elijah,  more  Bible's  are  now  sent  to  all 
parts  of  the  globe  in  one  year  than  were  copied  in 
the  first  fifteen  centuries  of  our  era. 

The  authors  of  the  Geneva  Version  were  fugitives 
from  persecution  ;  but  their  great  improvements 
upon  the  preceding  versions  passed  into  our  Au 
thorized  Version,  notwithstanding  the  prejudice  and 
hatred  of  King  James,  who  thought  it  the  worst 
translation  ever  made. 

The  Authorized  Version  itself  was  received  with 
indifference  from  churchmen  and  violent  opposition 
from  all  quarters,  as  the  translators  predicted  in  the 
first  sentence  of  their  Preface ;  it  was  charged  with 
bad  theology,  bad  scholarship,  and  bad  English;  for 
fifty  years  it  had  to  fight  its  way  into  general  recog 
nition  ;  and  Hugh  Broughton,  the  greatest  Hebraist 
of  his  day,  but  a  bad-tempered  and  "  unclubbable  " 
man,  and  hence  omitted  in  the  selection  of  the 
Translators,  attacked  it  with  the  tomahawk,  and 
sent  word  to  King  James  that  he  "  had  rather  be 
rent  in  pieces  with  wild  horses"  than  help  to  bring 
such  a  mistranslation  into  public  use.1  And  yet 

1  Westcott  (Hist,  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  160,  note  2)  says :  "  The  labors 
of  Hugh  Broughton  on  the  English  Bible  ought  not  to  be  passed  over 
without  notice.  This  great  Hebraist  violently  attacked  the  Bishops' 
Bible,  and  sketched  a  plan  for  a  new  version  which  his  own  arrogance 
was  sufficient  to  make  impracticable.  He  afterwards  published  transla- 


292   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

this  same  version  is  now  universally  recognized  as 
one  of  the  best,  if  not  the  very  best,  ever  made,  and 
has  proved  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  the 
greatest  blessing  which  Providence  has  bestowed 
upon  the  English-speaking  race. 

It  would  be  a  bad  omen  for  the  revised  text  and 
version  of  1881  if  they  had  escaped  the  fate  of  their 
predecessors  and  been  received  without  opposition. 
The  days  of  bloody  persecution  are  over,  but  the 
human  passions  which  instigated  them  survive. 


tions  of  Daniel,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations,  and  Job,  and  offered  his  help 
towards  the  execution  of  the  royal  version.  His  overbearing  temper,  as 
it  appears,  caused  him  to  be  excluded  from  the  work;  but  his  printed 
renderings  were  not  without  influence  upon  the  Kevisers — e.g.,  Dan.  iii.  5." 
I  have  examined  (in  the  Astor  Library)  the  works  of  Hugh  Broughton 
which  were  published  in  London,  1G62.  in  one  folio  volume  of  732  pages, 
under  the  high-sounding  title  :  "  The  Works  of  the  Great  Albionean  Divine, 
Renown  d  in  Many  Nations  for  Rare  Skill  in  Salems  and  Athens  Tongues, 
and  Familiar  Acquaintance  with  all  Rabbinical  Learning"  John  Light- 
foot  says  of  him,  in  the  preface,  that  "  among  his  friends  he  was  of  a  very 
sweet,  affable,  and  loving  carriage."  but  "sharp,  severe,  and  exceeding 
bold  against  error,  and  impiety."  His  judgment  of  King  James's  Bible  is 
given  on  p.  6G1.  It  is  addressed  to  the  King's  attendant,  and  begins  as 
follows :  "  The  late  Bible  (Right  Worship/nil)  was  sent  to  me  to  censure, 
which  bred  in  me  a  sadnesse  that  will  grieve  me  ichile  I  breath.  It  is  so  ill 
done.  Tell  his  Majestie  that  I  had  rather  be  rent  in  pieces  with  wild  horses, 
than  any  such  translation,  by  my  consent,  should  be  urged  upon  poor  churches." 
Then  follow  various  objections,  and  the  first  reveals  at  once  the  motive 
and  animus  of  the  critic,  namely :  "  My  advisement  they  regarded  not,  but 
still  make  Seth  a  fool,  to  name  his  son  sorrowfull  Enosh  [Gen.  iv.  2G]." 
He  even  charges  the  translators  with  leaving  "  atheism  in  the  text." 
He  protests  (p.  6G3) :  "  I  will  suffer  no  scholar  in  the  world  to  cross  me  in 
Ebrew  or  Greek,  when  I  am  sure  I  have  the  truth."  Broughton's  criticism 
was  a  brutum  fnlmen,  and  is  only  remembered  now  as  a  curiosity  in  the 
history  of  the  odium  theologicum.  which  is  not  likely  to  die  out  until 
human  nature  is  transformed. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   293 

There  are  many  lineal  descendants  of  those  priests 
who,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  preferred  their 
old-fashioned  Mumpsimus,  Domine,  to  the  new 
fangled  Sumpsimus  j  even  in  the  enlightened  State 
of  Massachusetts  a  pious  deacon  is  reported  to  have 
opposed  the  revision  of  1881  with  the  conclusive 
argument,  "  If  St.  James's  Version  was  good  enough 
for  St.  Paul,  it  is  good  enough  for  me."  There  are 
also  not  a  few  heirs  of  the  spirit  of  Archbishop 
Arundel  and  Bishop  Tunstall  who,  if  they  had  the 
power,  would  gladly  commit  the  Westminster  He- 
vision,  Greek  and  English,  to  the  flames  ad  mojorem 
Dei  gloriam,  and  shout  a  Te  Deum. 

Foremost  among  the  learned  opponents  of  the 
latest  progress  in  biblical  science  is  the  anonymous 
author  of  three  famous  articles  on  "  New  Testament 
Revision  "  in  the  London  "  Quarterly  Review."  ; 


1  For  Oct.  1881,  Jan.  and  April,  1882— Nos.  304,  305.  306.  The  articles 
are  understood  to  be  from  the  pen  of  John  W.  Burgon,  B.D.,  formerly 
Vicar  of  S.  Mary-the- Virgin's.  Oxford,  now  Dean  of  Chichester.  He  has 
acknowledged  the  authorship,  and  will  shortly  reissue  them  in  one  vol 
ume.  "The  Academy,"  Oct.  28,  1882,  in  giving  this  notice,  adds  that 
they  will  not  depreciate  the  value  of  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testa 
ment.  Burgon  is  the  author  of  the  most  elaborate  vindication  of  the 
genuineness  of  The  Last  Twelve  Verses  ofihe  Gospel  according  io  S.  Mark, 
Oxford,  1871  (334  and  xv.  pages).  In  this  work  he  clearly  foreshadowed 
his  animus  towards  the  revision  movement  on  p.  204,  where  he  says :  "  I 
cannot  so  far  forget  the  unhappy  circumstances  of  the  times  as  to  close 
this  note  without  the  further  suggestion  (sure  therein  of  the  approval  of 
our  trans-Atlantic  brethren  [z.  e.,  Episcopalian  churchmen])  that,  for  a 
Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  to  enjoy  the  confidence  of  the  nation, 
and  to  procure  for  itself  acceptance  at  the  hands  of  the  Church — it  will  be 
found  necessary  that  the  work  should  be  confided  to  Churchmen.  The 
Church  may  never  abdicate  her  function  of  being  '  a  Witness  and  a 


294   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

They  abound  in  patristic  quotations,  oracular  asser 
tions,  abusive  epithets,  and  sarcastic  thrusts,  and 
form  a  signal  exception  to  the  rule  that  modesty 
marks  the  true  scholar.  The  modern  Broughton 

O 

smelled  the  battle  afar  off,  and  rushed  into  the 
arena,  like  Job's  war-horse,  with  extended  nostrils, 
rejoicing  in  his  strength,  mocking  at  fear,  swallow 
ing  the  ground  with  fierceness  and  rage,  and  saying 
among  the  trumpets,  Ha,  ha  !  He  boldly  denounces 
the  oldest  and  most  valuable  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  including  the  Sinaitic  and  the 
Vatican,  as  "a  handful  of  suspicious  documents," 
and  condemns  the  Greek  text  of  Westcott  and  Ilort 
and  of  the  Revisers  (for  he  regards  the  two  as  iden 
tical)  as  "  utterly  untrustworthy,"  "entirely  undeserv 
ing  of  confidence,"  and  "  demonstrablv  more  remote 

O  *j 

from  the  Evangelic  verity  than  any  which  has  ever 
yet  seen  the  light."  And  as  to  the  English  Revision 
(which  ho  characteristically  calls  a  version  "  of  the 
Church  and  the  sects"),  he  denounces  it  as  "a  prodig 
ious  blunder,"  as  a  translation  "which,  for  the  most 
part,  reads  like  a  first-rate  school-boy's  crib — tasteless, 


Keeper  of  Holy  Writ.'  Neither  can  she,  without  flagrant  inconsistency 
and  scandalous  consequence,  ally  herself  in  the  work  of  Revision  with  the 
Sects.  Least  of  all  may  she  associate  with  herself  in  the  sacred  under 
taking  an  Unitarian  teacher.  ,  ,  .  What  else  is  this  but  to  offer  a  deliberate 
insult  to  the  Majesty  of  Heaven  in  the  Divine  Person  of  Him  who  is  alike 
the  Object  of  the  everlasting  Gospel  and  its  Author?"  When  it  appeared, 
ten  years  afterwards,  that  not  only  the  one  "Unitarian  teacher"  (Dr. 
George  Vance  Smith),  but  such  orthodox  churchmen  as  Westcott  and 
Ilort,  and  the  whole  body  of  Revisers,  decided  the  question  of  the  closing 
verses  of  Mark  against  the  "demonstration"  of  this  Docior  irrefutalilis, 
he  regarded  this  as  "  a  deliberate  insult "  to  himself.  Hinc  illce  lacryma;. 


FEINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT.   295 

unlovely,  harsh,  unidiomatic; — servile  without  being 
really  faithful,  pedantic  without  being  really  learned ; 
—an  unreadable  translation,  in  short ;  the  result  of 
a  vast  amount  of  labor,  indeed,  but  wondrous  little 
judgment."1  He  wantonly  charges  the  Revisionists 
with  having  violated  their  instructions  by  revising 
the  received  text  (when  they  were  expressly  directed 
by  their  rules  to  do  so),  and  made  themselves  "  the 
dupes  of  an  ingenious  theory-monger"  (Dr.  Hort),  un 
der  whose  manipulations  they  decided  textual  ques 
tions  "at  a  moment's  notice"  (when,  as  the  writer 
might  have  learned  or  taken  for  granted,  they  spent 
days  and  weeks  and  months  on  their  consideration). 
Such  intemperance  stands  self-condemned.  Over 
done  is  undone.  It  requires  an  amazing  amount  of 
self-confidence  to  indulge  in  a  wholesale  condemna 
tion  of  the  joint  work  of  such  veteran  and  renowned 
scholars  as  Archbishop  Trench,  Bishops  Ellicott, 
Lightfoot,  and  Moberly,  Deans  Alford,  Stanley,  and 
Scott,  Archdeacons  Lee  and  Palmer,  and  Drs.  West- 
cott,  Ilort,  Scrivener,  Kennedy,  Humphry,  etc.,  not 
to  mention  any  of  the  eminent  divines  who  have  the 
misfortune  to  belong  to  the  uncovenanted  "sects" 
of  England,  Scotland,  and  the  United  States.  But 
worse  than  this,  the  "Reviewer"  expressly  involves 
in  his  condemnation  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Lach- 
mann,  Griesbach,  Bengel,  and  Bentley  fully  as  much 
as  "Westcott  and  Hort  and  the  Revisionists,  and 

]  See  No.  304,  p.  368 ;  No.  306,  pp.  312,  313.  An  American  Bishop  of 
considerable  rhetorical  culture  has  taken  inspiration  as  well  as  comfort 
from  the  English  Dean,  and  pronounced  the  style  of  the  Revision  to  be 
"  wilful  Greek  and  woful  English." 


296   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

would  turn  the  wheels  of  biblical  learning  back  for 
at  least  fifty,  if  not  a  hundred,  years.1  For  among 
the  readings  of  the  revised  text  which  he  rules  out 
as  utterly  untenable  by  his  ipse  dixit  and  a  string 
of  post-Nicene  quotations,  there  is  scarcely  one  which 
has  not  the  unanimous  support  of  these  great  editors 
and  the  best  modern  commentators  —  Continental, 
English,  and  American.  His  criticism,  therefore,  is 
not  only  a  sad  exhibition  of  the  odium  thcologicum, 
but  a  glaring  anachronism.  He  seems  to  feel  that  he 
is  doing  himself  injustice,  for  he  upsets  his  own  dish 
by  two  reluctant  admissions — first,  that  the  tradition 
al  text  for  which  he  fights  "  cries  aloud  for  revision 
in  respect  of  many  of  its  subordinate  details  ;"  2  and, 
secondly,  that  the  revised  translation  which  he  so 
sweepingly  condemns,  after  all  "  bears  marks  of  an 
amount  of  conscientious  labor  which  those  only  can 
fully  appreciate  who  have  made  the  same  province 
of  study  to  some  extent  their  own.":  It  is  a  pity 
that  he  was  not  for  his  own  benefit  taken  into  the 
company  of  Revisers.  The  discipline  and  expe 
rience  of  ten  years  could  not  have  been  without  a 
wholesome  effect. 


1  He  summons  all  his  rhetoric  to  denounce  the  critical  method  of 
Lachmann,  Tregelles,  and  Tischendorf.     "Anything  more  unscientific," 
he  says,  "anything  more  unphilosophical,  more  transparentlyyoo^Vj  than 
such  a  method,  can  scarcely  be  conceived ;  but  it  has  prevailed  for  fifty 
vears,  and  is  now  at  last  more  hotly  than  ever  advocated  by  Drs.  Westcott 
and  Hort"  (No.  300,  p.  332).     Contrast  with  this  isolated  condemnation, 
which  can  only  condemn  itself,  the  unanimous  commendations  of  impartial 
and  thoroughly  competent  critics  —  English,  German,  French,  American, 
Catholic,  and  Protestant— on  p.  280  sq. 

2  "  Quarterly  Keview,"  No.  30G,  p.  331.  3  No.  305,  p.  Go. 


PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GEEEK  TESTAMENT.   297 

"VVestcott  and  Hort,  having  anticipated  in  their 
second  volume  a  full  vindication  of  their  method, 
can  afford  to  preserve  a  dignified  silence.  The 
"Quarterly  .Reviewer"  may  construe  this  into  an 
acknowledgment  of  defeat,  after  the  fashion  of  the 
great  Ileinrich  Ewald  who,  in  an  open  letter  to 
Pius  IX.,  "demonstrated"  to  him  that  it  was  high 
time  to  resign  his  triple  crown,  and,  on  being  asked 
why  the  pope  took  no  notice  of  his  advice,  coolly 
replied,  "  He  dare  not  (Er  wagt  es  nicht) !" 

But  two  of  the  learned  Revisers  (Bishop  Ellicott 
and  Archdeacon  Palmer)  have  calmly,  soberly,  and 
convincingly  vindicated  the  disputed  readings  of 
the  ISTew  Version  against  this  vehement  assault, 
without  noticing  "flouts  and  gibes,"  and  conclude 
with  these  words : '  "It  is  true  that  the  articles  of 
the  Christian  faith  do  not  depend  on  such  variations 
of  the  Greek  text  as  are  in  controversy  between 
critics  of  different  schools.  The  ancient  manu 
scripts  and  the  manuscripts  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
the  printed  editions  of  the  sixteenth  and  the  nine 
teenth  centuries,  bear  witness  to  the  same  gospel, 
to  the  same  creed.  But  nothing  is  insignificant 
which  concerns  the  truth  of  Holy  Scripture.  There 
are  grave  interpolations  in  the  Received  Text  which 
it  would  have  been  worth  eleven  years  of  toil  to 
remove,  if  nothing  else  had  been  done.  There  are 
innumerable  blemishes  and  corruptions  of  less  im 
portance  which  have  become  known  during  the  last 


1  The  Revisers  and  the  Greek  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  by  Two  Revisers 
of  the  Ne-'o  Testament  Company  (London,  1882.  78  pages). 


298   PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

century  to  all  careful  students.  In  great  things 
alike  and  small  it  has  been  the  desire  of  the  Revis 
ers  to  bring  back  the  text  to  its  original  shape. 
They  do  not  claim  the  title  of  discoverers.  They 
have  done  little  moro  than  verify  and  register  the 
most  certain  conclusions  of  modern  textual  criticism. 
In  this,  as  in  other  respects,  they  have  endeavored 
to  make  knowledge  which  has  hitherto  been  accessi 
ble  only  to  the  learned  a  part  of  the  common  heritage 
of  Englishmen." 


CHAPTER  SEVENTH. 

THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Literature. 

THE  literature  is  immense.  We  give  only  a  selec 
tion,  including,  however,  works  which  cover  the 
whole  ground  of  English  Bible  Versions. 

I.  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 

JOHN  LEWIS,  A.M.  (Minister  of  Margate  in  Kent,  Church  of  England)  : 
A  Complete  History  of  the  Several  Translations  of  the  Holy  Bible  and  Neiv 
Testament  into  English,  both  in  MS,  and  in  Print,  etc.  London,  1731,  fol. 
(of  which  only  140  copies  were  printed);  2d  ed.  1739,  8vo;  3d  ed.  1818 
(415  pages).  The  last  edition  contains  extracts  from  Bishop  Newcome's 
'•Historical  View  of  English  Biblical  Translations."  \Vestcotl  (1st  ed., 
p.  415,  note)  says:  "Lewis's  was  an  admirable  work  for  the  time  when  it 
was  written ;  but  his  materials  for  the  early  history  of  the  Bible  were 
wholly  inadequate."  Eadie  (Pref.  p.  vii.):  "Lewis  has  many  merits,  .  .  . 
but  its  blunders  have  led  some  noted  historians  far  astray." 

BAGSTEH'S  Hexapla.with  an  Account  of  the  Principal  English  Transla 
tions.  London,  1841.  Introduction:  Historical  Account  of  the  English 
Versions  of  the  Scriptures  [by  S.  P.  Tregelles],  pp.  1-160.  "Independent 
and  valuable  "  (Westcotr).  In  a  later,  undated  issue  of  the  Hexapla,  a 
different  account  (ascribed  to  Mr.  Anderson)  was  substituted  (112  pages). 

CHRISTOPHER  ANDERSON  (Baptist):  Annals  of  the  English  Bible. 
English  ed.  1845,  2  vols. ;  new  and  revised  ed.  Lond.  1862.  Eadie  (in  his 
work,  vol.  i.  p.  viii.)  calls  this  book  "  the  fruit  of  independent  investiga 
tion,  .  .  .  but  wholly  external,  filled  to  overflowing  with  extraneous  or 
collateral  matter."  Arber  (in  his  reprint  of  Tyndale,  p. 69)  says:  "Ander 
son  errs  as  often  as  he  is  right;"  but  adds:  "  One  excuse  is  the  difficulty 
of  the  search."  The  American  edition  by  Dr.  SAMUEL  IREN^EUS  PRIME, 
New  York  (Carter  &  Brothers),  1849,  is  much  abridged,  and  brought 
down  to  1844  in  one  volume  of  549  pages. 

Mrs.  H.  C.  CONANT  (Baptist):  The  Popular  History  of  the  Translation 


300  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  New  York,  185G;  new  edition,  revised  by  Dr. 
THOMAS  J.  CONANT  (a  member  of  the  Old  Testament  Revision  Company), 
New  York  (Funk  &  Wagnalls),  1881.  A  condensed  and  popular  account, 
continued  to  the  publication  of  the  Revised  New  Testament  (282  pages). 

BROOKE  Foss  WESTCOTT  (Episcopalian,  and  member  of  the  New  Tes 
tament  Revision  Company):  A  General  View  of  the  History  of  the  English 
Bible.  London  and  Cambridge  (Macmillan  &  Co.),  1868  (527  pages); 
2d  ed.  1872  (359  pages).  Very  scholarly  and  accurate ;  the  first  attempt 
of  an  internal  and  critical  history. 

JOHN  STOUGHTON,  D.D.  (Independent) :  Our  English  Bible.  London 
(Religious  Tract  Society),  no  date,  but  about  1878.  A  popular  account, 
with  interesting  illustrations  (310  pages). 

W.  F.  MOULTON  (Wesleyan,  and  member  of  the  New  Testament  Re 
vision  Company):  History  of  the  English  Bible.  London  (Cassell,  Fetter, 
&  Galpin),  1878.  Chiefly  a  reprint  of  the  author's  articles  in  Professor 
I'luinptre's  "Bible  Educator."  The  result  of  careful  comparative 'study 
of  the  characteristics  of  the  several  versions  (232  pages). 

JOHN  EADIK,  D.D.,  LL.D.  (United  Presbyterian,  and  member  of  the 
New  Testament  Revision  Company,  d.  1876):  The  English  Bible.  London 
(Macmillan  &  Co.),  1876,  2  vols.  (444  and  540  pages).  Full  of  valuable 
and,  upon  the  whole,  reliable  information. 

BLACKFORD  CONDIT  (Presbyterian,  Terre  Haute,  Ind.) :  The  History 
of  the  English  Bible:  Extending  from  the  Earliest  Saxon  Translations  to 
the  Present  A  agio  -  A  merican  Revision ;  K'ith  Special  Reference  to  the 
Protestant  Religion  and  the  English  Language.  New  York  and  Chicago, 

1882  (469  pages).    Comes  down  to  the  Revision  of  1881,  is  written  in  good 
spirit,  but  disfigured  by  many  errors  in  facts,  dates,  and  spelling  (e.  y., 
Wittemburgh  for  Wittenberg,  Ximines  for  Ximenes). 

J.  I.  MOMBEUT,  D.D.  (Episcopalian):  A  Hand-Bool:  of  the  English  Ver 
sions  of  the  Bible.  New  York  (Randolph  &  Co.)  and  London  (Bagsters), 

1883  (509  pages).     The  result  of  independent  research,  to  be  followed  by 
a  history  of  all  other  versions  made  directly  from  the  original.     Compare 
the  author's  article  on  English  Bible  Versions  in  SchafTs  "Rel.  Encycl." 
vol.  i.  731-739. 

II.  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  WORKS  ON  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 

Rev.  HENRY  COTTON  (Archdeacon  of  Cashel)  :  Editions  of  the  Bible  and 

Parts  thereof  in  English  (from  1525  to  1850).     Oxford  (University  Press), 

2d  ed.  corrected   and   enlarged,  1852   (8vo,  420  pages).      By  the   same 

author:  Rhemes  and  Dou-ay.     An  Attempt  to  show  what  has  been  done  by 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  301 

Roman  Catholics  for  fke  Diffusion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Oxford  (Uni 
versity  Press),  1855  (8vo,  410  pages). 

W.  J.  LOFTIE,  B.A.,  F.S.A. :  A  Century  of  Bibles  of  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion  from  1G11  to  1711.  London  (Basil  Montague  Pickering,  196  Piccadilly), 
1872  (219  pages). 

The  Bibles  in  the  Caxton  Exhibition  MDCCCLXXV1L,  or  a  Bibliograph 
ical  Description  of  nearly  One  Thousand  Representative  Bibles  in  Various 
Languages  Chronologically  A  rranged,from  the  First  Bible  Printed  by  Guten 
berg  in  1450-1456  to  the  Last  Bible  Printed  at  the  Oxford  University  Press 
the  oQth  June,  1877.  By  HENRY  STEVENS  (an  American  residing  in  Lon 
don).  London  (Henry  Stevens,  4  Trafalgar  Square),  1878. 

For  fac-similcs  of  the  first  editions  of  the  Authorized  and  earlier  English 
versions  see:  A  Description  of  the  Great  Bible,  1539,  and  the  Six  Editions 
of  Cranmer's  Bible,  1540  and  1541,  Printed  by  Grafton  and  Whitchurch: 
also  of  the  Editions,  in  Large  Folio,  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  Printed  in  the  Years  1G11, 1013, 1617,  1634, 1640.  By  FRANCIS 
FIIY,  F.S.A .  Illustrated  icith  Titles,  and  u-ith  Passages  from  the  Editions, 
the  Genealogies,  and  the  Maps,  Copied  in  Fac-simile ;  also  with  an  Identifi 
cation  of  Every  Leaf  of  the  First  Seven,  and  of  Many  Leaves  of  the  Other 
Editions  ;  on  Fifty-one  Plates.  Together  u-ith  an  Original  Leaf  of  Each 
of  the  Editions  Described.  London  (Willis  and  Sotheran)  and  Bristol  (Las- 
bury),  1865.  With  a  picture  of  Cranmer.  A  copy  of  this  superb  book  is 
in  the  library  of  the  American  Bible  Society. 

For  American  editions  of  the  Bible  see  the  following  two  works : 

E.  B.  O'CALLAGIIAN  (d.  1880)  :  A  List  of  Editions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  Parts  thereof,  Printed  in  AMERICA  previous  to  1860  :  u-ith  Introduction 
and  Bibliographical  Notes.  Albany  (Munsell  &  Rowland),  1861  (415 
pages,  royal  8vo). 

JOHN  GILMARY  SHEA  :  A  Bibliographical  A  ccount  of  Catholic  Bibles, 
Testaments,  and  other  Portions  of  the  Scripture  Translations  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  and  printed  in  the  United  States.  New  York,  1859  (12mo,48  pages). 

III.  STANDARD  EDITIONS  OF  THE  CHIEF  ENGLISH  VERSIONS. 

1.  Anglo-Saxon. 

BENJAMIN  THORPE,  F.S.A.:  Da  Halgan  Godspel  on  Englisc.  The  Anglo- 
Saxon  Version  of  the  Holy  Gospels.  London  and  Oxford  (Parker),  1842. 
The  first  edition  of  the  Saxon  Gospels  was  by  Archbishop  Parker,  1571, 
the  second  by  Dr.  Marshall,  Dortrecht,  1665. 

JOSEPH  BOSWORTH  (Professor  of  Anglo-Saxon,  Oxford,  assisted  by 
GEORGE  WARING):  The  Gothic  and  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels  in  Parallel 
Columns  with  the  Versions  of  Wyclijfe  and  Tyndale.  2d  ed.,  London,  1874. 


302  THE    AUTIIOKIZED    VERSION. 

Anglo-Saxon  and  Northumberland  versions  of  the  Gospels,  published 
by  the  Syndics  of  the  University  Press,  Cambridge :  St.  Matthew,  by 
KEMBLE  and  HARDWICK,  1858;  St.  Mark,  by  WALTER  W.  SKEAT,  1871 : 
St.  Luke,  by  the  same,  1874;  St.  John,  by  the  same,  1878.  This  is  the 
standard  edition. 

2.  Anglo-Norman  :  Wiclif,  Hereford,  and  Purvey. 

Rev.  JOSIAII  FORSHALL,  F.K.S.  (late  Fellow  of  Exeter  College),  and 
Sir  FREDERIC  MADDEN,  K.H..  F.R.S.  (Keeper  of  the  MSS.  in  the  British 
Museum) :  The  Holy  Bible,  Containing  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  with 
the  Apocryphal  Books,  in  the  Earliest  English  Versions  made  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate  by  John  Wycliffe  and  his  Followers.  Oxford  (at  the  University 
Press),  1850.  In  4  vols.,  royal  4to.  This  is  the  first  complete  and  relia 
ble  print  of  this  great  work,  begun  by  Wiclif  and  his  friends,  completed 
and  improved  by  Purvey.  It  is  based  upon  a  careful  comparison  of  MSS. 
The  earlier  editions,  including  that  in  Bagster's  Hc-xapla,  1841  (which  is 
a  reprint  of  Baber's  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  1810,  as  this  is  of  that 
of  Lewis,  1731),  are  incorrect  and  misleading.  The  Oxford  editors  have 
spent  a  considerable  portion  of  their  time  during  twenty-two  years  in 
accomplishing  this  laborious  task.  In  the  h'rst  volume  they  give  a  list 
of  770  MSS.  (pp.  xxxix.-lxiv.). 

3.  Modern  English  :  Tyndale. 

Neio  Testament.  Tyndalt's  First  Edition,  supposed  to  have  been  Printed 
at  Worms  by  Peter  Schceffer  in  1526;  a  Fac-simile  on  Vellum,  Illumined, 
Reprinted  from  the  Copy  in  the  Baptist  College,  Bristol.  With  an  Intro 
duction  by  FRANCIS  FRY.  18G2.  "  Mr.  Fry  has  rendered  a  great  service  in 
reproducing  this  rare  volume  with  so  much  care  and  fidelity"  (Stevens). 

The  First  Printed  ENGLISH  NEW  TESTAMENT.  Translated  by  WILLIAM 
TYNDALE.  Photo -lithographed  from  the  Unique  Fragment,  now  in  the 
Grenville  Collection,  British  Museum.  Edited  by  EDWARD  ARBER,  F.R.G.S. 
(Associate,  King's  College,  London).  London  (5  Queen  Square,  Blooms- 
bury),  Feb.  15,  1871.  This  is  a  reprint  of  the  quarto -fragment  of  the 
first  edition  of  1525.  It  contains  also  an  account  of  Tyndale's  antecedent 
career,  of  the  printing  at  Cologne  and  Worms,  and  other  important  in 
formation.  The  photo-lithographed  text  contains  only  the  prologue,  a 
list  of  the  books  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  a  wood-cut,  and  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  from  ch.  i.  to  xxii.  12,  with  marginal  notes.  The 
title-page  is  lost.  The  inner  marginal  references,  several  glosses,  and  a 
portion  of  the  preface  are  taken  from  Luther's  German  Testament,  1522 
(see  p.  67 ).  This  would  seem  to  settle  the  disputed  question  of  Tyndale's 
relation  to  Luther. 


THE   AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  303 

FRANCIS  FKY,  F.R.S. :  A  Bibliographical  Description  of  the  Editions 
of  the  NEW  TESTAMENT,  Tyndale's  Version  in  English  [1525-1566],  with 
Numerous  Readings,  Comparisons  of  Texts,  and  Historical  Notices,  the  Notes 
in  full  of  the  Edition  of  1534.  .  .  .  Illustrated  with  Seventy-three  Plates, 
Titles,  Colophons,  Pages,  Capitals.  London  (Henry  Sothcran  &  Co.,  3G 
Piccadilly),  1878,  4to.  A  magnificent  work.  (American  Bible  Society.) 

4.  Then  followed :  COVERDALE'S  Bible  (1535,  etc.) ;  MATTHEW'S  Bible 
(Graft on  and  Whitchurch,  1537,  etc.) ;  TAVERNER'S  (1539) ;  "The  GREAT 
BIBLE"  (1539;  the  second  edition,  1540,  contains  Preface  by  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  and  is  hence  called  also  "  Cranmer's  Bible  ") ;  The  GENEVA  Bible 
(New  Testament,  Geneva,  1557;  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  Geneva, 
1560,  very  often  reprinted  in  London  and  on  the  Continent) ;  The  BISHOPS' 
Bible  ("  The  Holie  Bible,  containing  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  :  The 
New  Testament  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christe.   15b'8.   Richard  Jugge.    Cum 
Privilegio  Rcgine  Majestatis  ").    See  for  full  titles  and  descriptions  of  these 
versions   the   bibliographical   works   above  quoted,  especially  Stevens, 
pp.  G8  sqq. 

5.  The  Authorized  Version  (King  James's}. 

(ci)  The  editio  princeps,  1G11 — The  \  Holy  \  Bible,  \  Conteynwg  the  Old 
Testa-  |  ment,  and  the  New :  \  Newly  Translated  out  of  \  the  Originall 
Tongues:  and  with  \  the  former  Translations  diligently  \  compared  and 
reuised,  by  his  \  Maicsties  speciall  Commandement.  \  Appointed  to  be  read 
in  Churches.  \  Imprinted  \  at  London  l>y  Robert  \  Barker,  Printer  to  the  \ 
Kings  most  Excellent  Maicstie.  \  Anno  l)om.  1611.  Fol.  The  title-page  is 
a  wood-cut  which  had  done  duty  before,  especially  in  the  Bishops'  Bible 
of  1602.  It  represents  the  four  Evangelists  with  their  emblems  (Matthew 
with  the  winged  angel  and  Mark  with  the  Lion  above,  Luke  with  the  ox 
and  John  with  the  eagle  below),  the  Twelve  Tribes  with  tents  and  armorial 
bearings  on  the  left,  the  Twelve  Apostles  on  the  right  of  the  letter-press, 
the  Paschal  Lamb  slain  on  the  altar  beneath  the  title,  and  at  the  top  of 
the  page  the  Lamb  triumphant  and  the  name  Jehovah  (!"Pi"p). 

In  some  copies  the  title-page  is  an  elegant  copperplate  engraving  (repro 
duced  by  Mr.  Fry),  which  represents  Moses  cornutus  on  the  left,  Aaron  on 
the  right  of  the  letter-press  title,  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  above  and 
below,  and  other  ornaments.  It  was  executed,  as  the  subscription  show?, 
by  Cornelius  Boel  of  Antwerp,  then  working  at  Richmond  in  Surrey. 
Perhaps  this  plate  was  not  ready  when  the  earliest  copies  were  printed. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  special  title  to  the  New  Testament  of 
1611  omits  the  line  "Appointed  to  be  read  in  Churches'1'1  (printed  in  very 
small  italics),  and  reads  thus:  "  The  \  Newe  \  Testament  of\  our  Lord  and 


301  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Sauiour  \  Jesvs  Christ.  \  Neu-ly  Translated  out  of  \  the  Original!  GreeJce : 
and  with  \  the  former  Translations  diligently  \  compared  and  revised,  by 
his  |  Maiesties  s})eciall  Com-  \  mandement.  \  Imprinted  \  at  London  by 
.  Robert  \  Marker,  Printer  to  the  \  Kings  most  Excellent  \  Maiestie.  \  Anno 
Dom.  1611."  1  I  have  also  seen  (in  the  library  of  the  American  Bible  So 
ciety)  two  quarto  editions  of  1013,  which  omit  said  line  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  title,  and  one  even  in  the  general  title.  There  is,  therefore,  no  uni 
formity  in  this  matter. 

There  are  two  editions  of  1G11,  differing  in  every  signature,  but  it  is 
unknown  wrhich  is  the  first.  See  Francis  Fry,  A  Description  of  the  Great 
Jy'tble,  etc.  (Lond.  1865),  and  Scrivener,  Paragraph  Bible,  p.  xi.  sqq.  and 
Ixxxvi.-xc.  Besides  the  folio  edition,  there  was  published  in  1611  a 
12mo  edition  (in  black-letter)  of  the  New  Testament,  the  only  known 
copy  of  which  is  in  the  Lenox  Library  of  New  York  (see  Loftie,  p.  57). 

(b)  The  Oxford  Keprint,  1833.— The  folio  edition  of  1G11  was  reprinted 
from  an  Oxford  copy,  page  for  page,  in  quasi  fac-simile,  by  the  Oxford 
University  Press,  1833.  It  gives  the  Dedication  and  the  Preface,  and  a 
list  of  variations  between  the  editions  of  1611  and  1613.  But  the  follow 
ing  preliminary  matter  of  the  original  edition  is  omitted  :  (1)  an  Almanac 
for  thirty-nine  years ;  (2)  a  Table  of  Psalms  and  Lessons  for  Morning  and 
Evening  Prayer;  (3)  the  Genealogies  of  Holy  Scripture  (with  curious 
illustrations),  ending  with  an  account  of  the  Holy  Family. 

(r)  The  Cambridge  Edition,  1873. — The  best  (not  to  say  the  only) 
critical  edition  of  King  James's  Version  is  by  Dr.  Scrivener,  but  with 
modern  spelling,  under  the  following  title: 

The  |  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible  \  of  the  \  A  uthorized  English  Version,  \ 
with  the  text  revised  by  a  collation  of  its  early  and  other  ]  principal  editions,  \ 
the  use  of  the  italic  type  made  uniform,  \  the  marginal  references  remodelled,  \ 
and  a  critical  introduction  prefixed  \  by  \  the  Rev.  F.  H.  SCRIVENER,  M.A., 
LL.D.,  |  Rector  of  St.  Gerrans,  Editor  of  the  Greek  Testament,  Codex 
A  t/giensis,  etc.  \  one  of  the  New  Testament  Company  of  Revisers  of  the 
A  uthorized  Version.  \  Edited  for  the  Syndics  of  the  University  Press. 
Cambridge  (at  the  University  Press),  1873,  4to. 

1  Loftie  observes  the  same  fact  (I.e.  p.  45),  and  regards  it  as  "an  addi 
tional  and  valuable  proof,  although  apparently  unknown  to  Mr.  Westcott, 
that  he  is  right  in  saying  the  present  version  was  never  in  reality  sepa 
rately  sanctioned  by  Council,  Convocation,  or  Parliament.  In  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  the  only  version  ever  authorized  was  the  Great  Bible 
referred  to  especially  in  a  proclamation  of  Henry  VIII.,  dated  in  1538." 


THE    AUTHORIZED    YEESION.  305 

This  edition  is  based  upon  a  comparison  of  the  editions  of  1611,  1612. 
1613, 1C1G,  1617. 1629, 1638,  1701,  etc.,  and  the  revisions  of  Dr.  Paris  (1762) 
and  Dr.  Blayney  (1769),  also  the  edition  of  the  American  Bible  Society 
of  1867.  The  Introduction  and  Appendices  give  information  on  the  history 
of  the  text  of  the  Authorized  Version,  punctuation,  orthography.  The 
text  is  arranged  in  paragraphs  accommodated  to  the  sense,  the  poetry  is 
printed  according  to  the  structure  of  Hebrew  poetry,  and  the  margin  is 
filled  with  a  revised  list  of  the  traditional  parallel  references.  The  edition 
was  undertaken  before,  and  completed  during,  the  Revision  of  King  James's 
Version,  in  prospect  of  "a  race  of  generous  and  friendly  rivalry  "  between 
the  two  versions  ';for  the  space  of  at  least  one  generation  before  the  elder 
of  the  two  shall  be  superseded." 

(fl)  The  standard  edition  of  the  American  Bible  Society  is  the  imperial 
octavo  of  1882,  which  is  based  upon  the  Society's  final  revision  of  1860. 

THE    BIBLE    AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

We  have  no  intention  of  writing  a  history  of  the 
Bible  in  general,  or  of  the  English  Bible  in  particu 
lar,  but  only  to  add  two  chapters  on  the  Authorized 
and  on  the  Revised  Version  in  their  relation  to  tho 
Greek  Kew  Testament,  and  thereby  to  make  the 
preceding  chapters  practically  useful  to  the  English 
reader. 

The  history  of  the  Bible  is  to  a  large  extent  a 

t>  O 

history  of  revealed  religion  and  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Its  estimate  and  neglect  mark  the  degrees 
of  temperature  in  the  thermometer  of  piety  and 
virtue.  The  Church  of  God,  the  Book  of  God,  and 
the  Day  of  God  are  a  sacred  trinity  on  earth,  the 
chief  pillars  of  Christian  society  and  national  pros 
perity.  Without  them  Europe  and  America  would 
soon  relapse  into  heathenism  and  barbarism.  The 
Bible  occupies  a  conspicuous  isolation  among  books, 
and  is  more  indispensable  to  the  moral  welfare  of 
mankind  than  all  the  libraries  of  genius  and  learn- 
20 


30C  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

ing.  It  is  not  a  book  simply,  but  an  institution,  an 
all-pervading  and  perennial  force  in  the  Church ;  it 
is  the  voice  of  the  living  God ;  it  is  the  message  of 
Christ,  whose  divine-human  nature  it  reflects;  it  is 
the  chief  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  illuminating, 
converting,  warning,  and  cheering  men.  It  rules 


Cl  •      CH  I  VI.       V^l  1  V>  Vvl  1  1  1  ^L 


from  the  pulpit,  it  presides  at  the  family  altar,  it 
touches  human  life  at  every  point  from  the  cradle 
to  the  grave,  and  guides  the  soul  on  its  lonely  jour 
ney  to  the  unseen  world.  It  has  moulded  the  lan 
guages,  laws,  habits,  and  home-life  of  the  nations  of 
Europe,  and  inspired  the  noblest  works  of  literature 
and  art.  The  Bible  retains  with  advancing  age  the 
dew  and  freshness  of  youth,  and  readapts  itself  in 
ever  improving  versions  to  every  age  in  every  civil 
ized  land.  It  is  now  more  extensively  studied  than 
ever  before,  and  it  will  be  the  standard-bearer  of 
true  progress  in  all  time  to  come. 

The  Bible  was  originally  intended  for  all  the  pea- 
pie  that  could  hear  and  read,  and  was  multiplied  in 
the  early  centuries  by  translations  into  the  Greek, 
Syriac,  Coptic,  Latin,  Gothic,  and  other  languages, 
as  the  demand  arose.  But  during  the  Middle  Ages 
the  ruling  hierarchy,  fearing  abuse  and  loss  of  power, 
withheld  the  book  from  the  people,  except  the  lessons 
and  texts  in  the  public  service.  Vernacular  versions 
were  discouraged  or  even  forbidden.  The  result 
was  the  spread  of  ignorance  and  superstition. 

The  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  kindled 
an  incredible  enthusiasm  for  the  word  of  the  living 
God.  They  first  fully  appreciated  its  universal  des 
tination,  and,  with  the  aid  of  the  art  of  printing  and 


THE    AUTIIOEIZED    VERSION.  307 

the  general  education  of  the  people,  this  destination 
is  carried  out  more  and  more.  Even  in  Rome,  since 
1870,  the  book  may  be  freely  sold  and  bought  and 
preached  in  spite  of  papal  denunciations  of  Bible 
Societies.  The  Reformers  declared  the  Scriptures 
to  be  the  supreme  and  infallible  rule  of  the  Chris 
tian  faith  and  life,  which  must  guide  the  individual 
and  the  Church  at  large.  They  went  to  the  fountain- 
head  of  truth,  and  removed  the  obstructions  which 
prevent  a  direct  access  of  the  believer  to  the  word 
of  God  and  the  grace  of  Christ.  They  reconquered 
the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  and 
more  martyrs  died  for  the  cause  of  evangelical  free 
dom  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  than 
for  the  Christian  faith  in  the  first  three  centuries. 
The  Christians  of  the  present  age  are  as  near  to 
Christ  as  the  Christians  of  the  first  generation.  He 
stands  in  the  centre,  and  all  his  disciples  in  the  cir 
cumference.  He  does  not  recede  as  the  ages  advance, 
but  has  promised  his  unbroken  presence  to  his  peo 
ple  to  the  end  of  the  world,  even  where  only  two 
or  three  are  assembled  in  his  name.  In  the  Gospels 
he  speaks  to  us  now  as  he  spoke  to  the  Twelve,  and 
in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  his  inspired  apostles  teach 
us  the  same  truths  with  the  same  authority  and 
force  as  they  did  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  This 
unspeakable  privilege  of  direct  communion  with 
Christ  and  his  Word  can  never  be  wrested  from 
the  Christian  people. 

To  the  Reformation  we  owe  the  best  translations 
of  the  Bible ;  not  mechanical  transfers,  but  fresh  re 
productions  made  under  the  influence  of  a  secondary 


308  THE    AUTIIOKIZED    VERSION. 

inspiration.  The  sixteenth  century  was  an  age  of 
the  republication  of  the  gospel.  Foremost  among 
the  popular  model  versions  are  the  German,  the 
Dutch,  and  the  English.  They  have  gained  such  a 
hold  on  the  people  that  it  is  difficult  to  replace  them 
by  any  new  one,  however  superior  it  may  be  in 
accuracy. 

The  English  race  has  never  been  entirely  without 
the  Bible  since  the  time  when  Augustine,  with  his 
thirty  Benedictine  monks  from  Koine,  landed  at  the 
Isle  of  Thanet  and  preached  the  Gospel  to  King 
Ethelbert  (597).  And  the  different  versions  mark 
the  different  epochs  of  the  English  language  and 
literature.  Csedmon's  Metrical  Paraphrase  (680),  the 
Durham  Book  (parts  of  the  Gospels),  the  Venerable 
Bede's  Version  of  John  (735),  and  several  Psalters, 
represent  the  Anglo-Saxon  ;  the  Version  of  Wiclif 
and  his  followers  (1380),  the  Norman-English ;  the 
several  versions  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  modern 
English  ;  and  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611  still 
occupies  the  first  place  among  the  English  classics, 
though  many  of  its  words  and  phrases  are  antiquated. 

But  the  Anglo-Saxon  versions  covered  only  por 
tions  of  the  Scriptures,  and  never  attained  a  popu 
lar  circulation.  Wiclif  and  the  Lollards  were  con 
demned  by  the  Roman  Church,  and  his  version, 
which  was  derived  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  passed 
out  of  sight.  England  was  slow  in  adopting  the 
new  light  of  the  Reformation  in  the  sixteenth  cen 
tury  ;  but,  once  reformed,  she  took  the  lead  in  zeal 
for  the  Bible.  One  effort  after  another  was  made 
to  Anglicize  it.  William  Tyndale,  one  of  the  cap- 


THE    AUTHORIZED    YEKSION.  309 

tains  in  "  the  noble  army  of  martyrs,"  opened  the 
new  Bible  era  under  much  persecution  (1525),  and 
was  followed  by  Miles  Coverdale  (1535),  Thomas 
Matthew  (alias  John  Rogers,  the  martyr,  1537), 
Richard  Taverner  (1539),  the  authors  of  the  Great 
Bible  (1540,  with  a  preface  by  Archbishop  Cranmer; 
hence  often  called  Cranmer's  Bible),  the  Genevan 
Bible  (1560),  the  Bishops'  Bible  (1568  and  1572), 
and  King  James's  Version  (1611). 

NOTES. 

The  following  testimonies  to  the  value  of  the 
Scriptures  from  different  schools  of  thought  are 
worth  comparing. 

From  the  Preface  of  King  JAMES'S  TRANSLATORS  (now  rarely  printed) : 
"The  Scriptures  then  being  acknowledged  to  be  so  full  and  so  perfect, 
how  can  we  excuse  ourselves  of  negligence,  if  we  do  not  study  them,  of 
curiosity,  if  we  be  not  content  with  them?  Men  talk  much  of  g/pgcrtoji^//, 
how  many  sweet  and  goodly  things  it  had  hanging  on  it;  of  the  Philoso 
pher's  stone,  that  it  turneth  copper  into  gold;  of  Cornu-copia,  that  it  had 
all  things  necessary  for  food  in  it;  of  Panaces  the  herb,  that  it  was  good 
for  all  diseases ;  of  Catholicon  the  drug,  that  it  is  instead  of  all  purges ; 
of  Vulcan's  Armor,  that  it  was  an  armor  of  proof  against  all  thrusts,  and 
all  blows,  etc.  Well,  that  which  they  falsely  or  vainly  attributed  to  these 
things,  for  bodily  good,  we  may  justly  and  with  full  measure  ascribe  unto 
the  Scripture  for  spiritual.  It  is  not  only  an  armor,  but  also  a  whole 
armory  of  weapons,  both  offensive  and  defensive ;  whereby  we  may  save 
ourselves  and  put  the  enemy  to  flight.  It  is  not  an  herb,  but  a  tree,  or 
rather  a  whole  paradise  of  trees  of  life,  which  bring  forth  fruit  every 
month,  and  the  fruit  thereof  is  for  meat,  and  the  leaves  for  medicine. 
It  is  not  a  pot  of  manna  or  a  cruse  of  oil,  which  were  for  memory  only,  or 
for  a  meal's  meat  or  two,  but  as  it  were  a  shower  of  heavenly  bread 
sufficient  for  a  whole  host,  be  it  never  so  great,  and  as  it  were  a  whole 
cellar  full  of  oil-vessels ;  whereby  all  our  necessities  may  be  provided  for, 
and  our  debts  discharged.  In  a  word,  it  is  a  Panary  of  wholesome  food 


310  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

against  fenowed  1  traditions;  a  Physician's  shop  (St.  Basil  callcth  it)  of 
preservatives  against  poisoned  heresies;  a  Pandect  of  profitable  laws 
against  rebellious  spirits;  a  treasury  of  most  costly  jewels  against  beg 
garly  rudiments ;  finally,  a  fountain  of  most  pure  water  springing  up  unto 
everlasting  life.  And  what  marvel?  the  original  thereof  being  from 
heaven,  not  from  earth  ;  the  Author  being  GOD,  not  man ;  the  Enditer,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  the  wit  of  the  apostles  or  prophets ;  the  penmen,  such  as 
were  sanctified  from  the  womb,  and  endued  with  a  principal  portion  of 
(Jon's  Spirit;  the  matter,  verity,  piety,  purity,  uprightness;  the  form. 
GOD'S  Word,  GOD'S  testimony,  GOD'S  oracles,  the  word  of  truth,  the  word 
of  salvation,  etc.;  the  effects,  light  of  understanding,  stableness  of  persua 
sion,  repentance  from  dead  works,  newness  of  life,  holiness,  peace,  joy  in 
the  Holy  Ghost;  lastly,  the  end  and  reward  of  the  study  thereof,  fellow 
ship  with  the  saints,  participation  of  the  heavenly  nature,  fruition  of  an 
inheritance  immortal,  undcfiled,  and  that  never  shall  fade  away.  Happy 
is  the  man  that  delighteth  in  the  Scripture,  and  thrice  happy  that  medi- 
tateth  in  it  day  and  night." 

Dr.  CimiSTOPHEU  "VVoKDSwouTH  (Bishop  of  Lincoln),  who  represents 
the  reverent,  devout,  patristic,  high-Anglican  type  of  exegesis,  closes  the 
Preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament  thus:  ''Some  have  dis 
paraged  the  style  of  Scripture  as  barbarous,  and  others  have  apologized 
fur  it  as  the  work  of  illiterate  and  unlearned  men.  But  surely  these 
notions  concerning  it  are  very  erroneous.  The  diction  of  Scripture,  it  is 
true,  is  not  the  language  of  any  other  composition  in  the  world.  The 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  the  Greek  of  Xenophon,  Plato,  or 
Demosthenes.  It  is  a  language  of  its  own.  And  we  need  not  scruple  to 
affirm  that,  in  precision  of  expression,  in  pure  and  native  simplicity,  in 
delicacy  of  handling,  in  the  grouping  of  words  and  phrases,  in  dignified 
and  majestic  sublimity,  it  has  no  rival  in  the  world. 

"The  more  carefully  it  is  studied,  the  more  clearly  will  this  appear. 
' Nihil  otiosum  in  Sacra  Scripturd'1  (Origen,  in  Epist.  ad  Roman,  c.  1). 
' Nihil  vacuum,  neque.  sine  signo,  apud  Deum'1  (Irena?us,  iv.  21).  Every 
sentence — we  might  almost  say  every  phrase — is  fraught  with  meaning. 
As  it  is  in  the  book  of  Nature,  so  is  it  in  the  pages  of  Holy  Writ.  Both 
are  from  the  same  Divine  Hand.  And  if  we  apply  to  the  language  of 
Holy  Scripture  the  same  microscopic  process  which  we  use  in  scrutinizing 
the  beauties  of  the  natural  world,  and  which  reveals  to  us  exquisite  colors 
and  the  most  graceful  texture  in  the  petals  of  a  flower,  the  fibres  of  a 

1  I.  c.,  mouldy. 


THE    AUTIIOKIZED    VERSION.  311 

plant,  the  plumage  of  a  bird,  or  the  wings  of  an  insect,  we  shall  discover 
new  sources  of  delight  and  admiration  in  the  least  portions  of  Holy  Writ, 
and  believe  that  it  may  be  one  of  the  employments  of  angels  and  beati 
fied  saints,  in  another  state  of  existence,  to  gaze  on  the  glorious  mysteries 
of  God's  Holy  Word." 

Rev.  F.  W.  ROBKUTSON,  the  genial  and  eloquent  preacher  of  Brighton, 
of  broad  and  liberal  sympathies,  pays  this  tribute  to  the  Bible  (in  his  sermon 
on  Inspiration) :  '•  This  collection  of  books  has  been  to  the  world  what 
no  other  book  has  ever  been  to  a  nation.  States  have  been  founded  on 
its  principles.  Kings  rule  by  a  compact  based  on  it.  Men  hold  the  Bible 
in  their  hands  when  they  give  solemn  evidence  affecting  life,  death,  or 
property :  the  sick  man  is  almost  afraid  to  die  unless  the  Book  be  within 
reach  of  his  hands;  the  battle-ship  goes  into  action  with  one  on  board 
whose  office  is  to  expound  it;  its  prayers,  its  Psalms,  are  the  language  we 
use  when  we  speak  to  God;  eighteen  centuries  have  found  no  holier,  no 
diviner  language.  If  ever  there  has  been  a  prayer  or  a  hymn  enshrined 
in  the  heart  of  a  nation,  you  are  sure  to  find  its  basis  in  the  Bible.  There 
is  no  new  religious  idea  given  to  the  world,  but  it  is  merely  the  develop 
ment  of  something  given  in  the  Bible.  The  very  translation  of  it  has 
fixed  the  language  and  settled  the  idioms  of  speech.  Germany  and  Eng 
land  speak  as  they  speak  because  the  Bible  was  translated.  It  has  made 
the  most  illiterate  peasant  more  familiar  with  the  history,  customs,  and 
geography  of  ancient  Palestine  than  with  the  localities  of  his  own  country. 
Men  who  know  nothing  of  the  Grampians,  of  Snowdon,  or  of  Skiddaw,  are 
at  home  in  Zion,  the  Lake  of  Genesareth,  or  among  the  rills  of  Carmcl. 
People  who  know  little  about  London,  know  by  heart  the  places  in 
Jerusalem  where  those  blessed  feet  trod  which  were  nailed  to  the  cross. 
Men  who  know  nothing  of  the  architecture  of  a  Christian  cathedral,  can 
yet  tell  you  about  the  pattern  of  the  Holy  Temple.  Even  this  shows  us 
the  influence  of  the  Bible.  The  orator  holds  a  thousand  men  for  half  an 
hour  breathless  —  a  thousand  men  as  one,  listening  to  his  single  word. 
But  this  Word  of  God  has  held  a  thousand  years  spell-bound;  held  them 
by  an  abiding  power,  even  the  universality  of  its  truth  ;  and  we  feel  it  to 
be  no  more  a  collection  of  books,  but  the  Book." 

Dr.  WAYLAND  (Baptist,  late  President  of  Bnnyn  University,  Rhode 
Island) :  "  That  the  truths  of  the  Bible  have  the  power  of  awakening  an 
intense  moral  feeling  in  man  under  every  variety  of  character,  learned  or 
ignorant,  civilized  or  savage ;  that  they  make  bad  men  good,  and  send  a 
pulse  of  healthful  feeling  through  all  the  domestic,  civil,  and  social  rela 
tions;  that  they  teach  men  to  love  right,  to  hate  wrong,  and  to  seek  each 


512  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

other's  welfare,  as  the  children  of  one  common  Parent;  that  they  control 
the  baleful  passions  of  the  human  heart,  and  thus  make  men  proficient  in 
the  science  of  self-government;  and,  finally,  that  they  teach  him  to  aspire 
after  a  conformity  to  a  Being  of  infinite  holiness,  and  fill  him  with  hopes 
infinitely  more  purifying,  more  exalted,  more  suited  to  his  nature,  than 
any  other  which  this  world  has  ever  known,  are  facts  as  incontrovertible 
as  the  laws  of  philosophy  or  the  demonstration  of  mathematics." 

GOETHE:  <;I  am  convinced  that  the  Bible  grows  in  beauty  the  more 
we  understand  it,  i.  <%,  the  more  we  see  that  every  word  to  which  we  give 
a  general  meaning  and  a  particular  application  to  ourselves  has  had  a 
specific  and  direct  reference  to  definite  conditions  of  time  and  place."  In 
another  place  the  great  poet  says  (in  the  Gesprache  mil  Eckermann,  shortly 
before  his  death) :  "  \Ve  cannot  estimate  the  debt  of  thanks  we  owe  to 
Luther  and  the  Reformation.  No  matter  how  much  intellectual  culture 
may  progress,  how  much  the  natural  sciences  in  ever-growing  expansion 
and  depth  may  grow,  and  the  human  mind  expand  to  its  utmost  capacity, 
it  will  never  be  able  to  exceed  the  height  and  moral  culture  of  Christian 
ity  as  it  shines  in  the  Gospels.'' 

HKIXRICII  EWALP,  the  great  Hebrew  scholar,  and  one  of  the  boldest 
and  most  independent  critics  and  commentators,  when  Dean  Stanley,  then 
a  student  from  Oxford,  called  on  him,  grasped  a  small  Greek  Testament 
and  said  with  intense  earnestness :  "  In  this  little  book  is  contained  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  world."  Stanley  never  forgot  the  deep  impression  which 
this  remark  made  upon  him  (see  Preface  to  the  third  volume  of  his 
Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  x.). 

ORIGIN    OF    THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

King  James's  Version  is  the  last  and  the  best  of 
the  English  versions  of  the  Reformation  period,  and 
hence  it  finally  superseded  all  its  predecessors.  It 
is  the  mature  fruit  of  three  generations  of  Bible 
students  and  translators,  and  embodies  the  best  ele 
ments  of  the  older  versions. 

It  originated  in  the  Hampton  Court  Conference, 
in  January,  A.D.  160^. 1  When  King  James  I.,  the 

1  Old  style.  January,  1G03. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  313 

son  of  Mary  Stuart,  by  the  death  of  Queen  Elizabeth 
was  raised  from  the  throne  of  Presbyterian  Scotland 
to  that  of  Episcopal  England,  he  summoned  the  lead 
ers  of  the  conservative  or  Conformist  and  the  radi 
cal  or  Puritan  parties  to  his  presence,  that  he  might 
act  as  umpire  on  the  points  of  dispute  between  them. 
Dr.  Reynolds,  President  of  Corpus  Christ!  College, 
Oxford,  as  the  spokesman  of  the  Puritans,  proposed 
amoiiff  other  reforms  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 

r*> 

The  Bishop  of  London  (Bancroft)  objected  ;  but  the 
king  —  moved,  as  it  seems,  chiefly  by  theological 
vanity  and  intense  dislike  of  the  popular  Geneva 
Version — accepted  the  proposition,  and  afterwards 
appointed  the  translators  and  prescribed  the  rules, 
though  he  took  good  care  that  the  enterprise  should 
not  cost  him  a  penny.  By  granting  the  request  for 
a  new  version  he  pleased  the  Puritans,  and  hoped 
to  stop  their  complaints ;  while  by  abusing  the 
Geneva  Version,  with  its  alleged  "  seditious  and 
traitorous  notes,"  he  conciliated  the  Churchmen  and 
allayed  their  suspicion.  Both  parties  heartily  ac 
quiesced  and  united  in  what  proved  to  be  a  most 
useful  work.  It  is  the  only  result  of  the  Hampton 
Court  Conference,  and  the  greatest  event,  we  may 
say.  the  only  redeeming  feature,  of  the  inglorious 
reign  of  the  monarch  whose  name  it  bears.  It  pre 
sents  a  striking  instance  of  the  wisdom  of  Providence 
in  overruling  even  the  weakness  and  folly  of  men 
for  the  general  good. 

The  following  is  the  report  of  the  characteristic 
discussion  which  led  to  so  great  a  result: 


314:  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

"Dit.  REYNOLDS.— May  your  Majesty  be  pleased  that  there  might  be 
a  new  translation  of  the  Bible,  such  as  are  extant  being  corrupt,  and  not 
answering  the  original. 

"And  he  instanced  three  particulars:  Gal.  iv.  25,  in  the  original, 
(Tvaroixt i,  is  ill  translated, '  bordtreth.'  Psa.  cv.  28,  in  the  original, '  They 
were  not  disobedient,'  is  ill  translated, ;  They  were  not  obedient.'  Psa.  cvi. 
30,  in  the  original,  '  Phinehas  executed  judgment,'  is  ill  translated, 
e  Phinehas  stood  up  and  prayed? 

"  BISHOP  OF  LONDON. — It  every  man's  humour  might  be  followed,  there 
•would  be  no  end  of  translating. 

"His  MAJESTY.— I  profess  I  could  never  yet  see  a  Bible  well  translated 
in  English  ;  but  I  think  that,  of  all.  that  of  Geneva  is  the  worst.  I  wish 
some  special  pains  were  taken  for  a  uniform  translation;  which  should  be 
done  by  the  best  learned  in  both  Universities,  then  reviewed  by  the  Bish 
ops,  presented  to  the  Privy  Council,  lastly,  ratified  by  Royal  Authority,  to 
be  read  in  the  whole  Church,  and  no  other. 

"  BISHOP  OF  LONDON.— But  it  is  fit  that  no  marginal  notes  should  be 
added  thereunto. 

•'His  MAJESTY. — That  caveat  is  well  put  in;  for  in  the  Geneva  trans 
lation  (given  me  by  an  English  lady),  some  notes  are  partial,  untrue, 
seditious,  and  savouring  too  much  of  dangerous  and  traitorous  conceits. 
As.  for  example,  in  Exod.  i.  19,  disobedience  to  kings  is  allowed  in  a 
marginal  note,  and,  2  Chron.  xv.  1C,  King  Asa  is  taxed  in  the  note  for 
only  deposing  his  mother  for  idolatry,  and  not  killing  her.  To  conclude 
this  point :  let  errors  in  matters  of  faith  be  amended,  and  indifferent 
things  be  interpreted,  and  a  gloss  added  unto  them.  For  as  Bartolus  de 
Itegno  saith,  that  'a  king  with  some  weakness  is  better  than  still  a  change;' 
so  rather  a  church  with  some  faults  than  an  innovation.  And  surely  if 
these  were  the  greatest  matters  that  grieved  you,  I  need  not  have  been 
troubled  with  such  importunities  and  complaints. 

"And  withal,  looking  upon  the  lords,  his  Majesty  shook  his  head, 
smiling." 

NOTES. 

1.  The  connection  of  King  James  with  the  Authorized  Version  fortu 
nately  did  not  go  beyond  the  permission  and  the  initial  arrangements. 
It  was  very  natural  and  necessary  at  a  time  when  the  king  was  the 
spiritual  as  Avell  as  the  temporal  ruler  of  England.  James  I.  was  shrewd, 
quick-witted,  and  well-read  in  all  the  mysteries  of  kingcraft,  priestcraft, 
witchcraft,  and  the  tobacco  controversy,  but  destitute  of  personal  dignity, 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  315 

as  ugly  as  his  mother  was  beautiful,  pedantic,  despotic,  cowardly,  and 
contemptibly  mean.  His  motto  in  church  polity  was,  "  No  bishop,  no 
king;"  and  his  short  method  with  Dissenters,  "Just  hang  them,  that's 
all."  Henry  IV.,  of  France,  called  him  "  the  wisest  fool  in  Christendom." 
Macaulay  remarks  that  England  "  owes  more  to  the  weaknesses  and  mean 
nesses  of  James  than  to  the  wisdom  and  courage  of  much  better  sovereigns," 
and  that  this  monarch  exhibited  to  the  world  English  royalty  "stammer 
ing,  slobbering,  shedding  unmanly  tears,  trembling  at  a  drawn  sword,  and 
talking  in  the  style  alternately  of  a  buffoon  and  a  pedagogue."  And  yet 
his  courtiers  and  bishops  thought  him  as  wise  as  Solomon,  and  the  trans 
lators  of  the  Bible,  iu  the  dedication  which  used  to  be  printed  in  front 
of  every  copy,  salute  his  appearance  as  the  rising  "of  the  Sun  in  his 
strength,"  call  him  "a  most  tender  and  loving  nursing  father"  of  the 
Church,  humbly  crave  his  "approbation  and  patronage''  for  their  work, 
and  wish  that,  being  endowed  "with  many  singular  and  extraordinary 
graces,"  he  "may  be  the  Avonder  of  the  world  in  this  latter  age." 

It  is  a  great  advantage  of  the  Revision  of  1881  that  it  owes  nothing  to 
royal  favor,  and  is  independent  of  Erastian  theories.  The  days  of  royal 
supremacy  in  matters  of  religion  are  gone  forever. 

2.  There  are  two  accounts  of  the  conference  at  Hampton  Court,  both  flat 
tering  to  James  and  unfavorable  to  the  Puritans:  (1)  one  in  a  Letter  from 
Court  by  Toby  Matthew,  Bishop  of  Durham,  to  Archbishop  Hutton.of  York, 
printed  in  Strype,  Whityift,  vol.  iii.  pp.  402-407,  and  in  Edward  Cardwell, 
A  History  of  Conferences  .  .  .from  1558  to  1690  (Oxford,  1841),  pp.  161- 
166;  and  (2)  one  much  fuller,  by  William  Barlow,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Chester, 
under  the  title :  The  Summe  and  Substance  of  the  Conference  ichich  it  Pleased 
his  Excellent  Mojestie  to  have  with  the  Lords,  Bishops,  and  Others  of  his 
Cleryie  . .  .  in  his  Majesties  Privie-chamber,  at  Hampton  Court,  Jan.  14, 1603, 
reprinted  in  Cardwell,  I.  c.,  pp.  167-212.  Barlow  was  one  of  the  translators, 
and  was  employed  by  Archbishop  Whitgift  to  draw  up  the  account. 
Besides,  we  have  a  short  letter  of  King  James  to  some  person  unknown, 
in  Scotland  (Cardwell,  pp.  160, 161),  in  which  he  boasts  that  he  had  "  pep 
pered  the  Puritans  here  "  (in  England)  "  as  soundly  as  ye  have  done  the 
Papists  there "  (in  Scotland),  and  adds :  "  It  were  no  reason,  that  those 
that  will  refuse  the  airy  sign  of  the  Cross  after  baptism  should  have  their 
purses  stuffed  with  any  more  solid  and  substantial  crosses."  Thomas 
Fuller,  in  his  charming  Church  History  of  Britain  (1656),  book  x.  sect.  1, 
gives  a  good  abridgment  from  Barlow's  account,  with  which  I  have  com 
pared  it,  inserting  a  few  words  from  the  same  (see  Cardwell.  pp.  187, 188). 
Barlow  was  so  impressed  with  the  "admirable  speeches  of  his  excellent 


316  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Majestic,"  that  he  compared  them  to  Solomon's  "apples  of  gold,  with 
pictures  of  silver"  (p.  169).  "  His  Majestie's  gracious  conclusion  was  so 
piercing,  as  that  it  fetched  tears  from  some  on  both  sides"  (p.  212).  The 
translators,  in  their  Preface,  give  a  brief  and  unsatisfactory  account  of  the 
origin  of  their  work,  as  follows  (Scrivener's  edition,  p.  cxii.  sq.) :  "The 
very  historical  truth  is,  that  upon  the  importunate  petitions  of  the  Puri 
tans  at  his  Majesty's  coming  to  this  crown,  the  conference  at  Hampton 
Court  having  been  appointed  for  hearing  their  complaints,  when  by  force 
of  reason  they  were  put  from  all  other  grounds,  they  had  recourse  at  the 
last  to  this  shift,  that  they  could  not  with  good  conscience  subscribe  to 
the  Communion-book,  since  it  maintained  the  Bible  as  it  was  there  trans 
lated,  which  was,  as  they  said,  a  most  corrupted  translation.  And  although 
this  was  judged  to  be  but  a  very  poor  and  empty  shift,  yet  even  hereupon 
did  his  Majesty  begin  to  bethink  himself  of  the  good  that  might  ensue  by 
a  new  translation,  and  presently  after  gave  order  for  this  translation, 
which  is  now  presented  unto  thee.  Thus  much  to  satisfy  our  scrupulous 
brethren." 

3.  Of  Dr.  Reynolds,  the  originator  of  the  Authorized  Version,  Dr.  Thomas 
Fuller  gives  the  following  interesting  account  (Church  History  of  Britain, 
bk.  x.  sect.  3) :  "  In  the  translating  of  the  Bible,  one  of  the  eminent  persons 
employed  therein  Avas  translated  into  a  better  life.,  May  21st — namely,  Dr. 
John  Reynolds,  King's  Professor  in  Oxford,  born  in  Devonshire  with  Bishop 
Jewel  and  Mr.  Hooker,  and  all  three  bred  in  Corpus  Christ!  College  in 
Oxford.  No  one  county  in  England  bare  three  such  men  (contemporary 
at  large),  in  what  college  soever  they  were  bred;  no  college  in  England 
bred  such  three  men,  in  what  county  soever  they  were  born. 

"  This  John  Reynolds  at  the  first  was  a  zealous  Papist,  whilst  "William, 
his  brother,  was  as  earnest  a  Protestant ;  and  afterwards  Providence  so 
ordered  it,  that  by  their  mutual  disputation,  John  Reynolds  turned  an 
eminent  Protestant,  and  William  an  inveterate  Papist,  in  which  persuasion 
he  died. 

"  This  gave  the  occasion  to  an  excellent  couplet  of  verses,  concluding 
with  this  distich : 

'  Quod  genus  hoc  pitgnce  ?  ubi  rictus  yaudet  uterque, 

Et  simul  alteruter  se  superasse  dolet.' 
'What  war  is  this?  when  conquer'd  both  are  glad, 
And  either  to  have  conquer'd  other  sad.' 

"  Daniel  saith,  (  Many  shall  run  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge  shall  be 
increased,'  Dan.  xii.  4.  But  here,  indeed,  was  a  strange  transcursion,  and 
remarkable  the  effects  thereof. 


THE   AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  317 

"His  memory  was  little  less  than  miraculous,  he  himself  being  the 
truest  table  to  the  multitude  of  voluminous  books  [works?]  he  had  read 
over;  whereby  he  could  readily  turn  to  all  material  passages  in  every  leaf, 
page,  volume,  paragraph — not  to  descend  lower,  to  lines  and  letters.  As 
his  memory  was  a  faithful  index,  so  his  reason  was  a  solid  judex  of  what  he 
read;  his  humility  set  a  lustre  on  all  (admirably  that  the  whole  should 
be  so  low,  whose  several  parts  were  so  high);  communicative  of  what  he 
knew  to  any  that  desired  information  herein,  like  a  tree  loaden  with  fruit, 
bowing  down  its  branches  to  all  that  desired  to  ease  it  of  the  burden 
thereof;  deserving  this  epitaph  :  '  Incerfum  est  utrum  doctior  an  melior.' 

"His  disaffection  to  the  discipline  established  in  England  was  not  so 
great  as  some  bishops  did  suspect,  or  as  more  nonconformists  did  believe. 
No  doubt,  he  desired  the  abolishing  of  some  ceremonies  for  the  ease  of  the 
conscience  of  others,  to  which  in  his  own  practice  he  did  willingly  submit, 
constantly  wearing  hood  and  surplice,  and  kneeling  at  the  sacrament.  On 
his  deathbed  he  earnestly  desired  absolution,  according  to  the  form  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  received  it  from  Dr.  Holland,  whose  hand  he 
affectionately  kissed,  in  expression  of  the  joy  he  received  thereby.  Dr. 
Featley  made  his  funeral  oration  in  the  college ;  Sir  Isaac  Wake  in  the 
university." 

INSTRUCTIONS    TO    THE    TRANSLATORS. 

The  rules  for  the  execution  of  the  translation,  or 
revision,  rather,  were  drawn  up  by  an  unknown 
hand,  probably  under  the  direction  of  Bancroft,  in 
the  name  of  the  King,  and  are  as  follows : l 

1.  The  ordinary  Bible  read  in  the  Church,  commonly  called  the  Bishops' 
Bible,  to  be  followed,  and  as  little  altered  as  the  truth  of  the  original  will 
permit. 

2.  The  names  of  the  prophets  and  the  hoby  writers,  with  the  other 
names  of  the  text,  to  be  retained  as  nigh  as  may  be,  accordingly  as  they 
were  vulgarly  used. 

3.  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  viz.,  the  word  Church,  not  to 
be  translated  Congregation,  etc. 

1  The  text  varies  in  different  books.  The  English  delegates  to  the 
Synod  of  Dort  reduced  the  final  number  of  the  rules  to  seven.  See  West- 
cott,  pp.  150  sqq. ;  Eadie,  ii.  191  sqq. 


318  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

4.  When  a  word  hath  divers  significations,  that  to  be  kept  which  hath 
been  most  commonly  used  by  the  most  of  the  ancient  fathers,  being  agree 
able  to  the  propriety  of  the  place  and  the  analogy  of  the  faith. 

5.  The  division  of  the  chapters  to  be  altered  either  not  at  all  or  as 
little  as  may  be,  if  necessity  so  require. 

6.  No  marginal  notes  at  all  to  be  affixed,  but  only  for  the  explanation 
of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  words  which  cannot,  without  some  circumlocu 
tion,  so  briefly  and  fitly  be  expressed  in  the  text, 

7.  Such  quotations  of  places  to  be  marginally  set  down  as  shall  serve 
for  the  fit  reference  of  one  Scripture  to  another. 

8.  Every  particular  man  of  each  company  to  take  the  same  chapter  or 
chapters;  and  having  translated  or  amended  them  severally  by  himself 
where  he  thinkcth  good,  all  to  meet  together,  confer  what  they  have  done, 
and  agree  for  their  parts  what  shall  stand. 

9.  As  any  one  company  hath  dispatched  any  one  book  in  this  manner, 
they  shall  send  it  to  the  rest,  to  be  considered  of  seriously  and  judiciously  ; 
for  his  majesty  is  very  careful  in  this  point. 

10.  If  any  company,  upon  the  review  of  the  book  so  sent,  doubt  or  differ 
upon  any  place,  to  send  them  word  thereof,  note  the  place,  and  withall 
send  the  reasons;  to  which  if  they  consent  not,  the  difference  to  be  com 
pounded  at  the  general  meeting,  which  is  to  be  of  the  chief  persons  of 
each  company  at  the  end  of  the  work. 

11.  When  any  place  of  special  obscurity  is  doubted  of,  letters  to  be 
directed  by  authority  to  send  to  any  learned  man  in  the  land  for  his  judg 
ment  of  such  a  place. 

12.  Letters  to  be  sent  from  every  bishop  to  the  rest  of  his  clergy,  ad 
monishing  them  of  this  translation  in  hand,  and  to  move  and  charge  as 
many  as  being  skillful  in  the  tongues  and  having  taken  pains  in  that 
kind,  to  send  his  particular  observations  to  the  company,  either  at  West 
minster,  Cambridge,  or  Oxford. 

13.  The  directors  in  each  company  to  be  the  Deans  of  Westminster 
and  Chester,  for  Westminster,  and  the  king's  professors  in  Hebrew  or 
Greek  in  the  two  universities. 

14.  These  translations  to  be  used  when  they  agree  better  with  the  text 
than  the  Bishops'  Bible:  Tyndale's,  Matthew's,  Coverdale's,  Whitchurch's 
[Cranmer's],  Geneva. 

15.  Besides  the  said  directors  before  mentioned,  three  or  four  of  the 
most  ancient  and  grave  divines  in  either  of  the  universities,  not  employed 
in  translating,  to  be  assigned  by  the  vice-chancellor,  upon  conference  with 
the  rest  of  the  heads,  to  be  overseers  of  the  translations,  as  well  Hebrew 
as  Greek,  for  the  better  observation  of  the  fourth  rule  above  specified. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  319 


PROGRESS    OF    THE    WORK. 

Six  months  after  the  Hampton  Court  Conference 
the  king  commissioned  fifty-four  dignitaries  and 
scholars  who  had  been  selected  by  some  competent, 
though  unknown,  authority  (probably  the  Universi 
ties),  as  translators,  and  directed  Bancroft,  who  in 
the  meantime  had  become  Archbishop  of  Canter 
bury,1  to  make  provision  for  their  compensation  by 
church  preferments.  Instead  of  setting  a  good  ex 
ample  by  a  liberal  subscription,  he  requested  the 
bishops  and  chapters  to  subscribe,  which  was  not 
done.  The  translators  "  received  nothing  but  free 
entertainement  in  the  colleges  till  some  of  them  met 
in  London  for  the  final  revision  of  the  work."  5  The 
necessary  expenses  were  mostly  borne  by  the  printer 
and  publisher, Robert  Barker,  to  the  extent  of  £3500.3 
But  several  of  the  translators  were  indirectly  reward 
ed  by  being  promoted  to  deaneries  or  bishoprics,  dur 
ing  or  after  the  completion  of  their  labors.4 

1  The  translators,  in  their  Preface,  call  him  "  the  chief  overseer  and 
tpyoSiMK-Tjc;  under  his  Majesty,  to  whom  not  only  we,  but  also  our  whole 
Church,  was  [were]  much  bound."     Bancroft  was  not  one  of  them,  but  is 
said  to  have  "  altered  the  translation  in  fourteen  places  to  make  it  speak 
prelatical  language"  (Westcott,  p.  146).     He  showed  a  violent  temper  at 
the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  so  that  even  the  king  rebuked  him.     He 
died  Nov.  2,  1610. 

2  Anderson,  ii.  381 ;  Westcott,  145  sq. 

3  Eadie,  ii.  201.      Matthew  Barker  (the  son  of  Robert,  citizen  and 
stationer  of  London)  paid  afterwards  £600  for  a  reversionar}r  right  of  the 
monopoly  of  printing  the  Bible  in  1635. 

*  Eadie  (ii.  190  sq.)  gives  an  account  of  these  ecclesiastical  preferments. 
Those  rewarded  by  bishoprics  are  Andrewes,  Overall,  Miles  Smith,  Ravis, 
Abbot,  Tomson,  Barlow.  Henry  Savile  was  knighted. 


320  THE    AUTHORIZED    YEESION. 

The  actual  number  of  scholars  engaged  in  the 
work  was  only  forty-seven  ;  the  remaining  seven 
may  have  declined,  or  resigned,  or  died  before  the 
work  began.  The  translators  embraced  many  of 
the  best  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholars  of  England  at 
the  time.  Dr.  Reynolds,  the  real  mover  of  the 
enterprise,  is  described  by  Anthony  Wood  as  a 
prodigious  man,  who  "had  turned  over  all  writers, 
profane,  ecclesiastical,  and  divine,  all  the  councils, 
fathers,  and  histories  of  the  Church."  lie  was 
assigned  to  the  company  which  had  in  charge  the 
prophetical  books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  he 
died  in  May,  1607,  four  years  before  the  publication 
of  the  work,  and  his  place  was  supplied  by  Dr.  John 
Harding,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew.  Dr.  An- 
drewcs,  Dean  of  Westminster,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Winchester  (d.  1618),  who  acted  as  head  of  the  com 
pany  intrusted  with  the  translation  of  Genesis  to 
2  Kings,  was  distinguished  for  learning  and  piety, 
and  his  sermons  and  Prcccs  Privates  (in  Greek  and 
Latin,  translated  by  Dean  Stanhope,  1826)  are  still 
read  with  profit.  Overall,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  and 
afterwards  Bishop  of  Norwich  (d.  1619),  compiled 
the  "Convocation  Book,"  and  wrote  the  sacramental 
part  of  the  Church  Catechism.  Sir  Henry  Savile, 
Provost  of  Eton,  was  an  eminent  Greek  and  Latin 
scholar.  Bed  well  was  master  of  Arabic.  Dr.  Saravia, 
Prebendary  of  Westminster,  of  Spanish  descent,  a 
Belgian  by  birth,  the  bosom  friend  of  Richard 
Hooker,  was  well  versed  in  modern  languages. 
Miles  Smith,  of  the  first  Oxford  Company,  elect 
ed  Bishop  of  Gloucester  in  1612  (d.  1624),  had 


THE   AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  321 

"  Hebrew  at  his  finger  ends,"  was  "  well  versed 
in  patristic  writings  and  rabbinical  glosses,"  but 
is  best  known  as  the  final  editor  and  reputed  au 
thor  of  the  Preface  ( "  The  Translators  to  the 
Reader").1  Thomas  Wilson,  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
was,  along  with  Miles  Smith,  appointed  final  reviser, 
and  prepared  the  summary  of  contents  or  chapter 
headings.  Most  of  the  other  members  are  now  for 
gotten  ;  but  they  live  in  their  work,  which  is  more 
important  than  the  workmen. 

The  translators  were  divided  into  six  companies — 
two  of  them  met  at  Westminster  (London),  two  at 
Cambridge,  and  two  at  Oxford.  The  Scriptures, 
including  the  Apocrypha,  were  in  like  manner  di 
vided  into  six  portions,  and  one  portion  assigned  to 
each  company.  In  this  respect  the  arrangement  of 
the  modern  revisers,  who  were  divided  into  two 
companies  only,  one  for  the  Old  and  one  for  the 
New  Testament,  was  wiser,  and  secured  greater  unity 
and  consistency  of  translation. 

Of  the  method  of  work  we  know  very  little.  The 
translators  left  no  record  of  their  labors.  "  Never," 
says  Dr.  Scrivener,  "  was  a  great  enterprise,  like  the 
production  of  our  Authorized  Version,  carried  out 
with  less  knowledge  handed  down  to  posterity  of 
the  laborers,  their  method  and  order  of  working." 
If  the  author  of  the  Preface,  instead  of  a  heap  of 

1  It  is  a  noteworthy  coincidence  that  his  successor  in  the  see  of  Gloucester, 
as  chairman  of  the  New  Testament  Company,  prepared  the  first  draft  of 
the  Preface  to  the  Revision  of  1881.  It  makes  no  show  of  irrelevant 
learning,  and  is  much  shorter,  but  far  more  to  the  point  than  the  old 
Preface. 

21 


OZ2  THE    AUTHORIZED   VERSION. 

quotations  from  the  fathers,  had  given  a  clear  ac 
count  of  the  mode  of  procedure,  he  would  have  done 
better  service  to  posterity,  lie  mentions,  however, 
the  time  of  work — viz.,  "twice  seven  times  seventy- 
two  days"  (with  reference  to  the  seventy-two  days' 
work  on  the  Septuagint),  and  the  use  of  u  Chaldee, 
Hebrew,  Syrian,  Greek,  Latin,  Spanish,  French, 
Italian,  and  Dutch  [German]  translators  or  com 
mentators."  John  Selden,  who  was  about  twenty- 
live  years  old  when  the  translation  appeared,  has 
preserved  a  significant  hint.  lie  says,  in  his  "  Table- 
Talk  :"  "The  English  translation  of  the  Bible  is 
the  best  translation  in  the  world,  and  renders  the 
sense  of  the  original  best,  taking  in  for  the  English 
translation  the  Bishops'  Bible  as  well  as  King 
James's.  The  translation  in  King  James's  time  took 
an  excellent  way.  That  part  of  the  Bible  was  given 
to  him  who  was  most  excellent  in  such  a  tongue  (as 
the  Apocrypha  to  Andrew  Downs),  and  then  they 
met  together,  and  one  read  the  translation,  the  rest 
holding  in  their  hands  some  Bible,  either  of  the 
learned  tongues,  or  French,  Spanish,  Italian,  etc. ; 
if  they  found  any  fault,  they  spoke  ;  if  not,  he  read 


The  enumeration  of  these  translations  agrees  with 
the  Translators'  Preface.  The  French  version  was 
probably  that  of  Olivetan  (1535)  as  revised  by  the 
Pastors  of  Geneva  (1588) ;  the  Spanish  those  of  De 
Eeyna  (1569)  and  De  Yalera  (1602) ;  the  Italian  that 

1  Published  after  his  death  (1654)  by  his  amanuensis,  Richard  Milward, 
in  1G89.  I  quote  from  the  edition  of  Edward  Arber,  London.  1862,  p.  20. 
Selden  represented  the  University  of  Oxford  in  the  Long  Parliament. 


THE    AUTHOKIZED    VEKSION.  323 

of  Diodati  (1607) ;  the  "  Dutch"  (omitted  by  Selden, 
but  mentioned  by  the  Translators)  those  of  Leo  Judse 
(in  the  Swiss-German  dialect.  Zurich,  1524-29, 1531, 
1536, 1540),  and  of  Luther  (1522-1534,  last  edition 
by  Luther  himself,  1545),  both  of  which  had  already 
been  used  in  previous  versions. 

The  new  version  was  completed  seven  years  after 
the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  but,  owing  to  some 
delay,  it  was  not  actually  undertaken  till  1607,  and 
did  not  occupy  more  than  two  years  and  three 
quarters.  It  was  published  in  a  large  folio  volume 
at  London,  1611,  with  a  dedication  "  To  the  Most 
High  and  Mighty  Prince  James,  by  the  Grace  of 
God  King  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Ireland, 
Defender  of  the  Faith,  etc.,"  and  with  a  very  long 
and  learned,  but  pedantic  and  tedious,  preface  by 
Dr.  Miles  Smith.  Two  folio  editions  were  printed 
in  that  year,  and  also  a  duodecimo  edition  of  the 
New  Testament ;  how  many  copies  of  each  is  not 
known  (probably  less  than  ten  thousand),  nor  is  it 
known  which  of  the  two  folio  editions  is  the  first. 
They  differ  in  a  great  many  places,1  and  the  folio  edi 
tion  of  1613  again  differs  from  both.2  All  three  are 
disfigured  by  numerous  and  serious  typographical 
errors.  Translators,  editors,  and  printers  are  not  in 
fallible,3  lest  any  should  boast.  The  Bible  is  not  an 

1  See  the  list  of  variations  between  the  two  editions  of  1611  in  Scrivener, 
Appendix  B,  Ixxxvi.  sqq. 

2  The  Oxford  fac-siraile  reprint  of  the  edition  of  1611  gives  a  list  cover- 
ing  sixteen  columns  of  variations  between  one  of  the  editions  of  1611  and 
the  one  of  1613. 

3  Not  even  the  Pope  of  Rome,  when  he  undertakes  to  edit  the  Scriptures, 
as  Sixtus  V.  did.     See  p.  150. 


324:  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

idol  to  be  worshipped,  but  a  book  of  life,  to  be 
studied  again  and  again  by  every  generation  to  the 
end  of  time. 

NOTE.— Dr.  Scrivener  speaks  of  the  "  shameful "  editing  of  the  first  two 
editions,  and  charges  both  with  "innumerable  errors  of  the  press,  some 
peculiar  to  a  single  issue,  not  a  few  (including  nearly  all  the  false  textual 
references  in  the  margin)  common  to  both  "  (p.  xii.).  Among  the  typo 
graphical  errors  are  such  as  "Judas"  for  "Jesus"  (in  Matt.  xxvi.  36); 
"  serve  t/tee  "  for  "  serve  me  "  (Exod.  ix.  18)  ;  "  loops  "  for  "  hooks  "  (Exod. 
xxxviii.  11);  "phtine"  for  "  plague"  (Lev.  xiii.  56) ;  "ye  shall  not  eat" 
for  "  ye  shall  eat "  (Lev,  xvii.  14) ;  "  he  went  into  the  citie  "  for  "  she  went " 
(Ruth  iii.  15.  wliere  "  she  "  is  preferred  by  Jerome  in  the  Vulgate,  ingressa 
csf,  but  the  Hebrew  verb  is  masculine,  iO*^);  "shewed"  for  ''hewed" 
(llos.  vi.  5),  etc. 

The  folio  edition  of  1C  13  varies  from  the  one  of  1011  in  more  than  four 
hundred  places;  and,  while  correcting  some  of  the  old  errors,  it  has  a 
larger  number  of  new  ones  as  bad  as  the  old — e.g.,  "  the/as^  of  the  beast" 
for  ''the  fat  of  the  beast"  (Lev.  vii.  25);  "u'titer"  for  "matter"  (1  Sam. 
x.  16);  "were"  for  "year"  (2  Kings  xxii.  8);  "in  the  tlirone  of  David" 
for  "in  the  room  of  David"  (2  Chron.  vi.  10);  "we  would  not  leave"  for 
"  we  would  leave  "  (Neb.  x . 31)  ;  "  shined  through  darkness  "  for  "  walked  " 
(Job  xxix.  3);  "she  delighted  herself"  for  "she  defiled  herself"  (Ezek. 
xxiii.  7)  ;  "I  praise  you  "  for  "  I  praise  you  not "  (1  Cor.  xi.  17)  ;  "  doings  " 
for  "things"  (1  Cor.  xvi.  14);  "continue  your  love"  for  "confirm  your 
love"  (2  Cor.  ii,  8);  "selves"  for  "souls"  (1  Pet.  i.  22);  "may  be  laid 
to  their  charge"  for  "may  not  be  laid"  (1  Tim.  iv.  1C).  In  many  edi 
tions  "  enticed  "  is  substituted  for  "  enriched,"  "  eject "  for  "  elect,"  "  leadeth 
them  not "  for  "  leadeth  them  out."  See  the  long  lists  of  errors  in  the 
Oxford  reprint  of  the  first  edition  ;  in  Loftie,  /.  c.  53  sqq. ;  in  Scrivener,  1.  c.. 
pp.  Ixviii.  sqq. ;  and  in  Eadie,  The  English  Bible,  ii.  291  sqq. 

Later  editors  made  some  improvements  which  have  held  the  ground : 
as  "help  thou  mine  unbelief"  for  "help  my  unbelief"  (Mark  ix.  24); 
"let  us  run  with  patience  the  race  set  before  us"  for  "let  us  runne  with 
patience  unto  the  race"  (Ileb.  xii.  1)  ;  "  Drusilla  which  was  a  Jeicess"  for 
"  Jew  "  (Acts  xxiv.  24) ;  "  appointed  to  death  "  for  "  approved  to  death  " 
(1  Cor.  iv.  9).  On  the  other  hand,  they  introduced  many  new  typograph 
ical  blunders,  some  of  which  are  both  curious  and  ominous,  and  have 
given  nicknames  to  the  copies  containing  them.  Everybody  has  heard 
of  the  "Vinegar  Bible"  ("the  most  sumptuous  of  all  Oxford  Bibles," 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  325 

printed  by  J.  Baskett,  Oxford,  1717,  in  1  vol.,  imperial  fol.;  also  called 
"a  JFSaskett-full  of  printer's  errors"),  -which  has  "vinegar"  for  "  vineyard" 
in  the  heading  of  the  column  containing  the  parable  of  the  vineyard 
(Luke  xx.).  The  worst  error  is  in  the  "  Wicked  Bible,"  printed  by  Robert 
Barker  and  John  Bill,  London,  1G31,  8vo,  which  omits,  perhaps  from  sheer 
deviltry  of  the  printer,  the  "not"  in  the  seventh  commandment  (Exod. 
xx.  14).  The  printer  was  fined  £300  by  Archbishop  Laud  for  changing 
the  prohibition  of  adultery  into  a  command,  and  the  money  was  used  for 
the  purchase  of  a  font  of  Greek  type  for  the  Oxford  University.  Four 
copies  of  this  Bible  are  left,  one  in  the  Lenox  Library,  New  York.  There 
is  a  German  edition  of  the  Bible  in  Wolfenbiittel  of  1731,  with  the  same 
extraordinary  omission.  (See  Bibles  in  the  Caxton  Exhibition,  p.  114  sq.) 
We  have  a  standard  translation,  but  not  a  standard  text.  There  are  no 
two  editions  alike,  unless  those  printed  from  the  same  stereotype  plates, 
and  there  is  no  absolute  standard  edition.  A  committee  of  the  American 
Bible  Society,  in  examining  six  different  editions  of  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion,  discovered  nearly  24,000  variations  in  the  text  and  punctuation.  See 
"  Report  of  the  History  and  Recent  Collation  of  the  English  Version  of  the 
Bible,  presented  by  the  Committee  on  Versions  to  the  Board  of  Managers 
of  the  American  Bible  Society,  and  adopted  May  1st,  1851 "  (printed  in 
the  American  Bible  House,  p.  31).  Dr.  Blayney's  revision  (1769)  is  the 
standard  of  the  Oxford  University  Press,  but  has  undergone  various  modi 
fications  and  corrections  (see  Eadie,  ii.  305).  Eyre  and  Strahan's  quarto 
edition  of  1812  was  adopted  as  the  standard  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States,  but  it  has  several  errors — e. g.,  "about"  for 
"  above  "  (2  Cor.  xii.  2) ;  "  holy  body  "  for  "  whole  body  "  (Eadie,  ii.  306). 
Dr.  Scrivener's  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible  is  no  doubt  the  most  critical 
edition,  but  his  text  is  eclectic,  and  his  departures  from  the  editions  of  1611 
and  1613  are  very  numerous.  See  the  lists  in  his  Appendix  A,  pp.  Ixviii.- 
Ixxxvi. 

RECEPTION    OF    THE    NEW    VERSION. 

The  new  version  was  received  with  cold  indiffer 
ence  by  some,  and  with  violent  opposition  by  others.1 

1  Compare  here  Trench,  On  the  A  uthorized  Version  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  chap.  xi.  (p.  163  sqq.  in  Harpers'  edition),  and  Eadie,  The  English 
Bible,  ii.  264  sqq.  Archbishop  Trench  shows  that  the  charges  of  Roman 
ists  and  Arminians  are  mostlv  unfounded. 


326  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

This  is  just  what  the  translators  expected.     They 
begin  their  Preface  to  the  Header  with  this  sentence: 

"Zeal  to  promote  the  common  good,  whether  it  be  by  devising  any 
thing  ourselves,  or  revising  that  which  hath  been  laboured  by  others,  de- 
scrveth  certainly  much  respect  and  esteem,  but  yet  lindeth  but  cold  enter 
tainment  in  the  world.  It  is  welcomed  with  suspicion  instead  of  love, 
and  with  emulation  instead  of  thanks:  and  if  there  be  any  hole  left  for 
cavil  to  enter  (and  cavil,  if  it  do  not  find  a  hole,  will  make  one),  it  is  sure 
to  be  misconstrued,  and  in  danger  to  be  condemned.  This  will  easily  be 
granted  by  as  many  as  know  story,  or  have  any  experience.  For  was 
there  ever  any  thing  projected,  that  savoured  any  way  of  newness  or  re 
newing,  but  the  same  endured  many  a  storm  of  gainsaying  or  opposition?" 

The  first  attack  came  from  the  famous  Hebraist, 
Dr.Broughton,and  was  an  unqualified  condemnation 
inspired  by  personal  animosity,  which  neutralized 
its  effect.1  Yet  John  Lightfoot,  who  edited  his 
works,  and  had  no  superior  in  his  age  for  Hebrew 
and  Rabbinical  lore,  seems  to  have  sympathized 
with  him  in  his  low  estimate  of  the  version  ;  for  in  a 
sermon  preached  before  the  House  of  Commons  in 
August,  1645,  he  urged  them  "  to  think  of  a  review 
and  survey  of  the  translation  of  the  Bible,"  which 
should  be  "  exact,  vigorous,  and  lively."  2 

Most  of  the  objections  in  that  polemical  age  were 
raised  against  the  theology  of  the  version  rather 
than  its  scholarship.  Roman  Catholics  accused  it 
of  falsifying  the  Scriptures  in  favor  of  Protestant 
heresy.3  Arminians  discovered  in  it  a  Calvinistic 

1  See  above,  pp.  291,292. 

2  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  xv.,  quoted  by  Eadie,  ii.  344. 

3  Gregory  Martin  had  made  a  most  elaborate  attack  against  the  older 
English  versions  in  1582.    Afterwards  Thomas  Ward,  a  convert  to  Rome, 
and  at  last  a  soldier  in  the  Papal  Guards,  wrote  Errata  of  the  Protestant 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VEESIOX.  327 

bias,  owing  to  the  great  influence  which  Beza's  Greek 
Testament  and  Latin  notes  had  upon  the  transla 
tors.  Dr.  Robert  Gell,  a  decided  Arminian,  who 
had  been  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Abbot  of  Canter 
bury,  wrote  as  late  as  1659  a  folio  volume  of  more 
than  eight  hundred  pages  to  disparage  the  version.1 
Puritans  agreed  with  its  theology,  but  found  fault 
with  its  Church  polity  and  ritual,  on  the  ground  of 
retaining  such  terms  as  "church,"  "bishop,"  "or 
dain,"  "Easter."2  Arians  and  Soeinians  of  a  later 

Bible,  in  1083;  2d  ed.  1688;  reprinted  in  Dublin,  1807;  with  a  Preface 
by  Lingard,  1810;  and  with  a  letter  by  Milncr,  1841.  Ward  calls  his 
work  an  abridgment,  but 'exceeds  Martin  in  ferocity.  He  "accuses  King 
James's  translators  of  blasphemy,  most  damnable  corruptions,  intolerable 
deceit,  and  vile  imposture"  (Eadie,  ii.  207).  The  best  answer  to  such 
calumnies  is  the  eulogy  of  the  Authorized  Version  by  such  a  fervent  con 
vert  as  Dr.  Faber. 

1  Essay  toiuards  the  A  mendment  of  the  Last  English  Translation  of  the 
Bible,  London,  1G59.     Gell  charged  the  translators  with  deliberate  mis 
translation  in  favor  of  Calvinism,  for  inserting  the  words  it  shall  be  given, 
in  Matt.  xx.  23.     Dr.  Trench  says  of  Gell  that  he  was  "  a  really  learned 
man,  but  cross-grained,  ill-tempered,  and  in  his  reaction  against  Calvinistic 
excesses  running  into  dangerous  extremes  on  the  other  side;  and  his 
works  have  their  bushels  of  chaff  with  scarcely  their  grains  of  wheat." 
Dr.  Eadie  (ii.  206):  "Some  of  his  [Gell's]  accusations  are  very  trivial, 
and  many  of  his  statements  are  drawn  out  into  prolix  allegorical  sermons. 
He  objects  to  their  inversion  of  the  order  of  words,  to  their  undue  use  of 
supplemental  terms,  and  to  their  translation,  as  being  moulded  to  suit  their 
own  opinions,  while  they  put  the  better  and  truer  rendering  in  the  margin. 
Especially  does  he  censure  their  Bible  as  obscuring  on  purpose  the  doctrine 
of  perfection,  for  he  regarded  such  a  state  as  attainable  in  the  present 
life." 

2  "Easter"  for  "Passover"  (Acts  xii.  4)  was  inherited  from  Tyndale's 
first  edition,  and  has  been  corrected  in  the  Revision.     "Bishop"  ought 
to  have  been  used  throughout,  including  Acts  xx.  28,  where  it  is  identical 
with  "presbyter"  or  "elder"  (ver.  18),  but  rendered  "overseer"  in  the 
old  version.     This  inconsistency  is  likewise  removed  in   the  Revision. 


oL'b  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

date  would  naturally  object  to  the  retention,  without 
italics,  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  in  1  John  v. 
7  (which  is  justly  dropped  in  the  Revision).  One 
of  the  most  curious  objections  is  that  the  translators 
introduced  the  terms  "familiar  spirit,"  "witch,"  and 
"wizard"  into  the  Bible  in  order  to  natter  King 
James's  notions  about  witchcraft  and  demonology, 
on  which  he  wrote  a  treatise;  but  all  these  terms 
occur  also  in  the  older  versions.1  With  the  same 
right  republicans  might  charge  them  with  having 
nattered  his  high  monarchical  notions  by  turning 
every  Oriental  sheikh  or  chief  into  a  "duke"  or 
"  prince." 

King  James's  Version  had  a  powerful  rival  in  the 
Geneva  Bible,  which  was  never  authorized,  but  had 
taken  strong  hold  on  the  affections  of  the  people  be 
cause  it  was  made  by  the  English  exiles  in  times  of 
fierce  persecution,  and  under  the  eyes  of  the  great 
Reformers,  Calvin  and  Beza,  and  was  accompanied 
with  convenient  explanatory  notes.  It  continued  to 
be  reprinted,  even  "  cum  primlegw  Iteyice  majesta- 
tis"  till  after  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury,  and  many  copies  were  brought  to  America  by 
the  early  immigrants.  It  passed  in  all  through  about 
one  hundred  and  sixty  editions,  and  when  it  finally 
disappeared,  the  people,  according  to  Fuller,  com 
plained  that  "  they  could  not  see  into  the  sense  of 

"  Church  "  (probably  derived  from  the  Greek  Kvpianov,  belonging  to  the 
Lord)  has  been  retained,  although  "congregation"  is  a  better  translation 
of  ecclesia. 

1  See  Bishop  Hutchinson,  Historical  Essay  on  Witchcraft,  and  Eadie, 
ii.  2G8  sq. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  329 

the   Scripture  for  lack  of  the  spectacles  of  those 
Genevan  annotators."  l 

The  Long  Parliament  seriously  thought  of  a 
new  revision.  A  bill  was  introduced  in  April, 
1653,  to  the  effect  that  a  committee,  consisting  of 
Drs.  Owen,  Cudworth,  and  several  other  scholars, 
be  appointed  to  revise  King  James's  Version  un 
der  the  supervision  of  Dr.  Thomas  Goodwin,  Dr. 
Tuckney,  and  Mr.  Joseph  Caryl.  But  the  project 

1  Kadic  (ii.  37)  :  "  The  Bishops'  Bible  was  not  issued  beyond  1606.  five 
years  before  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  Authorized  Version,  though 
its  New  Testament  was  printed  in  1608,  1614,  1615,  1617,  1618.  But  the 
Genevan  Bible  continued  to  be  printed  after  1611.  Nay,  in  that  very  year 
it  was  issued  in  folio  by  Barker  himself,  the  king's  printer.  Besides  four 
editions  of  the  New  Testament,  the  Bible  was  reprinted  in  quarto  in  1613, 
both  at  London  and  Edinburgh;  again  at  London  in  1614;  with  two  edi 
tions  in  1615,  and  a  last  issue  in  folio  in  161G-,  it  appeared  in  quarto, 
Amsterdam,  in  1633;  in  folio,  1640;  with  two  more  editions  in  1644.  In 
1649  the  Authorized  Version  was  printed  in  quarto,  with  the  Genevan 
notes,  as  if  to  promote  the  circulation.  An  edition  of  this  nature  was 
published  in  1679  in  folio,  and  as  late  as  1708  and  1715;  but  the  one  of 
1679  and  the  other  two  tell  a  falsehood  on  their  title-page — 'which  notes 
have  never  been  before  set  forth  with  this  new  translation.'"  Dr.  Eadie 
mentions  also  an  American  edition  of  1743,  without  stating  the  place  of 
publication  (ii.  310).  But  this  is  a  mistake;  the  book  referred  to  is  a 
German  Bible,  printed  by  Christoph  Saur,  a  native  of  Germany,  who  set 
tled  in  Germantown,  Pa.,  near  Philadelphia.  The  work  was  printed  in 
Germantown.  See  O'Callaghan,  A  List  of  Editions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
Printed  in  A  merica  (Albany,  1861),  p.  xii.  sq.  and  p.  22.  No  English  Bible 
was  printed  in  America  until  after  the  Revolution,  in  1782  (Philadelphia, 
printed  and  sold  by  IS.  Aitken,  at  Pope's  Head,  in  Market  Street,  with  a  rec 
ommendation  of  Congress,  dated  Sept.  12, 1782).  Before  that  time  the  Eng 
lish  copyright  prevented  the  reprint;  and,  in  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Bancroft 
and  others,  the  story  is  not  worthy  of  credit  that  a  copy  was  secretly 
printed  in  Boston  about  1752  with  the  London  imprint.  See  O'Callaghan, 
p.  xiii.  sqq.  John  Eliot's  Indian  Bible  was  printed  in  Cambridge,  1663. 
preceded  by  the  New  Testament  in  1661. 


330  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

failed  because  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Parlia 
ment.1 

With  the  Restoration  of  the  Stuarts  the  opposition 
passed  away,  and  the  Version  of  1611  quietly  super 
seded  all  its  predecessors  and  rivals  in  the  family 
and  the  Church.  It  owes  its  authority  and  popular 
ity  not  to  royal  favor  or  legal  enactments,  but,  what 
•is  far  better,  to  its  intrinsic  merits  and  the  verdict 
of  the  English-speaking  race. 

One  of  the  earliest  and  most  potent  voices  in  its 
favor  was  that  of  Thomas  Fuller,  who,  in  his  quaint, 
charming  style,  thus  welcomed  it  in  1658  :2 

"  And  now,  after  long  expectation  and  great  desire,  came  forth  the  new 
translation  of  the  Bible  (most  beautifully  printed),  by  a  select  and  com 
petent  number  of  divines,  appointed  for  that  purpose  ;  not  being  too  many, 
lest  one  should  trouble  another,  and  yet  many,  lest,  in  any.  tilings  might 
haply  escape  them  :  who,  neither  coveting  praise  for  expedition,  nor  fear 
ing  reproach  for  slackness  (seeing,  in  a  business  of  moment,  none  deserve 
blame  for  convenient  slowness),  had  expended  almost  three  years  in  the 
work,  not  only  examining  the  channels  by  the  fountain,  translations  with 
the  original,  which  was  absolutely  necessary;  but  also  comparing  channels 
with  channels,  which  was  abundantly  useful,  in  the  Spanish.  Italian, 
French,  and  Dutch  languages.  So  that  their  industry,  skilfulness,  piety, 
and  discretion,  have  herein  bound  the  Church  unto  them  in  a  debt  of 
special  remembrance  and  thankfulness.  These,  with  Jacob,  'rolled  away 
the  stone  from  the  mouth  of  the  well '  of  life,  Gen.  xxix.  10 ;  so  that  now 
even  Rachels,  weak  women,  may  freely  come,  both  to  drink  themselves, 
and  water  the  flocks  of  their  families  at  the  same." 

WAS  KING  JAMES'S  VERSION  EVER  AUTHORIZED? 

This  question  has  recently  been  raised  after  the 
issue  of  the  Revision  in  1881.  The  title-page  of 
King  James's  Version  announces  it  as  "appointed 


1  See  the  bill  in  Eadie,  ii.  344-346. 

2  Church  History  of  Britain,  iii.  274. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  331 

to  be  read  in  churches,"  and  it  goes  universally  by 
the  name  of  "  the  Authorized  Version."  But  no 
trace  of  such  authorization  can  be  found  in  the  rec 
ords,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  of  the  year  1611.  Neither 
Parliament,  nor  convocation,  nor  privy  council,  nor 
king  have  given  it  public  sanction  as  far  as  is 
known.1 

The  present  Lord  Chancellor  of  England  (Lord 
Selborne)  defends  the  popular  opinion  by  the  fol 
lowing  considerations:  (1)  that  the  authorization 
may  have  been  by  order  of  Council ;  (2)  that,  if  so, 
the  record  of  the  order  probably  perished  in  the  fire 
at  Whitehall,  Jan.  12,  1618;  (3)  that  the  king's 
printer  would  not  have  inserted  on  the  title-page 
the  words  "appointed  to  be  read  in  churches,"  with 
out  good  reason  to  do  so.2 

But  this  is  mere  assertion  based  upon  probabili 
ties,  which  appear  very  improbable  in  view  of  the 
following  facts : 

(1.)  The  words  "  appointed  to  be  read  in  churches" 
are  absent  from  the  special  title  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  in  the  first  edition  of  1611,  and  in  the  general 
title-page  of  at  least  eight  editions  of  the  first  five 
years  after  the  publication  of  James's  Version.3 
Moreover,  it  is  not  stated  by  whom  and  how  the 
version  was  "appointed;"  nor  does  the  word  seem 


1  Dr.  Lightfoot  states  positively  that  King  James's  Version  was  never 
authorized  (Fresh  Revision,  p.  30  in  Harpers'  edition).     I  was  told  by  the 
late  Dean  Stanley  that  a  clergyman  in  England  might  be  prosecuted  for 
using  in  public  worship  King  James's  Bible  instead  of  the  Bishops'  Bible. 

2  See  his  letter  to  Bishop  Wordsworth  in  Notes  below. 

3  See  ante,  p.  303  sq. 


332  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

to  be  equivalent  to  "authorized,"  winch  came  into 
use  in  1574.1 

(2.)  The  Genevan  Version  was  used  in  England 
more  than  twenty  years  after  1611,  not  only  in 
private,  but  in  public,  worship.  Of  fifty  sermons 
preached  between  1611  and  1630,  and  examined  by 
the  Rev.  Randall  T.  Davidson,2  the  text  is  taken 
from  the  Genevan  Version  in  27,  from  the  Bishops' 
Bible  iu  5,  and  from  other  sources  in  11.  Among 
those  who  preached  from  the  Genevan  Version  were 
Bishop  Andrewes  (one  of  King  James's  translators), 
Bishop  Laud,  Bishop  Carleton,  Bishop  Hall.  Some 
of  these  sermons  were  preached  on  solemn  public 
occasions,  even  in  the  presence  of  the  king,  by  bish 
ops  "ready  above  all  things  to  uphold  the  king's 
commandment."  In  Scotland  the  Genevan  Version 
was  likewise  used  on  important  public  occasions  in 
1628  and  1638,  and  printed  in  part  (the  Psalms)  at 
Edinburgh  in  1640.3 

(3.)  In  more  than  a  hundred  official  documents  of 
bishops  and  archdeacons  of  the  first  half  of  the  sev 
enteenth  century,  containing  the  usual  inquiry  as  to 
the  Bible,  King  James's  Version  is  not  mentioned, 
but  only  "the  whole  Bible,"  or  a  "Bible  of  the 
largest  volume,"  or  "the  latest  edition.'" 

]  The  phrase  "Appoynted  to  the  use  of  the  churches"  occurs  for  the- 
first  time  in  the  second  edition  of  the  "Great  Bible,"  1540,  and  seems  to 
refer  to  the  Scripture  lessons  pointed  out  in  the  almanac  for  every  day  in 
the  year.  The  "  Bishops'  Bible,"  after  1572,  bore  both  the  words  "author 
ized"  and  "appointed,"  but  never  was  the  word  "authorized"  so  used 
before  1574.  See  The  Bibles  in  the  Caxton  Exhibition,  p.  20  sq. 

3  See  his  article  in  "Macmillan's Magazine"  for  October,  188J,  pp.440sqq. 

3  Eadie,  ii.  51.  4  So  stated  by  R.  T.  Davidson,  I.  c. 


THE    AUTHORIZED   VERSION.  333 

(4.)  The  long-continued  opposition  to  King  James's 
Bible,  which  is  an  undoubted  fact,1  cannot  be  easily 
explained  if  it  had  received  the  formal  sanction  of 
the  government. 

When,  at  the  restoration  of  the  Stuart  dynasty, 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  revised  and  re- 
introduced  in  1661,  the  Ten  Commandments,  the 
evangelic  hymns  (the  Magnificat,  the  Benedictus, 
and  the  Nunc  dimittis\  and  especially  the  Psalter 
of  the  earlier  version  of  Coverdale,  kept  their  place, 
and  are  used  to  this  day  in  America  as  well  as  in 
England  in  public  worship.  The  Presbyterians  re 
quested  "  that  the  new  translation  of  the  Bible  should 
alone  be  used  in  the  portions  selected  in  the  Prayer- 
book."  But  their  proposition  was  rejected.  Only 
the  introductory  sentences  and  the  Gospel  and 
Epistle  lessons  were  taken  from  King  James's  "Ver 
sion.  So  far  it  may  be  said  to  be  legally  authorized 
in  England,  but  no  further.8 

The  American  Episcopal  Church,  however,  took 
a  step  beyond  this  partial  endorsement,  and  com 
mitted  itself,  by  action  of  the  General  Convention, 
to  a  particular  edition  of  King  James's  Version. 
In  both  houses  of  the  General  Convention  in  1823 
a  report  was  presented  by  a  joint  committee  appoint 
ed  three  years  before,  recommending  the  adoption 

1  See  preceding  section,  p.  828  sq. 

8  See  Arch.  J.  Stephens:  The  Jiook  of  Common  Prayer  (Lond.  1849), 
Introd.  p.  clxix. ;  and  Fr.  Procter:  A  History  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  (llth  ed.  Lond.  1874),  116.  The  Black-letter  Prayer-book  (1636) 
which  contains  the  MS.  alterations  and  additions  made  in  1G61  was  after 
long  search  discovered  in  the  Library  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  photo- 
zincographcd,  London,  1871. 


334  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

as  a  standard  Bible  of  an  edition  printed  by  Eyre 
and  Strahan  in  1812.  The  report  was  accepted, 
and  a  canon  was  passed  providing  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  suitable  persons  to  "  correct  all  new  editions 
of  the  Bible  by  the  standard  edition  agreed  upon  by 
the  General  Convention."  J 

NOTE. — The  correspondence  between  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  (Dr.  Words 
worth)  and  Lord  Selborne  was  published  in  the  London  Times,  June  10, 
1881,  and  is  as  follows: 

"RiSKiiOLME,  LINCOLN,  May  25.  (1881.) 

"  MY  DEAR  LORD, — The  question  which  Lord  Carnarvon  has  given 
notice  of,  to  be  put  to  your  Lordship  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  Friday — 
(viz.,  whether  it  is  legal  for  a  clergyman  to  read  the  Lessons  from  the  new 
Revised  Version  in  a  church) — is  one  of  great  importance,  both  to  the 
clergy  and  laity.  May  I  be  allowed  to  submit  a  few  remarks  upon  it? 

"There  seems  to  be  a  presumption  against  such  a  practice  ab  incon- 
venienti. 

"The  new  Revised  Version,  however  valuable  in  itself,  is  not  distin 
guishable  as  to  authority  from  any  private  venture  of  the  kind.  It  has 
received  no  sanction  from  the  Crown,  from  the  Church,  or  from  Parliament. 
If  a  clergyman  may  use  it  in  the  public  services  of  the  Church,  why  might 
he  not  use  any  other  revised  version,  such  as  Archbishop  Newcome's  or 
Dean  Alford's,  or  the  revised  version  put  forth  not  long  ago  by  'Five 
clergymen,'  or  even  a  revised  version  framed  by  himself?  And  so,  in 
fine,  might  we  not  have  almost  as  many  'revised  versions'  as  clergymen 
or  churches? 

"  That  the  Crown  and  Church  of  England  contemplated  the  use  of  one 
uniform  translation  of  the  Bible  in  churches  is,  I  think,  clear  from  Royal 
Proclamation  in  Henry  VIII.'s  time,  and  from  Royal  Injunctions  in  the 
reigns  of  Edward  VI.  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  from  Canons  of  the  Church 
in  1571  (Wilkins's  Concilia,  iv.  2G6)  and  in  1603  (Can.  80,  see  Bishop 
Gibson's  Codex,  p.  201.  Oxford  ed.  1761).  Also,  Archbishop  Whitgift,  in 
his  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  in  1587,  'About  Bibles,'  speaks  of  'the 
translation  of  the  Bible  authorized  by  the  Synods  of  Bishops,'  and  desires 
him  to  take  care  that  '  every  one  of  the  churches  in  his  diocese  is  provided 
with  one  or  more  copies  of  the  translation  of  the  Bible  allowed  as  afore- 

1  See  Perry's  Journals  of  General  Conventions,  vol.  ii.  pp.  54,  58,  73,  95. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  335 

said '   (Wilkins's   Concilia,  iv.  328 ;    Cardwcll,   '  Documentary  Annals,' 
No.  cv.). 

"As  to  our  present  Authorized  Version  of  the  Bible,  which  was  first 
printed  in  1611  at  London  by  Hubert  Barker,  '  Printer  to  the  King's  Most 
Excellent  Majesty,'  the  words  in  its  title,  '  Appointed  to  be  read  in 
churches,'  appear  to  show  that  the  public  reading  of  it  rests  upon  some 
authority  which  appointed  it.  and  the  universal  reception  of  that  transla 
tion  in  our  churches  for  two  hundred  and  seventy  years  is  confirmatory 
of  that  opinion,  and  corroborates  that  appointment. 

"The  special  exception  also  (in  the  preface  of  our  Prayer-book),  in 
favour  of  reading  the  Psalms  in  churches  from  the  older  version,  seems  to 
point  to  the  use  of  some  other  translation  as  authorized  for  the  rest  of  the 
service  of  the  Church  ;  and  universal  usage  proves  that  this  other  version 
can  be  no  other  than  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611. 

"Accordingly,  at  the  last  revision  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  at 
the  Restoration,  the  older  version  of  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  in  the  Prayer- 
book  was  displaced,  and  the  translation  of  them  in  the  Authorized  Version 
of  1G11  was  substituted  for  it.  And  the  public  use  of  this  version  of  the 
Epistles  and  Gospels  is  required  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  and  by  the  recent 
Act  on  the  Declarations  of  Conformity  to  be  made  by  the  clergy. 

"As  to  the  legal  bearing  of  the  question.  I  would  not  venture  to  pro 
nounce  an  opinion.  But  I  see  it  stated  in  some  books  on  copyright,  not, 
however,  without  some  hesitation,  that  '  the  Sovereign,  by  a  prerogative 
vested  in  the  Crown,  has  the  exclusive  privilege  of  printing  inter  alia  the 
Holy  Bible  for  public  use  in  the  divine  service  of  the  Church '  (Godson  on 
Copyright,  p.  432,  437,  441,  454),  and  that  the  Queen's  printer  and  the  two 
ancient  Universities  now  exercise  that  right  by  virtue  of  patents  from  the 
Crown. 

"  The  copyright  of  the  new  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament  has, 
I  believe,  been  purchased  from  the  Revisers  by  the  two  Universities  exclu 
sively.  The  Queen's  printer  has,  I  think,  taken  no  part  in  the  transaction. 

"  If,  therefore,  the  new  Revised  Version  is  to  supplant  the  Authorized 
Version  and  take  its  place  in  our  churches  without  any  grant  from  the 
Crown,  or  any  authorization  from  the  Church,  this  might  be  regarded  as 
an  invasion  of  the  prerogative  and  as  a  contravention  of  the  Church's 
authority,  and  also  perhaps  as  an  injury  to  the  Queen's  printer,  who  now, 
concurrently  with  the  two  Universities,  enjoys  the  exclusive  right  of  sup 
plying  all  copies  of  the  Bible  (in  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611)  for 
general  use  in  the  public  service  of  the  Church. 

"  I  am,  my  dear  Lord,  very  faithfully  yours, 

"  C.  LINCOLN. 

"  To  the  Right  Hon.  the  Lord  Chancellor." 


336  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

"30  PORTLAND-PLACE  W.,  May  27,  1881. 

"My  PEAK  Loito, — Lord  Carnarvon,  finding  that  the  facts  were  not 
exactly  as  he  understood  them  to  he,  decided  not  to  put  the  question  to 
me  of  which  he  had  given  notice. 

"  I  agree,  generally,  with  what  you  say.  If  any  clergyman  reads  in  his 
church  the  lessons  appointed  for  the  Sunday  and  other  services  from  the 
'Revised' Version,  before  it  lias  been  recommended  or  authorized  by  some 
sufficient  public  authority,  he  will,  I  think,  incur  a  serious  risk  of  being 
held  to  be  an  offender  against  law. 

"It  is,  I  dare  say,  true  that  no  documentary  proof  of  the  authority  of 
the  version  commonly  reputed  to  be  authorized  is  now  forthcoming.  But 
this  proves  very  little.  If  (for  example)  it  was  'appointed  to  be  read  in 
churches'  (as  is  expressly  stated  on  the  title-page  of  1611),  at  the  time 
of  its  first  publication,  nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  this  may  have 
been  done  by  Order  in  Council.  If  so,  the  authentic  record  of  that  order 
would  now  be  lost,  because  all  the  Council  books  and  registers  from  the 
year  1GOO  to  1G13  inclusive  Avcre  destroyed  by  a  fire  at  Whitehall  on  the 
12th  of  January,  1G18  (O.  S.). 

'•Nothing,  in  my  opinion,  is  less  likely  than  that  the  King's  printer 
should  have  taken  upon  himself  (whether  with  a  view  to  his  own  profit 
or  otherwise)  to  issue  the  book  (being  what  it  was,  a  translation  unques 
tionably  made  by  the  King's  commandment,  to  correct  defects  in  earlier 
versions,  of  which  the  use  had  been  authorized  by  Royal  injunctions,  etc., 
in  preceding  reigns),  with  a  title-page  asserting  that  it  was  'appointed  to 
be  read  in  churches/  if  the  fact  were  not  really  so.  That  this  should  have 
been  acquiesced  in  bv  all  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  authorities  of  the 
Church  and  realm,  instead  of  being  visited  with  the  punishment  which 
(in  those  days  of  the  Star  Chamber  and  the  High  Commission  Court)  was 
so  readily  inflicted  upon  the  despisers  of  authority,  is  to  my  mind  absolutely 
incredible  upon  any  hypothesis  except  that  of  the  use  of  the  book  being 
really  commanded. 

"At  the  Savoy  Conference,  the  eighth  'general  exception'  of  the  Pu 
ritan  divines  related  to  the  use  in  certain  parts  of  the  Liturgy  of  the 
'Great  Bible'  version.  They  desired  that,  instead  thereof,  the  new  trans 
lation  'allowed  by  authority'  might  'alone  be  used.'  The  Bishops  an 
swered,  '  We  are  willing  that  all  the  Epistles  and  Gospels,  etc.,  be  used 
according  to  the  last  translation ;'  and  this  promise  they  performed, 
stating,  in  the  preface  to  the  book  established  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
that  'for  a  more  perfect  rendering'  the  Epistles  and  Gospels,  and  other 
portions  of  Holy  Scripture,  inserted  'in  sundry  other  places'  of  the  Liturgy, 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  337 

were  'now  ordered  to  be  read  according  to  the  last  translation ;'  while  as 
to  the  Psalter,  they  'noted1  that  it  followed  'the  translation  of  the  Great 
English  Bible  set  forth  and  used  in  the  time  of  King  Henry  VIII.  and 
Edward  VI.' 

<:The  calendar  of  'Lessons'  in  this  book  of  1GG1-2  must,  I  suppose,  be 
admitted  to  refer  to  some  English  Bible.  The  question  is.  what  English 
Bible?  Uniformity  in  the  order  "of  public  worship  was  the  purpose  of  the 
whole  book;  therefore,  it  cannot  have  been  meant  to  leave  every  clergy 
man  to  translate  for  himself,  Or  to  select  for  himself  among  any  existing 
translations  at  his  discretion.  The  same  lessons  were  to  be  read  in  all 
churches.  It  is  not,  on  the  other  hand,  conceivable  that  any  version 
earlier  than  that  of  1G11,  and  confessedly  less  accurate  (else  wherefore 
adopt  the  'last  translation'  for  the  Epistles  and  Gospels?),  can  have  been 
intended.  The  question  has  practically  been  answered  by  the  subsequent 
reception,  understanding,  and  use  of  above  two  hundred  years.  During 
all  that  time  the  version  of  1611  has  been  universally  treated  as  being 
what  it  purported  to  be  when  first  issued  in  1G11  and  ever  since — i.  e., 
'  appointed  to  be  read  in  churches.'  It  is  one  of  the  best  established  and 
soundest  maxims  in  law  that,  for  a  usage  of  this  kind,  a  legal  origin  is  to 
be  presumed  when  the  facts  will  admit  of  it.  It  is  no  argument  to  the 
contrary  that  some  divines,  accustomcd'to  the  use  of  earliest  versions,  may 
have  continued  to  use  them  in  their  sermons  or  other  writings  after  1(511. 
The  appointment  that  this  version  only  should  be  '  read  in  churches^ 
would  not  take  away  that  liberty. 

''There  may,  of  course,  be  other  arguments  which  I  do  not  know  or 
have  not  considered.  My  object  in  saying  so  much  has  been  only  to 
point  out  the  fallacy  of  the  assumption  (if  there  are  many  who  make  it) 
that  the  English  Bible  of  1G11  is  to  be  regarded  as  without  authority 
unless  some  Royal  injunction,  proclamation,  or  order,  appointing  it  to  be 
read  in  churches  can  be  produced. 

"Believe  me  ever,  my  dear  Lord,  yours  faithfully, 

"  SELBOKXE, 

"The  Right  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Lincoln." 


THE    MERITS    OF    THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

1.  The  aim  of  the  Revisers  is  clearly  stated  in  the 
Preface.  It  was  not  to  make  "a  new  translation, 
nor  yet  to  make  of  a  bad  one  a  good  one  ,  .  ,  but 

22 


33S  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

to  make  a  good  one  better,  or  ont  of  many  good 
ones  one  principal  good  one."  Although  usually 
called  a  translation,  it  is  in  fact  merely  a  revision  of 
the  Bishops'  Bible,  as  this  itself  was  a  revision  of 
the  Great  Bible,  and  the  Great  Bible  a  revision  of 
Coverdale  and  Tyndale.  A  great  deal  of  praise, 
therefore,  which  is  given  to  it,  belongs  to  its  prede 
cessors.  The  Revisers  made  good  use  of  all  available 
sources,  even  the  Roman  Catholic  New  Testament 
of  Rheims,  which  appeared  in  1582.  and  is  not  men 
tioned  in  the  king's  instruction,  but  furnished  a  num 
ber  of  happy  Latin  terms,  derived  from  the  Vulgate.1 
For  the  idiom  and  vocabulary  Tyndale  deserves 
the  greatest  credit,  for  the  melody  and  harmony 
Coverdale,  for  scholarship  and  accuracy  the  Geneva 
Version.3  King  James  hated  the  last  as  "  the  worst 
of  all,"  but  the  translators  showed  their  superior 
learning  and  judgment  by  following  it  very  often 
in  preference  to  the  Bishops'  Bible.  The  examples 


1  Such  as  hymn  (Matt.  xxvi.  30),  blessed  (ver.  2C),  decease  (Luke  ix. 
31).  reprobate  (Horn.  i.  28),  impenitent  (ii.  5),  unction  (1  John  ii.  20),  mys- 
terv  (1  Cor.  ix.  7),  contemptible  (2  Cor.  x.  10),  confess,  propitiation,  seduce 
(all  in  1  John).     Other  Latin  terms,  as  concupiscence,  lucre,  salute,  super 
fluity,  tradition,  tribulation,  etc.,  were  in  the  older  Protestant  versions. 
The  Old  Testament  of  the  Eoman   Catholic  Version,  though  prepared 
before  the  New,  was  for  lack  of  means  not  published  till  1609  and  1610 
at  Douay.  under  the   title:    The  Holie  Jiible  Faithfully  Translated  into 
English  out  of  the  A  uthenlicall  Latin,  etc.,  2  vols. 

2  Eadie,  i.  302:  "Tyndale  gave  us  the  first  great  outline  distinctly  and 
wonderfully  etched;  but  Coverdale  added  those  minuter  touches  which 
soften  and  harmonize  it.     The  characteristic  features  are  Tyndale's  in  all 
their  boldness  of  form  and  expression ;  the  more  delicate  lines  and  shadings 
are  the  contribution  of  his  successor,  both  in  his  own  version  and  in  the 
Great  Bible,  revised  and  edited  by  him." 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  339 

of  mistranslations,  which  Dr.  Reynolds  quoted  at 
the  Hampton  Court  Conference  as  arguments  for 
the  need  of  a  new  version,  are  all  taken  from  the 
Great  Bible  and  the  Bishops'  Bible,  and  were  cor 
rected  in  the  Geneva  Bible.1 

2.  The  merits  are  not  the  same  in  all  the  books. 
From  the  division  of  the  work  among  six  indepen 
dent  companies,  there  arose  naturally  a  considerable 
inequality  in  the  execution.  In  the  Old  Testament 
the  historical  books  are  much  better  translated  than 
the  prophetical  books,  which  present  greater  difficul 
ties.  The  Book  of  Job  is  the  most  defective,  and 
in  many  places  unintelligible.  The  rendering  of 
Isaiah,  especially  in  the  earlier  portions,  contains 
many  errors  and  obscurities.  The  version  of  the 
Psalms  is,  upon  the  whole,  less  musical  and  rhythmi 
cal,  though  much  more  accurate,  than  Coverdale's, 
which  still  holds  its  place  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  In  the  New  Testament  the  Gospels  and 
Acts,  and  even  the  Apocalypse,  are  far  better  done 


1  "  It  is  obvious,"  says  Dr.  Moulton  (History  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  207). 
"that  the  Genevan  and  Khemish  versions  have  exercised  much  greater 
influence  than  the  Great  and  the  Bishops'  Bible."  He  gives  as  a  specimen 
a  passage  from  Isa.  liv.  11-17.  which  contains  182  words;  of  these,  86 
words  are  the  same  in  five  or  six  English  versions;  96  vary,  and  among 
these  variations  more  than  GO  are  taken  from  the  Genevan  Bible,  and  only 
12  from  the  Bishops'  Bible  (pp.  201-206).  In  the  familiar  fifty-third  chap 
ter  of  Isaiah  seven  eighths  of  the  variations  are  due  to  the  Genevan, 
according  to  Westcott  (p.  345).  No  authority  was  more  frequently  fol 
lowed,  both  for  text  and  interpretation,  than  Beza  of  Geneva,  whose  Greek 
Testament  (the  fourth  edition,  1588,  and  the  fifth  edition,  1598)  was  the 
chief  basis  of  the  Authorized  Version.  See  ante,  pp.  238  sqq. ;  Westcott, 
I  c.  294  sqq. ;  Eadie,  ii.  16  sqq. 


34:0  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

than  the  Epistles,  notably  Romans  and  Corinthians, 
which  abound  in  minor  inaccuracies. 

3.  The  style  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  uni 
versally  admired,  and  secures  to  it  the  first  rank 
among  English  classics.  It  resembles  in  this  respect 
the  version  of  Luther,  which  is  the  purest  and  strong 
est  expression  of  the  German  language,  and  forced 
even  his  papal  enemies  to  imitate  it  in  their  rival 
translations.  The  English  Bible  hails  from  the  gold 
en  age  of  English  literature.  It  coincides  in  time 
with  the  greatest  and  almost  inspired  poet  of  human 
nature  in  all  its  phases,  but  rises  above  Shakespeare 
as  grace  rises  above  nature,  and  religion  above  poetry. 
It  is  elevated,  venerable,  and  sacred,  like  the  Anglican 
Liturgy  as  reproduced  by  Cranmer  and  his  associates, 
in  their  hours  of  devotion.  The  Bible  is  beautiful 
in  any  language,  but  it  is  pre-eminently  beautiful  in 
the  English,  the  most  cosmopolitan  of  all  languages. 
The  translators  called  to  their  aid  with  easy  mastery 
all  its  marvellous  resources  of  Saxon  strength,  Nor 
man  grace,  and  Latin  majesty,  and  blended  these 
elements  in  melodious  harmony.  Their  language 
is  popular  without  being  vulgar,  and  dignified  with 
out  being  stiff.  It  reads  like  poetry  and  sounds 
like  music.  It  is  thoroughly  idiomatic,  and  free 
from  Latin  barbarisms.1  It  is  as  true  to  the  genius 

1  So  frequent  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Version,  owing  to  its  slavish 
conformity  to  the  Latin  Vulgate — e.  g.,  "impudicity  "  (Gal.  v.  19),  "coin- 
quination"  (2  Pet.  ii.  18,  20),  "contristate"  (to  make  sad,  Eph.  iv.  30), 
"  exinanite  "  (Phil.  ii.  7), (i  domestical "  (1  Tim.  v.  8),  "  repropitiate  "  (Heb. 
ii.  17).  "  zealatours"  (Acts  xxi.  20),  "azymes,"  "dominator,"  "  pasclie." 
"prepuce,"  " pupilles,"  " scenopegia,"  " supersubstantial  bread"  (Matt.  vi. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  341 

of  the  English  as  to  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek.  We  hear  in  our  Bible  Moses  and  the  proph 
ets,  Christ  and  the  apostles,  speaking  to  us  in  our 
own  mother-tongue.  From  this  "  well  of  English 
pure  and  undefiled"  poets,  orators  and  historians 
have  drunk  inspiration  for  more  than  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years.  It  has  done  more  than  any  great 
writer,  not  excluding  Shakespeare  and  Milton,  to 
fix  the  character  of  the  language  beyond  the  possi 
bility  of  essential  change,  and  the  idiom  of  this  ver 
sion  will  always  remain  the  favorite  organ  for  the 
oracles  of  God  to  the  English-speaking  race. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  necessary  to  modify  the 
praise  in  minor  particulars.  The  Authorized  Ver 
sion  occasionally  sacrifices  the  truth  of  the  original 
to  the  beauty  of  the  English,  as  in  Rom.  xii.  2,  "  Be 
not  conformed  to  this  world  :  but  be  ye  transformed 
by  the  renewing  of  your  mind  "  (where  the  Greek 
requires :  "  Be  not  fashioned  .  .  .  but  be  ye  trans 
formed,"  ju»y  (Tva^rnuaTi^tcrSz  .  .  .  oAXa  [itTa/noptyovaSt), 
and  in  Acts  xxvi.  28,  "Almost  thou  persuadest  me  to 
be  a  Christian  "  (which  cannot  be  the  meaning  of 
iv  oXtyq),  but  would  require  bXiyov  or  irup  oX'iyov 
or  oXryou  Sa).  More  serious  are  blemishes  in  the 
opposite  direction,  as  unseemly  phrases  in  the  Old 


11,  for  daily  or  needful  bread  in  the  Lord's  Prayer).  Fuller  says  that  the 
Rheims  and  Douay  translation  "  needs  to  be  translated ;"  and  Trench  says 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  translators  "  seem  to  have  put  off  their  loyalty 
to  the  English  language  with  their  loyalty  to  the  English  crown."  The 
Douay  Bible  has,  however,  undergone  in  the  course  of  time  so  many 
transformations,  that,  in  the  language  of  Cardinal  Wiseman,  "  scarcely  any 
verse  remains  as  it  was  originally  published."  (See  his  Essays,  vol.  i.  73-75.) 


342  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Testament  (i  Sam.  xxv.  22,  34 ;  1  Kings  xiv.  10;  2 
Kings  ix.  8;  xviii.  27;  Isa.  xxxvi.  12,  etc.),  which 
can  scarcely  be  read  in  the  pulpit  or  the  family,  and 
might  have  been  avoided  by  the  use  of  the  same 
liberty  which  the  translators  claimed  in  so  many 
passages.  We  meet  with  an  almost  profane  use  of 
the  name  of  God  in  the  phrases  "  Would  God  "  and 
44  Would  to  God"  (1  Cor.  iv.  8;  Deut.  xxviii.  67; 
Josh.  vii.  7,  etc.),  for  which  there  is  no  equivalent  in 
the  original,  and  in  the  unwarrantable  rendering, 
"God  forbid"  for  /ui]  yivoiro  ("may  it  not  be,"  or 
"  never  happen,"  "  far  from  it,"  Luke  xx.  16 ;  Rom. 
iii.  4,  6,  31 ;  vi.  2,  15 ;  vii.  7,  13 ;  ix.  14 ;  xi.  1,  11 ; 
1  Cor.  vi.  15;  Gal.  ii.  17;  iii.  21 ;  vi.  14).  There  are 
occasional  violations  of  English  grammar,  as  the 
double  plurals  "  cherubims,"  "  seraphims,"  "  ana- 
kims;"  the  Latinizing  "whom  [for  "who"]  say  ye 
that  I  am"  (Matt.  xvi.  15;  Mark  viii.  27,  29);  the 
archaic  "7*aV'  for  "its"  (Matt.  v.  13:  Mark  ix.  50; 
Luke  xiv.  34,  etc.);  and  the  connection  of  the  singu 
lar  verb  with  a  plural  noun,  as  "  This  people  who 
know^Anot,"  for  "know not"  (John  vii.  49).  A  con 
siderable  number  of  words  and  phrases  have  become 
obsolete  and  unintelligible — as  "to  fetch  a  com 
pass"  (for  "  to  make  a  circuit"),  "shamefastness"  (for 
"shamefacedness"),1  "bosses"  ("knobs"),  "clouts" 


1  Fast  in  "  shamefast "  (—bashful,  modest,  Eccles.  xxvi.  15).  and  in 
"shamefastness"  (1  Tim.  ii.  9),  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  German  Jest, 
and  as  in  "  steadfastness."  The  Revised  Version  has  returned  to  "  shame- 
/as/ness"  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611.  But  " modesty''  would  be 
as  good  a  rendering  of  aidwQ  in  1  Tim.  ii.  9,  and  far  more  intelligible,  at 
least  in  America. 


THE   AUTHORIZED   VERSION.  343 

("patches"),  "daysman"  ("arbitrator'-),  "dulcimer" 
(a  musical  instrument),  "  earing  "  ("  ploughing  "), 
"habergeon"  ("coat  of  mail"),  "kine"  (the  old 
plural  of  "cow"),  "  knop "  ("bud,"  compare  the 
German  Knospe),  "  ouches  "  ("  sockets  "),  "  sackbut " 
(a  wind  instrument),  "  swaddle"  ("  bandage"),  "  tab- 
ret"  (a  small  drum),  "  tache  "  (a  fastening  or  catch 
=  tack),  "ware"  (for  "aware"),  etc.  Other  words 
have  changed  their  meaning — as  "to  Jet"  (for  "to 
hinder"),  "to  prevent"  (for  "to  precede"),  "to  wit" 
(for  "  to  know"),  "atonement"  (for  "reconciliation"), 
"by  and  by"  (for  "  immediately  "),"  careful "  (for 
"anxious ").  "  carriage"  (for  "  baggage"),  "  charger" 
(for  "dish"),  "coast"  (for  "border"),  "conversa 
tion"  (for  "conduct"),  "damnation"  (for  "con 
demnation  "  ),  "  lucre  "  (for  "  gain""),  "  nephews  " 
(for  "  grandchildren  "  or  "  descendants  "),  "  room  " 
(for  "place").1 

Such  and  similar  changes,  which  are  inevitable  in 
a  living  language,  would  alone  be  sufficient  to  de 
mand  a  revision.  For  the  Bible  is  not  an  antiquarian 
curiosity-shop,  but  a  book  of  life  for  the  benefit  of 
the  people.  The  German,  French,  and  Dutch  lan 
guages  have  undergone  similar  changes. 

4.  The  Authorized  Version  is  a  truly  national 
work,  and  has  even  an  oecumenical  character  for 
the  English-speaking  world.  It  resembles  in  this 
respect  the  Apostles'  and  the  Nicene  creeds,  which 
cannot  be  traced  to  any  individual  authorship. 

1  See  The  Bible  Word-Boole :  A  Glossary  of  Old  English  Bible  Words, 
by  J.  EASTWOOD  and  W.  ALDIS  WRIGHT,  I860.  Also  the  article  of  Dr, 
Crosby  on  Archaisms,  in  "  Anglo- Amer.  Bible  Rev."  p.  144  sqq. 


34:4  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Nearly  all  the  Continental  versions  were  the  pro 
duction  of  a  single  mind  —  as  Luther,  Leo  Judee, 
Olivetan,  Diodati — and  bear  more  or  less  the  linea 
ments  of  the  translator.  But  the  English  Bible  is 
not  the  version  of  Wiclif,  or  Purvey,  or  Tyndale,  or 
Matthews,  or  Rogers,  or  Coverdale,  or  Cranmer,  or 
the  Elizabethan  Bishops,  or  King  James's  forty- 
seven  Translators.  It  is  the  work  of  the  English 
Church  in  the  period  of  the  greatest  revival  of  prim 
itive  Christianity.  The  sacred  memories  of  three 
generations  of  martyrs  and  confessors  are  treasured 
up  in  its  pages.  Tyndale,  who  devoted  his  life  to 
the  single  task  of  Anglicizing  the  Word  of  God, 
and  was  strangled  and  burned  for  it  at  Vilvorde ; 
Rogers,  who,  like  him,  left  the  world  in  a  chariot  of 
fire -as  the  protornartyr  of  the  bloody  reign  of  Mary  ; 
Coverdale,  who  a  fortnight  later  escaped  the  same 
fate  by  flight  to  Denmark;  Cranmer,  who,  after  five 
humiliating  recantations,  triumphed  over  his  weak 
ness  and  sealed  his  faith  at  the  stake  in  Oxford ; 
the  Marian  confessors,  who  found  a  hospitable  ref 
uge  in  the  city  of  Calvin  and  Beza ;  the  leaders  in 
the  Elizabethan  restoration  of  the  Reformation,  and 
their  learned  and  pious  successors  in  the  following 
reign — all  speak  to  us  through,  the  English  Bible,  to 
which  they  have  contributed  their  share  of  devout 
labor.  No  version  has  such  a  halo  of  glory  around 
it,  none  is  the  child  of  so  many  prayers,  none  has 
passed  through  severer  trials,  none  is  so  deeply  root 
ed  in  the  affections  of  the  people  that  use  it,  and 
none  has  exerted  so  great  an  influence  upon  the 
progress  of  the  Christian  religion  and  true  civiliza- 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VEKSION.  34:5 

tion  at  home  and  abroad.  It  is  interwoven  with  all 
that  is  most  precious  in  the  history  and  literature 
of  two  mighty  nations  which  have  sprung  from  the 
Saxon  stock.  It  is  used  day  by  day  and  hour  by 
hour  in  five  continents,  and  carries  to  every  mission 
station  in  heathen  lands  the  unspeakable  blessings 
of  the  gospel  of  peace. 

NOTES. 

The  beauty  of  the  ENGLISH  STYLE  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  well- 
nigh  unanimously  conceded  by  competent  scholars,  though  not  without 
some  qualifications.  The  following  judgments  represent  different,  schools 
of  thought: 

HENRY  HALLAM  :  "The  style  of  this  translation  is  in  general  so  en 
thusiastically  praised,  that  no  one  is  permitted  either  to  qualify  or  even 
explain  the  grounds  of  his  approbation.  It  is  held  to  be  the  perfection 
of  our  English  language.  I  shall  not  dispute  this  proposition ;  but  one 
remark  as  to  a  matter  of  fact  cannot  reasonably  be  censured,  that,  in  con 
sequence  of  the  principle  of  adherence  to  the  original  versions  which  had 
been  kept  up  ever  since  the  time  of  Henry  VIIL.  it  is  not  the  language 
of  the  reign  of  James  I.  It  may,  in  the  eyes  of  many,  be  a  better  English, 
but  it  is  not  the  English  of  Daniel  or  Kaleigh  or  Bacon,  as  any  one  may 
easily  perceive.  It  abounds,  in  fact,  especially  in  the  Old  Testament,  with 
obsolete  phraseology,  and  with  single  words  long  since  abandoned,  or 
retained  only  in  provincial  use.  On  the  more  important  question,  whether 
this  translation  is  entirely,  or  with  very  trifling  exceptions,  conformable 
to  the  original  text,  it  seems  unfit  to  enter"  {Introduction  to  the  Literature 
of  Europe,  etc.,  vol.  ii.  445,  New  York  edition,  1880). 

GKORGE  P.  MAHSH  calls  the  Authorized  Version  "an  anthology  of  all 
the  beauties  developed  in  the  language  during  its  whole  historical  exist 
ence"  {Lectures  on  the.  English  Language,  p.  630,  New  York,  1860). 

Archbishop  TRENCH  has  a  special  chapter  on  the  English  of  the 
Authorized  Version  (ch.  Hi.),  and  praises  its  vocabulary,  which  he  deems 
to  be  "  nearly  as  perfect  as  possible,"  but  finds  "  frequent  flaws  and  faults" 
in  its  grammar.  "  In  respect  to  words,"  he  says,  "  we  everywhere  recog 
nize  in  it  that  true  delectus  rerborum  on  which  Cicero  insists  so  earnestly, 
and  in  which  so  much  of  the  charm  of  style  consists.  All  the  words  used 
are  of  the  noblest  stamp,  alike  removed  from  vulgarity  and  pedantry; 


346  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

they  are  neither  too  familiar,  nor,  on  the  other  side,  not  familiar  enough; 
they  never  crawl  on  the  ground,  as  little  arc  they  stilted  and  far-fetched. 
And  then  how  happily  mixed  and  tempered  are  the  Anglo-Saxon  and 
Latin  vocables !  No  undue  preponderance  of  the  latter  makes  the  language 
remote  from  the  understanding  of  simple  and  unlearned  men." 

F.  WILLIAM  FAKEU.  This  glowing  hymnist,  who  passed  from  Oxford 
Tractarianism  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  felt  keenly  that  he  had  gained 
nothing  by  the  change  as  far  as  the  English  Bible  was  concerned,  and 
pronounced  a  most  eloquent  eulogy  on  the  Authorized  Version,  which 
is  all  the  more  forcible  as  coming  from  an  opponent.  It  first  appeared  in 
1853,  in  his  essay  on  The  Interest  and  Characteristics  of  the  Lives  of  the 
Saints,  p.  11G  (prefixed  to  a  Lift  of  St.  Francis  of  Assist,  which  forms 
vol.  xxv.  of  the  Oratonr  series  of  the  Lives  of  Modern  Saints*),  then  in  tlve 
';  Dublin  Review  "  for  June,  1853.  p.  4(5(5,  and  has  often  been  quoted  since, 
sometimes  under  the  name  of  John  II.  Newman.  It  is  as  follows: 

'•Who  will  say  that  the  uncommon  beauty  and  marvellous  English  of 
the  Protestant  Bible  is  not  one  of  the  great  strongholds  of  heresy  in  this 
country?  It  lives  on  the  ear  like  a  music  that  can  never  be  forgotten, 
like  the  sound  of  church  bells,  which  the  convert  hardly  knows  how  he 
can  forego.  Its  felicities  often  seem  to  be  almost  things  rather  than  mere 
words.  It  is  part  of  the  national  mind,  and  the  anchor  of  national  serious 
ness.  Nay,  it  is  worshipped  with  a  positive  idolatry,  in  extenuation  of 
whose  grotesque  fanaticism  its  intrinsic  beauty  pleads  availingly  with 
the  man  of  letters  and  the  scholar.  The  memory  of  the  dead  passes  into 
it.  The  potent  traditions  of  childhood  are  stereotyped  in  its  verses. 
The  power  of  all  the  griefs  and  trials  of  a  man  is  hidden  beneath  its 
words.  It  is  the  representative  of  his  best  moments,  and  all  that  there 
has  been  about  him  of  soft,  and  gentle,  and  pure,  and  penitent,  and  good, 
speaks  to  him  forever  out  of  his  English  Bible.  It  is  his  sacred  thing, 
which  doubt  has  never  dimmed,  and  controversy  never  soiled.  It  has 
been  to  him  all  along  as  the  silent,  but  oh,  how  intelligible  voice  of  his 
guardian  angel,  and  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land  there  is  not  a 
Protestant,  with  one  spark  of  religiousness  about  him,  whose  spiritual 
biography  is  not  in  his  Saxon  Bible.  And  all  this  is  an  unhallowed 
power !"  (How  lame  and  inconsistent  such  an  objection,  which  is  suffi 
ciently  refuted  by  the  preceding  praise.  For  if  the  Protestant  translators 
produced  such  a  marvellous  work,  they  must  have  been  in  full  sympathy 
with  the  Bible  and  its  divine  Source ;  and  where  the  Bible  is,  there  is  the 
truth.) 

Dr.  EADIE  (ii.  226)  :  "  The  English  style  is  above  all  praise.  .  .  .  Whilo 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  347 

it  has  the  fulness  of  the  Bishops'  without  its  frequent  literalism  or  its 
repeated  supplements,  it  has  the  graceful  vigor  of  the  Genevan,  the  quiet 
grandeur  of  the  Great  Bible,  the  clearness  of  Tyndale.  the  harmonies  of 
Coverdale,  and  the  stately  theological  vocabulary  of  the  Rheims." 

JOHN  STOUGHTON  :  "As  a  specimen  of  English  style  this  Bible  has 
received  enthusiastic  praise;  and  here,  perhaps,  admiration  for  its  sacred 
contents,  and  the  delightful  associations  with  its  very  phraseology  which 
piety  and  devotion  cannot  fail  to  form,  may  warp  our  judgment  on  the 
question  of  its  literary  merits;  yet,  after  all  that  can  be  said  against  it  in 
this  point  of  view  (and  that  it  has  literary  defects  as  well  as  excellences 
it  were  nncandid  to  deny),  we  must  surely  be  struck  with  the  fact  that 
while  our  Bible  possesses  numberless  specimens  of  English  diction,  full 
of  rhythm,  beauty,  and  grandeur,  there  are  to  be  found  in  it  so  few  words 
and  modes  of  expression  which  the  lapse  of  between  two  and  three  cen 
turies  has  rendered  obsolete  or  dubious"  (Our  English  Bible,  p.  25*2  sq.). 

The  number  of  words  in  the  Authorized  Version,  either  obsolete  or 
changed  in  sense,  is  variously  estimated,  but  seems  to  exceed  two  hundred 
and  fifty.  This  is  less  in  proportion  than  the  corresponding  number  of 
obsolete  words  in  Shakespeare,  Bacon,  and  Milton.  Booker,  in  his 
Scripture  and  Prayer-look  Glossary  (as  quoted  by  George  P.  Marsh, 
Lectures  on  the  English  Language,  p.  630,  note),  states  the  number  of  such 
words  in  the  Authorized  Version,  including  the  Apocrypha,  to  be  three 
hundred  and  eighty-eight.  Of  these,  more  than  one  hundred  belong  to 
the  Apocrypha  and  the  Prayer-book.  According  to  Marsh  (p.  264),  more 
than  five  or  six  hundred  words  of  Shakespeare's  vocabulary  of  fifteen 
thousand  words,  and  about  one  hundred  of  Milton's  vocabulary  of  eight 
thousand,  have  gone  out  of  use.  The  Authorized  Version  inherited  a 
number  of  obsolete  or  obsolescent  words  from  previous  versions.  It 
represents  not  the  language  of  1611  in  its  integrity,  but  the  collective 
language  of  the  three  preceding  generations. 

DEFECTS    OF    THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Xo  perfect  work  can  be  expected  from  imperfect 
men.  The  translators  made  the  best  use  of  the 
materials  at  their  disposal,  as  well  as  their  knowl 
edge  of  biblical  philology  and  exegesis,  and  they 
were  in  the  main  led  by  sound  principles ;  but  their 
materials  were  scanty,  their  knowledge  limited,  and 


348  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

among  their  principles  was  one  which  is  now  uni 
versally  rejected  as  vicious.  Hence,  while  actual 
and  serious  mistranslations  are  comparatively  few, 
and  these  mostly  derived  from  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
the  minor  errors  and  inaccuracies  are  innumerable. 
Tested  by  the  standard  of  general  faithfulness,  idio 
matic  style,  and  practical  usefulness,  the  Authorized 
Version  is  admirable;  but  tested  by  the  standard  of 
modern  scholarship  it  is  exceedingly  defective,  and 
imperatively  calls  for  a  revision. 

1.  As  regards  the  material  for  the  text,  the  trans 
lators  used  no  documentary  sources  as  far  as  is 
known,  and  were  confined  to  a  few  printed  editions 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  present  a  text  de 
rived  from  comparatively  late  cursive  MSS.  of  the 
fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries.  They  relied 
chiefly  on  the  text  of  Beza  (fourth  or  fifth  edition, 
1598),  from  which  they  departed  only  in  about  one 
hundred  and  ninety  places,  and  these  departures  are 
nearly  all  unimportant.1 

The  science  of  textual  criticism  was  not  yet  born 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  because  the  material  was 
not  yet  discovered  or  accessible.  Of  the  oldest  uncial 
manuscripts  only  two — the  Codex  Bezae  for  the  Gos 
pels  and  Acts,  and  the  Codex  Claromontanus  for  the 


1  See  above,  pp.  239,  283 ;  the  detailed  statement  of  Dr.  Abbot  in  SchafTs 
Introduction  to  the  Revision  Essays,  p.  xxix. ;  and  Scrivener's  New  Testa 
ment  in  Greek,  pp.  648-G56.  According  to  Dr.  Abbot's  investigations,  the 
Authorized  Version  agrees  with  Beza's  text  (fourth  edition)  against  that 
of  Stephens  in  about  ninety  places,  with  Stephens  against  Beza  in  about 
forty,  and  differs  from  both  iu  thirty  or  forty  places,  where  the  variations 
are  mostly  trivial. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  349 

Epistles — were  known,  and  even  they  were  scarcely 
used  by  Beza,  who  came  into  possession  of  them. 
The  Alexandrian  MS.  (A)  did  not  reach  England 
till  seventeen  years  after  the  publication  of  the 
Authorized  Version  ;  and  the  still  older  and  more 
important  Codex  of  Ephrsem,  the  Vatican,  and  the 
Sinaitic  were  entirely  unknown,  having  come  to 
light  or  been  made  properly  available  only  in  the 
nineteenth  century.  As  to  ancient  versions,  the 
translators  were,  of  course,  very  familiar  with  Je 
rome's  Vulgate,  which  they  used  as  much  as  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek  (often  copying  its  er 
rors).1  They  were  also  acquainted  to  some  extent 
with  the  Peshito,  first  published  in  1555  (and  with 
its  Latin  version  by  Tremellius,  which  appeared  in 
1569),  not  to  speak  of  many  modern  versions  which 
have  no  textual  authority.  But  no  critical  edition 
of  the  ancient  versions  existed  before  Walton's  Lon 
don  Polyglot  (1657),  and  even  this  left  a  great  deal 
of  work  for  future  discoveries  and  researches.  The 
ancient  fathers  were  known,  but  their  critical  exam 
ination  for  textual  purposes  did  not  begin  till  the 

J  The  Translators'  Preface  makes  very  honorable  mention  of  Jerome : 
"  They  [the  old  Latin  Versions]  were  not  out  of  the  Hebrew  fountain  (we 
speak  of  the  Latin  translations  of  the  Old  Testament),  but  out  of  the 
Greek  stream ;  therefore,  the  Greek  being  not  altogether  clear,  the  Latin 
derived  from  it  must  needs  be  muddy.  This  moved  S.  Hierome.  a  most 
learned  Father,  and  the  best  linguist,  without  controversy,  of  his  age  or  of 
any  that  went  before  him,  to  undertake  the  translating  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  out  of  the  very  fountains  themselves;  which  he  performed  with  that 
evidence  of  great  learning,  judgment,  industry,  and  faithfulness,  that  he 
hath  forever  bound  the  Church  unto  him  in  a  debt  of  special  remembrance 
and  thankfulness." 


350  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

time  of  Mill  (1707),  whose  labors  were  carried  on 
much  further  by  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  and  the  mod 
ern  editors. 

With  such  a  defective  apparatus  we  need  not  be 
surprised  at  the  large  number  of  false  readings  and 
interpolations  which  obscure  or  mar  the  beauty  and 
weaken  the  force  of  the  primitive  text.1 

2.  The  Greek  and  Hebrew  learning  of  the  trans 
lators  was  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  read  the  orig 
inal  Scriptures  with  ease;  while  with  the  Latin 
Yulgate  they  were  probably  more  familiar  than 
with  the  earlier  English  versions.  But  the  more 
delicate  shades  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  syntax 
were  unknown  in  their  age,  and  the  grammars,  dic 
tionaries,  and  concordances  very  imperfect.  Hence 
the  innumerable  arbitrary  and  capricious  violations 
of  the  article,  tenses,  prepositions,  and  little  particles. 
The  impression  often  forces  itself  upon  the  student 
that  they  translated  from  the  Latin  Yulgate,  where 
there  is  no  article  and  no  aorist,  rather  than  from 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek.  Their  inaccuracy  increases 
in  proportion  as  the  Greek  departs  from  the  Latin. 
And  yet  the  English  (at  least  the  Saxon-English)  has 
greater  affinity  with  the  Greek  than  with  the  Latin. 

(a)  The  article. — The  mass  of  English  readers 
will  hardly  notice  the  difference  between  a  virgin 
and  the  virgin,  a  mountain  and  the  mountain,  a  feast 

1  For  a  convenient  comparison  of  the  authorized  and  critical  texts,  see 
C.  E.  Stuart :  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  for  English  Bible 
Students;  being  a  succinct  comparison  of  the  Authorized  Version  with  the 
Critical  Texts  of  Griesbach,  Schok,  Lachmann,  Tischendojf,  Treyelles,  A  l- 
ford,  and  the  Uncial  MSS.  Second  edition,  London  (Bagster  &  Sons),  n.  d. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  351 

and  the  feast,  a  falling  away  and  the  falling  away, 
a  confession  and  the  confession,  a  fight  and  the  fight, 
a  crown  and  the  crown  ;  the  Son  of  God  and  a  Son 
of  God,  the  woman  and  a  woman,  the  root  of  all  evil 
and  a  root.  But  the  careful  student,  looking  into 
his  Greek  Testament,  or  comparing  the  Authorized 
Version  with  the  Revised  Version,  will  feel  at  once 
the  force  of  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  definite 
article,  and  the  unaccountable  carelessness  with  which 
it  is  now  omitted,  now  inserted,  by  the  translators. 
As  a  rule,  the  definite  article  in  all  languages  indi 
cates,  as  Winer  says,  "  that  the  object  is  conceived 
as  definite,  either  from  its  nature,  or  from  the  con 
text,  or  by  reference  to  a  circle  of  ideas  which  is 
assumed  to  be  familiar  to  the  reader's  mind." 

A  few  examples  will  illustrate  the  difference. 
"  The  Christ"  is  an  official  title,  meaning  the  prom 
ised  and  expected  Messiah  (the  Anointed),  and  is  so 
used  generally  in  the  Gospels;  while  "Christ,"  with 
or  without  "  Jesus,"  is  a  proper  name  of  our  Saviour, 
as  very  often  in  the  Epistles.  Thus,  Herod  asked 
where  "the  Christ"  should  be  born  (Matt.  ii.  4),  and 
John  wrote  his  Gospel  that  his  readers  might  be 
lieve  that  "Jesus  is  the  Christ"  (John  xx.  31,  where 
the  English  Version  correctly  gives  the  article) ; 
while  Paul  calls  himself  a  servant  or  apostle  of 
"  Jesus  Christ "  (Rom.  i.  1,  3 ;  Gal.  i.  1,  etc.).  "  A 
law  "  is  a  rule  or  principle,  natural  or  revealed  ;  while 
"  the  law"  is  the  written  law  of  Moses.  "  The  many  " 
(oc  TroXXot)  is  used  by  Paul  in  Rom.  v.  repeatedly  in 
the  sense  of  "all,"  as  distinct  from  "the  one"  (6  cTc, 
Adam  or  Christ);  while  "many,"  in  the  Authorized 


352  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Version,  conveys  the  wrong  idea  of  a  limitation,  or 
of  a  large  number  simply,  as  distinct  from  a  "few." 
The  love  of  money  is  "  a  root  of  all  kinds  of  evil," 
bnt  not  "the"  only  root  (1  Tim.  vi.  10) ;  pride  (as 
in  the  case  of  Satan)  is  also  a  root  of  all  evil. 

Compare  as  examples  of  omissions  of  the  definite 
article  where  the  sense  is  weakened  or  changed  : 
Matt.  i.  23  ;  iv.  5  ;  v.  1, 15  ;  vii.  25  ;  viii.  23 ;  ix.  11  ; 
xii.  41 ;  xiii.42;  xix.  14;  xxiii.24;  xxiv.  12;  Mark 
iv.  21;  Luke  vii.  5;  viii.  6,  7;  xvii.17;  x viii.  11, 15; 
John  iii.  10;  vi.4;  xii.  36,  46  ;  xviii.  3,  5,  15  ;  Acts 
i.13,17;  iv.12;  Rom.  v.  2,9, 15,17, 19  (of  iroAXof); 
1  Cor.  v.  9;  vii.  17;  ix.  5;  2  Cor.  vii.  8;  x.  9;  Col.  i. 
19;  2  Thess.  ii.3;  1  Tim.  vi.  12, 13;  2  Tim.  iv.  7,  8; 
Ileb.  xi.10;  Rev.  vii.  14. 

Examples  of  wrong  insertion  of  the  definite  arti 
cle,  giving  emphasis  to  a  noun  which  the  writer  did 
not  intend :  Matt.  i.  20  ("  the  Angel "  for  "  an  angel ") ; 
ix.  13  (and  the  parallel  passages,  Sucaiovc);  xxvi.  74; 
xx vii.  54;  John  iv.  27  (/uera  yui/aiicoc,  the  wonder  of 
the  disciples  was  that  Christ  should,  contrary  to 
Rabbinical  custom,  converse  not  with  that  particu 
lar  woman  of  Samaria,  but  with  a  woman  or  any 
woman);  xvii.  19;  Acts  xxvi.  2;  Rom.  ii.  14  (£$1^, 
Gentiles,  some,  not  all);  1  Thess.  iv.  17;  1  Tim.  vi. 
10  ;  Rev.  xx.  12. 

There  are,  of  course,  idiomatic  uses  of  the  Greek 
article  which  are  not  admissible  in  English — e.g., 
where  the  article  is  generic,  as  fi  a/uapria  and  6  Sava- 
-oc,  "  sin  "  and  "  death,"  as  a  principle  or  power,  in 
Rom.  v.  12.  Here  the  English  idiom  requires  the 
absence  (the  German,  like  the  Greek,  the  presence) 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  353 

of  the  definite  article.  Matt.  vii.  6  belongs  to  the 
same  category,  although  the  English  Revision  re 
tains  the  article  ("the  dogs"  and  "the  swine").  In 
connection  with  proper  names  the  Greek  admits  of 
the  definite  article  when  the  person  is  known,  or 
has  been  previously  mentioned  (as  6  'Iijorouc,  6  Uav- 
Xoc) ;  while  the  English  and  German  require  the 
omission.  In  Greek,  countries  (and  cities)  have  the 
article  (rj  FaXcm'a,  77  'IraXj'a),but  not  in  English,  except 
when  the  place  is  qualified  by  an  adjective  (e.g.,  "  the 
New  Jerusalem  ").  Names  of  rivers  have  always  the 
article  in  Greek  and  in  English ;  but  the  Authorized 
Version  makes  an  exception  with  the  Jordan,  which 
occurs  always  without  the  article.  The  English  Re 
visers  have  corrected  this  inconsistency,  but  retained 
it  in  the  compound  phrases  "  beyond  Jordan," 
"round  about  Jordan." 

(b)  The  verb. — The  Greek  language  is  unusually 
rich  in  verbal  forms,  having  three  voices  (Active, 
Passive,  and  Middle),  five  modes  (Indicative,  Conjunc 
tive,  Optative,  Imperative,  Infinitive  ;  the  Participle 
being  a  verbal  adjective),  and  seven  tenses  (Present, 
Future,  Future  perfect,  Aorist,  Imperfect,  Perfect, 
and  Pluperfect).  The  tenses  are  carried  also  into  par 
ticipial  forms.  The  English  has  no  Middle  voice,  no 
Optative  mode,  arid  only  five  tenses;  but  the  Middle 
voice  can  be  rendered  by  adding  the  personal  pro 
noun,  the  Optative  mode  by  may  or  might,  and  the 
Imperfect  tense  by  the  aid  of  the  auxiliary  verb. 
Absolute  accuracy  is  impossible;  and  no  modern 
version  can  ever  supersede  the  study  of  the  Greek 
Testament.  Not  unfrequently  euphonv  and  rhythm 
23  " 


354  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

require  the  English  Perfect  for  the  Greek  Aorist. 
Yet  we  should  conform  to  the  Greek  as  far  as  Eng 
lish  usage  and  rhetoric  will  permit. 

Considering  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  with  the  single  exception  of  Luke,  were  Jews, 
and  brought  up  in  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  tongue, 
which  is  very  poor  in  verbal  forms,  their  precision 
in  the  use  of  the  Greek  tenses,  especially  the  dis 
tinction  between  the  Aorist  and  Imperfect,  is  very 
remarkable.  The  Greek  has,  it  is  well  known,  four 
tenses  to  express  the  past  time — namely,  (1)  the 
Aorist,1  or  narrative  tense,  which  expresses  a  mo 
mentary  and  completed  act  or  event ;  (2)  the  Im 
perfect,  a  descriptive  and  relative  tense,  denoting 
an  action  which  is  either  contemporaneous,  or  con 
tinuous,  or  incomplete,  or  attempted  ;  (3)  the  Perfect, 
which  combines  the  past  with  the  present,  and  ex 
presses  an  act  or  event  which  continues  in  its  effect; 
(4)  the  Pluperfect,  which  is  relative,  like  the  imper 
fect,  but  refers  to  subordinate  actions  or  events  as 
having  already  passed  before  the  principal  action. 
In  English  the  difference  can  be  easily  reproduced : 
the  Aorist  is  best  rendered  by  the  simple  Past  or 
Preterite  (7  went,  1  wrote),  the  Perfect  by  the  Per 
fect  (/  have  gone,  I  have  written),  the  Imperfect  by 
the  use  of  the  auxiliary  verb  (/  was  going,  I  was 
writing),  the  Pluperfect  by  the  Pluperfect  (/  had 
gone,  I  had  written). 

Justice  requires  that  this  distinction  should  be  re 
produced  at  least  in  all  cases  where  the  sense  is  affect- 

3  Aorist,  i.  e.,  indefinite,  is  proper!}'  a  misnomer,  unless  it  signifies  the 
indefinite  relation  of  this  tense  to  the  other  tenses. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  355 

eel.  But  the  translators  of  King  James  were  either 
ignorant  or  careless  of  these  distinctions,  for  they 
indiscriminately  confound  the  tenses  in  every  chap 
ter.  We  give  some  illustrations. 

The  Greek  Present  is  often  misrendered  by  the 
English  Perfect,  e.  g.9  Matt.  xxv.  8,  ai  Xo^~«8cc  fifiwv 
afiivvvvrat,  "  our  lamps  are  going  out"  not  "  are  gone 
out;"  2  Cor.  iv.  3,  lv  ro7c  a-o\\v/u£voic,  "in  those 
who  are  perishing"  not  "are  lost." 

The  Present  mistranslated  by  the  simple  Past: 
Ileb.  ii.  16,  tTnAa/i/Savtrcn,  "  he  takes  hold,"  not  "took 
on  him;"  Rev.  xii.  2,  Kpa&i,  "she  cries,"  not  "cried." 
So  often  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  who  is  fond  of  the 
present  tense  to  give  vivacity  to  his  narrative. 

The  Perfect  misrendered  by  the  Present:  Matt. 
v.  10,  St&wy/uc'i'oi,  "  they  that  have  been  persecuted," 
not  "  are  persecuted  ;"  Gal.  ii.  20,  cvviaTavpunai,  "  I 
have  been  crucified  with  Christ,"  not  "  I  am  cruci 
fied." 

The  Aorist  misrendered  by  the  Present :  Matt.  xv. 
24,  a-£(Tr«Arji',  "  I  was  sent,"  not  "  I  am  sent ;"  1  Cor. 
xii.  13,  t/3a7rr/o-3-rj//£i',  "we  were  baptized,"  not  "are 
baptized;"  Rom.  vi.  2,  olrivtg  a-n-tSavoiutv  TTJ  a^aprm, 
"we  who  died  to  sin"  (at  our  conversion  and  bap 
tism),  not  "are  dead  ;"  so  also  ver.  7  and  8  ;  Gal.  ii. 
19,  $ia  VOJLIOV  vo/uu  air&avov,  "  through  the  law  I 
died  to  the  law,"  not  "  am  dead ;"  so  also  Col.  ii.  20  ; 
iii.  1,  3.  The  Authorized  Version  substitutes  the 
state  of  death  for  the  act  of  dying. 

The  Perfect  mistaken  for  the  Aorist:  John  vi.  65, 
eY/t)i/ica,."I  have  said"  not  "said." 

The  Aorist  misrendered  by  the  Perfect:  Matt.  ii. 


356  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

2,  a'So/uev,  "  wo  saw"  not  "  have  seen  ;"  Luke  vii.  5, 
<t>ico§ojur)(rsv,  "he  Jw7£  us  our  synagogue,"  not  "he 
hath  built ;"  John  i.  16,  sXafiontv,  "  we  received"  not 
"have  received;"  iii.  33,  iafypdyiatv,  "he  sealed;" 
ver.  34,  airiaTu\sv,  "  he  sent ;"  viii.  52,  (nr&avf,  "  he 
died;"  Rom.  ii.  12;  iii.  23;  v.  12,  ifjjuci/oroi',  "they 
sinned"  not  "  have  sinned  ;"  vii.  6,  airoZavov-ic, 
"having  died,"  not  "  being  dead;"  2  Cor.  v.  14,  tic 

VTTtp   7TUl>T(i)V   a7Tf'vai'£l',  Ctpa   Ol    TTUVTtQ    llTTt^aVUV,  "  O11C 

died  for  all,  therefore  all  died,"  not  "then  were  all 
dead."  In  the  sacerdotal  prayer  there  are  several 
emphatic  aorists  which  are  exchanged  for  the  per 
fect  in  the  Authorized  Version,  but  are  restored  in 
the  Revised  Version,  John  xvii.  4,  6, 12, 18, 23,  25,  26. 

The  Imperfect  misrendered  by  the  simple  Past  : 
Luke  i.  59,  iicdXovv,  "  they  were  calling"  not  "  called ;" 
v.  6,  §up{)aatTo  ra  S/icrua  avrwr,  "  their  nets  were 
breaking"  not  "  brake ;"  viii.  23,  a\jvL-\Ti]povvTo, 
"  they  \vere  filling  with  water,"  for  "  they  were 
filled  ;"  xviii.  3,  i^cro,  "  she  kept  coming"  or  "she 
came  oft"  to  the  unjust  judge,  for  "she  came;" 
ver.  13,  STVTTT&  TO  (Trevor  avTov,  "  he  kept  smiting  his 
breast,"  for  "smote"  (retained  in  the  Revised  Ver 
sion);  John  vi.  IT,  Yip\ovrof  "they  were  going"  for 
"they  went;"  Gal.  i.  13,  lTr<'>p%ow,  "  I  was  destroy 
ing"  (attempted  to  destroy),  not  "destroyed"  or 
"  wasted  ;"  so  also  ver.  23. 

(c)  The  prepositions  are  often  confounded  or  mis 
translated.  Thus  lv  is  indiscriminately  rendered 
"in,"  "within,"  "among,"  "through,"  "with," 
"  by,"  "  at,"  "  under,"  "  into,"  "  unto,"  "  toward," 
etc. ;  and  often  mistaken  in  the  instrumental  (He- 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  357 

braistic)  sense,  "by,"  "through,"  where  it  signifies 
the  life-element,  the  vital  union  with  Christ,  "  in  " 
(as  Rom.  vi.  11,  tv  Xpiartf  'Irjo-.  ;  xiv.  14,  lv  Kvpitp  'Irj- 
o-ou  ;  xv.  17 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  9, 13) ;  while  in  other  pas 
sages  it  is  correctly  rendered  (as  Rom.  viii.  1,  2;  ix.  1 ; 
xii.  5,  etc.).  Etc  is  variously  translated  "  into,"  "  to," 
"unto,"  "toward,"  "upon,"  "among,"  "through 
out,"  "by,"  "with,"  "against,"  "till,"  "until." 
Both  prepositions,  the  one  expressing  rest  in,  the 
other  motion  into,  are  sometimes  confounded,  as  in 
Luke  ii.  14-,  "towards  men"  for  "among  men"  (lv 
oi'SyiojTrotc),  and  vice  versa,  as  in  the  baptismal  for 
mula,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  "  in  the  name,"  instead  of 
"into"  (ar;  TO  ovo/ma) ;  Luke  xvi.  8  ;  xxiii.  42.  The 
omission  of  the  preposition  in  2  Pet.  i.  5-7  (tv  rf) 
Tnorra — tv  rrj  yvwatt),  turns  the  organic  development 
of  the  Christian  graces  arid  their  causal  dependence 
one  upon  another  into  a  mechanical  accumulation. 
In  1  Pet.  ii.  12  and  iii.  16,  lv  <J  is  rendered  "where 
as,"  instead  of  "  wherein."  Horn.  xi.  2,  we  have 
"of  Elias,"  instead  of  "in  (the  history  of)  Elijah" 
(lv  rHX/o).  The  instrumental  gm  with  the  Genitive, 
"  through,"  and  the  causal  £m  with  the  Accusative, 
"because  of"  or  "on  account  of,"  are  likewise  con 
founded — e.  g.,  Gal.  iv.  13  (&'  arr&i'fmi',  the  infirmity 
of  the  flesh  being  the  cause  of  Paul's  detention  and 
preaching  in  Galatia,  not  his  condition  during  his 
preaching);  compare  also  John  vi.  57;  Eom.  iii.  25 
(Sta  T?IV  Traptaiv,  because  of  the  pretermission  or 
passing  by) ;  1  Cor.  vii.  5.  The  distinction  between 
CITTO,  "  away  from"  (  =  ab\  IK,  "out  of,"  UTTO,  "from 
under,"  "  by,"  irapa,  "  from  beside,"  is  often  disre- 


358  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

garded.  The  same  is  true  of  the  difference  between 
VTTO,  which  signifies  the  remote  agency  or  source, 
and  cia,  which  designates  the  instrumental  agency 
or  channel,  as  in  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  which  are  always  traced  by  the  evangelists 
and  apostles  to  God  or  the  Holy  Spirit  through 
Moses  and  the  prophets — e.  (/.,  Matt.  i.  22  (TO  prfilv 
v~o  TOV  Kvpiov  Bio.  TOV  7r  po(j)ii~ov)  ;  iL  5,17,23;  iii.  3; 
iv.  li,  etc.  In  2  Cor.  v.  20,  v-lp  Xpiarov,  "  in  behalf 
of  Christ,"  is  falsely  rendered  "  in  Christ's  stead  " 
(as  if  it  were  avrt). 

(d)  The  same  inaccuracy  meets  us  in  the  render 
ing  of  pronouns,  conjunctions,  and  adverbs.  "  But " 
is  used  indiscriminately  for  a/\X«,  yap,  tav,  a  /ui'i, 
tKTOf,  ij,  /titvToi,  lav  ju//,  juoi>oi',  ovv,  ir\i'iv.  The  con 
nective  £t  (and  and  but)  is  rendered  indifferently  by 
-and,"  "now,"  "  but,"  "then,"  "nevertheless," 
"  moreover,"  "  notwithstanding,"  or  dropped  alto 
gether.  In  Gal.  ii.  20,  the  Greek  %w  &  OVKZTI  iyw 
requires  the  rendering:  "It  is  no  longer  I  that  live, 
but  Christ  liveth  in  me;"  but  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion  reads :  "  Nevertheless  I  live ;  yet  not  I,  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me."  In  Paul's  Epistles  the  whole 
argument  sometimes  turns  on  the  proper  distinction 
between  the  logical  and  illative  apa,  apa  ouv  (so  then), 
the  adversative  aAXa  (but),  and  the  simple  con  tin  na 
tive  or  retrospective  ovv  (then).  The  last  is  John's 
favorite  narrative  particle,  and  denotes  the  natural 
or  providential  sequence  of  events;  but  the  English 
Version  indiscriminately  uses  for  it  "  and,"  "  and 
so,"  "then,"  "so  then,"' "so,"  "now  then,"  "there 
fore,"  "  wherefore,"  "  truly,"  "  verily,"  "  but."  Ev- 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  359 

•3-t'wc,  which  is  Mark's  favorite  adverb,  and  well 
expresses  the  rapidity  of  his  motion,  is  variously 
rendered  "  straightway,"  "  immediately,"  "  forth- 
witli,"  "  as  soon  as,"  "anon,"  "  by  and  by,"  " shortly." 

(e)  Not  only  has  biblical  philology  made  enormous 
progress,  and  been  carried  almost  to  a  state  of  per 
fection  in  the  nineteenth  century,  all  other  depart 
ments  of  biblical  learning — geography,  natural  his 
tory,  archaeology,  critical  introduction,  and  exegesis 
proper — have  advanced  in  proportion,  and  shed  new 
light  on  many  a  passage  which  could  but  obscurely 
be  rendered  in  the  seventeenth  century. 

3.  King  James's  translators  adopted  and  professed 
the  false  principle  of  variation,  by  which  a  large 
number  of  artificial  distinctions  are  introduced. 
The  first  and  last  duty  of  a  translator  is  faithfully 
and  idiomatically  to  reproduce  the  original,  especial 
ly  in  dealing  with  the  Word  of  God.  Moreover, 
the  Greek  language  is  rich  enough  to  give  ample 
margin  for  every  style  of  composition.  Many  of 
the  useless  or  misleading  variations  of  the  Author 
ized  Version  no  doubt  arose  from  the  separation  of 
the  translators  into  half  a  dozen  separate  companies. 
The  final  revising  committee  failed  to  harmonize 
them,  and  attempted  to  justify  the  result  in  the 
Preface,  without  saying  a  word  about  their  error  in 
the  opposite  direction.1 

1  "  Another  thing,"  says  Dr.  Smith,  towards  the  close,  "  we  think  good 
to  admonish  thee  of,  gentle  Reader,  that  we  have  not  tied  ourselves  to  an 
uniformity  of  phrasing,  or  to  an  identity  of  words,  as  some  peradventure 
would  wish  that  we  had  done,  because  they  observe  that  some  learned 
men  somewhere  have  been  as  exact  as  they  could  that  way.  Truly,  that 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

Within  proper  limits  variation  is  justifiable.    We 
do  not  advocate  a  mechanical  uniformity  of  render- 

we  might  not  vary  from  the  sense  of  that  which  we  had  translated  before, 
if  the  word  signified  the  same  tiling  in  both  places  (for  there  be  some 
words  that  be  not  of  the  same  sense  everywhere),  we  were  especially  care 
ful,  and  made  a  conscience  according  to  our  duty.  Uut  that  we  should 
express  the  same  notion  in  the  same  particular  word — as,  for  example,  if 
we  translate  the  //threw  or  Creek  word  once  by  purpose,  never  to  call  it 
intent ;  if  one  where  journeying,  never  travelling ;  if  one  where  think,  never 
suppose;  if  one  where  jx.iin.  never  acJte  ;  if  one  where  Joy,  never  gladness, 
etc. — thus  to  mince  the  matter,  we  thought  to  savour  more  of  curiosity 
than  wisdom,  and  that  rather  it  would  breed  scorn  in  the  atheist,  than 
bring  profit  to  the  godly  reader.  For  is  the  kingdom  of  God  become 
words  or  syllables?  Why  should  we  be  in  bondage  to  them  if  we  may 
be  free?  use  one  precisely  when  we  may  use  another  no  less  fit.  as  com- 
modiously  ?  A  godly  Father  in  the  primitive  time  shewed  himself  greatlv 
moved,  that  one  of  newfangleness  called  KQaflfiaroT  (TKifnrovc,  though 
the  difference  be  little  or  none;  and  another  reporteth  that  he  was  much 
abused  for  turning  cucurbit  a  (to  which  reading  the  people  had  been  used) 
into  Itcdtra.  Now,  if  this  happen  in  better  times,  and  upon  so  small  occa 
sions,  we  might  justly  fear  hard  censure,  if  generally  we  should  make 
verbal  and  unnecessary  changings.  We  might  also  be  charged  (by  scoff 
ers)  with  some  unequal  dealing  towards  a  great  number  of  good  English 
words.  For  as  it  is  written  of  a  certain  great  philosopher,  that  he  should 
say,  that  those  logs  were  happy  that  were  made  images  to  be  worshipped  ; 
for  their  fellows,  as  good  as  they,  lay  for  blocks  behind  the  fire .  so  if  we 
should  say,  as  it  were,  unto  certain  words,  Stand  up  higher,  have  a  place 
in  the  liiblc  always,  and  to  others  of  like  quality,  Get  ye  hence,  be  ban 
ished  for  ever,  we  might  be  taxed  peradvcnture  with  St.  James  his  words 
— namely,  To  be  partial  in  ourselves,  and  judges  of  evil  thoughts.  Add  here 
unto,  that  niceness  in  words  was  always  counted  the  next  step  to  trifling, 
and  so  was  to  be  curious  about  names  too:  also  that  we  cannot  follow  a 
better  pattern  for  elocution  than  God  himself;  therefore  he,  using  divers 
words  in  his  holy  writ,  and  indifferently  for  one  thing  in  nature,  we,  if  we 
will  not  be  superstitious,  may  use  the  same  liberty  in  our  English  versions 
out  of  Hebrew  and  Greek,  for  that  copy  or  store  that  he  hath  given  us. 
Lastly,  we  have  on  one  side  avoided  the  scrupulosity  of  the  Puritans,  who 
leave  the  old  ecclesiastical  words  and  betake  them  to  other,  as  when  they 
put  washing  for  Baptisme,  and  Congregation  instead  of  Church ,  as  also  on 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  361 

ing,  but  would  allow  considerable  freedom  in  the  use 
of  the  cosmopolitan  wealth  of  the  English  language, 
especially  of  synonyms,  in  which  it  abounds.  Where 
we  have  a  Latin  and  a  Saxon  term  for  the  same  idea, 
we  may  alternate  as  rhetoric  and  rhythm  suggest — 
e.  </.,  between  "act"  and  "deed,"  "chief"  and 
"head,"  "justice"  and  "righteousness,"  "liberty" 
and  "  freedom,"  "  power  "  and  "  might,"  "  remis 
sion  "  and  "forgiveness,"  "celestial"  and  "heaven 
ly,"  "  mature  "  and  "  ripe,"  "  omnipotent  "  and 
"almighty,"  "priestly"  and  "sacerdotal,"  "royal" 
and  "kingly,"  "  terrestrial"  and  "earthly" — though 
even  in  these  examples  usage  has  established  slight 
shades  of  difference. 

But  the  Authorized  Yersion  varies  simply  for  the 
sake  of  variation  in  a  great  many  cases  where  faith 
fulness  to  the  original  absolutely  requires  the  same 
word.  Tli us  mon'toc  is  rendered  "  eternal  "  and 
"everlasting"  in  one  and  the  same  verse  (Matt.  xxv. 
46);  tTT/'o-KOTroe  is  "bishop"  in  Phil.  i.  1  and  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  but  "  overseer  "  in  Acts  xx.  28, 
where  it  designates  the  same  office,  and  proves  the 
identity  with  that  of  presbyter  or  elder  (comp.  ver. 


the  other  side  we  have  shunned  the  obscurity  of  the  Papists,  in  their 
Azymes,  Tunike,  Rational,  Holocausts,  Prwpuce,  Pasche,  and  a  number  of 
such  like,  whereof  their  late  translation  is  full,  and  that  of  purpose  to  darken 
the  sense,  that  since  they  must  needs  translate  the  Bible,  yet  by  the  lan 
guage  thereof,  it  may  be  kept  from  being  understood.  But  we  desire  that 
the  Scripture  may  speak  like  itself,  as  in  the  language  of  Canaan,  that  it 
may  be  understood  even  of  the  very  vulgar." 

The  thrust  at  the  "  Puritans  "  and  the  "  Papists  "  is  ungenerous  and 
unjust;  for  the  Puritan  Reynolds  was  the  prime  mover  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  and  the  Rheims  Version  was  of  great  use  to  the  translators. 


* 
362  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

17);  7Tu(j\ci  is  correctly  translated  "Passover,"  but 
in  Acts  xii.  4  "Easter"  (which  did  not  exist  in  the 
apostolic  age);  icaraAAay//  is  now  "atonement" 
(Rom.  v.  11),  now  "reconciling"  (xi.  15),  now  "rec 
onciliation  "  (2  Cor.  v.  IS,  ID);  Tra/oak-A^roc,  when 
used  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  "comforter"  (John  xiv. 
1G,  2G;  xv.  26;  xvi.  7),  but  when  used  of  Christ, 
"advocate"  (1  John  ii.  1);  "EAArjv  is  now  "Greek," 
now  "Gentile;"  uTroKaXv^t^  is  "revelation,"  "man 
ifestation,"  "coming,"  and  "appearing;"  Spovoe  is 
"throne"  and  "seat:"  Tr/oocrk-ojujua  is  "offence," 
"stumbling,"  "stumbling-block,"  and  "stumbling- 
stone."  Aoyoc  has  no  less  than  twenty-three  ren 
derings  in  the  English  Version,  ru/roc  eight,  o 
six,  TTcucivKrj  live,  TroAtjUoe  three,  \jotm  nine, 
four,  Karapytio  seventeen,  jut'yw  ten,  irapta-iijui  six 
teen,  <t>£pw  sixteen. 

The  principle  of  variation,  with  its  inevitable  con 
fusions,  is  carried  even  into  proper  names  of  persons, 
countries,  and  places.  Thus — if  we  include  the 
Old  Testament — we  have  A  gar  and  llagar,  Elijah 
and  Elias,  Elisha  and  Eliseus,  Gedeon  and  Gideon, 
Isaiah,  Esaias,  and  Esay,  Jeremiah,  Jeremias,  and 
Jeremy,  Ilosea  and  Osee,  Jonah  and  Jonas,  Judas, 
Judah,  and  Jude,  Korah  and  Core,  Noah  and  Noe, 
Zechariah  and  Zacharias.  Jesus  is  substituted  for 
Joshua  in  Acts  vii.  45  and  Ileb.  iv.  8.  Sometimes 
the  Latin  or  Greek,  sometimes  the  English,  termi 
nation  is  used ;  so  that  we  have  for  one  and  the 
same  person  both  Marcus  and  Mark,  Lucas  and 
Luke,  Judas  and  Jude,  Timotheus  and  Timothy. 
As  to  countries  and  places,  the  English  Version 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  363 

varies  between  Grecia  and  Greece,  Judea  and  Jewry, 
Tyrus  and  Tyre,  Sodom  and  Sodoma. 

4.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Authorized  "Version 
fails  in  the  opposite  direction,  and  obscures  or  de 
stroys  important  distinctions  by  using  one  and  the 
same  word  for  two  or  more  Greek  and  Hebrew 
words  which  convey  different  meanings. 

Thus  the  words  "Hades''  (*.<?.,  the  spirit-world) 
and  "Gehenna"  (the  place  of  the  lost)  are  both 
translated  by  "hell,"  which  occurs  twice  as  often 
in  the  English  Xew  Testament  as  it  ought.  Every 
little  "demon"  (Sa/juwv,  SaifjLoviov)  or  evil  spirit  is 
raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  "devil,"  although  there  is 
but  one  &«/3oAoe.  In  like  manner  the  difference 
between  "the  living  creatures"  worshipping  before 
the  throne  of  God  and  "the  beasts"  from  the  abyss 
warring  against  Christ  (the  £wa  and  S-^pm  of  the 
Apocalypse,  both  rendered  "  beasts  "  ),  between  a 
"crown"  and  a  "diadem"  (or-t'^ayoc  and  Stac^a), 
"servants"  and  "bondmen"  (SiaKoroi  and  £oDAot,  in 
the  parable  Matt.  xxii.  1-14:,  w7here  the  former  are 
angels,  the  latter  men)  is  obliterated.  The  word 
"child"  is  used  for  no  less  than  seven  Greek  words 
(/3pt0oc,  babe,  i'?';-<oc,  infant,  TTCUC,  boy,  slave,  :ra/£/W, 
little  child,  vrat^ajoiov,  little  boy,  T£KVOV,  child, 
son),  "  conversation  "  for  three  (avaaTpofr 
TroX/rtVjua),  "  world  "  for  twTO  (KOCT/^OC  and  alwv,  age), 
"Godhead"  for  three  (Stiorris,  TO  Stiov,  ZU'JTW), 
"people"  for  four  (Xaoc,  S^uoc,  f^voc,  t>xXoc),  "  tem 
ple  "  for  three  (vaoc,  hpov,  O!KOC),  "  light  "  for  six 


"repent"  for  two  verbs  (jucravotw,  to  change  one's 


364:  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

mind,  and  juarajut'Ao/iat,  to  regret,  used  of  Judas, 
Matt,  xxvii.  3),  "  \vorship"  for  six  (fi»(Tfj3to>,  Sspairsvit), 
\arpevtOj  Trpoaicvvtw,  <T£|3a£ojua£,  fffjSojuat),  "command" 
for  eight,  "declare"  for  fourteen,  "desire"  for  thir 
teen,  "depart"  for  twenty-one,  "finish"  for  seven, 
"mighty"  for  seven,  "raiment"  for  five,  "perceive" 
for  eleven,  "receive"  for  eighteen,  "servant"  for 
seven,  "shame"  for  six,  "take"  for  twenty-one, 
"  think"  for  twelve,  "yet"  for  ten,  "at"  for  eleven, 
"by"  for  eleven,  "even"  for  six,  "even  as"  for 
six,  "  afterward  "  for  six,  "  wherefore  "  for  twelve, 
"therefore"  for  thirteen,  "as"  for  twenty,  "come" 
for  no  less  than  thirty-two.  We  cannot  plead  the 
poverty  of  the  English  language,  which  furnishes 
equivalents  for  nearly  all  these  varieties.  The  worst 
effect  of  this  carelessness  is  the  obliteration  of  real 
distinctions,  some  of  them  quite  important  and  even 
involving  doctrine,  and  the  obscuring  of  the  idios}rn- 
crasies  of  the  sacred  writers,  every  one  of  whom  has 
a  style  of  his  own,  and  has  a  claim  to  be  correctly 
represented  by  the  translator. 

PREPARATIONS    FOR    REVISION. 

The  defects  of  the  English  Bible  became  more 
and  more  apparent  as  biblical  scholarship  progressed 
in  the  nineteenth  century.  First,  an  older  and  purer 
text  was  brought  to  light  by  the  discovery  and  pub 
lication  of  manuscripts,  and  the  critical  researches 
and  editions  of  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles, 
Alford,  Westcott  and  Hort.  Secondly,  the  Greek 
and  Hebrew  grammars  and  dictionaries  of  Winer, 
Buttmann,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  the  multiplying 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  365 

philological  commentaries  of  Do  Wette,  Liicke, 
Bleek,  Meyer,  Lange,  Alford,  Eadie,  Ellicott,  Light- 
foot,  and  many  others,  furnished  accurate  render 
ings,  some  of  them  being  accompanied  with  full 
translations.1 

These  textual,  grammatical,  and  exegetical  im 
provements  greatly  stimulated  the  zeal  for  new 
translations  of  the  whole  Bible  or  the  New  Testa 
ment  in  all  Protestant  countries.  Among  German 
versions  we  mention  those  of  Job.  Fr.  von  Meyer, 
Stier,  De  Wette,  II.  A.  W.  Meyer,  Wcizsacker,  and 
the  official  revision  of  Luther's  Version  (New  Testa- 

1  Canon  Cook,  the  editor  of  The  Speaker 's  Commentary  (London,  10 
vols.,  1871-188-2)  claims  for  his  contributors  to  have  "anticipated,  both 
in  conception  and  execution,  the  purpose  of  the  Revised  Version  now  in 
progress"  (see  Preface  to  the  last  volume,  p.  iv.).  The  resemblance  is 
naturally  most  striking  in  those  parts  which  were  prepared  by  members 
of  the  Revision  Committee  (John.  Hebrews,  James,  Revelation).  The 
forty  contributors  to  the  English  edition  of  Lanyts  Commentary  (New 
York  and  Edinburgh,  1864-1881,  25  vols.)  might  set  up  the  same  claim, 
without  any  reflection  upon  the  Revisers,  and  furnish  ample  proof. 
Dr.  Riddle,  a  member  of  the  American  New  Testament  Company,  and  a 
contributor  to  Lange  s  Commentary,  after  a  careful  comparison,  arrived 
at  the  conclusion  that  on  an  average  more  than  one  half  (from  fifty  to 
seventy-five  per  cent.)  of  the  changes  in  the  Revised  New  Testament  were 
anticipated  in  the  English  translation  and  adaptation  of  that  Commen 
tary,  which  was  nearlv  completed  (in  the  New  Testament  part)  before 
the  Revision  began.  The  percentage  increased  as  the  Commentary  went 
on.  In  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  (published  N.  Y.  1804)  it  is  about  one 
half;  in  the  Gospel  of  John  (published  1871)  two  thirds  to  three  fourths; 
in  Romans  (18(59).  Galatians,  and  Ephesians  (1870),  more  than  two  thirds. 
See  Dr.  Riddle's  detailed  statement  in  the  American  edition  of  Dr.  Rob 
erta's  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version,  p.  190.  I  arrived  at  the  same  con 
clusion  by  comparison  during  the  progress  of  Revision.  But  while  the  two 
Revision  Committees  have  carefully  used  all  available  helps,  they  had  to  go, 
like  all  conscientious  scholars,  through  the  whole  process  of  investigation, 
and  to  act  on  each  change  according  to  their  own  independent  judgment. 


366  THE    AUTIIOEIZED    VERSION. 

ment,  1876).  The  number  of  English  versions  is 
much  larger,  and  began  as  early  as  the  last  century 
with  Campbell  (the  Gospels,  17SS),  Macknight  (the 
Epistles,  1795),  Archbishop  Newcome  (1796).  From 
the  present  century  we  have  several  translations 
of  widely  differing  merits,  by  Charles  Thomson 
(1SOS),  John  Bellamy  (1818),  Noah  Webster  (New 
llaven,  1833),  Nathan  Hale  (Boston,  1836,  from 
Griesbach's  text),  Granville  Penn  (London,  1836), 
Edgar  Taylor  (London,  1840),  Andrews  Norton 
(the  Gospels,  Boston,  1855),  Robert  Young  (Edin 
burgh,  1863,  very  literal),  Samuel  Sharpe  (1840, 
6th  ed.  London,  1870,  from  Griesbach's  text),  L.  A. 
Sawyer  (Boston,  1858),  J.  Nelson  Darby  (published 
anonymously,  London,  2d  ed.  1872),  T.  S.  Green  (Lon 
don,  1865),  G.  R.  Noyes  (Professor  in  Harvard  Uni 
versity,  Boston,  1869;  4th  ed.  1870,  published  by 
the  American  Unitarian  Association  ;  a  very  good 
translation  from  the  eighth  edition  of  Tischendorf 
in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  part  of  Luke ;  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot 
added  a  list  of  Tischendorf s  readings  from  Luke 
xviii.  10  to  John  vi.  2,  3,  and  critically  revised  the 
proofs),  Alford  (London,  1869),  Joseph  B.Rotherham 
(London,  1872,  text  of  Tregelles),  Samuel  Davidson 
(prepared  at  the  suggestion  of  Tischendorf  from  his 
last  Greek  text,  London,  1875),  John  Brown  Mc- 
Clellan  (the  Gospels,  London,  1875,  on  the  basis  of 
the  Authorized  Version,  but  with  a  "  critically  re 
vised"  text),  the  "Revised  English  Bible,"  prepared 
by  four  English  divines  (London,  1877),1  the  Gospel 

1  The  Old  Testament  was  translated  by  Dr.  F.  W.  Gotch  and  Dr.  Benja 
min  Davics;  the  Nevv  Testament  by  Dr.  G.  A.  Jacob  and  Dr.  Samuel  G. 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  367 

of  John  and  the  Pauline  Epistles,  by  Five  Anglican 
Clergymen  (Dean  Henry  Alford,  Bishop  George 
Moberly,  Eev.  William  G.  Humphry,  Bishop  Chas. 
J.  Ellicott,  and  Dr.  John  Barrow,  1857, 1861).  Nor 
were  these  attempts  confined  to  individuals.  "The 
American  Bible  Union,"  a  Baptist  association  in 
America,  spent  for  nearly  twenty  years  a  vast  amount 
of  money,  zeal,  and  labor  on  an  improved  version, 
and  published  the  New  Testament  in  full  (second 
revision,  New  York  and  London,  1869,  with  "  im 
merse,"  "immersion,"  and  "John  the  Immerser"), 
and  the  Old  Testament  in  part  (with  learned  com 
ments,  the  best  of  them  by  Dr.  Conant,  on  Job, 
Psalms,  and  Proverbs).  Last,  though  not  least,  we 
must  mention  The  Variorum  Bible  for  Bible  Teach 
ers,  prepared  by  five  Anglican  scholars  (T.  K. 
Cheyne,  E.  L.  Clarke,  S.  E.  Driver,  Alfred  Good 
win,  and  W.  Sanday),  and  published  by  Eyre  and 
Spottiswoode,  London,  1880  (in  very  small  print) ; 
it  contains  a  judicious  selection  of  various  readings 
and  renderings  from  the  best  critical  and  exegetical 
authorities — we  may  say  a  full  apparatus  for  the 
reader  of  the  English  Version. 

Of  these  translators,  Dean  Alford  and  the  five  An 
glican  clergymen  came  nearest  to  the  Canterbury 
Eevisers,  as  far  as  the  idiom  and  the  reverential 
handling  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  concerned.1 

Green.  The  work  was  published  by  the  Queen's  Printers,  Eyre  and 
Spottiswoode,  London,  1877.  The  first  two  scholars  are  Baptists,  and 
members  of  the  Old  Testament  Company  of  Revisers,  but  were  engaged 
in  this  work  long  before.  Dr.  Davies  died  1875. 

1  The  London  Times,  in  a  semi-official  article  of  May  20,  1881.  says  of 


368  THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION. 

It  may  well  be  said,  without  the  least  disparage 
ment  of  the  merits  of  the  Revising  Committees,  that 
the  great  majority  of  the  changes  of  text  and  version 
(probably  more  than  four  fifths)  which  they  finally 
adopted  had  been  anticipated  by  previous  translators 
and  commentators,  and  had  become  the  common 
property  of  biblical  scholars  before  the  year  1870. 

But  these  improvements  were  scattered  among 
many  books,  and  lacked  public  recognition.  They 
had  literary  worth,  but  no  ecclesiastical  authority. 
They  were  the  work  of  individuals,  not  of  the 
Church.  A  translator  may  please  himself,  but  not 
many  others  who  are  equally  competent.  "If  there 
was  one  lesson,"  says  Dean  Alford,  "  which  the  Five 
Clergymen  "  (he  being  one  of  them)  "  learned  from 


this  tentative  effort  of  the  Five  (afterwards  Four)  Episcopal  clergymen: 
'•  The  work  was  very  favorably  received  both  in  England  and  America. 
It  received  the  commendation  of  Archbishop  Trench,  and  was  spoken  of 
in  America  by  Mr.  Marsh,  in  his  Lectures  on  Ihe  English  Lanyuaye,  as  '  by 
far  the  most  judicious  modern  recension'  that  was  known  to  him.  It 
passed  through  several  editions,  and,  though  now  almost  forgotten,  must 
certainly  be  considered  as  the  germ  of  the  present  Revision.  It  showed 
clearly  two  things — first,  that  a  revision  could  be  made  without  seriously 
interfering  with  either  the  diction  or  rhythm  of  the  Authorized  Version; 
secondly,  that  a  revision,  if  made  at  all,  must  be  made  by  a  similar  co-op 
eration  of  independent  minds  and  by  corporate  and  collegiate  discussion. 
A  third  fact  also  was  disclosed,  which  had  a  salutary  effect  in  checking 
premature  efforts — vi/..  that,  as  these  Revisers  themselves  said,  the  work 
was  'one  of  extreme  difficulty,' and  a  difficulty  which  they  believed  was 
'scarcely  capable  of  being  entirely  surmounted.'  And  they  were  right. 
The  present  Revision,  good  in  the  main  as  we  certainly  believe  it  will  be 
found  to  be,  confirms  the  correctness  of  their  experience.  As  we  shall 
hereafter  see,  there  are  difficulties  connected  with  a  conservative  revision 
of  the  existing  translation  of  the  Greek  Testament  that  are  practically 
insuperable." 


THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  3(50 

their  sessions,  it  was  that  no  new  rendering  is  safe 
until  it  has  gone  through  many  brains,  and  been 
thoroughly  sifted  by  differing  perceptions  and 
tastes."  '  Ministers  without  number — learned,  half- 
learned,  and  illiterate,  especially  the  last  class — un 
dertook  to  mend  King  James's  Version  in  the  pul 
pit,  and  to  display  a  little  Greek  and  less  Hebrew, 
at  the  risk  of  disturbing  the  devotion  of  their  hear 
ers  and  unsettling  their  belief  in  verbal  inspiration. 
The  conservative  and  timid  held  back  and  feared  to 
touch  the  sacred  ark.  A  very  moderate  attempt  of 
the  American  Bible  Society  to  purify  and  unify  the 
text  of  the  old  version  was  defeated  (1858),  though 
some  improvements  were  saved.  Nevertheless,  the 
demand  for  an  authorized  emendation  of  the  popu 
lar  versions  steadily  increased  in  all  Protestant  coun 
tries,  especially  in  England  and  the  United  States, 
where  the  Bible  is  most  deeply  lodged  in  the  affec 
tions  of  the  people.  The  subject  of  an  authoritative 
revision  was  discussed  with  great  ability  by  "VV.  Sel- 
wyn  (1S5G),  Trench  (1858),  Alford,  Ellicott,  Light- 
foot,  and  many  others.  Different  opinions  prevailed 
as  to  the  extent  of  the  changes,  but  the  vast  majority 
deprecated  a  new  version,  and  desired  simply  such 
a  revision  of  the  time-honored  old  version  as  would 
purge  it  of  acknowledged  errors  and  blemishes, 
conform  it  more  fully  to  the  original  Greek  and 
Hebrew,  adapt  it  to  the  language  and  scholarship  of 
the  present  age,  and  be  a  new  bond  of  union  and 
strength  among  all  English-speaking  churches. 

1  Preface  to  his  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  vi. 

21 


370  THE    RE  VISED    VERSION. 

This  is  the  object  of  the  Anglo-American  Revision 
movement,  which  began  in  1870,  and  will  be  com 
pleted  in  the  present  year  (1883),  or,  at  all  events,  in 
the  year  1884. 

King  James's  Version  can  never  recover  its  for 
mer  authority,  for  revolutions  never  go  backward. 
It  is  slowly  but  surely  declining,  and  doomed  to  a 
peaceful  death  and  honorable  burial;  but  it  will  rise 
to  a  new  life  of  usefulness  in  the  Revision  that  is,  or 
that  is  to  come.  Its  imperfections  will  disappear, 
its  beauties  and  excellences  will  remain. 


CHAPTER  EIGHTH. 

T  HE     REVISED     VERSION. 

Literature. 
I.  ENGLISH  EDITIONS. 

The  j  New  Testament  j  of  \  our  Lord  and  Saviour  \  Jesus  Christ  [  trans 
lated  out  of  the  Greek:  \  being  the  Version  set  forth  A.D.  1611  |  compared 
•with  the  most  ancient  authorities  and  revised  \  A.D.  1881.  |  Printed  for  the 
Universities  of  |  Oxford  and  Cambridge  \  Oxford  \  at  the  University  Press  \ 
1881.  The  same  issued  under  the  same  title  from  the  Cambridge  Univer 
sity  Press. 

The  work  was  published  May  17, 1881,  in  various  styles  and  at  various 
prices,  from  sixteen  dollars  down  to  fifteen  cents,  and  sold  in  enormous 
quantities.  The  University  editions  are  copyrighted  in  the  British  do 
minions  and  have  the  approval  of  the  American  Committee,  which  im 
ported  a  memorial  edition  in  the  best  style  of  paper  and  binding,  for  dis 
tribution  among  subscribers. 

The  University  Presses  have  also  issued,  in  various  sizes,  The  Parallel 
New  Testament,  giving  the  Authorized  Version  and  the  Revised  Version 
in  parallel  columns,  and  "  The  Parallel  New  Testament,  Greelc  and  English 
(1882)."  The  last  is  the  most  convenient  for  the  student  of  the  Greek 
Testament.  The  Oxford  edition  gives  the  Greek  text  of  the  Revised 
Version,  by  Archdeacon  Palmer ;  the  Cambridge  edition  gives  the  Greek 
text  (Beza's)  of  the  Authorized  Version,  by  Dr.  Scrivener,  on  one  page, 
with  one  column  blank  for  readings ;  and  both  give  on  the  opposite  page 
the  Authorized  Version  and  the  Revised  Version  in  parallel  columns. 

II.  AMERICAN  EDITIONS. 

In  the  absence  of  an  authorized  American  edition  and  an  international 
copyright  there  appeared  in  rapid  succession  over  thirty  reprints,  one  (by 
photographic  process)  even  a  few  hours  after  the  publication  of  the  Eng 
lish  edition.  Some  of  these  reprints  are  exact  reproductions  of  the  Uni 
versity  editions;  some  are  Americanized,  and  reverse  the  Appendix ;  some 


372  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

have  introduction  and  notes ;  some  have  the  Old  Version  in  parallel  col 
umns  or  on  corresponding  pages ;  some  are  remarkably  correct ;  some 
full  of  blunders.  I  mention  the  following  editions  from  my  collection  : 

HARPER  &  BROTHERS,  New  York,  1881.  Three  editions  in  different  sizes, 
one  in  Pica,  Demy  8vo  (pp.  G52),  which  precisely  corresponds  to  the 
Oxford  edition  except  that  the  American  renderings  of  specific  passages 
arc  printed  as  foot-notes,  and  the  fourteen  changes  of  classes  of  passages 
are  printed  on  the  page  preceding  the  text.  (The  Harpers  have  also 
published  from  English  plates  the  two  volumes  of  Westcott  and  Hort's 
Greek  Testament,  and  a  Greek-English  Testament,  giving  the  (ireek  text 
with  the  Revised  Version  on  opposite  pages.) 

FORDS,  HOWARD,  &  HULUERT,  New  York.  1881  (Long  Primer,  crown 
8vo).  Edited  by  Rev.  Roswell  D.  Hitchcock,  D.D.,  with  a  Preface.  The 
readings  and  renderings,  both  general  and  specific,  of  the  American  Com 
mittee  are  incorporated  with  the  text,  and  "while"  is  twice  substituted 
for  "  whiles."  The  first  edition  was  defective  and  cancelled ;  the  second 
is  carefully  done.  The  editor  says  in  the  Preface  (p.  x.)  :  "  Probably  this 
Revision  will  not  be  accepted  just  as  it  is,  in  either  form.  But  in  all  the 
essentials  of  close  and  faithful  rendering,  it  will  be  recognized  as  an  im 
mense  improvement  upon  the  King  James  Revision  of  nearly  three  hun 
dred  years  ago,  which  must  now  begin  to  be  laid  aside.  And  as  to  the 
points  of  difference  between  the  two  Companies  of  Revisers,  the  renderings 
preferred  by  the  American  Revisers  will,  in  most  cases,  be  considered  more 
exact  and  self-consistent  than  those  preferred  by  their  Anglican  brethren." 

RUKUS  WENDELL  ("Minister  of  the  Gospel"),  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1882 
('pp.  GIG).  Called  "Student's  Edition."  It  has  several  ingenious  and 
convenient  peculiarities,  showing  what  is  common  to  the  Revision  and 
Authorized  Version,  and,  by  diacritical  marks  and  foot-notes,  what  is 
peculiar  to  each.  At  the  end  is  given  a  Numerical  Summary,  showing  the 
number  of  chapters,  paragraphs,  verses,  and  words  in  each  book  of  the 
Authorized  Version  and  Revised  Version. 

HUKBARD  BROTIIEHS,  Philadelphia,  1881.  With  Introduction  of  119 
pages.  The  same  publishers  issued  an  Americanized  edition  by  Rev.  Dr. 
Henry  G.  Weston  and  Bishop  William  R.  Nicholson,  who  state  in  the  Pref 
ace  :  "  It  is  certain  that  the  American  suggestions  have  received  the  almost 
universal  approval  of  American  Christians,  There  can  be  no  question  that 
if  the  Revision  comes  into  general  use  in  this  country,  it  will  be  in  the 
form  preferred  by  the  American  Committee." 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY,  Philadelphia,  1881.  With 
this  prefatory  notice;  "In  this  edition  the  changes  suggested  by  the 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  373 

American  Committee  have  been  incorporated  into  the  text.  The  English 
preferences  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix.  No  other  changes  have  been 
made,  except  that  the  spelling  of  a  few  words,  such  as  'judgement.' 
'  cloke,'  etc.,  have  been  conformed  to  the  American  usage." 

PEOPLE'S  EDITION.  The  Revised  New  Testament,  Embracing  the  Com 
plete  Text  of  the  Revised  Version;  also,  a  Concise  History  of  this  Revision 
and-  of  previous  Versions  and  Translations.  Edited  by  Francis  /?.  Hoyt, 
D.D.,  American  Editor  of  Angus' 's  Handbook  of  the  Jiible.  With  more 
than  one  hundred  engravings.  New  York  :  Phillips  &  Hunt,  1881 
(Methodist  Episcopal  Book  Concern). 

PORTER  &  COATKS,  Philadelphia,  1881  and  1882.  Comparative  Edition. 
The  Authorized  Version  and  the  Revised  Version  in  parallel  columns. 

EUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  New  York,  1882.  Teachers1  Edition,  The  read 
ings  of  the  American  Appendix  introduced  into  the  margin,  and  the 
parallel  passages  (selected  from  Bagster's  Reference  Bible  and  Scripture- 
Treasury)  printed  in  full.  Edited  by  W.  F.  Crafts. 

DODD,  MEAD,  &  Co.,  New  York,  1881.  Two  editions,  one  with  the 
Authorized  Version  and  the  Revised  Version  on  opposite  pages. 

AMERICAN  TRACT  SOCIETY,  New  York,  1881.  Same  as  Dodd  ami 
Mead's. 

Other  editions  by  LEE  &  SHEPARD  (Boston)  ;  LOTH  HOP  &  Co.  (Bos 
ton);  HENRY  BILL  PUBLISHING  COMPANY  (Norwich.  Conn.)  ;  A.  J.  HOL- 
MAN  &  Co.  (Philadelphia,  several  editions)  ;  ZIEGLER  &  Co.  (Philadelphia 
and  Chicago)  ;  SCAMMELI,  &  Co.  (St.  Louis)  ;  LEGGO  BROTHERS  &  Co. 
(New  York)  ;  GEORGE  MCNRO  (in  the  "  Seaside  Library,"  New  York. 
1881,  with  Tischendorf's  Tauchnitz  edition  of  the  Authorized  Version); 
R.  WORTIIINGTON  (New  York)  ;  AMERICAN  BOOK  EXCHANGE  (New  York, 
defunct) ;  CALL,  CALKINS,  &  Co.  (Chicago),  etc.,  etc. 

III.  CONCORDANCES  OF  THE  REVISED  VERSION. 

.4  Complete  Concordance  to  the  Revised  Version  of  the  Neiv  Testament. 
embracing  the  Marginal  Readings  of  the  English  Revisers  as  well  as  those 
of  the  A  merican  Committee.  Btj  John  A  lexander  Thorns.  London  ( W. 
H.  Allen  &  Co.,  13  Waterloo  Place),  1882.  (Small  4to,  pp.  532.)  Repub- 
lished  from  English  plates  by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New  York,  1883. 

This  Concordance  is  "  published  under  the  authorization  of  Oxford  and 
Cambridge  Universities."  It  contains  a  brief  Preface  with  the  following 
remark  (p.  vi.  sq.) :  "  I  have  included  the  more  important  of  the  marginal 
readings  of  the  English  Revisers  as  well  as  those  of  the  American  Com 
mittee.  And  here  I  may  venture  to  regret  that  the  Revisers,  while  alter- 


374  THE    KEVISED    VERSION. 

ing  so  much,  have  not  gone  a  little  further,  many  of  the  marginal  read 
ings  being  manifestly  superior  to  those  of  the  accepted  text.  The  Ameri 
can  notes  are  also,  most  of  them,  very  valuable,  and  deserve  far  better 
treatment  than  to  be  relegated  to  the  end  of  the  book  without  so  much  as 
a  reference  mark  in  the  text  to  indicate  their  existence."  But  this  re 
flection  is  unjust.  The  English  Revisers  are  not  to  be  blamed  for  carrying 
out  an  arrangement  with  the  American  Committee. 

The  Student's  Concordance  to  the  Revised  Version  1881,  of  the  New  Tes 
tament  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Compiled  upon  an  Original 
Plan,  shewing  the  changes  in  all  words  referred  to.  London  and  Derby 
(Bemrose  and  Son.  411  pages).  Republished  from  English  plates  by 
D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  New  York,  1882. 

The  compilers  say  in  the  Preface  that  they  "  began  this  work,  conscious 
of  the  defects  of  the  Authorized  Version,  yet  with  a  predilection  for  it  in 
the  main,"  but  came  to  "  a  growing  appreciation  of  the  value  "  of  the 
Revised  Version,  "  as  carrying  within  itself  the  evidence  that  it  is  a 
translation  of  a  purer  text,  by  the  hands  of  a  company  of  devout  and 
more  able  men  than  has  ever  before  been  joined  together  for  a  like  pur 
pose."  The  Concordance  includes  a  Genealogical  Table  of  the  principal 
early  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  and  their  connection  with  the 
Version  of  1611,  a  list  of  omitted  words  of  the  Authorized  Version,  and  of 
new  words  in  the  Revised  Version.  A  convenient  feature  of  this  edition 
is  the  addition  of  the  corresponding  words  of  the  Authorized  Version, 
which  facilitates  the  comparison,  showing  the  superior  consistency  of  the 
Revised  Version.  The  American  Appendix  is  entire!}*  ignored,  but  the 
Appletons  have  properly  added  it  at  the  close  of  their  edition. 

What  is  still  needed  in  this  line  is  a  Critical  Greek  and  Comparative 
English  Concordance  of  the  Neiv  Testament  (or  a  revised  and  enlarged  edi 
tion  of  Hudson — Abbot).  Such  a  work  should  give,  in  the  alphabetical 
order  of  the  Greek  words,  the  rendering  of  both  the  Authorized  Version 
and  the  Revised  Version. 

IV.  BOOKS  ON  THE  REVISION. 

The  Revision  literature  is  very  large,  and  constantly  growing. 

A.  Works  published  before  the  publication  of  the  Revised  Version, 
but  with  reference  to  the  Revision  : 

The  essays  of  Archbishop  TRENCH  (The  Authorized  Version  of  the 
New  Testament  in  Connection  with  some  Recent  Proposals  for  its  Revision, 
revised  ed.  Loncl.  1859),  Bishop  ELLICOTT  (Considerations  on  the  Revision 
of  the  English  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  Lond.  1870),  and  Dr.  (now 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  3<5 

Bishop)  LIOHTFOOT  (On  a  Fresh  Revision  of  the  New  Testament,  2d  eel. 
Loud.  1871) ;  authorized  American  edition,  in  1  vol..  with  introduction 
by  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  New  York  (Harpers),  1873.  All  these  authors  are 
members  of  the  Revision  Committee.  The  Introduction  of  the  American 
editor  was  several  times  separately  published  by  the  American  Revision 
Committee  as  a  programme  of  their  work. 

WILLIAM  MILLIGAN  (Professor  of  Divinity  and  Biblical  Criticism  in 
Aberdeen.  Member  of  the  N.  T.  Revision  Company)  and  ALEX.  ROBERTS 
(Professor  of  Humanity,  St.  Andrews ;  Member  of  the  N.  T.  Revision  Com 
pany)  :  The  Words  of  the  New  Testament  as  A  Itered  by  Transmission  and 
Ascertained  by  Modern  Criticism.  Edinburgh,  1873  (2G2  pages). 

W.  MILLAR  NICOLSON,  M.A.,  D.S.C.  (Edinb.)  :  Classical  Revision  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament  Tested  and  Applied  on  Uniform  Principles,  with 
Suggested  Alterations  of  the  English  Version.  London  (Williams  and 
Norgate),  1878  (149  pages). 

A  ncjlo-A  merican  Bible  Revision,  by  members  of  the  AMERICAN  REVISION 
COMMITTEE.  Philadelphia  (American  Sunday-School  Union)  and  New 
York  (-12  and  44  Bible -House),  1879.  Second  ed.,  revised,  192  pages. 
Contains  nineteen  short  essays  by  as  many  American  Revisers  on  various 
aspects  of  the  Revision  then  going  on.  It  was  twice  republishcd  in 
England,  by  Nisbet  &  Co.,  and  by  the  (i  London  Sunday-School  Union," 
under  the  title :  Biblical  Revision,  its  Necessity  and  Purpose.  London  (5G 
Old  Bailey),  1879  (186  pages). 

B.  Works  published  after  the  publication  of  the  Revision  (1881). 

(a)  Friendly  criticisms  by  members  of  the  Revision  Companies  and 
others. 

ALKX.  ROBERTS,  D.D.  (Professor  of  Humanity,  St.  Andrews;  Member 
of  the  N.  T.  Revision  Company)  :  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 
the  New  Testament.  London,  1881  (Cassell,  Petter,  Galpin,  &  Co.).  With 
Supplement  by  a  Member  of  the  American  Committee  of  Revision 
[P.  Schaff],  New  York  (published  by  Cassell,  Petter,  Galpin,  &  Co., 
and  jointly  by  Funk  &  Wagnalls),  1881  (213  pages). 

FREDERICK  FIELD,  M.A.,  LL.D.  (Member  of  the  O.  T.  Revision  Com 
pany) :  Olium  Norvicense.  Notes  on  Select  Passages  of  the  Greek  Testa 
ment.  Oxford,  1881.  Scholarly  and  able. 

The  Neiv  Revision  and  its  Study.  By  Members  of  the  A  merican  Revision 
Committee  (Drs.  ABBOT,  RIDDLE,  DWIGHT,  THAYER,  KENDRICK,  CROSBY). 
Reprinted  from  i:  Sunday-School  Times,"  Philadelphia,  1881  (107  pages). 

Dr.  SAMUEL  NEWTH  (Princ.  New  College)  :  Lectures  on  Bible  Revision. 
London,  1881. 


376  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

15.  II.  KKNNKDY  (Canon  of  Ely;  lion.  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College, 
Cambridge;  Member  of  the  N.  T.  Kcvision  Company):  The  Khj  Lectures 
on  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament.  Loud.  1882  (xxi.  and  165 
pages).  Three  Sermons  on  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible,  on  the  Re 
vised  Text,  and  on  the  Revised  Version,  with  three  Appendices,  a  prefa 
tory  Letter  to  Dr.  Scrivener,  and  a  Postscript  against  the  attack  of  the 
"Quarterly  Reviewer."  "  The  furor  theoloyicus"  says  Canon  Kennedy 
(p.  155),  <;  never  amuses,  it  only  saddens  me.  I  know  what  it  has  done 
in  the  ages;  I  see  what  it  is  doing  in  the  present  day;  I  dread  what  it 
may  do  in  the  times  that  are  coming.'' 

7" hfi  Revisers  and  the  Greek  Text  of  the  Xew  Testament.  f>y  Tiro  Mem 
bers  of  the  New  Testament  Company  [Bishop  ELLICOTT  and  Archdeacon 
PALMEU].  London  (Macmillan  &  Co.),  1882  (79  pages).  A  semi-official 
vindication  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Revisers  against  the  assault  of  the 
"  Quarterly  Review.''  Calm,  dignified,  and  convincing. 

EDWAHD  BVKON  NICHOLSON,  M.A.:  Our  Xew  New  Testament.  An 
Explanation  of  the  Xeed  and  a  Criticism  of  the  Fulfilment.  London  (Riv- 
ingtons),  1881  (80  pages).  Favorable,  but  advocates  further  revision. 

Bishop  ALFRED  LEE  (of  the  Diocese  of  Delaware,  Member  of  the  N.  T. 
Revision  Company):  Co-operative  Revision  of  the  New  Testament.  New 
York,  1882.  Contains  a  valuable  list  of  changes  due  to  the  American 
Committee. 

Dr.  CHAHLES  SHOUT  (Professor  in  Columbia  College,  New  York,  and 
Member  of  the  N.  T.  Revision  Company)  :  The  New  Revision  of  Kinrj 
James"  Revision  of  the  New  Testament.  Several  articles  in  "The  Ameri 
can  Journal  of  Philology,"  edited  by  Gildersleeve,  Baltimore.  1881  and 
1882.  The  second  paper  is  a  careful  and  minute  examination  of  the  re 
vision  of  St.  Matthew. 

C.  J.  VAI:GIIAN,  D.D.  (Dean  of  Llanclaff,  and  Master  of  the  Temple, 
Member  of  the  N.  T.  Revision  Company)  :  A  uthorized  or  Revised?  Ser 
mons  on  Some  of  the  Texts  in  which  the  Revised  Version  Differs  from  the 
A  uthorized.  London  (Macmillan  &  Co.),  1882  (xviii.  and  335  pages). 

The  passages  discussed  in  these  sermons  are  1  Tim.  iii.  16 ;  John  v.  35, 
36,  39, 40  ;  xvii.  2, 1 1,  24 ;  Luke  xxi.  16-19 ;  Col.  ii.  18,  23 ;  Phil.  ii.  5-10 ; 
Ileb.  x.  19-22  ;  Rom.  v.  18,  19  ;  Col.  iii.  1-4  ;  John  vi.  12  ;  1  Pet,  i.  13  ; 
Heb.  xii.  17  ;  Epli.  v.  1 :  John  v.  44 ;  Matt.  xxv.  8  ;  Acts  ii.  24 ;  Rev.  xxii. 
14;  Eph.  iii.  14,  15.  The  distinguished  author  advocates  favorable  action 
of  the  Anglican  Church  before  the  Revision  is  adopted  by  Dissenters  and 
Americans.  "  There  are  not  wanting  indications  "  (he  says,  Preface,  p. 
xvii,)  "  of  a  probable  acceptance  by  the  American  people  on  the  one 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  377 

hand,  and  by  the  great  English  Nonconformist  bodies  on  the  other,  of 
the  Revised  Version,  in  the  formation  of  which,  by  an  act  of  simple  jus 
tice,  they  have  been  admitted  to  an  honorable  participation.  No  mis 
fortune  could  be  more  lamentable,  no  catastrophe  is  more  earnestly  to  be 
deprecated,  than  that  which  should  destroy  the  one  link  of  union  which 
has  hitherto  bound  together  the  English-speaking  race,  amidst  whatever 
varieties  of  place  or  thought,  of  government  or  doctrine— the  possession 
of  a  common  Bible.  Hitherto  there  has  been  one  intelligible  sense,  at 
all  events,  in  which  we  could  speak  of  transatlantic  or  even  of  non-con 
forming  members  of  the  one  Church  of  England.  A  heavy  blow  will 
have  been  struck  at  this  unify  of  feeling  and  worship,  if  unhappily  the 
time  should  ever  arrive  when  the  race  shall  have  its  two  Bibles— more 
especially  if  it  shall  come  to  be  known  that  the  Bible  of  America  and  of 
the  Nonconformist  is  far  nearer  in  accuracy,  however  it  may  be  in  beauty, 
to  the  original  Word  itself,  thau  the  Bible  tenaciously  clung  to  by  the 
English  Episcopalian." 

Rev.  W.  A.  OSBORNK  (Rector  of  Dodington) :  The  Revised  Version  of  the 
New  Testament.  A  Critical  Commentary  with  Notes  upon  the.  Text,  Lon 
don  (Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  &  Co.),  1882  (200  pages).  Mostly  favorable. 
"I  was  struck,  as  all  candid  critics  must  be,  with  the  greater  accuracy  of 
the  text  and  the  wonderful  fidelity  of  many  of  the  renderings,  and  felt 
proud  of  the  triumph  of  English  scholarship,  notably  in  the  Epistles  to 
the  Romans  and  Corinthians.  .  .  .  While,  with  others,  I  was  startled  at 
first  by  the  great  number  of  minor  alterations  and  transpositions,  I  found 
that  in  most  cases  the  Revisers  were  justified  by  the  concurrent  testi 
mony  of  MSS.,  versions,  and  Eathers,  and  that  in  many  of  the  attacks 
made  upon  them,  there  was  either  gross  exaggeration,  or  a  curious  igno 
rance  of  the  idioms  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  languages"  (Preface,  v.  and 
vi.).  Then  the  author  goes  on  to  object  to  "light  inaccuracies  or  incon 
sistencies." 

W.  G.  HUMPHRY,  B.D.  (Vicar  of  St.  Martin-in-the-Fields,  Prebendary 
of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  and  Member  of  the  N.  T.  Revision  Company) : 
A  Commentary  on  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament.  Lon 
don  and  New  York  (Cassell,  Petter,  &  Co.),  ]882  (xxi.  and  474  pages). 
Notes,  stating  briefly  and  clearly  the  reasons  for  the  changes  that  have 
been  made  in  the  Authorized  Version  from  Matthew  to  Revelation,  with 
constant  reference  to  the  renderings  of  the  earlier  English  versions.  A 
useful  book,  but  the  Preface  contains  some  curious  mistakes— e.  g.,  that 
Tischendorf  "presented  the  Sinaitic  Bible"  (which  he  never  owned)  "  to 
the  Czar  of  Russia"  (p.  xi.).  The  American  Appendix  is  ignored. 


378  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

(bi)  In  opposition  to  the  Revision. 

[Dean  JOHN  W.  BURGON,  B.D.J:  Three  Articles  on  New  Testament 
Revision  in  the  London  "Quarterly  Review"  (John  Murray)  for  October, 
1881,  January  and  April,  1882.  Announced  for  separate  publication 
under  the  author's  name.  A  sweeping  condemnation  of  the  latest  critical 
scholarship,  as  well  as  of  the  oldest  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testament,  By 
far  the  most  vigorous  and  unsparing  attack  on  the  Revised  Version. 
See  above,  pp.  119  sq.  and  293  sqq. 

Sir  EDMUND  BECKETT:  Should  the.  RevisedNew  Testamentbe  A  uthorized? 
London  (John  Murray),  1882  (194  pages).  Condemns  without  mercy  the 
English  style  of  the  R.  V.,  and  prefers  the  "  beasts,"  Rev.  iv.  6. 

G.  WASHINGTON  MOON,  F.R.S.L. :  The  Revisers'  English.  With  Photo- 
(jraplis  of  the  Revisers.  A  Series  of  Criticisms,  Showing  the  Revisers'  Vio 
lations  of  the  Laws  of  the  Language.  London  (Hatchards,  Piccadilly), 
1882  (145  pages).  Republished,  New  York  (Funk  &  Wagnalls),  1882. 
Mr.  Moon  is  the  author  of  The,  Dean's  English  versus  Dean  Alford's  Essays 
on  The  Queen's  English,  and  was  answered  by  Alford  in  Mr.  Moon's  English, 
to  which  Mr.  Moon  again  replied,  lie  severely  criticises  the  Revision 
according  to  the  strict  rules  of  modern  grammar;  but  most  of  the  de 
partures  which  he  condemns  arc  found  in  the  old  version  and  sustained 
by  classical  usage.  The  book  is  amusing,  and  not  without  some  good 
points. 

F.  C.  COOK,  M.A.  (Canon  of  Exeter,  and  Editor  of  The  Speaker's  Com 
mentary}  :  The  Revised  Version  of  the  First  Three  Gospels  Considered  in 
its  Bearings  upon  the  Record  of  our  Lord's  Words  and  of  Incidents  in  his 
Life.  London  (John  Murray),  1882  (250  pages).  Moderately  and  re 
spectfully  opposed.  Canon  Cook  wrote  also  A  Protest  Against  the  Change 
in  the  Last  Petition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  (London.  1881 ;  3d  ed.  1882);  to 
which  Bishop  Lightfoot  replied  in  defense  of  the  masculine  rendering  of 
roil  7rovi]pou  ("the  evil  One"),  in  "The  Guardian,"  London,  Nos.  1866- 
1868  (September,  1881).  Canon  Cook  rejoined  in  A  Second  Letter  to  the 
Lord  Bishop  of  London,  London,  1882  (107  pages). 

T.  H.  L.  LEAKY  (D.C.L.,  Oxford)  :  A  Critical  Examination  of  Bishop 
Lightfoot's  Defence  of  the  Last  Petition  in  the  Lord's  Prayer.  London  (11 
Southampton  Street),  1882  (23  pages). 

ROBERT  YOUNG,  LL.D.  (author  of  the  Analytical  Concordance  of  the 
Bible] :  Contributions  to  a  Neiv  Revision,  or  A  Critical  Companion  to  the 
New  Testament.  Edinburgh  (G.  A.  Young  &  Co.),  1881  (390  pages).  He 
notices  the  alterations  of  the  Revisers  and  the  American  Appendix,  but 
gives  more  literal  and  uniform  renderings  as  "a  help  to  a  future  Revision." 


THE    EEVISED    VERSION.  379 

Dr.  S.  C.  MALAX:  Seven  Chapters  of  the  Revision  0/1881  revised;  and 
Select  Readings,  etc.,  revised.  London,  1881-82. 

Dr.  G.  \V.  SAMSON  :  The  English  Revisers'  Greek  Text  Shown  to  be 
Unauthorized  Except  by  Egyptian  Copies  Discarded  by  Greeks,  and  to  be 
Opposed  to  the  Historic  Text  of  all  Ayes  and  Churches.  Cambridge,  Mass. 
(132  pages).  A  curious  anachronism.  The  learned  author  advocates 
"the  true  light"  of  Hug,  "  the  master  watchman,"  and  opposes  ';  the 
false  lights"  of  the  "misleading  Tregelles  and  the  ambitious  Tischen- 
dorf  "  (whose  name  is  invariably  misspelled  with  ft'). 

(c)  Friendly  and  unfriendly  criticisms,  mostly  by  divines  of  the  Church 
of  England,  appeared  in  two  weekly  periodicals : 

Public  Opinion,  London  (11  Southampton  Street,  Strand),  from  May  21 
to  December,  1881. 

Christian  Opinion  and  Revisionist  (edited  by  Lean-),  London  (Ilntchards, 
Publisher,  etc.,  187  Piccadilly),  from  Jan.  7,  1882,  to  June  17,  1882. 

Besides,  almost  every  religious  newspaper  and  quarterly  review  in  the 
English  language  for  1881  and  1882  had  critical  notices  of  the  Revised 
Version;  notably  so  "The  Quarterly  Review,"  "The  Church  Quarterly 
Review,"  "  The  Contemporary  Review,"  "  The  Nineteenth  Century," 
"  The  British  Quarterly,"  "  The  Edinburgh  Review,"  "  The  Expositor," 
"  The  Homiletic  Quarterly,"  "  The  Catholic  Presbyterian,"  "  The  Presby 
terian  Quarterly  Review,"  "  The  Bibliothcca  Sacra,"  "  The  North  Ameri 
can  Review,"  "  The  New-Englander,"  "  The  American  Church  Review," 
"  The  Baptist  Quarterly,"  "  The  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,"  etc.,  etc. 
Some  of  these  review  articles  are  by  Sanday,  Farrar,  Newth,  Angus, 
Perowne,  Stanley,  Plumptre,  Evans,  G.  Vance  Smith,  M.  R.  Vincent,  War- 
field,  Gardiner,  Daniel  R.  Goodwin,  and  other  able  scholars. 
V.  HISTORICAL. 

Documentary  History  of  the  American  Committee  on  Revision,  Prepared 
by  Order  of  the  American  Committee.  In  course  of  preparation.  Not  to 
be  published  till  after  the  completion  of  the  work  (New  York,  1884). 

A  valuable  (semi-official)  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  English 
Revision  Committee  is  found  in  the  London  Times  for  May  20,  1881. 


380  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 


THE    ACTION    OF    THE    COX  VOCATION    OF    CANTERBURY. 

A  new  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  public 
use  was  a  much  easier  task  in  the  days  of  King 
James  than  in  our  age.  Then  English  Christendom 
was  confined  to  one  Church  in  a  little  island,  and 
under  the  sovereign  rule  of  the  crown  ;  now  it  is 
spread  over  five  continents,  and  divided  into  many 
independent  organizations.  Then  the  rival  versions 
were  but  of  recent  date ;  now  the  version  to  be  re 
placed  is  hallowed  by  the  memories  of  nearly  three 
centuries,  and  interwoven  with  the  literature  of  two 
nations.  To  bring  a  new  version  within  the  reach 
of  possible  success,  it  must  not  only  be  far  better 
than  the  old,  but  the  joint  work  of  representative 
scholars  from  the  various  churches  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States.  In  other  words,  it  must 
have  an  interdenominational,  international,  and  in 
tercontinental  character  and  weight. 

The  obstacles  in  the  way  of  such  an  undertaking 
seemed  to  be  irremovable  before  the  year  1870. 
Nothing  but  a  special  providence  could  level  the 
mountains  of  old  traditions  and  prejudices,  of  mod 
ern  rivalries  and  jealousies.  But  in  that  year  the 
Spirit  of  God  emboldened  the  most  conservative  of 
the  English  churches  to  venture  upon  the  uncertain 
sea  of  Revision,  inspired  that  Church  with  a  large- 
hearted  and  far-sighted  liberality  towards  the  other 
branches  of  English-speaking  Christendom  at  home 
and  across  the  ocean,  and  brought  about  a  combina 
tion  of  men  and  means  such  as  had  never  existed 
before  in  the  history  of  the  Bible,  and  as  is  not 


THE    RE  VISED    VERSION.  381 

likely  to  be  repeated  for  a  long  time  to  come.  A 
calm  retrospect  presents  the  origin  of  this  move 
ment  almost  in  the  light  of  a  moral  miracle. 

The  new  Revision  was  born  in  the  mother  Church 
of  English  Christendom.  She  made  the  Authorized 
Version,  and  had  an  hereditary  right  to  take  the  lead 
in  its  improvement  and  displacement.  She  still 
represents  the  largest  membership,  the  strongest  in 
stitutions,  the  richest  literature,  among  those  eccle 
siastical  organizations  which  have  sprung  from  the 
Anglo-Saxon  stock.  She  would  never  accept  a  Re 
vision  from  any  other  denomination.  She  has  all 
the  necessary  qualifications  of  learning  and  piety  to 
produce  as  good  a  version  for  our  age  as  King 
James's  Revisers  produced  for  their  generation.  It 
is  to  be  regretted  that  the  Church  of  England  could 
not  act  as  a  unit  in  this  matter,  and  that  the  Con 
vocation  of  York  refused  to  co-operate.  But  the 
movement  had  to  begin  somewhere,  and  it  did  begin 
in  the  strongest  and  most  influential  quarter,  and 
with  as  much  authority  as  can  be  expected  in  the 
present  state  of  that  Church.  No  royal  decree,  no 
act  of  Parliament,  could  nowadays  inaugurate  such 
a  work  of  Christian  scholarship,  which  is  destined 
to  be  used  as  far  as  the  dominion  of  the  English 
language  extends. 

The  Upper  House  of  the  Convocation  of  Canter 
bury,  under  the  impulse  of  some  of  the  ablest  and 
wisest  divines,  started  the  long -desired  Revision 
movement  on  the  10th  of  February,  1870,  by  adopt 
ing  a  cautious  resolution  offered  by  the  late  Dr.  S. 
Wilberforce  (Bishop,  first  of  Oxford,  then  of  Win- 


382  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Chester),  and  seconded  by  Dr.  Ellicott  (Bishop  of 
Gloucester  and  Bristol),  to  the  effect — • 

"  That  a  Committee  of  both  Houses  be  appointed  to  report  on  the 
desirableness  of  a  Revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  whether  by  marginal  notes  or  otherwise,  in  those  passages 
where  plain  and  clear  errors,  whether  in  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  text 
originally  adopted  by  the  translators,  or  in  the  translations  made  from 
the  same,  shall  on  due  investigation  be  found  to  exist." 

In  accordance  with  this  resolution  a  report  was 
laid  before  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  at  its 
session  in  May,  1870,  and  was  accepted  unanimously 
by  the  Upper  House  and  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
Lower  House.  The  report  is  as  follows : 

"  1.  That  it  is  desirable  that  a  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  be  undertaken. 

"  2.  That  the  revision  be  so  conducted  as  to  comprise  both  marginal 
renderings  and  such  emendations  as  it  may  be  found  necessary  to  insert 
in  the  text  of  the  Authorised  Version. 

"3.  That  in  the  above  resolutions  we  do  not  contemplate  any  new 
translation  of  the  Bible,  nor  any  alteration  of  the  language,  except  where, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  most  competent  scholars,  such  change  is  necessary. 

"  4.  That  in  such  necessary  changes,  the  style  of  the  language  employed 
in  the  existing  version  be  closely  followed. 

';  5.  That  it  is  desirable  that  Convocation  should  nominate  a  body  of 
its  own  members  to  uwdcrtake  the  work  of  revision,  who  shall  be  at 
liberty  to  invite  the  co-operation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship,  to  what 
ever  nation  or  religious  body  they  may  belong.'1 

ORGANIZATION  AND  RULES  OF  THE  BRITISH  COMMITTEE. 

These  are  "the  fundamental  resolutions"  adopted 
by  Convocation.  The  work  now  passed  entirely 
into  the  hands  of  the  Commission  which  was  appoint 
ed  by  that  body,  and  consisted  of  eight  Bishops1  and 

1  The  Revisers  appointed  by  the  Upper  House,  May  3, 1870,  were  the 
Bishops  of  Winchester  (Samuel  Wilberforce),  St.  David's  (Connop  Thirl- 


THE    KEVISED    VERSION.  383 

eight  Presbyters,3  with  power  to  enlarge.  They  held 
the  first  meeting  a  few  weeks  afterwards,  May  25 
(the  Bishop  of  Winchester  presiding),  effected  an  or 
ganization,  and  took  the  following  action  : 

"RESOLVED:  I.  That  the  committee,  appointed  by  the  Convocation 
of  Canterbury  at  its  last  session,  separate  itself  into  two  companies,  the 
one  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
other  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  New  Testament. 

"II.  That  the  company  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of 
the  Old  Testament  consist  of  the  Bishops  of  St.  David's,  Llandaff,  Ely,  and 
Bath  and  Wells,  and  of  the  following  members  from  the  Lower  House- 
Archdeacon  Rose,  Canon  Sehvyn,  Dr.  Jebb,  and  Dr.  Kay. 

"III.  That  the  company  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of 
the  New  Testament  consist  of  the  Bishops  of  Winchester,2  Gloucester  and 
Bristol,3  and  Salisbury,4  and  of  the  following  members  from  the  Lower 
House,  the  Prolocutor,5  the  Deans  of  Canterbury6  and  Westminster,7  and 
Canon  Blakesley. 

"  IV.  That  the  first  portion  of  the  work  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Old 
Testament  Company  be  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

"V.  That  the  first  fortion  of  the  work  to  be  undertaken  by  the  New 
Testament  Company  be  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the 
Synoptical  Gospels. 

"VI.  That  the  following  scholars  and  divines  be  invited  to  join  the 
Old  Testament  Company: 


wall),  Llandaff  (Alfred  Ollivant),  Gloucester  and  Bristol  (Charles  John 
Ellicott),  Salisbury  (George  Moberly),  Ely  (Edward  Harold  Browne,  af 
terwards  successor  of  Wilberforce  in  the  See  of  Winchester),  Lincoln 
(Christopher  Wordsworth,  who  soon  afterwards  withdrew),  Bath  and  Wells 
(Lord  Arthur  Charles  Ilervey). 

1  Appointed  by  the  Lower  House :   The  Prolocutor  (Edward  Henry 
Bickersteth),  the  Deans  of  Canterbury  (Alford)  and  Westminster  (Stan 
ley),  the  Archdeacon  of  Bedford    (Henry  John  Rose),  Canons  Selwyn 
and  Blakesley,  Dr.  Jebb,  and  Dr.  Kay. 

2  Dr.  Wilberforce.  3  Dr/EUicott.  *  Dr.  Moberly. 
5  The  Very  Rev.  Edward  Henry  Bickersteth.  6  Dean  Alford. 
7  Dean  Stanlev. 


384 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 


ALEXANDER,     Dr.   W. 

L. 

CHENERY,  Professor. 
COOK,  Canon. 
DAVIDSON,  Professor  A. 

15. 

DAVIKS,  Dr.  B. 
FAIRISAIRX,  Professor. 


FIELD.  Rev.  F. 
GIXSIJURG,  Dr. 
GOTCII,  Dr. 

HARRISON,      Archdea 
con. 

LK  ATI  IKS,  Professor. 
McGiLL,  Professor. 
PAYNE  SMITH.  Canon.1 


PEROWXE,  Professor  J. 
II. 

PLUM PTRE,  Professor. 

PUSKY,  Canon. 

WRIGHT,  Dr.  (British 
Museum). 

WRICJHT,  W.  A.  ( Cam 
bridge)  .a 


"VII.  That  the  following  scholars  and  divines  he  invited  to  join  the 
New  Testament  Company: 


ANGUS,  Dr.  j  LIGHTFOOT,  Dr. 

BROWN,  Dr.  DAVID.  |  MILLIGAN,  Professor. 
DUBLIN,  Archbishop  of.  Moui/rox,  Professor. 
EADIE,  Dr.  ;  NEWMAN,  Dr.  J.  II. 

HORT.  Rev.  F.  J.  A.          NEWTH.  Professor. 
HUMPHRY,  Rev.  W.  G.     KOHKUTS,  Dr.  A. 


SCOTT,     Dr.     (  Balliol 

College). 

Sc'RivEXEi;,  Rev.  F.  II. 
ST.  ANDREW'S,    Bishop 

of. 
TREGELLES,  Dr. 


KENNEDY,  Canon.  SMITH,  Rev. G.  VANCE.    VAUGHAX,  Dr. 

LEE,  Archdeacon.  j  WESTCOTT,  Canon.3 


'  Afterwards  Dean  of  Canterbury. 

2  Principal  Douglas,  of  the  Free  College  of  Glasgow,  Professor  Weir,  of 
the  University  of  Glasgow.  Professor  W.  Robertson  Smith,  of  the  Free  Col 
lege  of  Aberdeen,  and  Professor  J.  D.  Gcden,  of  the  Weslcyan  Institute  of 
Didsbury.  were   subsequently  added   to    the   Old   Testament  Company. 
Bishops  Thirlvvall  and  Ollivant,  Canon   Selwyn,  Archdeacon  Rose,  Drs. 
Fairbairn,  McGill,  Weir,  and  Davids  died  during  the  progress  of  the  work. 
Bishop  Wordsworth   of  Lincoln,  Dr.  Jebb,  and   Dr.  Plumptre   resigned. 
Dr.  Pusey  and  Canon  Cook  declined  the  invitation. 

3  Cardinal  Newman  declined.     Dr.  Tregelles  (d.  1875)  was  prevented 
by  feeble  health  from  attending,  but  was  present  in  spirit  by  his  critical 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  to  which  he  had  devoted  the  strength 
of  his  life.     Dean  Alford  died  a  few  months  after  the  beginning  of  the 
work  (January,  1871)  which  lay  so  near  his  heart,  and  which  he  did  so 
much  to  set  in  motion;  his  place  was  supplied  by  Dean  Merivale  (the 
historian  of  the  Roman  empire),  who.  after  attending  a  fewr  sessions,  re 
signed,  and  was  succeeded  by  Professor  (afterwards  Archdeacon)  Palmer, 
of  Oxford.     Bishop  Wilberforce  attended  only  once,  and  died  in  1873. 
Dr.  Eadie  attended  regularly,  but  spoke  seldom,  and  died  in  187G,  after 
completing  his  History  of  the  English  Bible.     The  total  number  of  work- 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  385 

"VIII.  That  the  general  principles  to  be  followed  by  both  companies 
be  as  follows : 

"  1.  To  introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  in  the  text  of  the  Au 
thorised  Version,  consistently  with  faithfulness. 

"  %2.  To  limit,  as  far  as  possible,  the  expression  of  such  alterations  to  the 
language  of  the  Authorised  and  earlier  English  versions. 

"3.  Each  company  to  go  twice  over  the  portion  to  be  revised,  once 
provisionally,  the  second  time  finally,  and  on  principles  of  voting  as  here 
inafter  is  provided. 

"4.  That  the  text  to  be  adopted  be  that  for  which  the  evidence  is 
decidedly  preponderating;  and  that  when  the  text  so  adopted  differs 
from  that  from  which  the  Authorized  Version  was  made,  the  alteration  be 
indicated  in  the  margin. 

"  o.  To  make  or  retain  no  change  in  the  text  on  the  second  final  revision 
by  each  company,  except  two  thirds  of  those  present  approve  of  the  same, 
but  on  the  first  revision  to  decide  by  simple  majorities. 

"G.  In  every  case  of  proposed  alteration  that  may  have  given  rise  to 
discussion,  to  defer  the  voting  thereupon  till  the  next  meeting,  when 
soever  the  same  shall  be  required  by  one  third  of  those  present  at  the 
meeting,  such  intended  vote  to  be  announced  in  the  notice  for  the  next 
meeting. 

"7.  To  revise  the  headings  of  chapters  and  pages,  paragraphs,  italics. 
and  punctuation. 

"8.  To  refer,  on  the  part  of  each  company,  when  considered  desirable, 
to  divines,  scholars,  and  literary  men,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  for 
their  opinions. 

"  IX.  That  the  work  of  each  company  be  communicated  to  the  other 
as  it  is  completed,  in  order  that  there  may  be  as  little  deviation  from 
uniformity  in  language  as  possible. 

';  X.  That  the  special  or  by  rules  for  each  company  be  as  follows : 

"  1.  To  make  all  corrections  in  writing  previous  to  the  meeting. 

"2.  To  place  all  the  corrections  due  to  textual  considerations  on  the 
left-hand  margin,  and  all  other  corrections  on  the  right-hand  margin. 

"3.  To  transmit  to  the  chairman,  in  case  of  being  unable  to  attend,  the 
corrections  proposed  in  the  portion  agreed  upon  for  consideration. 

"  May  25th,  1870.  S.  WINTON.,  Chairman:' l 


ing  members  of  the  New  Testament  Company  varied  from  twenty-four 
to  twenty-eight. 

1  Samuel  Wilberforce,  Bishop  of  Winchester.     The  general  and  special 

25 


3S6  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

These  resolutions  were  faithfully  carried  out,  with 
the  exception  of  the  revision  of  the  chapter-head 
ings  (viii.  7),  which  were  omitted,  as  involving  too 
much  direct  and  indirect  interpretation.  They  will 
probably  be  supplied  in  future  editions  by  the  Uni 
versity  Presses. 

From  the  list  of  names,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
Committee,  in  enlarging  its  membership,  has  shown 
good  judgment  and  eminent  impartiality  and  catho 
licity.  Under  the  fifth  resolution  of  the  Convoca 
tion  of  Canterbury  it  was  empowered  "  to  invite 
the  co-operation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship, 
to  whatever  nation  or  religious  "body  they  may  he- 
long"  The  Committee  accordingly  solicited  the 
co-operation  of  some  of  the  ablest  and  best-known 
biblical  scholars,  not  only  from  all  schools  and  par- 
tics  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  also  from  the 
other  religious  denominations  of  England  and  Scot 
land.  There  is  a  commonwealth — we  may  say,  an 
apostolic  succession — of  Christian  life  and  Christian 
scholarship  which  transcends  all  sectarian  boundaries, 
however  useful  and  necessary  these  may  be  in  their 
place.  The  Committee  proved  to  be  remarkably 
harmonious.  The  members  co-operated  on  terms 
of  equality,  but  the  Episcopalians  had,  of  course, 
the  majority,  and  a  bishop  presided  over  each  of  the 
two  companies.  The  whole  number  of  Revisers  in 
1880  amounted  to  fifty-two  (27  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment  Company,  2±  in  the  New  Testament  Com 
pany).  Of  these  thirty-six  were  Episcopalians  (18 

rules  had  been  previously  prepared  in  draft  by  Bishop  Ellicott,  and  were 
accepted  with  but  slight  modifications. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  387 

in  the  Old  Testament  Company,  IS  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  Company),  seven  Presbyterians,  four  Inde 
pendents  (or  Congregationalists),  two  Baptists,  two 
Wesleyans  (or  Methodists)  and  one  Unitarian.1 

THE    WORK    OF    THE    BRITISH    COMMITTEE. 

The  British  Committee,  thus  enlarged  and  organ 
ized,  began  its  work  after  an  act  of  divine  worship 
in  Westminster  Abbey  (in  the  Chapel  of  Henry 
VII.)  on  the  22d  of  June,  1870.  Every  session  was 
opened  with  united  prayer.  The  two  companies 
worked  independently,  except  for  occasional  con 
ference  on  matters  of  common  interest.  They 
did  not  divide  the  books  amonir  sub -committees, 

£D 

but  each  Company  assumed  its  whole  share,  thus 
securing  greater  uniformity  and  consistency  than 
could  be  attained  under  the  less  judicious  plan  of 
the  version  of  King  James.  The  New  Testament 
Company  met  in  the  historic  Jerusalem  Chamber, 
the  Old  Testament  Company  likewise,  unless  the 
meetings  were  held  simultaneously,  when  it  assem 
bled  in  the  Chapter  Library  of  the  same  venerable 
deanery,  under  the  shadow  of  Westminster  Abbey. 
The  New  Testament  Company  held  regular 
monthly  meetings  of  four  days  each  (except  in 
August  and  September)  for  ten  years  and  a  half. 
The  first  Revision  occupied  about  six  years ;  the 
second,  about  two  years  and  a  half;  the  remaining 
time  was  spent  "  in  the  consideration  of  the  sugges 
tions  from  America  on  the  second  Revision,  and  of 

1  See  the  list  in  Appendix  III. 


388  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

many  details  and  reserved  questions."  The  Com 
pany  held  in  all  one  hundred  and  three  monthly 
sessions,  embracing  four  hundred  and  seven  days, 
with  an  average  daily  attendance  of  sixteen  out 
of  twenty-eight  (afterwards  of  twenty-four),  mem 
bers.  Four  of  the  original  number  were  removed 
by  death  before  1SS0.1  The  chairman  (Bishop  Elli- 
cott)  was  the  most  faithful  attendant,  being  absent 
only  for  two  days — a  very  rare  instance  of  con 
scientious  devotion  to  a  long  and  laborious  work. 
The  last  meeting  was  held  at  the  Church  of  St.  Mar- 
tin-in-the-Fields,  on  St.  Martin's  day,  November  11, 
1880,  and,  as  Dr.  Scrivener  says,  "  will  be  one  of  the 
most  cherished  remembrances  of  those  who  were 
privileged  thus  to  bring  to  its  end  a  purpose  on 
which  their  hearts  were  fondly  set."  The  Preface 
is  dated  from  "  Jerusalem  Chamber,  Westminster 
Abbey,  llth  November,  1880." 

There  is  a  special  poetic  and  historic  fitness  in 
the  assembly-room  where  this  important  work  was 
done.  "  What  place  more  proper  for  the  building 
of  Sion,"  we  may  ask  with  Thomas  Fuller,  when 
speaking  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,2 
"  than  the  Chamber  of  Jerusalem,  the  fairest  in  the 
Dean's  lodgings,  where  King  Henry  IY.  died,  and 
where  these  divines  did  daily  meet  together?"  The 
Jerusalem  Chamber  is  a  large  hall  in  the  Deanery, 
plainly  furnished  with  a  long  table  and  chairs,  and 
ornamented  with  tapestry  (pictures  of  the  Circum- 

1  Wilberforce,  Alford,  Tregelles,  Eadie.  Dean  Stanley  died  a  few 
months  after  the  publication  (July,  1881). 

-  Church  History  of  Britain,  book  xi.,  cent,  xvii.,  A.D.  1G43. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  389 

cision,  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  and  the  Passage 
through  the  Wilderness).  It  was  originally  the  with 
drawing  room  of  the  abbot,  and  has  become  famous 
in  romance  and  history  as  the  cradle  of  many 
memorable  schemes  and  events,  from  the  Refor 
mation  down  to  the  present  time.  There,  before 
the  lire  of  the  hearth — then  a  rare  luxury  in  Eng 
land — King  Henry  IV.,  who  intended  to  make  a 
pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem,  died  March  20,  1413. 
When  informed  of  the  name  of  the  chamber,  he 
exclaimed, 

;'.  .  .  Bear  me  to  that  chamber;  there  I'll  lie: 
In  that  Jerusalem  shall  Harry  die." 

There,  under  the  genial  warmth  of  the  fire  which 
had  attracted  the  dying  king,  the  grave  Puritan 
Assembly  prepared,  during  the  Long  Parliament, 
its  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline,  to 
be  disowned  by  England,  but  honored  to  this  day  by 
the  Presbyterian  churches  of  Scotland  and  America. 

There  the  most  distinguished  biblical  scholars  of 
the  Church  of  England,  in  fraternal  co-operation 
with  scholars  of  Dissenting  denominations,  both 
nobly  forgetting  old  feuds  and  jealousies,  were  en 
gaged  month  after  month,  for  more  than  ten  years, 
in  the  truly  catholic  and  peaceful  work  of  revising 
the  common  version  of  the  Bible  for  the  general 
benefit  of  English-speaking  Christendom.1 

1  I  venture  to  insert  an  interesting  incident  connected  with  that  room. 
At  the  kind  invitation  of  the  late  Dean  Stanley,  the  delegates  to  the 
International  Council  of  Presbyterian  Churches,  then  meeting  in  London 
for  the  formation  of  a  Presbyterian  Alliance,  repaired  to  the  Jerusalem 
Chamber  on  Thursday  afternoon,  July  22, 1875,  and,  standing  around  the 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

The  Revision  of  the  Xew  Testament  was  finished 
just  five  hundred  years  after  the  first  complete  trans 
lation  of  the  whole  Bible  into  English  by  Wiclif, 
whose  memory  was  celebrated  in  that  year.  The 
Revision  of  the  Old  Testament  is  still  in  progress 
on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  and  will  probably  be 
completed  during  the  present  year,  or  certainly 
before  the  close  of  1884:. 

The  Revision  of  the  Apocrypha  was  not  in  the 
original  scheme,  but  was  afterwards  intrusted  by 
the  University  Presses  to  a  special  company,  com 
posed  of  members  from  the  two  British  Companies, 
who  are  now  engaged  in  the  work.  "  It  is  well 

o     CD 

known,"  says  Dr.  Scrivener,1  "  to  biblical  scholars 
that  the  Apocrypha  received  very  inadequate  atten 
tion  from  the  Revisers  of  1611  and  their  predeces 
sors,  so  that  whole  passages  remain  unaltered  from 

long  table,  were  instructed  and  entertained  by  the  Dean,  who,  modestly 
taking  '•  the  Moderator's  chair,"  gave  them  a  graphic  historical  description 
of  the  chamber,  interspersed  with  humorous  remarks  and  extracts  from 
Baillie.  He  dwelt  mainly  on  the  Westminster  Assembly,  promising,  in 
his  broad-church  liberality,  at  some  future  time  to  honor  that  Assembly 
by  a  picture  on  the  northern  wall.  Dr.  McCosh,  of  Princeton,  as  Modera 
tor  of  the  Presbyterian  Council,  proposed  a  vote  of  thanks  for  the  courtesy 
and  kindness  of  the  Dean,  which  was,  of  course,  unanimously  and  heartily 
given.  The  writer  of  this  expressed  the  hope  that  the  Jerusalem  Cham 
ber  may  yet  serve  a  still  nobler  purpose  than  any  in  the  past — namely, 
the  reunion  of  Christendom  on  the  basis  of  God's  revealed  truth  in  the 
Bible;  and  he  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  Dean  had  recently  (in  the 
Contemporary  Review,  and  in  an  address  at  St.  Andrew's)  paid  a  high 
compliment  to  the  Westminster  Confession  by  declaring  its  first  chapter, 
on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  be  one  of  the  best,  if  not  the  very  best,  sym 
bolical  statement  ever  made. — From  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom,  i. 
749  sq. 

}  In  the  Ilomiktic  Quarterly  for  October,  1881.  p.  512. 


THE    KEVISED    VERSION.  391 

the  racy,  spirited,  rhythmical,  but  hasty,  loose,  and 
most  inaccurate  version  (being  the  first  published 
in  England)  made  by  Coverdale  for  his  Bible  of 
1536." 

AMERICAN    CO-OPERATION. 

Soon  after  the  organization  of  the  English  Com 
mittee  an  invitation  was  extended  to  American 
scholars  to  co-operate  with  them  in  this  work  of 
common  interest.  The  first  suggestion  of  Amer 
ican  co-operation  was  made  in  the  Canterbury  Con 
vocation  before  the  work  began,  and  was  favorably 
received.1  The  invitation  was  unsolicited,  and  was 
no  doubt  prompted  by  genuine  feelings  of  kind 
ness  and  courtesy,  which  characterized  all  the  sub 
sequent  correspondence.3  It  was  at  the  same  time 
good  policy.  For  the  American  churches  have 
too  much  self-respect  and  sense  of  independence  to 

1  A  well-informed  writer  in  the  London  Times,  May  20, 1881,  says :  "  On 
July  7,  1870,  it  was  moved  in  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation  by  the 
present  Prolocutor  (Lord  Alwyne  Compton)  that  the  Upper  House  should 
be  requested  to  instruct  the  Committee  of  Convocation  '  to  invite  the  co 
operation  of  some  American  divines.'     This  was  at  once  assented  to  by 
the  Upper  House.      It  was,  we   believe,  afterwards  unofficially  agreed 
that  Bishop  Wilberforce  and  the  Dean  of  Westminster  should  undertake 
to  act  for  the  Committee  in  opening  communications — the  Bishop  with 
the  Episcopal  Church,  the  Dean  with  the  leading  members  of  other  com 
munions.     The  result  of  this  was  that  towards  the  close  of  1871,  two  com 
mittees  were  formed  in  America  to  communicate  with  the  t\vo  English 
Companies  on  the  rules  that  had  been  already  laid  down  in  this  country." 

2  An  eminent  prelate,  a  member  of  the  Old  Testament  Company,  wrote, 
in  a  letter  dated  July  22, 1873  (published  after  his  death)  :  "  I  do  not  ex 
pect  a  great  deal  from  the  American  Committee."     Perhaps  the  majority 
of  his  colleagues  shared  in  this  sentiment  at  the  time.     But  the  English 
estimate  of  American  scholarship  increased  as  the  work  advanced,  and 
seven  years  later  was  handsomely  acknowledged  in  the  Preface. 


392  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

accept  for  public  use  a  new  version  of  the  Bible  in 
which  they  had  no  lot  or  share. 

The  correspondence  was  opened  by  a  letter  from 
Bishop  Ellicott,  chairman  of  the  New  Testament 
Company,  who  authorized  the  Rev.  Dr.  Angus,  one 
of  the  Revisers,  on  his  visit  to  the  United  States  in 
August,  1870,  to  prepare  the  way  for  official  action. 
Dr.  Angus  conferred  with  American  scholars,  and 
asked  one  of  them  to  draw  up  a  plan  of  co-operation 
and  to  suggest  a  list  of  names.  This  plan,  together 
with  a  list  that  contained  nearly  all  the  American  Re 
visers  and  a  few  others,  was  in  due  time  submitted  to 
and  approved  by  the  British  Committee.  In  view 
of  the  great  distance,  it  was  deemed  best  to  organize 
a  separate  committee,  that  should  fairly  represent 
the  biblical  scholarship  of  the  leading  churches  and 
literary  institutions  of  the  United  States.  Such  a 
Committee,  consisting  of  about  thirty  members,  was 
formally  organized,  December  7,  1871,  and  entered 
upon  active  work  on  October  4, 1872,  after  the  First 
Revision  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels  was  received  from 
England.  It  was  likewise  divided  into  two  Com 
panies,  which  met  every  month  (except  in  July  and 
August)  in  two  adjoining  rooms  rented  for  the  pur 
pose  in  the  Bible  House  at  New  York  (but  without 
any  connection  with  the  American  Bible  Society),1 
and  co-operated  with  their  English  brethren  on  the 
same  principles  and  with  the  intention  of  bringing 

1  The  American  Bible  Society  is  by  its  constitution  forbidden  to  circu 
late  any  other  English  Bible  except  the  Authorized  Version.  This  con 
stitution,  however,  may  be  changed  by  the  Society  whenever  the  Ke- 
vision  becomes  authorized  by  the  action  of  the  churches. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  393 

out  one  and  the  same  Revision  for  both  countries. 
Ex -president  Dr.  Woolsey,  of  New  Haven,  was 
elected  permanent  chairman  of  the  New  Testament 
Company,  Dr.  Green,  Professor  in  Princeton,  chair 
man  of  the  Old  Testament  Company.  Dr.  Schaff, 
of  New  York,  was  chosen  president,  and  Dr.  Day,  of 
New  Haven,  secretary,  of  the  whole  Committee,  and 
they  were  charged  with  the  management  of  the 
general  interests  of  the  two  Companies,  which  held 
joint  meetings  from  time  to  time.  The  former  was 
to  conduct  the  foreign  correspondence.  The  Ameri 
can  and  British  Committees  exchanged  the  results 
of  their  labors  in  confidential  communications.  The 
Preface,  which  hails  from  the  Jerusalem  Chamber, 
thus  describes  the  mode  of  co-operation : 

"Our  communications  with  the  American  Committee  have  been  of  the 
following  nature.  We  transmitted  to  them  from  time  to  time  each 
several  portion  of  our  First  Revision,  and  received  from  them  in  re 
turn  their  criticisms  and  suggestions.  These  we  considered  with  much 
care  and  attention  during  the  time  we  were  engaged  on  our  Second  Re 
vision.  We  then  sent  over  to  them  the  various  portions  of  the  Second 
Revision  as  they  were  completed,  and  received  further  suggestions,  which, 
like  the  former,  were  closely  and  carefully  considered.  Last  of  all,  we 
forwarded  to  them  the  Revised  Version  in  its  final  form ;  and  a  list  of 
those  passages  in  which  they  desire  to  place  on  record  their  preference  of 
other  readings  and  renderings  will  be  found  at  the  end  of  the  volume. 
We  gratefully  acknowledge  their  care,  vigilance,  and  accuracy ;  and  we 
humbly  pray  that  their  labors  and  our  own,  thus  happily  united,  may  be 
permitted  to  bear  a  blessing  to  both  countries,  and  to  all  English-speaking 
people  throughout  the  world." 

If  it  be  asked,  then,  by  what  authority  the  Ameri 
can  Committee  was  appointed,  we  can  only  say, 
by  the  authority  of  the  British  Committee,  vested 
in  it  from  the  beginning  by  the  Convocation  of 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Canterbury,  under  the  fifth  resolution.  The  Ameri 
can  churches  were  not  consulted,  except  the  Prot 
estant  Episcopal  Church,  which,  for  reasons  not 
stated,  declined  to  act  officially.1  The  selection  was 
carefully  made  from  expert  biblical  scholars  (mostly 
Professors  of  Greek  and  Hebrew),  and  with  an  eye 
to  a  fair  representation  of  the  leading  denomina 
tions  and  theological  institutions  of  the  country, 
within  the  necessary  limits  of  convenience  for 
united  work.  As  there  is  no  established  or  national 
Church  in  America,  and  all  denominations  are  equal 
before  the  law,  it  was  impossible  to  give  the  Epis 
copal  Church,  which  is  far  outnumbered  by  several 
other  churches,  the  same  preponderance  as  it  has  in 
the  English  Committee,  but  several  bishops  were  in 
vited  to  take  part,  one  of  whom  accepted,  and  proved 
one  of  the  most  faithful  and  valuable  members. 

To  secure  the  co-operation  of  scholars  from  the 
far  East,  West,  and  South,  who  could  not  be  ex- 

1  Bishop  Wilberforce,  as  chairman  of  the  Revision  Committee  of  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbury,  addressed  a  letter,  dated  August  7,  1871,  to 
the  senior  bishop,  requesting  the  American  bishops  to  take  part  in  the 
Revision;  but  the  House  of  Bishops,  at  the  triennial  convention  held  in 
Baltimore,  October,  1871,  passed  the  resolution  offered  by  the  Bishop  of 
New  York,  that  "  this  House,  having  had  no  part  in  originating  or  or 
ganizing  the  said  work  of  Revision,  is  not  at  present  in  a  condition  to 
deliver  any  judgment  respecting  it,"  etc.  (See  Journal  of  the  General 
Convention  for  1871,  pp.  358  and  615  sq.)  The  Bishop  of  New  York  was 
afterwards  requested  to  propose  Episcopal  divines  for  the  Committee,  but 
he  likewise  declined;  whereupon  the  whole  task  of  organizing  the  Ameri 
can  Committee  was  intrusted  by  the  English  Committee  to  the  gentleman 
who  had  previously,  at  the  request  of  Dr.  Angus,  drawn  up  a  plan  of  co 
operation  and  suggested  a  list  of  names.  The  Documentary  History,  to  be 
issued  by  the  American  Committee  after  the  completion  of  the  whole 
work,  will  contain  the  official  correspondence  in  full. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  395 

pected  to  make  monthly  journeys  to  Xew  York,  the 
American  Committee  wished  also  to  elect  a  number 
of  corresponding  members,  but  the  British  Com 
mittee  declined  to  furnish  confidential  copies  for 
the  purpose. 

With  this  exception  the  Committee  is  as  large 
and  representative  as  could  well  be  secured.  Ex 
perience  and  public  sentiment  have  fully  approved 
the  choice.1 

There  never  was  a  more  faithful  and  harmonious 
body  of  competent  scholars  engaged  in  a  more  im 
portant  work  on  the  American  Continent.  Repre 
sentatives  of  nine  different  denominations — Episco 
palians,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Baptists, 
Methodists,  Reformed,  also  one  Lutheran,  one  Uni 
tarian,  and  one  Friend — have  met  from  month  to 
month  and  year  to  year,  at  great  personal  incon 
venience  and  without  prospect  of  reward,  to  dis 
cuss  innumerable  questions  of  text  and  rendering. 
They  never  raised  a  sectarian  issue.  Their  simple 
purpose  was  to  give  to  the  people  in  idiomatic 
English  the  nearest  equivalent  for  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  on  the  basis  of  the  idiom  and 
vocabulary  of  the  Authorized  Version.  Christian 
courtesy,  kindness,  and  genuine  catholicity  of  spirit 
have  characterized  all  their  proceedings.  They  will 
ever  look  back  upon  these  monthly  meetings  in  the 
Bible  House  with  unmingled  satisfaction  and  thanks 
to  God,  who  gave  them  health  and  grace  to  go 
through  such  a  difficult  and  laborious  task  with  un- 

1  See  the  list  of  members  in  Appendix  III. 


396  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

broken  and  ever-deepening  friendship.  After  con 
cluding  their  work  (October  22,  1880),  the  members 
of  the  .New  Testament  Company  parted  with  min 
gled  feelings  of  joy  and  sadness.  Four  of  their 
number  (the  Rev.  Drs.  Horatio  B.  Ilackett,  Henry 
B.  Smith,  Charles  Hodge,  and  Professor  James  Had- 
ley)  had  died  before  the  work  was  completed  ;  two 
(tlie  Rev.  Dr.  Washburn  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Burr) 
died  soon  afterwards;  others  are  near  the  end  of 
their  earthly  journey,  and  will  soon  join  their  com 
panions  where  faith  is  changed  into  vision  and 
earthly  discords  are  lost  in  the  harmony  of  the  one 
kingdom  that  has  no  end. 

The  funds  for  the  necessary  expenses  of  travel 
ling,  printing,  room-rent,  books,  and  clerical  aid  were 
cheerfully  contributed  by  liberal  donors,  who  re 
ceived  in  return  a  handsome  inscribed  memorial 
copy  of  the  first  and  best  University  edition  of  the 
Revised  Version.  The  financial  management  was  in 
the  hands  of  well-known  Christian  laymen  of  New 
York,  whose  final  account  will  be  a  part  of  the  Docu 
mentary  History  now  in  course  of  preparation. 

THE    CONSTITUTION    OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE. 

The  Constitution  of  the  American  Committee 
was  first  submitted  in  draft  by  its  president  to 
several  leading  members  of  the  English  Committee, 
in  the  summer  of  1871,  and  adopted,  with  some 
modifications,  at  the  meeting  for  organization  on 
December  7,  1871.  It  is  as  follows: 

"  I.  The  American  Committee,  invited  by  the  British  Committee  en 
gaged  in  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized  English  Version  of  the  Holy 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  397 

Scriptures  to  co-opcratc  with  them,  shall  be  composed  of  biblical  scholars 
and  divines  in  the  United  States. 

"  IF.  This  Committee  shall  have  the  power  to  elect  its  officers,  to  add 
to  its  number,  and  to  fill  its  own  vacancies. 

"  III.  The  officers  shall  consist  of  a  President,  a  Corresponding  Secre 
tary,  and  a  Treasurer.1  The  President  shall  conduct  the  official  corre 
spondence  with  the  British  Revisers.  The  Secretary  shall  conduct  the 
home  correspondence. 

"IV.  New  members  of  the  committee  and  corresponding  members 
must  be  nominated  at  a  previous  meeting,  and  elected  unanimously  by 
ballot.3 

"V.  The  American  Committee  shall  co-operate  with  the  British  Com 
panies  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  and  rules  of  Revision  adopted  bv  the 
British  Committee. 

"VI.  The  American  Committee  shall  consist  of  two  Companies,  the 
one  for  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
other  for  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testament. 

"VII.  Each  Company  shall  elect  its  own  Chairman  and  Recording 
Secretary. 

"  VIII.  The  British  Companies  will  submit  to  the  American  Com 
panies,  from  time  to  time,  such  portions  of  their  work  as  have  passed  the 
First  Revision,  and  the  American  Companies  will  transmit  their  criticisms 
and  suggestions  to  the  British  Companies  before  the  Second  Revision. 

"  IX.  A  joint  meeting  of  the  American  and  British  Companies  shall 
be  held,  if  possible,  in  London,  before  final  action. 

"X.  The  American  Committee  to  pay  their  own  expenses,  and  to  have 
the  ownership  and  control  of  the  copyright  of  the  Revised  Version  in  the 
United  States  of  America."  3 


1  The  first  treasurer  was  one    of  the  Revisers,  Professor  Short:  but 
after  the  organization  of  a  Finance  Committee  of  laymen,  they  elected  one 
of  their  number, Mr.  Andrew  L.Taylor,  who  has  acted  as  treasurer  evet 
since.     He  is  also  treasurer  of  the  American  Bible  Society. 

2  No  corresponding  members  were  nominated,  owing  to  the  adverse 
action  of  the  British  Committee,  above  alluded  to  (p.  395). 

3  The  last  article,  as  far  as  it  refers  to  the  publication  of  the  Revision, 
was  abandoned  by  the  American  Committee  in  the  course  of  negotiations 
with  the  British  Universities,  as  will  be  shown  below. 


398  THE    EEYISED    VERSION. 

THE  RELATION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  AND  ENGLISH  COM 
MITTEES,  AND  THE  AGREEMENT  WITH  THE  UNIVER 
SITY  PRESSES. 

The  Americans,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  pre 
ceding  Constitution,  accepted  the  invitation  and 
entered  upon  the  work  with  the  understanding  on 
their  part  that  they  were  to  be  not  simply  advisers, 
but  fellow-revisers,  like  the  new  members  of  the 
English  Committee  who  had  been  appointed  by  the 
original  commission,  May  25,  1870,  under  the  fifth 
resolution  of  Convocation.  No  respectable  scholars, 
abundantly  engaged  in  useful  work,  would  have  been 
willing  to  bestow  ten  years'  labor  on  any  other 
terms;  nor  would  the  American  churches,  repre 
senting  a  larger  population  than  that  of  England, 
ever  accept  a  Revision  of  their  Bible  in  which  they 
had  no  positive  share  and  influence.  The  friends  of 
Revision  contributed  towards  the  expenses,  expect 
ing  it  to  be  in  some  way  a  joint  work  of  both  Com 
mittees.  The  whole  American  community  seems  to 
have  been  under  the  same  impression,  and  this  ex 
plains  the  enormous  demand  for  the  Revised  !S~ew 
Testament  in  this  country,  which  has  no  parallel 
in  the  histoVy  of  the  book  trade. 

The  natural  mode  of  exercising  the  full  right  of 
membership  is  by  a  vote  on  the  changes  to  be 
adopted.  But  absent  members  have  no  vote  in  the 
British  Committee,  and  the  intervening  ocean  made 
it  impossible  for  the  two  Committees  to  meet  jointly. 
The  ninth  article  of  the  American  Constitution  con 
templates  "a  joint  meeting"  to  be  held  in  London 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  399 

before  final  action,  "if  possible."  But  such  a  meet 
ing  was  found  impracticable,  and  was  superseded  by 
another  and  better  arrangement. 

Here,  then,  was  a  difficulty,  which  made  itself  felt 
at  an  early  stage  of  the  work.  It  led  to  delicate 
negotiations  with  the  British  Committee,  and  the 
Delegates  and  Syndics  of  the  University  Presses  of 
Oxford  and  Cambridge,  who  in  the  meantime  had 
acquired  from  the  British  Revisers  the  sole  right  of 
publication,  in  consideration  of  paying  all  their  ex 
penses.  The  British  Companies  declared,  in  July, 
1S73,  that  they  would  "  attach  great  weight  and 
importance  to  all  the  suggestions  of  the  American 
Committee,"  and  give  them  "  the  most  careful  con 
sideration,"  but  that  "  they  are  precluded  by  the 
fundamental  rules  of  their  Constitution  as  well  as 
by  the  terms  of  their  agreement  with  the  University 
Presses  from  admitting  any  persons,  not  members 
of  their  body,  to  take  part  in  their  decisions." 

The  Americans  were  unwilling  to  proceed  on  that 
basis,  and  sent  one  of  their  members  to  London  to 
advocate  their  literary  rights  as  fellow-Revisers,  and 
to  represent  to  the  English  brethren  that  much  of 
the  success  of  the  enterprise  with  the  American 
public  depended  upon  a  clear  understanding  of  this 
point.  After  a  full  and  manly  exchange  of  views 
in  the  Jerusalem  Chamber,  the  British  Companies 
proposed  a  plan  (July  15,  1875)  to  consolidate  the 
English  and  the  American  Committees  into  one 
corporation,  by  the  appointment  of  four  American 
Revisers  as  members  of  the  English  Revision  Com- 

O 

panics,  and  vice  versa. 


4:00  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

This  plan  was  certainly  all  that  the  Americans 
could  ask  or  wish,  and  more  than  they  could  expect, 
considering  that  the  English  began  the  work  and 
had  the  larger  share  of  responsibility.  The  pro 
posal  of  the  British  Companies  is  the  best  evidence 
of  their  sincere  desire  to  continue  the  connection 
on  the  most  honorable  and  liberal  terms. 

The  University  Presses,  which  have  sovereign 
control  over  all  questions  involving  the  publication, 
agreed  to  ratify  the  proposed  plan,  but  made  a  com 
mercial  condition  which  the  Americans  were  unable 
to  accept  at  the  time,  and  so  the  plan  fell  through. 
For  several  months  communication  was  suspended, 
and  the  American  Committee  went  on  independent 
ly  (revising  Isaiah  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews). 
But  in  July,  1876,  the  University  Presses  of  their 
own  accord  courteously  reopened  correspondence, 
and  invited  the  Americans  to  make  any  proposal, 
promising  to  take  it  into  respectful  consideration. 
The  negotiations  resulted  at  last  in  an  agreement, 
dated  August  3,  1877,  which  is  probably  the  best 
compromise  that  could  be  made  in  justice  to  all  the 
parties  concerned.  It  is  in  substance  as  follows : 

The  English  Revisers  promise  to  send  confiden 
tially  their  Revision  in  its  various  stages  to  the 
American  Revisers,  to  take  all  the  American  sug 
gestions  into  special  consideration  before  the  con 
clusion  of  their  labors,  to  furnish  them  before  pub 
lication  with  copies  of  the  Revision  in  its  final  form, 
and  to  allow  them  to  present,  in  an  Appendix  to  the 
Revised  Scriptures,  all  the  remaining  differences  of 
reading  and  rendering  of  importance,  which  the 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  401 

English  Committee  should  decline  to  adopt ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  American  Revisers  pledge 
themselves  to  give  their  moral  support  to  the  author 
ized  editions  of  the  University  Presses,  with  a  view 
to  their  freest  circulation  within  the  United  States, 
and  not  to  issue  an  edition  of  their  own,  for  a  term 
of  fourteen  years. 

By  this  arrangement  the  Americans  secured  the 
full  recognition  of  their  rights  as  fellow-Revisers. 
In  a  joint  meeting  in  London  the  changes  proposed 
in  the  Appendix  would  probahly  all  be  voted  down, 
for  the  English  Committee  is  much  more  numerous, 
and  knows  best  what  public  opinion  and  taste  in 
England  require  and  can  bear.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Americans  may  claim  the  same  advantage  as 
regards  the  views  of  their  countrymen.  In  consid 
eration  of  this  honorable  concession,  they  were  quite 
willing  to  forego  any  other  advantage. 

The  American  Committee  at  one  time,  as  the  last 
article  in  the  Constitution  shows,  considered  the 
expediency  of  securing  a  copyright  for  the  purpose 
of  protecting  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  text 
against  irresponsible  reprints,  and  also  as  a  means 
of  defraying  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  work,  in 
the  expectation  of  making  an  arrangement  with  an 
American  publisher  similar  to  that  which  the  Eng 
lish  Committee  made  with  the  University  Presses, 
instead  of  relying  on  voluntary  contributions  of 
friends.  Beyond  this  they  had  no  interest  in  the 
question  of  copyright.  But  after  careful  discus^ 
sion  the  American  Revisers  concluded  to  abandon 
the  plan  of  legal  protection,  even  for  the  Appendix 
26 


•i02  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

(which  is  exclusively  their  own  literary  property), 
and  to  give  the  Revised  Scriptures  free  to  the 
American  public.  The  University  Presses,  which 
are  the  authorized  publishers  of  King  James's  Ver 
sion  in  Great  Britain,  have  the  best  possible  facil 
ities  of  publication,  and  have  issued  the  Revised 
New  Testament  in  a  variety  of  forms  and  with  the 
greatest  typographical  accuracy.  They  have,  more 
over,  a  claim  on  the  public  patronage,  in  view  of 
their  large  outlay,  not  only  for  printing  and  pub 
lishing,  but  also  for  the  payment  of  the  expenses 
(8100,000)  of  the  British  Committee,  which  they 
assumed  at  a  time  when  the  success  of  the  enter 
prise  was  altogether  uncertain.  The  American  Re 
visers,  having  paid  their  own  expenses  from  volun 
tary  contributions,  are  under  no  obligation  to  any 
publishing  firm. 

The  new  version,  then,  as  to  copyright,  stands 
precisely  on  the  same  footing  with  the  Authorized 
Version  :  it  is  protected  Ijij  law  in  England ',  it  is  free 
in  America. 

The  American  Revisers  have  been  blamed  in  some 
quarters  for  abstaining  from  the  publication  of  an 
authorized  American  edition,  and  exposing  even  their 
own  Appendix  to  inevitable  piracy  and  mutilation. 
But  would  they  not  be  still  more  blamed  if  they 
had  given  any  publisher,  even  for  a  very  short  term, 
a  monopoly  over  all  the  rest?  The  plan  adopted 
is  undoubtedly  the  best  for  the  widest  and  cheap 
est  possible  circulation  of  the  Revised  Scriptures 
throughout  America  and  the  world.  The  only  in 
convenience  is  the  confusion  which  arises  from  the 


THE    REVISED    VEKSION.  403 

unlimited  license  of  unauthorized  publications  in 
America;  but  the  Authorized  Version  is  exposed 
to  the  same  danger,  and  the  success  of  any  edition 

O  t/ 

depends  ultimately  on  its  accuracy.  Before  many 
years  the  American  Bible  Society  may  issue  a  stand 
ard  edition  of  the  new  version  for  those  who  prefer 
it  to  the  old.  In  the  meantime  the  University  edi 
tions  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  which  cannot  be 
surpassed  in  accuracy  and  beauty,  are  the  only  au 
thorized  standards  sanctioned  by  the  British  and 
American  Committees. 

PUBLICATION. 

Tuesday,  the  17th  of  May,  and  Friday,  the  20th 
of  May,  of  the  year  1881,  deserve  to  be  remembered 
as  the  publication. days  of  the  lie  vised  English  New 
Testament — the  first  in  England,  the  second  in  the 
United  States.  They  form  an  epoch  in  the  history 
of  the  Bible,  and  furnish  a  valuable  testimony  to  its 
absolute  sovereignty  among  literary  productions. 
In  those  days  the  Gospel  was  republished  to  the 
whole  English-reading;  world  with  the  aid  of  all  the 

O  £? 

modern  facilities  which  the  printing-press  and  the 
telegraph  could  afford.  The  eagerness  of  the  pub 
lic  to  secure  the  Revision,  and  the  rapidity  and  ex 
tent  of  its  sale,  surpassed  all  expectations,  and  are 
without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  book  trade. 
In  the  year  30  of  our  era  the  Great  Teacher  ad 
dressed  twelve  disciples  and  a  fewr  thousand  hearers 
on  the  hills  of  Galilee  and  in  the  temple  court  at 
Jerusalem,  while  the  Greek  and  Horn  an  world  out 
side  of  Palestine  were  ignorant  of  His  very  exist- 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

ence ;  in  the  year  1881,  He  addressed  the  same 
words  of  truth  and  life  in  a  fresh  version  to  mill 
ions  of  readers  in  both  hemispheres.  Who  will 
doubt  that  the  New  Testament  has  a  stronger  hold 
upon  mankind  now  than  ever  before,  and  is  be 
yond  all  comparison  the  most  popular  book  among 
the  two  most  civilized  nations  of  the  earth  ? 

On  the  17th  of  May,  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester 
and  Bristol  laid  the  first  copy  of  the  Revised  New 
Testament  before  the  two  houses  of  the  Convoca 
tion  of  Canterbury  assembled  in  Westminster,  and 
then,  in  an  address  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  gave  a 
succinct  history  of  the  Revision. 

On  the  same  day  the  sale  began,  but  it  was  im 
possible  to  supply  the  demand.  "  Orders  for  a  mill 
ion  Oxford  copies"  (including  the  orders  from 
America)  had  been  received  before  publication.1 
Probably  the  same  number  was  ordered  from  the 
Cambridge  University  Press;  for  a  telegram  from 
London,  May  21,  1881,  reported  the  sale  of  "two 
million  copies  of  the  Revised  New  Testament"  in 
that  city.  In  the  United  States  the  sale  of  the 
University  editions  began  on  the  20th  of  May  be 
fore  day-break,  and  the  pressure  to  the  salesrooms 
in  New  York  and  Philadelphia  was  without  a  prec 
edent.  The  New  York  agent  of  the  Clarendon 
Press  sold  365,000  copies  of  the  Oxford  edition 
before  the  close  of  the  year,  mostly  during  the  first 


1  This  I  learned  from  Mr.  Henry  Frowde,  the  London  agent  of  the 
Clarendon  Press.  After  the  appearance  of  American  reprints  the  demand 
for  English  copies  greatly  diminished. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  405 

few  days.1  Messrs.  Lippincott  &  Co.,  the  agents 
of  the  Cambridge  Press,  sold  about  80,000  copies 
in  Philadelphia,  and  Messrs.  A.  J.  Holman  &  Co. 
about  30,000  in  the  same  city  (besides  20,000  of 
their  own  issue). 

To  this  sale  of  the  English  editions  must  be  added 
the  sale  of  the  American  reprints.  A  few  days 
after  publication  the  book  was  reproduced  in  differ 
ent  shapes.  Edition  followed  edition,  and  before 
the  close  of  1881  thirty  or  more  American  reprints, 
good,  bad,  and  indifferent,  were  in  the  market.  One 
firm  sold  during  the  summer  over  100,000  copies, 
another  65,000  copies. 

It  is  probably  not  too  much  to  say  that  within 
less  than  one  year  three  million  copies  of  the  book, 
in  all  editions,  were  actually  bought  and  more  or 
less  read  in  Great  Britain  and  America. 

This  estimate  does  not  include  the  immense  cir 
culation  through  the  periodical  papers  of  the  United 
States,  which  published  the  Eevised  New  Testament 
in  whole  or  in  part,  and  did  for  two  or  three  weeks 
the  work  of  as  many  Bible  Societies.  Two  daily 
papers  in  Chicago  (The  Tribune  and  The  Times)  had 
the  book  telegraphed  to  them  from  ]STew  York,  and 
sent  it  to  their  readers  two  days  after  publication,  at 
a  distance  of  nine  hundred  and  seventy-eight  miles.2 

1  So  the  agent  informed  me.     His  annual  sales  of  the  Oxford  editions 
of  the  Authorized  Version  average  150,000. 

2  The  Tribune  employed  for  the  purpose  ninety-two  compositors  and 
five  correctors,  and  the  whole  work  was  completed  in  twelve  hours.     Tht 
Times  boastfully  says  of  its  own  issue:  "Such  a  publication  as  this  is 
entirely  without  precedent.    It  indicates  on  the  one  hand  the  wide-spread 
desire  to  see  the  Revised  Version,  and  on  the  other  the  ability  of  The 


406  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Such  facts  stand  isolated  and  alone  in  the  whole 
history  of  literature,  and  furnish  the  best  answer  to 
the  attacks  and  sneers  of  modern  infidelity,  which 
•would  fain  make  the  world  believe  that  the  Bible 
is  antiquated.  All  the  ancient  and  modern  classics 
together,  if  they  were  reissued  in  improved  editions 
and  translations,  could  not  awaken  such  an  interest 
and  enthusiasm.  England  and  America  have  lion- 

c!> 

ored  themselves  by  thus  honoring  the  Bible,  and 
proved  its  inseparable  connection  with  true  freedom 
and  progress. 

NOTES. 

The  following  extracts  from  New  York  papers  give  a  lively  impression 
of  the  extraordinary  sensation  caused  by  the  publication  of  the  Revised 
New  Testament.  Halving  due  allowance  for  the  unpleasant,  but  inevita 
ble,  admixture  of  the  commercial  aspect,  there  still  remains  an  unusual 
amount  of  religious  interest,  which  even  the  most  secular  papers  had  to 
acknowledge.  Curiosity  had  been  raised  to  the  highest  pitch  by  the 
silence  of  the  Revisers.  With  the  exception  of  the  premature  publica 
tion  of  the  principal  changes,  by  the  indiscretion  of  a  London  newspaper 
(Jan.  7,  1881),  the  public  were  kept  ignorant  of  the  character  of  the  Revi 
sion,  in  spite  of  repeated  attempts  of  enterprising  reporters  in  London  and 
New  York  to  secure  a  copy.  One  such  reporter  ingeniously  approached 
the  President  of  the  American  Committee  by  special  messenger  from  one 
of  the  first  hotels  in  New  York,  under  the  assumed  name  of  Mr.  Henry 
Frowde,  the  London  agent  of  the  Oxford  Press,  who  pretended  to  have 
just  arrived  to  superintend  the  sale,  and  requested  the  loan  of  a  copy  for 
a  few  minutes  before  he  could  get  access  to  his  boxes  on  the  steamer! 

Times  to  supply  the  public  with  what  is  wanted.  The  Four  Gospels,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  were  telegraphed 
from  New  York.  This  portion  of  the  New  Testament  contains  about  one 
hundred  and  eighteen  thousand  words,  and  constitutes  by  many  fold  the 
largest  dispatch  ever  sent  over  the  wires.  The  remainder  of  the  work  was 
printed  from  the  copies  of  the  Revised  Testament  received  here  last  night." 
See  The  Tribune  and  The  Times,  of  Chicago,  for  May  22, 1881. 


THE   KEVISED    VERSION.  407 

Mr.  Frowde  was  invited  to  tea,  but  failed  to  make  his  appearance,  and  left 
for  unknown  parts. 

From  The  N.  Y.  Herald.  May  21,  1881. 

"The  publishing  house  of  Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons,  corner  of  Mulberry 
and  Bleecker  streets,  was  the  scene  of  unusual  excitement  yesterday  morn 
ing.  The  firm  are  the  agents  in  this  country  for  the  Oxford  Bibles,  and, 
as  might  naturally  be  inferred,  their  business  is  ordinarily  decorous  and 
solemn.  To  say  that  this  was  reversed  yesterday  is  saying  very  little. 
Long  before  daylight  the  doors  were  opened  for  the  delivery  of  the  Ke- 
vised  Testament,  and  at  four  o'clock  the  scene  about  the  building  was  an 
animated  one.  Trucks  of  all  sizes  and  character  were  backed  up  around 
the  place,  and  truckmen  discussed  the  situation  in  language  that  would 
not  have  been,  it  is  safe  to  say,  entirely  pleasing  to  the  biblical  revisers 
had  they  heard  it.  Huge  boxes  wrere  rolled  out  and  carted  away,  the 
vacancy  left  by  each  departing  wagon  to  be  filled  at  once  by  a  new  one. 
This  went  on  for  hours  with  little  or  no  abatement.  The  members  of  the 
firm  and  the  clerks  and  porters  were  utterly  fagged  out  before  noon;  but 
the  work  went  on  until  late  in  the  day,  when  a  rest  was  had  by  shutting 
the  doors,  and  letting  all  hands  go  home  until  this  morning. 

"THE  BIBLE  BY  WHOLESALE. 

"  The  orders  yesterday  aggregated  about  175.000  copies,  of  various  styles 
and  prices,  and  these  were  for  the  most  part  large  orders,  it  being  abso 
lutely  impossible  to  find  time  to  attend  to  the  smaller  ones.  The  retail 
prices  of  the  books  range  from  15  cents  to  $10;  and  the  firm  state  that 
they  were  surprised  at  the  unusual  demand  for  the  higher-priced  and 
finer  bindings.  So  great  was  this  demand  that  the  first  supply  of  these 
finer  books  received  from  England  was  almost  exhausted.  The  demand 
from  city  dealers  was  large,  and  included  all  of  the  various  styles.  Many 
thousands  of  the  books  were  shipped  to  the  West,  but  the  greatest  num 
ber  of  orders  were  received  from  the  Eastern  States.  These  orders  were 
mostly  for  a  limited  number,  at  the  lower  prices,  and  it  appears  as  if  the 
New  England  dealers  intended  to  first  satisfy  themselves  of  the  selling 
quality  of  the  books  before  investing  largely.  The  styles  of  the  books 
purchased  were  as  follows:  Nonpareil  32mo.  paper  cover,  retails  for  15 
cents  per  copy;  cloth,  limp,  cut  flush,  red  edges,  retailed  for  20  cents. 
Nonpareil  32mo,  French  morocco,  gilt  edges,  65  cents;  Venetian  morocco, 
limp,  gilt  edges,  80  cents;  Turkey  morocco,  limp,  gilt  edges,  $1  75;  Tur 
key  morocco,  circuit,  gilt  edges,  $2  50;  Levant,  $4.  Brevier,  IGrno,  cloth, 


408  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

limp,  red  edges,  50  cents ;  Levant,  $5  25.  Long  primer,  8vo,  cloth,  boards, 
red  edges,  $1 ;  Levant,  $7  50.  Pica,  demy  8vo,  cloth,  bevelled  boards,  red 
edges,  $2  50;  Levant,  $10.  Pica,  royal  8vo,  cloth,  bevelled  boards,  red 
edges,  $4  ;  Levant,  $16.  The  largest  order  \vas  for  15,000  copies  and  the 
smallest  one  copy. 

"Almost  with  the  break  of  day  came  men  who  wanted  to  buy  single  cop 
ies.  None  were  sold,  and  the  demand,  after  a  time,  became  so  great  that 
the  following  sign  was  posted  on  the  door: 

NO  GOODS  AT  RETAIL. 

"  Even  this  did  not  have  the  desired  effect  in  individual  cases,  though 
it  succeeded  in  keeping  away  the  larger  number  of  would-be  purchasers. 
The  clerks  managed  to  keep  their  tempers,  though  sorely  tried  by  the 
thousand  and  one  questions  put  to  them  about  the  Testament  and  iis 
revision.  .  .  . 

"THE   KIHLK   IX    WALL    STIIKKT. 

"  It  was  certainly  an  unaccustomed  if  not  an  unprecedented  sight  which 
was  witnessed  in  Wall  street  yesterday  morning,  when  a  half-dozen  enter 
prising  street  venders  appeared,  carrying  trays  loaded  with  small  and 
neatly  bound  volumes,  and  shouting,  'Bibles,  only  a  quarter!'  'The  Re 
vised  New  Testament  for  only  twenty-five  cents !'  The  pedlers,  who  were 
mostly  active  young  men.  were  apparently  very  successful.  The  sidewalk 
merchant  who  first  took  his  stand  at  the  corner  of  Wall  and  Broad  streets 
was  speedily  surrounded  by  a  crowd.  Passers-by  stopped  first  to  investi 
gate  and  then  to  invest ;  and  scores  of  brokers  and  bankers,  young  clerks 
and  Stock  Exchange  operators,  were  seen  to  walk  away  with  a  copy  of  the 
book  in  their  hands  or  bulging  from  their  pockets.  Some  of  the  dealers 
sold  out  all  they  had  on  their  trays,  and  went  away  to  return  with  a  fresh 
supply.  Altogether,  several  hundred  New  Testaments  must  have  been 
disposed  of  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Stock  Exchange  during  the  day. 
In  fact,  the  book  went  off  at  such  a  rapid  rate  as  to  inspire  one  with  the 
suspicion  that  perhaps  the  brokers  were  about  to  get  up  a  '  corner '  in  the 
Scriptures. 

"The  novelty  of  the  scene  excited  much  comment.  One  old  gen 
tleman,  as  he  alighted  from  a  cab  in  front  of  his  banker's  office,  ex 
claimed  : 

"'Well,  the  millennium  must  be  at  hand,  sure  enough!  I  never  ex 
pected  to  live  to  see  the  Bible  sold  in  \Vall  street.  They  need  it  here 
badly  enough,  Lord  knows!  Here,  young  man,  I'll  take  two  copies,  just 
to  set  a  good  example.' " 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  409 

From  The  N.  Y.  Tribune,  May  21,  1881. 

"The  sales  of  the  Revised  Testament  yesterday  exceeded  300,000  cop 
ies,  and  great  eagerness  was  shown,  by  clergymen  in  particular,  to  obtain 
them.  The  fact  that  a  number  of  preachers  propose  to  use  the  new  ver 
sion  in  their  services  to-morrow,  proves  that  there  is  a  strong  disposition 
to  accept  it  promptly.  It  remains  to  be  seen,  however,  whether  this  dis 
position  will  be  general,  or  whether  the  revised  text  must  win  its  way 
slowlv  into  the  affections  of  the  Christian  world,  which  has  learned  to  re 
gard  the  King  James  translation  with  almost  as  much  reverence  as  if  it 
were  itself  inspired." 

From  The  N.  Y.  Times,  May  22,  1881. 

"The  demand  for  the  revised  edition  of  the  New  Testament  continued 
with  unabated  activity  all  clay  yesterday.  The  street  venders  did  a 
thriving  business  in  the  cheap  styles  of  binding,  and  the  principal  book 
stores  were  thronged  with  purchasers.  Mr.  Thomas  Nelson,1  of  Thomas 
Nelson  &  Son,  Bleecker  Street,  said  that  orders  continued  to  flow  in  on 
pretty  much  the  same  scale  as  on  Friday.  lie  had  been  compelled  to 
decline  new  orders  unless  the  persons  ordering  consented  to  wait  their 
turns.  lie  was  constantly  receiving  telegraphic  orders  from  all  parts  of 
the  country.  One  house  in  Philadelphia  telegraphed  for  five  thousand 
copies  of  one  style,  besides  copies  of  other  styles.  ...  In  speaking  of  the 
extraordinary  demand  for  the  book,  he  said  that  the  efforts  of  publishers 
and  newspapers  to  obtain  advance  copies  bordered  on  the  ludicrous.  It 
was  his  belief  that  he  could  have  got  i$5000  for  a  single  copy  as  late  as 
twelve  o'clock  on  Thursday  night. 

"  The  store  of  I.  K.  Funk  &  Co.,  Nos.  10  and  12  Dey  Street,  was  crowded 
all  day  yesterday.  Mr.  Funk  said  that  the  retail  trade  and  the  demand 
for  job  lots  were  even  greater  than  on  Friday.  Especially  remarkable 
was  the  demand  of  street  venders.  Some  of  these  men  had  sold  as  many 
as  tive  hundred  copies  of  the  twenty-cent  style  up  to  two  o'clock  Saturday 
afternoon." 

From  The  (New  York)  Independent,  May  26,  1881. 
"'Here's  yer  New  Testament,  jist  out,'  is  the  cry  of  the  newsboy  on 
the  street.     This  is  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  were  sold  in  this  way.     The  demand  for  the  Revised 

1  [Mr.  Nelson,  who  resides  in  Edinburgh,  was  represented  by  Mr.  Garvin 
Houston.— £"(/.] 


410  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Version,  though  not  greater  than  was  expected,  is  very  great ;  people 
who  had  scarcely  read  a  chapter  in  the  King  James  Version  buying  copies 
of  the  new  book,  'jist  out,'  to  examine  it  for  themselves.  Everywhere — 
on  the  cars,  on  the  ferry-boats,  and  in  other  public  conveyances  and 
places — attentive  readers  of  the  revised  book  are  to  be  seen ;  r.nd  the 
most  frequent  question,  when  two  friends  meet,  is,  '  Have  you  seen  the 
New  Testament?  How  do  you  like  it?'  In  church,  and  particularly  in 
the  Sunday-school,  copies  of  the  new  book  were  to  be  seen  last  Sunday, 
and  a  number  of  ministers  gave  their  views  of  it  from  the  pulpit.  One 
of  the  New  York  dailies  says  it  will  take  the  place  of  the  dime  novel  for 
a  while  on  the  news-stands." 

From  The  New  York  Observe);  May  26,  1881. 

"No  event  of  modern  times  has  excited  more  universal  interest  among 
the  English-speaking  nations  than  the  publication  of  the  Revised  New 
Testament.  The  number  of  copies  sold  in  England  and  in  the  United 
States  within  a  few  days  has  been  unprecedented  in  the  history  of  books, 
amounting  in  England  to  two  millions,  and  in  this  country  to  the  extent 
of  the  edition  imported,  which  was  350.000.  Already  the  book  has  been 
reprinted,  and  various  editions  will  be  sold  by  the  hundred  thousand.  In 
addition  to  the  sales  at  the  book-stores  and  book-stands,  the  strange 
spectacle  was  seen,  on  Friday  and  Saturday,  of  the  New  Testament,  beau 
tifully  printed  and  handsomely  bound,  sold  by  volunteer  colporteurs  bv 
the  hundred  on  Broadway  and  Wall  Street,  and  in  other  marts  of  business. 
The  amount  of  attention  it  has  received  in  private  reading  and  in  conver 
sation  is  equally  amazing.  Whatever  shall  be  the  fate  of  the  New  Re 
vision,  it  forms  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  Bible,  and  shows  the 
universal  and  intense  hold  which  the  book  of  God  has  upon  the  minds,  if 
not  the  hearts,  of  the  people." 

From  The  American  Bookseller,  June  1,  1881. 

"Philadelphia,  May  26,  1881. 

''The  publication  of  the  New  Revision  of  the  New  Testament  has  been 
attended  with  more  interest  in  this  city  than  that  of  any  other  work  ever 
published.  The  consignment  to  Messrs.  J.  B.  Lippincott,  who  were  the 
agents  of  the  Cambridge  University  Tress,  came  in  two  lots,  one  by  the 
steamer  Montreal  into  New  York,  and  the  other  by  the  Lord  dive  to  the 
port  of  Philadelphia.  Those  by  the  New  York  boat  were  not  put  on  the 
wharf  till  after  twelve  o'clock  the  morning  of  the  20th,  and  were  delivered 
at  sunrise  to  New  York  parties  by  their  brokers.  Those  by  Philadelphia 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  411 

steamer  arrived  at  their  warehouse  at  noon  on  the  19th,  and  gave  them 
just  time  enough  with  their  large  force  to  pack  and  ship  before  eight 
o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  20th.  There  was  not  much  time  to  spare, 
and  some  anxiety  was  felt  that  they  would  be  too  late  for  the  day  fixed 
for  publication. 

"The  reporters  of  the  newspapers  seemed  to  vie  with  each  other  in 
gathering  the  facts  and  fancies  in  relation  to  its  publication.  And  in 
these  reports  there  is  much  to  amuse,  believe,  and  to  be  largely  dis 
counted.  .  .  . 

"Next  in  interest  to  the  publication  and  sale  of  the  Testament  printed 
by  the  University  is  the  enterprise  among  publishers  and  electrotypers  in 
the  production  of  reprints.  Fagan  is  making  thirteen  sets  of  plates; 
Fergusson,  successor  to  S.  A.  George  &  Co.,  is  making  seven  sets ;  A.  J. 
Ilolman  &  Co.  inform  us  that  they  will  have  three  different  reprints,  and 
will  also  issue  it  in  quarto  form  with  the  Old  Testament.  The  National 
Publishing  Company,  Hubbard  Bros.,  and  Potter  &  Co.  announce  editions 
to  be  sold  only  by  subscription.  Porter  &  Coates  have  ready  The  Com 
parative  Edition,  embracing  the  New  Revision  and  the  King  James 
Version." 

It  is  proper  to  add  that  after  this  immense  rush  the  sale  of  the  Uni 
versity  editions  and  of  all  American  editions  fell  off  rapidly,  and  a  reaction 
took  place  in  favor  of  the  old  version.  This  is  due  in  part  to  the  un 
favorable  criticisms  on  the  Revision,  and  in  part,  as  I  am  informed  by  one 
of  the  leading  Bible  publishers,  to  "  the  great  change  in  the  typographical 
appearance  and  the  substitution  of  paragraphs  for  the  familiar  verses." 
He  thinks  "that  the  people  would  have  accepted  the  changes  in  tho 
translation  much  more  readily  had  the  general  appearance  of  the  old 
Bible  been  adhered  to." 

RECEPTION,   CRITICISM,   AND    PROSPECT. 

The  Revisers,  familiar  with  the  history  of  pre 
vious  revisions  from  Jerome's  Vulgate  down  to 
King  James's  Version,  were  .prepared  for  a  great 
deal  of  opposition,  though  hopeful  of  ultimate  suc 
cess.  They  well  knew  that  their  work  was  imper 
fect,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to  please  all.  They 
themselves  had  to  sacrifice  their  individual  prefer- 


412  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

cnccs  to  the  will  of  the  majority.1  A  product  of  so 
many  minds  and  intended  for  so  many  churches 
must  necessarily  be  a  compromise,  but  for  this  very 
reason  is  more  likely  to  satisfy  the  general  wants 
and  demands. 

The  extraordinary  interest  of  the  Anglo-Amer 
ican  public  in  the  Revision  showed  itself  at  once  in 
the  number  and  diversity  of  criticisms.  Never  was 
any  book,  within  so  short  a  time,  so  much  discussed, 
reviewed,  praised,  and  condemned  by  the  press,  from 
the  pulpit,  in  private  circles,  and  public  meetings. 
In  the  language  of  a  British  scholar,  "  there  never 
was  a  time  when  the  attention  of  so  great  a  variety 
of  well-qualified  critics  has  been  concentrated  on 
the  problem  of  the  relation  between  the  Greek  text 
and  the  English  version,  and  the  best  way  of  repre 
senting  the  one  by  the  other."  2 

The  iirst  and  the  prevailing  impression  was  one 
of  disappointment  and  disapproval,  especially  in 
England.  The  expectations  of  the  public  were  un 
reasonable  and  conflicting.  Many  were  in  hopes 
that  the  revision  would  supersede  commentaries, 
and  clear  up  all  the  difficulties;  instead  of  that, they 
found  the  same  obscurities,  and  a  perplexing  number 
of  marginal  notes,  raising  as  many  questions  of  read 
ing  or  rendering.  The  liberals  looked  for  more, 
the  conservatives  for  fewer,  departures  from  the  old 

1  The  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  himself  one  of  the  Revisers,  says  (in  his 
Charye,  1882,  p.  18)  :  "The  Version  as  it  stands  does  not  exhibit  the  real 
judgment  t>f  any  of  the  Revisers.     Each  one  was,  many  times,  outvoted  in 
points  which  he  greatly  valued/' 

2  From  "The  Church  Quarterly  Review,"  London,  January,  1883.  p. 345. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  413 

version.  Some  wanted  the  language  modernized, 
others  preferred  even  the  antiquated  words  and 
phrases,  including  the  "winches"  and  the  "devils." 
A  few  would  prefer  a  more  literal  rendering ;  but 
a  much  greater  number  of  critics,  including  some 
warm  friends  and  even  members  of  the  Committee, 
charge  the  Revision  with  sacrificing  grace  and  ease, 
poetry  and  rhythm,  to  pedantic  fidelity.  The  same 
objection  is  made  by  literary  critics  who  care  more 
for  classical  English  than  the  homely  Hebraistic 
Greek  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists.  The  only 
point  in  which  the  adverse  critics  agree  is  opposition 
to  the  new  version  as  wholly  unfit  to  displace  the 
old. 

The  strongest  condemnation  and  the  most  formi- 

O 

dable  assaults  have  come  from  conservative  admirers 
of  the  received  Greek  text  and  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion.  Most  of  them  had  previously  resisted  all  at 
tempts  at  revision  as  a  sort  of  sacrilege,  and  found 
their  worst  fears  realized.  They  were  amazed  and 
shocked  at  the  havoc  made  with  their  favorite  notions 
and  pet  texts.  How  many  sacred  associations,  they 
said,  are  ruthlessly  disturbed  !  How  many  edifying 
sermons  spoiled  !  Even  the  Lord's  Prayer  has  been 
tampered  with,  and  a  discord  thrown  into  the  daily 
devotions.  The  inspired  text  is  changed  and  un 
settled,  the  faith  of  the  people  in  God's  holy  Word 
is  undermined,  and  aid  and  comfort  given  to  the 
enemy  of  all  religion.  We  need  not  be  surprised 
at  such  talk,  for  to  the  great  mass  of  English  readers 
King  James's  Yersion  is  virtually  the  inspired  Word 
of  God.  So  for  Roman  Catholics,  the  Vulgate  of 


414:  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Jerome,  with  all  its  blunders,  occupies  the  place  of 
the  original,  and  the  voice  of  the  infallible  Church 
or  Pope  is  to  them  the  very  voice  of  God.  Religious 
prejudices  are  the  deepest  of  all  prejudices,  and  re 
ligious  conservatism  is  the  most  conservative  of  all 

G 

conservatisms.  It  may  take  a  whole  generation  to 
emancipate  the  mass  of  the  people  from  the  tyranny 
of  ignorance  and  prejudice.  In  all  this  opposition 
we  should  not  forget  that  its  extent  and  intensity 
reveal  a  praiseworthy  attachment  to  the  Bible.  In 
no  other  nation  would  a  new  version  have  met  with 
so  many  and  such  earnest  protests  as  among  the 
English  and  Americans,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
there  is  not  among  any  other  people  the  same  de 
gree  of  interest  in  the  book. 

In  the  meantime,  however,  the  Revision  has  been 
steadily  gaining  ground  among  scholars  and  thought 
ful  laymen  who  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the 
rival  versions  with  the  Greek  original.  This,  of 
course,  is  the  only  proper  test.  With  a  few  con 
spicuous  exceptions,  the  verdict  of  competent  judges 
has  been  favorable,  and  the  force  of  the  exceptions 
is  broken  by  the  intemperance  and  bitterness  of  the 
opposition.  Whatever  be  the  defects  of  the  Re 
vision — and  the}7  are  not  a  few — it  is  admitted  to  be 
the  most  faithful  and  accurate  version  ever  made  for 
popular  use,  and  that  it  brings  the  English  reader 
far  nearer  to  the  spirit  and  words  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  than  any  other  version.  This  is  its  chief 
merit,  and  it  alone  is  sufficient  compensation  for  all 
the  labor  and  expense  devoted  to  it.  An  able  writer 
from  the  Church  of  England,  after  reviewing  the 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  415 

short  history  and  large  literature  of  the  Revision 
during  the  last  eighteen  months,  emphatically  de 
clares  his  "  unshaken  conviction  that,  after  all  rea 
sonable  deductions  have  been  made,  the  Revisers 
have  earned  the  deep  respect  and  gratitude  of  all 
who  can  appreciate  the  importance  of  supplying  the 
English  reader  with  an  exact  interpretation  of  the 
Word  of  God."  ' 

Upon  the  whole,  the  Revision  is  more  popular  in 
America  than  in  England,  although  it  is  more  an 

O  O 

English  work.  Many  ministers  (especially  among 
Congregationalists  and  Baptists,  who  are  not  ham 
pered  by  church  authority)  use  it  already  in  the 
pulpit,  either  alone  or  alongside  of  the  old  ver 
sion.  The  rising  generation  is  familiarized  with  it 
in  Sunday-schools,  Bible-classes,  and  through  popular 
comments.  Religious  periodicals  present  from  week 
to  week  the  international  lessons  in  both  versions 
in  parallel  columns;  and  the  comparison  of  the  two 

1  In  the  Review  above  quoted,  p.  345;  compare  the  conclusion,  p.  368. 
where  the  critic  protests  "against  the  absolute  indecorum  of  assailing  the 
work  of  these  distinguished  scholars  with  words  of  disrespect  and  con- 
tumelv,"  and  adds:  "  In  all  the  qualities  that  are  most  requisite  for  such 
an  undertaking,  they  tower  high  above  the  heads  of  all  but  a  very  small 
number  among  their  assailants.  For  their  protracted,  patient,  generous 
labors,  they  deserve  the  gratitude  of  all  to  whom  God's  Word  is  precious, 
and  who  wish  the  Gospel  to  be  proclaimed  in  England  with  the  utmost 
clearness  which  the  most  exact  translation  of  the  message  can  impart." 
To  this  may  be  added  the  judgment  of  Canon  F.  W.  Farrar,  who  says 
(in  the  "  Contemp.  Review  "  for  March,  1882,  p.  380)  :  "  In  spite  of  the 
bitter  attacks  which  have  been  made  upon  the  version,  it  will  come  to 
be  regarded  by  ever-increasing  numbers  as  one  of  the  best  boons  which 
has  been  bestowed  upon  them  by  the  learning,  the  fearlessness,  and  the 
faithfulness  of  the  ripest  scholars  and  divines  whom  the  nineteenth 
centurv  can  boast." 


416  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

is  found  stimulating  and  profitable.  Even  opponents 
use  the  Revision,  and  admit  its  value  as  a  commentary. 
It  would  be  premature  to  predict  the  course  of 
the  Convocation  of  Canterbury.  It  will  not  act  on 
the  Revision  before  the  Old  Testament  is  completed. 
Then  three  ways  will  be  open — to  reject,  to  recom 
mit,  to  adopt.  The  Convocation  is  not  likely  to 
disown  and  destroy  her  own  child.  A  revision  of 
the  Revision,  by  recommitment  to  the  old,  or  by  the 
appointment  of  a  new,  Committee,  is  surrounded  by 
almost  as  many  difficulties  as  the  original  movement. 
If  the  adverse  critics  could  agree  among  themselves 
about  a  limited  number  of  changes  backward  or 
forward,  it  would  be  an  easy  matter  for  the  old 
Committee  to  reconvene  and  vote  on  these  specific 
changes;  but  there  is  no  such  agreement.  A  new 
Committee  (which  would  have  to  be  composed,  like 
the  old,  of  scholars  of  all  theological  schools  and 
denominations),  to  do  justice  to  themselves  and  to 
the  work,  would  have  to  go  through  the  whole 
laborious  and  expensive  process  of  ten  or  more 
years,  and  could  at  best  only  produce  another  com 
promise  between  conflicting  principles  and  opinions. 
The  adoption  of  the  Revision  as  it  is  will  be  strongly 
opposed  by  an  able  and  influential  party.  But  it 
would  be  sufficient,  and  perhaps  the  wisest  course 
(we  speak  with  becoming  modesty,  as  an  outsider), 
if  Convocation  would  authorize  the  optional  use  of 
the  Revised  Version,  and  leave  the  ultimate  result 
to  the  future,  as  in  the  case  of  King  James's  Version, 
which  gradually  and  slowly  superseded  the  Bishops' 
Bible  and  the  Geneva  Bible. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  417 

Acknowledged  inconsistencies  and  other  minor 

^ 

blemishes  ought  to  be  corrected  by  the  Revisers 
themselves  before  the  Revision  is  finally  acted 
upon  and  placed  beyond  their  control.  Such  edit 
ing  would  require  no  additional  authority. 

The  non-episcopal  denominations  are  more  free 
to  use  the  Revision,  even  without  special  legislation. 
They  had  no  share  in  King  James's  Version,  though 
strongly  attached  to  it  by  long  habit ;  they  are  not 
bound  by  canons  and  rubrics,  and  an  obligatory 
liturgy.  Some  may  formally  authorize  the  Re 
vision,  others  will  leave  its  use  to  the  option  of 
pastors  and  congregations.  It  will  certainly  be  used 
more  and  more  in  public  and  private  as  the  highest 
standard  of  accuracy  and  fidelity,  until  it  shall  be 
superseded  by  a  better  one  at  some  future  genera 
tion.  It  might  be  well  to  revise  the  Bible  every 
fifty  years,  to  induce  the  people  to  read  it. 

The  Anglo-American  Revision  is  not  the  best 
possible,  but  the  best  existing  version,  and  as  good 
as  the  present  generation  of  scholars  hailing  from 
different  churches  and  countries  can  produce.  If 
we  cannot  have  the  very  best,  let  us  prefer  the  bet 
ter  to  the  good. 

THE    MERITS    OF    THE    REVISION    AS    COMPARED    WITH 
THE    OLD    VERSION. 

The  changes  wThich  distinguish  the  Revised  Eng 
lish  Testament  from  the  Authorized  Version  may 
be  classified  as  follows : 

1.  An  older  and  purer  text  in  the  place  of  the 
traditional  text. 

27 


418  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

2.  Correction  of  acknowledged  errors  of  transla 
tion. 

3.  Accuracy  and  consistency  in  the  rendering  of 
the   article,  modes,  voices,  tenses,  prepositions,  and 
particles,  etc. 

4.  Removal   of  artificial    distinctions   caused  by 
needless  variations  in  words  and  proper  names. 

5.  Restoration  of  real  distinctions,  which  are  ob 
literated  by  rendering  two  or  more  distinct  terms  in 
the  same  way. 

G.  Intelligible  words  and  phrases  in  place  of  mis 
leading  and  obsolete  archaisms. 

7.  Revision  and  reduction  of  words  supplied  in 
italics;  rectification  of  punctuation. 

S.  Sectional  arrangement  combined  with  the  ar 
bitrary  capitular  and  versicular  division,  which  is 
put  in  the  margin. 

9.  Poetical  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
arranged  metrically  according  to  the  parallelism  of 
Hebrew  poetry. 

10.  An  increased  number  of  alternate  marginal 
readings  and  renderings  in   cases  where   evidence 
and  argument  are  nearly  equally  balanced. 

These  improvements  occur  in  every  chapter,  and 
almost  in  every  verse.  It  is  stated  that  there  are  in 
all  over  36,000  departures  from  King  James's  Ver 
sion  in  the  English  text,  and  (probably  included  in 
the  former)  nearly  6000  changes  in  the  Greek  text. 
This  seems  a  formidable  number,  apt  to  fill  an  in 
experienced  reader  with  misgiving  and  distrust. 

Upon  examination,  howrever,  the  importance  of 
the  alterations  falls  far  below  their  number.  They 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  419 

do  not  unsettle  a  single  article  of  the  Christian  faith 

o 

or  precept  of  Christian  duty.  They  will  hardly  be 
observed  by  the  majority  of  readers.  Very  few 
affect  the  sense  materially.  They  may  be  compared 
to  the  150,000  variations  in  the  textual  sources  and 
critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  which  do 
not  affect  the  integrity  of  the  book,  and  only  increase 
the  facility  and  stimulate  the  zeal  for  ascertaining 
the  original  text.  But,  nevertheless,  in  the  Word  of 
God  even  the  "jots"  and  "tittles"  are  important, 
and  every  effort  to  bring  the  English  Bible  nearer 
the  original  is  thankworthy.  In  this  respect  the 
Revisers  are  not  behind  any  of  their  predecessors. 

NOTE. — I  have  stated  the  number  of  alterations  in  round  figures  on  the 
ground  of  actual  calculations  made  in  England.  A  correspondent  of  "  The 
Guardian  "  (a  leading  journal  of  the  Church  of  England)  for  Aug.  10,  1881, 
p.  1136,  and  again  p.  1675,  estimated  the  number  of  changes  in  the  English 
text  at  36.191,  or  an  average  of  four  and  a  half  changes  in  every  one  of 
the  7960  verses.  The  alterations  of  the  Greek  text  are  5788,  according 
to  Dr.  Scrivener's  notes  (as  stated  by  Canon  Cook,  The  Revised  Version 
of  the  First  Three  Gospel*,  p.  222,  or  6000  on  p.  230).  A  correspondent, 
of  "  The  Expositor,''  iii.  435,  has  discovered  that  not  one  verse  out  of  ten 
has  escaped  correction,  that  sixteen  entire  verses  disappear,  that  one  hun 
dred  and  twenty-two  sentences  or  parts  of  sentences  are  omitted,  and  that 
only  ten  new  passages,  mostly  very  brief,  are  added.  Dean  Burgon  found 
that  in  2  Pet.  i.  5-7  the  Revisers  have  "introduced  thirty  changes  into 
thirty-eight  words ;"  and  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  (one  of  the  Revisers) 
mentions  one  verse  in  which  "not  fewer  than  eight  changes  are  made,'' 
but  he  adds  that  "only  one  of  them  would  be  discovered  in  reading  the 
verse  aloud  or  hearing  it."  See  all  these  facts  and  figures  apparently 
endorsed  by  a  friendly  critic  in  "The  Church  Quarterly  Review"  for 
January,  1883,  p.  348  sq,  If  these  figures  are  correct,  the  venerable  chair 
man  of  the  New  Testament  Company,  in  his  address  to  Convocation, 
underestimated  the  changes  "at  least  one  half,"  but  he  was  correct  in 
adding  that  "  the  effect  to  the  general  hearer  or  reader  will  reallv  hardly 
be  perceptible." 


420  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

The  Rev.  Kufus  Wendell,  editor  of  the  ''Student's  Edition"  of  the 
Revised  New  Testament  (Albany,  N.  Y.,  1882),  has  counted  the  words 
of  the  Revised  New  Testament,  and  states  their  number  to  be  179,914, 
of  which  151.526  are  retained  from  the  Authorized  Version.  The  25,388 
words  thus  shown  to  have  been  introduced  by  the  Revisers  are  by  the 
same  writer  classified  as  follows : 

18,358  are  substituted  renderings  of  the  Received  Greek  Text; 

1604  are  substituted  renderings  of  the  Critical  Greek  Text; 

4654  are  added  renderings  of  the  Received  Greek  Text; 

550  are  added  renderings  of  the  Critical  Greek  Text;  and 

222  are  renderings  adopted  from  the  Margin  of  the  Authorized  Version. 

In  Mr.  Wendell's  work,  The  Spetc/ies  of  the  New  Testament  (Albany, 
1876),  p.  573  compared  with  p.  xi.,  the  number  of  words  in  the  Old  Ver 
sion  of  the  N.  T.  (the  count  being  based  upon  the  American  Bible  So 
ciety's  pica  octavo  edition  of  1870)  is  given  as  180.373— an  excess  of  359 
words  over  the  Revised  Version. 


THE    GREEK   TEXT    OF    THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

This  subject  has  been  so  fully  discussed  in  previ 
ous  chapters  that  a  summary  of  the  chief  points  of 
difference  between  the  traditional  text  of  the  Author 
ized  Version  and  the  critical  text  of  the  Revised 
Version  will  be  sufficient.1 

1.  An  infallible  text  is  impossible;  for  the  apos 
tolic  autographs  are  lost,  and  most  of  the  variations 
date  from  early  transcription  in  the  first  two  cen 
turies.  Dogmatism  may  ignore,  but  cannot  deny 
the  fact.  Even  if  we  had  an  infallible  text,  it  would 
not  be  available  without  an  infallible  interpretation. 
We  must  therefore  be  content  with  an  approximate 
approach  to  the  original  by  means  of  the  most  care 
ful  and  conscientious  study  of  the  existing  docu 
ments—^.  <?.,  Manuscripts,  Versions,  and  Patristic 

J  See  chapters  ii.-vi.,  and  especially  pp.  253-298. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  421 

Quotations.  It  is  best  that  it  is  so ;  for  sucli  study 
keeps  Christian  scholarship  in  constant  motion,  and 
prevents  stagnation,  and  the  idolatry  of  the  letter 
that  kills,  while  the  spirit  alone  makes  alive.  The 
Apostles  themselves  dealt  very  freely  with  the  Old 
Testament  quotations,  and  yet  had  the  profoundest 
reverence  for  the  Word  of  God. 

2.  The  history  of  textual  criticism  is  a  gradual 
ascent  from   the  river  to   the   fountain,  from  the 
mediaeval  to  the  Nicene,  from  the  Nicene  to  the 
ante-Nicene,  and  from  the  ante-Xicene  to  the  Apos 
tolic  text.     This  movement  began  with  Bentley  and 
Bengel,  and  has  been  steadily  pursued  by  their  suc 
cessors,  with  a  corresponding  accumulation,  classifi 
cation,  and  sifting  of  material.     It  is  analogous  to 
the  Reformation,  which  went  back  from  the  school 
men  to  the  fathers,  from  the  fathers  to  the  apostles; 
in  other  words,  from  mediaeval  traditions  and  cor 
ruptions  to  the  primitive  sources  of  Christianity. 

3.  The  traditional  text  is  derived  from  Beza  and 
other  printed  editions  of  the  sixteenth  century,  as 
these  again  wTere  derived  from  a  few  cursive  manu 
scripts  of  the  Middle  Ages  which  happened  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  Erasmus  and  his  successors. 

The  critical  text  is  derived  from  the  combined 
use  of  all  the  documentary  sources  which  have  been 
brought  to  light  within  the  last  three  hundred  years, 
and  especially  in  the  present  century. 

4.  The  traditional  text  can  be  traced  through  the 
Byzantine  ( Constantinopolitan )   family  of   manu 
scripts  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  or  the 
Kicene  age. 


422  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

The  critical  text  can  be  traced  to  the  third  and  sec 
ond  centuries,  or  the  ante-]Nicene  age;  that  is,  as  near 
the  apostolic  source  as  the  documents  enable  us  to  go. 

5.  The  traditional  text  is  supported,  (a)  among 
manuscripts,  by  Cod.  A  (Alexandrians)  of  the  fifth 
century  (but  only  in  the  Gospels),  several  of  the  later 
uncials,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  mediaeval  cursives, 
with  some  very  weighty  exceptions ;  (b)  among  ver 
sions,  by  the  Syriac  Peshito  in  its  present  revised 
shape  (whose  authority,  however,  has  been  weakened 
by  recent  discoveries  and  researches) ;  and  (e)  among 
the  fathers,  by  St.  Chrysostom  (d.  407)  and  most  of 
the  later  Greek  fathers,  who  drew  from  the  same 
Syrian  and  Byzantine  MSS.,  and  therefore  cannot 
be  counted  as  independent  witnesses. 

The  critical  text  is  supported,  (a)  by  the  two  old 
est  MSS.,  namely,  B  (Yaticanus)  and  K  (Sinaiticus), 
both  of  the  fourth  century ;  also  by  Cod.  A  and  the 
oldest  uncials  generally,  in  the  Acts,  Epistles,  and 
Apocalypse ;  and  very  often  in  the  Gospels  by  L,  T, 
3,  Z  (A  in  Mark),  Dr  C,  Q,  P,  E,  X  (and  even  by  A 
in  many  cases,  especially  in  John) ;  (?j>)  by  the  pre 
vailing  testimony  of  the  oldest  Versions,  viz.,  the 
Curetonian  Syriac  (partly  also  by  the  Peshito),  the 
Coptic  or  Egyptian  (especially  the  Memphitic),  the 
Old  Latin,  and  Jerome's  Vulgate ;  and  (c)  by  the 
ante-Nicene  fathers,  especially  Eusebius  ("  the  father 
of  church  history,"  d.  340)  and  Origen  (the  father 
of  exegesis,  d.  254),  who  were  the  most  learned  men 
of  their  age.1 


Canon  Cook  (p.  145)  admits  that  both  the  Memphitic  and  Thebaic 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  ¥23 

C.  The  traditional  text  is  abandoned,  and  the  crit 
ical  text  accepted,  by  all  the  standard  editors  of  the 
present  century,  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf, 
Yon  Gebliardt,Tregelles,  Alford,Westcott  and  Ilort.1 

7.  The  traditional  text  is  longer  on  account  of 
interpolations  from  parallel  passages  (especially  in 

Versions  (which  are  among  the  most  ancient)  most  closely  agree  with  15. 
but  accounts  for  it  by  deriving  them  from  "the  same  school1'  and  "the 
same  recension,"  without  any  proof.  He  also  admits  that  the  MSS.  of  the 
Old  Latin  Version  "agree  with  li  more  frequently  than  with  A"  (p.  144), 
and  that  even  the  much-lauded  Peshito  "agrees  with  B  sufficiently  often 
to  prove  that  both  the  translator  and  the  transcriber  had  before  them 
ancient  documents  of  the  same  general  character"  (p.  143). 

i  To  these  may  be  added  such  writers  on  textual  criticism  as  Thomas 
Sheldon  Green  (in  his  Developed  Criticism),  Samuel  Davidson  (Jiiblical 
Criticism),  the  two  American  scholars  Abbot  and  Gregory  (see  the  forth 
coming  Prolegomena  to  the  eighth  edition  of  Tischendorf.  prepared  by  the 
latter  with  the  constant  co-operation  of  the  former),  and  the  ablest  critical 
commentators,  as  Meyer  (prevailingly),  Bernhard  Weiss  (in  the  new  edi 
tions  of  Meyer  on  the  Gospels  and  on  Romans,  and  in  his  critical  mono 
graphs  on  the  MatthcBUsevangelium  and  the  Marcusevangeliwri),  Dean 
Alford  (in  the  last  editions  of  his  Commentary).  Bishop  Ellicott  (Commen 
taries  on  the  Minor  Pauline  Epistles),  and  Bishop  Lightfoot  (Commentaries 
on  Galatians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  and  Philemon).  Dean  Burgon  and 
Canon  Cook  claim  Dr.  Scrivener  on  their  side;  but  he  is  identified  with 
the  cause  of  the  Revision,  and  we  must  wait  for  the  third  edition  of  his 
Introduction.  In  the  second  edition  (1874),  and  still  more  in  his  later 
Six  Lectures  on  the  Text  of  the  New  Testament  (1875).  he  already  departs 
in  some  very  important  cases  from  the  textus  receptus,  as  in  1  Tim.  iii. 
10;  1  John  v.  7,  8;  Matt.  xvii.  21;  xix.  17;  Mark  vi.  20;  xv.  28;  Luke 
xi.  2,  4;  John  v.  4,  5;  vii.  53-viii.  11 ;  Acts  xvi.  7  ;  Rom.  xvi.  5  ;  1  Pet. 
iii.  15 ;  Heb.  iv.  2.  Even  the  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  (Matt.  vi.  13) 
he  now  thinks  "can  hardly  be  upheld  any  longer  as  a  portion  of  the  sacred 
text"  (Lectures,  p.  124;  compare  his  hesitating  judgment  in  Introd.  p.  495 ). 
As  far  as  known  from  his  publications,  Dr.  Scrivener  stands  about  mid 
way  between  Burgon  and  Cook  on  the  one  side,  and  Westcott  and  Ilort 
on  the  other.  It  must  be  taken  for  granted  that,  like  all  other  Revisers, 
he  has  learned  a  good  deal  by  ten  years'  counsel  with  eminent  scholars. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

the  Gospels),  supplements  of  abridged  quotations 
from  the  Septuagint,  liturgical  usage,  and  explana 
tory  glosses. 

The  critical  text  is  shorter  from  the  absence  of 
these  interpolations.  And  this  is  a  strong  internal 
evidence  of  its  priority.  For  additions  once  made 
would  not  be  easily  omitted:  scribes  and  purchasers 
being  naturally  zealous  for  complete  copies.  But 
what  is  lost  in  spurious  additions  is  more  than  made 
up  by  greater  purity,  simplicity,  and  force. 

The  number  of  textual  critics  who  are  competent 
to  judge  of  the  principles  and  complicated  details  is 
exceedingly  small,  even  in  Germany  and  England. 
It  takes  many  years  of  the  most  minute  and  patient 
study  to  master  the  immense  apparatus. 

Of  the  opponents  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Re 
visers,  only  two  or  three  have  shown  the  requisite 
learning  and  ability  to  entitle  them  to  a  respectful 
hearing  on  such  questions ;  but  they  occupy  a  reac 
tionary  standpoint,  and  place  themselves  in  opposi 
tion  to  all  the  authoritative  critics  of  the  present 
century.  They  swim  against  the  stream,  and  kick 
against  the  pricks.  They  take  the  same  antagonistic 
attitude  towards  the  modern  school  of  criticism 
which  Dr.  Owen  took  towards  Walton's  Polyglot, 
Dr.  Whitby  towards  Mill's  Greek  Testament,  Frey 
and  Iselin  towards  Wetstein,Mattho3i  towards  Gries- 
bach ;  and  the  result  of  the  opposition  will  be  the 
same.  The  Council  of  Trent  anathematized  all  the 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  Inquisition 
condemned  the  science  of  Galileo  Galilei;  but  Prot 
estantism  still  lives,  and  the  earth  still  moves.  The 


THE    REVISED    VE11SION.  425 

reactionary  critics  and  anti-Revisionists  labor  under 
a  delusion.  They  profess  to  defend  the  old  fort, 
but  there  is  an  older  fort  still.  They  appeal  to  the 
fathers  of  the  dark  ages,  but  not  to  the  grandfathers 
of  the  Apostolic  age.  If  they  proceed  a  little  fur 
ther  in  the  search  for  the  "  evangelic  verity,"  they 
will  arrive  at  last  at  the  same  conclusion  as  the  Re 
visers,  and  will  shake  hands  with  them  over  the 
oldest  and  purest  attainable  text,  which  they  equal 
ly  revere  and  love  as  the  infallible  standard  of  the 
Christian  faith  and  practice. 

"  Es  konimt  der  dursfge  Geist  anf  Weyen  der  Erfahrung 
Durch  Ueberliefrunysfjrund  ziim  Quell  der  OJfenbarung" 

NOTK. — The  champions  of  the  textits  receptus  make  special  efforts  to 
undermine  the  value  of  Codd.  B  and  X,  which  arc  the  most  weighty 
witnesses  against  it.  They  feel  that  they  are  the  very  best  sources  of  the 
text  unless  they  can  be  proven  to  be  the  very  worst  (as  Dean  Burgon  puts 
the  case).  X  and  B  are  admitted  to  be  the  oldest  known  MSS.,  as  well 
as  the  most  complete ;  X  being  the  only  complete  MS.  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  among  the  uncials,  and  B  complete  as  far  as  Heb.  ix.  14,  including 
the  Catholic  Epistles,  which  follow  the  Acts,  though  not  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  But  both  are  also  remarkable  for  brevity.  Now  the  question 
arises:  Is  this  brevity  due,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  to  non-interpo 
lations  (and  hence  a  proof  of  greater  purity),  or  to  omissions  and  mutila 
tions?  All  the  critical  editors  from  Griesbach  to  Hort  take  the  former 
view ;  the  opponents  of  the  Revisers'  text  take  the  latter. 

The  most  recent  attack  upon  these  MSS.  hails  from  the  scholarly  pen 
of  Canon  F.  C.  Cook  (editor  of  The  Speaker's  Commentary"),  who  follows 
in  the  track  of  Dean  Burgon  (without  his  dash  and  audacity,  but  with 
more  moderation  and  courtesy).  In  his  book,  The  Revised  Version  of  (he 
First  Three  Gospels,  London,  1882,  he  derives  the  omissions  of  X  and  B 
partly  from  "  extreme  haste,"  partly  (and  this  was  never  done  before)  even 
from  heretical  bias.  He  conjectures  that  X  and  B  are  the  only  remain 
ing  survivors  of  the  fifty  MSS.  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  Constan- 
tine  the  Great  requested  Eusebius  to  provide  "  on  carefully  prepared 
parchments  or  vellum,  in  easily  legible  characters,  and  in  portable  and 
convenient  form,"  for  the  rapidly  growing  churches  of  Constantinople  or 


420  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

New  Rome  (Euscbius,  Vita  Const,  iv.  36.  37).  This  would  definitely  fix 
the  date  of  these  MSS.  between  the  year  330,  when  Constantinople  was 
founded,  and  the  year  340,  when  Eusebins  died.  (Cook  here  differs  widely 
from  Dean  Burgon,  who.  in  his  The  Last  Ticelce  Verses  of  S.  Murk,  187  J. 
p.  293  sq.,  had  categorically  denied  the  Eusebian  origin  of  B,  and  asserted 
on  what  he  considered  "infallible  "  notes  of  antiquity,  that  X  was  written 
from  fifty  to  one  hundred  years  later.  "  I  am  fully  persuaded."  he  say?. 
'•  that  an  interval  of  at  least  half  a  century,  if  not  of  a  far  greater  span  of 
years,  is  absolutely  required  to  account  for  the  marked  dissimilarity  be 
tween  them.")  But  Canon  Cook  further  assumes  (p.  161  sqq.)  that  the 
MSS.  were  not  only  hastily,  but  ''carelessly."  prepared,  under  the  direc 
tion  of  Eusebius  and  under  the  influence  of  the  Arian  heresy  to  which 
Eusebius  leaned,  and  which  was  in  the  ascendency  in  the  later  years  of 
Constantino  (who,  it  is  well  known,  was  baptized  by  an  Arian  bishop). 

In  reply  to  this  hypothesis  of  Canon  Cook  we  offer  the  following  objec 
tions: 

1.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  of  a  Eusebian  recension  of  the  text, 
much  less  than  for  a  Syrian  recension  (which  Dr.  Ilort  makes  extremely 
plausible,  but  which  Canon  Cook,  with  Dean  Burgon,  utterly  denies). 

2.  Eusebius  was,  we   may  say,  a  latitudinarian   in  his   age,  but   no 
doctrinal  Arian,  although  after  the  Nicene  Council  he  connected  himself 
with  the  Arian  party;  and  he  certainly  would  not  have  dared  to  pervert 
the  sacred  text  in  the  interest  of  dogma.     See  the  exhaustive  article  of 
Bishop  Light  foot  in  Smith  and  Wace.  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography, 
ii.  308-348,  especially  p.  347,  where  he  says:  "  If  we  except  the  works 
written  before  the  Council  of  Niciea,  in  which  there  is  occasionally  much 
looseness  of  expression,  his  language  is  for  the  most  part  strictly  orthodox, 
or  at  least  capable  of  explanation  in  an  orthodox  sense." 

3.  X  and  B,  in  the  two  strongest  passages  which  bear  on  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  favor  the  more  orthodox  reading — namely,  John  i.  18  (/.lovoytvijc 
3-gyr,  instead  of  6  /^OVOJEV)]Q  viocj),  and  Acts  xx.  28  (jn}v  kKK\r}Giav  TOV 
3eof;,  i]v  TTfpteTnm/tTaro  did  TOV  a'i/.iaTO£  TOV  iciov,  instead  of  ...  TOV 
KVOI ov  .  .  .).     In  the  first  passage  a  subsequent  corrector  of  X  put  V'IOQ 
above  Srt OQ.     It  is  very  surprising,  by  the  by,  that  such  a  scholar  as  Canon 
Cook  should  suppose  that  "  the  asterisks"  after  X  and  B,  which  mark  the 
first  hand,  "mean  that  the  reading  in  the  text  was  noted  as  incorrect  by 
a  critical  scholar  at  the  time  ichen  the  manuscript  was  written"  (p.  27). 
In  the  particular  case  of  which  he  is  treating,  as  is  pointed  out  in  "The 
Church  Quarterly  Review  "  for  October,  1882,  p.  136,  they  mean  that  the 
reading  tvdoKtac;  in  Luke  ii.  14  was  changed  to  tvdoKia  in  X  by  a  cor- 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  427 

rector  of  the  seventh  century,  and  in  B  by  a  corrector  of  the  tenth  or 
eleventh  century  at  the  earliest  (so  Tischendorf ),  or  rather  of  the  fifteenth, 
according  to  the  Roman  editors. 

4.  The  haste  with  which,  according  to  the  order  of  Constantine,  the 
fifty  .copies  were  to  be  prepared  does  not  necessarily  imply  culpable  care 
lessness;   on  the  contrary,  it  is  incompatible  with  the  express  direction 
of  Constantine  to  employ  "calligraphers  thoroughly  acquainted  with  their 
art,"  as  also  with  the  costliness  and  beauty  of  the  materials  used,  the  care 
and  grace  of  the  handwriting,  by  which  X  and  B  confessedly  excel  all 
other   MSS.      They  are  indeed  disfigured   by   many  errors,  but  such 
are  found  in  greater  or  less  number  in  all  ancient  MSS.,  and  were  as 
unavoidable  as  modern  typographical  errors;   moreover,  both  X  and  B 
contain  many  valuable  corrections  by  later  hands. 

5.  X  and  B  are  sufficiently  different  in  the  arrangement  of  books  and 
in  a  great  many  characteristic  readings  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  they 
are  independently  derived  from  distinct  originals.     "  They  are  cousins, 
not  sisters."     This  makes  their  concurrent  testimony  all  the  stronger. 
This  result  is  not  at  all  affected  by  the  interpretation  of  the  terms  rpicjcrd 
teal  Ttrpaaad  (i.  e.,  triple  and  quadruple')  in  the  Eusebian  description  of 
the  MSS.  ordered  by  Constantine,  which  are   usually  understood   (by 
Montfaucon  and  Gardthausen)  to  refer  to  quires  of  three  or  four  sheets 
(terniones  and  quaterniones),  but  which  Canon  Cook  (with  Wattenbach 
and  Von  Gebhardt)  refers  to  the  three  or  four  vertical  columns  respectively 
of  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  MSS.     Eusebius  would  not  have  sent  two 
different  texts  to  the  emperor,  and  still  less  if,  as  Cook  assumes  without  a 
shadow  of  proof,  he  was  the  editor  of  a  recension. 

I  had  some  correspondence  on  this  subject  with  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  a  most 
careful  student  of  the  ancient  MSS.,  and  I  am  permitted  to  add  the  follow 
ing  extract  from  his  letter:  "The  representations  of  Canon  Cook  as  to 
the  extreme  haste  and  carelessness  with  which  X  and  B  were  written 
are  greatly  exaggerated.  The  Vatican  was  more  carefully  written  than 
the  Sinaitic,  which  has  a  rather  unusual  number  of  omissions  from  homce- 
oteleuton.  But  in  both  of  these  MSS.,  the  transcriptional  errors  dimin 
ish  but  little  their  value  for  critical  purposes,  as  most  of  them  betray  their 
character  at  once,  and  cause  no  more  difficulty  or  uncertainty  than  the 
typographical  errors  in  a  printer's  first  proof.  Leaving  out  of  view  the 
obviously  accidental  omissions  from  the  occasion  just  mentioned,  most  of 
the  so-called  'omissions'  or  'mutilations'  in  these  MSS.,  when  critically 
examined,  on  the  principles  which  would  guide  us  in  determining  the 
text  in  the  case  of  an  ancient  classical  author,  afford  the  clearest  evidence 


428  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

of  the  remarkable  freedom  of  their  text  from  the  glosses  and  interpola 
tions  which  vitiate  so  many  of  the  later  MSS.  In  most  of  the  important 
cases  where  they  present  a  shorter  text  as  compared  with  the  great  ma 
jority  of  MSS.,  their  testimony  is  so  corroborated  by  our  other  oldest  in 
dependent  authorities — ancient  versions  and  quotations  by  early  fathers 
—and  by  internal  evidence,  as  to  demonstrate  the  pre-eminent  value  of 
these  MSS.,  especially  in  questions  of  omission  or  addition." 

SELECT    LIST    OF    TEXTUAL    CHANGES. 

Comp.  here  ch.  v.  p.  183  sqq. 
I.  OMISSIONS  FIIOM  TEXT  WITHOUT  MAKGIXAT,  NOTE. 

Matt.  i.  25  :  "  her  firstborn  "  son  (r  u  v  v\ov  a  u  -  »/  £  r  o  v  TT  p  w  T  6  r  o  K  o  )>) ; 
for  viov,  "a  son."1 

Omitted  by  X,  B,  Z,  1, 33,  avij,  b,  c.  g  ',  k,  Sah.,  Cop.,  Cur.  Syr.,  etc. ;  sup 
ported  by  Pesh.  Syr.,  C,  I),  and  later  uncials  (A  is  here  wanting).  In 
serted  from  Luke  ii.  7,  where  all  authorities  have  it  ("  ubi  nemo  lectionem 
mutavit"  says  Tischendorf).  Some  trace  the  omission  to  dogmatic  inter 
est  in  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary,  as  "  firstborn  "  seems  to  imply  the 
birth  of  younger  children;  but  why  then  was  Luke  ii.  7  left  untouched? 

Matt.  ii.  18:  "lamentation  and"  (Spijvoc,  nai'). 

Omitted  by  X,  B,  Z,  1,  22.  Itala,  Vulg.,  Sah.,  Cop.,  Pesh.  Syr.,  Jerus.  Syr., 
Justin  M.  Inserted  from  the  Septuagint,  Jer.  xxxi.  (xxxviii.)  15,  to  com 
plete  the  quotation. 

Matt.  v.  44  :  "  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  r/ood  to  them  that  hate  you  .  .  . 
which  despitefully  use  you  and" 

These  beautiful  words  are  undoubtedly  genuine  in  Luke  vi.  27,  28,  and 
have  been  inserted  here  in  whole  or  in  part  by  later  authorities,  contrary 
to  the  testimony  of  X,  B,  1,  22,  209,  Itala,  Vulg.,  Cop.,  Cur.  Syr.,  Theophil., 
Athenag.,  Clem.  Alex.,  Orig.,  Kuseb. 

Matt.  xx.  16 :  "for  many  be  called,  but  few  chosen" 

Omitted  by  X,  B,  L,  Z,  Sah.,  Cop.  (The  Cureton  Syr.  has  it.)  In 
serted  by  Western  and  Syrian  authorities  (also  by  Origen)  from  Matt.  xxii. 
14,  the  close  of  a  similar  parable  (TroXXot  yc'ip  tiaiv  K\r)Toi,  oXiyoi  fie 
tKXeKTofy,  where  all  authorities  have  the  passage. 

Luke  xxiii.  38  :  "  in  letters  of  Greek,  and  Latin,  and  Hebrew" 

Omitted  by  Xca,  B,  C*,  L,  a,  Sah.,  Cop.,  Cur.  Syr.,  but  added  by  later 
authorities  in  whole  or  in  part  from  John  xix.  20.  In  justice  to  the  nu 
merous  witnesses  for  the  clause  (several  uncials,  all  cursives,  Itala  [except 
a],  Vulg.,  Pesh..  Cyr.  of  Alex.),  it  deserves  a  place  on  the  margin. 

Acts  ix.  5,  6  :  "  it  is  hard  .  .  .  said  unto  him." 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  429 

Omitted  in  all  Greek  MSS.,  interpolated  from  Acts  xxii.  10;  xxvi.  14 
(first  by  the  Vulgate  and  then  by  Erasmus). 

Kom.  viii.  1 :  "who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit." 

Derived  from  ver.  4,  where  the  words  are  genuine. 

1  Cor.  xi.  24 :  ';  take,  eat "  (Xa/3fre,  ^aygrc). 

Omitted  by  X,  A,  B,  C*,  D,  E,  F,  G,  d,  e,  f,  g,  Sah.,  Cop.,  Armen.  In 
serted  from  the  parallel  passage  in  Matt.  xxvi.  26.  4i  Broken  "  (/cXo^it- 
vov),  being  better  supported,  is  retained  in  the  margin. 

1  John  v.  7,  8:  "in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word  [sic!],  and  the  Holy 
Ghost:  and  these  three  are  one.  And  there  are  three,  that  bear  witness  in 
earth" 

Contrary  to  the  context  and  the  trinitarian  terminology  (which  would 
require  "  the  Son,1'  instead  of  "  the  Word  ") ;  not  found  in  any  Greek  MS. 
before  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century,  nor  in  the  genuine  text  of  any 
ancient  translation,  nor  in  any  lectionary,  nor  Greek  patristic  quotation, 
and  universally  given  up  as  a  clumsy  interpolation  (probably  from  a  Latin 
gloss,  derived  perhaps  from  Cyprian,  on  the  assumption  of  a  purely  fanci 
ful  analogy).  It  was  first  printed  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  1514, 
and  in  the  third  edition  of  Erasmus  (1522,  against  his  better  judgment), 
from  which  it  passed  into  the  textits  receptus.  Every  consideration  of 
truth  and  honesty  requires  the  expulsion  of  these  spurious  witnesses  from 
the  text.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  needs  no  such  support,  and  could 
only  be  injured  by  it.  See  p.  136  sqq.  and  192  sq. ;  also  Tischendorf.  and 
the  notes  of  Alford,  and  Wordsworth  in  loc.  I  add  a  note  from  Dr.  Ilort 
(Select  Readings,  ii.  104) :  "There  is  no  evidence  for  the  inserted  words 
in  Greek,  or  in  any  language  but  Latin,  before  the  fourteenth  century, 
when  they  appear  in  a  Greek  work  written  in  defence  of  the  Roman  com 
munion,  with  clear  marks  of  a  translation  from  the  Vulgate.  For  at  least 
the  first  four  centuries  and  a  half  Latin  evidence  is  equally  wanting. 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian  use  language  which  renders  it  morally  certain 
that  they  would  have  quoted  these  words  had  they  known  them ;  Cyprian 
going  so  far  as  to  assume  a  reference  to  the  Trinity  in  the  conclusion  of 
verse  8  Qet  iterum  de  Patre  el  Filio  et  Spiritu  Sancto  scriptum  est  Et 
tres  unutn  sunt'),  as  he  elsewhere  finds  '  sacramcnta  Trinitatis'  in  other 
occurrences  of  the  number  three  (Dom.  Orat.  34).  and  being  followed  in 
his  interpretation  more  explicitly  by  Augustin,  Facundus,  and  others.  But 
the  evidence  of  the  third  century  is  not  exclusively  negative,  for  the 
treatise  on  Rebaptism  contemporary  with  Cyprian  quotes  the  whole  pas 
sage  simply  thus  (15:  cf.  19),  'quia  tres  testimonium  perldbent ,  spiritits  et 
agita  et  sanyuis,  et  isti  tres  unum  sunt."1  The  silence  of  the  controversial 


430  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

writings  of  Lucifer,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  Ilieronymus,  Augustin,  and  others 
carries  forward  the  adverse  testimony  of  the  Old  Latin  through  the 
fourth  into  the  fifth  century;  and  in  449,  shortly  before  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  Leo  supplies  positive  evidence  to  the  same  effect  for  the  Ro 
man  text  by  quoting  verses  4-8  without  the  inserted  words  in  his  epistle 
to  Flavianus  (A/>.  xxviii.  5).  They  are  absent  from  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
according  to  its  oldest  MSS..  am,  fa  [Cod.  Amiatinus  at  Florence,  and  Cod 
Fuldensis  at  Fulda],  and  many  others,  as  also  from  the  (Vulgate)  text 
of  the  Galilean  (Luxeuil)  Lcctionary." 

Rev.  i.  8  :  "the  beginning  (ind  the  ending'1''  (tip\t]  KO.I  rt'Xoc). 

Supported  by  X*.  Vulg.,  Cop.,  and  a  few  cursives;  but  absent  in  Nc,  A, 
B  (Ap.),  C,  P,  Syr.,  Aeth.,  Arm.,  Ambrose,  Primasius,  and  most  cursives. 
Inserted  from  ver.  17  and  xxii.  13,  as  an  explanation  of  ;'  the  Alpha  and 
the  Omega." 

Rev.  i.  11  :  "lam  Alpha  .  .  .  last:  and"1  (tyio  .  .  .  <cai'). 

Omitted  by  X,  A,  B,  C,  Vulg.,  Cop.,  Syr.,  Aeth.,  Arm.,  and  about  fifty 
cursives;  inserted  from  xxii.  13;  cornp.  also  i.  8  and  17. 

The  following  list  includes  the  more  important  remaining  examples,  and 
will  well  repay  a  critical  examination:  Matt.  xv.  8;  xx.  7,  22,  23;  xxv. 
13;  xxvii.35;  xxviii.  9;  Mark  vi.  11;  vii.8;  xiii.14;  xiv.  27,70;  Luke 
iv.8,18;  v.38;  ix.  10;  xi.44,54;  xix.45;  xx.23,30;  xxii.  G4,  68;  xxiv. 
1;  John  i.  27;  iii.  15;  v.  16;  vi.  11,  22,  51;  x.  12,  13,  20;  xi.  41 :  xvi.  1C; 
xvii.  12;  Acts  ii.30;  iii.  11;  vii.  37 ;  x.  6,21,32;  xv.24;  xviii.  21 ;  xxi. 
8,  22,  25 ;  xxii.  9.  20,  30 ;  xxiii.  9 ;  xxiv.  26 ;  xxvi.  30 ;  Rom.  ix.  28 ;  xi.  6 ; 
xiii.  9;  xiv.  6;  xv.24;  1  Cor.  vi.  20;  vii.  5  ;  x.  28;  Phil.  iii.  16;  Col.  i.  2, 
14;  IThess.  i.  1;  1  Tim.  iv.  12;  vi.  5;  Hcb.  vi.  10;  vii.  21 ;  xii.20;  1  Pet. 
i.  22,  23  ;  iii.  16  :  iv.  3, 14 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  10  ;  1  John  ii.  7  ;  iv.  3  ;  v.  13  ;  Rev. 
li.  9,  13 ;  v.  14 ;  xi.  1,  17  ;  xiv.  5 ;  xv.  2  ;  xxi.  24. 

II.  PASSAGES  OMITTED  FROM  TEXT,  BUT  TRANSFERRED  TO  THE  MARGIN. 

Matt.  vi.  13.  The  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer:  "Many  authorities, 
some  ancient,  but  with  variations,  add  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the 
power,  and  the  glory,  forever.  A  men." 

See  the  authorities  on  p.  186  sq. 

Luke  i.  28 :  "  blessed  art  tliou  among  women" 

Inserted  from  ver.  42.  where  all  authorities  agree. 

John  v.  4,  5  :  ••  waiting  for  the  moving  of  the  water.  For  an  angel  went 
down  at  a  certain  season  into  the  pool,  and  troubled  the  water:  whosoever 
then  first  after  the  troubling  of  the  water  stepped  in,  was  made  whole  of 
whatsoever  disease  he  had." 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  431 

A  popular  superstition,  for  which  John  should  not  be  held  responsible. 
The  authorities  for  the  interpolation  vary,  which  always  luoks  suspicious. 
See  p.  187  sq.  Even  the  conservative  Dr.  Scrivener  thinks  it  "well-nigh 
impossible,  in  the  face  of  evidence  so  ancient  and  varied,  to  regard  it  as  a 
genuine  portion  of  St.  John's  Gospel"  (Six  Lectures,  etc.,  p.  158). 

Acts  viii.  37  :  "And  Philip  .  .  .  Son  of  God" 

The  baptismal  confession  of  the  eunuch  inserted  wholly  or  in  part 
from  old  ecclesiastical  usage.  See  p.  191. 

III.  DOUBTFUL  SECTIONS  RETAINED  IN  TEXT,  BUT  WITH  MARGINAL 

NOTE,  STATING  THE  FACTS    IN  EACH   CASE. 

Mark  xvi.  9-20.  The  evidence  for  and  against  is  given  on  p.  189  sq.,  in 
the  critical  apparatus  of  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  and  in  the  second  volume 
of  Westcott  and  Hort,  On  the  conservative  side,  see  Burgon  and  Scrivener. 

John  vii.  53-viii.  11. 

The  pericope  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery.  See  the  discussion, 
p.  189  sq. 

According  to  the  judgment  of  the  best  critics,  these  two  important  sec 
tions  are  additions  to  the  original  text  from  apostolic  tradition. 

IV.  SUBSTITUTIONS. 

Matt.  x.  4  (and  Mark  iii.  18):  "Simon  the  Cananaean"  (Kavavcuoc, 
from  an  Aramasan  word  meaning  "Zealot  ;"  compare  Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i. 
13),  instead  of  "  the  Ccmaanite"  (Kavavirqi;^. 

None  of  the  apostles  belonged  to  the  race  of  the  Canaanites. 

Matt.  xix.  17  :  "  Why  askest  thou  O.  V.  :  "  Why  callest  thou  me  good? 
me  concerning  that  which  is  good?  (TI  p,£  Xty«£  ayaSuv  ;  )  There  is 
(ri  /*£  tpb)T(pg  irepi  TOV  ayaSov  ;)  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God  (oir&ft; 
One  there  is  who  is  good  (et£  tariv  aya3-o£,  £<'  /o)  tlij,  o  04of)-" 


The  old  text  is  conformed  to  the  parallel  passages,  Mark  x.  18  and 
Luke  xviii.  19,  and  is  retained  in  margin.  Dean  Burgon  recklessly  calls 
the  Revisers'  reading  an  "absurd  fabrication,"  and  Canon  Cook  (p.  92) 
unjustly  traces  it  to  "doctrinal  bias  and  Alexandrian  subtlety;"  but  it  is 
well  supported  by  the  oldest  authorities,  X,  B,  D,  L,  Cur.  Syr.,  Cop.,Vulg., 
Grig,  (who  expressly  vouches  for  the  first  clause),  Euseb.  ;  it  is  adopted 
by  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  even  by  Scrivener 
(Six  Lectures,  p.  130).  It  gives  excellent  sense,  and  sheds  new  light  on 
the  whole  conversation  with  the  rich  young  ruler,  whether  we  assume 
that  the  ruler  asked  two  questions  and  received  two  answers,  or  that 
Matthew  gives  this  form  to  bring  out  the  true  sense.  The  ruler  (from  a 


432  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

purely  humanitarian  and  moral  standpoint)  bad  asked  Christ  (ver.  16) 
"what  good  thing'1''  he  should  do  to  have  eternal  life;  and  Christ  directed 
him  to  the  supreme  source  of  all  goodness,  God  himself,  and  thereby  struck 
at  the  root  of  his  hesetting  sin,  the  love  of  riches  (ver.  22). 

Mark  i.  2:  "  As  it  is  written  in!      ().  V.  :  "As  it  is  written  in   the 
Isaiah  the  prophet  (ty   T(£i  'Haaiif,  ,  prophets  (J-v  roTt,' 


The  old  text  is  evidently  a  correction  to  suit  the  quotation  (verses  2  and 
3),  which  combines  two  prophetic  passages,  Mai.  iii.  1  and  Isa.  xl.  3;  but 
Mark  mentions  Isaiah  as  the  older  and  more  important  of  the  two  prophets, 
who  struck  the  key-note  to  the  later  prophecy  of  Malachi.  The  revised 
text  is  amply  supported  (by  X,  B,  I),  L,  A,  33,  Itala,Vulg.,  Cop.,  Pesh.,  Iron., 
Grig.),  yet  the  Revisers  put  the  tcxius  receptus  on  the  margin. 


O.  V.:  "He  that  shall  blaspheme 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath  never 
forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eter 
nal  damnation  (judgment, 


Mark  iii.  29  :  "  Whosoever  shall 
blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit 
hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty 
of  an  eternal  sin  (afiaprfiuaToc^" 

An  important  change,  which  sheds  light  on  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  suggests  the  reason  why  it  is  unpardonable.  It  mav  culminate 
in  an  act  of  blasphemy,  but  it  ends  in  a  state  of  absolute  hardening  and 
final  impenitence  or  perpetual  persistence  in  sin.  As  long  as  sin  con 
tinues,  guilt  and  punishment  continue;  there  can  be  no  pardon  without 
repentance  and  cessation  from  sin.  KpiVewg  is  supported  by  A,  C  '2.  Syr,; 
a/JLctprt'iuaroQ  by  N,  B,  L,  A,  Itala,  Vulg.  (Some  MSS.  read  u^apTiag,  an 
other  early  correction.) 

Luke  ii.  14.  The  angelic  anthem.  On  this  much-disputed  passage 
(fvdoKictQ  or  £iWW«'o),  see  p.  195  sq.  The  old  rendering,  "towards  men," 
is  wrong,  at  all  events  (instead  of  "  among  men,"  i  v  avSowTroiQ) ;  but  the 
Revised  Version  is  not  wholly  satisfactory  in  rendering  the  genitive 
(udoKiac,  "  in  whom  he  is  well  pleased."  This  periphrase  destroys  the 
terse  brevity  in  the  threefold  parallelism  of  the  Greek  (do£a  correspond 
ing  to  E(jO»/j'jj,  lv  v'^/iGTQiQ  to  iiri  ytjc,  and  O?^7  to  tv  civSrpMTroic  ei'ooKi «(,'). 
"Among  men  of  his  [God's]  good  pleasure"  would  be  shorter  than  the 
R.  V.,  and  more  correct  than  the  "bonce  voluntatis"  (rnen  of  r/ood-will)  of 
the  Vulgate ;  but  the  Revisers  wished  to  conform  to  the  rendering  of  the 
verb  tvdoKSM  in  Matt.  iii.  ]7  ;  xvii.  5. 

John  i.  18:  "God  only  begotten"  ([AovoytvfjQ  Geog)  was  originally 
adopted  by  the  Revisers  in  the  text  (as  in  Westcott  and  Hort),  but  after 
wards  relegated  to  the  margin,  and  the  common  reading,  "  the  only  begotten 
Son"  (o povoytvijs  uiot;),  retained  in  text  (as  in  Tischendorf,  and  as  sug- 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  433 

gcsted  by  the  American  Committee).  The  evidence  is  nearly  equally 
balanced.  See  p.  194  sq.,  and  the  special  discussions  of  Dr.  Hort  and 
Dr.  Abbot  there  quoted. 

Rom.  v.  1 :  "  let  us  have  (t^wjuf v)  peace  with  God ;"  for  ';  we  have  " 
(t'xo/u€j').  See  p.  197. 

1  Tim.  iii.  1G:  "He  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh;"  for  "  God  was 
manifest  in  the  flesh." 

On  the  difference  of  reading  between  og  and  S-fo^,  see  p.  199  sqq.,  and 
an  article  by  Dr.  William  H.  Ward  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Andover, 
Mass..  for  Jan.  18G5. 

Rev.  xvii.  8  :  "  how  that  he  (the  beast)  was,  and  is  not,  and  shall  come  " 
(or  "  be  present") ;  for  "  that  was,  and  is  not,  and  yet  is." 

A  manifest  improvement,  /ecu  Trapscrrai  (X,  A,  B,  P,  forty  cursives), 
for  Kcii-n-ep  tariv,  which  is  an  error  of  transcription,  and  makes  nonsense. 

V.  PASSAGES  GAINED  BY  THE  REVISION. 
1  John  ii.  23:  "lie  that  confesseth  the  Son  hath  the  Father  also"  (u 

O/J-0\Oyii>V    TOV  V\OV  KCll  TOV   TTClTtpa.    i'%£l)« 

A  very  important  passage,  supplementing  the  preceding  clause;  lost  in 
the  Greek  textus  receptus  by  homaioteleuton  (t\£t  stands  at  the  end  of  each 
clause  in  verse  23) ;  italicized  in  the  A.  V.  (which  inserted  it  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  "qiti  coitfitetur  Filium,  et  Patrem  habel") ;  amply  sustained  by 
the  best  uncial  MSS.,  and  restored  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles, 
Westcott  and  Hort.  See  p.  183. 

Acts  iv.  27:  "in  this  city"  (iv  ry  TroXei  ravry),  sustained  by  X,  A,  B, 
D,  E,  Vulg.,  Syr.,  Sah.,  Cop.,  Ens.,  Chrys.,  Iren.  (Lat.),  Tert.,  Lucif.,  Hil. 

Acts  viii.  10 :  "  This  man  is  that  power  [better,  '  Power ']  of  God  which 
is  called  (/coAoi'/ie^//)  Great."  KaXovfiivi]  is  important  to  characterize 
the  boastful  title  as  a  self-designation  of  Simon  the  sorcerer,  and  rests  on 
the  authority  of  the  oldest  MSS.  (X,A,  B,  C),  versions,  and  fathers  (Iren., 
Orig.). 

Acts  xvi.  7:  "The  Spirit  of  Jesus  suffered  them  not."  'Irjaov  is  well 
sustained  and  adopted  by  the  best  editors. 

Acts  xx.  4:  "as  far  as  Asia"  (a%pt  TI]Q  'Aaiao)-  This  is  supported 
by  many  authorities,  but  not  by  N  and  B,  and  omitted  by  Tisch.  in  his 
eighth  edition. 

Col.  i.  0  :  "  bearing  fruit  and  increasing"  (icai  av^avofjitvov),  supported 
by  B*,  A,  B,  C,  D,  Ital.,  Vulg.,  Sah.,  Cop.,  Syr.,  etc. 

1  Thess.  iv.  1:  "even  as  ye  do  walk"  (jcoSwg  /cat  TrepiTrarar*),  sup 
ported  by  X,  A,  B,  D*,  F,  G,  Ital.,  Vulg.,  many  cursives,  and  versions. 
Internal  as  well  as  external  evidence  favors  the  addition,. 

28 


4:31  THE   REVISED    VERSION. 

James  iv.  12:  "and  judge"  after  "lawgiver."  The  omission  of  /cai 
KpiT)']£  is  perhaps  owing  to  homceotckuton  (see  j;o/io3i-j/  1-).  Tischendorf 
and  Westcott  and  Hort  likewise  retain  it  with  X,  A,  13,  F,  Syr.,  etc. 

1  Pet.  ii.  2  :  "  that  ye  may  grow  thereby  unto  salvation"  (etc;  awTr]piav). 
Abundantly  sustained  by  2S,  A,  B,  C,  K,  P,  Vulg.,  Syr. 

1  John  iii.  1  :  "and  such  ice  are"  (tcai  ia^itv).  We  are  not  only  called 
(K\»;3u)/u£x/),  but  we  really  are  children  of  God. 

K.  A,  B,  C,  P,  and  many  cursives  have  Kai  laper,  and  the  Vulg.  et  sumus. 

Jude  25:  "  before  all  lime"  (TTJOO  TTCIVTU^  TOV  aiuvoi^).  Well  sustained 
by  X,  A,  B,  C,  L,  Vulg.,  Syr. 

Rev.  i.  8  :  "  God  "  after  "  the  Lord." 

All  uncial  MSS.of  the  Apoc.  read  KvpioQ  u  Seof,  "the  Lord  God"  in 
stead  of  6  Kvpioc;. 

Rev.  iii.  2  :  "  before  my  God  "  (ivwiriov  TOV  Qtov  fi  o  w),  instead  of  "be 
fore  God." 

liev.  via.  7:  "and  the  third  part  of  the  earth  was  burnt  up"  (KCU  TO 


This  important  clause  dropped  out  from  the  repetition  of  /cai  TO  Tp'irov. 

liev.  xiv.  1  :  "  Having  his  [i.  e.  the  Lamb's]  name,  and  the  name  of  his 
Father,"  instead  of  "having  his  Father's  name."  The  words  avTov  KCU 
TO  uvofta  dropped  out  from  homceoteleuion  (uvofjia  twice),  and  have  been 
restored  with  the  best  authorities. 

Rev.  xx.  14:  "even  the  lake  of  fire"  (»'/  \ifivr]  TOV  Trvpocf), 

The  words  lost  in  the  textus  receptus  are  sustained  by  X,  A,  B  (Ap.),  P., 
Vulg.  (best  MSS.),  Sah.,  Syr.,  Hippol.,  Andr.,  Areth.,  and  many  cur 
sives. 

SELECT   LIST    OF    IMPROVED   RENDERINGS. 

Far  more  numerous  than  the  textual  changes  are 
the  corrections  of  errors,  inaccuracies,  and  incon 
sistencies  of  the  Authorized  Version,  which  have 
been  discussed  in  chap.  vii.  pp.  347-364.  These  im 
provements  occur  in  almost  every  verse,  although  a 
superficial  reader  would  hardly  notice  them.  We 
must  confine  ourselves  to  a  selection  of  various  kinds. 

MATTHEW. 

Matt.  i.  18  :  "  When  his  mother  Mary  had  been  betrothed  Q.ivi](JTtv- 
to  Joseph;"  for  "e.^oused  to  Joseph." 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  435 

The  betrothal  preceded  the  discovery,  the  espousal  followed  it;  but  after 
betrothal,  unfaithfulness  on  the  part  of  the  woman  was  deemed  adul 
tery. 

I.  20  :  "  an  angel  of  the  Lord  "  (Gabriel ;  see  Luke  i.  20) ;  instead  of "  the 
angel  of  the  Lord." 

One  of  the  innumerable  cases  where  the  Authorized  Version  (under  the 
influence  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which  has  no  article)  disregards  the  article 
cither  by  substituting  the  definite  for  the  indefinite,  or  vice  versa. 

I.  22 :  "  spoken  by  (UTTO)  the  Lord  through  (diet)  the  prophet ;"  for 
•'spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet." 

Important  distinction  between  the  primary  agency  of  God  and  the 
secondary  or  instrumental  agency  of  man,  in  inspiration.  The  American 
Committee  desired  to  carry  this  distinction  through  (see  Appendix  No.  V.). 

I.  23  :  "  the  virgin  "  (ry  TrapS'ivot?) ;  for  "  a  virgin." 

The  Virgin  Mary  is  meant  by  the  Evangelist,  who  so  understands  the 
prophecy  of  Immanuel  in  Isa.  vii.  14.  See  note  on  Matt.  i.  20.  Mark  also 
the  stichometrical  arrangement  which  has  been  adopted  throughout  (as 
first  suggested  by  the  American  Committee)  in  the  poetical  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament,  to  indicate  the  metrical  structure  and  the  paral 
lelism  of  Hebrew  poetry.  Much  of  the  beauty  of  the  Bible  is  lost  to  the 
common  reader  by  the  usual  typography,  which  prints  poetry  like  prose, 
and  cuts  up  the  prose  into  verses. 

II.  2:  "to  worship  him,"  with  margin  (Am.  Com.). 

Probably  here  in  the  sense  of  religious  adoration ;  yet  the  American 
Committee  is  right  in  directing  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Greek  verb 
•xpoaKvvkd)  denotes  an  act  of  homage  or  worship  (usually  by  kneeling 
or  prostration),  whether  paid  to  man  (as  in  Matt,  xviii.  26;  comp.  Sept.  ill 
Gen.  xlii.  G,  Joseph's  brethren  kneeling  before  Joseph ;  xlviii.  12,  Joseph 
before  Jacob),  or  to  God  (as  in  iv.  10).  The  English  verb  "to  worship  " 
was  formerly  likewise  used  in  a  wider  sense  (as  in  the  Anglican  marriage 
service:  "with  my  body  I  thee  worship"),  but  is  now  confined  to  acts  of 
divine  adoration. 

II.  6:  "which  [better  'who']  shall  be  shepherd  of  (otme  Troijuawi) 
my  people  Israel ;"  for  "  that  shall  rule  my  people  Israel." 

The  Greek  includes  both  ruling  and  feeding. 

II.  11 :  "And  they  came  into  the  house  and  saw  the  young  child  with 
Mary  his  mother;  and  they  fell  down  and  worshipped  him"  (or  more 
literally,  "And  coming  into  the  house  they  saw  . . .,  and  falling  down  they 
worshipped  him,"  icai  k\$6vTtg  .  .  .  ilfiov  .  .  .  xai  Treffovret;  irpoaf.Kvvri- 
aav) ;  for  "  when  they  were  come  .  .  .,  they  saw  .  .  .,  and  fell  down  .  .  ." 


436  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

II.  1C :  "  and  slew  all  the  male  children  "  (TOVQ  rraicac) ;  for  "  all  the 
children." 

The  Authorized  Version  doubles  the  number  of  the  slaughtered  inno 
cents  and  the  cruelty  of  the  act.  The  Geneva  Version  has  "  male  children," 
and  the  Vulgate  jnicros.  Herod  had  nothing  to  fear  from  the  female 
children.  In  the  same  verse  "borders"  for  "coasts,'1  which  is  now  con- 
lined  to  the  seashore.  This  change  is  made  throughout. 

II.  17  :  "  by  [better  '  through  ']  Jeremiah  ;"  for  "  by  Jeremy."1 

The  Authorized  Version  varies— as  in  many  other  proper  names — be 
tween  Jeremiah,  Jeremias,  and  Jeremy.  This  inconsistency  is  indefensi 
ble.  The  proper  rule  is:  Hebrew  spelling  for  Hebrew  names,  Greek 
spelling  for  Greek  names,  with  few  exceptions  where  usage  has  invariably 
fixed  two  forms  (as  Jesus  and  Joshua,  Alary  and  Miriam,  James  and  Jacob). 

III.  3:  ';by  Isaiah  the  prophet"  (the  order  of  the  Greek) ;  for  "by  the 
prophet  E&aias" 

Another  variation  of  spelling:  Esaias  (Greek)  and  Isaiah  (Hebrew). 
So  Elijah  and  Elias.  See  ii.  17. 

III.  4:  "Now  John  himself"  (avruc,  ck  6  'Iu>aj'r;/t') ;  for  "And  the  same 
John." 

III.  4:  "his  food"  (rpo^/y) ;  for  "his  meat." 

"Food"  is  more  comprehensive,  but  the  English  Revisers  often  re 
tained  "  meat "  where  the  American  Revisers  would  have  preferred  "  food." 
The  Authorized  Version  has  "food"  about  forty  times  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  but  only  four  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  "meat"  about  sixty 
times  in  the  New  Testament. 

III.  G:  "They  were  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan"  (Iv  np  'lopCanj  TTO- 
Tap<{j);  for  "in  Jordan."  Tro-auw  is  added  by  Lach.,Tisch..Treg.,W.and  H. 

The  Authorized  Version,  contrary  to  English  (and  Greek)  usage,  omits 
Hie  article  before  the  river  Jordan.  The  English  Revisers  have  restored 
it,  except  in  the  phrases  "  round  about  Jordan  "  and  "  beyond  Jordan ;" 
the  American  Revisers  would  have  preferred  the  article  all  through. 
The  question  of  baptism  was  scarcely  raised  in  the  American  Committee. 
AH  agreed  that  it  was  best  to  retain  the  Greek  word  which  has  long  since 
been  naturalized  in  English  (like  so  many  other  Hebrew  and  Greek 
words),  and  to  leave  the  controversy  about  the  mode  (immersion,  pouring, 
sprinkling)  to  exegesis  and  church  history. 

III.  7:  "Ye  offspring  (jEvvijuaTa)  of  vipers;"  for  "  O  generation." 

III.  11 :  "with  water,"  with  marg.  "  Or,  in." 

The  marginal  rendering,  being  more  literal  (iv  vSctTi),  should  have  been 
put  in  the  text,  as  recommended  by  the  American  Committee  (Appendix 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  437 

No.  IX.).    So  in  the  last  clause  of  this  verse.    Luke  differs  from  Matthew 

by  using  simply  the  dative  (udari)  of  water-baptism;  but  when  speaking 

of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  he  likewise  uses  the  preposition  (iv  irvevpari, 

iii.  16;  Acts  i.  5;  xi.  16). 

III.  12:  "threshing-floor"  (TIJV  aXiova) ;  for  "floor." 

The  Eastern  threshing-floor  is  meant,  or  the  circular  space  on  the  farm 

where  the  grain  is  trodden  out  by  oxen  or  horses.     "Fan"  (TO  TTTVOV) 

should  have  been  changed  into  "  winnowing-shovel." 

III.  13:  "John  would  have  hindered  him  ;"  for  "John  forbade  him." 
citKioXvtv  is  here  the  imperfect  of  the  attempt,  as  inaXovv,  Luke  i.  59 ; 

ovvt'iXXaaati',  Acts  vii.  '2(5;  kTrupStt,  Gal.  i.  '23. 

III.  15:  "Then  he  suffered!  him"  (TOTS  atyinatv  avrov) ;  for  "then  he 

suffered  him." 

III.  17.  The  rendering  of  this  verse  has  been  retained,  except  "out  of 
the  heavens  "  (tic  rwv  oiipavuir'),  for  "  from  heaven."     But  the  Committees 
labored  long  on  the  phrase   iv  tp  tv^oKi]oa  (Hebraizing  construction, 
2    "(7EH),  which  means  literally,  "  in  whom  I  delighted,"  or  "  with  whom 
I  was  (instead  of  am")  well  pleased."    The  aorist  refers  to  some  definite  act 
in  the  past,  when  the  Son  assumed  the  office  of  Mediator  and  Saviour, 
and  under  this  character  became   the  object  of  the  Father's  delight. 
Comp.  xii.  18  (from  Isa.  xlii.  1),  where  iv<HoKi]<Jtv  is  parallel  with  ypiriaa  ; 
also  xi.  27;  John  xvii.  24;  Eph.  i.  4. 

IV.  21,  22,  and  often  :  "boat"  (irXolov,  TrXoidpiov,  used  in  the  Gospels 
of  small  fishing-vessels  on  the  lake  of  Galilee) ;  for  "ship." 

IV.  24:  "epileptic"  ((TtXr]i>iaZi'>/Jti>oi)  ;  for  "lunatic"  (moonstruck). 
Epilepsy  was  traced  to  the  influence  of  the  moon,  or  of  evil  spirits. 

In  the  same  verse  the  inaccurate  rendering,  "possessed  with  devils"  (for 
SaifJiovt^ofitvoi)  is  retained,  but  with  the  marginal  alternate  "demoniacs," 
which  ought  to  have  been  put  into  the  text,  since  there  is  but  one  Devil, 
with  a  good  many  demons  or  evil  spirits  under  his  control.  See  American 
Appendix  No.  VIII.  The  word  "lunatic"  now  denotes  an  insane  person, 
which  is  not  the  meaning  of  (rtX^via^ofitvo^,  notwithstanding  the  ety 
mological  correspondence. 

V.  15:  "Neither  do  men  light  a  lamp  (\vj(vov)  and  put  it  under  the 
bushel,  but  on  the  stand"  (\vxvictv) ;  for  "candle"  and  "candlestick" 

The  portable  lamp  supplied  with  oil  was  used  by  the  Jews,  and  is  still 
used  in  the  East  instead  of  the  candle.  The  seven-armed  candlestick  in 
the  temple  was  supplied  with  oil-lamps.  "Lamp-stand"  (Conant,  Noyes, 
Davidson)  would  be  better  than  "stand,"  though  the  preceding  "lamp" 
prevents  any  ambiguity. 


438  THE    KE VISED    VERSION. 

V.  21 :  "  It  was  said  to  them  of  old  time"  (rolt;  ap\aioic) ;  instead  of 
'•  by  them."     So  also  ver.  33. 

VI.  2,  5:   "They  have  received  their  reward;"  for  "they  have  their 
reward."     The  Greek  is  not  t^oim,  but  cnrtxovm,  i.  c.,  they  have  re 
ceived  all  the  reward  they  sought  from  men,  and  need  not  expect  any 
more. 

VI.  9-13.  The  LORD'S  PKAYKIJ.  No  less  than  six  changes.  They  have 
given  by  far  the  greatest  offence,  which  might  have  been  avoided  if  they 
had  been  put  on  the  margin;  but  the  Revisers  sacrificed  prudence  and 
expediency  to  a  conscientious  sense  of  duty.  The  changes  are  as  follows : 

1.  "As  in  heaven,  so  on  earth  ;"  for  "in  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven"     Re- 
quired  by  the  order  of  the  Greek  (wg  iv  ovpap^,  Kai  J-TTI  y//e),  and  by 
the  direction  of  the  petition  from  the  divine  will  in  heaven  to  its  accom 
plishment  on  earth.     The  same  order  in  the  Old  Version,  Luke  xi.  2  in 
text  (in  the  Revised  Version  on  the  margin). 

2.  "Our  daily  bread"  is  retained  in  the  text,  but  "our  bread  for  the 
coming  day"  is  put  in  the  margin,  as  the  correct  rendering  of  the  Greek. 
But  we  do  not  need  to-morrow's  bread  "  this  day."    I  prefer  the  American 
margin,  "our  needful  bread"     The  derivation  of  the  difficult  t-jriovaioQ 
(either  from  lirikrai  through  iirtMV,  kTTiovva,  or  from  iirfivai,  as  a  com 
pound  of  fcTri  and  ovaia)  is  elaborately  discussed  by  Lightfoot  in  the  Ap 
pendix  to  his  work  on  Revision,  p.  195-242.     Meyer,  in  loc.,  like  Fritzsche 
and  Lightfoot,  derives  the  word  from  i-Kiivai,  "to-morrow's  bread,"  and 
objects  to  the  derivation  from  i-jriivai  that  it  would  require  tTrovaioQ.     But 
tliis  is  refuted  by  such  examples  as  tTriopKog  (connected  with  tTriop/ctw), 
imetKriG,  tTrtovpog,  tTTioy^ooc.      Dr.  Weiss,  in    the   seventh   edition  of 
Meyer's  Matthew  (1883),  dissents  from  him,  and  explains:  "the  bread 
which  belongs  to  our  daily  need,"  thus  sustaining  the  American  margin. 
Origen,  Chrysostom,  Tholuck,  Ewald,  Bleck,  Keim,  and  Holtzmann  adopt 
substantially  the  same  view. 

3.  "As  we  also  have  forgiven  [literally,  we  forgave]  our  debtors;"  for 
"  as  \ve  forgive  our  debtors."    There  is  here  a  difference  of  reading,  afy^Ka- 
utv  or  a<f>iep.ev.      The  aorist  implies  that  we  must  have  forgiven  our 
debtors  before  we  can  consistently  ask  forgiveness  from  God.     In  the  par 
allel  passage,  Luke  xi.  3,  all  authorities  read  the  present  tense,  "We  for 
give,"  which  gives  as  good  sense,  and  implies  simultaneous  or  habitual 
forgiveness  to  our  neighbor.1 


1  Meyer  and  Weiss  defend  a^ry/ca/ifj' :  "  Jesus  sefzt,  mil  Recht  vorans, 
dass  der  Claubiye,  wdcher  Gott  wn  Schuldenerlass  bittet,  bereits  denen 
rerziehen  habe  (Sir.  xxviii.  2i;  Mark  xi.  25),  icelche  sich  an  ihm  verschuldet 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  439 

4.  "  Bring  us  not  into  temptation  ;"  for  "  lead  us  not "  (Vulgate,  ne  nos 
indiicas,  etc.).     So  also  in  Luke  xi.  4.     The  former  verb  better  expresses 
ti'o-gj'gyKyt;  (from  e/o^lpw),  and  may  refer  here  more  to  outward  circum 
stances;  while  "lead"  (which  would  require  gi'aayayyc;?  from  elaayw)  is 
a  stronger  word,  and  implies  action  on  the  consenting  will.     The  slight 
change  relieves  the  petition  of  a  difficulty  which  is  often  felt,  and  is  apt 
to  lead  into  error.     God  cannot  directly  and  inwardly  (through  our  will) 
tempt  us  (Jas.  i.  13) — i.  e.,  solicit  us  to  sin — but  he  may  permit  us  to  get 
into  tempting  positions  which  are  under  the  control  of  his  providence.1 
£H70spw  is,  with  this  exception,  and  in  Luke  xi.  4,  always  in  the  Author 
ized  Version  rendered  to  bring  in  (with  tiV,  to  bring  into,  or  to),  Luke  v.  18, 
1 9 ;  xii.  11 ;  Acts  xvii.  20 ;  1  Tim.  vi.  7 ;  Heb.  xiii.  11.     The  Revised  Ver 
sion  carries  the  same  rendering  through  all  the  passages,  and  uses  "lead" 
for  ayw  (Rom.  ii.  4),  or  aTrayai  (Matt.  vii.  13,  14) ;  but  it  is  inconsistent 
in  rendering  €('cr«yw  (with  and  without  ei't;)  like  f  /n^pai,  to  bring  (Luke  ii. 
27 ;  xiv.  21 ;  John  xvii.  16 ;  Acts  vii.  45 ;  xxi.  28,  29,  37 ;  Heb.  i.  0),  instead 
of  to  lead,  to  lead  into  (as  in  Acts  ix.  8). 

5.  "Deliver  us  from  the  evil  one"  (i.  e.,  Satan,  the  great  tempter),  with 
margin,  "Or,  evil;"  for  "from  evil."     This  is  the  most  serious  and  most 
unpopular  change  in  the  whole  book.     It  is  especially  offensive  to  those 
who  are  disposed  to  deny  the  existence  of  a  personal  devil  (although  no 
one  can  deny  the  existence  of  many  devils  in  human  shape2).    But  Canon 
Cook,  also,  in  the  name  of  high   Anglican  orthodoxy,  strongly  protests 
against  the  innovation.3    The  Greek  (rov  Trovrjpov  and  p<W3m  with  OTTO) 

haben,  und  giebt  dem  Beter  dadurch  A  nlass  zur  Selbstpriifung,  ob  er  das 
aucli  gethan  und  sich  dadurch  als  ein  rechtes  Gotteskind  bewahrt  habe,  icie 
es  allein  dies  Gebet  sprechen  kann" 

1  Meyer  and  Weiss,  in  loc. :  "  Gottfuhrt  in  Versuchung,  in  so  fern  die 
versuchlichen.  d.  i.  die  zur  S'dnde  A  nlass  gebenden  Lagen  und  Umstande  durch 
ihn,  vermoge  seiner  Regierung  hergestellt  icerden,  und  es  also  von  Gott 
geschieht  und  er  es  macht,  (1  Kor.  x.  13),  we'nn  der  Mensch  in  solche  Seelenge- 
fahren  gerdth.  . .  .  So  lost  sich  zugleich  der  scheinbare  Widerspruch  mit  Jak. 
i.  13,  wo  von  der  subjectiven,  inneren  Versuchung  die  Rede  ist,  dercn  wirkendes 
Princip  nicht  Gott,  sondern  die  eigene  Begierde  ist.     In  letzterer  liegt  auch 
beim  Gldubigen  vermoge  seiner  0dp%  (xxvi.  41 ;  Gal.  v.  17)  die  grosse  sittliche 
Gefahr,  icelche  dieses  Gebet  immer  wieder  nothwendig  macht" 

2  As  Goethe  admirably  says  of  the  Rationalists : 

"  Den  Bosen  sind  sie  los, 
Die  Bosen  sind  geblieben" 

3  He  speaks  of  "  the  extreme  surprise  and  grief"  which  this  change  has 


44:0  THE    REVISED    VEESION. 

admits  of  both  the  masculine  and  the  neuter  rendering;  and  hence  the 
Revisers  retain  the  old  as  an  alternative  in  the  margin.  The  case  in 
volves  the  following  points : 

(a)  In  nearly  all  the  passages  o  Tror^poc,  as  a  noun,  designates  Satan, 
who  is  emphatically  the  Evil  One,  the  Wicked  One— namely,  Matt.  xiii. 
19,  38;  Eph.  vi.  16;   1  John  ii.  13,  14;  iii.  12;  v.  18,  19  (probably  also 
Matt.  v.  37  ;  John  xvii.  15 ;  2  Tliess.  iii.  3)  ;  while  TO  Trovrjpw,  as  a  noun, 
occurs  only  twice  in  the  New  Testament — Luke  vi.  45  and  Horn.  xii.  9. 
In  Matt.  v.  39  o  TTOJ^POC  is  used  of  an  evil  man. 

(b)  The  preposition  arro  with  the  verb  jOiW^ai  more  naturally  suggests 
a  person,  the  preposition  t/c  a  danger,  but  not  necessarily.1 

(c)  The  close  connection  of  "not"  and  "but"  (ju/j  .  .  .  «X\a)  favors 
the  masculine  rendering.    And  this  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  Christ 
shortly  before  came  out  of  the  mysterious  conflict  with  his  great  antago 
nist.     Hence  there  is  great  force  in  the  petition  in  this  sense,  "  Bring  us 
not  into  temptation,  but  deliver  us  from  the  Tempter ,"  i.  e.  from  the  power 
of  him  who  is  the  author  of  all  sin  and  misery  in  the  world.     Several 
fathers  remark  that  Luke  omits  the  last  petition  because  it  is  practically 
included  in  the  former. 

(d)  All  the  Greek  fathers  (Origen,  Chrysostom,  etc.),  and  most  of  the 
Reformed  or  Calvinistic  commentators  (from  Beza  to  Ebrard),  support 
the  masculine  rendering; 2  while  the  post-Nicene  Latin  Church,  under  the 
lead  of  Augustin  (a  malo*),3  and  the  Lutheran  Church,  under  the  lead  of 
Luther,  favor  the  neutral  rendering.     The  Heidelberg  Catechism  (Ke- 

caused  to  him  and  will  cause  to  "  millions  of  devout  and  trustful  hearts." 
To  which  Bishop  Light  foot  aptly  replies  that  the  cause  of  truth  is  more 
sacred  even  than  the  sentiments  of  our  fellow-Christians.  "If  transla 
tors  are  not  truthful,  they  are  nothing  at  all." 

1  pvwSai  occurs  seventeen  times  in  the  New  Testament  with  airb  and 
IK.     Lightfoot  lays  no  stress  on  the  preposition. 

2  Lightfoot  says  (in  "The  Guardian"  for  Sept.  21,  1881):   "Among 
Greek  writers  there  is,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  absolute  unanimity  on 
this  point.     They  do  not  betray  the  slightest  suspicion  that  an}'  other 
interpretation  is  possible."    Then  he  quotes  from  the  Clementine  Homilies, 
Origen,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  Nyssen, 
Didymus  of  Alexandria,  Chrysostom,  and  Isidore  of  Pelusium. 

3  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  however,  used  mains  of  the  Evil  One,  and  so, 
according  to  Lightfoot,  understood  the  Lord's  Prayer.     But  Canon  Cook 
claims  Cyprian  on  the  other  side,  and  not  without  reason  {Second  Letter, 
p.  87  sq.). 


THE    EEYISED    VERSION.  441 

formed)  translates  vom  Busen;  Luther,  in  his  Bible  and  Small  Catechism, 
vom  Uebel,  but  in  his  Large  Catechism  he  refers  the  word  to  "  the  evil 
one,  or  the  malicious  one,"  so  that  "  the  entire  substance  of  all  our  prayer 
should  be  directed  against  our  chief  enemy "  (Expos,  of  the  Seventh 
Petition). 

(e)  The  testimony  of  ancient  versions  and  liturgies  is  prevailingly  for 
the  masculine  rendering,  as  Lightfoot  has  shown. 

(/")  Modern  commentators  are  divided ;  the  most  exacting  philological 
exegetes  (Fritzsche,  Meyer,  also  Keim  and  Hilgcnfeld)  prefer  the  mascu 
line  rendering,  and  Meyer  urges  that  it  better  suits  "  the  concrete  concep 
tion  of  the  New  Testament"  (referring  to  ten  passages);  but  Tholuck, 
Olshausen,  Bleck,  Ewald,  Keil.  and  Weiss  (in  the  seventh  edition  of  Meyer 
on  Matlheir)  are  on  the  other  side. 

(jrj)  In  any  case,  TOV  Troi'rjpov  here  refers  to  moral,  not  physical,  evil, 
although  the  latter  is  a  consequence  of  the  former.  Comp.  the  contrast 
between  TO  ironjpuv  and  TO  ayaSov  in  Eom.  xii.  9,  where  both 
versions  render  "Abhor  that  which  is  evil;  cleave  to  that  which  is 
good.'' 

6.  The  doxology.  Here  the  "Revisers  are  undoubtedly  right  in  relegat 
ing  it  to  the  margin.  The  entire  silence  about  it  in  the  earliest  patristic 
expositions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  by  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  Origen,  is 
alone  conclusive  against  its  being  a  part  of  the  original  text,  and  far  out 
weighs  the  authority  of  Chrysostom,  who  lived  two  hundred  years  later. 
It  is,  no  doubt,  a  liturgical  insertion  (from  1  Chron.  xxix.  11,  where  nearly 
the  same  doxology  is  found).  Its  omission  in  the  most  ancient  authori 
ties,  including  the  Latin  versions,  is  inexplicable  otherwise.  The  Saviour 
did  not  so  much  intend  to  enjoin  a  complete  formula  of  prayer  as  to  sug 
gest  the  essential  topics,  and  to  teach  us  the  right  spirit  of  all  prayer, 
whether  free  or  liturgical. 

The  changes  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  have  been  fully  discussed  between 
Canon  Cook  and  Bishop  Lightfoot.  See  above,  p.  378.  The  former  is 
totally  opposed  to  all  changes,  especially  the  omission  of  the  doxology. 
In  his  last  book  on  The  Revised  Version  he  again  opposes  it,  but  makes 
the  wrong  statement  that  the  reference  of  the  last  petition  to  Satan  is 
"opposed  by  all  the  churches  of  Western  Christendom"  (p.  61),  ignoring 
the  fact  that  the  German  and  the  Dutch  Reformed  churches,  which  hold 
to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  belong  to  Western  Christendom.  The 
Dutch  Bijbel  translates,  "  verlos  ons  van  den  booze  "  (from  the  evil  one~),  in 
agreement  with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  the  German  original  (vom 
Bosen).  It  is  not  likely  that  the  Revision  will  change  the  habits  of  the 


442  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

people.  The  Episcopalians  use  the  prayer  in  two  forms,  with  and  with 
out  the  doxology,  and  still  adhere  to  the  older  version :  "  Forgive  us  our 
trespasses  as  we  forgive  them  that  trespass  against  us"  (instead  of,  "For 
give  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors"),  and  the  double  "ever"  at 
the  close,  contrary  to  King  James's  Version. 

VI.  25 :  "  Be  not  anxious  for  your  life  "  {/jr}  ntpip.va.rt) ;  for  "  take  no 
thought.'1''  So  also  ver.  34. 

Removal  of  an  archaic  phrase  which  now  reads  like  an  exhortation  to 
improvidence.  Shakespeare  and  Bacon  use  "thought"  in  the  sense  of 
anxiety,  melancholy:  e.  y.,  "to  die  of  thought,"  "sicklied  o'er  with  the 
pale  cast  of  thought." 

IX.  17:  "wine-skins"  (uffKoi) ;  for  "  bottles ." 

In  Egypt  and  Palestine  wine  and  water  are  put  into  bottles  made  of 
the  skin  of  an  animal  taken  off  whole,  and  carriers  of  such  skin-bottles 
are  still  constantly  seen  in  the  streets  of  Cairo  and  Jerusalem. 

XL  23:  "Hades."  for  "hell,"  and  so  in  nine  other  passages  where  the 
word  occurs  in  the  New  Testament — Matt.  xvi.  18;  Luke  x.  15;  xvi.  23; 
Acts  ii.27,  31;  Kev.  i.  18;  vi.  8;  xx.  13,  14. 

Restoration  of  an  important  distinction  between  Hades  (or  Sheol)—i.  e., 
the  realm  of  the  dead,  the  spirit-world— and  JIM  (or  Gehenna,  also  once 
Tartarus,  2  Pet.  ii.  4) — i.  e.,  the  state  and  place  of  future  punishment  (in 
twelve  passages).  The  American  Committee  insisted  upon  this  change 
from  the  beginning,  but  the  English  Committee  resisted  it  till  they 
reached  the  passages  in  Revelation. 

XIV.  8:  "  She  [the  daughter  of  Herodias]  being  put  forward  [or,  urged 
on.  impelled,  TrpofitfictffStiact  from  7T|Oo/3(/3a£a;]  by  her  mother;"  instead 
of  "  being  before  instructed"  (from  the  Vulgate.  ^rcewzowzVa). 

XV.  27 :  "  Yea,  Lord,  for  even  (KOI  yap)  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs 
which  fall  from  their  master's  table;"  instead  of  "Truth,  Lord:  yet  the 
dogs,"  etc.     The  woman  put  in  her  plea  on  the  very  ground  of  the  Lord's 
words.     Not  as  one  of  the  children,  but  as  an  humble  dependant,  she 
asked  only  the  crumbs. 

XVI.  13 :  "  Who  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of  man  is?"  for  "  whom"  etc. 
An  error  of  grammar. 

XVI.  2G:  "What  shall  a  man  be  profited,  if  he.  shall  gain  the  whole 
world,  and  forfeit  his  life?  or  what  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his 
life?"  instead  of  "lose  his  own  soul  ...  for  his  soul."  So  also  Mark  viii. 
36,  37. 

The  Greek  ^v\rj  means  both  life  and  soul,  but  consistency  with  ver.  25, 
where  the  Authorized  Version  itself  translates  life,  requires  the  same  ren- 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  443 

dering  in  vcr.  2G.  The  difference  in  the  text  is  between  the  lower  physi 
cal  or  temporal  life  and  the  higher  spiritual  or  eternal  Hie,  and  the  warning 
is  against  sacrificing  the  latter  to  the  former.  There  is  indeed  a  fearful 
sense  in  which  one  may  lose  his  soul;  but  the  usual  inferences  based  upon 
this  phrase  are  just  as  applicable  to  life  in  its  higher  sense  (life  eternal). 

XXI.  41 :  "  He  will  miserably  destroy  those  miserable  men  ;"  for  "  mis 
erably  destroy  those  wicked  men." 

The  Greek  KCIKOVC;  Kaicwg  (=pessimos  pessime)  aTroXiaei  is  a  parono 
masia  of  purest  Greek,  and  brings  out  the  agreement  of  character  with 
the  punishment.  Compare  the  English  phrase,  "  Evil  be  to  him  that  evil 
thinks."  It  might  also  be  rendered,  "  These  wretches  will  he  wretchedly 
destroy." 

XXIII.  24:  "  Strain  out  the  gnat,  and  swallow  the  camel;"  for  "strain 
at  a  gnat." 

A  typographical  error  which  became  stereotyped.  The  older  English 
versions  have  ''out."  A  proverbial  sentence  for  pedantic  scrupulosity  in 
trifles.  The  Jews  were  in  the  habit  of  tillering  wine  and  other  beverages 
to  avoid  swallowing  a  small  insect  pronounced  unclean  by  the  law.  So 
the  Buddhists  to-day. 

XXV.  8 :  "Our  lamps  are  going  out"  (the  present,  afisvvvvrai) ;  for 
"  are  gone  out." 

The  flax  was  still  smoking,  as  is  apparent  from  the  virgins  trimming 
the  wick  (ver.  7). 

XXV.  46  :  "Eternal  punishment;"  for  " everlasting" 

The  same  word,  ciiwvioc,  is  used  in  both  clauses,  and  the  variation  of 
the  Authorized  Version  in  the  same  verse  creates  a  false  distinction. 

XXVI.  28 :   "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  [new]  covenant ;"  for  "  testa 
ment." 

So  also  in  all  other  passages  where  diaSt'iKr)  (  — r^"12)  occurs,  except 
Heb.  ix.  1G,  17,  where  the  meaning  is  disputed.  The  English  Revisers 
retained  "  testament "  in  the  margin,  but  the  American  Committee  objected 
to  this  alternative  except  in  Heb.  ix.  15-17.  The  error  came  from  the 
Vulgate,  and  has  affected  the  designation  of  the  two  parts  of  the  Bible, 
which  has  become  stereotyped  in  all  modern  languages  beyond  the  power 
of  change,  although  Old  Testament  (as  implying  the  death  of  the  testator) 
is  a  misnomer. 

XXVIII.  19:  "Baptizing  them  into  (tit,')  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  for  "in  the  name"  (from  the  Vulgate. 
in  nomine). 

Compare  Gal.  iii.  27  (baptized  into  Christ) ;  1  Cor.  x.  2  (into  Moses) ; 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Acts  viii.  1C  (into  the  name) ;  1  Cor.  i.  13  (into  the  name).  The  Greek 
preposition  etc;  denotes  motion  and  direction.  Baptism  is  an  introduction 
into  the  covenant  and  communion  with  the  triune  God.  "To  be  baptized 
into  that  name  was  to  be  consigned  to  the  loving,  redeeming,  sanctifying 
power  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." — Humphry  (p.  G8). 

LUKE. 

II.  2:  "This  was  the  first  enrolment  (cnroypafr}  Trpwr?/)  made  when 
Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria;"  for  ''this  taxing  Avas  first "  (which 
would  require  Trpwrov)  "made  when  Cyrenius,"  etc. 

Luke  distinguishes  this  enrolment  from  another  which  took  place  ten 
years  afterwards  under  the  same  governor,  Acts  v.  37.  The  chronological 
difficulty  ought  not  to  affect  the  translation. 

II.  49  :  "  In  my  Father's  house  ;"  for  "  business.'1'' 

The  Greek  (tv  rote  rof',  literally,  in  1he  t/iinr/s  of)  admits  of  both  ver 
sions,  but  the  Revised  Version  is  more  probable  in  the  context;  for  the 
parents  sought  him  in  a  place.  See  the  reasons  which  influenced  the 
Revisers  in  Humphry's  CommentCD'y,  p.  98. 

III.  23:   "Jesus  himself,  when  he  began   to  teach,  was  about  thirty 
years  of  age;"  instead  of  "Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of 
age." 

VII.  2  :  "At  the  point  of  death  "  (ijptXXt  TtXtvrciv')  ;  for  "  ready  to  die" 
which,  in  the  sense  here  used,  is  an  archaism.  In  the  modern  sense  of  the 
term,  we  should  always  be  ready  to  die,  in  health  as  well  as  sickness. 
"  Readiness  is  all "  (Shakespeare). 

XXIII.  15:  "Nothing  worthy  of  death  hath  been  done  by  him  [Je 
sus]  ;"  for  "  done  unto  him." 

The  Greek  is  ambiguous  (TrtTrpayiiivov  OUTV/J),  but  the  context  leaves 
no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  Pilate. 

Jonx. 

V.  35:  "  lie  [John  the  Baptist]  was  the  lamp  (6  \v%roc~)  that  burneth 
and  shineth  ;"  instead  of  the  "  iiyht" 

Christ  was  the  self-luminous  light  (ro  0w£,  lux);  John  the  Baptist  was 
a  lamp  lighted  and  supplied  with  oil  for  the  purpose  of  bearing  witness  to 
the  light.  Compare  John  i.  8. 

V.  39  :  "  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,"  for  "  Search  the  Scriptures." 

The  Greek  tpevvaTt  admits  of  both  translations,  but  the  context 
(especially  the  on,  the  emphatic  vfjitlc,  the  position  of  iv  avralQ,  and  the 
contrast  expressed  in  Kai  ov  StXtre)  decidedly  favors  the  indicative  rather 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  445 

than  the  imperative  rendering.  The  Jews  really  did  search  the  Scriptures 
very  diligently,  though  slavishly,  pedantically,  and  stiperstitiously ;  it 
was  their  boast  and  pride,  and  the3r  used  this  very  word  (compare  vii.  52, 
where  they  tell  Nicodemus,  "  Search  [iptvvt]Gov^  and  see,"  etc.)  ;  hut  they 
studied  the  letter  only  and  missed  the  spirit,  and  do  so  to  this  day. 
Christ  turns  the  tables  against  them,  saying :  "  Ye  do  [indeed]  search  the 
Scriptures  [rug  ypcupaz,  not  TOV  Xoyov  rov  3fo£],  because  ye  think  that 
in  them  [not  through  them,  as  a  mere  means]  ye  have  eternal  life;  and 
these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  me;  and  [yet]  ye  will  not  come  to 
Me  [who  am  the  Life  and  Light  of  the  Scriptures],  that  ye  may  have 
[that  eternal]  life."  The  contrast  brings  out  the  inconsistency  and  hy 
pocrisy  of  the  Pharisees.  The  two  interpretations  are  fully  discussed  in  my 
edition  of  Lange  on  John,  p.  194  sq.  See  also  Beza,  Ben  gel,  Godet,  Meyer, 
Weiss  (sixth  edition  of  Meyer),  Luthardt  (in  his  new  edition),  Westcott, 
Milligan  and  Moulton,  who  all  take  the  verb  in  the  indicative  sense. 
The  English  Revisers  give  the  imperative  rendering  (supported  by 
Chrysostom,  Augustin,  Luther.  Tholuck,  Hengstenberg,  Ewald,  Alford) 
the  benefit  of  the  margin. 

VIII.  58:  "  Before  Abraham  was  born  (ytviaSai),  I  am"  (ff/if);  for 
''before  Abraham  was,  I  am." 

This  correction  is  only  made  in  the  margin,  but  ought  to  have  been  put 
into  the  text.  There  is  an  important  distinction  between  ytr'triSai,  which 
signifies  temporal  or  created  existence,  beginning  in  time  and  presupposing 
previous  non-existence,  and  dvai,  which  expresses  here,  in  the  present 
tense,  the  eternal,  uncreated  existence  of  the  Divine  Logos.  The  same 
distinction  is  observed  in  the  prologue  of  John,  where  /}i>  is  applied  to  the 
Logos,  ver.  1,  while  tytrsro  is  used  of  the  genesis  of  the  world,  vcr.  3, 
the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  ver.  G,  and  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos, 
ver.  14. 

X.  16;  "They  shall  become  (jtri^ovrat')  one  flock  (rrolprr]},  one 
shepherd;"  instead  of  ''There  shall  be  one  fold"  (which  would  require 
auA?/,  occurring  in  the  same  verse)  "  and  one  shepherd." 

There  may  be,  and  there  are,  many  folds  (denominations  and  church 
organizations)  for  the  one  flock  under  the  one  shepherd.  The  error  of  the 
Authorized  Aversion,  derived  from  the  Vulgate  (orile),  is  mischievous,  and 
has  often  been  used  in  favor  of  an  outward  visible  unity  culminating  in 
the  pope.  Dr.  Westcott  says  (Commentary,  in  loc.) :  "  The  translation 
'fold'  for  'flock'  has  been  most  disastrous  in  idea  and  influence.  The 
obliteration  of  this  essential  distinction  has  served  in  no  small  degree  to 
confirm  and  extend  the  false  claims  of  the  Roman  See.  It  would  perhaps 


446  THE    REVISED   VERSION. 

be  impossible  for  any  correction  now  to  do  away  with  the  effects  which  a 
translation  undeniably  false  has  produced  on  ecclesiastical  ideas." 

XIII.  2:  ''During   supper"  (or,  "as  supper  was  beginning,"  ct'nrvov 
•yivof.i'tvov),  for  "Supper  being  ended"  (which  is  inconsistent  with  ver. 
2G,  where  the  meal  is  still  going  on).     The  CLITTVOV  was  the  principal 
meal  of  the  ancients,  and  corresponds  to  our  late  dinner. 

XIV.  1C  :  "  Comforter,"  used  here,  ver.  26,  xv.  26,  and  xvi.  7  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  was  retained,  but  with  a  marginal  note.     It  is  an  inadequate  ren 
dering  of  TrapdK\i]TOc,  which  means  advocate,  helper,  intercessor,  coun 
sellor.     It  is  passive,  one  called  to  aid  (advocatus),  not  active  (7rapaic\r]- 
Ttop) ;  but  after  long  deliberation  the  Kevisers  retained  the  dear  old  word 
which  expresses  one  important  function  of  the  Spirit.     In  1  John  ii.  1, 
where  it  is  used  of  Christ,  the  Kevisers  retained  Advocate  in  the  text, 
with  Comforter  in  the  margin.     Rather  inconsistent.     It  would  be  better 
to  use  Advocate  all  through,  with  Paraclete  in  the  margin.     See  the  long 
discussion  in  Lange  on  John  xiv.  16  (English  edition,  p.  440  sq.),  and 
Lightfoot  on  Revision  (p.  50  sqq.,  in  favor  of  Advocate). 

XVI.  8  :  "  Convict ;"  for  "  reprove" 

The  verb  i\'tj^iv  implies  both  a  convincing  unto  salvation  and  a  con 
victing  unto  condemnation. 

ACTS. 

II.  3:  "And  there  appeared  unto  them  tongues  parting  asunder"  (or, 
dividing,  distributing  themselves,  PiautpiZoutvai),  "like  as  of  fire;"  for 
"cloven  tongues"  (from  Tyndale,  giving  the  wrong  idea  that  each  tongue 
was  forked). 

11.31:  "neither  was  he  left  in  Hades"  (or,  abandoned  unto  Hades, 
ovTt  tvKartXt'HpSri  et'e  q.Sov,  the  realm  of  the  dead,  the  abode  of  departed 
spirits) ;  instead  of  " his  soul  was  not  left  in  hell"  So  also  ver.  27. 

Christ  was  certainly  in  the  realm  of  the  dead,  and  in  Paradise  between 
his  death  and  resurrection,  as  we  know  from  his  own  lips,  Luke  xxiii.  43 
("  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise ") ;  but  we  do  not  know 
whether  he  was  in  hell.  The  wording  of  the  clause  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  according  to  its  original  meaning,  ought  to  be  corrected,  "De 
scended  into  Hades.'1''  The  omission  of  "  his  soul"  is  due  to  a  change  of 
reading ;  ?}  ^vxr}  aurov  of  the  textits  receptus  is  not  supported  by  any  of 
the  oldest  authorities,  and  was  probably  inserted  in  contrast  to  //  aapZ,  avrov. 

II.  47 :  "  The  Lord  added  to  them  day  by  day  those  that  were  being 
saved  "  (in  the  process  of  salvation,  or,  with  American  Committee,  "  were 
saved  ") ;  instead  of  "  such  as  should  be  saved." 

The  false  rendering  of  the  present  participle,  TOVQ  G<D%OHEVOVC,  as  indi- 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  447 

eating  a  class  of  persons  predestinated  for  salvation,  has  been  traced  to  a 
Calvinistic  bias  of  the  Authorized  Version  and  the  influence  of  Bcza,  but 
it  is  derived  from  Tyndale  and  other  versions.  The  same  word  is  used  in 
1  Cor.  i.  18,  and  contrasted  with  cnroXXv/j-Evoi,  "  those  that  are  perish 
ing." 

III.  19.  20:  "that  so  (OTTWC)  there  may  come  (jtXSbiffi)  seasons  of  re 
freshing  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  that  he  may  send  (aTrorrr* (Xy) 
the  Christ  (rbv  Xp.),  who  hath  been  appointed  (irpoKfxtipiaiiwov)  for 
you;"  instead  of  "when  the  times  of  refreshing  shall  come.  .  .  .  And  he 
shall  send  Jesus  Christ  which  before  was  preached  (TrpoKdcripvyfitvov^) 
unto  you." 

Both  verbs  depend  upon  OIFWQ,  which  never  means  when.  The  Author 
ized  Version  and  older  English  versions  were  misled  by  the  Vulgate  (lit 
cum  venerinf).  The  season  of  refreshing  refers  to  the  second  coming  of 
the  Messiah. 

III.  21 :  "  Until  the  times  of  restoration  of  all  things ;"  for  "  restitution" 
(from  the  Vulgate). 

The  word  cnroKa~dffTamg  refers  to  the  general  renovation  of  the  world 
at  the  glorious  coming  of  the  Messiah.  Compare  Matt.  xvii.  11  (cnroKa- 
ratrr/'/cret  Travra),  and  xix.  28  (iv  ry  iraXivyeveffiq)* 

XII.  4:  "Passover;"  for  "Easter." 

The  Jewish  festival  is  meant.  Easter  is  of  mediaeval  Germanic  origin, 
but  was  regarded  as  the  precise  equivalent  for  Passover.  Luther  made 
the  same  mistake  (Osterri),  and  the  German  Revisers  did  not  correct  it. 

XVII.  22 :  "  Ye  are  somewhat  superstitious  "  (margin,  "  Or,  religious  ") ; 
for  "  ye  are  too  superstitious  "  (from  Tyndale). 

Paul  was  too  much  of  a  gentleman  and  had  too  much  good  sense  to 
begin  his  address  to  the  Athenian  philosophers  with  an  insult  rather  than 
a  captatio  benevolentiai.  S(iaiSai/j,ovfffTtpoi  (the  comparative  of  ctiaiCai- 
p.iov,  literally,  "  demon-dreading,"  but  almost  equivalent  to  our  "  God-fear 
ing"),  is  ambiguous,  but  is  no  doubt  used  here  in  a  good  sense  to  designate 
the  scrupulous  religiosity  of  the  Athenians  in  erecting  an  altar  for  an  un 
known  god,  lest  they  might  neglect  one.  The  American  suggestion  is 
still  better,  "very  religious."  We  might  say  "over-religious,"  for  the 
comparative  intensifies  rather  than  weakens  ("  somewhat ")  the  idea.  In 
the  same  address,  "  What  (o)  ye  worship  in  ignorance "  (unknowingly, 
dyvoovvTtc),  for  "whom  (ov)  ye  igiwrantly  worship."  Compare  John  iv. 
22 :  "  Ye  (Samaritans)  worship  that  which  ye  know  not." 

XX.  28:  "Bishops"  (i~iGKOTrovQ\  for  "overseers." 

This  important  change  (ignored  by  Humphry)  is  required  by  con- 


44S  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

sistcncy  Avith  the  uniform  rendering  of  the  Avord  in  Philippians  and  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  and  by  the  undoubted  fact  that  bishops  (overseers)  and 
presbyters  (elders)  in  the  apostolic  age  Avere  identical.  The  same  officers 
at  Kphesus,  Avho  are  here  called  tTTiWoTroi,  are  in  A'er.  17  called  TrptafiiiTtpoi. 
The  change  Avas  strongly  urged  by  the  American  Committee  upon  the 
English  Revisers. 

XXI.  15:  "We  took  up  our  baggage;"  instead  of  "carriages,"  which 
formerly  had  the  passive  sense,  "  the  thing  carried." 

XXVI.  28 :  ';  With  but  little  persuasion  (tj/  oXi'y<tt»)  thou  wonkiest  fain 
make  me  a  Christian." 

The  Authorized  Version,  "A  l/nost  [from  the  GencA'a  Version  and  Beza's 
propemodum]  thou  persuadest  me  to  be  a  Christian,"  gives  very  good 
sense,  and  has  furnished  the  text  for  many  excellent  sermons;  but  is 
against  the  Greek,  both  classic  and  Hellenistic,  though  supported  by 
Chrysostom,  Luther  (es  fehlet  nicht  vicl),  and  Grotius.  "Almost"  Avould 
require  Trap'  oXiyof  or  oXiyov.  It  assumes,  moreoArer,  that  Agrippa,  a 
most  frivolous  character,  Avas  in  earnest  and  on  the  very  point  of  conver 
sion,  Avhich  is  contradicted  by  his  later  history.  The  phrase  tv  oXijif) 
means  "in  a  little,"  and  this  may  be  understood  either  in  a  temporal 
sense,  "in  a  short  time,"  or  in  a  quantitative  sense,  "in  a  few  words"  (as 
Eph.  iii.  15).  The  former  is  preferred  by  Ncander,  De  Wctte,  Hackett, 
and  is  suggested  by  the  American  Committee  as  a  marginal  alternative; 
the  latter  is  the  interpretation  of  Meyer  (_"  mit  wenigem  iibcrrcdcst  du  mich 
cin  Christ  zu  u-erden"),  Lechler  (in  Lange),  Wendt,  Plumptre,  etc.,  and 
corresponds  better  to  the  quantitative  iv  jutyaX^  in  Paul's  answer  (adopted 
by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Ilort,  and  English  Kevisers,  in 
stead  of  h>  TroXXfp).  The  periphrastic  rendering,  "  Avith  little  persiias-ion  " 
(or  "effort"),  is  not  quite  satisfactory,  but  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  trans 
late  the  terse  and  sententious  Greek.  Agrippa  spoke  ironically,  or  per 
haps  in  playful  courtesy;  at  all  events  evasively. 

The  change  in  ver.  28  requires  a  corresponding  change  in  Paul's  answer, 
A'er.  29  :  "  Avhether  Avith  little  or  Avith  much"  (fcai  iv  6X<yf£)  KO.I  tv  ftiyaXty*), 
for  "almost  and  altogether"  (also  from  the  Geneva  Version).  The  Re 
vised  Version  requires  the  supply  of  the  Avord  persuasion.  The  American 
Committee  suggests  in  the  margin,  "  Or,  loth  in  little  and  in  great,  i.  e.,  in 
all  respects."  The  exquisite  courtesy  of  Paul's  ansAvcr  is  obvious  whether 
Agrippa  Avas  in  earnest  or  not,  and  all  the  more  striking  if  he  Avas  not. 

ROMANS. 

I.  18  :  "Who  hold  doAvn  [or  better,  "  hinder,"  KO.  r£%ovron']  the  truth 
in  unrighteousness;"  instead  of  "  hold." 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 


449 


The  preposition  Kara  in  the  verb  has  the  sense  of  suppressing,  not  of 
holding  fast ;  compare  Luke  iv.  42 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  G. 

III.  25  :  "  Because  of  the  passing  over  [or,  pretermission,  dia  T)]V  Tra/oe- 
Gn>,  from  Trapa/jut,  to  let  pass]  of  sins  done  aforetime ;"  instead  of ';  for  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  passed."  Compare  Acts  xvii.  30;  Heb.  ix.  15. 

The  pretermission  (Ttaptaic,}  of  sins  is  an  act  of  God's  long-suffering  or 
forbearance  (avo\i]},  remission  (CL^OIQ)  an  act  of  God's  mercy  (x«|0'f)  ? 
the  former  is  a  postponement,  the  latter  a  granting,  of  pardon.  The 
Vulgate,  Luther,  and  Beza  confounded  the  two. 

V.  12  :  "For  that  all  sinned;"  instead  of  "have  sinned." 

The  aorist  (rj/uaprov)  points  to  a  definite  act  in  the  past,  whether  this 
be  the  potential  fall  of  all  men  in  Adam,  or  the  actual  fall  of  each  de 
scendant.  The  Revisers  ought  to  have  made  the  same  correction  in  iii. 
23. 


V.  15  :  "  But  not  as  the  trespass  (TO 
,  so  also  is  the  free 
For  if  by  the 
trespass  of  the  one  (row  ivuc)  the 
many  died  (01  TroXXoi  cnrkSa- 
vov~),  much  more  did  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  gift  by  the  grace 


gift  (TO 


of  the  one  man  (row  ivva  ct 
Jesus   Christ,  abound   unto   the 

16  man}7  (f  IQ  TOVQ  TroXXouc).     And 
not  as  through  one  that  sinned, 
so  is  the  gift:  for  the  judgement 
came  of  one  unto  condemnation, 
but  the  free  gift  came  of  many 

17  trespasses  unto  justification.    For 
if,  by  the  trespass  of  the  one  (jov 
ti^oc),  death  reigned  through  the 
one;  much  more  shall  they  that 
receive  the  abundance  of  grace 
and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness 
reign  in  life  through  the  one,  even 

18  Jesus  Christ.    So  then  as  through 
one  trespass  the  judgement  came 


unto  all  men  to  condemnation; 
even  so  through  one  act  of  right 
eousness  (£t'  tvbc.  diKaiwuarot;^ 
the  free  c/ift  came  unto  all  men  I  of  life. 

29 


V.  15:  "  But  not  as  the  offence,  so 
also  is  the  free  gift :  for  if  through 
the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead : 
much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and 
the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one 
man  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded 
unto  manv. 


1(5.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that 
sinned,  so  is  the  gift:  for  the  judg 
ment  was  by  one  to  condemnation  : 
but  the  free  gift  is  of  many  offences 
unto  justification. 

17.  For  if  by  one  man's  offence 
death  reigned  by  one,  much  more 
they  which  receive  abundance  of 
grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteous 
ness,  shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus 
Christ. 

18.  Therefore  as  by  the  offence 
of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men 


to  condemnation  :  even  so  by  the 
righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  unto  justification 


450  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

19  to  justification   of  life.      For  as  i       19.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobe- 
through  the   one   man's   disobe-    dience  many  were  made  sinners:  so 
dience   the   many   (oi    TroXXot)    by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many 
were     made     sinners,    even     so    be  made  righteous." 
through  the  obedience  of  the  one 
shall  the  many  (oi   TroXXof)  be 
made  righteous." 

The  important  improvements  here  are  apparent  at  once  to  every  reader 
of  the  Greek.  The  chief  defect,  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  the  omission 
of  the  definite  article  before  "  many,"  whereby  a  false  distinction  is  created 
between  many  and  few,  instead  of  the  real  distinction  between  the  many— 
i.  e.,  «H  ("Traj/rec,  compare  ver.  18  and  1  Cor.  xv.  22)  and  the  one  (6  tic). 
The  whole  force  of  Paul's  argument  is  weakened,  and  a  narrow  particu 
larism  substituted  for  a  grand  universalism.  For  in  this  wonderful  section 
(verses  12-21),  which  may  be  called  a  grand  outline  of  a  philosophy  of  his 
tory.  Paul  draws  a  bold  parallel  between  the  first  and  the  second  Adam,  be 
tween  the  universal  reign  of  sin  and  death  introduced  bv  the  one  and  the 
universal  reign  of  righteousness  and  life  brought  to  light  by  the  other;  and 
he  emphasizes  by  the  repeated  "  much  more  "  (7roXX^7  ua\Xov,  a  dynamic 
plus)  the  greater  efficacy  or  more  abundant  power  of  the  second  Adam, 
whose  gain  far  exceeds  the  loss.  The  same  parallel  is  brought  out  more 
briefly  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22:  "As  in  Adam  all  (iravTt^  die,  so  also  in  Christ 
shall  all  (Trtivrec)  be  made  alive."  Paul  does  not  indeed  teach  an  actual 
salvation  of  all  men — for  that  depends  on  moral  conditions,  the  free  con 
sent  of  the  individual,  and  is  a  matter  of  the  future  known  to  God — but 
he  does  teach  here  a  universalism  of  divine  intention  and  divine  provision 
for  salvation,  or  the  inherent  power  and  intrinsic  sufficiency  of  Christ's 
atonement  to  save  all  sinners.  All  men  may  be  saved,  God  icills  all  men 
to  be  saved,  Christ  is  abundantly  able  to  save  all,  but  only  those  will  be 
saved  who  accept  Christ's  salvation  by  a  living  faith.  See  Lange  on 
Romans,  p.  171  sqq.,  where  these  questions  are  fully  discussed.  Light- 
foot  (on  Revision,  p.  97)  quotes  a  good  remark  from  Bentley,  who  pleads 
for  the  correct  rendering,  and  says:  "  By  this  accurate  version  some  hurt>- 
ful  mistakes  about  partial  redemption  and  absolute  reprobation  had  been 
happily  prevented.  Our  English  readers  had  then  seen,  what  several  of 
the  fathers  saw  and  testified,  that  oi  TroXXoi',  the,  many,  in  an  antithesis  to 
the,  one,  are  equivalent  to  TravrtQ,  all,  in  ver.  12,  and  comprehend  the 
whole  multitude,  the  entire  species  of  mankind,  exclusive  only  of  the  one." 
In  several  other  places  the  omission  of  the  article  by  the  Authorized 
Version  before  TroXXoi  changes  the  sense  materially — e.g.,  Matt.  xxiv.  12; 
1  Cor.  ix.  4. 


THE    EEYISED    VERSION.  451 

VI.  2:  "We  who  died  (cnr^avo^v)  to  sin,  how  shall  we  any  longer 
live  therein;"  for  "How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,"  etc. 

The  apostle  refers  to  a  definite  act  in  the  past,  namely,  that  critical 
turning-point  of  the  conversion  and  baptism  (verses  3  and  4)  when  the 
Christians  renounced  sin  and  consecrated  themselves  to  God.  The  Au 
thorized  Version  substitutes  a  stale  for  an  act,  and  makes  the  question 
superfluous.  The  same  neglect  of  the  aorist  in  ver.  4  (avvtTa^>m.if.v), 
G  (avviaravpiodifi,  1  (airozavwv),  8  (a.w&avoiiiv') ;  also  vii.  G ;  2  Cor.  v. 
14;  Col.  ii.  20;  iii.  1,3. 

VI.  5:  "If  we  have  become  united  with  him  by  the  likeness  of  his 
death  ;"  for  "  have  been  planted  together" 

The  Authorized  Version,  following  the  Vulgate  (complantatf),  mistook 
the  etymology  of  avptyvTol,  literally  yroicn  together,  which  comes  from 
(pva>,  to  grow,  not  from  fyvrivw,  to  plant.  Compare  Heb.  xii.  15  (|0/4a 
TriKpiag  <f>vovaa,  a  root  of  bitterness  springing  up). 

VI.  17  :  "To  that  form  [or,  pattern]  of  teaching  whereunto  ye  were  de 
livered  "  («/£  ov  Trapf.CuSijTe  rinrov  Cica%tj(;) 5  for  "  form  of  doctrine  which 
was  delivered  unto  you." 

The  Apostolic  teaching  is  represented  as  a  mould  or  pattern  after  which 
the  Christians  were  to  be  fashioned.  13eza:  "Hoc  dicendi  genus  magnum 
quondam  emphasin  habere  viddur,  Ita  enim  sigirificatur  evangelicam 
doctrinam  quasi  instar  typi  cuiusdam  cssc,  cut  vclxti  immittaniiir,  ut  eiits 
figures  conformemur,  el  totam  istam  trawformationem  aliunde  venire" 

XII.  2 :  "Be  not  fashioned  (ava^uaTi'^ta^i)  according  to  this  world  ; 
but  be  ye  transformed  (/itrn/.top0oj}ff3g)  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind;" 
for  " be  not  conformed  .  .  .  but  be  ye  transformed" 

The  Authorized  Version  is  an  attempt  to  improve  upon  the  original  by 
introducing  a  beautiful  play  on  words,  but  at  the  sacrifice  of  accuracy  and 
the  special  adaptation  of  the  first  verb  to  the  changing  and  transitory 
fashion  (a^ripa)  of  this  world.  Compare  1  Cor.  vii.  31  (Trapayti  TO  <TX///<« 
roT;  Koapov  TOVTOV). 

XIII.  2:  "They  that  withstand  shall  receive  to  themselves  judgment" 
(KplfJLo) ;  for  " They  that  resist,  shall  .  .  .  damnation" 

According  to  the  usual  sense  of  damnation,  the  Authorized  Version 
would  send  to  hell  all  rebels  to  any  existing  political  government  (i£,ov- 
Gia),  however  bad,  and  the  passage  has  often  been  abused  by  tyrants,  who 
never  look  at  the  other  apostolic  precept  that  "we  must  obey  God  rather 
than  men"  (Acts  v.  29).  Paul,  of  course,  has  reference  only  to  temporal 
punishment  by  the  civil  power.  The  Authorized  Version  uses  damnation 
(eleven  times),  damned  (three  times),  damnable  (once,  2  Pet.  ii.  1),  forjudy- 


452  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

menf,  condemnation,  etc.  Compare  Rom.  xiv.  23;  1  Cor.  xi.  20;  1  Tim.  v. 
12;  Mark  xii.  40;  Luke  xx.  47.  In  the  Revised  Version  these  words 
never  occur,  but  are  replaced  by  condemnation,  judgment  t  condemned,  judged, 
destructive  (2  Pet.  ii.  1). 

CORINTHIANS. 

1  Cor.  iv.  4:  "I  know  nothing  against  myself"  (fjuavry  avvoica) ;  for 
"l)ij  myself"     A  misleading  archaism. 

XI.  29:  "He  that  eatetli  and  drinketh  [unworthily,  compare  ver.  27], 
oateth  and  drinketh  judgment  (apt [Act)  unto  himself,  if  lie  discern  (Gr. 
discriminate)  not  the  body  ;"  for  "  damnation" 

The  same  mischievous  archaism  as  Kom.  xiii.  2  and  in  other  passages. 
The  apostle  does  not  mean  to  damn  every  unworthy  communicant,  but  to 
warn  them  of  temporal  judgments  and  punishments,  such  as  divers  dis 
eases  (see  ver.  30). 

XIII.  In  this  wonderful  chapter,  "love"  (ayaTr?/)  has  been  substituted 
for  '"charity'11  (from  the  Latin  caritas),  to  the  great  offence  of  multitudes 
of  Bible  readers.  The  change  was  absolutely  required  by  the  restricted 
sense  which  "charity"  has  assumed  (i.  e.,  active  benevolence  towards  the 
needy  and  suffering),  and  which  is  inapplicable  to  the  ever-enduring  char 
acter  of  the  greatest  of  Christian  graces  (compare  ver.  8).  Besides,  ver.  3 
would  be  a  flat  contradiction ;  for  to  bestow  all  one's  goods  to  feed  the 
poor  is  the  greatest  exercise  of  charity.  Tyndalc  and  the  older  versions 
used  lore,  a  word  as  sacred  as  the  other,  besides  being  a  strong  Saxon 
rnonosvllable.  Yea,  it  expresses  the  very  essence  of  God  himself.  Who 
would  think  of  changing  such  passages  as  "  God  is  love,"  "  Love  your 
neighbor,"  "Love  one  another,"  "Love  the  brethren,"  etc.  In  all  these 
and  many  other  cases  the  substitution  of  charity  and  have  charity  would 
weaken  the  force.  It  has  been  objected  that  "  faith,  hope,  charity  "  of  the 
old  version  sounds  more  rhythmical  than  "faith,  hope,  love"  of  the  new; 
but  this  is  a  mere  matter  of  habit.  Good  rhetorical  taste  will  ultimately 
decide  in  favor  of  the  strong  monosyllabic  trio. 

2  Cor.  v.  14 :  "  One  died  (cnr't^avt v}  for  all,  therefore  all  died  "  (aTr't- 
3aroj/) ;  for  "  If  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead" 

The  same  serious  mistake  by  neglect  of  the  aorist  as  in  Rom.  vi.  2  and 
often.  Paul  assumes  that  potentially  all  Christians  died  with  Christ  on 
the  cross  to  sin,  and  rose  again  to  a  new  life  in  God.  He  means  an  act  of 
death  to  sin,  not  a  state  of  death  through  sin. 

VIII.  1 :  "  We  make  known  to  you  the  grace  of  God ;"  for  "  We  do  you 
to  wit  of  the  grace  of  God." 

An  obsolete  phrase,  which  meant  "  to  cause  to  know." 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  453 

GALATIAXS. 

11.20:  "I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ  (  (TWfOfraujOW/iat,  at  the 
time  of  my  conversion)  ;  yet  I  live  (£w  Sty  ;  and  yet  no  longer  I  (ovictri 
tyw,  with  a  comma  after  ct),  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  ;"  for  "  I  am  crucified 
with  Christ.  Nevertheless,  I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me." 

The  '•  nevertheless,"  which  is  not  represented  in  Greek,  makes  the 
passage  contradictory.  But  I  agree  with  the  American  Committee  that 
the  Revisers  ought  to  have  put  their  marginal  rendering  into  the  text  — 
namely,  ;iand  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live  (£w  c&  ovictri  *yw,  without  a 
comma),  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  At  his  conversion  Paul  was  crucified 
and  died  to  the  law  (dir&avov,  not  "am  dead"  ver.  19),  according  to  his 
old  man  of  sin  under  the  curse  of  the  law,  but  he  rose  with  Christ,  Avho  was 
henceforth  his  very  life;  he  had  no  longer  a  separate  existence,  but  was 
identified  with  Christ  dwelling  in  him  as  the  all-controlling  principle. 
Compare  iii.  27;  iv.  19;  2Cor.xiii.5;  Col.  iii.4.  Yet  this  life-union  with 
Christ  is  not  a  pantheistic  absorption  of  the  personality  of  the  believer; 
hence  the  explanatory  clause  in  the  same  verse:  "and  that  life  which  I 
now  live  in  the  flesh  "  (i.  e.,  in  this  bodily,  temporal  form  of  existence)  "  I 
live  in  faith,"  etc. 

IV.  13  :  "  Because  of  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh  (cV  acrzivtiav  r//e  ffapKog) 
I  preached  the  gospel  unto  you,"  instead  of  "through  infirmity"  (which 
would  require  ci  daStvda^. 

The  physical  infirmity  was  the  occasion,  not  the  condition,  of  Paul's 
preaching  to  the  Galatians.  The  passage  throws  some  light  on  the  char 
acter  of  the  mysterious  disease  of  Paul,  which  he  calls  his  "  thorn  in  the 
flesh."  Compare  2  Cor.  xii.  7-9,  and  the  commentaries  (e.  <?.,  the  Excursus 
of  Lightfoot,  and  in  my  Commentary}. 

VI.  11  :  "See  with  how  large  letters  (or,  characters.  Trr/Xi/coic  ypoju/io- 
aiv)  I  have  written  unto  you  with  mine  own  hand  ;"  instead  of"  how  large 
a  letter.'" 

Paul  refers  to  his  peculiar,  large-sized  (perhaps  bold  and  awkward) 
handwriting,  not  to  the  contents.  The  Authorized  Version  would  require 
the  accusative, 


FROM  THE  REMAINING  BOOKS. 

Phil.  ii.  6,  7  :  "  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God,  counted  it  not  a  prize 
(apTrayfiuv,  a  thing  to  be  grasped)  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but 
emptied  himself"  (tavruv  iKtwat);  for  "thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God:  but  made  himself  of  wo  reputation" 

This  locus  dassicus  on  the  important  doctrine  of  the  kenosis  of  the 


454  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Logos  is  far  better  rendered  than  in  the  Authorized  Version,  though 
there  was  much  dispute  about  a  proper  equivalent  for  apTray/tof.  See 
the  American  note,  and  the  Commentaries. 

Phil.  ii.  10:  "  In  the  name  of  Jesus"  (iv  T<<J  ovofjiari) ;  for  "at  the  name." 

Phil.  iii.  20  :  "  Our  citizenship  (iro\iTevp.a)  is  in  heaven  ;"  for  "  our  con 
versation  "  (in  the  obsolete  sense  for  conduct). 

Phil.  iii.  21:  "Who  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation 
(TO  (rio/na  TtfQ  rttTmvwtrgwf;),  that  it  may  be  conformed  (ovfifiop^ov)  to 
the  body  of  his  glory;"  for  "  who  shall  cliange  our  vile  body  that  it  may 
be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body." 

The  body  of  the  believer,  far  from  being  vile,  is  the  temple  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  passes,  like  Christ,  through  two  stages— a  state  of  hu 
miliation,  and  a  state  of  exaltation  or  glory  beginning  with  the  resurrection. 

1  Tim.  v.  4  :  "If  any  widow  hath  children  or  grandchildren"  (ticyovct) ; 
instead  of  "  nephews,"  in  the  obsolete  sense. 

1  Tim.  vi.  5:  "Supposing  that  godliness  is  a  way  of  gain;"  instead  of 
"  gain  is  godliness."  The  Authorized  Version  turns  the  subject  into  the 
predicate  and  makes  nonsense  or  bad  sense. 

1  Tim.  vi.  10 :  "  The  love  of  money  is  a  root  (pi'£a,  without  the  article) 
of  all  kinds  of  evil ;"  for  "  the  root  of  all  evil." 

There  are  other  roots  of  all  kinds  of  evil  besides  love  of  money. 

Heb.  ii.  16  :  "Not  of  angels  doth  he  take  hold,  but  he  taketh  hold  of  the 
seed  of  Abraham ;"  for  "He  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels:  but  he 
took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham." 

Here  the  Authorized  Version  makes  (besides  the  wrong  punctuation) 
two  errors,  changing  both  the  tense  (t7ri\«/i/3a^6r«i)  and  the  meaning 
of  the  verb,  as  if  it  referred  to  the  incarnation.  tTrtXanfiavtaSai  in  the 
middle  and  with  the  genitive  has  the  sense,  to  take  by  the  hand,  to  help, 
and  corresponds  to  the  deliverance  spoken  of  in  ver.  15,  and  to  "succour" 
(florjSijaai),  vcr.  18.  See  the  elaborate  note  of  Bleek  given  by  Alford  in  loc. 

Heb.  ix.  27 :  "  It  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  and  after  this  comcth 
judgment"  (iepicng)\  instead  of  "the  judgment." 

The  definite  article  would  point  to  the  general  judgment  at  the  end 
of  the  world. 

Heb.  xi.  13  :  "  Having  seen  them  and  greeted  them  [the  promises]  from 
afar"  ^aoiraaafjuvoi)  ;  instead  of  "embraced  them." 

1  Pet.  iii.  21 :  "  The  interrogation  (tTrtpwrj/jua)  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God ;"  instead  of  "  the  ansiver" 

Whatever  be  the  sense  of  this  difficult  passage,  tTrfpwTrjpa  cannot 
mean  an  answer,  but  must  mean  inquiry  or  seeking  after  God. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  455 

Rev.  v\.  6-9:  "Living  creatures"  (££«);  for  "beasts.'" 
This  change  is  necessary  to  distinguish  the  four  representatives  of  the 
whole  creation  before  the  throne  of  God  from  the  two  antichristian  beasts 
(37/p<tt)  of  the  abyss,  Rev.  xi.  7  ;  xiii.  1 ;  and  several  other  passages  down 
to  xx.  10. 

THE    ENGLISH    STYLE   OF    THE    REVISION. 

A  good  translation  must  be  botli  true  and  free, 
faithful  and  idiomatic.  It  is  not  a  photograph  made 
by  mechanical  process,  but  a  portrait  by  the  hand 
of  an  artist.  It  is  not  simply  a  transfer  from  one 
language  to  another,  but  a  vernacular  reproduction, 
in  the  very  spirit  of  the  writer,  and  reads  like  an 
original  work.  This  requires  full  mastery  of  the 
two  languages  and  intelligent  sympathy  with  the 
subject.  Only  a  poet  can  reproduce  Homer  or  Ver 
gil,  only  a  philosopher  can  translate  Plato  or  Aris 
totle,  only  an  orator  can  do  justice  to  Demosthenes 
or  Cicero.  The  best  versions  of  the  Bible  are  from 
men  who  most  heartily  believed  in  the  Bible  and 
were  inspired  by  its  genius. 

The  Revisers,  in  obedience  to  their  rules  and  to 
public  sentiment,  have  faithfully  adhered  to  the 
idiom  of  the  Authorized  Version,  which  is  classical 
English  from  the  golden  age  of  English  literature, 
and  has  indelibly  impressed  itself  upon  the  memory 
and  heart  of  two  great  nations.  The  Revision  has 
the  familiar  ring  and  flavor  of  the  old  version,  and 
whole  chapters  may  be  read  without  perceiving  the 
difference  between  the  two. 

But  some  changes  were  imperatively  required  by1 
faithfulness,  consistency,  and  the  progress  of  the 
English  language.  Fidelity  to  the  original  must 


4:56  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

overrule  fidelity  to  the  vernacular  in  translating  the 
Oracles  of  God.  The  Apostles  did  not  write  clas 
sical  Greek,  but  the  then  prevailing  Greek  of  the 
common  people ;  and  translators  have  no  right  to 
improve  it,  or  to  break  up  the  long  and  often  anaco- 
luthic  periods  of  Paul  (c.  £/.,  Eph.  i.  3—14:)  into  short, 
smooth  sentences,  although  these  would  be  more 
congenial  to  the  genius  of  the  English  language. 

I.  ARCHAISMS.  —  Every  living  language  changes 
more  or  less  by  throwing  out  old  words,  adopting 
new  words,  and  modifying  the  meaning  of  words, 
sometimes  turning  the  sense  into  the  very  opposite. 
Obsolete  words  and  phrases  ought  to  be  removed 
from  a  popular  version  for  practical  use,  and  replaced 
by  intelligible  equivalents.  The  people's  Bible  is  not 
a  museum  of  linguistic  antiquities  and  curiosities. 
It  is  not  a  herbarium,  but  a  flower-garden.  The  sa 
cred  authors  wished  to  be  understood  by  their  hear 
ers  and  readers,  and  wrote  in  the  language  familiar 
to  their  contemporaries,  as  clearly  and  forcibly  as 
they  could.  They  used  no  antiquated  words  and 
phrases.  .  The  Hebraisms  of  the  Greek  Testament 
are  no  exception,  for  they  were  unavoidable  for  He 
brew  ideas,  and  were  familiar  to  readers  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Septuagint. 

But  there  is  a  difference  between  what  is  anti 
quated  and  what  is  antique,  or  between  the  obsolete 
and  the  old.  One  class  of  archaisms  is  obscure 
and  misleading,  the  other  is  clear  and  harmless. 
The  English  Revisers  removed  the  former,  but  re 
tained  and  even  increased  the  latter ;  the  American 
Revisers  would  prefer  modern  forms  of  speech 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  457 

throughout,  and  have  put  their  protest  to  a  number 
of  remaining  archaisms  on  record  in-  the  Appendix 
(Classes  of  Passages,  No.  VII.).  In  this  difference 
the  two  Companies  represent  the  diverging  tastes 
of  two  nations ;  yet  there  is  a  dissenting  minority 
in  England  which  sympathizes  with  the  American 
Committee.  One  reason  why  the  English  Revisers, 
the  majority  of  whom  belong  to  the  Church  of  Eng 
land,  more  closely  adhere  to  archaic  forms,  is  the 
daily  use  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  which  has 
the  same  idiom  as  King  James's  Bible  and  is  its  in 
separable  companion.  The  American  Episcopalians 
have  submitted  it  to  a  modernizing  recension,  which 
was  adopted  by  the  General  Convention  of  1801. 

(1.)  MISLEADING  ARCHAISMS. — The  two  Commit 
tees  were  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  these 
should  be  removed,  and  differed  only  as  to  their 
precise  number.  The  following  is  a  list  of  obsolete 
words  in  the  Authorized  Version,  and  their  substi 
tutes  in  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament: 

"Atonement,"  in  the  sense  of  "reconciliation,"  Rom.  v.  12  (compare  xi. 
15 ;  2  Cor.  v.  18, 19).  Etymologically  "  at-one-ment "  is  a  correct  rendering 
of  /caraXAay//,  but  theologically  it  is  now  used  in  the  sense  of  expiation 
or  propitiation  (iXcr<Tjwo£,  1  John  ii.  2;  iv.  10;  iXcKm/piov,  Rom.  iii.  25). 

"  By-and-by"  for  "  immediately  "  or  "forthwith"  (tuSvQ  or  £w3fu»£), 
Matt.  xiii.  21;  Mark  vi.  25;  Luke  xvii.  7;  xxi.  9. 

"  By  myself,"  for  "  against  myself,"  1  Cor.  iv.  4. 

"  Carriages"  for  "baggage,"  Acts  xxi.  15. 

"  Coasts'"  (opia,  /ifp/j,  %a»pa),  for  "  borders,"  "  parts,"  "country,"  Matt, 
ii.  16 ;  xvi.  13 ;  xix.  1 ;  Mark  vii.  31 ;  Acts  xix.  1 ;  xxvi.  20. 

"  Conversation"  (di-affrpo^r/),  in  the  sense  of  "conduct,"  or  "manner 
of  life,"  Gal.  i.  13;  Eph.  iv.  22;  Phil.  i.  27;  Heb.  xiii.  5;  James  iii.  13; 
1  Pet,  i.  15;  ii.  12;  iii.  1,  2,  16;  2  Pet.  ii.  7;  iii.  11.  In  Phil.  iii.  20  "con 
versation"  is  replaced  by  "citizenship"  (TroXt'rev/ia). 

"Damn"  and  "  Damnation"  for  "  condemn,"  "  condemnation,"  or  "  judg- 


458  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

ment,"  Rom.  xiii.  2;  1  Cor.  xi.  29.  "Damnable"  has  been  replaced  by 
"destructive"  (2  Pet.  ii.  1). 

"  Diddest,"  for  "  didst,"  Acts  vii.  28. 

"  To  fetch  a  compass"  for  "  to  make  a  circuit,"  or  "  to  go  round,"  Acts 
xxviii.  13. 

"  His,"  for  "  its,"  Matt.  v.  13  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  38,  etc. 

"Horse  bridles,"  for  "horses'  bridles,"  or  "bridles  of  the  horses,"  Rev. 
xiv.  20.  The  other  form  is  not  a  typographical  error,  but  archaic;  com 
pare  "  horse  heels,"  Gen.  xlix.  17,  and  "  horse  hoofs,"  Judges  v.  22. 

"Instantly,"  for  "  urgently,"  Luke  vii.  4  (airovdaiwc;)  ;  Acts  xxvi.  7  (tV 


"John  Baptist,"  for  "John  the  Baptist,"  Matt.  xiv.  8;  Luke  vii.  20. 
Elsewhere  the  A.  V.  prefixes  the  article. 

"  To  let"  in  the  sense  "  to  hinder,"  or  "  to  restrain,"  Rom.  i.  13;  2  Thcss. 
ii.  7.  The  word  means  now  just  the  reverse  ("to  allow  "). 

"Lewd"  (originally  "ignorant,"  then  "vicious,"  then  "profligate"), 
Acts  xvii.  5.  "lewd  fellows,"  now  "vile  fellows."  Also  "lewdness,"  Acts 
xviii.  14  (•'  wicked  villany  "). 

"  Lively,"  in  the  sense  of  "  living."  Acts  vii.  38,  "  lively  oracles  ;"  1  Pet. 
i.  3,  "lively  hope;"  ii.  5,  "lively  stones." 

"  Nephews"  for  "  grandchildren,"  1  Tim.  v.  4. 

"  To  prevent  "  (from  prcevenire,  to  come  before),  for  "  precede,"  1  Thcss. 
iv.  15  (ou  p}  <^3-a<Tw//£j/),  or  "spake  first,"  Matt.  xvii.  25  (jrpo'ifySaaf.v 
avrov}.  Now  the  verb  has  just  the  opposite  meaning,  "  to  hinder." 

"Proper"  for  "beautiful,"  Heb.  xi.  23  (aortiov,  of  Moses,  "a  goodly 
child"). 

"  Room"  in  the  sense  of  "  place,"  Luke  xiv.  7,  etc. 

"  To  do  to  wit,"  for  "to  make  known,"  2  Cor.  viii.  1. 

"  Sometimes,"  for  "  some  time,"  i.  e.,  once,  formerly,  Eph.  v.  8. 

"  Thought"  in  the  obsolete  sense  of  "  anxiety."  Matt.  vi.  25  :  "  Be  not 
anxious,"  for  "take  no  thought"  (/*//  n^oi^ivaTt).  Compare  Phil.  iv.  G, 
where  the  Authorized  Version  renders  the  same  Greek  verb  by  "  Be  care 
ful  for  nothing,"  which  is  consistently  rendered  in  the  Revised  Version, 
"  In  nothing  be  anxious" 

"  Ware  of"  (literally,  wary,  cautious},  for  "aware  of,"  Matt.  xxiv.  50- 
Acts  xiv.  6;  but  retained  in  2  Tim.  iv.  15. 

We  add  two  more  archaisms  which  have  been  re 
tained  in  the  Revised  Version,  but  against  the  pro 
test  of  the  American  Committee  : 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  459 

"  Charyer"  in  the  sense  of  a  "large  dish"  or  "platter,"  Matt.  xiv.  8; 
Mark  vi.  25,  28.  The  American  Committee  proposed  "platter"  (in  their 
notes  on  Mark  vi.  25).  "Charger"  is  now  almost  exclusively  used  of  a 
war-horse. 

"  To  hale'1''  and  "haliny"  in  the  sense  "  to  drag"  (fund),  Luke  xii.  58; 
Acts  viii.  3.  Entirely  antiquated  in  America. 

Some  intelligible  words  also  have  disappeared 
from  the  Revised  Version  and  are  replaced  by  more 
accurate  renderings  —  e.  g.,  banquetings,  bishopric, 
bottles,  bottomless  pit,  brawlers,  damn,  damnation 
(replaced  by  condemn,  condemnation),  flux,  heretical, 
hinder-part  (stern),  pillow,  stuff,  whoremonger  (five 
times,  replaced  by  fornicator,  consistent  with  other 
passages),  witchcraft  (Gal.  v.  20,  replaced  by  sorcery, 
(jiap/nctKtia). 

(2.)  INNOCENT  ARCHAISMS  are  words  and  gram 
matical  forms  which  have  gone  out  of  use,  but  do 
not  affect  the  sense,  and  have  become  familiar  to 
the  reader  of  the  Bible,  and  even  carry  with  them 
a  certain  charm  to  a  great  many  people.  Here  be 
long  the  uniform  use  of  the  "  th"  ending  of  the 
verb  (hath  for  has),  the  very  frequent  use  of  "which" 
(as  applied  to  persons)  for  "who,"  the  occasional  use 
of  "  the  which,"  "  they  "  for  "  those,"  "  they  which  " 
and  "  them  which,"  "  unto"  for  "  to,"  "  of"  for  "  by." 
the  old-fashioned  forms  of  conjugation,  "spake" 
"  brake,"  "  drave,"  "  digged,"  "  holpen,"  "  stricken," 
etc.,  "throughly"  for  "thoroughly,"  " alway"  for 
"always,"  "  howbeit"  for  "yet"  or  "however," 
"how  that"  for  "that,"  "for  to"  for  "to,"  "be"  (in 
the  in  dicati  ve)  for  "  are,"  "  he  was  an  hungred"  for  "he 
hungered"  (Matt.  iv.  2;  xii.  1),  "whiles"  for  "  while" 
(Matt.  v.  25 ;  Acts  v.  4), "  wot"  for  " know "  (retained  in 


460  THE    KEVISED    VERSION. 

Actsiii.l7;vii.40;Bom.xi.2;Phil.i.22),and"m"^" 

for  "  knew "  (Mark  ix.  G ;  xi v.  40 ;  Luke  ii.  49,  and  sev 
eral  other  passages),  "entreat"  for  "  treat,"  "  ambas- 
sage"  for  " embassy"  (Luke  xiv.  32;  xix.  14),  "ensam- 
ple"  for  "example"  (Phil.  iii.  IT,  and  in  six  other  pas 
sages),  "of ten  "used  as  plural  adjective  for  "frequent" 
(1  Tim.  v.  23,  "  thine  often  infirmities"),  "lut  and 
if"  (1  Pet.  iii.  14 ;  changed  in  three  other  places). 

Here,  however,  there  is  a  slight  difference  of 
taste  between  the  two  Committees,  as  already  re 
marked.  The  English  llevisers,  representing  an 
ancient  nation  that  is  fond  of  old  things  and  nurses 
its  very  ruins,  naturally  adhere  to  these  archaisms, 
and  have  even  unnecessarily  increased  them;1  while 
the  American  Revisers,  who  share  in  the  young, 
fresh,  progressive  spirit  of  their  nationality,  prefer 
to  modernize  the  diction,  deeming  it  unwise  to  per 
petuate  a  conflict  between  the  language  of  the  church 
and  the  language  of  the  school.  They  object  espe 
cially  to  the  use  of  "be"  for  "are"  in  the  indicative, 
and  of  "  which  "  for  "  who  "  when  applied  to  per 
sons,  as  "  God  which,"  "  Our  Father  which,"  "  Christ 
which,"  "  Abraham  which  is  dead,"  etc.  The  one 
is  just  as  good  old  English  as  the  other  is  good 
new  English,  but  each  in  its  proper  place.  Why 
should  we  censure  a  boy  for  violation  of  grammar 
when  he  imitates  the  language  of  the  Bible  ?  The 
demonstrative  that  is  the  old  English  relative  and 
the  most  common  in  Wiclif,  but  was  often  replaced 


3  E.  ff.,  they  have  introduced  the  archaic  "kowbeit"  in  many  passages 
for  "but,"  "yet,"  "nevertheless,"  "  notwithstanding,"  or,  be  it  as  it  may. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  461 

in  the  Elizabethan  age  by  "which"  and  "who,"  arid 
is  now  again  used  as  a  relative,  sometimes  for  the 
sake  of  euphony,  sometimes  with  a  slightly  defining 
force.  "  Which"  was  originally  an  adjective  (quails, 
"of  what  quality"),  and  was  used  of  all  genders  and 
both  numbers,  but  is  now  confined  by  all  good  writers 
to  the  neuter  gender  and  also  used  as  an  interroga 
tive.  "Who"  (qui,  oe,  welcher)  was  indiscriminately 
used  for  "that"  and  "which,"  but  is  now  confined 
to  persons  of  either  sex  and  in  both  numbers.  The 
Revisers  have  often  changed  "which"  into  "who" 
or  "  that,"  according  to  euphony  and  English  taste, 
and  thus  conceded  the  principle;  but  sometimes 
they  are  strangely  inconsistent  in  the  same  connec 
tion,  as  Matt.  vii.  24,  "  every  one  which  heareth,"  but 
in  verse  26,  "  every  one  that  heareth  ;"  Col.  iv.  11, 
"Jesus,  which  is,"  and  in  the  next  verse,  "Epaphras, 
who  is"  (following  in  both  cases  the  Authorized 
Version).  But  matters  of  national  taste  and  habit 
are  very  tenacious.1 


1  Two  of  the  most  eminent  English  statesmen  (W.  E.  Gladstone,  who  is 
a  devout  Episcopalian,  and  John  Bright,  who  is  a  Friend)  told  me  some 
years  ago  that  they  liked  all  archaic  forms  in  the  Bible,  and  would  rather 
pray  "  Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven"  than  "who  art  in  heaven."  But 
the  American  Episcopalians  have  long  since  made  the  change  in  their 
liturgy.  The  German  Lutherans  always  address  God,  not  in  the  more 
correct  modern  style,  "  Unser  Vater  "  (although  Luther  so  translated  the 
Lord's  Prayer  in  Matt.  vi.  3),  but  in  the  old-fashioned  and  now  ungram- 
matical  form,  "  Vater  wiser,"  which  Luther  retained  in  his  Catechism,  in 
accordance  with  the  old  German  and  with  the  Latin  "  Pater  noster"  The 
Pennsylvania  German  farmers,  when  asked  what  is  the  difference  between 
the  Lutherans  and  the  German  Reformed,  reply :  The  Lutherans  pray, 
."  Vater  wiser"  and  "  Eiiose  uns  vom  Uebel;"  the  Reformed,  "  Unser  Vater" 
and  "  Erlose  uns  vom  Busen"  The  English  Lutherans  adopt  "  Our  Father," 


462  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

In  this  connection  I  may  mention  another  case 
which  is  not  archaic,  but  involves  a  change  of  mean 
ing  as  used  by  the  two  nations.  The  Americans 
wished  to  substitute  "grain"  for  "corn"  (Matt.  xii. 
1 ;  Mark  ii.  23 ;  1  Cor.  ix.  9,  etc.),  because  "  corn  "  in 
American  English  designates  Indian  corn  or  maize. 

O  O  f 

which  was  not  cultivated  in  Palestine ;  but  the 
English  still  use  it  in  its  generic  sense,  and  over 
ruled  the  Americans. 

The  Americans  also  repeatedly  protested  in  vain 
against  the  overstrong  idiomatic  rendering  of  the 
phrase  of  repulsion  p)  ysvoiro,  by  "  God  forbid" 
which  has  been  retained  from  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion  in  all  the  fifteen  passages  where  it  occurs  (Luke 
xx.  16 ;  Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians).  There 
is  neither  "  God"  nor  "forbid"  in  the  original,  and  it 
can  be  sufficiently  rendered  by  such  phrases  as  "  be 
it  not  so,"  "  let  it  never  happen,"  "  by  no  means," 
"far  from  it"  (Luther:  "das  sei  feme").  The  pro 
fane  use  of  the  name  of  God  in  the  Elizabethan  age 
and  by  Queen  Elizabeth  herself  (e.  g.,  in  her  letter 
to  the  Bishop  of  Ely:  "By  God,  I  will  unfrock 
you "),  as  well  as  by  her  successor  James,  should 
receive  no  aid  and  comfort  from  the  English  Bible. 

II.  NEW  WORDS  INTRODUCED. — While  the  reader 
of  the  Authorized  Version  will  miss  some  old  words, 
he  will  find  a  larger  number  of  new  words.  The 
following  is  a  selection  : 


and  adhere  to  "evil;"  the  English  Reformed  retain  the  address,  but  dis 
miss  ';the  evil  one;"  both  naturally  follow  the  Authorized  Version  and 
the  American  custom. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  463 

Abyss,  active,  actually,  advanced,  aforepromised,  aim,  ancient,  anew, 
animals,  announce,  anxiety,  anxious,  apparition,  apportioned,  aright, 
arisen,  ashore,  assassin,  aught,  awe. 

Balance  (in  the  singular),  bank  (rampart),  bathed,  bay,  beach,  befitting, 
believer  (in  the  singular,  1  Cor.  ix.  5 ;  2  Cor.  vi.  15 ;  the  plural  occurs  twice 
in  the  Authorized  Version),  bereave,  betrothed,  billows,  blows,  boastful, 
bondservant,  boon,  bowl,  boy,  branded,  break  your  fast,  broken  pieces, 
burnish. 

Carousings,  cell,  cellar,  circuit,  citizenship,  clanging,  cleanness,  coasting, 
collections,  concealed,  conduct  (noun),  confuted,  continency,  copy,  crowd, 
cruse,  crush,  cushion. 

Daring,  dazzling,  deathstroke,  decide,  decision,  define,  defilement,  de 
meanor,  depose,  diadems,  difficulty,  disbelieve,  discharge,  discipline,  dis 
paragement,  dispersion,  dispute,  disrepute,  doomed,  drift,  dysentery. 

Earnestness,  effulgence,  embarking,  emperor  (Acts  xxv.  21).  emptied, 
enacted,  encourage  and  encouragement,  enrol  and  enrolment,  enslaved, 
ensnare,  epileptic,  explain. 

Faction,  factious,  fainthearted,  fellow-elder,  fickleness,  flute-players, 
foregoing,  foresail,  foreshewed.  forfeit,  foster-brother,  freight,  full-grown. 

Games,  gangrene,  gear,  goad,  goal,  grandchildren,  gratulation. 

Hades,  hardship,  haughty,  healings,  hindrance,  Holy  of  holies,  holy 
ones  (Jude  14),  hyacinth  (in  the  Authorized  Version  "jacinth"). 

Imitate  and  imitators,  implanted,  impostors,  impulse,  indulgence,  inside, 
insolent,  interest,  interposed,  interrogation,  intrusted,  irksome,  its. 

Justice. 

Kinswoman. 

Late,  later,  lawlessness  (2  Thess.  ii.  7 ;  1  John  iii.  4,  ai/o/u'o),  lawsuits 
(1  Cor.  vi.  7),  lee,  life-giving,  listening,  love-feasts. 

Mantle,  mariners,  meddler,  mess,  midheaven,  mirror,  moored. 

Narrative,  neighborhood,  north-east. 

Onset,  onward,  overboard,  overflow,  overlooked,  over-ripe. 

Pangs,  planks,  plead,  plot,  praetorian  guard,  precede,  prejudice,  proba 
tion,  proconsul  (for  deputy),  progress,  prolonged,  pronounce,  put  to  sea. 

Rabble,  race  (generation),  reclining,  refined,  reflecting,  regret,  regular, 
reminded,  rid,  riding,  roll  (noun),  roused,  rudder. 

Sabbath  rest,  sacred,  seemly,  self-control,  senseless,  setting  sail,  shame- 
fastness  (for  shamefaeedness;  rather  archaic),  sharers,  shekel,  shrink, 
shudder,  skins  (wine-skins),  sluggish,  snatch,  sojourner,  solid,  somewhere, 
south-east,  springs  (noun),  steersman,  story  (loft),  strict,  strolling,  stupor, 
succeeded,  sum  (verb),  sunrising,  surge,  surpass,  suspense,  swearers. 


464  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Tablet,  temple -keeper,  tend,  tents,  threshing-floor,  tilled,  toll,  train, 
tranquil,  treated. 

Unapproachable,  unbeliever  (the  plural  occurs  in  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion),  unceasing,  undressed,  unfaithful,  unlifted,  unmixed,  unripe,  unsettle, 
unstedfast,  unveiled,  useful. 

Victorious,  vinedresser,  vote,  vouchsafed. 

Wallet,  welcome,  wet,  wheel,  wine- bibbings,  wine -skins,  workings, 
world-rulers,  Avranglings,  wrong-doer,  wrong-doing. 

III.  IMPROVEMENTS  ix  RHYTHM.  —  Rhythmical 
flow  and  musical  charm  are  generally  regarded  as 
among  the  great  excellences  of  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion  which  cannot  be  surpassed.  This  is,  no  doubt, 
true  as  a  rule,  but  there  are  not  a  few  exceptions. 
The  ear  may  become  so  used  to  a  favorite  passage 
that  all  sense  of  imperfection  is  lost.  The  following 
are  a  few  specimens  of  improvement  in  rhythm  as 
well  as  in  fidelity  : 

MATT.  v.  G. 
Revised  Version.  Authorized  Version. 


Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness :  for  they 
shall  be  filled. 


Blessed  are  they  which  do  hunger 
and  thirst  after  righteousness:  for 
they  shall  be  filled. 


MATT.  vin.  32. 

(Compare  Mark  v.  13;  Luke  viii.  33.) 
Revised  Version.  Authorized  Version. 

And  behold,  the  whole  herd  rushed        And  behold,  the  whole   herd  of 


down  the.  steep  into  the  sea,  and  per 
ished  in  the  waters. 


swine  ran  violently  down  a  steejt 
place  into  the  sea,  and  perished  in 
the  waters. 


ACTS  ii.  20. 
Revised  Version.  Authorized  Version. 


The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  dark 


ness, 


And  the  moon  into  blood, 
Before  the  day  of  the  Lord  come, 
Tli at  great  and  notable  day. 


The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  dark 
ness,  and  the  moon  into  blood,  be 
fore  that  great  and  notable  day  of 
the  Lord  come. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  465 

COL.  iv.  10. 

Revised  Version.  Authorized  Version. 

Mark,  the  cousin  of  Barnabas.        j      Marcus  sister's  son  to  Barnabas. 

2  TIIESS.  i.  11. 
Revised  Version.  Authorized  Version. 


That  our  God  may  count  you 
worthy  of  your  calling,  and  ful til 
every  desire  of  goodness  and  every 
work  of  faith,  with  power. 


That  our  God  would  count  you 
worthy  of  this  calling,  and  fulfil  all 
the  good  pleasure  of  Ids  goodness,  and 
the  work  of  faith  with  power. 


REVELATION  vn.  17. 

Revised  Version.  Authorized  Versa 


For  the  Lamb  which  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  throne  shall  be  their 
shepherd,  and  shall  guide  them  unto 
fountains  of  waters  of  life :  and  God 
shall  wipe  away  every  tear  from  their 


For  the  Lamb,  which  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  throne,  shall  feed  them, 
and  shall  lead  them  unto  living  foun 
tains  of  waters :  and  God  shall  wipe 
awav  all  tears  from  their  eves. 


IV.  GRAMMATICAL  IRREGULARITIES. — A  number 
of  passages  in  the  Revised  Version  are  too  closely 
rendered  from  the  Greek  or  retained  from  the  Au 
thorized  Version  at  the  expense  of  strict  rules  of 
English  grammar.  These  irregularities  have  been 
violently  assailed,  but  mostly  by  critics  who  are 
either  ignorant  of  Greek,  or  have  not  taken  the 
trouble  to  compare  the  version  with  the  Greek,  or 
even  with  the  Authorized  Version,  which  is  guilty 
of  the  same  faults.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  for  a 
moment  that  the  Revisers  do  not  know  the  English 
language  fully  as  well  as  their  critics;  some  of  them 
are  themselves  classical  writers,  and  authorities  on 
the  subject  of  style.  Good  English,  moreover,  is 
determined  by  classical  usage  as  well  as  by  the  rules 
of  grammar,  and  the  greatest  authors  take  some 
liberties.  Nevertheless,  compliance  with  the  rules 
30 


466  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

is  better  than  violation,  unless  there  is  a  srood  rea- 

o 

son  for  the  exception. 

The  singular  verb  is  repeatedly  used  with  two  or 
more  subjects.     The  following  are  examples: 

Matt.  vi.  19  :  "  Where  moth  anil  rust  dof/i  (for  (/<>)  consume."  So  in  the 
Greek  (a(f>ai>iZ,£i)  and  the  Authorized  Version.  Moth  and  rust  are  taken 
as  one  conception. 

Matt.  xxii.  40 :  "On  these  two  commandments  hangeth  the  whole  law, 
and  the  prophets.''  Here  the  Authorized  Version  lias  hamj,  following  the 
/exti/s  receptus  (/CjOEjuajrai) !  but  the  Revised  Version  adopts  the  reading 
tcpifj-arai  after  vdpoc, 

Matt,  xxvii.  of):  "Among  whom  was  (for  were)  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  .loses,  and  the  mother  of  the  sons  of 
Zebedee."  Washington  Moon,  the  special  champion  of  ''The  Queen's 
English"  versus  "The  Dean's  English,"  facetiously  asks:  "If  two  Marys 
are  plural,  how  can  three  Marys  be  singular?"  l>ut  the  Greek  has  the 
singular  //r,  and  the  Authorized  Version  was.  The  verb  is  adjusted  to 
the  lirst  name,  and  is  silently  repeated.  The  case  is  different  when  two 
or  more  nouns  precede,  as  in  Matt.  vi.  19. 

Mark  iii.  33  :  "  Who  is  (nV  irr~n>")  my  mother  and  my  brethren?"  Mr. 
Moon  exclaims:  "  Who  is  they  !"  and  refers  to  Matt.  xii.  48  :  "  Who  •/*•  my 
mother?  and  who  are  (rivftj  tiVru')  my  brethren?"  But  in  both  cases  the 
Revisers  simply  followed  the  Greek. 

Acts  xvii.  34  :  "Among  whom  also  teas  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  and 
a  woman  named  Damaris,  and  others." 

Rom.  ix.  4:  "Whose  is  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,"  etc.  Here  the 
(Jreek  omits  the  verb,  and  the  Authorized  Version  supplies  pertainefh. 

Compare  also  1  Cor.  xiii.  13;  Eph.  iii.  18;  1  Tim.  i.  20,  James  iii.  10,  16; 
lleb.  ix.  4. 

An  example  of  the  reverse  irregularity  we  have  in  Rev.  xx.  13:  "And 
they  were  judged  ei-cry  man  according  to  their  works."  Mr.  Moon  thinks 
it  ought  to  be  "his  works,"  but  the  Greek  has  avr&v,  as  required  by  the 
plural  verb  tKpiSrriaav.  The  HCOOTOC  individualizes  the  judgment.  A 
comma  before  and  after  "every  man"  would  make  all  plain. 

V.  INFELICITIES. — Here  belong  some  harsh  and 
clashing  renderings  which  arise  mostly  from  a  slav- 

O  ^T>  t/ 

ish  adherence  to  the  Greek,  and  could  be  avoided 
without  injury  to  the  sense. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  467 

John  xvii.  24,  in  the  sacerdotal  prayer:  "Father,  that  which  thou  hast 
given  me,  I  will  that,  where  I  am.  they  also  may  be  with  me;  that  they 
may  behold  my  glory."  This  is  perhaps  the  most  objectionable  rendering 
in  the  whole  book.  It  is  literal  after  the  emphatic  order  of  the  Greek, 
and  the  true  reading  o  (for  oor).  which  expresses  the  undivided  totality 
of  believers;  compare  ver.  2  (Trav-aiiTolc}.  But  the  English  idiom  per 
emptorily  requires  here  a  slight  change,  or  a  return  to  the  Authorized 
Version:  "I  will  that  they  also  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  be  with  me 
where  I  am,"  etc.  Westcott  (in  the  Speaker's  Commentary')  proposes: 
"As  for  that  which  thou  hast  given  me,  I  will  that  .  .  .  they."  This 
does  not  relieve  the  difficulty.  Better,  though  less  literal,  "As  for  those 
whom,"  etc.,  with  a  marginal  note :  Gr.  "As  for  that  which."  1 

1  Thess.  iv.  15:  "that  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming 
of  the  Lord."     Here  the  triple  that  could  have  been  avoided  by  substitut 
ing  who  for  the  second  and  third.     The  Greek  has  the  participles  (»//«?£ 

01  £u>lTfC,  Ol  TTfplXeiTTO/ifVOl)' 

Heb.  xii.  13 :  "that  that  which  is  lame  be  not  turned  out  of  the  way." 
Avoided  in  the  Authorized  Version  by  "lest  that"  (iva  /</)).  Or,  "that 
the  lame"  (Noycs  and  Davidson). 

Heb.  xi.  19:  "he  did  also  in  a  parable  receive  him  back."  Literal  (}.v 
TrapafioXy^,  but  unintelligible  to  the  English  reader.  Davidson's  render 
ing,  "in  a  symbol,"  is  no  improvement.  Noycs:  "figuratively."  The 
old  version  is  preferable,  except  that  it  puts  the  words  "in  a  Jiyure" 
wrongly  after  the  verb.  Better  in  The  Speakers  Commentary:  "from 
whence  he  did  also  in  a  figure  receive  him  back." 

2  Pet.  i.  7  :  "  in  your  love  of  the  brethren  lore"  (*j>  ry  (}>i\a()k\q>ia  ayu- 
—t]v~).     Intolerable.     Better  with  the  Authorized  Version  and  the  Amer 
ican  Committee,  "brotherly  kindness"  for  (f)i\aCt\<pia   (so  also  Alford. 
Noyes,  Davidson),  or  "universal  love"  for  nyc'crn/. 

Matt.  v.  35 :  "  footstool  of  his  feet "  (wTTOTrotkor  TWV  TTO^WV  aiiTov} ;  for 
"his  footstool."  From  the  Hebrew.  Ps.  xcix.  5;  ex.  1  ;  Isa.  Ixvi.  1,  and 
the  Septuagint.  So  also  Mark  xii.  36 ;  Luke  xx.  43 ;  Acts  ii.  35 ;  vii.  49 ; 


1  Other  modern  translations — Dean  Alford  and  Dr.  Davidson  :  "Father. 
I  will  that  what  thou  hast  given  me,  even  they  may  be  with  me  where 
I  am;"  Dr.  Noyes:  "Father,  as  to  that  which  thou  hast  given  me,  I  de 
sire  that  they  also,"  etc.:  Milligan  and  Moulton  (two  of  the  Kevisers,  in 
Schaff  s  Illustr.  Commentary} :  "  Father,  what  thou  hast  given  me,  I  desire 
that  where  I  am  they  also  may  be  with  me."  This  is  the  best  rendering, 
if  we  must  reproduce  in  English  the  reading  o  for  ovc. 


468  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Heb.  i.  13 ;  x.  13.  Reproduced  in  the  Vulgate  (scabdlum  pediim  ejus), 
Luther  (Schemel  seiner  Fiisse,  retained  by  De  Wette  and  Weizsiicker),  the 
Dutch  Version  (voetbank  zijner  voeteii).  But  in  English  the  phrase  sounds 
lumbering  and  pleonastic  (as  there  is  no  footstool  for  any  other  member 
of  the  body),  and  hence  it  has  been  rightly  omitted  in  the  Authorized 
Version,  and  also  by  Alford,  Noyes,  and  Davidson. 

In  the  Lord's  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  tares,  Matt.  xiii.  37-39, 
and  in  the  passage  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  xii.  8-10,  the  connecting  particle  and 
is  introduced  no  less  than  six  times  in  one  sentence  in  scrupulous  fidelity 
to  the  original.  The  repetition  of  the  little  Si  does  not  offend  the  Greek 
ear,  while  the  repetition  of  and  offends  the  English  ear,  unless  it  is  em 
phatic,  which  is  not  the  case  in  these  two  instances.  It  should  be  borne 
in  mind,  however,  that  the  English  Testament,  even  in  the  Authorized 
Version,  is  full  of  "  ands"  and  that  it  would  be  a  vicious  principle  to  sacri 
fice  fidelity  to  sound.  The  Revisers  have  here  simply  carried  out  con 
sistently  the  only  general  rule  which  can  be  defended  in  regard  to  the 
rendering  of  St.  and  the  rule  usually  followed  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
If  "and"  is  to  be  left  out  when  its  omission  or  some  other  particle  in  its 
place  is  more  agreeable  to  the  English  ear,  it  must  be  left  out  in  a  hundred 
places  where  it  now  stands  in  the  Authorized  Version  as  well  as  the  Re 
vised  Version,  and  the  Hebraistic  character  of  the  New  Testament  style 
is  changed.  And  wre  must  remember  that  what  might  be  justified  in  a 
professedly  modern  version,  not  aiming  at  great  literalness,  cannot  be  jus 
tified  in  a  version  like  the  Authorized  Version  and  the  Revised  Version, 
which  aim  at  closeness  rather  than  elegance. 

INCONSISTENCIES. 

These  are  very  few  and  insignificant,  while  in  the 
Authorized  Version  they  are 

"Thick  as  autumnal  leaves  that  strew  the  brooks  in  Vallambrosa." 

The  Revisers  have  been  much  censured  by  some 
for  inconsistency,  by  others  for  pedantry,  in  the  ren 
dering  of  the  Greek  article  and  the  Greek  tenses  / 
while  it  is  admitted  by  nearly  all  critics  that  in  both 
respects  they  have  generally  been  as  careful  and 
accurate  as  the  old  translators  were  negligent  and 
inaccurate.  No  scholar  of  good  taste  and  judg- 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  469 

ment,  in  view  of  the  idiomatic  peculiarities  of  the 
two  languages,  would  advocate  a  pedantic  uniform 
ity.  Rhetorical  and  rhythmical  considerations  must 
often  decide  whether  the  definite  article  is  to  be 
retained  or  omitted,  and  whether  the  Greek  aorist 
is  to  be  rendered  by  the  simple  preterite  or  by  the 
perfect.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  translator  to  retain 
the  definite  article  whenever  it  strictly  defines  the 
noun — Cf(j^  the  Christ,  as  the  official  designation  of 
the  promised  Messiah  or  the  Anointed,  in  the  Gos 
pels ;  "the  many"  in  Rom.  v.  15-19,  as  equivalent 
to  "all,"  and  opposed  to  "the  one"  (not  to  "a  few"); 
"Befalling  away"  and  "Me  man  of  sin"  in  2  Thess. 
ii.  3  (instead  of  "a  falling  away"  and  "that  man  of 
sin");  "the  city"  (namely,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem), 
Heb.  xi.  10  (instead  of  "  a  city  ") ;  "  the  good  fight " 
of  faith,  "the  course,"  "the  crown  of  righteousness," 
2  Tim.  i v.  7, 8  (instead  of  "  a  good  fight,"  "  a  crown  ") ; 
"the  crown  of  life,"  Rev.  ii.  10  (for  "a  crown  of 
life").  On  the  other  hand,  the  definite  article 
should  be  omitted  in  English  where  in  the  Greek 
it  is  used  idiomatically,  as  frequently  (not  always) 
in  the  proper  names  of  persons  (TOV  'I<r«oic,  but 
^Aflpaa/Li  iii  Matt.  i.  1,  2  sqq.)  or  countries  (•//  "lowSm'a, 
11  ra\i\a'ia,  ?/  'Aa/«,  ??  Aryu-roe ') ;  in  the  designa 
tion  of  a  class  or  genus  (6  avSpajTroq.,  man,  at  aXoV 
TTfjae? foxes)  ;  in  Rom.  V.  12,  rj  a^a/ma  and  6  Savaroz, 
sin  and  death,  as  a  principle  or  all-pervading  power. 
But  it  is  used  in  English  where  it  is  omitted  in 

1  Winer  says  AtyvTrrog  never  takes  the  article,  but  Lachmann,  Tregelles, 
Westcott  and  Hort  admit  it  in  Acts  vii.  3G,  on  the  authority  of  B,  C,  etc.-, 
while  Tischendorf,  eighth  edition,  omits  it  u'ith  X,  A,  E,  H,  P. 


470  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

Greek  in  a  number  of  adverbial  phrases  (lv  ap 
the  beginning,  lv  uyopu,  in  the  market-place);  be 
fore  Srsoe  (while  the  plural  ol  £EO/  must  be  rendered 
"the  gods");  and  in  other  cases.  Upon  the  whole, 
the  Greeks  used  the  article  more  freely  than  the 
English  ;  the  translators  of  King  James,  following 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  too  often  neglected  it;  but  in 
both  languages  it  may  often  be  either  inserted  or 
omitted  with  equal  correctness,  and  the  choice  is 
determined  by  subjective  considerations  or  the  feel 
ings  of  the  writer.1 

As  to  the  verb,  the  Greek  aorist  should  be  repro- 

1  See  Moulton's  Winer,  p.  131  sqq.  (eighth  edition),  and  two  able  essays 
on  the  Use  of  the  Article  in  the  Revised  Version  by  expert  Greek  scholars, 
one  by  Professor  J.  S.  Blackie,  of  Edinburgh  University,  in  "The  Con 
temporary  Review"  for  July,  1882,  and  one  by  Professor  William  S.  Tyler, 
of  Amherst  College,  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra "  of  Andover,  Mass.,  for 
January,  1882.  Both  charge  the  Revisers  with  minute  micrology  or 
trifling  acribology,  but  differ  among  themselves  in  several  details.  Tyler 
defends  the  restoration  of  the  article  in  Heb.  xi.  10  ("the  city  which  hath 
the  foundations"),  and  in  Rev.  vii.  13,  14  ("the  white  robes  .  .  .  the  great 
tribulation");  while  Blackie  condemns  it  as  "simply  bad  English."  If 
philologists  differ,  what  shall  theologians  do?  Blackie  objects  to  Middle- 
ton's  principle  of  the  emphatic  use  of  the  Greek  article,  and  rather  leans  to 
Scaliger's  view,  who  sarcastically  called  it  "  loquacissimce  yentis  fluldltim." 
But  he  is  certainly  wrong  in  censuring  the  Revisers  for  omitting  the  ar 
ticle  in  John  iv.  27.  "a  woman," /if rd  •yvvaiKoz,  for  "the  woman"  (the 
wonder  of  the  disciples  being  not,  as  Blackie  thinks,  that  their  Lord  was 
talking  to  that  particular  woman  of  the  heretical  Samaritan  people,  but 
to  any  woman  in  a  public  place,  in  violation  of  the  rabbinical  and 
Oriental  etiquette  which  forbids  conversation  even  with  one's  own  wife  in 
the  street),  and  in  1  Tim.  vi.  10 :  "a  root  of  all  evil,"  pi£a,  for  " the  root," 
which  he  explains  to  mean  "  a  very  big  root."  He  says  that  "a  root"  is 
un-English,  and  yet  admits  that  there  are  many  other  roots  of  all  evil  be 
sides  love  of  money,  "such  as  envy,  hatred,  anger,  and  even  the  contempt 
of  money  exhibited  in  the  squanderer  and  the  spendthrift." 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  471 

duccd  by  the  English  preterite  not  only  in  a  con 
secutive  narrative,  but  also  in  didactic  discourse, 
whenever  the  writer  refers  to  a  definite  act  in  the 
past,  as  crucifixion  and  resurrection  (Horn.  iv.  25  ; 
vi.  10 ;  Gal.  iii.  21,  etc.),  or  the  conversion  and  bap 
tism  of  the  readers  (Horn.  vi.  3,  4 ;  Gal.  ii.  19 ;  iii.  27 ; 
2  Cor.  v.  14,  15,  etc.).  As  to  the  imperfect  tense,  it 
is  easy  in  most  cases  to  express  in  English,  with  the 
aid  of  the  auxiliary  verb,  the  continued  or  repeated 
or  contingent  past  action  which  is  implied  in  the 
Greek  imperfect. 

But  in  a  number  of  cases  there  is  room  for  a  dif 
ference  of  opinion  and  taste  among  the  best  of 
scholars.  The  following  are  instances  where  the 
treatment  of  the  article  and  tenses  may  be  dis 
puted  : 

"  God's  righteousness"  in  Rom.  i.  17  would  be  more  exact  for  diKatoovvij 
•S'eoy  than  "a  righteousness"  (or  "tlie  righteousness"  in  the  Authorized 
Version),  and  the  contrasted  "God's  wrath,"  opyi]  S'goT;,  in  the  following 
verse,  instead  of  "Ike  wrath  of  God,"  which  the  Revised  Version  incon 
sistently  retained  from  the  Authorized  Version,  with  "a  wrath"  in  the 
margin. 

In  Matt.  vii.  G  the  definite  article  before  KWf£  and  \oipoi  is  generic 
(as  before  afiapria  and  Savaroz  in  Rom.  v.  12),  where  the  German  idiom 
resembles  the  Greek,  but  where  the  English  idiom  requires  the  absence  of 
the  article.  Hence,  "unto  dogs"  and  "before  swine"  would  be  better 
than  "  unto  ihe  dogs  "  and  "  before  the  swine."  (The  Authorized  Ver 
sion  renders  the  article  before  "dogs"  and  omits  it  before  "swine.") 
When  we  use  the  definite  article  of  the  genus  of  animals,  we  do  it  in  the 
singular,  as  "  the  horse,"  "  the  cat,"  "  the  fox." 

In  Matt.  viii.  20,  and  the  parallel  passage,  Luke  ix.  58,  the  article  is 
likewise  generic  in  ai  dXwTTCKEf,  and  hence  should  be  omitted,  although 
the  Revised  Version  corrects  the  inconsistency  of  the  Authorized  Version, 
which  retains  it  in  the  first  and  omits  it  in  the  second  passage. 

Matt.  viii.  12  and  in  several  other  passages,  "(he  weeping  and  gnash- 


472  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

ing"  (consistency  would  require  "the  gnashing''),  for  o  K\av$[ii<;  Kal  o 
fipvyi-ioc  TWV  bcvi'Twv.  The  Authorized  Version,  which  omits  the  article 
in  hoth  cases,  is  preferable. 

Other  questionable  uses  of  the  definite  article  are:  "the  bushel,"  Matt. 
v.  lf>;  "  the  rock,"  Matt.  vii.  '24;  "the  sower,"  "the  rocky  places,"  "the 
thorns,"  "the  good  ground,"  in  the  parable  of  the  Sower;  "the  breaking 
of  the  bread  and  the  prayers,"  Acts  ii.  42;  "the  dogs,"  Phil.  iii.  2  and  Rev. 
xxii.  15.  Compare  also  the  important  class  of  passages  mentioned  in 
Xo.  XIII.  of  the  American  Appendix. 

One  of  the  most  difficult  questions  connected  with  the  article  is  the 
Pauline  use  of  the  anarthrous  rojuoc-  The  Revisers  vary  between  "the 
law,"  "«  law,"  and  "law."  On  general  principles  we  would  say  that  6 
j'ojuof,  "  the  law,"  means  the  Mosaic  or  written  law7  (moral  and  ceremonial), 
while  1'of.ioc,  '-law."  without  the  article,  means  the  natural  law,  or  law  in 
general,  law  as  a  principle.  But  it  is  impossible  to  carry  this  distinction 
through,  and  for  a  good  reason.  The  term  VU^JLO^  had,  like  Beoc,  Kvpioc;, 
•ypaQai  iijiai  (see  Rom.  i.  2)  and  the  Hebrew  Thora.  assumed  the  char 
acter  of  a  proper  name  with  the  Jews,  who  regarded  the  Mosaic  law  as  the 
perfection  of  all  law,  moral  as  well  as  ceremonial.  So  we  use  in  English 
"  holy  Scripture,"  "  holy  writ."  and  •'  the  holy  Scriptures  "  alternately  with 
out  any  discrimination.  In  addressing  readers  of  Jewish  descent,  Paul 
could  alternate  between  vop-OQ  and  o  vofiog  without  danger  of  being  mis 
understood.  In  Galatians  he  uses  VOJIOQ  without  the  article  even  more 
frequently  than  with  it.1  In  Gal.  ii.  1C,  )•£  t'pywv  vi'^iov,  and  in  vcr.  19, 
Cut  voftov  i>o//fjj  «7T£3woj',  he  can  hardly  mean  any  other  law  but  that 
of  Moses,  and  hence  the  Revisers  have  correctly  rendered  the  passages 
"by  the  works  of  tJte  law,"  and  "I  through  the  law  died  unto  the  law," 
although  they  have  put  "law  "  on  the  margin.  So  in  vi.  13:  ovde  01  Trspi- 
Ttf.ivo^if.voi  al'Toi  voiiov  <j>v\dff(rovffw,"not,  even  they  who  receive  cir 
cumcision  do  themselves  keep  the  law"  (so  the  Revised  Version,  with  the 
useless  margin,  "  Or,  a  law  ").  The  same  holds  true  in  Rom.  ii.  17  :  "  Thou 
art  called  a  Jew  and  restest  upon  the  law"  (i'oju^)  ;  compare  ver.  23  (tv 
t'opifj  and  TOV  j'ouou)  and  ver.  27;  vii.  1:  ytvutaicovcn  vo^iov  XaXw,  "I 
speak  to  men  that  know  tJie  law  "  (again  with  the  useless  margin,  "  Or, 
/«?/?");  x-4;  xiii.  8,  10.2 


1  From  my  counting  in  IJruder's  Greek  Concordance  the  figures  are 
these:  in  the  six  chapters  of  Galatians  the  anarthrous  rojuoc  occurs  twen 
ty  times,  o  vojuoc,  ten  times;  in  the  sixteen  chapters  of  Romans  vufto^ 
occurs  thirty-four  times,  o  v<j/.ioc;  thirty-five  times. 

2  Compare  here  Winer's  Grammar,  and  the  discussions  of  Meyer  and 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  473 

As  to  the  Greek  tenses,  the  Revisers  are  as  accurate  and  consistent  as 
the  English  idiom  will  admit.  They  seldom  depart  from  the  Greek  with 
out  good  reason.  In  Matt.  vi.  12  they  translate  the  aorist  cKpt'iicautv  (which 
is  better  supported  than  the  present  a^iifiiv)  by  the  perfect:  "we  have 
forgiven,"  because  it  conveys  the  idea  of  a  completed  act  more  forcibly  in 
English  than  the  more  literal  "  we  forgave."  So  John  xx.  2  :  "  they  have 
taken  away  (?ipav)  the  Lord,"  and  ver.  3  :  "  they  have  laid  him  (t£//Koi')," 
is  better  than  the  more  literal  but  less  faithful  and  idiomatic  "  took  "  and 
"  laid."  Compare  Matt.  xi.  27  :  "  all  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  " 
(•n-ai'Tci  pot  TrapteuSri,  in  the  Authorized  Version  "all  things  are  deliv 
ered, "which  is  certainly  wrong) ;  xxv.  20:  "I  have  gained"  (t /ape?/ era). 
But  in  Matt,  xxvii.  4  the  rendering  "I  sinned  in  betraying  innocent 
blood,"  seems  better  adapted  to  the  terse  Greek  (t'^iapTov  7rapadov(;)  and 
the  desperate  state  of  Judas  than  "  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  [have]  betrayed 
innocent  blood,"  which  the  Revisers  retained  from  the  Authorized  Version 
with  the  exception  of  the  second  "  have."  In  Rom.  iii.  23.  ijuap-o>>  should 
have  been  rendered  "sinned"  for  "have  sinned,"  consistently  with  Rom. 
v.  12;  the  aorist  pointing  in  both  passages  to  a  definite  act  in  the  past, 
whether  it  be  the  fall  of  the  race  in  Adam  or  the  individual  transgressions 
of  his  descendants. 

We  add  a  few  inconsistencies  of  a  different  kind, 
trifling  oversights  resulting,  perhaps,  from  weariness 
of  the  flesh  after  hours  of  hard  study,  quite  excusa 
ble  in  scholars  as  well  as  in  poets.  "  Aliguando 
dormitat  bonus  Homer  us" 

"  Thy  house  "  in  Matt.  ix.  G  and  Luke  v.  24,  but  "  thine  house  "  in  Luke 


Weiss  on  Romans  ii.  12  sqq.,  Wieseler  and  Lightfoot  on  Galatians  ii.  15, 
10,  etc.  Bishop  Middleton.  in  his  famous  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  A  rticle  (1808, 
new  edition,  1841),  censures  the  Authorized  Version  for  obliterating  the 
distinction  between  VO^IOQ  and  o  j/o/iot,1;  while  Professor  Blackie,  on  the 
contrary,  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  Authorized  Version  in  this  case 
is  generally  right,  the  Revised  Version,  in  so  far  as  it  departs  from  it,  gen 
erally  wrong.  Professor  Tyler,  on  the  whole,  sides  here  with  the  Revised 
Version,  yet  he.  too,  thinks  that  in  the  whole  paragraph,  Rom.  ii.  11-29, 
the  rendering  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  more  consistent  and  more  cor 
rect.  I  dare  say.  however,  that  if  these  eminent  Grecians  had  heard  the 
debates  in  the  Companies,  they  would  judge  less  confidently. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

vii.  44.  "  Quick"  (£wi')  is  changed  to  "living,"  Hob.  iv.  12,  but  left  in 
Acts  x.  42  ("judge  of  quick  and  dead,"  perhaps  in  deference  to  the  Apos 
tles'  Creed) ;  " quickening "  ('^ojoTroiovr)  is  changed  to  "life-giving,"  I  Cor. 
xv.  45;  but  "quickeneth"  is  retained  in  John  vi.  Go.  The  obsolete  form, 
'•  he  was  an  hungred"  is  changed  in  Matt.  iv.  2.  xxi.  18  into  " he  Jnin- 
f/ered"  but  retained  in  Matt.  xii.  1.  3;  xxv.  35,  37,  42.  The  older  ver 
sions  vary  between  "hungered,''  "was  hungry,"  "was  an  hungred." 

NEEDLESS    VARIATIONS. 

Much  complaint  is  made  of  mere  verbal  depart 
ures  from  the  Authorized  Version  which  convey  no 
benefit  to  the  English  reader,  but  offend  his  ear  or 
taste,  and  disturb  his  sacred  associations  connected 
with  his  familiar  Bible.  The  Revisers  have  even 
been  charged  on  this  point  with  a  violation  of  their 
own  rule:  "to  introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possi 
ble  into  the  text  of  the  Authorized  Version  consist 
ently  with  faithfulness."  This  is  thought  to  be  the 
more  censurable  as  the  English  Bible  is  not  simply  a 
translation,  but  a  national  classic  and  inestimable 
treasure  of  the  people.  Why,  for  example,  it  is  asked, 
should  "  the  fowls  of  the  air"  be  changed  into  "  the 
birds  of  the  heaven"?1  Why  should  the  "vials" 
which  contain  the  incense  of  the  prayers  of  saints 
and  the  "vials"  of  wrath  (in  the  Apocalypse)  be 
turned  into  "bowls"?2  Why  should  the  phrase 

1  Matt.  vi.  26  :   ra  Trtruva  rov  ovpavov.     So  also  Matt.  viii.  20;  Luke 
ix.  58,  etc.    The  Authorized  Version  is  here,  as  often,  inconsistent  in  using 
live  times  bird  (Matt.  viii.  20;  xiii.  32;  Luke  ix.  58;  Rom.  i.  23;  James 
iii.  7),  and  nine  times  fowl  (Matt.  vi.  2G ;  xiii.  4;  Mark  iv.  4,  32;  Luke 
viii.  5  ;  xii.  24;  xiii.  19;  Acts  x.  12;  xi.  G).     ovpavog  is  in  most  passages 
translated  heaven,  four  times  sky,  nine  times  air. 

2  Rev.  v.  8;  xv.  7,  and  in  ten  other  passages  of  the  same  book.     The 
Greek  (piaXij,  corresponding  in  the  Septuagint  to  p"^!2,  is  a  broad,  flat, 


THE    EEVISED    VERSION.  475 

"which,  being  interpreted,  is  God  with  us,"  Matt.  i. 
23,  be  made  to  run,  "  which  is,  being  interpreted, 
God  with  us"?1  Why  should  the  order  of  words 
be  reversed  in  slavish  conformity  to  the  Greek, 
even  in  the  Lord's  Prayer:  "As  in  heaven,  so  on 
earth  "  ? 2 

In  reply  to  these  charges,  we  have  to  submit  (1) 
that  in  nearly  all  the  examples  which  have  been 
singled  out  by  friendly  and  unfriendly  critics,  there 
is  a  good  reason  for  the  change ;  (2)  that  a  great  many 
alterations  were  required  by  consistency  or  necessi 
tated  by  the  sound  rule  of  uniform  rendering,  which 


shallow  bowl  or  cup  (Latin  patera,  German  Schaale)  for  drinking  or  pour 
ing  liquids;  in  the  Old  Testament,  for  receiving  the  blood  of  sacrifices  or 
frankincense.  The  English  vial  or  phial  is,  no  doubt,  derived  from  the 
Greek  fyia\i]  through  the  Latin  phiala,  but  is  commonly  used  of  a  small 
bottle,  or  little  glass  vessel  with  a  narrow  aperture  intended  to  be  closed 
with  cork,  as  a  vial  of  medicine  (see  Webster).  Hence,  here,  too,  the 
Revisers  are  right. 

1  This  is  simply  to  conform  to  the  Greek  order  (o  tan  n^tppi]r'tvo/.it- 
vov),  and  to  make  the  translation  consistent  with  the  five  other  parallel 
passages  where  the  much-lauded  Authorized  Version  itself  observes  the 
same  order ;  see  Mark  v.  41  ;  xv.  22, 34 ;  John  i.  41  (42) ;  Acts  iv.  3G.    And 
yet,  in  culpable  ignorance  of  this  fact,  Sir  Edmund  Beckett,  a  special  plead 
er  for  the  superior  excellency  of  the  English  style  of  the  Authorized  Ver 
sion,  calls  this  change  an  illustration  of  "  the  capacity  of  the  Revisers 
for  spoiling  sentences  with  the  smallest  possible  exertion,  and  for  no  visi 
ble  object.    Here  the  mere  transposition  of  that  little  '  is '  makes  all  the  dif 
ference  between  a  lively,  solemn,  and  harmonious  sentence,  and  one  as  flat, 
inharmonious,  and  pedantic  as  a  modern  Act  of  Parliament  or  the  Revisers' 
Preface."     (Should  the  Revised  New  Testament  be  A  utkorized  ?  p.  50.) 

2  Matt.  vi.  10.     The  critics  forget  that  the  Authorized  Version  has  pre 
cisely  the  same  order  in  the  parallel  passage,  Luke  xi.  2,  with  the  single 
difference  of  "  in  earth  "  instead  of  "  on  earth  ;"  but  the  Revised  Version, 
with  all  critical  editors,  omits  this  passage  in  Luke  as  an  interpolation 
from  Matthew. 


476  T1IE    REVISED    VERSION. 

must  be  carried  out  wherever  the  Greek  words  have 
precisely  the  same  meaning  or  are  emphatically  re 
peated. 

We  would  not  deny  that  the  Revisers  may  occa 
sionally  have  overdone  the  changing  by  an  over 
anxious  or  over-conscientious  desire  to  be  faithful  to 
the  original.  But  if  they  have  erred  here,  they  have 
certainly  erred  on  the  right  side.  And  this  is  the 
laudatory  censure  of  Bishop  Wordsworth,  of  Lincoln, 
who  said  of  the  .Revisers :  "  They  would  have  suc 
ceeded  better  and  have  performed  more  if  they  had 
attempted  less.  Xot  by  doing,  but  by  overdoing, 
their  work  has  been  less  happily  done." 

In  many  instances  it  is  simply  impossible  to  secure 
unanimity,  or  to  satisfy  even  one's  own  taste,  in  mak 
ing  or  omitting  changes.  And  the  adverse  critics 
have  certainly  shown  no  better  tact  or  promised  bet 
ter  success.  In  most  cases  the  laboring  mountains 
have  only  produced  a  "  ridiculus  mus."  An  anony 
mous,  but  very  able  and  fair-minded  reviewer  of 
these  critics,  gives  the  following  amusing  specimens 
of  a  revision  of  the  Revision  : * 

"We  hasten  to  turn  away  from  these  irksome  records  of  fault-finding 
to  acknowledge  the  great  and  manifold  obligations  under  which  the  Re- 
visers  have  laid  all  English-speaking  people.  The  critics  have  not  pro 
pitiated  our  assent  to  their  arguments  by  the  alternative  translations 
which  they  have  sometimes  been  good  enough  to  offer.  We  are  not  sure 
that  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  himself  would  be  applauded  for  the  correction 
which  he  suggests  on  Rom.  xii.  11,  'in  your  hurry  be  not  lazv '  (p.  29). 
The  new  Bodleian  Librarian  would  scarcely  have  improved  the  fortunes 
of  the  Revised  Version  if  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  Company,  with 
influence  enough  to  induce  them  to  begin  the  New  Testament,  the  'Roll 

1  In  "  The  Church  Quarterly  Review  ?'  for  January,  1883,  p.  385. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  4:77 

of  birth,  or  Birth-roll,  or  Roll  of  descent,  or  Family-roll,  of  Jesus  Christ;' 
and  if  they  had  yielded  to  the  'regret'  which  he  expresses,  that  the  Re 
visers  did  not  further  improve  the  Lord's  Prayer,  by  rendering  '  Give  us 
our  morrow's  bread  to-day  '  in  their  text.  Mr.  J.  A.  Beet,  who  complains 
of  the  'almost  total  absence  of  poetic  instinct'  in  the  Revisers,  addresses 
himself  to  the  difficult  text,  Phil.  ii.  G;  and  after  toiling  over  the  passage 
for  four  large  pages,  produces  at  last  his  own  rendering  ('in  lack  of  a  bet 
ter,'  as  he  modestly  says)  :  ;Not  high-handed  self-indulging  did  He  deem 
His  equality  with  God.' " 

Making  every  allowance  for  imperfections  which 
adhere  to  the  best  works  of  fallible  men  (including 
the  Pope — remember  the  revised  edition  of  the  Vul 
gate  corrected  by  Sixtus  V.),  a  minute,  careful,  arid 
impartial  examination  of  the  Revision  of  1881  must 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  in  text  and  rendering  it 
is  a  very  great  improvement  upon  the  Version  of 
1611,  and  the  most  faithful  and  accurate  version  of 
the  Greek  Testament  ever  made  from  Jerome  down 
to  the  present  date.  Its  merits  are  many  and  great; 
its  defects  arc  few  and  small,  and  mostly  the  result 
of  overfidelity  to  the  Qreek  original  and  to  the  Eng 
lish  idiom  of  King  James's  Version.  The  defects, 
moreover,  are  on  the  surface,  and  could  be  easily 
removed  by  the  Revisers  themselves  if  they  were 
called  upon  to  do  so.  And  why  should  they  not  do 
it  after  the  completion  of  the  Old  Testament?  Do 
they  not  owe  it  to  themselves  and  to  the  Christian 
public?  The  best  scholars  are  eager  to  correct  blem 
ishes,  which  they  always  discover  in  the  first  edition 
of  their  works.  Such  final  editing  is  not  to  be  con 
founded  with  a  new  revision,  which  is  not  likely  to 
be  undertaken  in  the  present  generation. 

We  believe  that  the  foundation  of  the  revision 
will  stand  and  outlast  all  the  criticisms. 


478  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

We  have  so  far  reviewed  the  Revision  as  a  unit. 
We  must  now,  in  justice  to  the  American  Commit 
tee  and  the  American  community,  speak  of  the 
American  share  of  the  work  as  far  as  it  is  incor 
porated  in  the  text  or  relegated  to  the  Appendix. 

THE    AMERICAN    PART    IN    THE    JOINT    AVORK. 

The  Revised  New  Testament,  as  authoritatively 
printed  and  published  by  the  two  English  Univer 
sity  Presses,  is  the  joint  work  of  both  Committees. 
The  English  Revisers  began  nearly  two  years  earlier, 
and  the  American  Revisers  worked  on  the  basis  of 
the  first  English  revision,  which  was  a  great  advan 
tage  ;  but  they  had  to  go  through  precisely  the 
same  process  of  textual  criticism  and  exegesis,  to 
examine  the  same  authorities,  and  to  discuss  the 
same  differences  of  reading  and  rendering.  They 
have  spent  probably  the  same  amount  of  time  and 
labor  since  they  began  to  co-operate.  They  trans 
mitted  to  England  only  the  points  of  difference  and 
suggestions  of  new  changes.  These  were  printed 
from  time  to  time  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Re 
visers,  and  would  make  altogether  an  octavo  volume 
of  about  four  hundred  pages.  Occasionally  an  elab 
orate  essay  was  included,  in  justification  of  a  partic 
ular  point,  as  the  difference  of  reading  in  John  i.  18 
dmovnyiviiG  £"£0(7,  O1*  o  [Aovoyeviig  utof)  5  ori  Acts  XX. 
28  (Scof;,  or  Kupi'ov);  on  John  viii.44;  on  Acts  xxvi. 
28;  Matt.  xxvi.  50,  see  Pres.  Woolsey  in  the  "Bibl. 
Sacra"  for  April,  1874;  on  Luke  ii.  2  (Quirinius, 
not  Quirinus),  see  Pres.  Woolsey  in  "  Bibl.  Sacra  " 
for  July,  1878  ;  and  on  Tit.  ii.  13  (the  last  not  sent  to 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  479 

the  English  Revisers,  but  published  in  the  "  Journal 
of  the  Society  of  Bibl.  Lit.  and  Exegesis"  for  June 
and  December,  1881).  In  the  great  majority  of 
cases  the  result  only  was  stated. 

In  order  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  the  American 
share  of  the  work,  and  the  degree  of  harmony  of  the 
two  Committees,  it  is  necessary  to  compare  those 
parts  which  were  done  independently.  For  such  an 
estimate  we  have  the  materials  at  hand. 

When  the  communication  between  the  two  Com 
mittees  was  interrupted  for  a  few  months  in  1877 
(in  consequence  of  negotiations  with  the  Univer 
sity  Presses),  the  American  Committee  took  up  the 
first  revision  of  a  portion  of  ISAIAH  and  of  the  Epis 
tle  to  the  HEBREWS,  and  finished  them  before  the 
first  English  revision  of  the  same  books  was  re 
ceived. 

On  a  comparison  it  was  found  that  in  about  one 
half  of  the  changes  the  two  Committees  had  arrived 
at  the  same  conclusions. 

The  result  as  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
more  particularly  stated  in  the  following  letter  from 
Bishop  Lee,  a  member  of  the  ISTew  Testament  Com 
pany,  to  the  writer : 

<;  WILMINGTON,  DKI,,  April  25,  1881. 

"Mv  DKAU  Sin:  My  examination  of  the  independent  revisions  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  by  the  English  and  the  American  Companies, 
resulted  in  the  estimate  that  out  of  913  changes  made  by  the  American 
Company,  476  were  exactly  coincident  with  those  of  the  English.  There 
were  others  substantially  the  same,  but  not  precisely  identical. 

"The  variations  were  largely  in  punctuation  and  minor  points. 

"I  do  not  claim,  of  course,  perfect  accuracy,  but  I  think  this  statement 
is  not  far  from  the  truth. 


480  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

"My  estimate  of  the  American  suggestions  adopted  is,  in 

The  Gospels 318 

Acts 186 

Epistles  and  Revelation 400 

904 

"In  the  calculation  I  aimed  to  count  each  new  suggestion  but  once, 
although  in  many  cases  it  was  often  repeated— as%/botZ  for  meat,  Jladcs  for 
hell,  tomb  for  sepulchre,  etc.  I  omitted  returns  to  the  Authorized  Version 
and  differences  of  punctuation,  except  in  a  few  important  instances,  and 
metrical  arrangements,  presuming  that  these  would  have  been  done  by  the 
British  Company  even  without  our  calling  their  attention  to  them. 

"If  you  wish  for  more  particular  information  upon  any  of  these  points, 
I  shall  be  happy  to  supply  it  as  far  as  I  can. 

"Very  trulv  yours, 

"AI.IKKD  LEK." 

See  Bishop  Lee's  list  of  American  changes  adopt 
ed  by  the  English  Company  in  text  or  margin,  in 
Appendix  IV. 

Again,  in  the  year  1SSO,  the  American  Old  Testa 
ment  Company  went  through  the  first  revision  of 
the  Book  of  Job,  and  printed  it  (for  private  use) 
before  the  first  English  revision  of  the  same  book 
was  received.  Copies  were  transmitted  by  the  Pres 
ident  to  the  Secretary  of  the  British  Old  Testament 
Company,  February  4,  1881,  with  the  remark:  "I 
send  you  to-day  by  European  express  twenty-seven 
copies  of  the  American  revision  of  Job,  for  distribu 
tion  among  the  members  of  your  Company.  The 
revision  was  completed  before  your  revision  came 
to  hand.  Hence,  it  has  been  printed  in  full,  which 
will  give  you  a  better  idea  of  the  character  of  our 
work  and  the  measure  of  its  agreement  with  yours." 

A  careful  comparison  was  made  between  the  Eng 
lish  and  the  American  revision  of  Job,  by  Professor 


THE    EEYISED    VERSION.  481 

Mead,  of  Andover,  Mass.,  a  member  of  the  Old  Tes 
tament  Company,  and  the  result  is  stated  in  the 
following  letter  addressed  to  the  Chairman  of  the 
Old  Testament  Company : 

"ANDOVER,  Feb.  5,  1881. 

"My  DEAU  PROF.  GREEN:  .  .  .  You  may  be  interested  in  knowing 
the  result  of  my  collation  of  the  two  revisions  of  Job.  Of  course  it  is 
impossible  to  be  very  exact,  it  being  often  difficult  to  determine  how  to 
designate  a  change,  or  to  decide  how  far  to  analyze  a  change — i.  e,,  whether 
to  call  it  one,  two,  or  three,  when  a  whole  clause  is  transformed.  In  gen 
eral  I  have  adopted  the  plan  of  being  minute  in  the  matter,  though  doubt 
less  not  consistent  with  myself  either  in  this  or  in  any  other  respect. 
Still,  the  general  proportion  of  things  is  probably  indicated  with  tolerable 
exactness.  The  result  is  as  follows : 

Whole  number  of  changes  made  by  the  American  Keviscrs 1781 

Whole  number  of  changes  made  by  the  English  Revisers 1004 

Changes  identical  in  both 455 

Changes  substantially  the  same  in  both 134 

Passages  differently  changed  by  both ."  289 

Changes  in  Amer.  Revision  where  there  are  none  in  English  Revision  913 

Changes  in  English  Revision  where  there  are  none  in  Amcr.  Revision  236 

American  readings  found  in  English  margin 53 

English  readings  found  in  American  margin 12 

"  The  general  result  is  that  in  about  half  the  cases  we  coincide.  Moro 
exactly,  the  identical  changes  form  about  45^  per  cent,  of  the  changes 
made  by  the  English.  Adding  the  cases  of  substantial  coincidence,  wo 
have  made  58|  per  cent,  of  the  changes  which  they  have  made.  In 
multitudes  of  other  cases  there  would  be  a  read}'  acquiescence  on  our 
part  in  their  changes — many  of  them  having  reference  to  very  small 
matters,  while  many  of  ours  also  are  of  a  similar  sort. 

"  Yours  truly, 

"  C.  M.  MEAD." 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts  it  may  be  said  that  the 

two  Committees,  if  they  had  acted  independently, 

would  have  produced  two  recensions  of  the  same 

revision,  agreeing  in  about  one  half  of  the  changes 

31 


4S2  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

and  improvements,  while  the  other  half  in  the  great 
majority  of  cases  would  have  admitted  of  easy  ad 
justment,  so  as  to  leave  only  a  small  residuum  of 
minor  differences. 

Both  Committees,  therefore,  may  look  upon  the 
Revision  as  their  own  work.  The  English  Com 
mittee,  however,  has  a  just  claim  to  priority  and  a 
primacy  of  honor.  The  mother  took  the  lead,  the 
daughter  followed.  The  Americans  gave  to  the 
vast  majority  of  the  English  changes  their  hearty 
approval,  and  the  whole  weight  of  their  independent 
research  and  judgment.  On  the  other  hand,  a  large 
number  of  the  remaining  changes  which  they  re 
garded  as  most  important  have  been,  after  due  de 
liberation,  accepted  by  the  English,  so  that  with  a 
fewr  exceptions  the  points  of  difference  set  forth  in 
the  Appendix  are  of  comparatively  little  interest 
and  importance.  These  mutual  concessions  are  of 
vital  account  for  the  international  character  and  suc 
cess  of  the  work. 

THE    AMERICAN    APPENDIX. 

The  American  Appendix  is  short,  and  contains 
only  those  renderings  which  the  English  Company, 
in  its  final  action,  was  unwilling  to  accept,  and  which 
the  American  Committee  deemed  of  sufficient  im 
portance  to  be  recorded  for  future  use.  It  is  pro 
vided  for  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  agreement  of 

•/  Z3 

August  3, 1877,  which  is  as  follows : 

"  If  any  differences  shall  still  remain,  the  American  Committee  Avill 
yield  its  preferences  for  the  sake  of  harmony;  provided  that  such  differ 
ences  of  reading  and  rendering  as  the  American  Committee  may  represent 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  483 

to  the  English  Companies  to  be  of  special  importance,  be  distinctly  stated 
either  in  the  Preface  to  the  Revised  Version,  or  in  an  Appendix  to  the 
volume,  during  a  term  of  fourteen  years  from  the  date  of  publication, 
unless  the  American  Churches  shall  sooner  pronounce  a  deliberate  opinion 
upon  the  Revised  Version  with  the  view  of  its  being  taken  for  public 
use."  : 

The  material  for  an  Appendix  was  gradually  re 
duced,  by  honorable  and  liberal  concessions  of  both 
parties.  The  Americans  yielded  at  least  six  hun 
dred  and  eighty  preferences  (according  to  Bishop 
Lee's  calculation).  The  best  part  of  the  American 
labor  is  incorporated  in  the  book,  and  there  it  will 
remain,  whatever  may  become  of  the  Appendix. 

The  remaining  differences  are  still  more  reduced 
when  wre  consider  that  the  English  Revisers  have 

1  The  introductory  note  to  the  Appendix  was  carefully  drawn  up  by 
the  American  Company  and  transmitted  to  the  English  Company  in  the 
following  terms: 

<;  The  American  New  Testament  Revision  Company,  having  in  many  cases 
yielded  their  preferences  for  certain  readings  and  renderings,  present  the 
following  instances  in  which  they  differ  from  the  English  Company  as  in 
their  view  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  appended  to  the  Revision,  in  accord 
ance  with  an  understanding  between  the  Companies" 

The  English  Company,  for  reasons  best  known  to  themselves,  have; 
taken  the  liberty  to  set  this  heading  aside,  and  to  substitute  for  it  the 
following : 

"  List  of  readings  and  renderings  preferred  Ity  the  American  Committee, 
recorded  at  their  desire.  See  Preface,  page,  ix." 

This  heading  has  been  strangely  misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  by 
many,  as  conveying  the  idea  that  the  printing  of  the  Appendix  was  a 
favor  rather  than  a  right,  and  that  it  contained  all  the  work  of  the 
American  Company.  Fault  has  been  found  also  with  the  Preface  from 
the  Jerusalem  Chamber  (which  was  not  submitted  to  the  American  Com- 
panv)?  because  it  does  not  state  expressly  that  any  of  the  American 
suggestions  were  adopted;  but  this  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  terms 
in  which  they  are  spoken  of,  as  having  received  "  much  care  and  atten 
tion,"  and  having  been  "  closely  and  carefully  considered." 


484  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

recognized  on  the  margin  many  of  the  American 
changes. 

O 

The  Appendix  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first 
contains  fourteen  classes  of  passages,  and  implies 
general  rules;1  the  second  suggests  about  three  hun 
dred  specific  changes  or  alternate  renderings.  The 
former  require  many  alterations  in  the  text ;  the 
latter  are  mostly  of  the  same  nature  as  the  marginal 
notes,  and  might  have  been  distributed  to  the  sev 
eral  passages  if  the  English  Company  had  thought 
proper  to  do  so.  The  most  important  have  already 
been  discussed  in  the  preceding  pages,  especially  the 
archaisms.  We  will  only  notice  the  first  and  the 
twelfth  of  the  general  rules.3 

1.  THE  TITLES  AND  HEADINGS  OF  BOOKS. 

"  Omit  the  word  '  Saint'  from  the  title  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Revela 
tion  of  John,  the  word  '  the  Apostle'  from  the  title  of  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
and  'Paul  the  Apostle'  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  word  'Gen 
eral  '  from  the  title  of  the  Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  1  John,  and  Jude." 

The  Committee  had  no  express  authority  to  revise 
the  titles  of  the  books,  and  hence  the  English  Com 
pany  retained  those  given  in  the  Authorized  Version 
as  printed  in  1611.  But  the  American  Company 

1  In  Rule  XIII.  the  reference  to  "  Col.  i.  3  "  ought  to  be  stricken  out, 
because  the  Revisers  read  r<p  S'tfp  irarpi  without  the  intervening  /cat  of 
the  textus  ivceptus. 

2  For  a  fuller  vindication  of  the  Appendix,  see  the  writer's  additional 
chapter  in  the  American  edition  of  Dr.  Roberta's  Companion  to  the  Revised 
New  Testament,  pp.  192-200,  and  in  an  article  contributed  to  "  Christian 
Opinion  a-nd  Revisionist"  (Lond.,  Nos.  22  and  23,  June,  1882),  also  two 
articles  of  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight  in  the  "N.  Y.  Independent"  for  May  19 
and  May  26, 1881. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  485 

embraced  this  opportunity  to  conform  the  titles  to 
the  ancient  authorities  and  critical  editions  of  the 
Greek  text,  and  to  make  them  consistent.  Their 
conclusions  were  determined  by  the  following  con 
siderations  : 

(a.)  There  is  no  documentary  evidence  whatever 
for  the  title  "  Saint"  The  best  Greek  and  Latin 
JVISS.  (»,  13,  D,  a,  b,  e,  q,  etc.)  read  simply  :  "  Accord 
ing  to  Matthew  "  (Kara  Ma^atoi'),  or  "  The  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew"  (EuayycAtov  TO  Kara  M.). 
Some  of  later  date  add  the  title  to  the  book  (not  the 
author) :  "  The  Holy  Gospel  according  to  Matthew" 

(I.)  The  technical  ecclesiastical  use  of  "  Saint"  as 
one  of  a  spiritual  nobility  or  aristocracy  distinct 
from  ordinary  Christians,  is  not  biblical,  but  belongs 
to  a  much  later  age.  The  sacred  writers  apply  the 
term  aytoe  to  all  believers,  as  being  separated  from 
the  world,  consecrated  to  God,  and  destined  for  holi 
ness.  See  Kom.  i.  7  ;  xii.  13  ;  xvi.  15  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  9  ; 
Acts  ix.  13,  32,  41 ;  Jude  3.  In  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  the  apostles  and  their  disciples  are 
simply  called  by  their  names,  and  this  ought  to  be 
sufficient.  They  themselves  would  protest  against 
the  claim  to  exclusive  saintship;  nor  should  we,  on 
the  other  hand,  put  them  on  a  level  with  the  innu 
merable  saints  of  later  ages.  They  stand  far  above 
them. 

(c.)  The  Authorized  Version  is  inconsistent:  it 
prefixes  the  title  "Saint"  to  the  Gospels  and  to 
Revelation,  but  omits  it  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  as 
if  James,  Peter,  and  Paul  were  not  saints  as  well  as 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  or  as  if  the  St.  John  of 


486  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

the  Gospel  and  of  the  Revelation  were  not  the  same 
as  the  John  of  the  Epistles.  The  inconsistency  is, 
of  course,  an  inadvertency.  The  Bishops'  Bible  re 
tained  the  title  "Saint"  from  the  Vulgate  in  twen 
ty-six  books  of  the  New  Testament;  the  Geneva 
Bible  consistently  omitted  it  in  all;  the  first  edition 
of  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611  omitted  it  in  all 
but  five. 

(d.)  The  title  "Apostle"  is  likewise  wanting  in 
the  oldest  Greek  MSS.  (x,  A,  B,  C),  which  read  sim 
ply,  "To  the  Romans"  (Upbc  'Pwjueuoue),  etc.,  al 
though  some  insert  "  of  Paul"  or  "  of  the  Apostle 
Paul"  or  " of  the  holy  Apostle  Paul"  Moreover, 
the  title  "Apostle"  belongs  to  Peter  and  John  as 
well  as  to  Paul,  and  should  be  given  to  all  or  none. 
Here,  too,  the  Authorized  Version  is  strangely  in 
consistent  or  careless  in  omitting  "the  Apostle"  in 
the  heading  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Epistles 
to  the  Galatians,  Titus,  and  Philemon,  while  insert 
ing  it  in  all  the  other  Pauline  Epistles. 

(<?.)  The  present  title  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
("  the  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews  ") 
prejudges  the  open  question  of  the  authorship  of 
this  anonymous  epistle.  The  best  MSS.  (x,  A,  B,  K) 
read  simply,  "To  the  Hebrews"  (Ylpoc  fE/3jocuoue). 
The  majority  of  modern  scholars  regard  it  as  the 
production  of  a  pupil  or  friend  of  Paul.  The  opin 
ions  of  the  ancient  Church  were  divided  on  the 
question  of  authorship  between  Paul,  Luke,  Barna 
bas  (and  Clement  of  Rome).  A  translator  has  no 
right  to  decide  that  question  in  the  absence  of  docu 
mentary  evidence. 


THE    KEVISED    VERSION.  487 

(/.)  The  title  "General"  ("Catholic,"  KaSoXtk-//) 
of  the  Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  John,  and  Jude  is 
likewise  of  later  date,  and  omitted  by  critical  editors. 
It  is  misleading,  and  applies  no  more  to  those  Epis 
tles  than  to  Ephesians  and  Hebrews,  which  have  an 
encyclical  character;  while  the  second  and  third 
Epistles  of  John  are  eacli  addressed  to  an  individual. 

An  objection  will  be  made  to  this  part  of  the 
Appendix  by  those  who  deem  it  reverent  to  retain 
the  time-honored  "  Saint "  in  connection  with  the 
evangelists  and  apostles.  But  then,  let  us  at  least 
be  consistent,  and  use  it  uniformly,  or  drop  it  alto 
gether.  The  sacred  writers  must  be  our  standard 
of  reverence,  and  they  speak  of  each  other  simply 
as  Matthew,  Mark,  Lulte,  John,  Peter,  and  Paul. 
The  highest  order  of  merit  and  distinction  needs  no 
epithet  of  honor. 

2.  RENDERING  OF  TERMS  DENOTING  COINS. 

"  Let  avaapiov  (Matt.  x.  29 ;  Luke  xii.  6)  be  translated  'penny?  and 
drivcipiov  l  sliillinf/?  except  in  Matt.  xxii.  19;  Mark  xii.  15;  Luke  xx.  24, 
where  the  name  of  the  coin,  '  a  denarius?  should  be  given." 

The  rendering  of  coins  in  our  English  Version  is 
very  objectionable,  and  makes  a,  false  impression 
upon  the  popular  reader.  "Mite"  may  be  retained 
for  AeTrrov  (the  eighth  part  of  an  aaaupiov,  or  as, 
half  a  quadrans,  or  about  one  fifth  of  one  cent),  and 
"farthing"  for  /coSpavrrje  (quadrans,  the  fourth  part 
of  an  as,  equivalent  to  two  mites,  Suo  AtTrra),  as  in 
Mark  xii.  42,  "  a  poor  wridow  cast  in  two  mites  which 
make  a  farthing'."  But  the  more  valuable  coins  are 
mischievously  perverted  and  belittled.  Bishop  Light- 
foot,  one  of  the  most  influential  of  the  English  Ke- 


488  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

visers,  lias  shown  this  so  well  that  I  can  do  no  better 
than  quote  him  in  full  justification  of  the  American 
view.  He  says  : ' 

"Why  cicraupiov,  the  late  Greek  diminutive  used  for  the  as,  of  which, 
therefore,  the  Kocpavrt)>:  is  a  fourth  part,  should  still  be  translated  a 
farthing  (which  elsewhere  represents  KodpdvTqc;')  rather  than^cw??/,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  (Matt.  x.  29;  Luke  xii.  (>).  And  as  we  advance  in  the 
scale,  the  disproportion  between  the  value  of  the  original  and  the  English 
substitute  increases.  Thus  the  denarius,  a  silver  piece  of  the  value  orig 
inally  of  ten  and  afterward  of  sixteen  ases,  is  always  rendered  a  penny. 
Its  absolute  value,  as  so  much  weight  in  metal,  is  as  nearly  as  possible  the 
same  as  the  French  franc.  Its  relative  value  as  a  purchasing  power,  in 
an  age  and  a  country  where  provisions  were  much  cheaper,  was  considera 
bly  more.  Now  it  so  happens  that,  in  almost  every  case  where  the  word 
c^vapiov  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  connected  with  the  idea  of  a 
liberal  or  large  amount ;  and  yet  in  these  passages  the  English  rendering 
names  a  sum  which  is  absurdly  small.  Thus  the  Good  Samaritan,  whose 
generosity  is  intended  to  appear  throughout,  on  leaving,  takes  out  ;  two 
pence.'  and  gives  them  to  the  inn-keeper  to  supply  the  further  wants  of 
the  wounded  man.  Thus,  again,  the  owner  of  the  vineyard,  whose  liber 
ality  is  contrasted  with  the  niggardly,  envious  spirit,  the  'evil  eye'  of 
others,  gives,  as  a  day's  wages,  'a  penny'  to  each  man.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  ask  what  impression  the  mention  of  this  sum  will  leave  on  the  minds 
of  an  uneducated  peasant  or  shopkeeper  of  the  present  day.  Even  at  the 
time  when  our  Version  was  made,  and  when  wages  were  lower,  it  must 
have  seemed  wholly  inadequate.  The  inadequacy  again  appears,  though 
not  so  prominently,  in  '  the  two  hundred  pence,'  the  sum  named  as  insuf 
ficient  to  supply  bread  to  the  five  thousand  (Mark  vi.  37;  John  vi.  7),  and 
similarly  in  other  cases  (e .  g.,  Mark  xiv.  5;  John  xii.  5;  Luke  vii.  41). 
Lastly,  in  the  Book  of  the  Revelation  (vi.  6),  the  announcement,  which  in 
the  original  implies  famine  prices,  is  rendered  in  our  English  Version,  'A 
measure  of  wheat  for  a  penny,  and  three  measures  of  barley  for  a  penny.' 
The  fact  is  that  the  word  \oivi^  here  translated  '  measure,'  falls  below  the 
amount  of  a  quart,  while  the  word  drjvapiov,  here  translated  'a  penny,' 
approaches  toward  the  value  of  a  shilling.  To  the  English  reader  the 
words  must  convey  the  idea  of  enormous  plenty." 


1  "A   Fresh  Revision  of  (he  English  New  Testament,"  London,  1871, 
pp.  165-167;  Amer.  ed.  (Harpers),  1873,  pp.  141-143. 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  489 

But  in  this  case,  again,  the  scholarship  of  the 
English  Revisers  was  overruled  by  the  timid  con 
servatism  of  the  majority,  and  custom  was  allowed 
to  prevail  against  truth.  So  the  "farthing"  was 
retained  twice  for  aaaapiov  (Matt.  x.  29  ;  Luke  xii. 
f>),  and  twice  for  KoSpavTw  (Matt.  v.  26;  Mark  xii. 
42),  and  the  "penny"  (with  "pence"  and  "penny 
worth")  for  Srivapiov  in  fifteen  places.  Where  the 
penny  occurs  for  the  first  time,  Matt,  xviii.  28,  the 
marginal  note  is  added  with  killing  effect  on  the 
text:  "  The  word  in  the  Greek  denotes  a  coin  worth 
about  eight  pence  half-penny,"  i.  <?.,  in  plain  Saxon, 
worth  eight  and  a  half  times  more  than  the  text  in 
dicates.  But  in  all  other  passages  the  reader,  unless 
he  looks  up  that  marginal  note,  will  still  be  at  a  loss 
to  understand  how  a  penny  or  two  cents  can  be  fair 
wages  for  a  day's  labor,  or  a  liberal  gift  to  save  a 
sick  man,  or  a  famine  price  for  a  whole  measure  of 
wheat  and  three  measures  of  barley. 

Yet,  in  justice  to  the  English  refusal  of  so  reason 
able  a  change,  it  should  be  remembered  that  it  is 
impossible,  without  circumlocution,  to  find  a  precise 
idiomatic  equivalent  in  English  for  the  Greek  STJVU- 
ptov  and  the  Latin  denarius.  Sometimes  a  little 
matter  gives  great  trouble.  This  is  an  instance. 
The  inevitable  penny  was  discussed  over  and  over 
acrain  in  the  Jerusalem  Chamber  and  in  the  Bible 

o 

House.  The  English  Company  at  an  early  stage 
was  about  to  adopt  the  Anglicized  form  "  denary," 
when  the  late  Dean  Alford  killed  it  by  the  humor 
ous  objection  that  denary  might  be  mispronounced 
deanery,  and  give  rise  to  the  jest  that  the  Revisers 


490  THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

sold  a  deanery  for  a  penny.  The  precise  rendering 
would  be  "  eight  pence  and  a  half,"  but  this  is  no 
single  coin.  "  Six  pence  "  in  this  respect  would  do 
better,  but  falls  short  of  the  full  value.  Still  less 
would  Englishmen  tolerate  "  sixteen  cents,"  nor 
would  Americans  intrude  their  coins  into  the  Bible. 
The  Americans  wavered  between  "  shilling"  "franc" 
"  silverling"  "  drachma"  "  denarius"  "  denary" 
"denar"  The  Latin  "denarius"  with  a  marginal 
explanation,  would  have  been  unanimously  adopted 
but  for  the  passages  where  the  word  occurs  in  the 
plural  (Matt,  xviii.  28;  Mark  vi.  37;  xiv.  5;  Luke 
vii.  4:1 ;  x.  35  ;  John  vi.  7 ;  xii.  5) ;  for  denarii  sounds 
too  much  like  Latin  for  an  English  Bible.  They 
agreed  at  last  upon  "  shilling"  but  would  prefer  any 
other  of  the  proposed  renderings  to  "penny"  A 
shilling  is  not  absolutely  correct,  but  is  a  genuine 
English  silver  coin,  and  does  not  convey  the  idea  of 
a  ridiculously  small  sum.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
whatever  that,  if  found  in  the  old  version,  shilling 
would  have  been  retained  by  both  Companies. 

THE    PUBLIC    VERDICT. 

The  Revision  is  subject  to  the  verdict  of  the 
Christian  public,  which  will  be  pronounced  by  the 
official  action  of  churches  and  Bible  societies.  In 
England  an  Act  of  Parliament  or  Order  of  Council 
may  be  necessary  in  addition  to  the  votes  of  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbury  and  York  before  it  can 
be  used  in  public  worship.  No  such  action  can  be 
expected  before  the  Old  Testament  is  published  and 
sufficiently  examined.  If  approved,  the  Revision 


THE    REVISED    VERSION.  491 

will  gradually  supersede  the  old  version  ;  if  reject 
ed,  it  will  still  remain  a  most  important  help  for  the 
private  use  of  ministers  and  Bible  readers,  and  be 
made  the  basis  of  some  future  revision  ;  and  such  re 
vision  will  become  inevitable  in  case  of  rejection ;  for 
the  churches  will  never  be  contented  with  the  version 
of  1611  after  all  its  innumerable  defects  have  been 
made  known.  "  Revolutions  never  go  backward." 
The  American  Appendix  will  be  printed,  accord 
ing  to  agreement,  in  every  copy  of  the  University 
editions  till  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  fourteen 
years — i.  <?.,  till  May,  1895.  If  approved,  it  will  be 
incorporated  in  the  text,  if  not,  it  will  be  dropped. 
The  Church  of  England  is  not  likely  to  surrender 
her  love  for  the  archaic  forms  of  language,  as 
"  which  "  for  "  who,"  "  be  "  for  "  are,"  "  Ghost "  for 
"Spirit,"  "devils"  for  "demons,"  "wot"  and  "wist" 
for  "know"  and  "knew,"  etc.,  but  she  may  possibly 
give  to  the  specific  renderings  a  place  among  the 
marginal  notes,  though  they  are  already  very  nu 
merous.  Of  English  critics,  some  sublimely  ignore 
the  Appendix,1  some  approve  it,2  none  has  con- 

1  So  Dean  Burgon,  Canon  Cook,  and  even  Mr.  Humphry  in  his  Com 
mentary  on  the  Revised  Version.     One  of  the  adverse  critics  naively  con 
fesses  that  till  the  year  1882  he  was  happily  ignorant  of  the  existence  of 
any  eminent  biblical  scholars  and  critics  in  America. 

2  Dr.  Angus,  one  of  the  English  Revisers,  says :  "  The  first  three  sug 
gestions  of  the  American  Committee  ought  in  consistency  to  be  accepted," 
and  speaks  favorably  of  the  rest.    A  critic  in  the  London  Athenccum  (May 
28,  1881)  says:  "Several  of  the  recommendations  of  the  American  Com 
mittee  might  have  been  adopted  with  advantage.    The  general  excellence 
of  the  suggestions  of  the  American  Revisers  is  undoubted,  and  they  ought 
not  to  have  been  so  often  neglected.1'     Mr.  Thorns,  the  compiler  of  the 
Complete  Concordance  to  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  Pub- 


492 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 


demned  it.  In  the  United  States  public  opinion 
seems  unanimously  in  favor  of  the  American  readings 
and  renderings.1  Several  editions  have  already  incor 
porated  them  into  the  text  with  an  Appendix  reversed; 
but  such  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  does  great  injus 
tice  to  the  English  Eevisers.  for  they  only  retained 
certain  words  and  phrases  of  the  old  usage  which  is 
still  preferred  by  the  majority  of  Englishmen.2 

lished  under  the,  A  uthorization  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  Universities 
(London,  1882),  notices  the  American  suggestions  throughout,  and  says 
(Preface,  p.  vii.)  that  "  most  of  them  are  very  valuable,  and  deserve  far 
better  treatment  than  to  be  relegated  to  the  end  of  the  book  without  so 
much  as  a  reference  mark  in  the  text  to  indicate  their  existence." 

1  A  very  competent  Greek  scholar,  Professor  W.  S.  Tyler,  D.D.,  says 
(in  the  "Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  Andover,  January,  1882,  p.  161):  "  We  think 
the  feeling  is  wide  in  Great  Britain,  and  it  is  almost  universal  in  this 
country,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  changes  which  were  proposed  by  the 
American  Committee  and  rejected  by  the  Anglican  Committee  should 
have  been  accepted,  and  that  consistency,  not  less  than  the  intrinsic  merits 
of  the  proposed  emendations,  required  their  adoption." 

2  The  following  are  specimens  from  the  Appendix  in  one  of  these 
Americanized  editions : 

UNIVERSITY  EDITION. 
"List  of  Readings  and  Renderings 
preferred  by  the  American  Commit 
tee,  recorded  at  their  desire. 

II.  Strike  but  '  the  Apostle '  from 
the  title  of  the  Pauline  Epis 
tles,  and  '  of  Paid  the  Apostle ' 
from  the  title  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews ;  strike  out 
the  word  '  General'  from  the 
title  of  the  Epistles  of  James, 
Peter,  1  John,  and  Jude;  and 


AMERICAN  EDITION. 

"  List  of  Readings  and  Renderings 
preferred  by  the  English  Committee. 


II.  In  the  title  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  (except  those  to  the 
Galatians,  Titus,  and  Phile 
mon)  insert  '  the  Apostle;1  in 
the  title  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  insert  '  of  Paul  the 
Apostle  ;'  in  the  title  of  the 
Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  1 
John,  and  Jude  insert  the 
word  '  General ;'  and  let  the 
title  of  the  Revelation  run, 
'  The  Revelation  of  S.  John  the 
Divine' 


let  the  title  of  the  Revelation 
run, '  The  Revelation  of  John,' 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 


493 


It  is  barely  possible  that  there  may  be  ultimately 
two  standard  editions,  an  English  and  an  American. 
But  these  would  be  only  two  slightly  different  re 
censions  of  one  and  the  same  revised  version  (as  we 
have  different  editions  of  the  Greek  text),  and  the 
changes  will  no  more  affect  the  unity  of  the  version 
than  the  differences  of  English  and  American  spel 
ling  now  affect  the  unity  of  the  English  language. 
On  the  contrary,  the  essential  unity  will  be  all  the 
more  apparent  and  effective  for  the  variety  in  un 
essential  details. 


AMERICAN  EDITION. 

III.  Wherever  '  Holy  Spirit '  oc 
curs,  substitute  '  Holy  Ghost,' 
except  in  Mark  iii,  29 ,  Luke 
ii.  25,  20;  iv.  1 ;  x.  21;  xi.  ID; 
xii.  10,  12;  John  i.  33;  xiv. 
2G;  Acts  ii.  4;  vi.  5;  1  Cor. 
xii.  3;  Ephes.  i.  13;  iv.30;  1 
Thess.  iv.  8  ;  Jude  20. 

VI.  Use  'which'  of  persons  as  well 
as  '  who '  or  '  that ;'  '  be '  as  well 
as  'are1  in  the  present  indica 
tive  ;  '  wot '  or  '  wist '  as  well  as 
'know'1  or  'knew;1  and  'hale1 
for  '  drag.1 


VII.  Substitute  for  'demon1  ('de 
mons1)  the  word  'devil1  ('dev 
ils  ') ;  and  for  '  demoniac  '  or 
'possessed  with  a  demon '  ('  de 
mons')  substitute  'possessed 
ivith  a  devil '  ('  devils ')." 


UNIVERSITY  EDITION. 
III.  For  'Holy  Ghost1  adopt  uni 
formly  the  rendering  '  Holy 
Spirit.' 


VI.  Substitute  modern  forms  of 
speech  for  the  following  ar 
chaisms,  viz.,  'who1  or  'that' 
for  'which1  when  used  of  per 
sons-,  '  are '  for  'be'  in  the 
present  indicative;  ' knoic1 
'knew,1  for  'irot,'  'wist;'  'dray' 
or  'dray  away1  for  'hale.' 
VII.  Substitute  for ' devil'  (' devils ') 
the  word  'demon1  ('demons1) 
wherever  the  latter  word  is 
given  in  the  margin  (or  repre 
sents  the  Greek  words  dai- 
juwr,  daifioviov);  and  for  'pos 
sessed  wit  ha  devil'  (or  devils') 
substitute  either  'demoniac' 
or  'possessed  with  a  demon '  (or 
'demons').'1 


THE    REVISED    VERSION. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  fate  of  the 
American  Appendix,  it  is  of  very  little  account  as 
compared  with  the  text  of  the  Revision  as  it  now 
stands.  It  is  a  matter  of  wonder  and  congratulation 
that  two  distinct  Companies  of  scholars  of  various 
denominations  and  schools  of  theological  thought, 
divided  by  the  ocean,  and  representing  two  inde 
pendent  and  high-minded  nations,  should  have  ar 
rived,  after  several  years  of  unbroken  and  conscien 
tious  labor,  at  such  harmonious  conclusions  in  the 
translation  of  their  most  sacred  book,  which  is  recog 
nized  by  both  as  their  infallible  guide  in  all  matters 
of  Christian  faith  and  duty. 

The  Anglo-American  Revision  is  the  noblest 
monument  of  Christian  union  and  co-operation  in 
this  nineteenth  century. 

And  herein  is  the  finger  of  Providence,  and  the 
best  guarantee  of  ultimate  success.  The  Revisers 
of  1881  will  ere  long  be  forgotten,  like  their  prede 
cessors  of  1611,  and  some  of  them  have  already 
passed  beyond  the  reach  of  praise  or  blame ;  but 
their  united  work  will  live  until  it  is  superseded  by 
a  better  one. 


APPENDIXES 


APPENDIX    I. 


LIST  OF  PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF 

THE   GREEK  NEW   TESTAMENT. 

BY  PHOFESSOR  ISAAC  H.  HALL,  PHILADELPHIA. 


NOTE. — The  following  list  consists  of  the  "Index  I.  Editio- 
num"  from  the  Bibliotheca  Novi  Testamenti  Grceci,  Brunsvigse, 
1872  (pp.  289-301),  by  Professor  EDUARD  KEUSS,  D.D.,  of 
Strassburg,  with  a  few  bracketed  remarks  or  additions,  and 
a  *  to  mark  the  more  noted,  or  the  epoch-making  publica 
tions;  omitting,  however,  the  Gospel  Harmonies  and  other 
mere  portions  of  the  N.  T.  Editions  not  enumerated  (or  not 
known)  by  Reuss,  but  within  his  plan,  are  added  in  brackets, 
in  chronological  place. 

A  supplementary  list  of  editions  published  since  1870,  the 
date  of  his  compilation,  is  added,  down  to  the  present  time. 

The  plan  of  Dr.  Reuss  included  all  published  editions  of 
the  entire  N.  T.,  together  with  such  larger  portions  thereof 
(Gospels,  Harmonies,  Epistles,  etc.)  as  exhibited  editorial  care 
in  text  or  form,  but  omitting  uncritical  school-books.  He 
also  omitted  published  copies  of  MSS.,  and  editions  based  on 
a  single  MS.  Repetitions  of  the  same  edition,  with  changes 
only  in  the  title-page,  or  by  minute  corrections  in  the  text, 
were  denoted  by  the  same  number  in  the  "Index,"  but  put 
ting  the  repeated  number  in  parentheses.  This  method  is 
followed  here  also,  as  far  as  his  numbers  reach  or  apply. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  this  list  is  perfect,  but  diligence  has 
been  exercised  to  make  it  as  complete  as  possible. 

The  number  of  Harmonies  and  other  forms  of  the  Four 
Gospels,  omitted,  as  above  stated,  from  the  list  of  Dr.  Reuss, 
is  about  fifty ;  while  that  of  other  portions  of  the  N.  T.  is 
rather  less  than  twenty-five.  A  list  of  each,  supplemented 
and  continued  to  the  present  time,  would  add  at  least  half  as 
32 


498     EDITIONS    OF    THE    GKEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

many  more  Harmonics,  etc.,  and  more  than  quadruple   the 
number  of  other  portions  of  the  N.  T. 

Estimating  each  edition  of  the  entire  Greek  N.  T.  at  1000 
copies,  the  whole  number  of  copies  printed  would  exceed 
1,000,000,  besides  a  vast  multitude  of  repetitions,  etc.,  which 
are  beyond  the  reach  of  estimate. 

I.  EDITIONS   OF  THE  ENTIRE  GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT 

FROM  1514  TO  1870. 


List  of  Reuss  enlarged. 

(The  numbers  are  Reuss's;  editors'  names  in  SMALL  CAPITALS;   publishers'  in 
heavy  type;  places  of  publication  in  italics.) 

*1.  1514.  Biblia  polyglotta  Complutensia.  fol.  [CARD.  XIMENES. 
Alcala.  The  first  printed,  published  1522.] 

*2.  1516.  ERASMI  I.  gr.  lat.  Basil.  Froben.  fol.  [The  first  pub 
lished.] 

*3.  1518.  Biblia  gr.   Aldina.    Vend.  fol. 

4.  1519.  ERASMI  II.  gr.  lat.    Basil.   Froben.  fol. 

5.  1521.  GERBELII.   Hagcnocc.   Anshelm.  4. 

*6.  1522.  ERASMI  III.  gr.  lat.  Basil.  Froben.  fol.  [1  John  v.  7 
admitted.  The  basis  of  the  textus  receptus,  except  in  Revelation.] 

7.  1524.     Cephalaei.     Argent.  8. 

8.  1524.     Bebelii  I.     Basil.  8. 

9.  1527.     ERASMI  IV.  gr.  lat.    Basil.    Froben.  fol.    [WithVulg.] 

10.  1531.     Bebelii  II.   Basil.  8. 

11.  1531.     Rescii.    Lovan.  8. 

13.  1534.  Colinsei.     Paris.  8.      [The  first  attempt  at  a  critical 
edition.] 

14.  1535.  ERASMI  V.  gr.  lat.    Basil.   Froben.  fol. 

15.  1535.  Bebelii  III.    Basil.  8. 

16.  1536.  Valderi.    Basil.  32.     [The  first  miniature-sized.] 

18.  1538.  Plateri  I.    Basil.  8. 

19.  1538.  Ant.  de  Sabio  II.     Vend.  8.     [Ed.  I.,  1533,  contained 
only  part  of  the  N.  T.] 

20.  1540.  Plateri  II.   Basil.  8. 

21.  1541.  (al.  1539,  1540.)  ERASMI  VI.  gr.  lat.  Basil.  Froben.  fol. 

22.  1541.  (al.  1542.)  ERASMI  VII.  gr.  lat.    Basil.   Froben.  fol. 

23.  1541.  Brylingeri  I.  gr.  lat.   Basil.  8. 

24.  1542.  Brylingeri  II.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE   GREEK   NEW   TESTAMENT.     490 

25.  1543.  Brylingeri  III.   Basil.  8. 

26.  1543.  Bogardi.  gr.  lat.    Paris.    Guillard.   12.      [TOUSSAINT. 
Displays  some  critical  effort.] 

(26.)  1543.  Roignyi.  gr.  lat.    Paris.   Guillard.  12.     [TOUSSAIXT.] 

27.  1543.  Plateri  III.   Basil  8. 
(27.)  1544.  Plateri  III.   Basil  8. 

28.  1544.  Brylingeri  IV.  gr.  lat.    Basils. 

29.  1545.  Curionis.    Basil  16. 

[         1544.  ERASMIANA.     Honter.  gr.  lat.     Coronce.  4.J 

30.  1545.  Frobenii.     Basil.  4. 

31.  1545.  Bibliagr.    Basil.    Hervagii.  fol.    [MELANCHTHON'S  ed.  ] 

32.  1546.  Brylingeri  V.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

*33.    1546.  ROB.  STEPHANI  I.    Paris.  16.     ["  0  Mirificam."] 

34.  1547.  Froschoveri  I.    Tigurl  8. 

35.  1548.  Brylingeri  VI.    Basil.  8. 

36.  1549.  Brylingeri  VII.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

37.  1549.  Dupuisii.  gr.  lat.    Park  16. 

(37.)  1549.  Granjon  (Marnef,  Fezandat).  gr.  lat.    Paris.  16. 

38.  1549.  ROB.  STEPHANI  II.    Paris.  16.     ["  0  Mirificam"  II.] 

39.  1549.  Prevotii.    Paris.    Haultin.  16. 
(39.)  1549.  Prevotii.    Paris.    Birkmann.  16. 

*40.    1550.  ROB.  STEPHANI  III.    Par-is,  fol.    ["Editio  regia."    Eng 
lish  tcxtus  receptus,  so  called.] 

41.    1550.  Brylingeri  VIII.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

*42.    1551.  ROB.  STEPHANI  IV.  gr.  lat.    (Gcncv.)  16.    [First  divided 
into  modern  verses.] 

43.  1552.  Oporini.    Basil  16. 

44.  1553.  Brylingeri  IX.    Basil.  8. 

45.  1553.  Brylingeri  X.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

46.  1553.  Jo.  Crispini  I.    (Gcncv.)18. 

47.  1556.  Brylingeri  XI.  gr.  lat.    Basil  8. 

48.  1558.  Brylingeri  XII.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

49.  1558.  Brylingeri  XIII.    Basil.  8. 

50.  1559.  Froschoveri  II.    Tiguri.  8. 

51.  1559.  Tornaesii.  gr.  lat.    Lugd.  8. 

52.  1559.  Barbirii.  gr.  lat.    Basil  fol.     \_Pseudo  -  BEZ.E.     It  has 
Beza's  Latin  only.] 

(52.)  1559.  Tiguri.  gr.  lat.    fol. 

(52.)  1560.  Barbirii.  gr.  lat.    Basil,  fol. 

54.  1562.  Brylingeri  XIV.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

55.  1563.  Brylingeri  XV.    Basil.  8. 


500     EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

56.  1563.  Voegelini  I.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 

57.  1568(1564).     Voegelini  II.   Lips.  8. 

58.  1564.  Brylingeri  XVI.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 

59.  1564.  Jo.  Crispini  II.    (Gcnev.)  16. 
(59.)  1565.  Jo.  Crispini  II.    (Genev.)  16. 

*60.    1565.  BEZ^E  major.  I.  gr.  lat.    (Genev.)    Steph.  fol. 

61.  1565.  BEZJE  minor.  I.  gr.  lat.    (Genev.)    Steph.  8. 

62.  1565.  Voegelini  III.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 

63.  1566.  Froschoveri  III.    Tiguri.  8. 

64.  1566.  Brylingeri  XVII.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

65.  1567.  BEZ.E  minor.  II.  gr.  lat.    (Geiiev.)    Steph.  8. 

66.  1568.  Rob.  Stephani  jun.    Fen-is.  16. 
(66.)  1569.  Rob.  Stephani  JUB.    Paris.  16. 

67.  1569.  TREMELLII  triglotton.    (Genev.)    Steph.  fol. 

68.  1570.  FLACII  I.    Perna.    Basil  fol. 

69.  1570.  Voegelini  IV.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 

70.  1571.  Brylingeri  XVIII.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 
(67.)  1571.  TREMELLII  triglotton.    Luyd.fol. 

*71.    1571.  Biblia  polyglotta.    Antwerp.    Plantin.  fol.     [Antwerp 
Polyglott,] 

72.  1572.  Plantini  I.  gv.  lat.    Antwerp,  fol. 

73.  1573.  Plantini  II.    Antwerp,  8. 

74.  1574.  Plantini  III.    Antwerp.  82. 

75.  1574.  Vignonii  I.    (Genev.)  IQ. 

76.  1576.  HENR.    STEPHANI   I.    (Genev.)  16.     [Preface   contains 
his  celebrated  essay  on  the  style  of  the  Gr.  N.  T.] 

1577.  Brylingeri  XIX.  gr.  lat.    Basil.  8. 

1578.  Steinmanni  I.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 

1580.  BEZ.E  minor.  III.  gr.  lat.    (Gcnev.    Steph.)  8. 

?      1581.  Burgis  Araeonensium.  fol.     [Same  as  No.  72  ?] 

80.  1582.  BEZ.E  major.  II.  gr.  lat.    (Genev.    Steph.)  fol. 

81.  1582.  Steinmanni  II.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 

82.  1583.  Plantini  IV.  gr.  lat.    Antwerp.  8. 

83.  1583.  Selfischii  I.  gr.  lat.     Viteb.  8. 
(83.)  1583.  Jegeri.  gr.  lat.    Amst.  8. 

84.  1584.  Plantini  V.  gr.  lat.    Antwerp,  fol. 

85.  1584.  Vignonii  II.    (Genev.}  16. 

*86.    1584.  BODERIANI  triglotton.    Paris.    Prevoteau.  4. 

(86.)  1586.  BODERIANI  triglotton.    Paris.    Le  Bouc.  4. 

87.  1586.  Ostenii  I.    Basil  8. 

88.  1587.  HENR.  STEPHANI  II.    (Genev.}  16. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GEEEK   NEW    TESTAMENT.     501 

89.  1587.  Vautrollerii.    Land.  16.    [First  Gr.  N.T.  pub.  in  Eng.j 

90.  1587.  Vignonii  III.     (Gcncv.)  It). 

91.  1588.  Ostenii  II.  gr.  lat.     Basil.  8. 

92.  1588.  Steinmanni  III.  gr.  lat.     Lips.  8. 

?     1588.  Stoerii.  [gr.lat.Masch.]  Gcncv.  fol.    [Same  as  No.  80?  | 

*93.    1588.  BEZJE  major.  III.  gr.  lat.    (Gcnev. 
Steph.)  fol. 


*(93.)  1589.     BEZ.E  major.  III.  gr.  lat,     (Sine 


[With  No.  106, 
the  chief  basis  of 


loco  ct  tiipog.  sed  Gencv.    Steph.)  fol.  , 

*[(93.)  1589.  EEZJE  major.  III.  gr.  lat.     Gcnev. 
Henr.  Steph.  fol.] 

94.  1590.  BEZ.E  minor.  IV.  gr.  lat.    (Gcncv.    Vignon.)8. 
?      1590.  Plantiniana.    Antwerp.  8.     [Doubtful.] 

95.  1591.  Eaphelengii  I.    Lugd.  Bat.  32. 

96.  1591.  Lanzenbergeri  I.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 

97.  1592.  Londincnsis  e  typogr.  regia.    16. 

98.  1592.  Mylii.  gr.  lat.    Colon.    Birkmann.  8. 

100.  1594.  Voegelini  V.  gr.  lat.    Lijvt.  8. 

101.  1595  (1594).     Voegelini  VI.    Lips.  8. 

102.  1596  (vel  antea).     Rihelii.  gr.  lat.    Argent.  8. 

103.  1596.  Palthenii.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.  8. 

104.  1596.  WOLDEBI  trilinguis.    Hamb.    Lucius,  fol. 

105.  1597.  Biblia  gr.  Wecheliana.    Franco/,  fol. 
(51.)  1597.  Roussini.  gr.  lat.    Lugd.  8. 

*106.    1598.  BEZJE  major.  IV.  gr.  lat.    (Gcncv.)   Vignon.  fol.    [See 
No.  93.] 

*(106.)  1598.  BEZ.E  major.    Sine  loco  d  typog.    fol.     [Other  varie 
ties  exist.] 

107.  1599.  Biblia  Commeliniana.  gr.  lat.    Heidelb.  fol. 

108.  1599.  Commelini.  gr.  lat.    (Hcidelb.)  8. 
(108.)  1599.  Vincentii.  gr.  lat.    Lugd.  8. 
(108.)  1599.  Gcnev.  gr.  lat.  8. 

109.  1599.  Harsyi  I.  gr.  lat.    Lugd.  8. 

110.  1599.  Lanzenbergeri  II.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  8. 
*111.    1599.  HUTTERI  dodecaglotton.    Norimb.io\, 

112.  1600.  Wechelii  II.    Franco/.  16. 

113.  1601.  Wechelii  III.    Franco/,  fol. 

114.  1601.  Raphelengii  II.    Lugd.  Bat.  48. 
(108.)  1602.  Commelini.  gr.  lat.    (ffeidelb.)  8. 

115.  1602.  HUTTERI  tetraglotton.    Norimb.  4. 

116.  1604.  P.  STEPHANI  I.    (Gcnev.)  16. 


502     EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

117.  1604.  BEZ.E  minor.  V.  gr.  lat.    (Gcnev.    Vignon.)  8. 

118.  1605.  SelfiscMi  II.  gr.  lat.    Viteb.    Seuberlich.  8. 
(118.)  1606.  Selfischii  II.  gr.  lat.    Viteb.    Seuberlich.  8. 

?       1609.  Raphelengii.  gr.  lat.    Lugd.  Bat.  8. 

[         (1609.)  Land.  8.] 

120.  1609.  Roverii  I.  gr.  lat.    (Genev.)  to]. 

121.  1609.  Roverii  II.  gr.  lat.    Aurel.  Allobrog.  8. 

122.  1609.  Roverii  III.    (Gcnev.)  24. 

123.  1609.  Stoerii  I.  gr.  lat,    (Gcnev.}  12. 

124.  1610.  RoveriiIV.gr.  lat.   Aurd.  Allobrog.  16. 

125.  1611.  Harsyi  II.  gr.  lat.     Lugd.  16. 

126.  1611.  EKZJE  minor.  VI.  gr.  lat.    (Gcnev.    Vignon.)  8. 
(126.)  1611.  BEZ.E  minor.  VI.  gr.  lat.    (Gcnev.    Crispin.)  8. 

127.  1612.  Raphelengii  III.    Lugd.  Bat.  32. 

128.  1612.  Sam.  Crispini  I.  gr.  lat.    Gcnev.  12. 

129.  1613.  Raphelengii  IV.  gr.  lat.    Lugd.  Bat.  8. 

130.  1614.  LUBIXI  trilinguis.    Host.    Pedanus.  4. 
(130.)  1614.  LUBINI  trilinguis.    Amst.    Janson.  4. 

131.  1615.  Vignonii  IV.    Gcnev.  16. 
(115.)  1615.  HUTTERI  tetraglotton.    Amst.  4. 

(107.)  1616.  Biblia  Commeliniana.  gr.  lat.    (Hddclb.)  fol. 

133.  1617.  P.  Stephani  II.    S.Crispin.    (Genev.)  Ho.    [Text  same 
as  Vignon.] 

(130.)  1617.  LUBINI  trilinguis.    Rost.    Hallerfeld.  4. 

134.  1618.  HAFENREFFERI.  gr.  lat.     Tab.    Werlin.  4. 

135.  1618.  Selfischii  III.  gr.  lat.    Viteb.    Seuberlich.  8. 

136.  1619.  Roverii  V.  gr.  lat.    (Gcnev.)  fo}. 

137.  1619.  Roverii  VI.  gr.  lat.    Aurel.  Allobrog.  8. 
(137.)  1619.  Roverii  VI.  gr.  lat.    Sine  loco.  8. 

138.  1619.  Roverii  VII.    Col.  Allobrog.  4. 
(138.)  1620.  Roverii  VII.    Col.  Allobrog.  4. 
(138.)  1620.  Roverii  VII.    Gcnev.  4. 

139.  1622,  GERGANI.    Witteb.    Borheck.  4.     [For  use  in  Greece.] 

140.  1622.  Billii.    Lond.  8.     [R.  WHITAKER.] 

141.  1622.  Sam.  Crispini  II.  gr.  lat.    (Genev.)  12. 
143.    1623.  SelfiscMi  IV.  gr.  lat.    Viteb.  8. 

*144.    1624.  Elzevirorum    [  Elzeviriorum  ]    I.      Lugd.   Bat.    24. 
[European  textus  receptus,  though  not  so  called  till  after  1633.] 

145.    1625.  Stoerii  II.  gr.  lat.     Genev.  12. 

[(158.)  1625.  Buckii.      Cantab.  8.] 

(130.)  1626.  LUBIXI  trilinguis.     fiost.    Ferber.  4. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT.     503 

146.  1626.     [Henrici  Laur(entii),  not]  Laurii  I.  gr.  lat.     Amst.  8. 

147.  1627.     Stoerii  III.  gr.  lat.    Genev.  8. 

149.  1628.    Tournesii  I.    (Genev.)  24. 
(149.)  1628.     Tournesii  I.    Aurel.  Allobrog.  24. 

150.  1628.    Tournesii  II.  trilinguis.    Genev.  8. 

151.  1628.    Jannonii.    Sedan.  32.     [The  smallest  ever  published, 
except  No.  450.] 

152.  1628.     MORINI  biblia  grseca.    Paris,  fol.     [4  odd. ;  Sonnius, 
Chappelet,  Buon,  and  A.  Steph.] 

(150.)  1629.     Tournesii  II.    Genev.  8. 

153.  1629.     Wechelii  IV.     Hanov.  12. 

*154.  1630,  1633.     Biblia  polyglotta  Parisiemia.     Vitre.  fol. 

?  1630.  Janssonii.    Amst.  16. 

(137.)  1631.  Roverii  [VI.]  gr.  lat,    Aurel.  Allobrog.  8. 

155.  1632.  Janssonii  I.    Amst.  16. 

156.  1632.  Jac.  Crispini.    (Genev.)  16. 
(156.)  1632.  Tournesii  III.    16. 

157.  1632.  Tournesii  IV.    (Genev.)  24. 

158.  1632.  Buckii.    Cantabr.  8. 

159.  1632.  GORDONI.  gr.  lat.    Paris.    Cramoisy.  fol. 

*160.    1633.     Elzevirorum  [Elzeviriorum,  and  so  No.  167]  II.   Lugd. 
Bat.  24.     [The  famous  tcxtus  receptus.] 

161.  1633.     Whitakeri.    Lond.  8.     [Elzevir.] 

162.  1633.     Blaeuii.    Amst.  32. 

163.  1635.     Selfischii  V.  gr.  lat.     Viteb.  8. 
[          1635(?).     R.  Whitakeri.    4.] 

164.  1638.     CYRILLI  LUCARIS   bilinguis.     Sine  loco.      [With  the 
first  Modern  Greek  version.] 

165.  1639.     Janssonii  II.    Amst.  16. 

166.  1639.     Janssonii  III.    Amst.  8. 

(152.)  1641.     MORINI  biblia  graca.    Paris.    Piget.  fol. 

167.  1641.     Elzevirorum  III.    Lttgd.  Bat.  24. 

(161.)  1641.     Whitakeri.    Lugd.  Bat.    Elzevir  [1633].  8. 

168.  1642.     Danielis  I.  gr.  lat.    Cantabr.  fol. 

169.  1642.     Mazariniana.    Paris,    typ.  reg.  fol. 
?      -1643.     Amsterd.  8.     [Henr.  Laurentii?] 

170.  1645.     BOECLERI  I.     Argent.     Miilb.  24. 

172.  1647.     [Laurentii,  not]  Laurii  II.  gr.  lat.     Amst.  8. 

173.  1648.     Frerii.     Lond.  12. 
176.    1652.     Danielis  II.     Lond.  12. 

[         (1652.)   Danielis.     Lond.  32.] 


504:  EDITIONS    OF    THE    GEEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

177.  1653.  Danielis  III.  [IV.]    Lond.  4. 

178.  1653.  Witteb.    Roetel.  gr.  lat.  8. 

179.  1653.  HOOLII  I.    Lond.    Norton.  12. 

180.  1654.  Leersii  I.    Roterd.  12. 
(153.)  1655.  Ammonii.    Hamb.  12. 

181.  1656.  Elzevirorum[Elzeviriorum,andsobelo\v]IV.  Amst.'32. 

182.  1657.  Kirchneri.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  fol. 

*183.  1657.  Biblia  pol vglotta  WALTONI.    Lond.    Roycroft.  f ol. 

184.  1658.  Leersii  II.    Roterd.  12. 

*185.  1658.  CURCELL^I  I.    Amst.    Elzevir.  12. 

186.  1658.  ER.  SCHMIDII.  gr.  lat.    Norimb.  fol. 

187.  1659.  FLACII  II.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.    Beyer,  fol. 

188.  1660.  PRIORI  Comment.    Lond.    Flesher.  fol. 

189.  1660.  BOECLERI  II.    Argent.    Staedel.  24. 

190.  1661.  Wustii  I.  gr.  lat.     Vitcb.  8. 

191.  1661.  Endteri.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.  8. 

192.  1662.  Elzevirorum  V.    Amst.  16. 

193.  1663.  Bodmeri  I.  gr.  lat,    Tiguri.  8. 

194.  1664.  HOOLII  II.    Lond.    Norton.  12. 

195.  1665.  PEARSOXII.    Cantabr.    Field.  12. 

196.  1669.  Hampelii.  gr.  lat.    Oiss.  4. 

197.  1670.  Elzevirorum  VI.    Amst.  IQ. 

198.  1671.  Bodmeri  II.  gr.  lat.    Tiguri.  8. 

199.  1672.  HOOLII  III.    Lond.    Kanew.  12. 

[  1673.  HOOLII.    Lond.  12.     (Wrongly  suspected  by  Reuss.)] 

200.  1673.  Montcnsis  trilinguis.    Migeot.  8. 
^196.)  1673.  Wiistii  II.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.  4. 
(196.)  1673.  Wiistii  II.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.  8. 

201.  1674.  Molini.    Lvgd.  12. 

202.  1674.  HOOLII  IV.    Lond,    Mearne.  12. 

203.  1674.  Eedmainii  I.    Lond.  8. 

204.  1674.  Wustii  III.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.  8. 

205.  1675.  COCCEII  I.    Amst.    Van  Someren.  fol. 
*206.  1675.  FELLII.    Oxon.    Sheldon.  8. 

207.  1675.  CURCELLJSI  II.    Amst,    Elzevir.  12. 

208.  1675.  LEUSDENII  I.    Trajecti.    Smytegelt.  16. 

209.  1675.  PSEUDO-LEUSDENIANA.    Trajecti.    Smytegelt.  24. 

210.  1677.  Bodmeri  III.    Tiguri  16. 

211.  1678.  Elzevirorum  VII.    Amst.  16. 

212.  1685.  CURCELLJSI  III.    Amst.    Blaeu.  12 

213.  1686.  Wustii  IV.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.  12. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT.      505 

214.  1687.  Dulci  biblia  grteca.    Vend.  fol. 

215.  1(588.  LEUSDEXH  II.    Amst.    Boom.  16. 
(215.)  1688.  LEUSDENII  II.    Land.    Smith.  16. 

216.  1688.  GKZKLII.    Abocc.  8. 

217.  1689.  COCCKII  II.    Franco/.    Wiist.  fol. 

218.  1691.  RECHENBERGII  I.    Lunch.    Lipper.  12. 
(218.)  1691.  RECHENBERGII  I.    Lips.    Heinichen.  12. 

219.  1692.  Patavina  I.    Cagnolini.  16. 

220.  1692.  Run.  LEUSDENII.    Franco/.    Wiist.  8. 
(220.)  1693.  RUD.  LEUSDENII.    Franco/.    Wiist.  8. 

221.  1693.  WiistiiV.gr.lat.    Franco/.  12. 

222.  1693.  "\VIXKLERI.  gr.  germ.    Lilncb.    Lipper.  8. 

224.  1697.  RECHENBERGII  II.    Lips.    Richter.  12. 

225.  1697.  FRICKII.    Lips.    Koenig.  8. 

(183.)  1698.  WALTONI  N.  T.  polygl.    Lond.    Smith  &  Walford.  fol. 
[Other  copies  of  the  X.  T.  vol.  exist  with  different  titles.] 

226.  1698.  LEUSDENII  III.    (Wetstenii  I.)    Amst.  12. 
(226.)  1698.  LEUSDENII  III.    (Wetstenii  I.)  gr.  lat.    Amst.  12. 
(226.)  1698.  LEUSDENII  III.    (Wetstenii  I.)  gr.  belg.    Amst.  12. 

227.  1699.  CURCELL^I  IV.    Amst.    Blaeu.  12. 

228.  .  1699.  LEUSDENII  IV.    Lugd.  Bat.    Luchtmans.  24. 

231.  1700.  Wiistii  VI.  gr.  lat.    Franco/.  12. 

232.  1700.  Cantabriguv.    Jeffray.  12. 

[  1701.  HOOLII.   Lond.  8.    (Suspected  and  omitted  by  Reuss.)] 

233.  1701.  COCCEII  III.    Amst.    Blaeu.  fol. 
[           1701.  Ruddimanorum.    Edinb.  16.] 

234.  1701.  Wetstenii  II.    Amst.  16. 

235.  1701.  Londini.    Churchill.  8. 

236.  1701.  Londini.    Churchill.  12. 

237.  1702.  FRANKII.    Lips.    Koenig.  8. 

238.  1702.  RECHENBERGII  III.    Lips.    Richter.  12. 

239.  1703.  GREGORII.    Oxon.    Sheldon,  fol. 

240.  1703.  FRITH  I.    Lips.    Gleditsch.  12. 

242.  1704.  Quillau.    Paris.  24. 

243.  1705.  MAIL    G-issce.    Vulpius.  12. 

(243.)  1705.  MAIL  gr.  germ.    Gissce.    Vulpius.  12. 

244.  1705.  ERASMI  VII.  gr.  lat,    Van  der  Aa.    Lugd.  Bat.  fol. 

245.  1705.  Redmainii  II.    Lond.  8. 
*246.    1707.  MILLII.    Oxon.    Sheldon,  fol. 

248.    1708.  Bodmeri  IV.    Tiguri.  12. 

(248.)  1708.  Bodmeri  IV.  gr.  lat.    Tiguri.  12. 


506     EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK   NEW    TESTAMENT. 

249.  1708.  Eeyheri.gr.lat.    Goth.  12. 

250.  1709.  PRITII  II.    Lips.    Gleditsch.  12. 

251.  1709.  RECHENBERGII  IV.    Lips.    Richter.  12. 
*252.    1710.  KUSTERI.    Amst.  fol.     [Kuster's  Mill.] 
(252.)  1710.  KUSTERI.    liotenl.  fol. 

253.  1710.  Orphanotrophei  I.  bilinguis.    Hal  12. 
(249.)  1710.  Hanschii.  gr.  hit.    Goth.  12. 

254.  1711  [error  for  1709].     WELLSII.  gr.  eng.    Oxf.    Knapton.  4. 
[First  English  attempt  at  a  critical  text;  10  parts,  1709-19.] 

*255.    1711.  GKRHARDI!.    ["G.  D.T.  M.D."]    Amst.    Wetstein.  8. 
(255.)  1711.  GKRHARDI  I.     Amst.     Wetstein.  8.     [Varied  in  pag 
ing,  etc.     The  editor  was  GERHARD  vox  MASTRICHT.] 
(249.)  1712.  Hanschii.  gr.  hit.    Goth.  12. 

256.  1713.  REINECCII  quadrilinguis.    Lips.    Lankisch.  fol. 

257.  1714.  MAITTAIKII  I.    Loud.    Tonson.  12. 

258.  1715.  BOWYERI  I.    Lond.  12. 

259.  1715.  CYPRIAXI.    Goth.    Keyher.  12. 
2GO.    1715.  Emeryi.    Pari.it.  8. 

(228.)  1716.  LEUSDENII  IV.    Lngd.  Bat.  .Luchtmans.  24. 

[  1716.  Lyon.    Sacy.  32.] 

261.  1717.  Wetstenii  III.    Amst.  12. 
(261.)  1717.  Wetstenii  III.  gr.  hit.    Amst.  12. 

262.  1717.  WILISCIIII.  gr.  lat.    Chemnitz.    Stoessel.  8. 

263.  1717.  WILISCIIII.  gr.  germ.    Chemnitz.    Stoessel.  8. 
* —     1720.  BE NTLEII  specimen.    Lond.S. 

264.  1720.  Abocc.  S. 

265.  1722.  Brocasii.    Paris.  16. 

266.  1722.  Vossii  I.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  12. 
(252.)  1723.  KUSTERI.    Lips.    Gleditsch.  fol. 

267.  1724.  Vossii  II.    Lips.  12. 

268.  1724.  PRITII  III.    Lips.    Gleditsch.  12. 

269.  1725.  REINECCII  I.    Lips.    Breitkopf.  8. 

270.  1725.  Patavinall.    Manfre.  12. 

271.  1727.  Vossii  III.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  12. 

272.  1728.  BOWYERI  II.    Lond.  12. 

273.  1728.  Lond.    Knaplock.  8. 

274.  1728.  MAITTAIRII  II.    Lond.    Tonson.  12. 

275.  1729.  (MACII.)  gr.  ang.    Lond.    Roberts.  8. 

276.  1730.  NEUDECKERI.    Hal.    Renger.  8. 

277.  1730.  Vossii  IV.    Lips.  12. 

278.  1730.  MAITTAIRII  III.    Lond.    Tonson.  12. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GEEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT.     507 

(262.)  1730.  WILISCHII.  gr.  lat.     Chemnitz.    Stoessel.  8. 

(263.)  1730.  WILISCHII.  gr.  germ.    Chemnitz.    Stoessel.  8. 

279.  1731.  STOCKII.    Jence.    Mayer.  8. 

280.  1732.  Vossii  V.  gr.  germ.    Lips.  12. 

281.  1733.  REINECCII  II.    Lips.    Breitkopf.  8. 
*282.    1734.  BENGELII  I.    Tubing.    Cotta.  4. 

283.  1734.  BENGELII  II.    Stuttg.    Faber.  8. 

284.  1735.  FRITH  IV.    Lips.    Gleditsch.  12. 

285.  1735.  GERHARDI  [MASTHICHTII]  II.     A  mat.     Wetstein.  12. 

286.  1736.  RECHENBERGII  V.    Lips.    Heinsius.  12. 

287.  1736.  GEORGII  I.    Witteb.    Teubner.  8. 

288.  1737.  GEORGII  II.  gr.  lat.    Witteb.    Teubnei.  8. 

289.  1737.  BUTTIGII.    Lips.    Weidmann.  8. 

290.  1737.  Vossii  VI.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  12. 
(283.)  1738.  BENGELII  II.    Tubing.    Berger.  8. 

291.  1739.  Vossii  VII.    Lips.  12. 

292.  1740.  Ruddimanorum  I.    Edinb.  8. 

293.  1740.  DEBIELII.  gr.  lat.     Vindob.    Kaliwoda.  8. 

294.  1740.  Orphanotrophei  II.    Hal.  12. 

295.  1740.  Wetstenii  IV.    Amst.  12. 

296.  1740.  MUTHMANNI.    Zullichov.    Orphanotr.  4. 

(296.)  1740.  MUTHMANNI.  gr.  germ.    Zullichov.    Orphanotr.  4. 

(295.)  1741.  Wetstenii  IV.  gr.  lat.    Amst.  12. 

(294.)  1741.  Halle,  gr.  germ.    Waisenhaus.  12. 

297.  1741.  Taurini.  typogr.  regia.    12. 

298.  1742.  Oxonii.    Broughton.  8. 

299.  1742.  REINECCII  III.    Lips.    Breitkopf.  8. 

300.  1743.  BOWYERI  III.    Land.  12. 

301.  1744.  SCHOETTGENII  I.    Lips.    March.  8. 

302.  1745.  Patavina  III.    Manfre.  12. 

303.  1745.  Vossii  VIII.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  12. 

304.  1746.  Ewingii  I.    Dublin.  12. 
(252.)  1746.  KUSTERI.    Amst.    Wetstein.  fol. 
(256.)  1747.  REINECCII  quadrilinguis.    Lips.  fol. 

305.  1749.  BIRRII.    Basil.    Mechel.  8. 

306.  1750.  Vossii  IX.    Berol.  12. 

307.  1750.  Ruddimanorum  II.    Edinb.  8. 

308.  1750.  Glasguce.    Urie.  8. 

309.  1751.  Venetiis.    Bortoli.  12. 

(228.)  1761.  LKUSDESII  IV.     Lugd.  Bat.     Luchtmans.  24. 

*310.    1751,  1752.     J.  J.  WETSTENII.    Amst.    Dommer.  fol. 


508    EDITIONS    OF    THE    GKEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

311.  1753.  BENGELII  III.    Tubinff.    Berger.  8. 

312.  1753.  REIXECCII  IV.    Lips.    Breitkopf.  8. 

313.  1753.  GOLDHAGENII.    Mofj.    Varrentrapp. 

314.  1753.  Vossii  X.  gr.  lat.    Scroll"!. 

315.  1755.  Patavina  W.    Manfre.  12. 

316.  1750.  Orphanotrophei  III.    Hal  12. 

(316.)  1756.  Orphanotrophei  III.  gr.  germ.    Hal  12. 

317.  1756.  MAITTAIRII  IV.    Lond.    Tonson.  12. 

318.  1757.  Vossii  XI.    Serol  12. 
(318.)  1757.  Vossii  XL  gr.  lat.    Serol  12. 

319.  1758.  Strcgncsice.    Collin.  8. 

320.  1759.  Charnleyi.     Glaxg.    Foulis. 

321.  1760.  BOWYERI  IV.    Lond.  12. 

322.  1761.  Vossii  XII.  gr.  lat,    Serol  12. 

323.  1762.  Patavina  V.    Manfre.  12. 

324.  1762.  Patavina  VI.  (sine  typog.)  12. 

325.  1762.  BENGELII  IV.     Tubing.    Berger.  8. 

326.  1762.  Orphanotrophei  IV.    Hal.  12. 

327.  1763.  BOWYERI  V.    Lond.  12. 

328.  1763.  Baskervillii  I.    Oxon.    Clarend.  4. 

329.  1763.  Baskervillii  II.    Oxon.    Clarend.  8. 

330.  1765.  SCHOETTGEXII  II.     Vratisl    Gampert,  8. 
(228.)  1765.  LEUSDEXII  IV.    Lug d.  Bat.    Luchtmans.  24. 

331.  1766.  REINECCII  V.    Lips.    Breitkopf.  8. 

332.  1768.  (HARDYI  I.)   Lotid.    Richardson.  8. 

333.  1770.  BOWYEUI  VI.    Lond.  12. 

334.  1771.  Ruddimanorum  III.    Edinb.  8. 

335.  1772.  Wetstenii  V.  gr.  lat.    Lugd.  Bat.  12. 

336.  1774.  Vossii  XIII.    Serol  12. 

337.  1774.  Patavina  VII.    Manfre.  12. 
*338.    1774.  GRIESBACHII  Synopsis  I.     HaL~]  . 

Curt.  8.     [Matt.  Marc.  Luc.]  [These  two  together 

*339.    1775.  GRIESBACHII  I.     Hal    Curt.  8.  [      ^orm   ?riesbach's 
[Joh.Act.Epp.Apoc.] 

340.  1775.  Ewingii  II.     Dublin.  12. 

341.  1775.  Orphanotrophei  V.     Hal  12. 

342.  1775.  MAITTAIRII  V.     Lond.     Rivington.  12. 

343.  1776.  BENGELII  V.     Tubinff.     Berger.  8. 

344.  1776.  HARWOODII.    Lond.    Johnson.  8.     [Critical  edition  of 
some  merit,  but  neglected.] 

(338.)  1776.  GRIKSBACHII  Synopsis  I.   Hal   Curt.  8.    [Vol.  2.  Epp. 
Apoc.  1775.] 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK   NEW   TESTAMENT.      509 

[  1776.     Lond.    J.  D.  Cornish.  8.] 

(339.)  1777.     GRIKSBACHI  I.     Hal.    Curt.  8.     [Mt.,  Me.,  Lc.  not  in 
Synopsis  ;  1775,  Job.,  Act. ;  vol.  2,  Epp.,  Apoc,] 
(839a.)  1777.     GRIESBACHI  I.    Hal.    Curt.  4. 
345.    1777.     BOWYEKI  VII.    Lond.  12. 
?      1777.     Stregn&dce.  8. 

347.  1777.     FISCIIERI.    Pray.   Hagen.  8. 

348.  1778.     HAKDYI  II.    Loud.    Richardson.  8. 

349.  1778sqq.     KOPPII  I.     Gocttiny.    Dietrich.  8.     [Sine  Evv.] 

351.  1779.     E.  STKPHAM.    Argent.    Stein.  8. 

352.  1782.     SCHOETTGEXII  III.    Vratisl.    Korn.  8. 

•-353.    1782-1788.     MATTII^I  I.  gr.  lat.    Riga.    Hartknoch.  8. 

354.  1783.     BOWYERI  VIII.    Lond.    Nichols.  4. 

355.  1783.     RKISECCII  VI.    Lips.    Breitkopf.  8. 
(228.)  1785.     LKUSDESII  IV.    Lurjd.  Bat.    Luchtmans.  24. 

356.  1786.     MAITTAIRII  VI.    Lond.    Rivington.  12. 
*357.    1786,  1787.     ALTKRI.    Vienna.    De  Trattnern.  8. 

358.  1787.     Detmold.    Helwing.  8. 

359.  1787.     BOWYEKI  IX.    Lond.    Nichols.  12. 

*360.    1788.     BIRCIIH.     [Evangelia.]     llavn.     Schulz.  4. 

361.  1789.     Patavina  VIII.    Bettinelli.  12. 

362.  1790.     BENGELII  VI.     Tubing.    Heerbrandt.  8. 

364.  1794.     Londini.    Longman.  12. 

365.  1794.     Londini.  gr.  hit.    Wingrave.  12. 

366.  1794.     Dublinii.    Ekshaw.  12. 

[          1794.     BOWYERI.   Lond.   Nichols.  12.    This  deranges  Reuss's 
numbering  of  the  Bowycr  editions.] 

367.  1795.     SCHOETTGEXII  IV.    Vratinl.    Korn.  8. 

368.  1796.     Patavina  IX.    Vend.    Fracasso.  12. 

369.  1796-1806.     GRIESBACHII  II.    Hal.    Curt.  8. 
(369.)  1796-1806.     GRIESBACHII  II.    Hal.    Curt.  4. 

371.  1797.     KXAPPII  I.    Hal.    Orphanot.  8. 

372.  1798.     WIIITII.     Oxon.    Collingwood.  12. 
[  1798-1808.     WIIITII.     Oxon.    2  voll.  8.] 

373.  1800.     Wicjornice.     [ALEXANDER.  MILLIAXA.]     Thomas.   12. 
[First  American  edition.] 

374.  1800-1802.     PAULUS  I.    Lub.    Bohn.  8. 

375.  1801.     LoxDixr.    Woodfall.  12. 

[  1801.     BOWYERI.    Lond.    Nichols.  12.     This  again  deranges 

Reuss's  numbering  of  the  Bowyer  editions.] 

376.  1803.     Londini.    Beeves.  12. 


510      EDITIONS    OF    THE    GEEEK   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

377.  1803-1807.     GRIESBACHII  III.    Lips.    Goeschen.  fol. 

378.  1803-1807.     MATTILEI  II.    Wittcb.  etc.     [Matthaei,  vol.  2,  at 
end,  says  this  is  an  error  for  Cur  ice  Vciriscorwn.'] 

379.  1804.  Londin.  gr.  hit.    Wingrave.  12. 
(358.)  1804.  Duisburgce.    Baedeker.  8. 

380.  1804.  PAULUS  II.    Litb.    Bohn.  8. 

381.  1805.  Biblia  gr.     Oxon.    Clarendon.  4. 
[           1805.  Oxon.    E  typ.  Clarend.  16.] 

383.  1805.  SCHOTTII  I.  gr.  lat.    Lips.  Marker.  8. 

384.  1805.  GRIESBACHII  III.    Lips.    Goeschen.  8. 

385.  1806.  [LKUSDEXIAXA.  gr.  hit.]    Philadelphia*.    Bradford.  12. 
[(385.)  1806.  [LKUSDKNIAXA.  gr.  only.]  Philadelphia;.  Bradford.  12.] 

386.  1806.  Upsalhc.    Edman.  8. 

387.  1807.  Edinburgh    Bell.  12. 

388.  1808.  DAKIXSII.    Lond.  12. 

389.  1808.  WHITII.    Oxon.    Clarendon.  8. 

390.  1808.     WILSOXIT.    Xi-o-Ebor.    Wallis.  12.     [An  error.    Wil 
son's  N.  T.  first  appeared  in  1822.] 

391.  1809.     Londini.    Longman.  12. 

392.  1809.     GRIESBACHII  II.    Loud.    M'Kinlay.  8. 

393.  1809.     GRIESBACHIAXA  III.    Cantabr.  [Mnss.]     Wells.  8. 

395.  1809.  GRIESBACHIAXA.  gr.  lat.    Lips.    (Linz.)  8. 

396.  1809.  AITTOXI.    Lugd.  Eat.    Luchtmans.  12. 

397.  1810.  Chelsea;,  bilinguis.    Tilling.  12. 
(397.)  1810.  Londini.  bilinguis.    Tilling.  12. 

398.  1810   sqq.     KOPPII  II.     Goett.     Dietrich.  8.     [The  various 
parts  of  this  edition  have  different  editors'  names;  and  some  parts 
passed  to  a  3d  ed.] 

?      1810.  Constantinopolitana. 

[(388.)  1810.  DAKIXSII.    Lond.  12.] 

399.  1811.  SCHOTTII  II.  gr.  lat.    Lips.    Marker.  8. 
[(414.)  1811.  DICKIXSOXII.    Edinb.  12.] 

401.  1812.     BOWYERI  X.    Lond. 

(388.)  1812.  DAKINSII.    Lond.    Wilson.  12. 

[(380.)  1812.  PAULUS  II.    Lips.    Earth.  8.] 

402.  1812.  GAILII  I.    Paris.    Delalain.  12. 

403.  1813.  Londini,    Bagster.  32. 

404.  1813.  Oxonii.    Clarendon.  8. 

405.  1813.  GAILLARDI.    Gcnev.    Bonnant.  12. 

406.  1813.  KNAPPII  II.    Hal.    Orphanot.  8. 
(397.)  1814.  Londini.  bilinguis.    Tilling.  12. 


EDITIONS    OF   THE    GKEEK   NEW    TESTAMENT.      511 

408.  1814.  [MILLIAXA.]    Bostonii.    Thomas.  12. 

409.  1814.  GAILII  II.    Paris.    Delalain.  12. 

410.  1814.  London.    Pytt.  12. 

[(382.)  1814.  MASTRICHTIANA.    Edinb.    Carol.  Stewart.  12.] 

411.  1816.  BOWYERI  XI.    Lond.    Nichols.  12. 

412.  1816.  VALPYI  I.    Lond.    Valpy.  8. 
[           1816.  AITTON.     Glasg-uce.  12.] 

413.  1817.  Glasguce.    Duncan.  24. 

414.  1817.  DICKIXSOXII.    Edinb.  12. 

415.  1818.  GRIKSBACHII  II.    Lond.    Rivingtcn.  8. 

417.  1819.  Londini.  bilinguis.    Tilling.  12. 

418.  1819.  Oxonii.    Clarendon.  12. 
[(414.)  1819.  DICKISSONII.    Edinb.  12.] 
[(397.)  1819.  Bilinguis.    Chelsea.    Tilling.  12.] 

419.  1820.  Patavina  X.    typ.  Semin.  8. 

420.  1820.  HARDYI  III.    Lond.    Bliss.  8. 
(420.)  1820.  HARDYI  III.    Lond.    Allman.  8. 

421.  1820.  GAILLII  III.    Paris.    Delalain.  12. 

422.  1820.  TITTMAXXI  I.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 
[           1820.  (Polyglott.)    Bagster.    Lond.  12.] 

423.  1821.  GRATZII  I.  gr.  lat.    Tubing.    Pues.  8. 

424.  1821.  Biblia  gr.    Mosquensia.  4. 
(388.)  1821.  DAKIXSII.    Lond.    Wilson.  12. 
(405.)  1821.  GAILLARDI.    Lugd.    Rusand.  12. 
[            1821.  AITTON.     Glasguce.  32.] 

[  1821.  LKUSDEXIAXA.  gr.  lat.    Neo.-Ebor.    Long.  12.] 

425.  1822.  Glasgwe.    typ.  acad.  24. 

426.  1822.  [GRIESBACHIAXA.]     KXEELAXDII.   [gr.  angl.]   Philadel 
phia.    Fry.  8. 

[(426.)  1822.  (GRIKSBACIIIANA.)    KXEELAXDII.  (gr.  only.)    Philadel 
phia.    Fry.  8.] 

(390.)  1822.  WILSONII.    Hartford.    Wallis.  [error  for  Cooke.]  12. 

428.  1823.  Londini.    Bagster.  8. 

[(426.)  1823.  (GRIESBACHIANA.)  KXEELAXDII.  Philadelphia.  Fry.  8.] 

429.  [563.]  1824.     [PSEUDO-  LEUSDEX.  gr.  lat.]     Neo-Ebor.    Col 
lins.  12. 

(417.)  1824.  Londini.  bilinguis.    Tilling.  12. 

(428.)  1824.  Londini.    Bagster.  8. 

431.  1824.  BOISSOXADII.    Paris.    Eberart.  24. 

432.  1824.  TITTMANNI  II.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

433.  1824.  Londini.    Whittaker.  12. 


512    EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

434.    1824.  KNAPPII  III.    Hal    Orphanot.  8. 

485.    1824.  KXAPPIANA  III.    Lond.    Valpy.  8. 

436.  1824.  YATERI.    Hal    Gebauer.  8. 

437.  1825.  JBasilecc.    Thurneisen.  8. 
(428.)  1825.  London.    Bagster.  8. 

438.  1825.  Boothii.  gr.  angl.    Londini.  8. 
(390.)  1825.  WILSONII.    Hartford.    Cooke.  12. 

439.  1825.  SCHOTTII  III.  gr.  hit.    Lips.    Marker.  8. 

440.  1825.  GRIESBACHII  IV.    Lips.    Goeschen.  8. 
[           1825.  MILLIAXA.     Oxon.    E  typ.  Clarend.] 

442.    1826.  VALPYI  II.    Lond.    Valpy.  8. 

444.  1827.  GKATZII  II.  gr.  hit.    Moyunt.    Kupferberg.  8. 

445.  1827.  VAN  Essu.  gr.  Int.     Tubing.    Fues.  8. 

446.  1827.  Londini,  bilinguis.    Watts.  8. 

447.  1827.  GRIESBACIIIANA  SCHCLZII.  [Vol.  I.  Evv.]  Berol  Lauc.  8 

448.  1827.  Paris.    Delalain.  12. 

[(390.)  1827.  WILSONII.    Hartford.    Cooke.  12.J 

450.  1828.  Londini.    Pickering.  64.     [Smallest  edition.] 

451.  1828.  Londini.  bilinguis.    Tilling.  12. 

452.  1828.  LLOYDII.    Oxon.    Clarendon.  12. 

453.  1828.  LEUTSCHII.  gr.  lat.    Lifts.    Serig.  8. 
(422.)  1828.  TITTMAXXI  I.    Lifts.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

455.  1828[-29J.     [Triglotta.    Bagsteri.]    Lond.    Watts.  4. 
[  1828-30-32.     HILAKIOX.  bilinguis.    Loud.  8.] 

(414.)  1829.  DICKIXSOXII.    Mini.  12. 

(388.)  1829.  DAKIXSII.    Lond.    Cadell.  12. 

456.  1829.  Londini,    Bagster.  12. 

457.  1829.  GREEXFIELDII.    Lond.    Bagster.  32.     [Polymicrian.] 
(39U.)  1829.  WILSOXII.    Hartford.    Cooke.  12. 

(390.)  1829.  WILSONII.    Wallis  [error  for  Towar].    Philadelphia'. 
12. 

(446.)  1829.  Londmi.  bilinguis.    Watts.  8. 

458.  1829.  KNAPPII  IV.    Hal    Orphan.  8. 

459.  1829.  MEYERI.  gr.  germ.    Goctt.    Vandenhoeck.  8. 
[(462.)  1829.  Glasgwe.    Hutchison.  24.] 

[  1829.  GRIESBACIIIANA.    Lond.    Rivington.  12.] 

[(455?)  1829.  (X.  T.  Polyglott.)    Bagster.    Lond.  4.] 

461.  1830.  LLOYDII.    Oxon,    Clarendon.  12. 
(446.)  1830.  Londmi,  bilinguis.    Watts.  8.      - 

462.  1830.  GlasgucK.    Hutchison.  24. 

*463.    1830-1836.     SCHOLZII.    Lips.    Fleischer.  4. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GKEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT.      513 

464.  1830.  Londini.    Valpy.  48. 

465.  1830.  Paris.    Delalain.  32. 
[           1830.  Duncan.    Edinb.  12.] 

466.  1831.  BCKTOXI  I.     Oxon.  8. 

467.  1831.  BROSSETII.    Paris.    Didot.  24. 

468.  1831.  VALPYI  III.    Lond.    Valpy.  8. 

469.  1831.  XAEBII.  gr.  hit.    Lips.    Koehler.  8. 
*470.    1831.  LACHMANNI  I.    JBerol.    Reimer.  12. 
(432.)  1831.  TITTMAXXI  II.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

[(390.)  1831.  WILSOXII.    Towar.    Philad.  12.] 

[  1831.  (Bibl.  Polyglott.)    Bagster.    Lond.  fol.] 

[457.    1831.  GREENFIELDII.    Lond.     Bagster.  32.    Polymicrian.] 

471.  1832.  GOESCHKNII.  gr.  hit.     Lips.    Weidmann.  8. 

472.  1832.  JAUMANXI.    Monach.    Lindauer.  8. 
474.    1832.  BLOOMFIELDII  I.    Cantab.  8. 

(462.)  1832.  Glasguce.    Brookman.  24. 

476.  1833.  Vcndiis. 

(390.)  1833.  WILSOXII.    Ph'dad.    Towar.  12. 

477.  1834.  BOEKLIXI.    Christianstadt:  Schmidt.  8. 

478.  1834.  SMITHII.    Lond.    Hurst.  12. 

[  1834.  SCHOLEFIELD.  gr.  angl.     Cambridge.  12.] 

482.  1835.  BURTONI  II.     Oxon.  8. 

483.  1835.  [KNAPPIANA.]    PATTOXH.    Neo-Ebor.    Starr.  4. 
(414.)  1835.  DICKINSOXII.    Edinb.    Stirling.  12. 

[(429,  563.)  1835.     PSEUDO-LKUSDEX.    Collins,  gr.  hit,   Neo-Ebor.l*.] 

486.  1836.  BLOOMFIELDII  II.    Lond.    Longman.  8. 

487.  1836.  VALPYI  IV.    Lond.    Valpy.  8. 

488.  1836.  Oxonii.    typ.  acad.  12. 

(472.)  1836.  JAUMAXXI.    Monach.    Lindauer.  8. 

(462.)  1836.  Glasguce.    Brookman.  24. 

[  1836.  SCHOLEFIELD.  gr.  angl.    Deightcn  &  Bell.    Cambridge. 

16.] 

491.  1837.  CARDWELLII.    Oxon.    typ.  acad.  8. 

492.  1837.  TROLLOPH.    Lond.    Rickerby.  8. 

493.  1837.  Bcrol.    Nauck.  gr.  germ.  8. 

494.  1837.  BLOOMFIELDII  [Amer.  I.].    Boston.    Perkins.  8. 
(470.)  1837.  LACHMANNI  I.    Bcrol.    Reimer.  12. 

(467.)  1837.  BROSSETII.    Paris.    Didot.  24. 

[(536.)  1837.  GRIESBACHIAXA.    Lond.    Taylor  &  Walton.  16.] 

[(527.)  1837.  BLOOMFIELDII  minor  I.    Lond.  12.] 

[  1837.  AITTOX.    Lond.  12.] 

33 


51-i    EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

406.    1838.  Londini.    Parker.  16. 

(Slid.)  1838.  WILSOXII.    Philad.    Haswell.  12.. 

497.  1839.  KERSTEXII.    Lcod.    Kersten.  8. 

498.  1839.  BELEZII.    Paris.    Delalain.  12. 

499.  1839.  SCHOTTII  IV.  gr.  lat.    Lips.    Earth.  8. 
(453.)  1839.  LEUTSCHII.  gr.  lat.    Lips.    Serig.  8. 

[  1839.  GKIESBACHIAXA.    AITTON.    Gloxguce.  24.] 

[  1839.  BLOOMFIELDII  III.    Land.  8.] 

501.  1840.  DAROLLII.     Tolas.    Delsol.  32. 

502.  1840.  KNAPPII  V.    Hal.    Orphan.  8. 

503.  1840.  HAIISII  I.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 
(388.)  1840.  DAKIXSII.    Loud.    Cadell.  12. 

[(429,  563.)  1840.    (PsEUDO-LEUSDEX.)    Dean.  gr.  lat.    Neo-Ebor.  \1.] 

504.  1841.  HAIIXII  II.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 
*505.    1841.  TisciiExnoiiFii  I.    Lips.    Koehler.  16. 

506.    1841.  BLOOMFIELDII  IV.    Lond.  8. 

(473.)  1841.  GKKEXFIELDII.    [ExGi.F.s.]  Philadelphia;..  Perkins.  32. 

[  1841.  GLUESBACHIAXA.    Loud.  12.] 

[(519.)  1841.  SCIIOLZIANA.     Eng.  Hexapla,     Bagster.     Lond.  4.] 

508.    1842.  [ILvux.]     ROBIXSOXII.    Neo-Ebor.    Leavitt.  12. 
"509.    1842-1850.     LACIIMAXXI  II.  gr.  lat.    Berol.    Reimer.  8. 

510.  1842.  TISCHEXDOKFII  IT.    Paris.    Didot.  12. 

511.  1842.  TISCHEXDORFII  III.  gr.  lat.    Paris.    Didot.  8. 

512.  1842.  TisciiF.NDOUKii  IV.  [T's  own  No.  III.]  Paris.  Didct.  12. 

515.  1842.  PHARMACIDIS.    Athcn.  8. 

[(567.)  1842.  .  SCHOLZIAXA.  gr.  angl.    Bagster.     Lond.  16.] 

516.  1843.  JOWETTII.     Cantabr.    Pitt.  16. 

517.  1843.  GUIXFIELDII.    Lond.    Pickering.  8. 

[(527.)  1843.  BLOOMFIELDII  minor  III.    Lond.    Longman.  8.] 

[  1843.  BLOOMFIELDII  V.    Lond.    Longman.  8.] 

518.  1844.  [MILLIAXA.]    Oxonii.    typ.  acad.  16. 

519.  1844  [error  for  1841].    Bagsteri  Hexapla.    Lond.  4. 

520.  1844.  Vcnetiis. 

521.  1844.  TIIEILII  I.      Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

[(563.)  1844.  (PSEUDO-LEUSDEX.)  gr.  lat.    Dean.    Neo-Ebor.  12.] 

[(527.)  1845.  BLOOMFIELDII  minor  IV.    Loud.    Longman.  12. 

523.  1845.  TIIEILII  Polyglott.    Bielefeld.    Velhagen.  8. 
(508.)  1845.  [HAHN.]     ROBIXSOXII.    Neo-Ebor.    Leavitt.  12. 

[  1845.  VALPYI  minor.    Whittaker.    Lond.  12.] 

[(483.)  1845.  KXAPPIAXA.    PATTOXII.      Neo-Ebor.    Riker.  4.] 

524.  1846.  MUKALTI  minor.    Hamburg.    Meissner.  16. 


EDITIONS    OF   THE    GREEK   NEW   TESTAMENT.      515 

(470.)  1846.  LACHMAXSI  I.    JBcrol    Reimer.  12. 

525.  [(494)]  1846.     BLOOMFIELDH.    Boston.    Perkins.  8. 
(473.)  1846.  GRKESFIELDII.     [ESGLES.]     Philad.    Perkins.  32. 

[(473.)  1846.  GREEXFIELDII.  [EXGLES.]    Philad.   Perkins  &  Purves. 
32.] 

[(519.)  1846.  SCIIOLZIANA.    Eng.  Hcxapla.    Bagster.  4.] 

[  1847.  LLOYDII.    Oxon.    E  Typ.  Acad.  18.] 

526.  1847.  REITHMAYRI.    Monach.    Weiss.  8. 

(512.)  1847.  TISCHKXDORFII  IV.    [T.'s  No.  III.]    Paris.    Didot.  12. 

527.  1847.  BLOOMFIELDII  [minor]  V.    Lond.    Longman.  12. 

528.  1847.  Veneiiis.    Phoenix.  8. 
(516.)  1847.  JOWETTII.     Cantabr.    Pitt.  16. 

530.  1847.  SPENCERI.    Neo-Ebor.    Harper.  12. 
[            1847.  THEILII  (Polyglott.).    Bid.  8.] 

1847.  BLOOMFIKLDII  VI.    Lond.  8.] 

1847.  VALPYI  V.    Lond.    Bonn.  8.] 

531.  1848.  BCRTOXI  III.    Oxon.    Parker.  8. 
(521.)  1848.  THEILII  II.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 
(524.)  1848.  MURALTI  major.    Hamb.    Meissner.  16. 

[(511.)  1848.  TISCHENDORFH  V.    (T.'s  No.  III.)    gr.  kit.    Park  8.] 

[(494.)  1848.  BLOOMFIKLDII  (Amcr.  V.).    JBoston.    Perkins.  8.] 

*533.    1849.  TISCHEXDOHFII  V.   [T.'s  own  No.  IV.]  Lips.  Winter.  8. 
*534.    1849-1861.     ALFORDII.    Lond.  8. 

(523.)  1849.  THEILII  triglott,    [Polyglott,]    Biclcf.    Velhagen.  8. 

[(524.)  1849.  MURALTI.    Hamb.    Meissner.  16.] 

[(563.)  1849.  (PSEUDO-LEUSDEX.)  gr.  lat.    Dean.    Nco-Ebor.  12.] 

536.  1850.  [GRIESBACIIIAXA.]    Londini.    Taylor  &  Walton.  16. 

537.  1850.  TISCIIEXDORFII  VI.    [T.'s  own  No.  V.]    Lips.    Tauch 
nitz.  8. 

(521.)  1850.  THEILII  III.    Lips.    Tauch.  16. 

(462.)  1850.  Glasguce.    Brookman.  24. 

[  1850.  Ex  ed.  STEPH.    Cambridge.  18.] 

[  1850.  SCHOLEFIELD.  gr.  cngl.    Cambridge.  16.] 

1850.  SCHOLEFIELD.  gr.  engl.    Cambridge.  4.] 

(512.)  1851.  TISCHENDORFH  IV.    [T.'s  own  III.]    Paris.    Didot.  12. 

516.    1851.  JOWETTII.    Cantabr.    Pitt.  12. 

(444.)  1851.  GRATZII  II.  gr.  lat.    Mog.    Kupferberg.  8. 

540.  1851.  Oxonii. 

541.  1851.  Veneiiis. . 

[  1851.  Large  Print.  Crit.    Lond.    Bagster.  8.] 

542.  1852.  BURTOXI  IV.     Oxon.  8. 


516     EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK   NEW    TESTAMENT. 

543.    1852.  THEILII.  gr.  germ.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

(521.)  1852.  THEILII  IV.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

[  1852.  Large  Print.  Grit.    Loud.    Bagster.  8.] 

[(530.)  1852.  SPEXCERI.    Neo-Ebor.    Harper.  12.] 

546.  1853.  VALPII  V.  [VI.]    Loral.    Valpy.  8. 

547.  1853.  Stuttgardt.  gr.  germ.    Liesching.  8. 

549.  1854.     TlSCHENDORFii    VII.     [T.'s    own    No.  VI.]     triglott. 
Lips.    Avenarius.  8. 

550.  1854.     TiiEiui.grJat.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

551.  1854.     MACMICHAELIS.    [Whittaker.    Land.]  16. 

(508.)  1854.     [HAHNIANA.]     ROBINSOMI.    Neo-Ebor.    Leavitt.  12. 
553.    1854  [etc.].    Neo-Ebor.    Amer.  Bible  Union,  gr.  angl.  4. 
(523.)  1854.     THEILII  Polyglott.    JBiclcf.    Velhagen.  8. 
(521.)  1854.     THEILII  V.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 
j  1854  sqq.     ALFORD  II.    Loud.  8.] 

[  1854.     Large  Print.  Grit.    Lond.    Bagster.  8.] 

[(390.)  1854.     WILSONII.    Philad.    Lippincott,  Grambo,  &  Co.  12.] 
[(390.)   sine   anno   (sed  1854.)     WILSONII.     Pldla.     Barrington  & 
Haswell.  12.] 

(549.)  1855.    TISCIIENDORFII  VII.    (T.'s  own  No.  VI.]     Lips.     Men 
delssohn.  16. 

(523.)  1855.     THEILII  Polyglott.    Bidef.    Velhagen.  8. 
(536.)  1855.     Londini.    Walton  &  Maberly.  16. 

555.  1855-61.     WEBSTERI  [&  WILKINSOXII].    Lond.    Parker.  8. 
[            1855.     BLOOMFIELDII  IX.    Lond.    Longman.  8.] 

1855.  BLOOMFIELDII  minor  VII.     Lond.    Longman.  12. 
[(563.)  1855.  (PsEUDO-LEUSDEN.)  gr.  lat.    Lippincott.    Phllad.  12.] 

556.  1856.  Colonice  Ayripp.    Soc.  Bibl.  32. 

557.  1856.  BURTOXI  V.     Oxon.  8. 

558.  1856.     BUTTMANXI  I.    Lips.    Teubner.  16. 
(521.)  1856.     THEILII  VI.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

[  1856.     JOWETTII.     Colon.    Brit.  Bibl.  Soc.  12.] 

[  1856.     MILLIANA.     Oxon.  16.] 

1856.  DAKIXSII.    Lond.    Longmans.] 

560.  1857.      Cantabrigice.  gr.  angl.  12. 

(508.)  1857.     [HAHXIAXA.]    Ronixsoxn.    Neo-Ebor.    Leavitt.  12. 
(549.)  1857.     TISCHENDORFII  VII.    [T.'s  own  No.  VI.    Ed.  acad.  V.] 
Lips.    Mendelssohn.  16. 

561.  1857  [1856-60].     WORDSWORTHII  I.    Lond.    Rivingtcn.  4. 
[(567.)  1857.     SOHOLZIAXA.  gr.  lat.    Lond.    Bagster.  4.] 

1857.  SCHOLEFIELDIAXA.    "  R.  0."  gr.  angl.    Lond.  16.] 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT.     517 

[  1857-79.     TREGELLESII.     Bagster.     Land.  4.] 

562.  1858.     Londini.  gr.  angl.    Bagster.  18. 

(523.)  1858.     THEILII  Polyglott,    Bielefeld.    Velhagen.  8. 
(521.)  1858.     THKILII  VII.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 
(549.)  1858.     TISCIIEXDORFII   VII.     [T.'s    ed.  VI.]     gr.  lat.    Lips. 
Mendelssohn.  8. 

563.  1858.     [PSEUDO-LEUSDEX.]    Philadelphia.  gr.\&t.    Lippincott. 
12. 

(390.)  1858.  WILSOXII.    Philad.    Lippincott.  12. 

(512.)  1859.  JAGERI  [TISCHEXDORFIAXA].    Paris.    Didot.  12. 

*565.  1859.  TISCHEXDORFII  VIII.  [crit.  maj.,  T.'s  ed.  VII.]  Lips. 
Winter.  8. 

(565.)  1859.  TISCIIEXDORFII  VIII.  [crit.  min.,  T.'s  ed.  VII.]  Lips. 
Winter.  16. 

566.  1859.  BLOOMFIELDII  [minor]  VIII.    [Land.] 
(457.)  1859.  GREEXFIELDII.     Lond.    Bagster.  32. 
(530.)  1859.  SPENCERI.    Neo-Ebor.    Harper.  12. 
(536.)  1859.  [GRIESBA.CHIAXA.]    Londini.    Bohn.  16. 

567.  1859.     [Bagster.    SCHOLZIAXA.]    Neo-Ebor.    Wiley.  16. 
1859  sqq.     WORDSWORTHII  II.    Lond.  8.] 

(563.)  1859.  (PSEUDO-LEUSDEX.)  gr.  lat.    Phila.    Lippincott.  12.  ] 

1859.  MILUAXA.    E  typ.  Clarend.  4.] 

1859.  MILLIAXA.    E  typ.  Clarend.  16.] 
(390.)  1859.  WILSOXII.     Philad.    Lippincott.  12.] 

[  1859.     SCRIVEXERI  I.     Cantabriffice.  16.] 

568.  1860.     BUTTMANXI  II.    Lips.    Teubner.  16. 
(524.)  1860.     MURALTI  major.    Hanib.    Meissner.  16. 

569.  1860  sqq.     ALFORDII  IV.    Lond.  8. 

(519.)  1860.     [SCHOLZIAXA.]    Bagsteri  Ilexapla.    Lond.  4. 
[(563.)  1860.     (PSEUDO-LEDSDEX.)  gr.  lat.    Phila.    Lippincott.  12.] 

1860.  ORXSBYI.    Dublin.  8.] 

1860.  SCRIVEXERI  II.  Cautabr.  16.] 
[(492?)  1860.  TROLLOPII.  Tegg.  Lond.  8.] 
[(524.)  1860.  MURALTI  minor.  Hamb.  Meisnier.  16.] 

1860,  etc.    Amer.  Bibl.  Union,  gr.  angl.    Neo-Ebor.  4.] 
1860-61.     GILES,  gr.  angl.    Lond.  12.] 

1861.  "Xarrowed."     SCHOLZIAXA.    Lond.    Bagster.  12.] 
[551?)  1861.     MACMICHAELIS.    Lond.    Bell  &  Daldy.  16.] 

[(511.)  1861.     TISCIIEXDORFII   IV.     [T.'s    No.  III.]  gr.  lat.     Didot 

Paris.  8.] 

[(549.)  1861.    TISCIIEXDORFII  VII.    (T.'s  cd.  VI.)  Lips.   Mendels.  16. 


518     EDITIONS    OF   THE    GREEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

(587.)  1862.  TISCHEXDORFII  VI.  [T.'s  e'd.  V.]    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

572.  1862.  BUTTMANNI  III.    Btrol.    Decker.  8. 
[             1861-63.     WORDSWORTHII  III.    Loud.  8.] 

573.  1862.  LOCIIII.    Ratisb.    Manz.  8. 

(550.)  1862.  THEILII.  gr.  hit.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

[  1862.  SCRIVEXERI  111.     Cantabr.  16.J 

574.  1863.  Colon.  Agr.  gr.  angl.  10. 
[             1863.  LLOYDII.     Oxon.  18.] 

[  1863.  LLOYDII.     Oxon.  4.] 

.  [(491.)  1863.  CARDWELLII.  gr.  angl.    Oxon..    Macmillan.  8.] 
[(577.)  1863  &  64.     B.  WILSONII  Emphat.  Diaglott.      Geneva,  HI.] 

575.  1864.  Colon.  Ayr.  gr.  germ.  16. 

(549.)  1864.  TISCIIEXDORFII  VII.    [T.'s  ed.  VI.]   Lips.   Mendels.  10. 

[(527.)  1862.  BLOOMKIKLDII  minor  IX.     Loud.    Longman.  12.] 

(549.)  1864.  TisciiExnoRFii  VII.   [T.'s    cd.  VI.]    gr.   germ.     Lips. 
Mendelssohn.  8. 

(568.)  1864.  BUTTMAXXI.    Lips.    Teubner.  16. 

[  1864.  HAXSELLII.     Oxon.  8.] 

[  1864.  WORDSWORTHJI  IV.    Lond.  8.] 

(568.)  1865.  BUTTMAXXI.    Lips.    Teubner.  16. 

577.    1865.  [B.  WILSONII  Emphat.  Diaglott.]    Neo-Ebor.    Fowler. 

[  1865.  ORXSBYI.    Dublin.    Duffy.  16.] 

[  1865.  WORDSWORTHII  V.    Lond.  4.] 

[  1865.  TJIEILII  Polyglott.  8.] 

(521.)  1865.  THEILII  VIII.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  16. 

[  1865.  The  Twofold  X.  T.    GREEN.    Bagster.    L>nd.  8.] 

1866.  WORDSWORTH!!  VI.    Lond.  4.] 

[  1866.  CAXDYI.    Lond.  8.] 

1866.  DUXCAX.    Simpkin.] 

[(549.)  1867.  TISCHEXDORFII  ed.  acad.  V.    Lips.    Mendelssohn.  16.] 

1867.  SCRIVEXERI  IV.     Canlalr.  16.] 
1867.     CANDYI.    Lond.  8.] 

1867.  CAXDYI  minor.    Lond.  8.] 

[  568.    1867.     BUTTMAXXI  III.    Lips.    Teubner.  1G.] 
[(508.)  1867.     [ILvux.]     ROBIXSOXII.    Neo-Ebor.    Appleton.  12.] 
[(508.)  1868.     [HAIIX.]     ROBISSONII.    Nco-Ebor.    Appleton.  12.] 
[  1868.     MILLIAXA.     Oxon.  12.] 

1868.  MILLIAXA.    Oxon.  4.] 

[(494.)  1868.     BLOOMFIELDII  (Amer.  XIV.).    Phila.    Lippincctt.  8.] 
*581.    1869[-72J.     TISCHEXDORFII  IX.  [ed.  crit.  maj.  VIII. ]  Lips.    L. 
Winter  [post,,  Giesecke  &  Devrient].  8. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GKEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT.      510 

[  1869.     ALFORDII  minor.    Philadelphia.    Lippincott.  8.] 

1869.     ALFOKDII  minor.    Lond.     Eiviugtcn.  8.] 

1869.  LLOYDII.     Oxon.    Clarend.  16.] 

582.    1870  [-1876].     WESTCOTTII  &  UOUTII.     Cantalr.   12.     [Pri 
vate  issue.] 

[  1870.     BLOOMFIELDII  minor  XII.     Lond,    Longmans.  12. 

[  (1870.)  Bagster.  gr.  angl.     Lond.  4.] 

1870.  LLOYDII.     Oxon.    E  typ.  Clarend.  &  Macmillan.  12.] 
[            1870.     MILLIANA.     Oxon.    Macmillan.  16.] 

[  1870.     WORDSAVORTIIII.     Lond.    Rivington.  (ed.  vii.)  8.] 

[  1870.     TREGELLESII.     Parts   I.-V.    Gospels,  Acts,   Epistles. 

Bagstsr.     Lond.    Also,  Neo-Ebor.    Wiley.  4.] 
[  1870.     Travelers'  X.  T.  gr.  angl.    Neo-Ebor.    Wiley.  16.] 

1870.    TISCHENDORFII.  ed.  acad.    Lips.    Mendelssohn.  16.] 


SINE    ANXI    NOTA. 

(470.)  LACHMANM.    BcroL    Reimer.  12. 

(457.)  GREENFIELDII.  Lond.  Bagster.  32.  [Also,  Neo-Ebor.  Wiley; 
also,  Ph'da.    Lippincott.] 
(567.)  Lond.    Bagster.  16. 

583.  Fix.    Pans.    Dezobry.  12. 

584.  (LEFRANC.)    Paris.    Belin.  24. 

(473.)  GREENFIELDII.    [ENGLES.]    Philadelphia.    Peck.  32. 
[(473.)  GREENFIELDII.    [ENGLES.]    Philadelphia.    Bliss.  473.] 
[(473.)  GREEXFIELDH.    [ENGLES.]    Philadelphia?.    Lippincott.  32.] 
[(455.)  Bagsteri  triglotta.    Lond.  4.] 
(390.)  WILSONII.    Philadelphia.    Barringtcn  &  Haswell.  12.] 

The  Twofold  X.  T.    GREEN.    Lond.    Bagster.  8.] 

E  typ.  acad.   Cantabr.  <£•  Lond.   Rivingtcn.  16  (no  paging).] 

Large  Print  Crit.    Lond.    Bagstor.  8.] 
X567.)  SCHOLZIANA.    Crit.  gr.  angl.    Bagster.    Lond.  16.] 
[(567.)  SCHOLZIANA.    Crit.  gr.  angl.    Wiley.    Neo-Ebor.  16.] 
[(508.)  [HAHN.]    ROBIXSONII.     Neo-Ebor.    Leavitt  &  Allen.  12.] 

SCHOLZIANA.     "Xarrowed."     Lond.     Bag£ter.  12.] 

Lond.    Bagster.  16  (ex  Polyglottis.)] 

Lond.    Bagster.  32.] 

[(483.)  PATTONII.     Neo-Ebor.     Riker.  4.     (In  "The  Student's  Bi 
ble.")] 


520     EDITIONS    OF    THE    GEEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


II.   SUPPLEMENTARY  LIST  OF  EDITIONS,  1871  TO  1882. 

1871.  B.WILSON.  Emphatic  Diaglott.  Geneva,  III.  (Reuss,  577.) 
1871.  Twofold  X.  T.  GREEN.  London.  Bagster.  8.  (With  App.) 
1871.  ALFORD.  Boston.  Lee  &  Shepard.  8.  (Reuss,  534.) 

1871.  JOWETT.     Colon  i 'w.  12. 

1872.  SCRIVENER  V.     Cantabr.  10. 
1872.  THEILE  X.     Lip*.     Tauchnitz.  16. 
1872.  WORDSWORTH  VI.    Lond.  8. 

1872-77.  TISCHENDORF  VIII.  (new  cd.  crit,  minor.).   Lips.  Mendels 
sohn.  16. 

1872.  TISCHENDORF.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 
1878.  SCRIVENER  VI.     Cantabr.  16. 

1873.  MILLIANA.     Oxon.    E  typ.  Clarend.  &  Macmillan.  16. 
1873.  ALFORD.    Boston.    Lee  &  Shepard.  8.     (Reuss,  534.) 

1873.  TISCHENDORF  (ad  ed.  VIII.  conformata).    Lips.   Tauchnitz.  8. 

1873.  TISCHENDORF  IX.  (ad  ed.  VIII.  conformata).     Lips.    Brock- 
haus.  8. 

1873.  TISCHENDORF.  ed.  acad.    Lips.    Mendelssohn.  16. 

1874.  BUTTMANN.    Teulner.    Lips.  8. 

1874.  Analytical  Gr.  T.    Lond.    Bagster.  16. 

1875.  Lond.    Geo.  Bell.  16.     (Reuss,  536.) 
1875.  SCRIVENER  VII.    Cantabr.  16. 
1875.  TISCHENDORF.  ed.  acad.    Lips.  16. 

1875.  HAHN  If.     Kelly.    Dublin.  16.     (Reuss,  504.) 
1875.  [HAHN.]    ROBINSON.    Nco-Ebor.    Appleton.  12.  (Reuss,  508.) 
1875.  PSEUDO  -  LKUSDEN.  gr.  lat.      Philadelphia.      Lippincott.    12. 
(Reuss,  563.) 

1875.  SCIIOLZIANA.  gr.  engl.    New  York.    Wiley.  16.     (Reuss,  567.) 

1875.  The  same.    Lond.    Bagster;  and  New  York.   Wiley. 

1876.  Brit.  &  For.  Bib.  Sec.    (In  Paragraphs.)    Cambridge.    Univ. 
Press.  32. 

1876.  TISCHENDORF,    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

1877.  SCHOLZIANA.  gr.  engl,    New  York.    Wiley.  16.  (Reuss,  567.) 
1877.  Englishman's  Gr.  Test.    Bagster.    Lond.  8. 

1877.  MILLIANA.    Oxon,    Clarend.  16. 

1877.  LLOYDII,    Oxon,    Clarend.  &  Macmillan.  16. 

1877.  SCRIVENER  VIII,    Cantabr.  16. 

1877.  WORDSWORTH  VII.    Lond.   Kivingtcn.  4. 


EDITIONS    OF    THE    GEEEK    NEW    TESTAMENT.      521 

1877.  JOWETT.    Loud.    Brit.  &  For.  Bib.  Soc.  16. 

1877.  TISCHENDORF.  ed.  acad.    Lips.    Mendelssohn.  16. 

1878.  ALFORD.    Boston.    Lee  &  Shepard.  8.    (Rcuss,  534.) 

1878.  PSEUDO-LEUSDEN.  gr.  lat.    Philada.    Lippincott.  12.     (Reuss, 
563.) 

1878.  B.  WILSON.    Emphatic  Diaglott.    N.  Y.   Wells.  (Rcuss,  577.) 

1878.  TISCHENDORF.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

1878.  TISCHENDORF.  ed.  acad.    Lips.   Mendelssohn.  16. 

1878.  SCHOLKFIKLDIANA.    "  E.  A."  gr.  eiigl.    Lond.  &  Cambridge.  16. 

1879.  SCHOLEFIELDIANA.    "  E.  A."  gr.  cngl.    Lond.  &  Cambridge.  16. 
1879.  TISCHEXDORF.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

1879.  Lond.    Geo.  Bell.  16.     (Rcuss,  536.) 
1879.  LLOYD.    Oxon.    Clarendon.  16. 

1879.  SCRIVENER.    New  York.    Holt.  16. 

1880.  TISCHENDORF.    Lips.    Brockhaus.  8. 

1880.  TISCHENDORF.  ed.  acad.    Lips.    Mendelssohn.  16. 
1880.  B.WILSON.    Emphatic  Diaglott.    N.  Y.    Wells.  (Reuss,  577.) 
1880.  PSEUDO-LEUSDEN.  gr.  lat.  Phila.  Lippincott.  12.  (Rcuss,  563.) 
1880.  SCHOLZIAXA.  gr.  cngl.    New  York.    Wiley.     (Reuss,  567.) 
1880.  ALFORD.    Boston.    Lee  &  Shepard.  8.     (Reuss,  534.) 

1880.  'Ev  BaffiXtt'p  [Basel].     (Bibelgesellschaft.)  sine  editoris  no 
mine.  16.     Also,  the   same,  RIGGEXBACII  &  STOCKMEYER.      Also,  an 
edition  with  Greek  church-lessons  and  Psalms  appended. 

1881.  TISCHEXDORF.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

1881.  TISCHENDORF.  ed.  acad.    Lips.    Mendelssohn.  16. 
1881.  SCRIVENER.    (A.  V.  text.)    Cambridge.    Univ.  Press.  16. 
1881.  PALMER.    (Rev.  V.  text.)    Oxford.    Clarendon.  16. 
*1881.  WESTCOTT  &  HORT.    Cambr.  <£•  Lond.    Macmillan.  16. 
1881-82.  WESTCOTT  &  HORT  (SCHAFF).    New  York.    Harpers.  16. 
1881.  TISCHENDORFIAXA.    VON  GfiBHARDT.    Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 
1881.  TISCIIENDORFIANA.    Vox  GEBHARDT.  gr.  germ.    (Luther,  Rev.) 
Lips.    Tauchnitz.  8. 

1881.  PEROWXE.    Cambridge.    (Only  part  yet  published.) 

1882.  PALMER.     (Rev.  Vers.  text  with  marginal  references.)     Ox 
ford.    Clarendon.  8. 

1882.  WESTCOTT  &  HORT.  gr.  engl.    (Rev.  Vers.)  New  York.    Har 
pers.  16. 

WITHOUT   DATE. 

The  Student's  Analytical.    SCHOLZIAXA.    Lond.   Bagster.    Small  4. 
(TisciiEXDORFiAXA.)  Coiix's  Hexaglott.   Lond.  Abraham  J.  Lev.  4. 


522      EDITIONS    OF   TIIE    GKEEK    NEW   TESTAMENT. 


ADDITIONS    TO    REUSS?S    LIST,  UP    TO    18  70.* 

[(457  )  1830.  GREEXFIELDII  Polymicrisin.     London.     Bagster.  32.] 

[(563.)  1838.  PSEUDO-LEUSDEX.    Nco-Ebor.    Collins,  also  Dean.  12.] 

[(473.)  1840.  GREEXFIELDII.   (EXGLES.)  Philadelphia.  Perkins.  32,] 

[  1840.  GRIESBACHIAXA.    Londini    Taylor  &  Whittaker.  12.] 

[(473.)  1844.  GREEXFIELDII.    (EXCJLES.)  Philadelphia;.   Perkins,  32.] 

[(508.)  1845.  [HAHX.]     Romxsoxn.     Nco-Ebor.    Leavitt.  8.] 

[  1847.  LLOYDII.     Oxon.    E  typ.  acad.  18.] 

[(494.)  1848.  BLOOMFIKLDII  (Amev.V.).    Ph'dmhlphm.    Perkins.  8.] 

Also,  the  same  with  a  slightly  different  title-page.] 

[  1851.  TROLLOPII  II.     Loud.    Tegg.  8.] 

[(563.)  1853.  PSEUDO-LEUSDKX.     Gr.-Lat.     Nco-Ebor.     Dean.  12.] 

[(473.)  1854.  GRKEXFIELDII.   (EXGLES.)   Phila.    Clark &Hesser.  32.] 

[(527.)  1854.  BLOOMFIKLDII  minor.    London.    Lcngman.  8.] 

[(390.)  1860.  WILSOX.    Phila.    Lippincott.  12.] 

[(563.)  1863.  PSEUDO-LEUSDKX.     Phila.    Lippincott.  12. 

[(508.)  1870.  [HAHX.]    ROBIXSOXII.    Nco-Ebor.    Appleton.  12.] 


ADDITIONS    TO    SUPPLEMENTARY    LIST,   SINCE    1870.* 

1873.  Gr.-Eng.     Color/nc.     Brit.  &  For.  Bible  Soc.  Sq.  16. 

1876.  MILLIAXA.     Oxon.     E  typ.  Clarend.  &  Macmillan.  16. 

1876  (misdated  1866).      Cologne.     Brit.  &  For.  Bible  Soc.   1 6. 

1876.  B.  WILSON.  Emphatic  Diaglott.  New  York.  Wells.  12. 
(Rcuss,  577.) 

1876.  In  Paragraphs.  Gr.-Eng.  Cambridge.  Univ.  Press  for  Brit. 
&  For.  Bible  Soc.  Sq.  16. 

1878.  TIIEILE  (Vox  GEBHARDT).     Lipsiw.     Tauchnitz.   16. 

1879.  HAHX.     Lipsice.     F.  Bredt.  12. 

1880.  TIIEILE  (Vox  GEBHARDT).    Gr.-Lat.    Lipsice.    Tauchnitz.  12. 
1880.  WILSOX.     Philadelphia;.     Claxton,  Remsen,  &  Haffelfinger. 

12.     (Reuss,  390.) 

1880.  Gr.-Germ.     Berlin.     Brit.  &  For.  Bible  Soc.   16. 

1881.  Gr.-Eng.     London.     Soc.  Prom.  Chr.  Knowledge.  16. 
1881.  LLOYD.     Oxon.     E  typ.  Clarend.  &  Macmillan.   16. 


*  These  additions  have  been  made  since  the  foregoing  pages  were 
electrotyped. 


EDITIONS    OF   THE    GKEEK    NEW   TESTAMENT.      523 

[1882.]  ??.  d.  TAFEL.  Interlinear  Gr.-Eng.  Philadelphia.  Tafel; 
London.  Nutt.  8. 

1882.  SCHOLZIANA.     Critical  Gr.-Eng.     Nciv  York.     Wiley.  16. 

^1882.  SCRIVENER.  The  Parallel  N.  T.  Gr.-Eng.  (A.  V.  text,  with 
A! V.  and  R.V.)  Cambridge.  Univ.  Press.  Small  4. 

1882.  PALMER.  The  Parallel  N.  T.  Gr.-Eng.  (R.V.  text,  with  A.  V. 
and  R.V.)  Oxford.  Clarendon  Press.  Small  4. 


XOTE. — Eight  editions  in  the  list  of  Dr.  Rcuss,  denoted  by  a  ?  in 
stead  of  a  number,  were  classed  by  him  as  "  EDITIONES  DUBLE," 
because  he  had  not  been  able  personally  to  verify  or  disprove  their 
existence.  Eighty-four  others,  mentioned  by  former  bibliographers, 
he  classed  as  "  EDITIONES  SPURLE,"  and  excluded  from  his  list,  having, 
as  he  thinks,  disproved  their  existence.  His  list  (the  "Index  Editio- 
num  "  above  referred  to)  comprises  757  editions.  Of  these,  83  are 
here  omitted,  being  only  portions  of  the  N.  T.,  with  two  others,  found 
to  be  English,  leaving  672.  Two  of  the  portions,  however,  are  re 
tained,  to  show  their  historical  place:  viz.,  Bentley's  Specimen,  1720  ; 
and  Birch's  Gospels,  1788 — all  that  the  burning  of  the  royal  press  at 
Copenhagen  suffered  to  appear.  The  new  additions  to  this  list  of 
672,  made  above,  number  160. 

The  Supplementary  List,  1878-1882,  comprises  82  editions,  making 
the  entire  total  923. 

This  list  discloses  the  fact  that  many  repetitions  exist  which  have 
been  either  not  catalogued  separately,  or  not  catalogued  at  all.  (See, 
for  example,  Nos.  106, 152, 183  [anno  1698],  in  the  list  above,  as  well 
as  the  editions  of  Bloomfield  and  Alford.)  The  undated  editions 
have  mostly  been  many  times  reissued.  Besides  this,  the  English 
presses  at  Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  London,  the  Scotch  at  Glasgow 
and  Edinburgh,  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society's  at  Cologne 
and  elsewhere  on  the  Continent,  have  all  been  busy  in  printing  the 
Greek  Testament;  and  it  is  scarcely  to  be  supposed  that  all  their 
issues  have  been  here  enumerated.  The  same  is  probably  true  of  the 
American  editions. 

It  is  beyond  question  that  the  total  number  of  printed  copies  of 
the  entire  New  Testament,  estimated  on  the  basis  of  1000  for 
each  edition,  must  exceed  one  million.  Beyond  that  we  can  only 
guess ;  but  the  number  must  be  great. .  The  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  has  issued  as  many  as  60,000  of  a  single  edition;  so 


524:     EDITIONS    OF   THE    GKEEK   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

that  the    basis    of   1000,  here   taken,  must  be    smaller   than   the 
average. 

The  number  of  editions  of  the  entire  Greek  New  Testament  issued 
in  America,  including  reprints  of  European  editions,  together  \vijh 
(the  comparatively  few  of)  those  actually  printed  abroad,  but  bearing 
an  American  imprint,  is  about  one  hundred.  The  number  of  editions 
of  harmonies,  and  other  portions  of  the  Greek  text,  issued  in  America 
is  not  far  from  seventy.  (See  my  article,  "  The  Greek  Testament  as 
Published  in  America,"  Trans.  Anur.  Philol.  Assoc.,  vol.  xiii.,  1882.) 


APPENDIX    II. 


FAC-SIMILES  OF  STANDARD  EDITIONS 

OP"  THE 

GREEK  TESTAMENT. 


I.  COMPLUTEXSIAN  POLYGLOT,  1514.     The  first  printed  Greek  Testa 
ment. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page  (reduced).     Hat  and  Shield  of  Car 

dinal  Ximcnes.     Size  of  original,  11  J  in.  X  7  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  Colophon  (reduced),  Rev.  xxii.  17-21.     Size  of 

original,  11  ^  in.  X  7  in. 


II.  ERASMUS,  1516.     The  first  published  Greek  New  Testament. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page  (reduced).     Size  of  original,  8f  in.  X 

4ro  in; 

2.  Fac-simile  of  last  page  (reduced),  Rev.  xxii.  8-21,  showing  the 

last  six  verses  translated  into  Greek  from  the  Vulgate. 
Size  of  original,  9  in.  X  6  in. 

III.  COLIX^EUS'S  NEW  TESTAMENT,  1534.     Text  of  Erasmus,  with  vari 

ations,  partly  from  the  Complutensian,  partly  from  exam 
ination  of  new  MSS.    Transition  to  the  edition  of  Stephens. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Full  size. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  1  John  v.  7.     Full  size. 

IV.  STEPHENS'S  Editio  Rcyia,  1550. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page  of  Gospels  and  Acts  (reduced).     Size 

of  original,  10|  in.  X  5|  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  Matt.  viii.  12-30,  with  readings 

contrary  to  all  his  authorities.     Size  of  original,  11^  in. 
x  7^j  in.,  including  marginal  notes. 


526  LIST    OF    FAOSIMILES. 

V.  STEPHENS' s  EDITION  OF  1551.     The  first  edition  with  the  modern 

versiculur  division. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  4j3^  in.  X  2^~  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  fol.  18  b,  Matt.  vi.  13-17.     The  version  of  Eras 

mus  always  occupies  the  outer,  the  Vulgate  always  the  in 
ner,  column.  The  latter  shows  the  absence  of  the  Doxologv 
at  the  end  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  which  is  present  in  the 
other  texts.  Size  of  original,  4^  in.  X  3^  in.,  including 
marginal  notes. 

VI.  BEZA'S  EDITION,  1598.     The  latest  of  Beza's  folio  editions,  and 

one  of  those  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  common  Eng 
lish  version  of  101 1. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  10 £  in.  X  5^  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  Rev.  x.  9-xi.  8,  showing  the 

unauthorized  addition  to  the  Greek  text  of  6  ayyeXo^  fitrr/yjcef. 
and  the  corresponding  Latin  "adstititque  Angelus,"  in  xi.  1, 
which  has  passed  into  our  common  English  version.  Size 
of  original,  H^Q  in.  X  0§  in. 

VII.  BEZA'S  EDITION,  1004.     The  latest  of  Beza's  smaller  editions 

which  could  have  aided  in  forming  the  text  followed  in  our 
common  English  version  of  1011. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  6£  in.  X  3|  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  Hob.  x.  30-xi.  0,  showing  Beza's 

interpolation  of  "quis"  in  x.  38.  Size  of  original,  OJ-  in.  X 
3f  in. 

VIII.  ELZEVIRS'  EDITION,  1033.     The  "Textus  Rcccptus." 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Full  size. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  Rom.  vi.  19-vii.  4,  showing  the 

omission  of  TOV  vop.ov  in  vii.  2.     Full  size. 

IX.  WALTON'S  POLYGLOT  BIBLE. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  general  title-page.     This  is  the  title-page  to  the 

first  volume.  The  sixth  volume  has  a  full  title-page  like 
the  first.  The  other  volumes,  including  the  fifth  volume 
which  contains  the  New  Testament,  are  prefaced  by  sub 
titles  only.  Size  of  original,  14£  in.  X  9|  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  left-hand  page  containing  the  Greek  text,  and 

the  Syriac  and  part  of  the  Ethiopic  versions,  with  corre 
sponding  La  tin  translation,  of  ITim.iii.  13-iv.  4.  The  opposite 


LIST    OF    FAC-SLMILES.  527 

(right-hand)  page  contains  the  "  Versio  Vulgata  Latino,"  the 
"  Versio  Arabica  cum  Interpretatione  Latina,"  and  the  con 
tinuation  of  the  "Versio  yEthiopica  cum  Interpretatione 
Latina,"  of  the  same  passage.  Size  of  original,  15^  in. 
X  9J  in. 

X.  MILL'S  EDITION,  1707. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page  (reduced).     Size  of  original,  12f  in. 

X  7y  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  James  ii.  12-23,  with  note  at 

tempting  to  defend  and  justify  a  false  reading  in  verse  18. 
Size  of  original,  11^  in.  x  Cj  in. 

XI.  BENGEL'S  EDITION,  1734.     The  first  German  critical  edition. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  7f  in.  X  5£  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  Gal.  vi.  7-18;  Eph.  i.  1-6;  the 

notes  showing  Bengel's  judgment  on  the  words  iv  'Efitay 
in  Eph.  i.  1.  Size  of  original,  7J  in.  X  5J  in. 

XII.  WETSTEIN'S  EDITION,  1751. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page  (reduced).     Size  of  original,  10£  in. 

X  5|  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  p.  891,  John  vii.  51-viii.  2,  showing  a  part  of  the 

disputed  IIEPI  MOIXAAIAO2  nEPIKOEH.  Size  of  orig 
inal,  10|  in.  X  5-J  in. 

XIII.  GRIESBACH'S  SECOND  EDITION,  Halle  and  London,  1796-1806. 

The  first  edition  appeared  at  Halle,  1774  and  1775. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  6^  in.  x  3|-  in. 

2.  Fac-siinile  of  page  containing  Matt.  xix.  29 -xx.  6,  showing 

some  of  the  signs  used  to  denote  different  grades  of  prob 
ability.  Size  of  original,  6f  in.  X  3£  in. 

XIV.  SCHOLZ'S  EDITION,  1830-1836. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  7£  in.  X  5i  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  1  Tim.  iii.  13-16.     The  notes 

show  the  close  following  of  Griesbach,  even  to  an  accidental 
appropriation  of  the  authorship  of  Griesbach's  "  Symbolic 
Critic*."  Size  of  original,  7J*  in.  X  5if_  in. 

XV.  LACHMANN'S  EDITION,  1831.     The  first  text  constructed  accord 

ing  to  actual  documentary  evidence,  without  reference  to  the 
"  Textus  Receptus." 


528  LIST   OF    F AC-SIMILES. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  5^.  in-  x  3|  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  Mark  xvi.  14-20;  Luke  i.  1-8. 

Size  of  original,  5£  in.  X  3f  in. 

XVI.  LACHMANN'S  EDITION,  1842-1850. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  6f  in.  X  3f  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  1  Thess.  iii.  2-8,  showing  the 

division  of  the  uncial  writing  followed  in  ver.  7  (TO  pridtv 
drraivtvOai).  The  Latin  version  is  the  Vulgate,  with  the 
readings  of  the  most  noted  Codices.  Size  of  original,  7^  in. 
X  4  in. 

XVII.  TISCHENDORF'S  EDITION,  1841.     Made  before  the  editor's  jour 

neys,  or  established  reputation  as  a  critic. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  5J  in.  X  4  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  1  Tim.  iii.  13-16,  showing  in 

the  note  to  ver.  16  the  uncial  variation  which  would  produce 
the  reading  of  SMQ  for  oc.  Size  of  original,  5-£  in.  X  3|  in. 

XVIII.  TISCHENDORF'S  EDITION,  1869-1872. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  5f-  in.  X  3f  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing   1   John  v.  6-8,  showing  the 

interpolated  passage  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses.  Size 
of  original,  6f  in.  X  3|  in. 

XIX.  TREGELLES'S  EDITION,  1857-1879. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page.     Size  of  original,  7f  in.  X  6|  in. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  page  containing  Apocalypse  i.  1-5.      Size  of 

original,  7^j  in.  X  63-^  in. 

XX.  WESTCOTT  AND  HORT'S  EDITION,  1881.     London  and  New  York. 

1.  Fac-simile  of  title-page  of  the  Harper  edition  from  English 

plates.     Full  size. 

2.  Fac-simile  of  p.  14,  containing  the  Lord's  Prayer.     Full  size. 

XXI.  Fac-simile  of  the  engraved  title  (by  C.  Boel)  in  some  copies  of 

the  first  edition  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Holy  Bible. 
Size  of  original,  13f  in.  X  8J§  in.  See  description,  p.  301. 

In  the  preparation  of  these  fac-similes  the  author  has  been  kindly 
aided  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Conant,  of  Brooklyn,  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  of  Cam 
bridge,  and  Professor  Isaac  H.  Hall,  of  Philadelphia,  who  are  in  pos 
session  of  some  of  the  rarest  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 


acc  tibi  pcntadccas.  f  ftra^onon  refpkit  ilUjti,. 
oiputumpctri  r  pdulitcrqtiinqj&ierutn. 
ing  i  mftrumf  mum  vnuo  DCbdoao  Minuit.cdo* 
Ucr  noua  fistutur.U'r  quuiq^rcccpiat 


^X^-S?*  o  ^^^^Z^S^'f^:^ 

^§Mfe ; : ;  2  :',:^-  ^  ffi  ;^MJ?A 


IFIomim  teftamcntum 

t  brine  in  acadcrnu 
Cpmpltttenft'nouftev 
jmpjeiTuin, 


530 


(I. -2.) 

Spocalppfis. 


./  love;'1  Adyovq'rTHq'TnpcxpHTEi'ac;  /  Tou  'BiBAi 


'  Iil\i 


poc "  vcrbia  'libri'pwpbctfe 


*tie"  lib-'o'  vitc '  I'oe'ciuitarc  cvxcccccccco 
,'fcta  ct  c^c  bio5quevfcnpta  *  fu:'m'  libw  coo 


•."QilHy.'yai."  EpXOV*  KUpiE'lH- 

cov.m'Xdpiq/TOV'Kupiov'iHaou'XpiOTOv'nE      '  firana'oni  noirrihicfu  cd;a(h  "015  cccoco 
j'ayiooy.'anHy.  'omnibuo'vobis,'  2lmcn. 


gd  pcrpctuam  laudem  a  gloai 

oei  •:  ftommi  noftri  tefu  cbftfii  boc  facrofanctutn  opua  noui  tcfia 

menri  1  1iba  vitc  grcda  lannifqj  cbaractcnbua  nouitcr  tmpaf 

Cum  aiq5  ftudiofiflitnc  onendatum:fclta  fine  abfolutfl  eft  in 

l?ac  pzedarifliraa  CopSutcnfi  miucrfitate  :  oe  madato  t 

fumptibue  B\eiiercnd!fiimi  in  cbnfto  pa  trie  t  illuftnf 

fimioftiooniini  fratria  f  rac«Tci  3Eimcnc5  »c  Cifne 

roe  n  tul.  ,'ancce  £9lbine  fanctc  TRotranc  ccdie 

psefbTteriCardinalte  bifpanic2lrcbiepi  to 

letsuu  z  l&ifpania£  pzimaeis?  ac  rcgno? 

eaftelk  arcbicaccUariKindunna  t  folcr 

ria  bonoMbsho  viri  2lr!isldi  guilid 

mi  oe  l&zocario  arns  impafffc«ie 


kfimo  qu;ngentdtmo  Oe^ 


ianuari)OieO€amo» 


531 


(II.—  1.) 

NO  VVM  IN 

ftmmcntaomnc,diligcnrcrabER.ASMO  ROTERODAMO 

retognitum&emendatunijno  folum  ad  grecim  ueritatem,ue' 

rumetiam  ad  multorumutriufq?  lingua:  codioim,  corumcjj  uc« 

tcrum  fimul  &  emendatorum  {idem  ,  poftremo  ad  pro 

badfli'morum  autonitn  cftationem,cmendarionctn 

Kintrrprctarionem  praxi'puc.Ongenis,  Chry 

foftomi,CyriIli,VuIgarrj,Hicronymi,Cy- 

prianiV'Ambrofrj,  Hilarii,  Augufti/ 

nj,unacuAnnotahonibus,qua: 

Ic^orem  doceant^quid  qua 

racionemutatum  fit. 

Qjuifquis  igitur 


ram 

Theolo/ 

giam.Iege.cogno 

fee,  ac  deindc  fudi'ca. 

IMeqj  flau'm  offendcre,  fi 

quid  mutatum  offenderis^fed 

expendc.num  in  meli'us  mutatum  H:. 

APVD      XNCLYTAM 
GBRMANIAE      BAS1LAEAM. 


PRIVIl^EGIO 
MAXIMILIAN!  C  AE  SARIS  AVGVSTI0 
NE  CLVIS  ACIVS  3M  SACRA  ROMA-' 
NI  IMFERU  DITIONE,  INTRA  Q.VATV 
OR.  ANNOS  EXCVDAT,  AVT  ALIB2 
EXCYSVM  IMPORTET. 

532 


(II.-2.) 
AfiOKAAitis  ,APOCALYPSIS 

angeli  qui  mihi  haxoftendcbat.  Et  di^ 

fa  Mo;,o'ja<ui!.OT«;JVH'Ac's  O-K  faj  b^.i  >y  $j       citmihi.  Vide  ne  fecetis .  Coferuus  cni 

Tci/V  T.o'joug  TOY  frSAi'ou  Towrou.  Ts^1  3sai  qui  fcruant  uerba  ,pphctia:  hbri  huius. 
•wjocfKcwxTO^.yy  At  >a  <<«*  ,MH  rf}>joj"<'tfws  TJ&  .Dcum  adora.  Et  dicit  mihi.  Nc  figna>* 
. VTI  ueris  uerba  prophetia:  libri  huius. Te* 
i  tit,  pus  enim  prope  eflr.  Qui  nocer,  noceat 

RJ  o  ^UTTU/;,  juTtuc-dTQ rn.x.)  o  dv/xoKosdli>ua  adhuc ,  Sdqui  in  fordibus  e{t ,  fordcfcat 
i,  x^]  o  «>J05  «>7ac^«Tu  Vn,  \&]  adhuc.K  qui  iuftus  eft ,  iuftificetur  ad/ 
MOV  'Taxw,  K«I  o  M"'<J&«;  /xou  M^T  hue,  8£  fetus  fccmcetur  adhuc.K  ecce  tie 
)<T»i»«t Uasto  035  r-  ijyo/j  aurov''  nio  cito,8i  merces  mea  mecu  eft.ut  red^ 
i  v(j.(  r-.a.iy  ip.to.ajx.".^  TI'AOS  o  da  unicuiqj  ut  opus  illius  erit.  Ego  fum. 
5^  Y°x<xT©-'.M<xxaj/o;  01  TTOIOUV  /  alpha  &  n.primus  6i  nouifiimus,  prin/ 
cipium  &  finis.  Bcati  qui  fcruant  man^ 

"t-iTOCuAo/j^^N^.^fTa  TTuAto/  datailltus  ut  fit  poteftaseoruminlL' 
gno  uitx&  per  pottas  intrent  in  duita 
tern .  Foris  autcm  canes  5£  uenefid  8t 
o,  \i <f uAoTKxTjMu^oi  ^S^  o  ^AW^.KOC  vroi  impudici  K  homicide  Si  idolis  fcruien 
C/;|iuJlfl3.E-)'u  jHrorr  tV^a  TO^U  a-vyf/  tes.S^  omnisqui  amat&'facit  menda/ 
AO)J /xcu/x.-rjT.uywo'oti  V^  TauT«  TCUS  \H/  cium.Ego  lefus  mifi  angelu  meu  teftifi 
'  TW  J1  ot  cari  uobis  hare  in  ecclefys .  Ego  fum  ge/ 
nus  &  radix  Dauid,'  ftella  fplendida  SC 
ynatu  tina.  Et  (piritus  &  fponfa  dicunr, 
l»7r«TuitX6«»Kocj  o  J'l-J.S^tAStTw.Kou  o  JhV  ueni.Et  quiaudit  dicat  ueni.Et  qui  fitic 
Zo^,  AdxxGwtVco  'J'  i/'(Twj  "J""1;  </vwjt«/'»  o-u,".'  ueniat.K  qui.uult.accipiat  aquam  uitaj 
^.cjTujo~/xca  >«^  way  T/  OHOUOVTI  W?  ^.o/  gratis .  Cojitcflor  enim  omni  audienti 
70^5 7rjo4ntr«V5£>iKvi'ovT^T».u7/s?wi7iflS  ucrba^phctiz libri  hui'us. Siquisap- 
7!5os7««7a *£7r/e«(m  o  Gtov tv?  "duT7«s  -TTAK/  pofuerit  ad  haec.apponct  deus  fuper  il 
•>as  TOQ  -ys-^ofM^'as  v)S(6A'w  T«7w,iy  u  lum  plagas  fcriptas  in  libro  ifto.Et  fi  qs 
7'e«p«if«o«f  Ao'ray&'eAfc  •?  -TTf  o(?K7£i'ac,  dimmuericdcucrbislibri^phetia:  hu/ 
'  avTO  iTf  ius,auferet  deus  parte  eius  de  libro  ui> 
t^&deciuiratefanrta.Kdehis  q  fcri/ 
«j7u  pta-funt  in  libro  ifro.Dicitqui  teftimo 
/,Vj/  niu  phibetiftoy.Etia.uenio  cito.  A  me. 
IH/  Etiam  Veni  due  Tefu .  Gratia  dnmO' 
ftri  lefuChrifti  cioibus  uobis.  Amen. 


Finis Teflamenti  totius ad grarca  ueritate  uetuilifli'moruq^  Codicum  Lacinojc 
fidem.Sdad<pbatilTimoiyauthoru'ci'tatione5£interpretationemacai 
rate recogniti,  opera  (tudioq?  D.ErafnuRoterodami, 


(IIL-1.) 

H      K  Al  N  H        A,I  A   O    H  K  H, 


- 


\      J> 
Zl- 


/a.  cp,  A. 


(III.  -2.) 
EFTSTO  AH 


V  0  WC&      7°y  KOfffJ.W    f<  ^j  J 

5T7  jt  V67  ,  ol  Hi     V  9  &  V  0    ifop  ?5  ^t 

o  lAS^V  cf?  l/c^rX;  »y  cuf^^^c  Th(Sv? 
^H  a  §"  vJb£T7  /t^Vof  ,  «A\'  c*  <j?vcfat  ju  S" 
Kh  T=>  Moi^Tv^oJu;  51 


o 


TV 


*,  SI  ^C>U(/  CU&VIW  i 


HN  w  TW 


,  7^0)  ?&^d;  fx'Xi'.'  TzoJ-nx  'i^  y- 


VHT^el  3'  c 


cu&viw 
if  3 

H  7Tu 


53D 


(IY.-1.) 
THS   KAINHS    AIA0HKH2    AHANTA. 


TIPAHEIS    T,QN 


NouumlESVOiriftiD.N. 
Teftamcntum. 

EX    BIDLIOTHECA    REGIA. 


LV,TETIAE. 

ExofficinARotcuiScephani  typographi  Rcgii.Rcgiis  typ_iy. 
M.       D.        t* 


530 


(IV.-2.) 


wfCTiiOT.rMW.  T     itt^a     iflB/ 
KATA"     MAT0.  53 


£.•  T3f     coiTVpoyc-'/cf  (  i^cq  o  y^cwuog     d 
*  Kcu  eJTrtv  o  le 


w^In  jT       n       a.'  '  '  ' •       ~      »  T**       ft  ,/        ,       I        »        \ofl, 

'  ti'  VOTSV.;^  ^!jOBOJJ7a>08l«K«MjAi5llOSJttff  flty  C4/TJ)Wpct.C4lf<V»f.    Key   VJ-          li    «  r 

oyzzJ  Jk^;i 


'  OTTCU  fc^y  tt-ntDM,  Kct) 


^  T^jJ*  Tito  j 


Ka 


i^icSztj  xizni  T  JWfJia.7WV  .C-JUTOS  3  ex^^cft.KAt/ 

Ttf  0<  JMS^ITO-J  dug    tiyipOJV  OUUTW.,  AJ^VTK,  K(J£/e  00)  G^  >J- 


TOTS  IjepJftc  tTft-nfJ.'ncK  <&i$  4w«/>L9<f  (^  TO  5aAstww .  >^/  e>^- 

,     A 


r,  OTJ 
ouraJ  ;   Kcq    SoVfl  aw^J  aV  *£  Trt'  Af  «V  r'pco'  T 


te  TC 

' 


53T 


r  F  A  N  T  A.    T  A1    T  li  2     K  A  I  N  I? 


Nouum  IESV  ClirIIHD>N 
Telfomentuiru 


Cum  duplici  interpretatione,X).  Erafmf, 
Tis  interprets  :    Harmonia  item  Euangelica, 
copiofolndice, 


Ex  ofFicina  Roberti  Stephani 
M.  D.       Li. 


538 


(V.-2.) 


Cap.  V  I. 


laf/a 


'Harm.T.jj 


E. 

Et  neinducas 
nos  in  tentatio- 
nem  ,  fed  libera 
nos  a  |  malo. 
Q^iia  tuueft  re- 
gnum.Seporen- 
tia,&  gloria  in 
fccula.Amen. 


jrroindefi  re-  14 
JTuferitis  homi- 
nibuserratafua, 
remittet  8c  vo- 
bis  Pater  vefter 
cicleftis: 

Quodfi  no  re-  j« 
miferitis  homi- 
nib9  errata  fua, 
/ice  Pater  vefter 
remittee  errata 


E  V  A  N  Q. 


Porro  quum 
jciunaucritis.ne 
fitisvcluti  hypo 
critz  tetrici :  ob- 
fcurantenim  fa 
ciesfuas.quoper 
fpicuum  fit  ho-^ 
minibus  ipfosfe 
iunarc.amendi- 
co  vobis.habcnt 
<mcrcede  fuam. 
Tu  verocjuum 


JJLOJ; 


Af/OC  , 


vf^-iY  a 

i 


Vfffi  0  0V- 


TO,  fZ 


£5; 


\  t 
i 
\ 


city  cut  i 


«     »v     «/ 

Jft;  VJWVOTJ 


7DV 


V. 

Et  or  n«(» 
icducas  in 
ten  cation*. 
fed  libera 

lo.Amca. 


Si  e«lm 

homfr.ibus 
peccata  eo- 
rum,  dimk 
Set  &  vcbi's 
Pattr  veftpr 
cslrHii  de- 
JiAa  vtflra; 

Si  aafcm 
non  dimiff 
fit.'s  homl- 
cibus ,  nee 
Pater  veftcr 
dimictrl  vr> 

bis  pcccasa 
veftra. 


tern  iciuua.- 
tis  ,  oolite 
fieri  ficuthy 
pocritJE  tri 
fleis  eittr- 
tr.fnal  crinv 
facies  AJEX, 
vi  partant 
bominibirs 
iciunentrj. 
Bmcn  dico 
vobisga  rc- 
crpetticmct 
cede  fuam. 
Tu  autem 


539 


(VI.—  1.) 


CHRSTI 

DOMINI  NOSTR.I 

Nouum  Teftamentum, 


Cuius  Greco  contextui  refpondent  interpreutlones  d*uaKVna,v  etus: 
alteia/Theodori  B  ezar. 


T&.KEZAZ  JMN'OTAT  i  O~N  E 

us  rdtione  Inmvretationis  iiocum  rfddtta,additur  Synopfo  dotfrin*  . 
in  Euangelica  hi(hriay&Epiftolis  Apoftokcis 


,quan3  accurati/Gmi  em«n3ars  &  a*- 


S  VMPT  IB  VS 
11AERED.  EVST 


M,  D,  XGYIII. 
540 


(VI. -2.) 
IOANNIS 


if&TinviTeijtoM* 
KoJ  tngSs 


Kv'xttj  on  itpayi  aari  l 


\&ii  Ajw/i  t  te»i!cn>£>Aa«rz,'( 

JiX iTa,^' c  ayj*?.ec  (ifinti, \\~/e*, 

'  pirpts 

etit)j& 

'Kflf  rltu  at/' AZu)  T&U  i£a>2w  TV 


Hi,  Accipe  &:  3/ccora  enn !  &ra- 
mariradinem  adferctverrituo 
Ted  m  ore.  tuo  crit  dulcis.  tan- 
quammel< 

Accepi  igitur  VibcTIum  <i  ml 
nu  Angel:  «  &  deuoraui  cum: 
critquc  in  etc  meo  dulcii 
tanquara  mcl  :  Ted  quum  de- 
oralTem  cum  ( amaruit  vcntc- 
:us.  * 

Tum-dixitmlKI.Oportetr 
irum  prophetatc  '"corain  po 
lis  &  gentibus ,  &  linguis*  & 

CAP.  'XT. 

DAtus  eft  autem  tnlhl  ci 
lammfimilisv^ge.adfti 
qiie  AngcIu«idicens,Surgc  6, 
ctircteruplum  Dei  &  altar 
eosquiadorantinco. 

Scd  Mntim"quod  extra  tern 
slum  eft  extrude,  &  ne  mctia 
lludrnam  datum  eft  Gw 
:  &  Vrbcm  fanttam  calc 
jum  mtfibus  quadragintaduo 


ttooiiu   t^inarm  , 


TM  3»^B  *Svx.r\rai  ,  cura  tA/"  ai'-ri 


\K0*  >&  ita-'x'Z'1!  rluiyLuimn  T&Jt- 
KaJ  it  an  •a  \truai  r  uafOiiiti  <">'?, 


ftibusmeis ,  qui  prophctabu 
diebusmillc  ducentis  fexagii 

,amiSi  fjccis. 
Hi  funt  dui  i!!z  oler.Xr  di 
candelabra  in  confpcSu"  C 
terrz  pof.ta.. 

Quod  fiquisvclitcosJzdc 
igais  prodit  ex  ore  ipforum 
jcuorat  inimicos  eorum  :  na 
(iquis  vclit  cos  Iidcre,  ica  opo 
eteumoccidi. 
Hiporcftatehabtntclaudcn 
di  C2lum)neriget  rtrramp' 
dicbusprophctia:  ipforu:&  po 
teilnem  habcni  in  aquas ,  con- 
•ndi  ea»  in  fanguincm  :& 
pcrcutiendi  tcrramomnipbga 
quotiefcunque  voluerinr. 
Porro  poftqua  percgcriiu'fuii  K 
lludtefti'mon.um.bclliaillaaf7 
:endcnscx  ab)flb,gcrciaduer-| 
"us  cos  bcllun:,  &yincet  eos,&  | 

Etcadaucra  rorjmiacebuntg 


K'daHilitmil 
mmfa,:lii  •• 

i.faihi.i 


Kttattati&iKf 

' 


BnoVulgata,F 


CuortiMut.ilJ4.StuTim.«.ij. 


o  left.o.ma  nutipuii  ATihjm.&inCompluKaficoiU. 
L  «.  Alluaittnim*l«riuniillud«tfriui  .quqdnrium 

f  opuli  jicrbiur.qnoaum  omnibus  pjielut.      fSx«,. 

<<,,,'^,»,  ,-f,jv^  ,crbum  .£)«/»*.  Aiqui  jnnif  non  crlf 
*  FjtcoiiiJqtii 


S 


j')».Tti     i6q>iodinmodarorisciiudicitur>au6i{unquwipioM 

TQinohgnc'loumM  Coropluitnli  eitiircnc.quuuiin     numnrgiinnurmmcncndoTcmpfo.HocQuinoncon- 
fci7ba«rduniaiar»i'>wAcn.i.<inafioljmuf  ipft  lOfidcriruni.pouruni  legendiun  il*iv»U  *.'f«.3,i»J 
quodmihi  nimium  vidccur^bfurdum     t^.atrimntj^tntnienpitmijl'jncDdOKid^idan.fyios. 
re.Vnusinrcrprcslcgii««i««'x!»     /umraimhociddcrciurt   _ 

«um  Irgaut  in  cdmonc  Complutcnfi,  quod  eft 


criunfi  fimpticuc 
eitonoi  ' 
elirustft 


Plant 


.inter  ponitur  »o^.  rcfpnndcb  t  Htbr  iafi- 
im",  ]  dicendo ,  &  id  cum  rcfeictur  a  quo 

BM  toy  Ian  jjl.it;  .>5n  »  MI  J.  H«  crt  ra* 

541 


(VII.-l.) 


NOVVM 

IESVCHRISTI 

TESTAMENTVM* 


Theodore  Be^a  i 

Addita?/unt  akeodem  fummztreuesdo&rinje  vno- 
quoque  Euangeliorumv&  A&orum  loco  cbmpre- 
lienfe.  Jtcti^Methodi'Apoilo]icarmrLepjjftoIorun\ 
brcuis  explicatio. 


/«V  autstn  qulntc-  cditlom  y  pr/zter  rnnltorfun  Iffcovwn 
recognitionefititicaJfinMt  brews  difpcifioruin    hr^ 
ft  an.  expo  fa  tones  ,  &  alia, 
fnm  ex  1-naioribiu  ippm  , 
ahnnde  excerpts, 


Anno,   M:    DC-IITT. 


542 


(VII.-2.) 


Cap.XL                     AD    HEBR^OS.             14^ 

•T^vJjjS  ?#•«;«««.    J* 

Nam  patiente  ammo  TO- 

TAV^.M^Sn  1L  Till)  tWlL 

Dci  obfequuti  reporfesij 

r  .  * 

promilfioncm  illam.' 

£77  }a/j  fjjxfcv  'Jc^v  eery  o    57 

Adhuc  enim  f  pufiilura 

Vat'.HUm 

quantulumcunque.fic  qui 

•     Jj,    /,- 

^       *"'*  A<1 

vcnturus  eft  veniet.neque 

££<*»l£ 

•  p-n  «.I7- 

-   Ofjrfi^oscwjns-iaic^'"    }J 

r  "  luflus  autem  ex  fide 

iprcftanjla 

^>MJ.}.I(« 

frtTItJ'  Xj  CO.V  UTTOrHAHTttf  j  KK 

viuet  :  at  6  <JKU  fo  (ubdu- 

)  cifcftu  to' 

iu</b&cr«  -vfj^^a  u  cv  ccoW- 

xerit,  non  eft  gratum  a- 

endat.qQod 
nicutn  hi  id 

nimo  meo. 

I?//<7f  5  KX.    lW;w   imr-rt-     j 

'At  noi  non  ij  fumos  qui 

colcotijin  il 

>^i~C  >  tt'cd'^zyAHaii  ,  oiwct  777- 

nos  fubducamus  ad  cxi- 

v&ttt  ofpa- 

r«»;  «'f  (sfeiOTinp:x-»}u^'{. 

tium.fed  qui  credamus  ad 

(91I..19, 

anima:falutem. 

C  A  P.     XL 

Eiceltc'iu 

j.  Traltatv/jueaelfinemtapiritnonaliuHclefaluTent  adrptos 

dei     ocfcti- 

SJc  patresswicunque  alt  initia  miuii  Deo  probali  fucrnt.tjuamex 
fdt:  vrffi&t  lud&i  h.icfota  fc  cell  gsrifarr  turn  in  farina  vnitate. 

'tio  ib   cffie- 

dhLf^f™ 

Efwrf^'^^T    ' 

~  St  *  autem  fides,  a  illud 

SFr 

t  yj^^"i-m^wf  * 

pcrantur,&:  qua:  dcmpn- 

cu'lu    full:" 

4y» 

ftrat  qux  non  cernuntur. 

ut. 

Ev  TaiJTy  701;  ijng.pTV(»ZM^     3 

2Ob  cam  enim  tcftitno- 

^ta-vnl,. 

ow  oi'SjOijjSaTiyv 

nio  fucrunt  oinaiibma- 

mifHtftart 

n/'rw  voxfjfi/j  1'^-nf-n^a^ 

iores. 
J  »  Per  fidcm  intclligi- 

DOCK  Pa- 
rca  en  Uzcde 

eb.t.il. 

T3V(  ojuveLf  ftif^-n  e£«5  ,  ei>     ' 

mus    compaftum   fuiffe 

mum  viimfc 

70  UA   ctt.  ebajvoL&JJGiV  TCI  /3\4- 

mundum  vctbo  Dei  ,  c,  vt 

£e  ^fliaan- 

mi^ayyvevtff. 

qnz  vidcmus  non  fint  ex 

°^^ 

apparentibus  tafta. 

torrs^t.  iut  fr* 

Ge.,4.4. 

^"^KtiV^cnt.fw  ij 

*+  Abel  per  fidem  ,  ma- 
iotisprctij  facrificiumob 

Hf'SS 

0t  J*  <A'»J  ifj(ctfTVpn%*  tivoj 

tulit    Deo   quam    Cain: 

ItAte  &•  fXeTH 

(T/.'^fOCj^/JTfgpUjUTOf'^TJ  TOK 

per  quam    teftimonium 

ft.*,,  fimri. 

/i)£y/C  CttlTSc)  ToJ  ©lOU'RiVA' 

obtinuitquod  diet  iuflus, 

it  r  j  e«r  </? 

cu/TMj  iiniSwyav  STZ  X«AH- 

(eflimohium  purhibentc 

propriinn 

•nt{.  J 

Deo  de  donis  cius:&  mor 

IdiM  oCiCQdl(, 

tuus  adhuc  per.  earn  lot 

>ropoGtis  fc- 

G«.?.i4 

TI/5-K  Ev^  /UTlTlS>I.TflJ 

quituf. 
J         %s  Per  fidcm  Enoch  fui 

>Us  eoru  ^n< 

i  cvndifomi 

rn/.«4.i7. 

dotnfcclefia 

C/JXtTO,    «AoTl  y^UTE^JCt/  £LO- 

traUatus^nca  via^ict  root 
tern  :  ncc  fuit  intientus 

tsceiltecrwiu. 

•nV  i  080f    /3>^  JO/)  TJ)f   jUSTO- 

Si»ia)r    to/Til  /uup.{cipriftiTU4 

ptopterca  quod  ttanftu 
lerat  Cum  Dcus:priufqu 

J0,  ,^  ^T 

i\>niig-i]-^iittj'nl  QiJ. 

cnim  transfertetur,  tclt 

a«MMM>!Tr» 

' 

moniuraobtinuerat  quo 

jC/)MMM(frr«. 

gratusfueritDeo.. 

yt-J    rx  M^J 

•5^iK?fe 

6       .Atqui  fieri  no  poleft  v 
abfcji  fide  quifqua  Deo  C 
gratus  :  nana  quiacccd 

4    Abel. 
S    Ejoo,.^ 

'_' 

T    ij 

543 


(vm.-i.) 


Jt'     K  A  I  N  H? 

A  I  A  <s>  H'  K  H. 

"Novum 

Teftamentum*. 

Ex  Regzx  aliisque  optimis  editionibut.hzc 
nova  cxpreflum:  cut  quid accefferit, 
Pr&fatio  docsbiu.    '• 


-  ^  p  ^SM9M^M^ 


LVOD.    BATAVORVM^ 

Ex  Officina  Elzcviriorum^ 
cb  lj  c 


(VIII. — 2.) 


IIP  os    pni.i. 

'  %TU  VtUJ  ' 


0      O'TT 
•I]TZ  TY\ 


2,  I 


yntu^V  TO  'j 


LJA 


jt 

l 


5  c5Vs 


35  545 


(IX.  -10 

BIBLIA    SACRA 

POLYGLOTTA, 


COMPLECTENTIA 


,  cum  Pen-  |  (  C  H  A  L  D  A  i  c  u  M, 
"Y     tatcucho  Samaritano,"     5(^R/ECUM- 


Verfionumque 
ant.icjuarum> 


SAMARITANS, 

G  R  £.  c  A  LXXIl  Interp. 

CH  A.LD  A  I  C  >E, 
.  S  YRI  A  C  ALy 


PERSIC^,, 
VTULC.  LAT. 


Quicquid  comparari  potcrac. 

£um  Tcxtwvn,  &•  Vvfionum  Cncntalmm  TranJIttiomfiiu  Latinii. 

E  X 
VETUSTISSIMtS   MSS.     UNDIQ.UE    CONQUISITIS, 

optnrnfcjue  Excmplanbusimprcfiis,  fumnia  fide  collatis. 

Quz  in  priotibus  Eoitionibus  dccrant  fupplcta. 

Mulu  anteliac  incdita  ,  denovo  adjcda. 

Omiiia  eo  ordine  di^ofita,  ut  Texlu;  cum  Vcrfionibus  uno  fntuitu  confcrri  poffint. 

dan  APPARATU,    APPENDICIBUS,  TABU  us,  VARIIS 
LECTJONIDUS,   ANNOTATIONIBUS,  INDICFBUS^    &c. 

Ous  to  turn  in  fcx  Tornos  tributum, 


BR.IANUS    VVALTONUS,    S.  T.  D. 

(J\]!ioncs  qu;l>us  OfUi  hoc  fufceftunt, 
Quorum  /Jufpiciis  &  mum  ficcruia  promotion, 
Quorwn  collalh  fludiis  &  Liboriiui  perfcdiim, 
Quidqut  in  bac  Editione  pr*  rcliqux  j>r*f!itumt 
Sevens  Trsfatio  inJicalif. 


L   0   ^_T>   I  ^C  /, 

ImprimcbatTHOMAS    ROYCROFT, 
M  DC  LVII. 


(IX.-2.) 

E  <P  1ST  OL  A    IB. 


LI 
r-.  zVi£  »". 


CAP.T7, 


m,""' 4.7T.-M T*'  trTi.°!  './."',]" .nc,™,M  "«,IOT,.Hia 

.,»).' ;A*..'J.  i,n, .*,_•,,  ;»:»  ^».A«. .  iu^>  » 
IK*  ..  n.-^',  «,u'»p»  i,  k;j,. 

CAP.   1  V.  JT 

/frl    dldt  I          Qui.    ia  m,iffi,.I.  in-porfe.      *f.>.      ».U» 

i  i.ri,  MVB,      'on    i.  mv.i     MM<i<    ii»rir..ri  T,,.. 


6'  {*FT,    J<  in  »ri; 


.     C«   7 


£  T H 1 0  f  1  C 4 i  cum  Intcrprctatione  LjlTI NA. 


t  <T>iri :  r«>-  :  nVi^7-t-  :  A.I  n  il  :  liCh  f  ft:-  >  IHl  i  HftS,h«  :  rtn  :  ?,•»•?,>  ""*  * 
|*IIM»lMBMiniCf1Mli:»  <i*<"<>  :  TT«S>  :  >W»  :  tA/»C  :  HniT»  :  •>  r  '  " 
U/CO  !  at :  ^1HJ\•fllhC  :  a+:  »lCftt*V  :  /\?,-lKA-(VhC  :  (liP®.  :  0/»X  :  0)  ,!..„„ 
-  :  ffirKi  :  ASX-I>  :  HArttCAP  :  (WU  » 


l««-£iAS«*::=:-    ?ihr>  :  CR.£  :  HCAX^V  :  o.,n<r.  rn.^Y  :  nnirrtrtl-  :  li^u  *._«,  o  ,««^..-1,,  fuk  „  j,i,.,» ,  o- -w«  «.pa,  c-r«ft»-' 
5  :ft-fl?i:(l«jr»:fM»Uil:aAM-CAp-3>-:nT>0?in;i-jiriflJ^?iiflrh1-:,\A>''.  ft>«  ul.r  Uui/j.  OJM*  •  t&.tmiMl  »  mv*j  0  wv*lt» 

•>Ul;4tA<W;!r»:  W';i££'Jj  JUUifcii^*  i*"1*- 


547 


(X.-1.) 

H     K  A  I  N  H 

A  I  A  0  H  K  H. 

N  O  V  U  M 

TESTAMENTUM. 

CUM  LECTIOXIBUS  YARIANTIBUS 

MSS  Exemplarium,  Verfionum,  Editionum,  SS  Patrumck 

Scriptorum  Ecclefiafticorum ;  &  in  eafdem  N  o  T  I  s. 


ACCEDUNT 

X.oca  Scripture  PARALLEL  A,  aliaquc  I 
ad  Variantes  Leftiones. 


,  &APPENDIX 


P  R  i  M  I  T  T  i  :  T  U  R     D  I  S  S  H  R  T  A  T  I  O, 

/a  yta  dt  Lihit  N.  T.  (3  Cammt  Cmjlitutime  a^ttur:  Hijlona  S.  Textut  N.  Faderit 
ttjqus  temfora  diducitur:  Et  yuA  in  hae  EDITIONS  praflitum  Jit}  exflicatur, 


STUDIO  ET   LA  BORE 
JO^NNIS    *M  I  L  L  1  1    S.  T.  P. 


0  X  0  N  I  /, 
33    THEATRO    SHELDONIANO,    M  DCC  VII. 

548 


(X.-2.) 

E$.  p'.  2..          I  A  K  n  B  o  r.  657 


3jg,  *VQ£UV  sAol/fee/a?  jLtsMora;  x.e/,K£rui.    I  j  H  y)  x£xs-;;  ^/xyjAJftte"' 
vd1  yitn  jrowravTi  ci 
A'    1 4  Ti 


t 

vroTc  '""T»  S^ir^ra  re  ^oa,1^?,  2i  r  o<^sAfl,-;    17  Oj'ia.C 
fj)i  leya.  *"/*•>  i/sxga.  '6$i  ^^'  tcurilw.    18  AM'  sgo  ^5* 


Mj"  Tito  OT?ii/  ftou","'  ipy  sjsso;  07; 

o  ©soc  i'      ^.A:.;  TICJOJ*      >(gt)  TO  Jk<pW.OTSE&.ovo-/3  x,  c^ezooovrj. 

2O  0iA£<?  ^£  yiSvaq,  q  S    caOp4ra  x^is,  «TI  «  Trine.  %fo$i$  ??tf  igywt  r>s-. 
x^ji"  "^^v'';  2,1  A£@teif&  5  /raTH^  Kjw^T  GJX  £^  sf^  £^/.»:i'Ow,  ^ctvs- 
T*  qoi/  ^JT:^  c$n  -p  diKrtfe^ttgMVj    22  BA5/rf«  OTI  M  TifJC 


?       t.c-    , 
c^niga5?j  y  ypcityn  n  AETOUOK.'  E^isiyss  x  Si  " 


'Vcrf.  i2:.*S»^r.i".2<.   Vcrf.  15.  3 
wv.2i.I?.  6-7-8.27.  yoi.22.<r,7,  9, 


Vcrf.i7.  S»/w.  f.  14..  l»/r.i'.2o,i«.  Vcn'.  ly.  Z>«.vr.  <T.  4. 
iBf.4.34.  ^fl.NS.  17.  CT  ly-ij.  P/iil.z.lo.  i  Pff.2.4.  y«rf.'.-.< 
Verl.21.  lafr.v.?}.  "  Gcn.22.y,l2,l6.  Vcrf.22.  Hf_'r 


a  E~5««  tewwr  ^7fy.    6  Af'';m-  JWiifi.i.Ov.  j.  Sen  qu"  contact  fcnfiis  :  rvam'fT3cs  otlcnJJ'noa 

Tet.  }.   totv"  Alex.  Btroc.  Laud.z.  Lin.  N.z.  potett  nifi  faftis,  inqui:  Er.ifmns,   AdJc.qnml 

P«.  I.  COP.  2.-  Gencv.  Oecumen^    c  t»,«»  E.iraca  J,citio  rccepta  (cnluni  przhcar  omnino  fjci- 

i'4r*.4'.'W.2.  .tVf.j.  Co/4.7.  CW.     rf  Dceft  W/e-v.  Jem,  &  Apoltoli  fcopncongrucntiffimum:  ZJj. 

inuil.2,  Coll/,7.  GiHf.2.  Cov.2.J4.  1'et.i.j.  Gt~  xerit,  inquit,  p;m  vcicqtie  Chriftitttms  aliquii,  ho~. 

nev,  M-ijrf.i.  N.I  .2.  iiK.  FK(J.  S;i'.    f  kt-mw  mini  inani  ijli  qui  ex  and*  fidci  prtifefitne.wsle- 

Z«Zv  Alcx.Cov'^.Genev.   f  As  SMS?  Alex.Btrb.T,  Ro  pieraisjlttdio  ,  fc  [tlutcm  confccuturam  nrli- 

Vutg.  Ar*b.,  E>.i-.,  Liw.  N.i.z.  Exroc.Cov.  2.1.4.  tr"">r  :  .Age  vero,  tit  pdcm  lules,  e.tmque  niiic 

Ltud.2,Bxrl/.$.Gcncv.Oecumcn.    g  I/.HI  C'cv.j.  i«cli[as;  ego,  dc  fide  met  r.tcevr,  cpcru  habeo;  Ft. 

l>  DeeftCor.4.  Ar»b..'  i  Dcctt.Coll:7.  Lcgunc  ,iri</«e  (quant  crcptu)  lc«etti  iff.im.viia  ac  tnoriliit 

J  Alcx./lra'j.jfjbiop.  >  k  K="  '"•'!'  Alex.Colb.7-Ge-  txptinw.    Ojlciide  niihi  fidem  tu.tm  cxf.rf-s  tuii  • 

ncv.S)r.Ara!t.A~.tlnop.  .1  Omitiit  Lit.    in  EraV  JLx  faftis,  inqttam;  ticytic  cnim  alias  noritn  te  crc- 

Codd.  al.  fi  Eflia  Fides.  Ego  quidcm  in  nuiios  derc.   I'tnim  hoc  aon  fetes:  optra  ntnlhil/rt,  qitt 

liadlcnus  incidi,  qui  ita  kgunt:  nee  puto  Cc  cjleiidas.   Ego  vero  interim  ex  opcrilius  mcis  unlit 

kriptifk  Jacokttm.  nr.-nt,  pro  fine,  nalquam  pegotio  Fidem  meam  itiiliijlio;.  Opcr*  tpfa  qua  ,\i- 

occurrit  in  N.  T.  uti  nee  apud  Lxx  quidcm  (a,  funt  Of  era  fides  ;  produtitqiie  lucuteiiti  fata, 

Intcrprcr.es,  quod  fciam.  \m's  Stcpb.  it.  Alex,  etitm  me  taceme,  famcm  iffitm  ex  qua  ptofluunt. 

Cov.2.  Barb.i.  Co'.b-7-  Col.  Edicial.  I'ulg.  Syr.  Clara  liic  omnia:  ncc  rcccdcndum  ab  Editis 

jEtbiop.  Faujtii]  Rcgienjis,  in  Epiftola'quldam.  noftris.     n  Dccft  'Ale  x\  £.irt>.t.  Colt.  7.  Vulg. 

Leaioncm  hancidco  ccrtiinveftam  arbitror,  S)r.  Totum  illud  iK.~-t^a>  mi  omitcit  Oecume  »r 

qubd  akcra  ilia  abfurdi  aliquid  in  Ic  haberc  vi-  a  Ti  it}a  ia  in.  f  Wn»V  p«  Q  v  4.  G«w».  omnino 

deretur.  Quomodo  cnim  fidem  exoperibiu  often-  pcrpcram.    p  r>ccll  J'a/f.  Colb.7.    q  Omictit 

dac,  qui  vcrbis  proximfc  przccdentibus  ope-  Coy.j.  '  r  At>"  Cov  4.  Gcncv.    /KaS'  j««7ii!  ad- 

Tum  cxpcrs  defcribitur?  Ad  evitandim  hanc  die  /Etbitp.  ex  verf.  17.     t  Dccft  Ltu.  Scd  ad 

difficultatcm.  mutarurn  ex  in  '/^tl(-  •"  antiquif-  oram  Libripofuit  rcccntior  calamus/  f«  SnuiC- 

fimis  aliu.  Exemplaribus.  Quanquam  nequc  >t7  ^to,     .v  Nou  rcddunt  I'tlfc.  SjT.  x/r«*» 

lie  cxpcdita  omaia.  Si  Icgas  /in;  pf  f  ritw,  nun  vi-  J&liiof. 

T  1  1  e  «  o{?~< 

549 


(XI.-l.) 


H  KAINH  AIA0HKH 

N  O  V  V  M 

TESTAMENTVM 

G  R  AE  C  V  M 

IT  A   ADORNATVM 

VI 

TEXTVS 

PROBATARVM    EDITIONVM   A1EDVLLAM 

MARGO 

VARFANTIVM    LECTIONVM 

IN    SVAS     CLASSES     DISTR1BVTARVM 

LOCORVMOVE   PARALLELORVM 

DELECTVM 

APPARATVS  SVBIVNCTVS 

CRISEOS    SACRAE    MILLIANAE    PRAESERTIM 

COMPEND1YM/LIMAM,  SVPPLEMENTVM  AC  ERVCTVM 

EXHIBEAT 

INSERVIEN'TE 

10-  ALBERTO  BENGEUO. 


TVBINGAE 

SYMPTIBVS  JO,  GEORGII  COTTAE 

A.D.MDCCXXXIY* 


550 


(XL— 2.) 


V! 


P  O  S     r  A  A  A  T  A  2. 


175' 


8     or;  o  <nrfi%uv  «?  TIJI/  rat^x*  ea 


%uv  «?  TO  7rKtt>/*«  ,  d*  ra   Tnicup.*? 
d-iCJuret    £«*»  aiuviov.       TJ  ePs  xa 
CMiuvuifter    KCU^U  -yap 


VI 


c*  T?I  v/^era,  gttf>>it  xciu- 
iftet   $  pi\  yivoire  -Muiyj-is-  1  4 
a/  rw   raofa)  T»  Ku^/Jf  ifjuuiif 


W  XA/rpu.      ct  y&Q  %*/•-  r  f 


xetvoyi  TUTU 


i  )     KOTTHf    [i.0t   jlWf^Fi?    TSKPt-  '  7 

rs  7T>i\iX:!is  ufAiv*/£aip,>tcta~.v  ty£j£-^  %erw   *y^  y*?  T«  S'ty/ww*  T£  xug/x 
V    iuri   "YfiP*.       'ixrat   9-ftecr.v    tv-   iKyif  c*    TW  ffUiMxl    M»  £aTa.C(w.      H  I  S 


,    ftovov    no. 

TW     fOjUPU   TX    %g/T^    CiUH-bnTOj.        &J)l 

yci(>  el  •zr&ne/u.vopfvoi  ttWfll  y^u-ov   ^u- 


pos   EQE2IOY2 

EDIETOAH  OAYAOY. 


n 


^  «.       •*          0»'_'  V 

yui$  701$  xinv     c*  stt-tirw  ngj 


Aoy>fro$  o  5'fo<  K5V  5ra£T>j 


7r;a»  oiW  CJi  etya.7rn    »      VKSOfy.trat  if     f 

fJM,$    Clf    VlsS'SflcU    £10,   i^FX    Xg/ZU  ttC 

O.VTOV  j  >:«Ta  TJJI<  CUOOK.HX*  ra  ^£Af/ti»- 
««  " 


VI.   2  7"«>ii  — 


"""'.^  %  .     .          EPH.  Li      .    .  _ 

lyrvwHMi]  «ymty«^w  «  ji.tertium]   - 


Mm  a 


551 


(XII.-l.) 

H  KAINH  AIA0HKH 
NOVUM  TESTAMENTUM 

G   R  A   E   C  U  M 

EDITIONIS     RECEPTAE 

CUM    LECTIONIBUS    VARIANTIEUS 
C  o  D  i  c  u  M  MSS  ,  EDITIONUM   ALIARUI.T, 
VEB.SIONUM:  ET  PATK.UM 

NEC   N  OK  COMMENTARIOPLENIORE 

Ex  i>CRIFTORIBUS     VETERIBUS    HEBRAEI5,    GRA.ECIS   ET    LATINIS 

T  VCM:VEK,BOR.UM  ILLUSTRANTE 


OPERA  ET  STUDIO 

JOANNIS  JACOBI    WETSTENIL 


CoNTINEN         Q.U  A  T  U  O  R    E  V  AN  G  Z  L  I.  A. 


A  M   S  T   E    L    A   E   D   A  M   I, 

Ex     orrrciNA    DOM.AIEB.IANA. 
M  D  C  C  L  I. 

552 


(XII. —2.) 

VIII-  KATA       IJQANNHN  891 

f  1  p<&  *fiut\p'rn  -re^aiifyuiry* ,  la.t  /u«  axovtnj  tsrap'  aircv  tzr/xy'rfjw  ,  *}  -yi/o "i '  oWTj 
f2  'ATtVibVav,  ^  tiTTcn  aCrw'  ~Mi)  xj  w  tx.  £  TaAiAafas  ti'j  ^i-J^ffo.  -^  ?&  ST,  ^.p,. 
£J  C^T«  It  •£  raAiAa.i'aj  Qrx  tyyyip'i),  K=u  t-7ojto8>t  ix.ae@"  U'S-T  oTxw  avTa. 

2    t'S  T»  ii^o/ ,   i(3W    urai  o  Aaoj  >i'/'^tTO  typos  a.OTo'»'  /jn'  xat'iVas  l^Sa.<rx.it  ai/rcilj. 

"A- 

dach  accufantrbus  abfolvit.  IpFe  praecipiens  e! .  ut  jam  peccare  defTnerct.  ^uy«y?w.  de  Aduller:  Conjug.  II.  6.7. 
I'ulluuam  Chnftus  ait  adalnrae  :  ncc  ego  tc  condcmn.bo  i  quis  non  mtelligat.  debereignofcere  marltum  .  quod 
•videt  ignoviij£  Dommum  amborum,  nee  jatn  If  debere  adultcram  dicerc  ,  cujus  po^-nltciitls  criincn  divm<i  cre 
dit  miterationg  deletum.'  Sed  hoc  \idelicct  infidclmm  fcnfus  exhorret.  ita  ut  nonnulli  niodicae,  -vel  potius  ini- 
mici  verae  fidei,  credo  n.etuemes  peccaii  impur.itate.-n  dari  muhmbus  fuis,  illud  quod  de  adultcrae  mduleenUJ 
dominus  fecit,  auferrent  de  Codicibus  fuis.  f/iiraifmut  cum  omnia  conquireret  ^drcrfus  TclaPlanos  1.  1 1 .  etiam 
liaec  fcnpfif.  In  Evangeu'o  fccuiidum  Joanncm  in  multis- &  Graecis  6v  Launis  Codicibus  mvetutur  de  aduHera 
muliere.quae  accuiata  ell  apud  Uommup.i.  Niton  c.  Armcnios:  a\\%  ii,  n-  ,>«/<»  »»•  Ji^a-.oo-xr  i^Sj ,  a,  -,,,,. 

que  Gregonus  m  praefjtione  ad  obfervationes  f*cras  narrat  ,  fe  a  quodam  ^rmrnorum  facerdote  accepifle  nrc 
iplos  Tencopae  3e  adultcra  m  Evangelio  loeurn  concedere,  fed  arf  calcem  repcere  confueffc,  Unquam  fufpe- 
«am.  Athanajlui  in  Synopfi  hanc  pencopen  memorat ,  fed  fateme Scideno  dt  uxore  Hebr.  Ill,  u.  ita  ut  mani- 
j'cftam  interim  dubitandl  notam  rclinquat,  i.roCSc.  to.  nip  T  »ar»r<,f,»,,i,s  ,'Ti  ^.ij-i,'..  TH/etmi  H.  E.  111.  10. 


, 

'Eviy^iAiw  «'e</K  a  ,  quae  de  hiltoria  adlllterae  intd'jgunt  RiijinuJ  ,  Jirafmu:  ,  Camtrarins  ,  Baa  ,  Dnpui  ,  ~h,(,n*,  Si- 
•monius,  Tearjanms.fairiciuf,  atque  indc  infcrunt,  lnfeiiitm,yioA  in  Evangelioad  HebTaeos  «tare  mOn«t  ,  in  Evm«- 
lio  joannis  non  legiflc.  Dcniquc  fufpciitd  etiam  haec  luflona  full  Lrafmo  ,  Ptffieano.  Qlivctano  ,  Cajaano  ,  l«- 
tero  tCalvino  ,fle2.tte  -,  Janftnio  GanJavmfi  ,  II-  Grotio  .  H.  MammonJo  ,  J.  Cltrico.  Hn.ae  vcrba  haec  funt:  Ad  me 
quidem  quod'attmct,  non  diir>mu]o  ,  mihi  mcrito  fufpc6>um  efle  .  quod  vetrres  illi  tamo  confcnfu  vcl  rejrrc- 
rur.t,  vel  ignovarunt.  Deindc  quod  namt  Jefum  lolumfuifle  leliflum  cum  mulierc  in  Icmplo,  nefcio  quamfit 
•prcbabile  ,  nee  fatis  cohaetet  cum  co  quod  mox  id  eft  )>.  u.  dicitur  cos  rurfus  allicutus  -.  &  quod  fcnhit  (cfutn 
digito  fcripClfe  in  terrain  ,  novum  mihi  &  infolens  videtur;  nee  poflura  conjicere,  quomodo  poffit  fit  is  com- 
Diode  cxphcari.  Tanla  denioue  leftionis  vanetas  facit,  ut  de  totius  irtus  narrationis  fide  dubitem,  MalJmuiHti 
Confului  vetcres  Graecorum  Codices  multos,  nuflus  ex  MSS.  labehat  praeier  uniim,  m  quo  Lcontii  funt  coml 
menlarii  ,  &  ille  ipie  ita  habebat  ,  ut  tola  hiiloria  veru  transfofla  elTct,  ft  Leontius  no  mentiorem  Suidem  de 
ioia  ulkm  faceret,  fed  ea  praeterita  reliqui  explicjret..  Non  habebal  antiquiflunus  ille  Vaticani  codex,  oucn>. 
iaepe  nominavimus,  non  Graeca  Catena,  in  qua  cum  tres  &  vigmti  auclores  fmt  ,  nemo  ejus  meminit. 

Quid  quod  ipfe  ftylus  a  Joanne  diflentit?  Joannes  emm  raro  conjunitinnes  ,  ranus  <A  hibet  \  quod  hie  tomnv- 
J.I.  j.  J.  6.7-  9-IO-"-  biscccurnt.  Joanms  ftylus  valde  eft  fimpl«  ,  hie  vero  ornatior  comm.  «.  10.  Men 
pauca  etiam  hie  narianlur  .  quae  difliculter  cum  vernale  conciliari  poffunt  :  lege  Mods  adulteras  fiulTe  lapidanda;: 
Jefum  pmxifie  ill  terra  ,  quod  haercntis  eft  ,  Sc  ad  aliquid  excogitandunx  tempus  fibi  fumentisi  judicem,  qui  e- 
jusdem  delicti  commiffi  libi  ipfe  (It  conlciul  ,  non  debere  animadvertere  in  delinquentem  j  Jefum  tempore  fe- 
f\\  horai  matutina  folum  cum  mulierc  in  templo  fcifie;  EC  non  damnandam  judicalfe,  quam  lex  Mofis  damnave- 
jat.  Forto  hac  Kifloria  e  Textu  fublata,  conneactur  comma  n.  &  feqq-.  Capitis  Vlll.  cum  VII,  ft.  ut  in- 
tellieantur  omnia  diOa  fuifle  eodem  tempore  ,  fcilicet  die  fefti  ultimo,  quae  etiameftGraecorumPatrum  ftnten- 
lia:  eadem  vero  inferta  necelfaiio  confequeretur,  rem  gcilam  efic  die  feouenti  ultimum  diem  fcflivid.  cap.  VII, 
y).  Vlll.i.  cc.  quae  a  commite  n.  dicuntur  usque  ad  finem  capitis  ,  difla  fuilTe  fcji  >  fr/ium-  Jam  fi  ir  is  e' 


pen^eril,  Judaeos  toto  ulms  feUi  tempore 

liherlate  &  de  peccatorum  venia  die  jejunii  proxmo    mpetrata,    ace  nteget,  non   oum  quae    e  aqu 

ali  dicuntur  \ll.  }?.  fed  ctiam  quae  habentur  de  tenebris  in  qmbus  Judaei  veifarentur  V1H.  u.de  p« 


d^eorum  nondum  condomtis  comm.  21.  &  de  fervitute  judaeorum  comm.  ;i.  multo  aptiori  tempore  &.  con- 
venientiusdici,dum  agebantur  dies  fefti  ,  quam  poftea.  Demde  tamen  apud  Graccoi  piiblice  lecta  eft,  vtl  i,1,^,. 
trnirra  infciipta  Cod.  i.  If  if.  vd  i><  TW«.-«  Evang.  14.  .Vel  Ortobris  Vll  I.  fcfto  T  iy/«(  Il.Aa>m  11.11. 
1J.  16-  17.  «8.  15.  JO.  vel  i<~  TaKr.T,-  y.  «/p.af«  w  TJ  TI.I-I,,,.-.,;  17.  vel  pnmo  AprUis,  fefto  MarueyEg/y 
"Uacae.  Syriacr  etiam  vsrtit  Marat  Amidac  Epiffopus,  quod  tcflatur  D.  Bar  fallback** 

i.  1*r<C*  <K]  ^  o  IKTOM  Colb.  duo  40.  (/<;.  jj.  ;.-,..  76.  80.  8/.  89.  ya.  31,       x)  'Itfaft  Is,  u.  6y, 

i**f,vll]   ir^.,.r.  {7.  64.  ..',]    »,.s   to. 

a.nc>»J  -,»-  ,5<.»;.?  f.  1  1.  18.40.47.  4.8.  fi.fi.f}Y4.i5f.7)  74-76  73  87.90:  or.  J«<iym'«- 
itopiririTo  j  *up,roi*a,  D.      iAi«  ii.  ^8.  47.  f  i.  yi.  j).  6;.  66.  in  orj.  7).  74..  76.  78.90  91  Colb.  duo, 
+  ±'\*Kii  ii.  40-7}-  T>.  78.  Colb.  duo.       .n*wA»»64.  69  ^  »^  .-  \cn  «'.I:'TJ  <yi»  *lru  J  -  69, 

A«tsl  fx*®-  '7-  4f.  47.  fi.  f?-  f7.  7}'      "nns  Stephani  i.  e.  n.'jc\&-  pro  i  A-^.j, 

»;»«»'«   —  EGH  "•  4'-  »*•  r8-  6o-  <5'-  *J-  c&lh- 

nJ  -  XI  69-  probante  J.  M,Uif  prol.   Il8o. 


Txim  :  quis  3et  mihi  difcipulum  fapientis  7  morde-  populo  tfrra«- 
iem  eum  ut  alinus.    Non  quod  odiffet  fapiemcs  ,        ji.  Evrtpi4.  HeradlJ.  180.  -,,',  a, 

fed  quil  putabat,  eos  fuperbire  Scinfolefcercc-on-  »  ,~,  ^.,.».»  -  ..,  ,^«,.3«;,,,:,v. 

tra  populos  terrae,  &  qnia  difiajwli  fapientum  o-  nfofbtnu  bx  Vefp.  714.  «,,   „„;,  -bi 

derant  eos;  tuna  etiam  quia  non  permitte"bant  fe  Wr    'ar  *u.c*Z  ^..</ns,  »«.  *f  ,h*«r«j 

tangi  ab  iiS.  ^oth  II.  5.  Populus  terrae  non  elt  C,  HI.  p.   911.  ,  f^v  /-^n.N  a  s^\^    ^ 

,pius  »TOn.  TA^?«»  Hoi.  IV.  14-  &  cum  gene-  ,;»«.  ,,r',.  ;.,-«.  ,,,;,  .««r»>-«t,  ., 

ratione,  quaenitiil  novit  in  lege.  S<t>abtath  f  i-}.  nu.,  l,U  ,',tT?  «rieu-  Jo/:   ^.  xi' 

I  non  criat  fcminifluas  Pksrikeus  cum  leminifluo  ji/^'Hja.Vi  .:»::<  ^;T»    'fAjui  «niri 

Yvvvv  J. 

553 


(XIII. -1.) 

N  O  V  V  M 

TESTAMENTVM 

G    R    A    E    C    E. 


T  E  X  T  V  M 

AD  FIDEM  CODICVM  VERSIONVM  ET  PATRVIvl 
B.ECENSVIT 

1ET 

LECTIOjN'IS    YARIETATEM 

ADJECIT 

D,    I  O.    J  A  C.    G  1\  I  E  S  E  A  C  H. 


VOLVMEN    L 
IV.    E   Y  A   N   G   E  L  I  A 

COMPLECTENS. 
EDITIO     SECVNDA 

T  MEN  JJ  ATI  OH.     J1VLTOQVE      LOCrVLi-TIOr,. 

HALAE   SAXONVM 

AFVD       JO.       I  AC.       CVTxTII       II  A  E  R  E  D  E  S 

ET    LONDINI 

A  P  Y  D       PET  n.      'E  L  M  S  I.  Y. 
2VI  D  C  C  L  X  X  X  X  V  I. 

551 


(XIII.—  2.) 
CAP.  xix.  xx,        KATA  MAT0AION. 


•vaTxa,"    37  Ttxva,  9  ayccJjj  5  TrfXiCVa  CXUTOU.       Kai.  t^sX* 

<V£K£1/     TOU      QVOpCrtC;-'     \.'.W  y  2uV    7r££>X    k   f   TpjVx)'/   W^'/,, 

*  I  xarovTaTrXaCT/bva  "    A'/jx!/'£-  *  sf§fv"  aXXoy,   iaruJra^  Iv' 

Trtf,    xa:  $u/;v  '  AUU'VJOV  xX-j-  4  T>;  ayc!p«  upyoiV  ..  ^  op  Ka- 

50  povofovjfff  j..  •  •  JloXXoi  oc-  tcrov-.  xs/vct;"-  EIKM'  viray£7S   xai 

1'b^aTOi*    xai  f-  iJptj;  f^c  -civ  a^TTfXuJva  ^  xal 

ro/.J        ['O/.io/a  o  sav'  g  S/k<x{ov»  ScJow  uy.rv- 

"/cvo  £5Tjv;j  /SadiXf/a  TWV  cu-  5  Oi  5t  a/r/jXvOV.  TraXiv  in  f^tX- 

f  avcGv  av^pawrtw  o/xoosffTOT^,  >5wv  Trtpt  cx.ryv  ->:ai  n  cso  cv- 

OJT/C  E^X^tV  a/^a  Trptu'i'  ^.a--  forty*/'  w'oav,  faofijasV  wCTftll" 

9&ujaao$ai   ifyara;  £/c'  TOV'  6  rt'jf.     Iltpz  Sc!Tyv  iv6£;'.ar/)V 

s  ajW7TiXwva\»uTCfu.     €00—  u//.-  c  rr  woav"  f^tX^aV,  .P  au- 

.-Ttuy.Ep'ya:-  pov"  a'XXouj    ftTrcurftC  ^  i"> 

i'ou  7/]v  ^fc^aV,  xa)  Xs'yf  i  aurcu,-*  TZ'  cuaf  fcr;j- 
F  5                            .x<\73 

g    CO   xai   ffliuljJiuvxVa?.-  ll  "f  .  T/jV.  i.    cp  K^i   E/.tOiij. 

n   CS3   tvari-v.  q  "j    a^/oO;. 


Ce)  ~  BD.  I.  Syr.  bier.  cant.  verc.  veron.  corl).''!.  2.  clar. 
Ori?.  dif.  Iren.  ililar.  Ambr.  fcmel.  Paulin.  (Q  w6AX«irA«T«cvoe. 
L<  Barb.  i.  Syr.  hier.  Sahid.  Orig^.  Cyr.  j  j  -j-  //(^V/.  Er.  4^. 
(sr)  EFGHKM:  j2.  17.  77.  log-  118-  1-4-  127-  131.  213  (cum 
al.  3.)  .Ev.  r-  2-  IS-I9-  33-  S6.  al.  59."  Mt.  BliV.  z**  al.  13. 
Ed.  Arm.  Antiocb...  Chryf.  etiam  in  JVlL  6  codd.  (b)  ~ 
BDEFGHKLMS.  1.  13.  17.  69-  124.  131-'  157-  Ev.  T.  2.  4-  5. 
18-  32.  33-  36-  al.  51;  JMt.  B!I.  al.  ig.  Ed.  Orlg.  Cyr,  Thco- 
phyl.  (i)  furx-v.  D.  Mt.  o.  canr.  yeron.  verc.  colb.  corb.  *.  clar. 
Juv.  (k)  FOIL  alii.  Mt.  BHV.  alii.  Ed.  Theophyl.  (I.)  +  MOV. 
.13-  17-  33-  69-  ?i4-  -35-  al>  8-  Mfc  n.  -^..Ed.  Arr.  Acth.  Arm. 
Sahid.'  Syr.  p  rhf.  Slav/ap.  Beng.  Vulg.  mf,  verc.  corb.  I«2» 
clar.  brix.  colb.  germ.  gat.  Chryf.  Op.  .imp.  Gregor.  (m)  -J-1 
is.  CDL.  51.  77.  Mt.  w.  Ed.Syr.  Arr.  Actb.  Arm.Sliiv/ap'.Beng. 
Syr.  p.  cum  all.  Vulg.  cant.  verc.  veron.  rorb.  2.  for.  Cyr. 
Op.  imp.  (n)  CE.  alii.  Mr.  HV.  alii.  Ed.  (o)  ~  BDL.  Aetb, 
Sahid.  Slav.  2-  Vulg.  It.  (exc.  brix".  colb.)  Orig.  Cyr.  0|p.  imp, 
(p)  *?&•!«.  60.  ap.  Mill.  90.  -116.  Sahid,  Chryf.  inJ^lt.  6  cotld, 
(q)  H  «C*DI>.  Copr.  Sahid.  Aeth.-Arr.  VuigASax.  It.  (iexc. 
brix.  clar.)  Orig.  Cyr.  Arnnh.  1  1  Ante  ecr*™;  habe::t  76, 
Mt.  q. 

555 


(XIV.-l..) 

TV    0    V     U     M 

TEST  AMENTUM 

G  R  A  E  C  Eo 

Textum  ad  fidem  testium  criticorum 

receniuU, 
lection  urn     familias 


e    graock    co3ic!Lus    manuscriptis,     qul     in     Europae     ct     Asiao    Libliotficcls 

icpcriunlur   fere    omnibus,    e   vorsionibiis    antiquis,    conciliis,    sanctis   Patribus 

ct   scriptoribus    ccclcsiasticis    quibiiscunque    >el    primo    \el   iterum. 

collatis   copias   cviticas 


atquc    conditioncm   liorum    (cstium    crilicorum   lilsforiamquc    lexTus    Novl 
Testanienti  in  prolc{jomcnis  i'usius 


practerca  Synaxaria  coclicum  KM  .2G2.  274  fypis  exscrlbcnJa 
Dr.    I.   MART.    AUGUSTINUS    SCHOLZ. 

Vol.    I. 

IV    Evangelist  ^complectens. 

LIPSIAE      1830, 

SCKPIIBUS    FRIDESICI     FxEisciiClV 

^Tjt'iv   Anirt>»   runcofutli   «,    II) 


556 


(XIV.— 2.) 


334 


EPISTOLA  I.  AD  TIMOTH.  CAPITT 


,     /Soifuov 

14  b   e>*    niarei     ifj      tv" 

15  d  TIOO'S   ce  «  idxiov,"     * 


15 


nff 


favzo's     xaiov"     neQinoiovrrci  ,     xal     nM.f<v 
'lyaov.]       Tavrd    c     aoi"    yQaqxa,     ikn 
J£   r  P(>advv(i)'',   'ivct    '.   eldrjs",    mug  *  del-  b    e 
exxA^ata    #£oi;    fuuTOj,  '  arvlog  xal 


Zfai." 


n)  alcx.  a?  const,  ct  rec. 


fl)  »o23v  iawTo7{  219. 
t)  ex  46".    TVX  «  TI. 
iorti  'T»)X-  «»•  G. 
r)  3t  Led.  8". 


,  Chrys.  (in 


. 

46.  V 
-  «)  *' 

Chrys 


=  FGgn  6.  67".  i37  al.  Arm.  Ante  ilfcTr  ponit 
ulg.  ed. 


ACD*  17.  71.  73  al. 


A) 


D*'  Arm.  Til 


Clar.   Or.    Ambroslast. 
or?«»w»ai.  JJT,t  (ocr,?  ?) 
x.  r.  i.  omissis.     i*- 


.(or'ir  .or^o«J     xai  .ouoloyvu 

*lil<lia  &IOV  JWKTOJ  Ct  xat  eSaaiiafia  T«  aiii^lia^    (et 

addito  £uxrdf  post  »ioO)  Sahid.       .      ..... 

0  Hie  jnterstinguunt  y5.  edd< 

*)  Ixxi^ai'a;  6(J  in  m.  Post  alii&etiit  novam  pprio- 
duni  inchoant  CoHiJ.  Vcrss.  Pair.  gr.  ctlat.  cdd. 

X)  S.xai  .61.  ft  quidem  Ambrosiast. 

m)  tKi^oia;  73*.  iuitiiiae  Syr.  Erp.  iustiline.  J»  ptri- 
Wftj;  Aeth,  /a.w  yi'erafti(  Ambrosiast, 

«)  9to?  hab,  codices  a  me  craminati  [  6.  lo..  33. 
35,  44.  46;  67.  68.  69..  70,  72,  8u.  81.  83.  85.  86.  87. 
91..  g3»  94.  <)5,  96^  97.  98.  99.  'jor.  102:  io3.  104^ 
>o5.;  lofi,  108.  109.  no,  in.  112,  129,  i3i  >34.  i35. 
»3;.  i38-  i4u  i/,3,  144.  145.  149  i53.  i58.  i5a,  166* 
>6;.  j6g.'  170,  171:  177.  178.  179.  >tto<  iB3  rtU.  188. 
j8q.  393*  li)3.  194.  193  ,197.  198.  it)()<  »oo  ior;  2o3« 
ao5'  206,  208.  211.  212,  Ji3.  219.  a3o.  rfi  2^2.  233, 
i3»  et  reliqJi  codices  ah  'aliis  colhti  fere  omiies, 
Lectionaria,  edil.  Arab  p.Slavims;  Gcor^.  ly\.  (epj 
ad  Ephes,  '§•  119  iibi  fonan  'verbiji  ^w;  arSfanbut 


yanqouurrof  nostrum  locum  rcspicir)  Chrysost. .Thco- 
floret,  Didyim  {de  trim  p.  8j.)  Eulhal.._Nyss;  (quii 
persaepe?  £«oV<  semel  .oj  legisse  videtur)  Macedon« 
bamasc,  Oecum,  Thcophvl,  Se  ACfGgn  17;  73.  i8n 
(Hiant  Jioc'  local  BEH_  aliiqu.fi  nonnulii;  codices  AC 
a  primi  -manu  TIOII  t».I%  ut  nonnullis  visum  Tucrat. 
scd  OZ  liabuissc*  iui  codice  -auicmvD  primUas»O 
lectum  idque  a  corrcctore  multo  iuniorc.m  0-£  mm 
tatunv  csse<  Griesbachus  in  Svmbolarum.  criticarum! 
lomo  t.  pag;  V1I1  -  l.IV.  et.  toma  fflVpagi  56  -  r&J 
demonstrarc,  studuit;  'codices1  corum,  qni  Mace^ 
donium  eub  Anastasio ,  imp,  Sf  in  Jttit'  mutassel 
narrarunt,  edd.  Copt.  Saliid.  Syr.  p.  in  m.  Cyr.  olei, 
Thcodoret.  Mops.  £piph,  Sermd  inter  ope.  Chrys. 
tiop.764)  Vulg.  It  (Clar.  Boern.)  lielas.  cyzicen.  S< 
JWacar.  liieros.  ap.  Gclas.  in  act  cone,  nicen.  1.  t.  c. 
83.  Sermo  de  iucarnat,  inter  opp«  Chrys.  T.  8.  pj 
ai4«  Apud  Cyr.  »cythopol.  legitur:  it  'lifovaalim 

jiu  c.  yuod  Syc,  iitr.  Erp,  Auto,  ct  Arm.    Patrej 


latin!  omnium  scculorum  omnes  legernnt  •myslfrium 
j.  sar.ramentum  quod  mttnt'festatum  cU.  licet  dt'ChristO 
intelligcrent.  Sic  Hilar.  Aug.  Pelag.  lulian.  pela^. 
fulgent.  'Idacius.  Ambrosiaslcr,  tco  M.  Victorin. 
Cassian.  Grcgor.  M.  Vigil,  taps.  lieda.  Chrysologus^ 
Martinus  I  (in  cpist.  ad  loannem  Philajclph  in 
Mansi  collect,  ampliss.  concilior.  vol.  10.  pag.  8i3; 
sed  in  -rersione  gracca  ibidem  citat  <itl  Hicr.  (in 
Es.  53,  11)  et  Atta  concilii  constantinop.  2.  (rolla. 
tionc  4  in  exccrpto  53.  c  Theoduri  mops.  vest,  libro 
'l3  de  incarnationc  ap.  Maasium  YO!.  9  pag,  221.) 
latinc  habcnt:  ()ui  mam'fssMus  esi  in  carue,  iuslifi, 
catus  est  in  spirliu.  I)e  Patril)us  graecis  liacc  notiinda 
sunt:  ab  anliquissimis  rarissime  Lie  locus  cxcitatur, 
jic  contra  Arianos  quidem,  initio  contro.vcrsiae 
Arianac;  .ncc  Cyr.  alei.  provocat  ad  h,  1.  contra 
luiianum  Imp.  negantem  Jesum  a.  I'aulp  unquam 
appellatum  fuisse  Deum;  neque  rocabulum  »n'n 
oj.ponit  Nestorio.  Ad  Christum  rcfcrri  potuit  hoe 
dictum  a  1'utribus,  sivn  o  legcrcnt  sive  6'e*  "Hinc 


C 
bant,  c 


ipMim 
ribcr 


t  v.  c.  Iii-tinus  ad  Diognet.; 
tTtufq  Orig.  c.'  Ccls.  3.   '//?- 


!i,  2.  intcrp'rctVnufmo;  Is  yui  Cerium  car  ni 
fttuf  ,appnruit  jtn.ntis  in  carnc  ;  sicut  apostohts.  dicit* 
yuia  (fortasse  r/ui)  manifcstatus  cst  in  carnc,  mstifi., 
talus  etc.  Thcodotus  epitom  18.  '  — 


VSCQ  ytoe  jtai  awetanot  uiem.  an.  Theodoret.)  itfarc-t 
pu!.^  .  Gregor.  thaumat.  s.  Apollinaris  potius  ap 
Phot.  cod.  a3o  ct  alii:  #ets  Iv  aa0*\  Vayc^0(tf  F. 
talibus  igitur  phrasibus  ct  e.  locutionuni  in  commatu 
hoc  citnntium.  ad  Christum  applicatione  jieutiquam 
colligcre  licet;  patres  hosce  [cgisie  3ioe.  NonniiUi 
patrcs  graeci  cerlc  non  leger  .nit  3to{i  Clcm^  alen 
ai*»  Oecum  in  b.  locum:  p  u  a  i  ij  P  t  o  x  ^t9\  ij/«Z* 
i'jox  oi  Sn,J.oii  TO,  Xc'i  o  T  o  ,-.' Cyn  alci  (qui 
paepe  quidem.  habet  Sias  in  Opcrtun  ieililiombusj 
sed  pcrperam,  uti  docuimus  in  Syn.holi,:  iriticS 
lorn.  1.  pag:  XI.III.)  He.  rucra  fide  ad  Theodosium) 


a'ifia,  nlx  i'rffOX  ToiJt    njoj    ftvorji 

<  •/  aSr°e  9f«'S  <*  ">S  JioS  nar(a,  .Jo/on  lij 
'(?^7  etc.  et  ad  Regin.  ,.  -rf,  A  ,V  o«o,i  «.»fM 
1  »  W«*  ^n  narry  »  *•'•  "«"«t  o  «  *i»»  Ji— 


557 


(XV.-l.) 

NO  VU  M 

TESTAMENTUM 

G    R    A   E    C    E 


EX    REtENSIONE 


CAROLI  LACHMANNI. 


Ediito 


BEROLINI 

R      E      I      M      E      K, 
MDCCCXXXI. 

558 


(XV. -2.) 
KATA  MAPKON.  99 

&Q$IK1? f    o~t  roTg  d-taffaptvotG  OJVTOV  eyijytQft^vov  tx 

otijv  OVA  tTiiaTtvcoiv.    15xG<  tliiiv  avi'oTg  IT.nQivd'tVTtg 
TOV   xcoucv  anavra    M]QV£KTS   TO    tvayy&tov'  7zdo)j 

anurcijaag  y.aTv.xQi&r'jatTat.   "oyLttTa  Je  ToTg  morn-  5 

nGQXXokov9-1]0~£l    TKVTtt.      (V   TU>    6l>0{ 


caoiv  7ia.Qxxoov-i]O£i  TKVTU.  tv  TU>  oyofjarl  fuov  (Ta/- 
(.wvta  txfioiXovoty,  y^wcrdct.';  \aki]Govaiv  xvivaTc;,  l*ocp£i<; 
dgovoiV  •  xa.i>  $wa(7mo*'  n  nlwaiv,  ov  /.u)  aviovg  /?/.«- 
tyy  •  tnl  d^f)o>aTOvg  X^a^  tritd-jjoovoiv,  xa<  xa?.w£ 
l^ovffiv.  I9o  fj.iv  ovv  xvQiog  'Iijvovg  [stra  TO  \K\rjoat 


tnl  ,  . 

'l^ovffiv.    I9o   fj.iv  ovv   xvQiog   'Iijvovg   [stra  TO  \K\rjoat  10 
avroTg  dvd.q,'.i<p&i]  tl<;  TOV  ovgaybv  xctl  ixujtiafv  tx  (Tf- 
%iwv  TOV  &tcv'    ^txtivoi  oi:    t^thO-ovta;   tx^nv^av  nav- 


,    TOV   XVQI'OV  cwtQ^ovvioq   xat  TOV  Xoycr 
g  diu  i  'Zv  &axoKQv9'Qvvr(t)v. 


KATA  AOYKAtf. 


trflrtotv  is 

ntQi  TUJV  nmhriQQCpOQTif.ifVtov  iv  rn.uv  nQw/fAtttwv  ,  2x«- 
&tu<;  Trctpe'Joaav  J][*Tv  ol  an  o-QX^S  avTonrat  xar  vn7j$t- 
Tat  ytvofifvoi  TOV  Xoyou,  3i'Jo£f  xafjot  n.QQ7]xohovd"r]XOTt 


avwd'iv  naotv   axQifiai<;  xa.Si£r\<;   oct  y 

Tj^tj^g  hoyu)v  TIJV  20 


5  '£}'/>'£  TO    fv   T«r?    j^tQaiq  'HQitiSov   rov 
iris  J/ot'()af'ot?    hnevi;   TI$    ovn/naTi  Za^ao/'cxj  t^  trpi]tus- 
(5/aj  slStd,   xat  -/wf]  a-^rw  ex  raJi'  frvyaTtyuiv  *Aa.Q«')V, 
xcd  TO  b'vofta  avTtjz  'EXtadfltT.    *i]Go.v    de   dt'xaioi    du~  25 
(poTinoi  ivainiov  TOV  &fov,   noQivo/jtvoi  iv  ndo~ut£  raTg 
ivTo't.ait;    xal    dr/a.ta>/.ifr,otv   TOV   XVQIQV    u[ii[*TiTOi.    7xai 
pvx  TJV  KVTOt'g  Tixvov,  xa&oTt  i]v  ^EXtadfitT  OTfTjOa,  xat 
d.uty6itQoi  •nQo{jtflrlxoii$  tv   raf?  TJ[*{QGI<;   O/UTWV  t^actv. 
*i-/£vrro    dl   iv   TU>    ItQGTtvttv   avtbv  tv   T[J    ras'it  T^J  30 


24.  xai  r\  ywt]  avTov 

E  2 


(XVI.-L) 

NOVVM  TESTAMENTVU 

6BAECE  ET  LAT1NE 


CAROL YS  LACHMANNVS  RECENSVIT 

PH1LIPPVS  EVTTMANNVS  PH.  F.  GRAECAE 
LECTIONIS  AVCTOBITATES  APPOSVIT 


.TOMVB  PRIOR 


EEROLINI 

IN  AEDIBYS    GEOROII   REIMIR1 

A.  HTDCCCXXXXU 

5CO 


(XVI.-2.) 
J1POI  QE2ZAA  ONIKE1S  A.        C3.2-8)     521 

tr/e/ffiov,  ttf  TO  cirigfyu  ifiaf  xa? 
-rijs.TiloTtu:  v^ta*  3ro  /ij^v  aoaiviad-ui  Iv 


;i(jo?  v/iuf  ^tv,  TJpof^j'o/uv.'t^/V  UTI  [iftlcfttv  dWptoSut,  xa9<vf 
xul  2y*VtiO  xal  oi'JflT*.  s()/a  Toino  xaytu  fjrjKhi  cr/ywr  tnt^a  8 
t'f  »3  yroxat  »^v  ntJiiv^vfitoV,  p^  FW{  Inttgaotv  vpaf  o  nilfd- 
twv  xaJ  iff  xtvov  ytvqiat  o  xonos  fjlitiv,  6opr<  J^  ASoVro;  T/^uo* 
9tov  Tipo;  ^a?  Jy*  ViUtDy  xal  ivayytliaa^lvov  fjpTv  iffv  nlauv 
xai.TTjy  aydnrjv  vpu>yf  xal  5n  f'^tif  ^viiav  fauv  uyad^v  ndviort 

rjitag  IdiTv  xa$dntQ  xal  fjjutff  v/uuf,  7J<a  rovro  na-  10 
,  a&i\<f<)(,  tqt  vp?v   (Til  ndofl  lift  avdyxfl  xal  Q\tytt 
ti  *vv    wftiv  lav  v/*i7f  oijjxli  Iv 


J,  rrapaxa^wa/  ABAGfgv,  add  ii^as  $  £  vntg  ABAG,  rrtpi  q, 
pro  fgt>  10  ^J,  id)  Jig,  tva  G  nyitvaaaiviodat  BA,  ftJjdtVa 
cafvio&ai  r,  juijdtraOfVfO^f  ^,  ^tjdtv  atri  trto&at  (id  est  /u^d^va 
Vic.tvio9ai~)  G,  nemo  moveatur  /f  et  add  vel  terreatur  0,  ne  moreatur  / 
4.  cssemus  fl«,  fuimas  f  mQQilcyontv  ABvg,  praedicavimus  /y, 

nQnotlf/cfttv  A  on  f.till(outv  SlifiiaSat  AKAGgg,  passuros  nos 
tribulationem  f  4.  5.  xa^wf  xaf  >4BJu?f  xa^wf  G/g  6.  nianv 
V(jwv  AAGfgvs,  vp.wv  ntvtiv  B  7.  115  xa/vov  G,  inanis  /gu 

veniente  fgtr  .'  jnatlheo  pr  g,  timotheo  corr  g  8,  benc  (oiu  fv) 
aununtiantc  fgv  rj^iv  BAGfgv;,  vpiv  A  9.  tXllt  nvtiav  TJ/JUIV 
ABz,  (*viav  ^tTKi  yuwv  AGg,  memoriaiu  nostri  habetis  fv 
10.  t'^Hf  ABAGgs,  et  vos  f  7i«pfxX^^jjju*v  IfJGj,  /xa^axfxljj- 
fit^a  .4  11.  ia  vobis  /V>»  tni  (tv  Ggvg)  7i.oa>;  TJ;  uvayxr]  xal/ 
&Xtyii  (^A.  xal  aK  5)  ABAGyvg,  per  omnem  necessitntem  et  tri- 
Jjulationem  /  12.  jj/iwv  Jm  Tijf  v^wv  nianw;  BAGfgg,  v^tay 

xai  Sta  I*;?  maitwG  vymiv  A.  a-njxijjt  BJCsr,  orqxnt  At  statU 
gu,  steteritis  f 

geli'o  CJiristi,  ad  conforfandos  (iconfirmandos  L)  uos  ct  exliortandoa 
(exort.)  pro  fide  uestra,  3ut  nemo  moueatur  in  tribulationibns  istis: 
ipsi  (ipse)  enim  scitis  quod  in  hoc  positi  sumus  .  4nain  et  cum  aput  (-d  ) 
uos  essemus;  praedicebamus  •  uobia  passuros.  nos  tril/ulationes,  sicut 
et  factum  est  et  scitis.  (10)  sPropterea  et  ego  amplius  non'.sustinens 
misi  ad  cognoscendam  fidem  nestram,  ne  forte  temptauerit  uos  is 
(his  F)  qui  temptat»  et  inanis  fiat  labor  noster.  (ll)6Nunc  autero 
ueniente  llmotheo  ad  nos  a  uobia  et  adnuntiante  nobis  fidem  et  ca- 
ritatem  nestram,  et  quia  memornm  nostri  habetis  bonam  semper 
desiderantea  nos  uidere  sicut  [et  /<]  nos  quoque  uust  7ideo  consolati 
yunms,  fratres,  in  tiobis  in  onuii  necessitate  et  tribulatione  (t.  et  n-) 
nostra  per  uestram  fidem  (f.  u.  P  al),  8quoniain  nunc  uiuimus,  n 

3G  561 


(XVII.  —  1.) 

N  0  V  U  M 

TESTAMENTUM 

G    R    A    E    C    E. 

TEXTLM  AD  FIDEML  ANTIftUORIM  TESTIM 

JRECENSUIT 

BREVEM  APPARATUM  CRITICUM 

TINA  CUM  VARIIS  LECTIONIBUS 
ELIEORIORIIM,  KA  APPII,  SCHOLZII,  UiCHMAIVlVI 

SUBJUNXIT 

ARGUMENTA  ET  LOCOS  PARALLELOS 

JNDICAVIT 

COMMENTATIONEM  ISAGOGICAM 

NOTATIS  PROPRIIS  LECTIONIBUS- 

EDD.    STEPIIANTCAE    TERTIAE    ATQUE   MILLIANAE^ 
MATTHAEIANAE,  GR1ESBACHIANAE 

PRAEMISIT 

AEHTOTH    FRED.  COBfST. 


THEOL.  LIC.  PHIL.  DR.  SOCIET.  HIST.  THEOL.  LIPS.  SODALIS(« 


LIPSIAE,  MDCCCXU. 
SUMPTUSFECITCF.  KOEIILER. 

562 


(XVII.— 2.) 


'Scrnnna  aochinae  Je  Cfio  servatoretrevlter  proponUur^lTIM.III,  16.  J)43 


ov  eavroTg  y.a).ov  TTSQtrtoiovnat  xcti  xoM.qv  TraQOTjGiav  fr  ni- 

fTtfl  IT]  Iv  .-XjHCTTO)  'fyGOV* 

TavTa,  aoi  TQcicfOj,  flLnKfaV  thtisTv  noog  ce  Iv  tctyti'  i*  lav  {£ 
Be  pnxdvvco,  tree,  fidrjg  n&g  dsi  Iv  oi'xc«  -Osou  avttGToe(p£a&tttf  qng 
lailv  txxA»7<7ta  #fou  ^GJVTOC,  GTV?,O<;  y.ctl  idQauopcti  T>~J£  akrj&stae* 
J  c  '  .zo  v~is  £va£J}$ia£  nvatijiov,  og  ig 


%(h[,i:v  £&vt.fftv 

J4.  Om.  7T(i,  OE  FG  al.  Armrj  etiarn  ante  t),0:  pon»  —  ."J^c.KN.  .Sz.  rd^iov^ 

[tvra/.  c.  ACI)*al.] 

,15.  Hah.  Jet  oc  D*:Arm>.;Vg'.  jf/Or.  Ambrsf. 

JG;  lie.  KN.  Sx.  -proo's  'h.  &to<;..\  oq  (OC)  ledioncmlfiaec  commendant: 
I.)  o?1i.A*C*  (o;  .  leclionem  vcranx  odd.  A  et  C  essc,  a  VVoidio  aliisq. 
adduhifatant  illam  quidcm,  confirmarunt  Wtst.  et  Griesb.)  FGgr.  ,17« 
(s.'Xl.)  73.  (s\Xl.)  181.  (s.XHI.),  Uiiant  KEll  aliique.]  cdd.  eorum  qut 
(ut  Vicfoi*,  tun.j  iLiberatus,  jlincinarus,)  JMacedonium  suli  Anastasio 
imp.  o?  in  O^os  tnutasse  .refcrunt;  Cpt.  Sah.  Syr.  p.  in  nt.  Cyr.  alex.- 
(TO  piyd'Tt^;  tvaffi*  jtVQTijQ.  TOVTCOTIV  XQIOTOC,,-  o  ?  ipaveQwO-rj  etc* 
et  alibi;  eilitiones  repugnaiilihiis  jnss*  saepe  &toq  liab.)  Jhdr.  mopsVj 
^Epiph.;  Gelas.  cyz.  s.Mac.  hr.ap.Gclas.;  Hier.  ;  Acla  concil.  cstinop.2. 
{cilalnm^Th'dr.  niopsv.)  41.)  h;  o  D*  Vg.  It.  Hil.^uc;.  Pel.  Ambrsf. 
omnesq.  reliq.  praetcr,  Hier.  niodo  citatum,  JIl.)  s.  c?  s.  o  hab.  Syr* 
*utr..Erp.  .Aeth^  ,Arrrtj  1V.^)  cert.e  non  ,&ioq  legissc  videntur:  Thdotua 
(o  a(DT>}(>  (j'xfOtj  xanuv  rots  txy/f'Aot?.'),  Just^'^d  Diogu.  (anior^Xiv 
^oyovi  iVct  3<oo/*ai  yctvjj,  ,o;  rftrt  a-TooroAwj'  y.rjQvxQcii;  {mo^.tQviuif 
CJem.L'ap.-  Oec.  .(nvaTijgtov  fied"*  -^^aJv  ftcTov  ol  ayyfAoc 
XQIOZOV.)  Qf.  fcltjaovs  Iv  Jof//  uvalafipcivea&at  foyerou.  )  et 
Orl  int  Kufind  (7s  gut  Yerbum  card  factus  .apparut  t  posilfs  (al. 
•positiis)  \itt  Carney  sicui  apostohis  dicit^  quiet  manffestatus  est  in. 
farntj  justf/Icatus  elc.},  (Jr.  nysS.  (TO  nvor^iov  iv  aaqxi  tyctve-t 
fiu&ti'  jtttAoJs  -rovro  Jlfyw^,.  oJro;  o  .^ftiri'Qoq  Ao'yo?.)  .Bas.  (TOU  ^£" 
5/«AoU  nvor^Qioit  art  o  xi'^to?  tyavcQwd-q-  tv  oa'^xt.)  Nestor,  ap* 
>itnolj»jun.  (to  iyriiMaQta,  ytvvtj&iv  etc^  itpavfQo'td-tj  ydy,  vyaiv,  lv> 
inai/uQ'iiafJiv.']  Sermo  inter  Opp.  Chfs. 
.  «vpfj9, 

^•to?  (0C)  "h;  I  jet  cdd.  reliqui  lit/minusculis  scr.  praeter  tres  supra 
fttlatoll  fere  omnes;  Lectt.;  Ar.\pr.SK  ms.  Chrs-  .Thdret.  Did.EuthaK 
JMacea..Damsc.  Oec»  Jhphyl.  Praetereaque  Iiuic  lectionl  favere  pu- 
t»nt;  'Jgm  (aiEph.  ^eoy  uv&Qwrtivu*;  vaviqov/jifvov.')  Cstitt.  apoit* 
(^«o<  xv^te  6  ifowavffC  fifHytyauQxi.)  Hippol.  (*«o?  ^v  cta^art  i<p<xve» 
jpw^.")  Gr.  thaum.  i.  potiui'ApoHin.<ap. 
•^«?.)  —  "h.  wy&»j  «y^'w^Q«f  5;  Clem<  aj>. 


563 


(XVIIL—  1.) 

IOVUI  TESTAMENTUM 

GRAECE. 

AD  ANIIQUISSIMOS  TESTES  DEOTO'JIECENSUIt 
jiPEARATUM  CRITICUM  OMNI  STUDIO  JPERFECTUM 

.APPOSUIT 

COMMMTATIOXIM  ISAGOGICAM: 

IRAETEXCIt 

CONSTA^TINUS  TISCHENDOER 

EPITIO  OCTAVACRITICA.¥A10IL 


II. 


LirSIAE 

GLESECKE  &: DEYH1EBT, 
1872. 


564 


(XVIII.— 2.) 
IQANtfOY:Ar  5,8.       337 


OG'  om  sv  tm  vSazi  pov ov,  dXX  WTO)  vdan  xaievvy  a//«m* 
nut  to  Mtv^d  tarif  TO  HCIQTVQOVV,  onio  ^vsv^a.  tattv  f)  a}.j&acf. 
7  on  tnsia  (tow  01  nunrvoovytsc,  8  TO  xvEi'iw  *«t  TO  vSaft  x«i 


cum  SAUL  al  plu  arm  Cyr'ohiie-  STS  etnesti«z  elacts<- ThpTiyl  Occ  ... 
KP  h  15.  22.  33.  34.  36.  39.  56.  100.  192.  cat  sah  AmbspirJ  ^t<rr. 
*tj<r.  ...  f  it;a.  o  xQiar.  cum  minusc  ;vix  ma  syrP  (Thphyl  et  Oec  in 
commsem«')  |  povavi  B  fiova  [  aAA  cum  XBKLP  elc  . , .  A  u/l^a  ...  5. 

6.  8.  66**  80.  al28"  «AAa  xcn,  item  syrP  |  f»'  T.  uJccrc ai^icm  (car 

tol  aeth  add  et  spii-itu):  p  31*  83.  arm  f.  T.  uiitctTi  -  -  vdati ...  A  2f. 
41.  Cyrio11878  f.  T.-i/J«Tt  -  i-'Tivs^uatt,  6G**  80.  *.  t.  «iuoTi.-  -  7r»'£U» 
/««T»  |  (V  tert  cum  ABLP  4.  5.  13.  17. 18.  21.  33.  40.  41.  CG**€0.  8?» 
118.  jscr  hscr  cat  Cyr1'^3'8  ...  s.om  cum  HK  al  plu  vg  Cyr»estJ42  ^om 
et.  TW)  et'°b126  etactM  Thphyl.  Oec  Rebapt308  j  -ro^rrfiytw  sec  et.  mto 
Sebapt368 'Ambs.P>r3»wal...  34. -vg  (et.  am  fitcav  demid  TiarUux  tol 
etppal'qlat)  armusc  Christus,  •%(>HJTO<T  (: :  quae  Iecti9  Latina  Graece 
in  codicem  34.  Dublinensein  ilium  Montfortianuin  recepta.luculentef 
testatur  versionem  vulgatam  ad  eum  conficienduox  valuissc.^ 
7.  ort  rptiff  (et.  Cyrnestiu  etacts^  ,..  x  69.  as«  on  ot  T(U 
•7  ct  8.  ot  /tapTi'^oi/friff;  $  (=  Gb  Sz)  add  $»  ta>  oCgavw,  o  rfarfj(>,  a 
^inyos,  xal  TO  ayiov  J/V«i>/t«  '  x«t  oorot  ot  rytti;  tv  fiat.  6  Kal  -t(>iT$ 
ttaiv  oi  itaoTi'Qoiivtts  Iv  r>j  y7j:  baec'vcrba  ex  omnibus  cdd  Graecis 
duo  tantum  iuentur,  alter  saeculi  16.  alter  Graecua  J.atiuus  fere 
15.  saeculi,  numeris  signati  34  (Dublin.)  et  162  (Vat.).  Jn  singulis 
^vero  satis  ab  editis  differunt.  Sic  enim.34.:  on  Tfjiiff daw  o»  /ta^ri/-- 
fiowrta  tv  TO)  ovQavoi,  -na.Ti\Q  )>oyo(i  -/ten  Tivivua  ayiov,  xat  ovrui  ofr 
7Qtiff  tv  t«n.  x«t  Tftta  tuiw  o<-  /ea^> TVQOVVTMT  tv  ti;  yr;,  pergens: 
Trvd'.Mt*  i/Jwg  K«I  cujta.  *«  T^V  jKctptnotav.  Item  162 :  otv  T^<KT,  I«T«I» 
M  paQtuQovvcia  ano  tov  ovQavoV,  7tart]Q  logoff  xat  -nvt v/tcc.  aytcn't 

Stat  OI,  T(J«tff  IKT  TO  fV  IKTl,     XCtl   tOlKT  IUJIV  Oli  ft,Ct(>tVQOl>VTtff  O.71O  t^Cf 

Via,  pergens:  TO  jrvtiyja  fo<vS<aQ  xao  TO  «i/ia.  ti  TIJI*  ftagrvQiav. 
flis  duobus  accedere  videbatur,  Birchioiet  Scholzio  tcstibus,  173. 
>t  is  verba  ista  non  habet  Tiisi  in  margine  manu  recenti.  unius  uO 
)nihi  videtur  ex  bibliothecariis,  gaec.  fere  17.  adseripta:  5d  quoi 
alienum'ab'antiquorum.  codicum  auctoritate'esse  apparet.  Praebct 
Autem.  margo  eius  codicis,locum  sic  ut  ex  solis  editis  innotuit!  ti"tot 
Oi  pocvw,  o  7taTt]Q  xat  (ita  multi  ediderunt,  ut  Beza  1590.  Goldha^cn 
1753.  atque  iam  anfea  Compl.)  o  layoff  xatsto  ayiov  7rJ'{i'/<«*  "«f 
oi'Tot  ot  T(>uo~  fv  tiai.  'xai  T^HO"  itciv  oi  fictorvoovt'tto"  tv  rfj  yr;.  Sinu-v 
liter  ex  ed.  Complut.  eundeiu  Jocum.  exscriptum  liabet.  codex  qul 
tlicitur  llavianus:  ev'.Tto'ovQttvit),  o  7tarrt<i  xat,  o  J.O-/OIT.  zaf  no  aytov 
7TVfi'««,  xat  ot  TQtio~  ita  TO  cv  fiae*  xai  rotur  giant  ot-  uaQTvowrtHr 
«.TiTijo- y^a,  post  quae  verba'pergitur:  TO  Ttviuua  -s.uitn-vStaq  xat  to 
«',««.  tt.Tiji' '  uaijTVQictvi  Yulgat'ae  codices,  quorum  plus50  a/ 
*\Vetst  Gb  (in  diatribe  insigrii.  hunc  in  locum  addita  edition!  ».1806. 
P- 1 — 25.)  aliisque  notati  cum  eisque  qui  posthac  innotuerunt  omniunx 
kntiqniisimi  am  et  fu,  itemque  _qul.Alcuini  fuisse  credifur  valliceli*, 
F,  K.  T.  ed.  8.  2iB 

565 


(XIX.-l.) 


THE 


GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT, 


EDITED   FROM  ANCIENT  AUTHORITIES,  WITH   THEIR 
VARIOUS  READINGS  IN  FULL, 


LATIN  VERSION    OF  JEROME, 


SAMUEL   PRIDEAUX  TREGELLES,   LLD. 


LONDON". 

SAMUEL  J3AGSTER   AND  SONS:   PATERNOSTER  ROW. 

C.  J.  STEWART:    KING  WILLIAM:  STREET,  WEST,  STRAND. 

1857-1879, 


566 


(XIX.-2.) 


AITOKAAY^IS   IQANOY. 


TOV  XoyovTOv  dfov  hnai  r^v  paprvptav  'Itjcrov  xpt-  ™™'"™^ffc^™™"™~t 

<TTOV)   OfTGC  *  tiSeV.     **  fJLCtKaptO?    O   UVaytVCOCTKCOl')  /CCU    Ol  et    qni     anrtiunt    Tcrlia  -pro- 

O.KOVOVTIS  TOVS  AoyOl'f  T1J?  TTpOtfllJTtiaf,  KOI   Tr)pOVl>T(¥  q\ineTn  illa'I^p^MmtTleni^ 

TO  fv  avrf)  yeypa/z/xeVa"  6  yap  Kmpor  f-yyv?.  ^'in"lMrna°IMpteni  occienit 

'4  •'  'IcoaV?;?'  raiy  eVra  tKK\'r)O'lait  rats  iv  TTJ  'Acrla-  q"ae  sart  in  Asia.    Grmi* 

^(ipt?     i>fUl>     Kal    (IprjVTJ    a~0   f   c  (S  O;V    KO.1    O     ?Jl>    KO.1   O  qni  er.t  ct  qni  vrnturm  ctt,  ft 

'.7rioi>  rou  Opui'ov  auTOv,  s  KOI  rivro  'Iiprroii  \pi(noi<,  d  6  J.'"11..  Chr.in°^  '!"'   cst  '"''' 


«  r^.  s8(R«);i7.-    nuprvs  o  .TTitrror,    o  TT^WTOTOXO,    r.a>»'  v(Kpu>i>,  xat  o 

Col.  i:  1  8. 

Inecriptio  • 

j.  r.;i  fouX'.iT  rou  foi'W  A. 

4.  u  wv]  f  prn«m.  rov  T.'Er.   |   pra«m. 
Ofou  14.  (J.  Arm.  titd.  Frati.     \     nihit 
.liahcnt   AKC.    I.  C.  7.   38.    P.  91.  95. 
•Vuljr.  Memph.-Arra.rrfd.  ^«th.  Syr. 

—  'Pxo^fvoc]    add.  omnipotens  '  Prrntl 

-0,K]iC,,AV, 

—  ruvAK.  |  aC.  6.14.Q.  1  t*tont» 
T.  1.  7.  38.  P.  91.  95.  Meraph.  Arm. 
Er.  Cnpt.  qni  in  conspectn  tlirtmi  cjos- 
«nnt  Vulff. 
—  ot.ro»]  Domini  Jesu  Cairisti  Jih.    1 
<lei  eunt  /Vm» 
5.  jwi.  v,.puv1   fprM».~n-?.   1.  91. 

180.)  Er.  Cmpf.    («M.  Cnl.  i.)    I     om, 
AXC.    6.    7.    14.    3fl.   1'Q.  95.  Vole. 
Memph.  Syr.  .V«*.  (.I.hn.  C7.    QS.) 
JV«».  in  moriuis  Arm.  trf. 

AHOKAAT'I'IS    TOV    A»    IQANNOV 

KAI  r.vArrr.Ais  TOT  P. 

AIIOKAA^IS    1Q    TOY    OKOAOFOY 
KAI  EYArrEAISTOT  Q. 

91. 

I»«M.\!^IC  rcu.;7«ii<  n-rri   ircojou  are- 
(lin^fov  i'iu  tv  Harpy  rq  »'i)»ou6io- 
?  Sg, 
PloXoyoi-  />. 

1.  oorp  OIOT.  .l.'rx.  np.  Eus.  II.E.  vii. 

—  /o.X.if  Z>,on.  ^.VT.     J     oyioic  K*' 
(eorr.".) 

.•1/c.r.  ap.  Ens.  U.K. 
—  U,,.,-n   .«c  N.  in  inscrlptionc]  Tunwi 
N».  ]  J  lunvcji  T.  AK«.  rcl.  [li.  C.] 
2.  Ii,ao>xf>wTi)i>]  avrou  l>im.  Alex.  &?. 

Y.M. 

—  i^a  cm.  9.1.^  t  "<JJ.  w  r.  I-  Arm. 
cM.  norm,,;;,'.  £r.  om.  AKC.  6.  7.   14. 
3?.  1'Q.  9l.9S.Vnl(f.  Mcmph.  Arm. 

—  t,c,f  (i.Ti»  AS.  7.  Q.)  C.  1.  6.  14.  38. 
P.  91.  o:..]  ml.l.  cai  unva  tiirc  rat  < 

7.  (38.)  91.  Arm.  O-W.  JTr.  in  Annot. 
I     ora.rol.  Vulg.  Men.ph.^Etb.  SJT. 

'».  T«i.c>oy»1.r--A{O.Ter.  Vnlg.    |    rov 

C.) 
—  r-oofirrfmc]  .-Hif.  rni-nrc  7.  Vol);.  C?. 
.•in,.  •SI»mpb..Ana  cdd.  Srr.  /Vmt.  om. 

4.  UOK,{  K,  I  J  I^o,.,.,;  5.  AC.  rel. 

1.  UM.4i,««)  j.  rtsnditO.  |  aeirata.  J 

943 

567 


(XX.— 1.) 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

IN   THE 

ORIGINAL  GREEK 

TJI!<;    TEXT   REVISED    GY 

BROOKE    FOSS    WESTCOTT,   D.D. 

CANON  OF  PETERBOROUGH,  AND  REGIUS  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY,  CAMBRIDGE 
AND 

FEXTOX     JOHN     ANTHONY     IIORT,    D.D. 

IIULSEAN   PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY,  CAMBRIDGE 

AMERICAN  EDITION 

\V  I  T  I-I       ^TsT       INTRODUCTION 

Bv  PHILIP   SCIIAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

I'ROFKPSOR  IN  TIIK  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  NEW  YORK 
J'RESIDE.NT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  BIBLE  REVISION  COMMITTEE 


NEAV    YORK 
HARPER    &    BROTHERS,    FRANKLIN    SQUARE 

1883 


(XX.-2.) 
14  KATA    MA60AION  VI 


avTiijv.      crov  O€  TTCIOVVTOS  cXcrjfJiocrvvrjv  jJirj  yrujTco  rj  dpi-  3 
crrepd  crov  ri  Trotet  rj  Stetd  crou,  OTTCOS  ^  crou  77   e/\e^/xocrw7y  4 
ey  rep  KpuTTTcG'   Kat  d  ira.rrjp  CTGV  o  /^AeVcoi/  lv  TCO  KpuTrrw  a.7ro- 
Scocret  croi.  Kat  orav  Trpoo-evxycrOf,  ov/c  ecrecr^e  5 

o>5  ot  vTroKpiTai'  cTt  (^L\ov(TLV  iv  rats  crwaycoyars  Kat  eV 
rats  yamais  TOJP'  TrXaTeta/v  ecrrcures  Trpocreu^ecr^ai,  OTTOJS 
rots  ai/^pcoTTOts-  a'/x)}i/  Xeyto  v/xti/,  aTre^oucrt  TOI/ 
vTijJV.  a-v  8e  orav  7rpo(Tf.\j\rj,  eiceAGe  GIC  TO  6 

coy   KAI    KAeiCAc   THN    OypAN    coy   npdcey±Ai 
T(3  Trarpt   crov    TO)     ei'   T(p    KpUTrral*   /cat   o   Trarrjp   crov   o 
jSXtiruv  Iv  TO)  Kpu--(3  aTToSojcret   crot.       Ilpocrcv^oftci/ot   8e  7 
HXT^  /3a.TTaL\oyr]O"r)T€  ojcrTrcp  ot  e^rtKot,  SOKOI!O*II/  yap  cm  €i^ 
T^  TroXfAoyi'a  aurcuv  flaaKOVcrBujcrovtar  jj.rj  oiiiv  o/xotco^^rc  8 
curro!?,  oTScv    yap  [oc  ^eo?]    d  Tra-ryp  v/xooi/  cur/  ^pecav  cxere 
?rpo  TOU   v/xds   alrrjcrat   avrov.      O^'TCOS   GUI/    Trpocreu^ecT^e  9 


Ilarep  T^/XOJI/  d   ci/  rot?  ot'parots* 
'Aytacr^r/rco  TO    oro/zct  crcu, 
cXOara)  TI  /?acrt/\eta   crou, 
y€vr)Ot]Tw   TO    6e.Xrjjj.ui   croi', 

co;   ci/   oupavcp  /cat   t—  t  y^s* 

m  x         "  e      «  \         ,  , 

lo^   aprov  T^/XCUV  TOV   eTrtovcrtoi/ 


Kat  a0es  ly/xty  TO.   oc^etA^/xaTa   ryucuv, 
OS   Kat  Ty/xets   a<£ryKajW.ev  Tots   dc^etA 
Kai  /XT;   etcreyeyKTys  vy/x***  cts  Tretpacr/xoV,  I3 

aAAa  pucrat  iy/u,ds  OTTC)  TOV   Trovrjpov. 

Eai/  yap  dcfrrJTe  TOIS  d^pojTrots  Ta  TrapaTrrcu/xaTa  ai;Tco^,  14 
acp^cret   Kat  t^xtf  o   TraTrjp  v/xcoj/  d   ovpdYios'    cdj/   Se    uw  15 
acpvyT€  Tots  a.vup(i)7TOL<s  I  Ta  7rapa~7<jD/xaTtt  ai;Tu>^  I ,  ouSe  o  ?ra- 
Tr;p  v/xcoi/  acfrrjcrei  rd  Trapa— TcopvaTa  v/xcCv.  "OTav  16 

/x?y    ytvecr^e    GJS   ot  VTTOKpmu   cTKu^pcuTrot, 
yap  Ttt  ^rpocrcoTra  airrcuv  OTTCOS  c/>arcocrtv  Tot? 

569 


(XXL) 


THE 

HOLY 

BIBLE, 

C  onioning  the  Old  Teitamcnt 


W7  Tray/fate/ tut cflht  Onfall 
lonputs  &  with  the  farmer  ^r.WJ[til^on/ 
Mi^enlly  compared  iinl  reniffd  by  his 


APPENDIX    III. 


LIST   OF   REVISERS. 


This  is  the  most  complete  list  ever  published,  and  includes  all  who  ac 
cepted  the  appointment  and  have  at  anytime  taken  part  in  the  work  of  re 
vision.  The  members  are  given  their  present  or  former  titles  and  positions. 


I.    ENGLISH    REVISION    COMMITTEE. 

(1)  OLD  TESTAMENT  COMPANY. 
Right  Rev.  EDAVARD  HAROLD   BROWXE,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Winchester 

(Chairman),  Farnham  Castle,  Surrey.     (Born  in  1811.) 
Right  Rev.  Lord  ARTHUR  CHARLES  HERVEY,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Bath  and 

Wells,  Palace,  Wells.  Somerset.     (Born  Aug.  20,  1808.) 
Right  Rev.  ALFRED  OLLIVANT,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  Bishop's  Court, 

Llandaff.     (Born  in  Manchester  in  1798;  died  Dec.  1C,  1882.) 
Right  Rev.  CONNOP  THIRLWALL,   D.D..  Bishop   of  St.  David's,  Bath. 

(Born  Feb.  11,  1797,  at  Stepney,  Middlesex;  died  July  27,  1875.) 
Right   Rev.  CHRISTOPHER    WORDSWORTH,    D.D.,    Bishop    of   Lincoln. 

(Born  in  1807  at  Ashby,  Norfolk ;  resigned  1870.) 

Very  Rev.  JOHN   JAMES   STEWART   PEROWXE,  D.D.,  Dean   of  Peter 
borough,  Deanery,  Peterborough.     (Born  Marcli  13, 1823,  at  Burdwan, 

Bengal.) 
Very  Rev.  EDWARD  HAYES  PLUMPTRE,  D.D.,  Dean   of  Wells,  Wells. 

(Born  Aug.  6,  1821;  resigned  March  17,  1874.) 
Very  Rev.  ROBERT  PAYNE  SMITH,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  Deanery, 

Canterbury.     (Born  November,  1818,  in  Gloucestershire.) 
Vcn.  BENJAMIN  HARRISON.  M.A.,  Archdeacon  of  Maidstone,  Canon  of 

Canterbury,  Canterbury. 
Ven.  HENRY  JOHN  ROSE,  Archdeacon  of  Bedford.     (Died  Jan.  1,  1873, 

at  Bedford.) 


572  LIST    OF    KEVISEES. 

Rev.  WILLIAM  LINDSAY  ALEXANDER,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology,  Congre 
gational  Church  Hall,  Edinburgh.  (Born  Aug.  24, 1808,  at  Edinburgh.) 

ROBERT  L.  BENSLY,  Esq.,  Fellow  and  Hebrew  Lecturer,  Gonville  and 
Caius  College,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  JOHN  BIUKELL,  Professor  of  Oriental  Languages,  St.  Andrews,  Scot 
land. 

FRANK  CHANCE,  Esq.,  M.D.,  Burlcigh  House,  Sydenham  Hill,  London. 

THOMAS  CIIENERY,  Esq.,  Reform  -Club,  London,  S.  W.  (Born  in  1826,  in 
Barbadoes.) 

Rev.  THOMAS  KELLY  CIIEYNE.  Fellow  and  Hebrew  Lecturer,  Balliol  Col 
lege,  Oxford. 

Rev.  ANDREW  BRUCE  DAVIDSON,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Free  Church 
College,  Edinburgh. 

Rev.  BKNJAMIN  DAVIES,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Baptist  College,  London.  (Born 
Feb.  2G,  1814;  died  July  19,  1875.) 

Rev.  GEORGE  DOUGLAS,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Principal  of 
Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

SAMUEL  ROLLES  DRIVER,  Esq.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Rev.  C.  J.  ELLIOTT,  Winkfield  Vicarage.  Windsor. 

Rev.  PATRICK  FAIRBAIRN,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  Free  Church  College, 
Glasgow.  (Born  Januarv,  1805,  at  Greenlaw,  Berwickshire,  Scotland; 
died  Aug.  G,  1874,  at  Glasgow.) 

Rev.  FREDERICK  FIELD,  D.D.,  Carlton  Terrace,  Ileigham,  Norwich. 
.  (Born  in  1801,  in  London.) 

Rev.  JOHN  DURY  GEDEN,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Wesleyan  College,  Dids- 
bury,  Manchester.  (Born  May  4,  1822,  at  Hastings.) 

Rev.  CHRISTIAN  D.  GINSBURG,  LL.D.,  Elmlea,  Wokingham,  Berks. 

Rev.  FREDERICK  WILLIAM  GOTCH,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  Baptist  Col 
lege,  Bristol. 

Rev.  JOHN  JEI?B,  Canon  of  Hereford.  (Born  in  1805,  in  Dublin ;  resigned 
1870.) 

Rev.  WILLIAM  KAY,  D.D.,  Great  Lcghs'  Rectory,  Chelmsford. 

Rev.  STANLEY  LEATIIES,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  King's  College, 
London.  (Born  March  21,  1830,  at  Ellesborongh,  Bucks.) 

Rev.  JOSEPH  RAAVSON  LUMBY,  D.D.,  Norrisian  Professor  of  Divinity, 
Cambridge. 

Prof.  McGiLL.     (Died  March  1C,  1871.) 

Rev.  ARCHIBALD  HENRY  SAYCE.  Deputy  Professor  of  Comparative  Phi 
lology,  Oxford.  (Born  Sept.  25,  184G,  at  Shirehampton.) 

Rev.  WILLIAM  SELWYN,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Ely,  Cambridge.  (Bom  1806; 
died  April  24,  1875.) 


LIST    OF    EEYISERS.  573 

Rev.  WILLIAM  ROBERTSON  SMITH,  LL.D.,  Lord  Almoner's  Professor  of 
Arabic,  Cambridge  (formerly  of  the  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen). 
(Born  at  Keig,  Aberdeenshire.) 

Hcv.  DUNCAN  HARKNESS  WEIR,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Uni 
versity  of  Glasgow.  (Born  in  1822.  at  Greenock  ;  died  Nov.  24, 1870, 
in  Glasgow.) 

WILLIAM  WRIGHT,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Arabic,  Cambridge.  (Born  Jan. 
17,  1830,  in  presidency  of  Bengal,  India.) 

WILLIAM  ALDIS  WKIGHT,  Esq.  (Secretary),  Bursar  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge. 

Old  Test.  Company,  37. 

(2)  NEW  TESTAMENT  COMPANY. 

Right  Rev.  CHARLES  JOHN  ELLICOTT,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and 
Bristol  (Chairman),  Palace,  Gloucester.  (Born  April  25, 1819,  at  Whit- 
well,  near  Stamford.) 

Right  Rev.  SAMUEL  WILBERFORCE,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Winchester  (for 
merly  of  Oxford).  (Born  Sept.  7,  1805,  at  Clapham,  near  London  ;  at 
tended  only  a  few  sessions ;  died  July  19,  1873.) 

Most  Rev.  RICHAKD  CIIENEVIX  TKEXCH,  D.D.,  Archbishop  of  Dublin, 
Palace,  Dublin.  (Born  Sept.  9,  1807.) 

Right  Rev.  JOSEPH  BARBER  LIGIITFOOT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Dur 
ham.  (Born  in  1828,  at  Liverpool.) 

Right  Rev.  GEORGE  MOBERLY,  D.C.L.,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  Palace, 
Salisbury.  (Born  in  1803  at  St.  Petersburg,  Russia.) 

Right  Rev.  CHARLES  WORDSWORTH,  D.C.L.,  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews, 
Bishopshall,  St.  Andrews,  Scotland.  (Born  in  180G.) 

Very  Rev.  HENRY  AI.FORD,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury.  (Born  Oct.  7, 
1810,  in  London;  died  Jan.  12,  1871,  at  Canterbury.) 

Very  Rev.  EDWARD  HENRY  BICKERSTETH,  D.D.,  Prolocutor,  Dean  of 
Lichficld,  Deanery,  Lichfield.  (Born  Jan.  25,  1825,  at  Islington.) 

Very  Rev.  JOSEPH  WILLIAMS  BLAKESLEY,  B.D.,  Dean  of  Lincoln,  Dean 
ery,  Lincoln.  (Born  in  1808,  in  London.) 

Very  Rev.  CHARLES  MERIVALE,  D.D..  Dean  of  Ely.  (Born  in  1808,  at 
Barton  Place,  Devon  ;  resigned  1873.) 

Very  Rev.  ROBERT  SCOTT,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Rochester,  Deanery,  Rochester. 
(Born  in  1811,  in  Devonshire.) 

Very  Rev.  ARTHUU  PENRHYN  STANLEY,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Westminster, 
Deanery,  Westminster.  (Born  Dec.  13,  1815,  at  Alderley,  Cheshire; 
died  July  18,  1881.  in  London.) 


574:  LIST   OF    REVISERS. 

Very  Rev.  CHARLES  JOHN  VAUGHAN,  D.I).,  Dean  of  Llandaff.  (Burn 
in  1816.) 

Ven.  WILLIAM  LEE,  D.D.,  Archdeacon  of  Dublin,  Dublin.  (Born  in 
1815,  in  Ireland.) 

Vcn.  EDWIN  PALMER,  D.D.,  Archdeacon  of  Oxford,  Christ  Church,  Ox 
ford.  (Born  July  18,  1824,  at  Mixbury,  Oxfordshire.) 

Rev.  JOSEPH  ANGUS,  D.D.,  President  of  the  Baptist  College.  Regent's 
Park,  London.  (Born  Jan.  1(5,  181G,  at  Bolam,  Northumberland.) 

Rev.  DAVID  BROWN,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  Free  Church  College,  Aber 
deen. 

Rev.  JOHN  EADIK,  D.D..  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  the 
United  Presbyterian  Church.  Glasgow.  (Born  May  9,  1810,  at  Alva. 
Stirlingshire,  Scotland;  died  Jan.  ;-5,  1870,  in  Glasgow.) 

Rev.  FENTON  JOHN  ANTHONY  Hoitr,  D.D.,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Di 
vinity,  Cambridge.  (Born  in  Dublin,  April  23,  1828.) 

Rev.  AVILLTAM  GIBSON  HUMPHRY,  B.D.,  Vicar  of  St.  Martin -in  -  the- 
Fields,  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  London.  (Born  in  1815,  at 
Sudbury,  Suffolk.) 

Rev.  BENJAMIN  HALL  KENNEDY,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Elv  and  Regius  Pro 
fessor  of  Greek  in  the  University  of  Cambridge.  (Born  Nov.  6, 180-1, 
at  Summer  Hill,  near  Birmingham.) 

Rev.  WILLIAM  MILLIGAN,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Divinitv  and  Biblical  Crit 
icism  in  the  University  of  Aberdeen. 

Rev.  WILLIAM  FIDDIAN  MOULTON.  D.D..  Master  of  The  Leys  School, 
Cambridge.  (Born  March  14,  1835,  at  Seek,  Staffordshire.) 

Rev.  SAMUEL  NEWTII,  D.D.,  Principal  of  New  College,  Hampstead,  Lon 
don. 

Rev.  ALEXANDER  ROBERTS,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Humanity  in  the  Uni 
versity  of  St.  Andrews. 

Rev.  FREDERICK  HENRY  AMBROSE  SCRIVENER,  LL.D..  D.C.L.,  Preb 
endary,  Hendon  Vicarage,  London,  M".  W.  (Born  Sept.  29,  1813,  at 
Bermondsey,  Surrey.) 

Rev.  GEORGE  VANCE  SMITH,  D.D.,  Professor,  Parade,  Carmarthen. 

Mr.  SAMUEL  PRIDEAUX  TREGELLES,  LL.D.  (Prevented  by  ill-health 
from  attending;  born  Jan.  30,  1813,  at  Falmouth  ;  died  April  24,1875.) 

Rev.  BROOKE  Foss  WESTCOTT,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Peterborough  and  Regius 
Professor  of  Divinity,  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  (Born  in  January, 
1825,  near  Birmingham.) 

Rev.  JOHN  TROUTBECK  (Secretary),  Dean's  Yard,  Westminster. 

New  Test.  Company,  30. 
Members  in  both  Companies,  67. 


LIST    OF    REVISERS.  5J5 

II.   AMERICAN    REVISION    COMMITTEE. 

GENERAL   OFFICERS   OF  THE  WHOLE  COMMITTEE. 
PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President. 
GEORGE  E.  DAY,  D.U.,  Secretary. 


(1)  OLD  TESTAMENT  COMPANY. 

Rev.  WILLIAM  HENUY  GREEN,  D.D.,  LL.D.  (Chairman),  Professor  of 
Hebrew  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  Princeton,  N.  J.  (Born  Jan.  27, 
1825,  in  Groveville,  N.  J.) 

Rev.  GEORGE  E.  DAY,  D.D.  (Secretary).  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Di 
vinity  School  of  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (Born  March  19, 
1815,  in  Pittstield,  Mass.) 

Rev.  CHARLES  A.  AIKEN,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Test.  Criticism  in  the 
Theological  Seminary,  Princeton,  N.  J.  (Born  Oct.  30,  1827,  in  Man 
chester,  Vt.) 

Rev.  TALIJOT  W.  CHAMP.ERS,  D.D.,  Collegiate  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
N.  Y.,  and  Lecturer  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  New  Brunswick, 
N.  J.  (Born  Feb.  25,  1819,  in  Carlisle,  Pa.) 

Rev.  THOMAS  JEFFERSON  CONANT,  D.D.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  formerly  Pro 
fessor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Rochester,  N.  Y. 
(Born  Dec.  13,  1802,  in  Brandon,  Vt.) 

Rev.  JOHN  DE  WITT,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Theological  Semi- 
narv,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.  (Born  Nov.  29,  1821,  in  New  Brunswick, 
N.  J.) 

Rev.  GEORGE  EMLEN  HARE,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the 
Divinity  School,  Philadelphia.  (Born  Sept.  4.  1805,  in  Philadelphia.) 

Rev.  CHARLES  PORTERFIELD  KRAUTH,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Vice-Provost  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  and  Professor  in  the  Evan 
gelical  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary  in  Philadelphia.  (Born  March 
17,  1823,  in  Martinsburg,  Va.;  died  Jan.  2,  1883,  in  Philadelphia.) 

TAYLER  LEWIS,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  LTnion  College, 
Schenectady,  N.  Y.  (Born  March  27,  1802,  in  Northumberland,  N.  Y. ; 
died  May  11,  1877,  in  Schenectady.) 

Rev.  CHARLES  MARSH  MEAD,  D.D.,  formerly  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the 
Theological  Sem.  at  Andover.  Mas^.  (Born  Jan.  28, 1836,  at  Cornwall, Vt.) 

Rev.  HOWARD  OSGOOD,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Theo 
logical  Seminary,  Rochester,  N.  Y.  (Born  Jan.  4,  1831,  in  the  Parish 
of  Plaquemines,  La.) 

Rev.  JOSEPH  PACKARD,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Theological 
Seminary,  Alexandria,  Va.  (Born  Dec.  23,  1812,  in  Wiscasser,  Maine.) 


576  LIST    OF    KEVISEKS. 

Rev.  CALVIN  ELLIS  STOWE,  D.D.,  Hartford,  Conn.,  formerly  Professor  of 

Hebrew  in  Andover,  Mass.     (Bora  April  20,  1802,  at  Natick,  Mass. ; 

resigned  187G.) 
JAMKS  STRONG,  S.T.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Drew  Theological 

Seminary,  Madison,  N.  J.     (Born  Aug.  14,  1822,  in  New  York.) 
Rev.  CORNELIUS  V.  A.  VAN  DYCK,  D.D.,  M.D.,  Professor  in  the  American 

College  at  Beirut,  Syria.     (Born  Aug.  18,  1818,  in  Kinderhook,  N.  V. 

Advisory  Member  on  questions  of  Arabic.) 

Old  Test.  Company,  15. 

(2)  NEW  TESTAMENT  COMPANY. 

Rev.  THEODORE  D.  WOOLSEY,  D.D.,  LL.D.  (Chairman),  Ex-President  of 
Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (Born  Oct.  31,  1801,  in  New  York.) 

Rev.  J.  HENUY  TIIAYER,  D.D.  (Secretary),  formerly  Professor  of  New 
Test.  Exegesis  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  Mass.  (Born 
Nov.  27,  1828,  in  Boston,  Mass.;  now  resides  in  Cambridge.) 

CHARLES  SHOUT,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Latin  in  Columbia  College,  New 
York.  (Born  May  28,  1821,  in  Unvcrhill,  Mass.) 

EZRA  AUHOT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  New  Test.  Exegesis  in  the  Divin 
ity  School  of  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (Born  April  28. 
1819,  in  Jackson,  Maine.) 

Rev.  J.  K.  BURR,  D.D.,  Trenton,  N.  J.  (Bom  Sept.  21,  1825,  in  Middle- 
town,  Conn.;  died  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  April  24.  1882.) 

THOMAS  CHASE,  LL.D.,  President  of  Ilaverford  College,  Pa.  (Born  June 
1C,  1827,  in  Worcester,  Mass.) 

Rev.  GEORGE  R.  CROOKS,  D.D.,  Professor  in  Drew  Theological  Seminary. 
Madison,  N.  J.  (Accepted  the  original  appointment,  but  found  it  impos 
sible  to  attend,  and  resigned.  Born  Feb.  3,  1822,  in  Philadelphia,  Pa.) 

Rev.  HOWARD  CROSBY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Ex-Chancellor  of  the  University  of 
New  York.  (Born  Feb.  27,  182G,  in  New  York.) 

Rev.  TIMOTHY  DWIGHT,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New  Test.  Exegesis  in  the 
Divinity  School  of  Yale  College,  New  Haven.  Conn.  (Born  Nov.  10, 
1828,  in  Norwich,  Conn.) 

JAMES  HADLEY,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Greek,  Yale  College,  New  Haven, 
Conn.  (Born  March  30,  1821.  in  Fairfield.  N.Y. ;  died  Nov.  14,  1872, 
in  New  Haven.) 

Rev.  HORATIO  BALCII  HACKETT.  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  New  Test, 
Exegesis  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Rochester,  N.Y.  (Born  Dec. 
27, 1808,  in  Salisbury,  Mass.;  died  Nov.  2, 1875,  in  Rochester.) 

Rev.  CHARLES  HODGE,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Theo 
logical  Seminary  at  Princeton,  N.  J.  (Never  attended  the  meetings, 


LIST    OF    REVISERS.  5<< 

but  corresponded  with  the  Committee.     Born  Dec.  18,  1797,  in  Phila 
delphia  ;  died  June  19, 1878,  in  Princeton,  N.  J.) 

Rev.  ASAHEL  CLARK  KENDRICK,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Greek  in  the 
University  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.  (Born  Dec.  7,  1809,  in  Poultney,  Vt.) 

Right  Rev.  ALFRED  LEE,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episco 
pal  Diocese  of  Delaware.  (Born  Sept.  9,  1807,  in  Cambridge,  Mass.) 

Rev.  MATTHEW  B.  RIDDLE,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New  Test.  Exegesis  in  the 
Theological  Seminary,  Hartford,  Conn.  (Born  Oct.  17,  1830,  in  Pitts 
burgh,  Pa.) 

Rev.  PHILIP  SCIIAFK,  D.I).,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  (Born  Jan.  1,  1819,  in  Coire, 
Switzerland.) 

Rev.  HENRY  BOYNTON  SMITH,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Systematic 
Theology  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  (Attended 
one  session,  and  resigned  from  ill-health.  Born  Nov.  21, 1815,  in  Port 
land.  Me. ;  died  Feb.  7,  1877,  in  New  York.) 

Rev.  WILLIAM  FAIRFIELD  WARREN,  D.D.,  President  of  Boston  Univer 
sity,  Boston  Mass.  (Accepted  the  original  appointment,  but  found  it 
impossible  to  attend,  and  resigned.  Born  March  13, 1833,  in  Boston.) 

Rev.  EDWARD  ARIEL  WASHIUJRN.  D.D.,  LL.D..  Rector  of  Calvary  Church, 
New  York.  (Born  April  1G,  1819,  in  Boston;  died  Feb.  2,  1881,  in 
New  York.) 

New  Test.  Company,  19. 
In  both  Companies,  34. 

[A  number  of  Bishops  and  Professors  of  sacred  learning,  who  had  been  in 
vited  to  join  the  American  Committee  at  its  first  organization  iu  18T1,  de 
clined,  from  want  of  time,  or  other  reasons,  but  expressed  interest  in  the 
work  and  confidence  in  its  success.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  Bish 
ops  Mcllvaine,  Whittingham,  and  Williams,  Dr.  Whedou  (Methodist),  Dr. 
Kevin  (Reformed),  Dr.  Shedd  (Presbyterian.)] 

Number  of  English  and  American  Revisers  on  the  Old  Test.  Com 
pany  52 

Number  of  English  and  American  Revisers  on  the  New  Test.  Com 
pany  49 

Total Tol 

The  English  Committee  up  to  date,  i.  e.,  April,  1883,  lost  by  death  and 
resignation  15 members;  leaving  the  number  still  living 52 

The  American  Committee  up  to  date,  i.  e.,  April,  1883,  lost  by  death 

and  resignation  11  members;  leaving  the  number  still  living 23 

Total T5 

37 


APPENDIX   IV. 


LIST   OF    CHANGES 

PROPOSED  BY  THE  AMERICAN  COMMITTEE  AND 
ADOPTED  BY  THE  ENGLISH  COMMITTEE. 

BY  ALFRED  LEE,  D.D., 

UISUOP  OF  T1IK  PKOTEhTANT  KPISCOI'AL  DIOOESE  OF  DKI.AWARE. 


[This  list  was  prepared  from  the  official  records  of  the  American  Commif- 
tee  (printed,  but  not  published),  and  kindly  placed  at  onr  disposal  by  the 
venerable  Bishop  Lee,  one  of  the  most  faithful  and  regular  members  of  the 
New  Testament  Company  of  Revisers.  He  wishes  it  to  be  understood  that 
the  list  is  far  from  complete.  The  A.  V.  is  placed  first,  the  R.  V.  second.  ]  n 
some  cases,  slight  differences  between  the  rendering  suggested  and  that 
adopted  are  not  noticed.] 


I.    AMERICAN    SUGGESTIONS    ADOPTED    IN    TEXT. 
MATTHEW. 

I.   18.  "When  as  his  mother  .  .  .  was"  :  "When  his  mother  ,  .  . 
had  been  " 

20.  "  while  "  :  "  when  " 

22.  Instead  of,  "  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,"  read  "  by  the 
Lord  through  the  prophet."  This  change  is  placed  in 
the  Appendix,  General  Rule,  No.  V.,  as  preferred  through 
out. 

24.  "from  sleep"  :  "from  his  sleep" 
II.     9.  "  went  on  before  "  :  "  went  before  " 

10.  "When"  :  "And  when" 

18.  "  would  not"  :  "she  would  not" 


580  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

II.  20.  "  which  sought "  :  "  that  sought  " 

23.  "shall  be  called"  :  "should  be  called" 

III.  4.  "meat"  :  "food"  ;  and  so  elsewhere  for 

13.  "Jordan"  :  "the  Jordan"  ;  and  so  elsewhere. 

IV.  24.  "  lunatic  "  :  "  epileptic  "  ;  and  so  elsewhere. 
V.     1.  "  was  seated"  :  "had  sat  down" 

15.  "  candle  "  :  "  candlestick  "  ;  "  lamp  "  :  "  stand  "  ;  and  so  in 

Mark  iv.  21 ;  Luke  xi.  33. 

25.  "  lest "  :  "  lest  haply  "  ;  and  so  often  for  pjTrort. 
35.  "neither"  :  "nor" 

VI.     6.  "when  thou  hast  shut"  :  "having  shut" 

7.  "But  when  ye  pray"  :  "And  in  praying" 

8.  "  Be  not  ye  therefore  "  :  dele  "  ye  " 

16.  "sour"  :  "sad"  ;  and  new  paragraph. 

2G.  "  much  better  "  :  "  of  much  more  value  "  ;  and  Luke  xii.  24. 

VII.  9.  "of  whom  if  his  son  shall  ask  bread,  will  he  give"  :  "  who, 

if  his  son  shall  ask  him  for  a  loaf,  will  give" 

10.  "  a  fish  "  :  "  for  a  fish  " 

"  will  he  give  "  :  "  will  give  " 

VIII.  1.  "came  down"  :  "was  come  down"  (A.  V.). 

9.  "this  man"  :  "this  one"  ;  and  Luke. 

11.  "and  west"  :  "and  the  west" 

18.  "multitudes"  :  "great  multitudes" 

"other  shore":  "other  side";  and  so  elsewhere.  (With  A.  V.) 
34.  "the  whole  city  "  :  "  all  the  city  " 
IX.  31.  "And  they"  :  "But  they" 

"that  country"  :  "that  land" 
X.  21.  "and  father  shall  deliver  up  child"  :  "and  the  father  his 

child" 
XI.     5.  "  the  gospel "  :  "good  tidings  "  ;  and  so  in  Luke  vii.  22. 

7.  "  look  upon  "  :  "  behold  "  ;  and  so  in  Luke  vii.  24. 
10.  "  order  thy  way  "  (E.  I.)1  :  "  prepare  "  (A.  V.).2 
23.  "  Hell "  :  "  Hades  "  ;  and  so  elsewhere.     This  change  was 
urged  by  the  American  Revisers  from  the  outset,  and 
acquiesced  in  by  the  British  at  the  last  review. 

26.  "  that  so  "  :  "  for  so  "  ;  from  margin. 

XII.     2.  Read,  "  But  the  Pharisees,  when  they  saw  it,  said," 

4.  "save  for  the  priests  alone"  :  "but  only  for  the  priests" 
(A.V.). 

J  First  English  Revision.  2  Authorized  Version. 


LIST   OF    CHANGES.  581 

XII.  12.  !  instead  of  ? 

28.  "  but  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God  "  :  "  but  if 

I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out  devils  " 
45.   "is  "  :  "becometh  " 

XIII.  2.  "  the  whole  "  :  "  all  the  " 
12.  "taken"  :  "taken  away" 

15.  "  should  understand  "  :  "  understand  " 

21.  "he  is  offended"   :   pro.  "falleth   away"  :  ad.  "stum- 

bleth  " 

25.  "  amidst  the  wheat "  :  "  among  " 
33.  Margin,  "  is  "  (E.  I.)  :  "  denotes  " 

44.  "for  joy  thereof"  :  "in  his  joy"  ;  from  margin. 

XIV.  1.  "  report  of  Jesus  "  :  "  report  concerning  Jesus" 

19.  "  and  took  "  :  "and  he  took  " 

22.  "  his  disciples  "  :  "  the  disciples  " 

26.  "  in  their  fear  "  :  "  for  fear  " 
XV.  13.  "All  plants":  "Every  plant" 

20.  "  to  cast"  :  dele  "to" 

XVII.     4.  "good  that  we  be  here"  :   "good  for  us  to  be  here" 

(A.  V.)  ;  and  so  in  Mark  and  Luke. 
8.  "  no  man  "  :  "  no  one  "  ;  and  Mark  ix.  8. 
11.   "truly  "  :  "indeed" 
XVIII.    3.   "  be  converted  "  :  "  turn  "  ;  and  John  xii.  40,  etc. 

22.  "  seventy  times  and   seven "   :   "  seventy  times  seven " 

Exchange  text  and  margin. 
XIX.     5.  "For  this"  :  "For  this  cause"  (A.  V.)  ;  and  Mark  x.  7. 

8.  "the   hardness   of   your   hearts"   :   "your  hardness  of 

heart "  ;  and  so  Mark  x.  5.        % 

9.  "  whoso  marrieth  "  :  "he  that  marrieth  " 
10.  "be  so"  :  "is  so" 

XX.     5.  "the  sixth  and  ninth"  :  "the  sixth  and  the  ninth" 
7.   "hired"  :  "hath  hired"  (A.  V.). 

14.  "that  is  thine"  :  "that  which  is  thine" 
"  it  pleaseth  me  "  :  "  it  is  my  will " 

XXI.  10.  "  moved  "  :  "  stirred  " 

15.  "And  when  "  :  "But  when" 
36.  "likewise"  :  "in  like  manner  " 

38.  "But  when  the  husbandmen  saw  .  .  .  they  said"  :  "But 

the  husbandmen,  when  they  saw  .  .  .  said  " 
"keep  his  inheritance"  :  pro.  "have"  :  ad.  "take" 


582  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

XXI.  41.  "bis  vineyard"  :  "the  vineyard" 

42.  "  this  was  the  Lord's  doing  "  :  "  this  was  from  the  Lord  "  ; 

and  so  Mark  xii.  11. 

XXII.  13.  "ministers"  :  pro.  "attendants  "  :  ad.  "servants" 
26.  "the  seven"  :  "the  seventh"  (A.Y.). 
34.  "were   gathered"  :    pro.  "gathered"    :    ad.  "gathered 

themselves  " 

43.  "in  spirit"  :  "in  the  Spirit" 

XXIII.  8.  "master  ":  "teacher"  :  (Another  reading.)     The  Amer 

ican  Revisers  preferred  always  to  translate  CiCuaKa- 
Xoc,  "teacher." 

14.  Margin,  "and    that"  :    "even   while"  ;   and   so   Mark 
xii.  40. 

23.  "to  leave  the  other"  :  "  to  have  left  the  other" 
26.  "  may  be  "  :  "  may  become  " 

33.  "escape  from  the  judgment"  :  dele  "from" 

XXIV.  8.  "  pains"  :  pro.  "pangs  "  :  ad.  "travail"  ;  and  Mark  xiii.8. 
14.  "gospel"  :  margin,  " Or,  these  good  tidings" 

16.   "  which  be  "  :  "  that  are  " 
22.  "should  have  been"  :  "would  have  been" 
25.  "  foretold  you  "  :  "  have  told  you  beforehand  "  ;  and  so 
Mark  xiii.  23. 

43.  "the  thief  cometh"  :  "  was  coming" 
XXV.     9.  Dele"^/" 

XXVI.  16.  "  betray  him"  :  "deliver  him  unto  them"  ;  and  elsewhere. 

24.  "good  were  it  for  him  if  that  man  had  not  been  born  "  : 

"  good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born  " 
(A.V.).. 
39.  "  praying  and  saying  "  :  "  and  prayed  saying  " 

44.  "  saying  the  same  words  again "   :   "  saying  again  the 

same  words  " 

49.  "  forthwith  "  :  "  straightway  " 

"kissed  him"  :  margin,  "  Gr.,  kissed  him  much"  ;  and 
elsewhere. 

50.  "•/*  it  this  for  which  thou  art  come?"  :  "do  that  for 

which  thou  art  come." 
66.  "  guilty  "  (of  death)  :  "  worthy  "  ;  and  so  Mark  xiv.  64. 

XXVII.  6.  "silver  pieces"  :  "pieces  of  silver" 
21.  "They  said"  :  "And  they  said" 

24.  "a  tumult  was  made"  :  "a  tumult  was  arising" 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  583 

XXVII.  44.  "  cast  the  same  in  his  teeth "  :   "  cast  upon  him  the 

same  reproach  " 
47.  "Some"  :  "And  some" 
50.  "And  Jesus, when  he  had  cried  again  .  .  .  yielded"  : 

"And  Jesus  cried  again  .  .  .  and  yielded" 
58.  "begged"  :  "  asked  for"  ;  and  so  in  other  places  f or  a'Ylw. 
Gl.  "And  there  was  there  Mary  Magdalene  "  :  "And  Mary 

Magdalene  was  there  " 

XXVIII.  11.  "  were  done"  :  "  were  come  to  pass  " 
16.  "appointed"  :  "had  appointed" 

MARK. 

I.     4.  "there   came  John"    :   pro.  "John   appeared"   :    ad. 

"John  came" 

26.  "having  torn  him,  and  cried"  :  "tearing  him  and  crying" 
43.  "solemnly"  :   pro.  " sternly "  [Put  in  margin]   :  ad. 

"strictly"  ;  and  Matt.  ix.  30. 
II.     3.  "carried"  :  "borne" 

15.  "  cometh  to  pass  "  :  "  came  to  pass  " 

III.  8.  "  all  the  things  "  :  "  what  great  things  " 

10.  "for  to  touch  him"  :  "that  they  might  touch  him" 
26.  "riseth  up"  :  "hath  risen  up" 

IV.  8.  "  thirty  ...  sixty  ...  a  hundred  "  :  "  thirtyfold  .  .  . 

sixtyfold  ...  a  hundredfold" 
22.  "but  rather  that"  :  "but  that" 
30.  "place  it?"  :  "set  it  forth  ?" 
32.  "it  groweth  up"  :  dele  "it" 

"  all  herbs  "  :  "  all  the  herbs  " 

"  putteth  forth  "  :  pro.  "  maketh  "  :  ad.  "  putteth  out  " 
36.  "take  him"  "take  him  with  them" 

39.  "  arose  "  :  "  awoke  " 

V.     3.  "  among  the  tombs  "  :  "  in  the  tombs  " 

11.  "nigh  unto  the  mountain"  pro.  "by  the  mountain"  : 

ad.  "  on  the  mountain  side  " 
36.  "  Be  not  afraid  "  :  "  Fear  not " 
38.  "people"  :  pro.  Roman  type  :  ad.  "many" 

40.  "  when  he  had  "  :  "  having  " 

VI.     2.  "the  many"  (E.I.)  :  "many"  and  change  margin. 

22.  "his    daughter   Herodias"  :  substitute    margin,  "the 
daughter  of  Herodias  herself  " 


LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

VI.   24.  "  should  I  ask  "  :  "  shall  I  ask  " 

54.  "they"  :  "  the  people" 

VII.     8.  "  lay  aside  "  :  pro.  "  let  go  "  :  ad.  u  leave  " 

18.  "Is  it  so  that  ye  also  are"  :  pro.  "So  then  are  ye  also"  : 

ad.  "Arc  ye  so  ...  also" 

21.  "proceed  all  evil  thoughts"  :  "evil  thoughts  proceed" 

VIII.  13.  "neither  had  they"  :  "and  they  had  not" 

18.  "remember,  when"  :  "remember?  When" 

19,  20.  "ye  took  up  "  :  "took  ye  up?" 

IX.     3.  "such  that  no  fuller  .  .  .  can  so  whiten  them"  :  "so  as 

no  fuller  on  earth  can  whiten  them" 
8.  "  when  they  had  looked"  :  "looking" 
12.  "truly  "  :  "  indeed" 

18.  Exchange  margin   and  text,  "  rendcth   him"  :   "dasheth 

him  down  "  ;  and  Luke  ix.  42. 
X.     2.  "and  they  asked"  :  dele  "they" 

S7.  "thy  left  hand"  :  "thy"  italics. 
XI.     8.  "  leaves  "  :  pro.  "  boughs  from  leaves  "  ;  and  dele  margin 3 : 

ad.  "  branches  " 
XII.     9.  "shall"  :  "will" 

10.  "so  much  as  this"  :  "even  this" 
XIII.     2.  "on  another":  "  upon  another  " 

11.  "lead  you"   :   pro.  "lead  you  away"  :   ad.  "lead  you  to 

judgement " 
14.  "which  be"  :  "that  are" 

19.  "as  hath  not  been"  :  as  there  hath  not  been" 

20.  "  should  have  been  saved  "  :  "  would  have  been  saved  " 
23.  "foretold  you  all  things"  :  "told  you  all  things  before 
hand" 


2  i. 


"from  the  end"  (E.  I.)  :  "from  the  uttermost  part" 


35.  "either"  :  "whether" 

XIV.  8.  "to  the  burying"  :  "for  the  burying" 
25.  "  drink  no  more  "  :  "no  more  drink  " 
32.  "  while  I  shall  pray"  :  "while  I  pray" 
55.  "all  the  council  "  :  "the  whole  council" 

XV.  37.  "when  he  had  uttered  .  .  .  gave  up"  :  "uttered  .  .  .  and 

gave  up  " 
43.  "begged"  :  "asked  for" 

"counsellor"  :  "councillor" 
XVI.    7.  "  go  your  way  "  :  "  go  " 


LIST   OF    CHANGES.  585 


LUKE. 

I.  21.  "was  waiting"  :  "were  waiting" 

28.  Exchange  margin  and  text.    "  Endued  with  grace  "  :  "  high 

ly  favoured  " 
30.  "grace"  :  "favour" 
37.  "from  God  no  word"  :  "no  word  from  God" 

58.  "how"  :  "that" 

59.  "were  calling"  :  pro.  "  were  about  to  call"  :  ad.  "would 

have  called  " 
II.     2.    "  Quirinus  "  :  "Quirinius" 

8.  "keeping"  :  "and  keeping" 

9.  "stood  over"  :  "stood  by" 

35.  "  shall  pierce  "  :  "  shall  pierce  through  " 

49.  Read,  "in  my  father's  house?"  with  E.  I. 

III.  8.  "  worthy  of  your  repentance  "  :  dele  "  your  "  ;  put  in  margin. 
18.  "Many  other  things,  therefore,  in  his  exhortation  preached 

he  unto  the  people  "  :  "  With  many  other  exhortations, 
therefore,  he  preached  good  tidings  unto  the  people  " 
35.  "Salah"  :  "  Shelah  " 

IV.  25.  "  a  great  famine  came  "  :  "  there  came  a  great  famine  " 
41.  "forbade  them"  :  "suffered  them  not" 

V.  22.  "  What  "  :  "  Why  "  ;  put  in  margin. 
YI.     3.  "  so  much  as  this  "  :  "  even  this  " 

27.  "  do  well "  :  "  do  good  " 
VII.     1.  "  After  that "  :  dele  "  that  " 

2.  "  held  in  honor  by  "  (E.  I.)  :  pro.  "  highly  valued  by  "  :  ad. 

"  dear  unto  " 
"Ready  to  die"  :  pro.  "about  to  die"  :  ad.  "at  the  point 

of  death" 

35.  "was  justified"  :  pro.  "hath  been"  :  ad.  "is" 
VIII.     1.  "  proclaiming"  :"  preaching" 

6.  "  fell  down  on  the  rock  "  :  dele  "  down  " 
14.  "as  they  go"  :  "as  they  go  on  their  way" 
25.  "  who  then  is  this  ?  for  he  "  :  "  who  then  is  this,  that  he" 

29.  "caught"  :  "seized"  ;  and  Acts  vi.  12,  and  elsewhere. 

"Bound,  being  kept  with  chains"  :  "kept  under  guard 
and  bound  with  chains  " 
IX.     7,8.  "of"  :  "by "(<«•)• 

12.  "  here  we  are"  :  "  we  are  here" 


586  LIST   OF    CHANGES. 

IX.  58.  Margin:  "roosting  places  ":  "lodging  places" 
X.     1.  "  seventy  and  two  "  E.  I. :  "  seventy  "  and  change  margin, 

and  v.  17. 
7.  "  workman  "  :  "  labourer  " 

21.  "that  so"  :  "for  so"     Ex.  text  and  margin. 

22.  "to  whomsoever"  :  "lie  to  whomsoever" 
29.  "willing"  :  pro.  "wishing"  :  ad.  "desiring" 
41.  "careful"  :  "anxious" 

XI.  39.   "  dish  "  :  "  platter  " 

45.  "thus  saying,"  :  "in  saying  this" 
XII.  11.  "unto"  :  "before" 

36.  "and  ye  yourselves  "  :  "and  be  ye  yourselves" 

46.  "  faithless  "  :  "  unfaithful " 
58.  "exactor"  :  "officer" 

XIII.  4.  "  debtors  "  E.  I.  :  "  offenders  "  ;  margin,  "  Gr.  debtors." 
9.  Insert  "well"  after  "thenceforth" 

16.  "  to  be  loosed  "  :  "  to  have  been  loosed  " 

XIV.  1.  "chief  Pharisees"  :  "rulers  of  the  Pharisees" 

23.  "compel"  :  "constrain" 
XV.     7.  "just":  "righteous" 

13.  "a  country  afar  off"  :  "a  far  country"  (and  Luke  xix. 

12,  A.  V.). 
XVI.     2.  "  mayest  be  "  :  "  canst  be  " 

3.  "  I  cannot  dig  "  :  "  I  have  not  strength  to  dig  " 

14.  "mocked"  :  "scoffed" 

16.  "  the  kingdom"  :  pro.  "  the  glad  tidings  of  the  kingdom  "  : 

ad.  "  the  gospel  of" 
28.  "warn"  :  "testify  unto" 
XVII.     2.  "profitable"  :  pro.  "gain"  :  ad.  "  well" 
6.  "  would  obey  "  :  "  would  have  obeyed  " 

17.  "  were  there  not  the  ten  "  :  "  were  not  the  ten  " 
33.  "shall  quicken  it"  :  "shall  preserve  it"  (A.  V.). 

XVIII.     9.  "  the  rest "  :  "all  others " 

22.  "yet  lackest  thou  one  thing"  :  "one  thing  thou  lackest 

yet" 

XIX.     2.  "  being  himself  also  rich  "  :  "  and  he  was  rich  " 

XX.  46.  "  Take  heed  of  "  :  "  Beware  of  " 

XXI.  25.  "waves":  pro.  "swelling  waves"  :  ad.  "billows" 

35.  "break  in"  E.I.  :  "come" 

XXII.  29.  Read  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom  " 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  587 

XXII.  37.  "for  indeed  that"  :  dele  "indeed" 

XXIII.  1.  "number"  :  pro.  "multitude"  :  ad.  "company" 
12.  "together"  :  "with  each  other" 

"  with  each  other  "  :  "  between  themselves  " 
23.  "requiring"  :  pro.  "demanding"  :  ad.  "asking" 
35.  "derided"  :  "scoffed  at" 
55.  "  sepulchre  "  :  "  tomb"  ;  and  so  elsewhere  for  fj.rtj/jit'iov. 

XXIV.  22.  "  made  us  astonished  "  :  "  amazed  us  " 
39.  "  behold  we  have"  :  "behold  we  having" 

JOHN. 

I.     5.  Exchange    text    and    margin.     "  overcame "  :    "   appre 
hended" 

6.  "there  was"  :  pro.  "appeared"  :  ad.  "came" 

7.  "  through  him  might  believe  "  :  "  might  believe  through 

him  " 

8.  "  but  that  he  might "  :  "  but  came  that  he  might " 
12.  Exchange  text  and  margin,     "power"  :  "the  right" 

14.  "the  glory"  :  "glory" 

15.  "spake"  :  "said" 

18.  Exchange  text  and  margin.    "  God  only  begotten  "  :  "  the 
only  begotten  Son  " 

33.  "Holy  Ghost"  :  "Holy  Spirit"  ;  and  Acts  vi.  5. 
42.  "(Which  is  by  interpretation,  Peter)." 

48.  "before  that  Philip"  :  "before  Philip" 
II.     6.  "  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews  "  :  "  the  Jews' 

manner  of  purifying" 
10.  "  largely"  (E.  I.)  :  "  freely" 

III.  8.  Exchange  margin  and  text.     "  The  Spirit  breatheth "  : 

"  The  wind  bloweth  " 

IV.  21.  "at  Jerusalem"  :  "in  Jerusalem" 
22.  "  of  the  Jews  "  :  "  from  the  Jews  " 
25.  "tell  us"  :  "declare  unto  us" 

27.  "talked"  :  pro.  "  was  talking"  :  ad.  "  was  speaking" 

34.  "  perfect "  :  "  accomplish  "  ;  and  xvii.  4. 
39.  "  for  the  word  "  :  "  because  of  the  word  " 

V.  6.  "  wilt  thou  "  :  "  wouldest  thou  " 
30.  "  of  mine  own  self  "  :  "  of  myself  " 

39.  "  scriptures ;  for  ye  think  " :  "  scriptures,  because  ye  think  " 

VI.  1.  "over"  :  "to  the  other  side  of" 


588  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

VI.  39.  "all  which"  :  "all  that  which" 

41.  "at"  :  "concerning" 

66.  "After  this"  :  "Upon  this" 

VII.     6.  "  present"  :  "come"  (A.  V.). 

16,  17.  "doctrine"  :  "teaching" 

18.  "his  glory  that  sent  him"  :  "the  glory  of  him  that  sent 
him" 

45.  "  Why  have  ye  not  brought  him  ?"  :  "  Why  did  ye  not 

bring  him  ?" 

51.  "hear  him"  :  "hear  from  himself" 

52.  Exchange  margin  and  text.     "  see :  for  out  of  Galilee  "  : 

"  see  that  out  of  Galillee  " 
VIII.     3.  "when  they  had"  :  "having" 

12.  "  Jesus  therefore  again  "  :  "  Again  therefore  Jesus  "  etc. 

42.  "  came  out "  :  "  came  forth  " 

46.  "  say  the  truth  "  :  dele  "  the  " 

49.  "ye  do  dishonour"  :  dele  "do" 
IX.     5.  "  Whensoever  "  :  "  When  " 

X.   12.  "scattercth^/oc&"  :  "  scattereth  them  " 
38.  "If  I  do"  :  "If  I  do  them" 
41.  "John  did"  :  "John  indeed  did" 
XI.  12.  "he  shall  be  saved"  :  "he  will  recover" 
20.  "  Mary  sat  still  "  :  "  Mary  still  sat  " 
28.  "  her  sister,  saying  secretly  "  :  "  her  sister  secretly,  saying" 

47.  "miracles"  :  "signs"     Exchange  margin  and  text. 

50.  "reckon"  :  pro.  "consider"  :  ad.  "take  account" 
XII.  28.  "from  heaven"  :  "out  of  heaven" 

36.  "was  hidden"  (E.  I.)  :  "hid  himself" 
38.  "  who  believed"  :  "  who  hath  believed" 
50.  "whatsoever"  :  "the  things  which" 
XIII.  18.  "I  chose"  :  "I  have  chosen" 
23,  28.  "at  meat"  :  "at  the  table" 
34.  "  I  loved  you  "  :  "  I  have  loved  you  " 

"  may  love  "  (E.  I.) :  dele  "  may  " 
XV.     3.  "  Even  now  "  :  "  Already  " 

5.  "without  me"  :  "apart  from  me" 
15.  "have  heard"  :  "heard" 
XVI.     8.  "of  sin"  :  "in  respect  of  sin" 

18.  Return  to  A.  V. 
XVII.  13.  "And  now"  :  "But  now" 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  589 

XVII.  24.  "  they  also  may  be  with  me  where  I  am  "  :  "  where  I  am, 

they  also  may  be  with  me  " 

XVIII.     6.  "As  soon  then  as"  :  "When  therefore" 
9.  "of  them  which"  :  "of  those  whom" 
15.  "and  that  disciple"  :  "How  that  disciple" 
20.  "  whither  all  the  Jews  resort "  :   "  where  all  the  Jews 

come  together  " 

30.  "would  not"  :  "should  not" 
XIX.   12.  "whosoever":  "every  one  that " 
17.  "a  place"  :  "the  place" 
30.  "gave  up  the  ghost"  :  "gave  up  his  spirit"  (rra/ol^wicfi 

TO  7TJ'£(~jWa). 

39.  "which"  :  "he  who" 

XXI.   11.  "  went  up"  :"  went  aboard"     (In  margin.) 

17.  "seest"  :  "knowest" 

20.  "  leaned  on  his  breast  "  :  "  leaned  back  on  his  breast  " 

ACTS. 

I.     4.   "srtiY/t/te"  :  "said  he  " 
13.  "room"  :  "chamber" 
^       18.  "acquired  a  field"  :  "obtained" 

21.  "  Wherefore  of  the  men  "  :  "  Of  the  men  therefore  " 

23.  "appointed"  :  pro.  "set  forth"  :  ad.  "put  forward  " 
II.     6,  11.  "speak"  :  "speaking" 

20.  "before  the  great  and  notable  day  of  the  Lord  come": 
"  before  the  day  of  the  Lord  come,  that  great  and  no 
table  day" 

22.  Exchange  text  and  margin.    "  powers  "  :  "mighty  works  " 

24.  "  pains  "  :  "  pangs  " 
26.  "rest"  :  "dwell" 

32.   "of  whom"  :  "whereof"  ;  and  so  iii.  15. 

38.  "for  the  remission  "  "  unto  the  remission" 

39.  "  unto  you  "  :  "  to  you  " 

47.  "  such  as  were  in  the  way  of  salvation."  (E.  I.) :  "  them  that 
were  being  saved."  [Further  change  suggested  by 
American  Committee  and  not  adopted.]  See  Appendix. 
III.  1.  "  for  the  hour  "  (E.  I.) :  "  at  the  hour  " 

10.  "gate"  :  "Gate" 

20.  "  which  was  "  :  "  who  hath  been  " 

22.  "say"  :  "  speak  " 


590  LIST   OF    CHANGES. 

IV.     2.  "being  troubled"  :  "being  sore  troubled"  ;  and  xvi.  18. 

I),  "be  examined"  :  "are  examined" 

12.  "  our  salvation  is  not  in  any  other"  (E.  I.)  :  "  in  none  other 
is  there  salvation  " 

24.  "hast  made"  :  "didst  make" 

25.  "hast  said"  :  "didst  say" 

27.  "hast  anointed"  :  "didst  anoint" 

28.  "  determined  before  to  be  done  "  :  "  foreordained  to  come 

to  pass" 

'  and  of  one  soul "  :  dele  "  of  one  " 
some  of  them  "  :  "  some  one  of  them  " 
21.  "early  in  the  morning"  :  "about  daybreak" 
30.  "ye  hanged  on  a  tree  and  slew"  :  "ye  slew,  hanging  him 
on  a  tree" 

33.  "  wished  "  :  "  were  minded  " 

34.  "  reputation  "  :  "  honour  " 
"little  space"  :  "little  while" 

35.  "  intend  to  do  "  :  "  are  about  to  do  " 

36.  "  brought  to  nought  "  :  "  came  to  nought" 
VI.     1.  "And  in  these  days"  :  "Now  in  these  days" 

14.  "delivered  us"  :  "delivered  unto  us"  -^ 

VII.     4.  "  he  removed  "  :  "  God  removed  " 

11.  "dearth"  :  "famine"  ;  also  xi.  28. 

12.  "first"  :  "the  first  time" 
16.  "Emmor"  :  "Hamor" 

33.  "from  off  thy  feet"  :  dele  "off" 

40.  "brought"  :""led" 

45.  "receiving  it  after"  :  "in  their  turn" 
52.  "ye  were  even  now"  :  "ye  have  now  become" 
VIII.  10.  "great"  :  "Great" 

21.  "this  word"  :  "this  matter"  (A.  V.). 

23.  " for  gall"  :  " in  the  gall"     Margin,  pro.  "art "  :  ad.  "  wilt 

become  gall " 

38.  "  went  down  both"  :  "both  went  down" 
IX.   17.   "mightest"  :  "mayest" 

23.  "counsel"  :  "counsel  together " 

32.  "passed"  :  pro.  "was  going"  :  ad.  "went" 

33.  "and  was  sick  of  the  palsy  "  :  "for  he  was  palsied" 

34.  "maketh  thee  whole"  :  " healeth  thee" 

41.  "when  he  had  called"  :  "calling" 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  591 

X.  10.  "  would  have  eaten  "  :  pro.  "  wished  to  cat " :  ad.  "  desired  " 

17.  "porch"  :  "  gate" 

28.  "  and  to  me  "  :  "  and  yet  unto  me  " 

33.  "  are  commanded  "  :  "  have  been  commanded  " 

36.  "he  sent  the  word"  :  "the  word  which  he  sent"  :  "he 

is  Lord  of  all "  in  (  ). 

XI.     4.  "rehearsed"  :  pro.  "set  forth"  :  ad.  "expounded" 
13.  "  which  stood  and  said  "  :  "  standing  and  saying" 
19.  "They then  which"  :  pro.  "Xo\v  they  that"  :  ad.  "They 

therefore  that " 

23.  "in  the  purpose  of  their  heart"  :  "with  purpose  of  heart" 
26.  "assembled   themselves"  :  pro.  "came    together"  :  ad. 

"  were  gathered  together  " 
"in  the  church"  :  "with  the  church" 

XIII.  5.  "  their  minister  "  :  pro.  "assistant"  :  ad.  "attendant" 

7.  "  who  called  "  :  "  The  same  called  " 
10.  "thou  child"  :  "  thou  son" 

13.  "sailed"  :  "set  sail"  ;  also  xvi.  11,  xx.  3. 

16.  "with  his  hand"  :  "with  the  hand" 

18.  20.  "about"  :  "for  about" 

34.  "faithful"  :  "sure" 

46.  "waxed  bold"  :  "spake  out  boldly" 
"have  been  spoken"  :  "be  spoken" 

XIV.  6.  "  perceived  it "  :  "  became  aware  of  it  " 

19.  "And"  :  "But" 

"came  thither  certain  Jews"  :  "came  Jews  thither" 
"drew"  :  "dragged" 
XV.     1.  "manner"  :  "custom"  ;  also  xvii.  2. 

10.  "  to  put "  :  pro.  "  by  putting  "  :  ad.  "  that  ye  should  put " 

17.  18.  Read  "  who  maketh  these  things  known  "  ;  and  margin. 
25.  "  being  assembled  with  one  accord  "  :  pro.  "  having  come 

to  one  mind"  with  marg.,  "having  come  together"  : 
ad.  "  having  come  to  one  accord  " 

31.  "  at  the  exhortation  "  :  "  for  the  consolation  "  (A.  V.). 
38.  "right"  :  pro.  "meet"  :  ad.  "good"  (A.  V.). 
XVI.     4.  "  that  were  ordained  "  :  "  which  had  been  ordained  " 
6.  "preach"  :  "speak" 

8.  "and  they  passed  by  Mysia,  and  came"  :  "and  passing 

by  Mysia,  they  came  " 

18.  "  the  spirit  came  out  "  :  "  it  came  out" 


592  LIST  OF  CHANGES. 

XVII.  23.  "things  that  ye  worship''  (E.I.) :  "objects  of  your  worship" 
XVIII.  10.  "hurt"  :  "harm" 

18.  "unto  Syria"  :  "for  Syria" 

24.  "born  at  Alexandria"  :  "an  Alexandrian  by  race" 

25.  "in  the  spirit"  :  "in  spirit"  ;  and  xix.  21,  same  change 

proposed. 

26.  "John.     The  same"  :  "John;  and  he" 

"synagogue:  but"  :"  synagogue.     But" 

27.  Exchange    text    and    margin  :    "helped   much    through 

grace    them    which    had   believed ":"  helped   them 
much  which  had  believed  through  grace  " 
XIX.    2.  In  margin  for  "  be  a  Holy  Ghost "  :  "  is  "  etc. 
7.  "  all  the  men  were  "  :  "  they  were  in  all " 
8,9.  "disputing"  :  pro.  "discoursing"  :  ad.  "reasoning" 
15.  "Jesus  I  acknowledge"  :  "I  know" 
31.   "which  were  his  friends"  :  "being  his  friends" 
39.   "enquire"  :  pro.  "seek  for"  :  ad.  "seek" 
XX.    3.  "  three  months  were  past "  :  "  he  had  spent  three  months 

there  " 

5.  "  had  come  "  :  "  had  gone  before  "  :  change  of  text. 
10.  "trouble  not  yourselves"  :  "make  ye  no  ado" 

27.  "all  the  counsel"  :  "the  whole  counsel" 

28.  Exchange  text  and  margin,     "overseers"  :  "bishops" 
XXI.    9.  "  Now  the  same  man  ":"  Now  this  man  " 

20.  "zealous  of  the  law"  :  "zealous  for  the  law" 
25.   "strangled"  :  "what  is  strangled" 
31.   "sought"  :  "were  seeking" 

"chief  captain"  :  margin,  "military  tribune" 

"an  uproar"  :  "confusion" 

XXII.  13.   "  standing  over  me  "  :  "  standing  by  me  " 
15.  "his  witness"  :  "a  witness  for  him" 

19.  "  believe  "  :  "  believed  " 

XXIII.  6.  "of  the  hope"  :  pro.  "for  the  hope"  :  ad.  "touching" 
15.  "  for  that  ye  would  "  :  "  as  though  ye  would  " 

27.  "  would  have  been  slain  "  :  "  was  about  to  be  slain  " 
"  my  soldiers  "  :  "  the  soldiers  " 

29.  "touching"  :  pro.  "concerning"  :  ad.  "about" 

XXIV.  11.  "understand"  :  pro.  "ascertain"  :  ad.  "take  knowledge" 
12.  "gathering"  :  "stirring  up" 

14.  "  so  worship  I  "  :  "  so  serve  I " 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  593 

XXIV.  14.  "and  written"  :  "and  \vliich  arc  written1' 

18.  ( : )  after  "  offerings  "  instead  of  ( .  ) 
24.  "his  own  wife"  :  "his  wife" 

XXV.     1.  "the  province"  :  "his"  :  ad.  in  margin. 

8.  "answered  for  himself"  :  "said  in  his  defence" 

11.  "  it'  I  be  a  wrong  doer"  :  "  if  I  am,"  etc. 

16.  "that  he  which  is  accused  "  :  "that  the  accused" 

19.  "superstition"  :  "religion"  :  text  in  margin. 
22.  "should  wish"  :  "could  wish" 

XXVI.  3.  "  because  thou  art  specially  expert "  :  "  especially  be 
cause  thou  art "  :  text  in  margin. 

14.  "  pricks"  :  "goad" 

10.  "wherein  thou  hast  seen  me ":"  which  thou  hast 
seen  "  ;  put  in  margin. 

22.  "  the  succour  of"  :  "  the  help  that  is  from  " 
XXVII.     9.  "already   past"    :    "gone   by"    :    ad.  "already  gone 

by" 

17.  "run  into"  :  "fall  away  into"  :  ad.  "be  cast  upon" 
19.  "  furniture  "  :  pro.  "  movables  "  :  ad.  "  tackling  "  (A.  V.). 
21.  "not  set  sail"  :  "not  have  set  sail" 

XXVIII.     4.  "justice"  :  "Justice" 
6.  "mind"  :  "minds" 
8.  "  it  came  to  pass  "  :  pro.  "  happened  "  :  ad.  "  it  was  so  " 

"to  whom"  :  "unto  whom" 
17.  "  were  of  the  Jews  first "  :  "  were  chief  of  the  Jews  "  ; 

dele  margin. 
19.  "not  because"  :  "not  that" 

ROMANS. 

I.     1.  "bondman"  :  "servant"  ;  margin,  "Or,  bondman" 
2.   "  holy  scriptures  "  :  "  the  holy  scriptures  " 
4.  "resurrection"  :  "the  resurrection" 
17.  "the  righteousness"  :  "a  righteousness" 

26.  "affections"  :  "passions" 

32.  "do"  :  "practise"  (bis)  :  "commit"  :  "do" 

II.     1.  "inexcusable  ":"  without  excuse" 

17.  "art  named"  :  "bearest  the  name  of" 

23.  "in  a  law"  :  "in  the  law " 

27.  "through  the  letter"  :  "with  the  letter" 
III.     5.  "  as  a  man  "  :  "  after  the  manner  of  men  " 

38 


59tt  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

III.  20,  28.  "  works  of  law "    :    "  the  works  of  the  law "  ;  from 

margin. 

31.  "law"  :  "the  law"  (bis)  ;  dele  margin, 
"through  the  faith"  :  "through  faith" 

IV.  12.  Dele  "  that  he  might  be"  (E.  I.). 

18.  "was  spoken"  :  "had  been  spoken" 

19.  "regarded"  :  "considered" 

V.     5.  "  maketh  not  ashamed  "  :  "  putteth  not  to  shame  " 
8.  "  establisheth  "  :  "commcndeth" 

11.  "our  reconciliation"  :  "the  reconciliation" 

20.  "a  law"  :  "the  law" 

VI.     2.  "live  any  longer"  :  "any  longer  live" 

4.  "even  so  we"  :  "so  we  also" 

18.  "from  being  dead"  :  "from  the  dead" 

21.  "therefore  had  ye  then"  :  "then  had  ye  at  that  time" 
VII.     1.   "know  law"  :  "know  the  law" 

5.  "by  the  law"  :  "through  the  law" 
7.  "lust"  :  "  coveting" 

12.  "  Wherefore  "  :  "  So  that " 
VIII.     2.  Dele  "  thee  "  in  margin. 

28.  "  with  them  "  :  "  to  them  " 
IX.     1.  "therewith  bearing  me  witness"  :  "bearing  witness  with 

me" 

5.  A  marginal  rendering  was  suggested  (sec  American  Ap 
pendix),  for  which  three  others  were  substituted. 
21.  "one  vessel"  :  "one  part  a  vessel"  ;  from  margin. 
X.     7.  "  deep  "  :  "  abyss  " 

12.  Pro.  "being  rich"  :  ad.  "and  is  rich" 
14.  Dele  margin,  "  of  whom  " 
16.  "obey"  :  "hearken  to" 
XI.  22,23.  "abide"  :  "continue" 

30.  "yet"  :  "but" 

XII.     3.  "  not  to  be  highminded  above  what  he  ought  to  be  minded  ; 
but  to  be  so  minded  as  to  be  soberminded  "  :  "  not  to 
think  of  himself  more  highly  than  he  ought  to  think  ; 
but  so  to  think  as  to  think  soberly  " 
following  after  hospitality  "  :  "  given  to  hospitality  " 
be  not  highminded"  :  pro.  "mind  not  high  things":  ad. 
"  set  not  your  mind  on  high  things  " 
XIV.  23.  "it  is  not"  :  " he  eateth  not"  (A.  V.). 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  595 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

I.     2.  Insert  "  them  that  are  "  before  "  sanctified  " 
3.  "grace"  :  "Grace" 

11.  "shewn"  :  pro.  "made  known"  :  ad.  "signified" 

12.  "and  this  I  say"  :  "Xo\v  this  I  mean" 
22.  Dele  "likewise"  before  "Greeks" 

II.     4.   "my  message"  :  "my  preaching"  (A.  V.). 
VII.  26.  "  necessity  "  (E.  I.)  :  "  distress  "  (A.  V.). 

37.   "virgin"  :  "virgin  daughter'1'1 
IX.   17.   "willingly"  :  "of  mine  own  will" 

"  unwillingly  "  :  "  not  of  mine  owrri  will" 
19.   "  being"  free  :  pro.  "  though  I  am  "  :  ad.  "  though  I  was  " 
X.     2.  "into  Moses"  :  "unto  Moses" 
XL     7.   "a  man"  :  "a  man  indeed"  (A.  V.). 
XIII.     1,  2,  3.  "and  have  not"  :  "  but  have  not" 

5.  "  reckoneth  not  the  evil"  (E.  I.):  "taketh  not  account  of  evil" 

12.  "in  a  glass"  :  "in  a  mirror"  ;  and  2  Cor.  iii.  18. 

13.  "greater":  "greatest";  margin,  "  Gr.,  greater" 
22.  "  wherefore  the  tongues  "  :  dele  "  the  " 

1.   "declare"  :  "make  known" 

Dele  "as  touching"  before  "  the  gospel" 
34.  "  as  is  right  "  :  "  righteously  " 
XVI.   12.  "God's  will"  (E.  I.)  :  "his  will" 

"that  he  should  come"  :  "to  come" 


2  CORINTHIANS. 

III.  13.   "Moses  put"  :  "  Moses,  who  put " 

IV.  8.  "afflicted"  :  "pressed" 

15.   "having   multiplied   may  through   the   many"   :   "being 

multiplied  through  the  many  may" 
V.  21.  "sin  for  us"  :  "sin  on  our  behalf" 
VII.     2.  Margin,  "  Gr.,  Contain  us  "  :  "  Make  room  for  us" 

"defrauded"  :  "took  advantage  of" 
VIII.     3.  "  of  their  own  "  :  "  they  gave  of  their  own  " 

4.  "  they  offered  the  grace  "  :  "  for  the  grace  "  :  ad.  "  in  regard 

of  "'etc. 

17.  "for  he  accepted"  :  "for  indeed  he  accepted" 
IX.  13.  "  for  the  subjection  of  your  profession  to  the  gospel  "  :  "  for 
the  obedience  of  your  confession  unto  the  gospel " 


596  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

X.     8.  Dele   "  an   authority "   and   enclose  "  which  .   .  .  down " 

in(     ). 

9.  "  as  it  were  to  "  :  "  as  if  I  would  "  (A.  V.). 
10.  "forcible"  :  "strong" 

12.  "do  not  understand"  :  "are  without  understanding" 
XI.     2.  "have  espoused"  :  dele  "have" 

"may  present"  :  "might  present" 

6.  "in  everything  we  have  made  manifest  the  gospel  among 

all  men  unto  you  "  :  "  in  everything  we  have  made  it 
manifest  among  all  men  to  you-ward  " 
20.  "  taketh  you"  :  pro.  "catcheth  you"  :  ad.  "  taketh  you 

captive" 
23.  "  I  am  more  than  they  "  :  "  I  more  " 

"  exceedingly  " :  pro. "  beyond  measure" :  ad,  "above  measure" 
XIII.     3.  "mighty"  :  "powerful" 

4.  "might"  (E.  I.)  :  "power"  bis. 

7.  "should"  :  "may"  bi-s. 

GALATIANS. 

II.     G.  "what  they  once  Avere"  (E.  I.)  :  "whatsoever  they  were" 

(from  margin), 
"imparted  nothing  more"  :  "imparted  nothing" 

16.  "  works  of  law  "  :  "  works  of  the  law  "  bis,  and  iii.  5. 
"  except  it  be  "  :  pro.  "  but "  :  ad.  "  save  " 

III.  11.   "  in  the  law  "  :  "  by  the  law  "  ;  margin,  "  Gr.,  in" 

IV.  11.   ''I  have  toiled  for  you"  :  "I  have  bestowed  labour  upon 

you"  (A.  V.). 

17.  "zealously  court  you  "  (E.  I.)  :  "zealously  seek  you" 

18.  "courted"  (E.I.)  :  "sought";  (.)  after  "you"  instead 

of(,). 

19.  "my"  :  "My" 

V.     4.  "  put  away  "  :  "  severed" 
"  fallen  "  :  "  fallen  away  " 

13.  "For  ye  -were  called  .  .  .  brethren"  :  "For  ye,  brethren, 

were  called  " 

EPHESIANS. 

II.     6.  "raised  us  up"  :  "raised  us  up  with  him" 
"to  sit  together"  :  "to  sit  with  him" 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  597 


II.   15.  "even  the  enmity,  in  his  flesh,  having  abolished"  : 
abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity  " 

16.  "slain  the  enmity  in  it"  :  "slain  the  enmity  thereby" 

III.  17.  "ye  being  rooted"  :  "to  the  end  that  ye,"  etc. 

18.  "that  ye  may  have  strength"  :  pro.  "may  be  fully  able"  : 
ad.  "may  be  strong" 

21.  Insert  "Amen"  at  end  of  verse. 

IV.  21.  "by  him"  :  "in  him" 

22.  "  decayeth  according  to"  :  "  waxeth  corrupt  after" 

V.  19.  "speaking  to  yourselves"   :    "speaking  one  to  another"  ; 

and  Colos.  iii.  16. 
VI.   13.  "take  up  unto  you"  :  "take  up" 

24.  "in  iucorruption "  :  pro.  "with  a  love  incorruptible"  :  ad. 
" in  uncorruptness " 

PlIILIPPIAXS. 

I.     8.  "compassions"  (E.I.)  :   pro.  "tenderness"  :   ad.  "tender 

mercies  " 
10.  "  giving  no  offence  "  :  "  void  of  offence  " 

17.  "supposing"  :  "thinking" 

20.  "  ashamed  "  :  "  put  to  shame  " 
28.  "to  them"  :  "for  them" 

II.     3.  "themselves"  :  "himself " 
4.  "on  his  own"  :  "to  his  own" 
8.  "unto  death"  :  "even  unto" 
10.  "in  earth"  :  "on  earth" 

12.  ( ; )  after  "  trembling  "  instead  of  ( . ). 

22.  "unto"  :  "in  furtherance  of" 

IV.     7.  "  keep  your  hearts  "  :  "  guard  your  hearts  " 

8.  "make  account  of"  (E.  I.) :  "  think  on"  (A.  V.). 

13.  " enableth  me"  :  pro.  "giveth  me  power"  :  ad.  "strength- 

eneth  me"  (A.  V.). 

21.  "chiefly"  :  "especially" 

COLOSSIANS. 
I.     2.  "  holy  "  :  exchange  with  margin,  "  saints  " 

14.  "the  redemption"  :  "our  redemption" 

23.  "  be  not  moved  away  "  :  dele  "  be  " 

II.     1.  "with  how  great  striving  I  contend"  :  pro.  "how  great  a 
contest  I  have  "  :  ad.  "  how  greatly  I  strive  " 


LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

II.  10.  "fulfilled"  :  "made  full" 

18.  "taking  his  stand  upon"  :  "dwelling  in" 
28.  "  not  of  any  value  "  :  "  but  are  not  of  any  value  " 
IV.     2.  "instant"  :  pro.  " stedfast "  :  ad.  "stedfastly" 
o.  "would  open"  :  "may  open" 

"a  door   of  utterance"    :    "a  door  for   the  word"  ;  from 
margin. 

1  TlIESSALONIANS. 

II.     2.  "with  much  contention"  :  "in  much  conflict" 
4.  "put  in  trust"  :  "intrusted" 

7.  "babes"  :  "gentle" 

13.  "of  us"  :  "from  us" 

IV.     (>.  "forewarned  you"  :  pro.  "told  you  before"  :  ad.  in  margin, 
"  told  you  plainly  " 

2  TlIESSALOXIANS. 

1.   11.   "the  calling"  :  "your  calling" 

II.     4.  "  an  object  of  worship  "  :  "that  is  worshipped  ''  (A.  V.). 
0.  "to  the  intent"  :  "to  the  end" 
"his  season"  :  "his  own  season" 

8.  "appearing  of  his  presence"  (E.  I.)  :  "manifestation  of  his 

coming  " 
III.     0.   "  power  ":  "the  right" 

1  TIMOTHY. 

1.     5.  "Xow"  :  "But" 

10.  "whoremongers"  :  "fornicators" 

12.  "to  minister"  (E.  I.)  :  "to  his  service" 
III.     7.  "a  good  report  of"  :  "good  testimony  from" 
V.     6.  "  liveth  in  pleasure  "  :  "  giveth  herself  to  pleasure  " 

11.  "come  to  wax"  :  pro.  "have  grown"  :  ad.  "have  waxed" 

14.  "women":  "widows" 

22.  "thine  own  self"  :  "thyself" 

25.  "be  otherwise"  :  "are  otherwise" 

VI.     2.  "  the  more  ":"  the  rather  " 

8.  "other"  :  "a  different" 

10.  "  all  evil "  :  "  all  kinds  of  evil  "  ;  so  E.  I. 


LIST   OF   CHANGES.  599 

2  TIMOTHY. 

I.  14.  "  by  "  :  "  through  " 

II.  14.  "testifying  unto"  :  "charging" 

18.  "who  concerning  the  truth"  :  "men  who"  etc. 

19.  "iniquity":  "unrighteousness" 
25.  "might"  :  "may" 

III.  9.   "llowbeit"  :  pro.  "Yet"  :  ad.  "But" 

IV.  1.  "  I  protest  "  :  "  I  charge  thee  "  (A.  V.). 

3.  "having  itching  ears"  after  "but,"  instead  of  "teachers" 

6.  In  margin,  "poured"  :  "poured  out" 

16.  "supported  me"  :  pro.  "was  by  my  side"  :  ad.  "took  my 
part " 

TITUS. 
I.     5.  "are  wanting"  :  "were  wanting" 

8.  "a  lover  of  hospitality"  :  "given  to  hospitality  " 

12.  "slow  bellies"  :  "idle  gluttons" 

II.  1.  "become"  :  "befit" 

4.  dele  margin  "  discipline  " 

7.  "  a  pattern  "  :  "  an  ensample  " 

III.     1.  "principalities"  :  pro.  "governments"  :  ad.  "rulers" 

5.  "  the  laver  "  (E.  I.)  :  pro.  "  a  washing  "  :  ad.  "  the  washing" 
"the  renewing"  :  pro.  "a  renewing"  :  ad.  "renewing" 

PHILEMON. 

2.  "our  sister"  :  "the  sister"     Put  in  margin. 

HEBREWS. 
I.     2.  "  by  whom  "  :  "  through  whom  " 

8.  "a  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom"  :  "the  sceptre,"  etc. 

II.  10.  "having  brought"  :  "in  bringing"     Text  in  margin. 
14.  "Forasmuch  then  as"  :  "Since  then" 

III.  2,  5,  6.  "his  house"  :  pro.  "llis"  :  margin  added,  "That  is,  God's 

house" 

3.  "insomuch"  :  pro.  "by  as  much"  :  ad.  "by  so  much" 

13.  "  daily  "  :  "  day  by  day  " 

14.  dele  (     ). 

"partakers  of  Christ"  :  add  in  margin,  "  Or,  with  Christ" 

IV.  2.  "  a  gospel "  :  "  good  tidings  " 

8.  "  would  he  not "  :  "  lie  would  not " 
10.  <l  himself  also  hath  "  :  "  hath  himself  also  " 


GOO  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

IV.   12.  "of  joints  and  marrow"  :  "of  both  joints  and  marrow  " 

14.  "  profession  "  :  "  confession  " 

15.  "but  that"  :  "but  one  that" 

V.     9.  Arrangement  (that  of  A.  V.)  changed. 
VI.   13.  "  because  ;' :"  since  " 

20.  "as  our  forerunner"  :  "as  a  forerunner" 
VII.   19.   "  bringing  in  ":"  bringing  in  thereupon" 

VIII.     4.  "  have  been  a  priest  "  :  "  be  a  priest  " 

f>.  "  serve  an  example  "  :  "  serve  that  u'hich  is  a  copy  " 

G.   "  was  established  "  :  pro.  "  hath  been  established  "  :  ad. 

"hath  been  enacted" 
IX.     1.  "Even  the   first  covenant  then"  :   "Now  even  the  first 

covenant " 
2.  "  are"  :  "were" 
4.  "  is"  :  "  icas  " 
9.  "unto  the  time"  :  "for  the  time" 

"perfect  .  .  .  him  that  doeth  the  service"  :  "make  the 
worshipper  perfect" 

10.  "(which  rest  only  on  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  wash 

ings)"  :  "being  onlv  (with  meats,  etc.)" 

11.  In  margin,  "have  come"  :  "are  come" 

12.  "gained"  :  "obtained" 

22.  "  blood  is  "  :  "  blood  there  is  " 

24.  "  to  be  manifested  "  :  "  to  appear  "  (A.  V.). 
28.  "without  sin"  :  "apart  from  sin" 

X.  1C.  Arrangement  changed  :  "  upon  their  mind  also  will  I  write  " 

25.  "manner"  :  "custom" 

34.  "ye  have  yourselves  for  a  better  possession"  (E.  I.)  :  "ye 

yourselves  have  a  better  "  etc.     Exch.  marg.  and  text. 
XI.  17.  "and  he  that  had  received"  :  pro.  "yea,  he  that  had  ac 
cepted"  :  ad.  "yea,  he  that  had  gladly  received" 
XII.  15.  "many  be  defiled"  :  "the  many"  etc. 

22.  "innumerable  hosts"  ;  add  in  marg.,  "Gr.,  myriads" 
XIII.  20.  "  by  the  blood  "  :  "  with  the  blood  " 

JAMES. 

I.     2.  "among  "  :  "into" 

21.  "superfluity"  :  pro.  "excess"  :  ad.  "overflowing" 

23.  "  any  be  "  :  "  any  one  is  " 

II.     3.  "  in  honour  "  :  "  in  a  good  place  "  (A.  V.)  :  pro.  for  marg. 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  601 

II.     8.  "yet  if  "  :  pro.  "if  however"  :  ad.  "howbeit  if" 
9.  "  work  sin  "  :  "  commit  sin  "  (A.  V.). 
13.  "glorieth  over"  :  "  glorieth  against"  (A.  V.). 
22.   "his  faith  wrought "  :  dele  "his" 

III.  15.  "This  wisdom  is  not  one"  :  pro.  "This  is  not  a  wisdom 

that"  :  ad.  "This  wisdom  is  not  a  wisdom  that" 
17.  "doubtfulness"  :  pro.  "  partiality  "  (in  marg.)  :  ad.  "  vari 
ance" 

IV.  4.  "  desireth  to  be"  :  pro.  "chooseth  to  be"  :  ad.  "would  be" 
5.  "  planted  "  :  "  made  to  dwell  "  ;  both  in  text  and  margin. 

12.  "The  lawgiver  and  judge  is  one,  even  he"  :  "One  only  is 

the  lawgiver  and  judge,  he  " 
V.   13.  "  psalms  "  :  pro.  "  praises  "  :  ad.  "  praise  " 

1  FETKR. 

I.   12.  "  reported  "  :  pro.  "  declared  "  :  ad.  "announced" 

13.  "entirely"  :  "perfectly" 

20.  "  verily  was  foreknown  "  :  "  was  foreknown  indeed  " 

22.  "  with  a  clean  heart  "  :  "from  the  heart"    Exchange  marg. 

and  text. 

23.  "born  again"  :  "begotten  again" 

24.  "For"  put  at  end  of  line  preceding  :  "all"  :  "All" 
II.     2.  "  sincere  "  :  pro.  "  pure  "  :  ad.  "  which  is  without  guile  " 

12.  "  whereas  "  :  "  wherein  "  :  and  so  iii.  16. 
20.  "  be  buffeted  "  :  "  are  buffeted  " 

25.  "overseer"  :  "bishop"  (A.  V.). 
III.     3.  "  that  outward  "  :  "  the  outward  " 

V.     2.  "feed"  :  "tend" 

3.  "exercising  lordship"  :  "lording  it"  ;  from  margin. 

2  PETER. 

I.     1.  "Symeon  "  :  "Simon"     Exchange  margin  and  text. 

8.  "  being  yours  and  abounding  unto  you  "  :  pro.  "  belonging 
unto  you  and  abounding  "  :  ad.  "  are  yours  and  abound  " 
II.     1.  "were"  :  "arose" 

4.  "  into  dungeons  "  :  pro.  "  into  the  abyss"  :  ad.  "  to  hell " 
7.  "  oppressed  "  :  pro.  "  wearied  out "  :  ad.  "  sore  distressed  " 

10.  "dignities  "  ;  add  marg.,  "  Gr.,  glories"  ;  and  so  Jude  8. 
15.  "  Beor  "  ;  add  marg.  note  of  the  reading  Bosor. 


602  LIST   OF    CHANGES. 

III.  12.  "hastening"  :  pro.  "eagerly  desiring"  :  ad.  "earnestly  de 
siring"  ;  margin,  "Or,  hastening" 

1  JOHN. 

II.     1.  "sin  not"  :  "may  not  sin" 

3.  "  perceive  we  "  :  "  know  we  "  ;  and  so  vs.  5,  18,  etc. 
V.   1C.   "sin  a  sin"  :  "sinning  a  sin  " 
"of"  :  "concerning" 

2  JOHN. 

9.  gocth  "before"  :  pro.  "forward"  :  ad.  "onward" 

3  JOHN. 

3.  "  I  rejoice  greatly,  when  brethren  come  and  bear  witness  "  : 

"  I  rejoiced  greatly,  when  brethren  came  and  bare  wit 
ness  " 
8.  "  support  "  :  pro.  "  sustain  "  :  ad.  "  welcome  " 

Jl'DK. 

4.  "sentence"  :  pro.  "judgement"  :  ad.  "condemnation" 

7.  "  as  an  example  of  eternal  fire,  suffering  punishment  ".:  "  as 

an  example,  suffering  the  punishment  of  eternal  fire" 
Text  and  margin  exchanged. 

8.  "  dreamers  also"  :  pro.  "  also,  dreaming  "  :  ad.  "  also  in  their 

dream  ings  " 

12.  "shepherds  to  themselves"  :  "shepherds  that  feed  them 
selves" 

REVELATION. 

1.     2.  "  of  the  witness  "  :  "  of  the  testimony  "  ;  and  ver.  9,  vi.  9. 
16.  "  went  "  :  pro.  "  went  forth  "  :  ad.  "  proceeded  " 
19.  "after  them"  :  "hereafter"  ;  and  so  iv.  1. 
II.   19.  "faith  and  love"  :  "love  and  faith" 

III.  2.  "perfect"  :  pro.  "perfected"  :  ad.  "fulfilled" 

IV.  1.  "open"  :  "opened" 

V.     1.  "  sitteth  "  :  "  sat "  ;  and  v.  7. 

9.  "  out  of  every  tribe  "  :  "  men  of  every  tribe  " 
VI.     8.  "  sat  thereon  "  :  "  sat  upon  him  " 

9.  "beneath  the  altar"  :  "underneath  the  altar" 
VII.  12.  "all  blessing"   :  pro.  "the  blessing"  from  margin  :  ad. 

blessing  " 
"  unto  our  God  "  :  "  be  unto  our  God  " 


LIST   OF   CHANGES.  603 

VII.   15.  "  tabernacle  among  them  "  :  "  spread  his  tabernacle  over 

them  "  ;  from  margin. 

IX.     6.  "  mankind  shall  seek  "  :  "  men  shall  seek  " 
XI.     4.  "  which  are  before  the  Lord  of  the  earth,  and  there  stand  " : 
"  which  stand  (standing)  before  the  Lord  of  the  earth  " 


II.    SUGGESTIONS    OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    PUT 
IN    MARGIN. 

MATTHEW. 

I.  1.  "The  book  of  generation  "  :  "The  genealogy" 
11,  12,  17.  "  carrying  away  "  :  "  removal  " 

Y.  35.  "  by  "  Jerusalem  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  toward  " 
VI.   19.  "break  through"  :  Gr.,  "dig  through"  ;  and  xxiv.  43. 
VIII.     8.  "  say  in  a  word  "  (E.  I.) :  Gr.,  "  with  a  word  " 

20.   "  nests  "  :  Gr.,  "  lodging  places  " 
IX.     6,8.   "  power  ":"  authority  " 

X.   21.  "cause  them  to  be  put  to  death"  :  add  marg.  "Or,  put 
them  to  death  "  ;  and  so  Luke  xxi.  16  ;  Mark  xiii.  12. 
XI.  17.  did  not  "mourn"  :  Gr.,  "beat  the  breast" 
XII.  32.  "world"  :  add  marg.  "Or,  age"  ;  so  elsewhere. 
XIV.   19.  "sit  down"  :  Gr.,  "recline"  ;  and  so  elsewhere. 

This  explanation  becomes  important  in  such  passages  as 

Luke  vii.  38  and  John  xiii.  23. 

XVII.     4.  "  tabernacles  "  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  booths  "  ;  and  Mark  ix.  5. 
XXIII.  23.  "  anise  "  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  dill  " 
XXVI.  41.  add  margin,  "Watch  ye,  and  pray  that  ye  enter  not"  ; 

and  so  Mark  xiv.  38. 
XXVII.  28.  "stripped"  :  Some  ancient  authorities  read  "clothed" 

MARK. 
XIV.  68.   "  porch  ":  Gr.,  "  forecourt  " 

LUKE. 

II.  ]  9,  51.  "  sayings  "  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  things  " 

49.  restore  in  marg.  "about  my  Father's  business" 
VI.  35.  (A.  V.)  "hoping  for  nothing  again"  (E.  I.)  :  "never  de 
spairing"  ;  add  margin,  as  a  various  reading,  "de 
spairing  of  no  man  " 
XV.  16.  "husks"  :  Gr.,  "pods  of  the  carob  tree" 


604  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

XVII.   18.  "stranger"  :  "alien" 
XX.  16.  "God  forbid"  :  Gr.,  "Be  it  not  so" 

JOHN. 
II.   10,20,21.  "temple"  <   add  marg.  "Or,  sanctuary"  ;  and  so 

in  other  places  where  vaoQ  occurs. 

VII.  20,21.  "marvel.     For  this  cause  hath  Moses  given  ":"  mar 
vel  because  of  this.     Moses  hath  given  " 
VIII.   58.   "Abraham  was"   :  "was  born"  :  ad.  marg.  "Gr.,  was 

born  " 
XI.  38.   "against  it"  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  upon  it" 

45.   "that    which"   :    Many  ancient   authorities    read   "the 

things  which" 

XII.  27.   "hour"  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  hour  ?" 
XVIII.   12.   "chief  captain"  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  military  tribune  ;  Gr., 

chiliarch  "  ;  and  so  elsewhere. 
XIX.  23.  "coat"  :  add  marg.  "Or,  tunic" 
XX.  1 7.  "  Touch  me  not  "  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  Take  not  hold  on  me  " 

ACTS. 

II.  23.   "lawless  men"  :  add  marg.  "Or,  men  without  the  law" 
III.   13.   "Servant"  :  add  marg.  " Or,  Child,"  etc. 

22.   "  like  unto  me  "  :  "as  he  raised  up  me  "  :  text  in  marg. 
V.     0.   "young  ":  "younger  " 

VI.     2.  "fit"  :"  pleasing"  :  marg.  "Gr.,  pleasing" 
VII.  35.  "deliverer"  :  "redeemer  ":  marg.  "  Gr.,  redeemer " 
XIV.   15.  "passions  "  :  "nature"  ;  and  so  James  v.  17. 
XVII.  31.   "the  man":  "  a  man  " 
XVIII.     4.  "persuaded"  :  pro.  "exhorted"  :  with  marg.  "Or,  strove 

to  persuade  "  :  ad.  marg.  "Gr.,  sought  to  persuade  " 
XXI.  15.  "put  up  our  baggage"  :  "made  ready"  etc. 
XXIV.   17.  "many"  :  "some" 

18.  "amidst  which"  :  add  marg.  "Or,  \nprcscntiny  which" 
25.  "temperance"  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  self-control "  ;  and  so 
Gal.  v.  23  ;  2  Pet.  i.  6. 

ROMANS. 

I.  20.  "that  they  may  be"  :  add  marg.  "Or,  so  that  they  are" 
II.  13.  "just"  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  righteous  " 

"justified"  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  accounted  righteous" 


LIST    OF    CHANGES.  605 

1  CORINTHIANS. 
IX.  20.  "fight":  Gr.,  '"box" 

XV.     2.  "  iu  vain  "  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  without  cause  " 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

V.  17.  "he  -in  a  new  creature"  :  add  raarg.  "Or,  there  is  a  new 

creation  " 

XII.     1.  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  "Xow  to  glory  is  not  expe 
dient,  but  I  will  come" 

GALATIANS. 
I.   IS.  "visit"  :  "become  acquainted  with" 

EPHESIANS. 

I.     4,  5.  add  marg.  "Or,  him  :  having  in  love  foreordained  us" 
10.  "in  the  heavens"  :  Gr.,  "upon"  etc, 

PHILIPPIASS. 

II.   15.   "lights":  Gr.,  "  luminaries  " 
IV.  20.  "  for  ever  and  ever"  :  Gr.,  "  unto  the  ages  of  the  ages  " 

1  THESSALONIANS. 
IV.   14.  add.  marg.  "Or,  will  God  through  Jesus" 

1  TIMOTHY. 
III.   16.  "he  who"  :  Some  ancient  authorities  read  "  which" 

PHILEMON. 
4.  "  thy  love,  and  of  the  faith  "  :  "  thy  love  and  faith  " 

HEBREWS. 
II.     7,  9.  add  marg.  "  Or,  for  a  little  while  lower" 

18.  Or,  "For  having  been  himself  tempted  in  that  wherein  he 

hath  suffered  " 

V.   11.   "of  whom"  :  add  marg.  "Or,  of  which" 
VI.   11.  "fulness"  :  "full  assurance"  ;  and  so  x.  22. 
IX.  15,  17.  The  Greek  word  here  used  signifies  both  covenant  and 
testament. 


606  LIST    OF    CHANGES. 

IX.  26.  "by  the  sacrifice  of  himself"  :  "by  his  sacrifice" 
X.  11.  "priest"  :  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  "high  priest" 
12.  Or,  "  sins,  for  ever  sat  down  " 
38.  "  my  righteous  one  "  :  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  "  the 

righteous  one  " 
XIII.     7.  "  life  "  :  Gr.,  "  manner  of  life  " 

JAMES. 

I.   13.   "of  God"  :  "from  God"  :  ad.  marg.  "Gr.,  from" 
II.     4.  "are  ye  not  divided  in  your  own  mind"  :  "do  ye  not  make 

distinctions  among  yourselves  " 

III.  15.  add  to  margin,  "Or,  animal"  ;  and  Jude  19. 
V.     7.  "  it  receive  "  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  he  receive  " 

1  PETER. 
I.  23.  Or,  "  God  who  liveth  " 

II.  24.  "bare  our  sins  .   .  .  upon  the  tree"  :   "carried  up  our 
sins  .  .  .  upon  (to)  the  tree  " 

2  PETER. 

I.     4.  "  the  divine  nature  ":  "a  divine  nature  " 

17.  "  excellent  glory  "  :  "  majestic  glory  " 
II.  20.  Many  ancient  authorities  read,  "  our  Lord  " 

1  JOHN. 
III.     2.  Or,  "  it  shall  be  manifested  " 

2  Jonx. 

8.  Many  ancient  authorities  read,  "ye  have  wrought" 

JUDE. 

4.  add  marg.  "  Or,  the  only  Master,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  " 
22.  "  who  are  in  doubt"  :  "  while  they  dispute  with  you" 

REVELATION. 
VI.     1.  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  "  Come  and  see."     So  ver. 

3,  5,  7. 
8.  "  death  "  :  add  marg.  "  Or,  pestilence  " 


APPENDIX   V. 


ADOPTION    OF   THE   EEYISION  BY   THE 
BAPTISTS. 

A  FEW  days  after  this  book  was  completed  an  important  event  took 
place — the  first  formal  act  of  adoption  of  the  Revised  Version  by  an 
ecclesiastical  body. 

The  American  Baptists,  the  most  numerous  denomination  in  the 
United  States  next  to  the  Methodists,  and  the  pioneers  in  the  Bible 
Revision  work,  who  spent  much  money  and  labor  on  a  revision  of 
their  own  for  more  than  thirty  years,  held  a  Bible  Convention  in 
Saratoga  in  May,  1883 — the  most  widely  representative  Baptist  Conven 
tion  ever  held ;  and  after  a  full  discussion  of  the  whole  subject,  came 
to  the  unanimous  conclusion  to  adopt  and  circulate  through  their 
Publication  and  Missionary  Societies  the  Anglo- American  Revision, 
with  the  American  changes  incorporated  in  the  text,  together  with  the 
Authorized  Version  and  that  of  the  Baptist  "American  Bible  Union" 
(Dr.  Conant's),  according  to  the  desire  of  the  purchasers  and  donors. 
The  scene  of  rejoicing  over  this  unexpected  result  of  a  long  and  ex 
cited  contest  was  remarkable ;  and  the  assembly  which  crowded  the 
church  sang  "Blessed  the  tie  that  binds,"  and  "Praise  God  from 
whom  all  blessings  flow,"  with  an  enthusiasm  rarely  witnessed. 

The  action  was  undoubtedly  the  wisest  that  could  be  taken  by  that 
body.  Let  the  three  versions  be  used  together  in  friendly  rivalry  and 
co-operation,  until  the  best  will  supersede  the  others,  or  a  still  more 
perfect  one  will  take  the  place  of  all.  A  liberal  gentleman  has  already 
donated  to  the  Baptist  Board  of  Publication  electrotype  plates  of  an 
Americanized  edition  of  the  Revised  New  Testament  of  1881,  and 
much  money  has  been  contributed  towards  its  gratuitous  circulation. 
It  is  also  extensively  used  in  the  pulpits.  The  Baptists  have  broken 
the  ice  and  showed  the  way  to  other  denominations. 

The  following  is  the  adopting  act,  as  furnished  to  me  on  the  spot 
by  the  Secretary,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Morgan : 


608       ADOPTION  OF  THE  REVISION  BY  THE  BAPTISTS. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  The  Baptist  Bible  Convention,  held  in  Saratoga, 
N.  Y.,  May  22,  23,  1883,  at  which  there  were  present  and  voting  four 
hundred  and  thirty-six  delegates,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted 
unanimously: 

" '  Resolved  (4th),  That,  while  in  the  judgment  of  the  Convention 
the  work  of  revision  is  not  yet  completed,  whatever  organization  or 
organizations  shall  be  designated  as  the  most  desirable  for  the  prose 
cution  of  Home  Bible  work  among  American  Baptists  should  no\v 
circulate  the  commonly  received  version,  The  New  Revised  Version, 
u'itlt  the  corrections  of  the  American  Revisers  incorporated  in  the  tcxf, 
and  the  translation  of  "The  American  Bible  Union,"  according  to  de 
mand;  and  that  all  moneys  specially  designated  for  circulation  of 
either  of  these  versions  should  be  faithfully  appropriated  in  keeping 
with  the  wish  of  the  donor.' 

"Attest;  THOMAS  J.  MORGAN,  Secretary." 


ALPHABETICAL    INDEX. 


A. 

Abbot,  Dr.  Ezra,  84,  101  sq.,  105 
(note),  191  (note),  241  (note), 
252,  260,  366,  576. 

Abbott,  T.  K.,  102. 

Adler,  252. 

^Ethiopic  Version,  159  sq. 

Aiken,  Dr.,  575. 

Alepb,  Codex.     See  Sinaitic  MS. 

Alexander,  Dr.  W.  Lindsay,  384, 
572. 

Alexander  II.,  connection  with 
Sinaitic  MS.,  103,  108,  261. 

Alexandrian  or  Egyptian  text,  275. 

Alexandrian  MS.  (A),  111  sq. 

Alford,  Dr.  Henry,  83,  266  sqq., 
383,  367,  467,  573. 

Alter,  F.  C.,  253. 

American  Bible  Society,  392. 

American  Revision  Committee, 
when  and  how  appointed,  391 ; 
constitution,  396 ;  relation  to 
British  Committee  and  Univer 
sity  Presses,  398  ;  share  in  the 
work,  478  ;  Appendix,  482  ;  list 
of  members,  575-577  ;  list  of 
changes  adopted,  579-606. 

American  Editions  of  Revised 
New  Testament,  371. 

American  Episcopal  Church,  en 
dorsed  King  James's  Version, 
333  ;  invited  to  co-operate  with 
Revision,  394. 

Anderson,  Christopher,  299. 

Andrewes,  Bishop,  320,  332. 

39 


Angus,  Dr.,  384,  392,  491,  574. 

Anthem,  the  angelic  (Luke  ii.  14), 
195. 

Apocalypse,  style  of,  75  sqq. 

Apocrypha,  revision  of,  390. 

Apostle,  485. 

Apostles  and  the  Greek  Language, 
16  sq. 

Apostolic  Greek,  25  sqq. 

Archaisms,  342  sq.,  456  sqq. 

Armenian  Version,  163. 

Augustin,  St.,  144,  145. 

Authorized  Version,  299,  303;  ori 
gin,  312;  instructions  to  the 
translators,  317;  reception,  3 25  ; 
merits,  337  ;  English  style,  845  ; 
defects,  347. 

B. 

Bngster's  Ilexapla,  299. 

Bancroft,  Bishop,  313  sq.,  317,  319. 

Barker,  printer  of  Authorized  Ver 
sion,' 319,  329. 

Bashmuric  Version,  159. 

Beckett,  Sir  Edmund,  378,  474. 

Bengel,  246  sq.,  263. 

Bensly,  Robert  L.,  572. 

Bentley,  Richard,  244  sqq. 

Beza,  237  sqq. 

Beza?,  Codex  (D),  122  sq. 

Bible  and  Christianity,  305. 

Bibliographical  Works  on  the 
English  Bible,  300. 

Bickerstcth,  Dr.  E.  II.,  383,  573. 

Birch,  252. 

Birrell,  Prof.,  572. 


010 


INDEX. 


Blackie,  on  the  Greek  article,  470, 

472. 

Blakesley,  Dean,  573. 
Blayney's  Revision,  325. 
British    Committee,   organization 

and   rules   of,  5382    sqq. ;   work 

of,  387  sqq. 

Broughton,  Hugh,  291  sq.,  326. 
Brown,  Dr.  David,  384,  574. 
Browne,  Bishop,  383,  571. 
Bruder's  Concordance,  3. 
Burgon,  Dean,  84,   10S,    119  ?q., 

191,  293  sq.,  378,425,491. 
Burr,  Dr.,  570. 
Buttmann,  Alexander,  2. 


Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible,  304. 

Canterbury  Convocation,  action 
of,  380  sqq. 

Chambers,  Dr.,  575. 

Chance,  Frank,  572. 

Chase,  Prof.,  570. 

Chenery,  Thomas,  384,  572. 

Cheyne,  Thomas  Kelly,  572. 

Christ  and  the  Greek  Language, 
12  sqq. 

Christian  Element  in  Xew  Testa 
ment  Greek,  39  sqq. 

Christian  Opinion  and  Revision 
ist,  379. 

Chrysostom,  105,  168. 

Codex  Alexandrinus  (A),  111; 
Bezae  (  D  ),  122;  Clarornonta- 
nus  (Da),  124;  Ephrsomi  (C), 
120;  Sinaiticus  (x),  108;  Vati- 
canus(B),  113.  See  Manuscripts. 

Coins,  rendering  of,  487  sqq. 

Colinaeus,  230. 

Complutensian  Polyglot,  232  sqq. 

Conant,  Dr.,  299,  575. 

Conant,  Mrs.  H.  C.,  299  sqq. 

Concordances  of  the  Revised  Ver 
sion,  373  sqq. 

Condit,  300. 

Convocation  of  Canterbury,  action 
on  Revision,  380  sqq. 


Cook,  Canon,  191,  3C5,  378,  384, 

419,  425  sqq.,  491. 
Coverdale,  303,  338,  339. 
Cremer's  Lexicon,  2. 
Critical  Rules,  202  sqq. 
Crooks,  Dr.,  570. 
Crosby,  Dr.,  343,  570. 
Curetonian  Syriac,  150. 
Cursive  Manuscripts,  133  sqq. 

D. 

Davies,  Benjamin,  360,  384,  572. 

Davidson,  Andrew  Bruce,  572. 

Davidson,  Randall  T.,  332. 

Davidson,  Samuel,  83,  300,  384. 

Day,  Dr.,  393,  575. 

Deiitzsch,  4,  13. 

De  Witt,  Dr.,  575. 

Diodati,  3. 

Douglas,  Principal,  572. 

Doxology  of  the   Lord's    Prayer, 

180. 

Driver,  Samuel  R.,  572. 
Dwigiit,  Dr.  Timothy,  483,  576. 


Eadie,  Dr.,  300,  324,  325,  329,  3^0, 
384,  574. 

Egyptian  Versions,  157  sqq. 

Ell'icott,  Bishop,  85,  297,  374,  370, 
383,  392,  573. 

Elzevir,  240  sq. 

English  Bible,  literature  on  the 
history  of  the,  299. 

English  Style  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  345  sqq. ;  of  the  Re 
vised  Version,  455  sqq. 

Ephraemi,  Codex,  120  sq. 

Erasmus,  229  sqq. 

Eusebius,  165,  168. 

Evidential  Value  of  the  Language 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  80. 

Ewald,  297,  312. 

F. 

Faber,  F.William,  on  the  Author 
ized  Version,  346. 


INDEX. 


Oil 


Faifbairn,  Dr.,  r»S4,  572. 

Farrar,  Cation,  05,  85. 

Field,  Dr.,  375,  334,  572. 

Five  Anglican  Clergymen,  307. 

Foreign  Words  in  New  Testament, 

number  and  value  of,  38  sq. 
Forshall,  302. 
Fry,  301,  802,  303. 
Fuller,  Thomas,  315,310,  328,  330. 


Gardiner,  F.,  84. 

Gebhardt,  Oscar  von,  1,  81.  2  !5. 

Gcden,  Prof.,  572. 

(Jell,  Robert,  327. 

Genealogical  Method,  208  sqq. 

(icneva  Bible,  828,  332. 

Ginsburg,  Dr.,  384,  572. 

"God"  manifested  in  the  Hesh, 
199. 

Godet,  Dr.,  08. 

Goethe,  45,  312. 

Gospel,  meaning  of,  40. 

Gotch,  Dr.,  366,  384,  572. 

Gothic  Version,  100  sqq. 

Greek  and  English  compared, 
17  sqq. 

Greek  Fathers,  quotations  of, 
107  sqq. 

Greek  Language,  spread  of,  4  sqq. 

Greek  Testament,  style  of,  43  sqq. ; 
evidential  value  of,  80  sqq. 

Greek  Text  of  the  Revised  Ver 
sion,  420  sqq 

Green,  Dr.  William  Henry,  480, 575, 

Green,  Samuel  G.}  2,  393. 

Green,  Thomas  Sheldon,  2,  84. 

Gregory,  Dr.  C.  R.,  44,  82,  200. 

Griesbach,  82,  250  sqq. 

Grimm,  C.  L.  W.,  2. 

Grimm,  Jacob,  18. 

Guillemard,  4. 

II. 

Hackctt,  Dr.,  570. 
Hadley,  Prof.,4,  576. 
Hall,  Dr.  I.  H.,  137  sqq.,  497-5-4. 


Ilallam,  on    the   Authorized   Ver 
sion,  345. 
Hammond,  84. 
Hampton    Court   Conference,  312 

sqq. 

Hare,  Dr.,  575. 
Harrison,  Archdeacon,  571. 
Hebraisms  in  the  Nc\v  Testament, 

27  sqq. 

Hellenistic  Dialect,  22  sq. 
llervey,  Bishop,  383,  571. 
Hitchcock,  Dr.,  Editor  of  Revised 

Version,  372. 
Ilobart,  on  the  Medical  Language 

of  Luke,  54. 

Hodge,  Dr.  Charles,  570. 
Holtzmann,  44. 
Hort,    120,    123,    185,    194,    2(18, 

280,  384,   574.      &«•    \Ycslcott 

and  Hort. 

Hudson's  Concordance,  3. 
Hug,  3,  11,251,253. 
Humphry,  377,  384,  491,  574. 


Itala,  144  sqq. 


j; 


James,  King,  312  sqq. 

James's  Version.     ticc  Authorized 

Version. 

Jebb,  Canon,  572. 
Jerome,  1,  148  sq.,  170  and  passim. 
Jerusalem  Chamber,  388  sq. 
Jerusalem  Syriac,  157. 
Jesus  Nazarenus  Rex  Judaeorum, 

4  sqq. 
Jews  and  the  Greek   Language, 

8  sqq. 

John,  style  of,  66  sqq. 
Josephus,  11. 

K. 

Kay,  Dr.,  573. 
Keim,  67. 

Kendrick,  Dr.,  577. 
Kennedy,  Dr.,  376,  384,  574. 


012 


INDEX. 


Krauth,  Dr.,  575. 
Kuenen,  83. 
Kiister,  244. 

L. 

Laclimann,  1,  82,  254  sqq. 

Lunge's  Commentary,  305  (note). 

Latin  Fathers,  quotations  of,  101) 
sq. 

Latinisms,  35  sqq. 

Latin  Versions,  144  sqq. 

Law  and  the  law,  472. 

Leary,  378. 

Leatiies,  384,  572. 

Lee,  Archdeacon,  384,  574. 

Lee,  Bishop, 370, 479, 577, 5 79-000. 

Leo  Judie,  323. 

Lewis,  Dr.  Tayler,  575. 

Lightt'oot,  Bishop,  331,  375,  384, 
487,  573. 

Lightf'oot,  John,  320. 

Lincoln,  Bishop  of.  See  Words 
worth. 

Loftie,  301. 

London  Times,  307. 

Luke,  style  of,  54  sqq. 

Lumby,  Dr.,  572. 

Liinemann,  1. 

Luther,  323. 

M. 

Macedonian  Dialect,  19  sqq. 

McClellan,  John  Brown,  300. 

McGill,  Prof.,  572. 

.Madden,  302. 

Malan,  S.  C.,  879. 

Manuscripts,  Uncial,  82  sqq. ; 
specimens  of,  91  sq. ;  descrip 
tion  of,  93  sqq.;  Cursive,  133 
sqq. 

Mark,  style  of,  51  sqq.  ;  last 
verses  of,  189  sq. 

Marsh,  Dr.  G.  P.,  345. 

Martin,  Gregory,  320. 

Matthaei,  252. 

Matthew,  style  of,  40  sqq. 

Matthew's  Bible,  303. 


McGill,  384,  572. 

Mead,  Dr.,  480,  575. 

Medical  Vocabulary  of  Luke,  54. 

Memphitic  Version,  158. 

Merivale,  Dean,  573. 

Merrill,  84. 

Middleton,  on   the   Greek    article, 

472. 

Mill,  244. 

Milligan,375,  384,  574. 
Mitchell,  84. 

Moberly,  Bishop,  383,  573. 
Moldenhawer,  252. 
Mombert,  Dr.,  300. 
Montfortianus,  Codex,  130. 
Moon,  G.  Washington,  378. 
Moulton,  Dr.  W.  J<\,   1,  300,   339, 

384,  470,  574. 


Xautical  Vocabulary  of  Luke,  00 

sq. 

Neutral  Text,  275  sqq. 
Newman,  Cardinal,  384. 
Newth,  Dr.,  375,  384,  574. 
Nicholson,  Edward  Byron,  370. 
Nicolson,  \VT.  Millar,  375. 
Norton,  Andrews,  300. 
Noyes,  G.  R.,  300. 

0. 

O'Callaghan,  301,  329  (note). 

Oliivant,  383,  571. 

Origen,  104,  105,  108  and  passim. 

Osborne,  377. 

Osgood,  Dr..  575. 

Overall,  320. 

Oxford  and  Cambridge  University 
Editions  of  Revised  New  Testa 
ment,  371. 

P. 

Packard,  Dr.,  575. 
Palmer,  Archdeacon,  85,  285,  297, 

370,  574. 
Papias,  51. 
Patristic  Quotations,  104  sqq. 


INDEX. 


613 


Paul,  style  of,  62  sqq. 

Peculiarities  of  style  of  Xew  Tes 
tament  writers,  43  sqq. 

Penny,  487  sqq. 

Peshito  Version,  152  sqq. 

Perowne,  384,  571. 

Pi'unnkuc'he,  3. 

Philoxcnian  or  Harclean  Version, 
154. 

Plumptrc,  384,  571. 

Porter,  J.  Scott,  83. 

Pressense,  66. 

Public  Opinion,  379. 

Pust-y,  384. 

Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  Testa 
ment,  history  of,  225  sqq. 

K. 

Renan,  on  Luke,  54  ;  on  Paul,  66. 

Reuss,4,  84. 

Revision,  preparations  for,  364 ; 
books  on,  374;  publication, 
403;  criticised,  411  sqq. 

Reynolds,  Dr.,  313  sqq.,  320. 

Riddle,  Dr.,  365,  577. 

Roberts,  Alexander,  4,  375,  384, 
574. 

Robertson,  F.  W.,  311. 

Robinson,  Edward,  2. 

Ronsch,  144. 

Rose,  Archdeacon,  571. 

Rossanensis  Codex,  131  sq. 

Rossi,  G.  Bern,  de,  3. 

Rules,  critical,  202  sqq. ;  of  Au 
thorized  Version,  317;  of  Re 
vised  Version,  382,  383. 


Saint,  in  the  titles,  484. 
Samson,  $79. 
Sanday,  85. 
Saravia,  320. 
Sayce,Prof.,  572. 
Schaff,  Dr.,  375,  393,  577. 
Schirlitz,  2. 
Scholz,  82,  253  sq. 
Scott,  Dean,  384,  573. 


rivener,  Dr.,  83,  96,   104,   120, 

192,  282    sqq.,   304,   321,   324, 

325,  384,  390,  419,  423,  574. 
Scrivener  and  Palmer,  282  sqq. 
Selden,  John,  on  the  Authorized 

Version,  322. 
?el\vyn,  W.,  369,  572. 
Semler,  249. 
Sel  borne,   Lord,    337;     letter    on 

Authorized  Version,  336. 
Septungint,  23  sqq. 
Shea,  301. 

Short,  Dr.,  376,  397,  576. 
Sinaitic  MS.,  103  sqq.,  425    sqq. 

See  Tischendorf. 
Smith,  Dr.  Henry  Boynton,  577. 
Smith,  George  Vance,  Prof.,  574. 
Smith,   Miles,    Bishop,   321,   323, 

359. 
Smith,  Robert  Payne,  Dean,  384, 

371. 

Smith,  W.  Robertson,  Prof.,  573. 
Stanley,  Dean,  383,  389,  573. 
Stephanus  (Stephens),  236  sq. 
Stoughton,  John,  300,  347. 
Stowe,  Dr.,  576. 
Strong,  Dr.,  576. 
Stunica,  233. 

Syriac  Version?,  152  sqq. 
Syrian  and  Antiochiau  Text,  271 

*  sqq. 

T. 

Taverner's  Bible,  303. 

Text,  sources  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  85  sqq. ;  of  the  Revision, 
420  sqq. 

Textual  Criticism,  171  sqq. 

Textus  Receptus,  205  sq.,  228  sqq. 

Thayer,  Dr.,  1,  2,  576. 

Thebaic  Version,  159. 

Thirl  wall,  Bishop,  382,  571. 

Thorns,  Concordance  of  the  Re 
vised  Version,  373  sq. 

Thorpe,  301. 

Tischendorf,  1,  82,  84,  103  sqq., 
108  sqq.,  257  sqq.,  265. 


INDEX. 


Tregelles,  1,  H2,  83,  122,  256,202 

sq(j.,  265,  574. 
Trench,  Archbishop,  39,   12,  327, 

345,  374  sq.,  573. 
Troutbeck,  Canon,  574. 
Tyler,  W.  S.,  470,  472,  492. 
Tyndale,  29O,  3O2,  33S. 

U. 

riphilas,  100. 

Uncial    MSS.,    98     sqq.;    list    of, 

139  sq.  ;  primary,  1(>2  ;  second- 

ary,  124. 
i"  Diversity    Presses,    agreement 

with,  398". 


Van  Dyck,  Dr.,  576. 

Variations,  Classes  of,  ]S3  sqq.  ; 
origin  of,  173  sqq.  ;  in  the  R.  V., 
473  sqq. 

Vatican  MS.,  113  sqq.,  425  sqq. 

Vaughan,  Dr.,  370,  384,  571. 

Vercellone,  117,  151. 

Versions,  value  of,  142  sqq.; 
J^thiopie,  159  sqq.  ;  Armenian, 
163;  Gothic,  160  sqq.:  Latin, 
144  sqq.  ;  Old  Egyptian  or 
Coptie,lo7  sqq.;  Svriac,  152  sqq. 

Vulgate,  Latin,  148  sqq. 

W. 

Walton's  Polyglot,  241  sqq. 
Warh'eld,  Benjamin    15.,  85,   208 

sqq.,  280. 

Warren,  Dr.  W.  R,  577. 
Washburn,  Dr.,  577. 


Way  land,  311. 

Weir,  Prof.,  573. 

Weiss,  Bernhard,  on  the  style  of 
John,  68. 

Wendell,  Rufus,  372. 

Wetstein,  82,  247  sqq. 

Westeott,  4,  44,  71,  HI,  291,  384, 
574.  >SVr  Westeott  and  Hort. 

Westeott  and  Hurt,  1.  83,  1  18,  268 
sqq.,  279  sq. 

Western  Text,  271  sqq. 

Wielif,  289. 

Wigram,  3. 

Wilbcrforee,  Bishop,  381 , 385,394, 
573. 

Winer's  Grammar,  1,  470,  and 
passim. 

Witnesses,  Three  Heavenly,  pas 
sage  on  the,  136  sqq.,  192. 

Woolsey,  Dr.,  393,  478,  576. 

Woi'ds worth,  Bishop  of  Lincoln, 
310,  334,475,476,  571. 

Wordsworth,  Bishop  of  .St.  An 
drews,  384,  573. 

Wright,  William,  Prof.,  573. 

Wright,  W.  Aldis,  384,  573. 

Woman  Taken  in  Adultery,  sec 
tion  of,  188  sq. 


Ximenes,  Cardinal,  232. 

y. 

Young,  Robert,  378. 

Z. 

Zezschwitz,  G.  von,  4. 


SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES   EXPLAINED. 


Matt. 


PAfiK 

PAGE 

PACK 

i.lS, 

434 

Matt,  viii.  20, 

471 

Mark  xv.  34, 

14 

.  20, 

435 

"     ix.  17, 

24  1 

"     xvi.  9-20, 

.  22',      357 

435 

"     x.  4, 

432 

189  sq. 

431 

.  23, 

435 

"     xi.  23, 

442 

.  25, 

428 

"     xiii.  37-39, 

408 

Luke  i.  6,  59, 

350 

ii.  2,       355 

435 

"     xiv.  8, 

442 

u     i.  28, 

430 

ii.  4, 

351 

"     xv.  24, 

3  5  5 

''     ii.  2, 

444 

ii.  5,17,  23, 

357 

"     xv.  27, 

442 

"     ii.  14,      195 

sq., 

ii.  6, 

435 

"     xvi.  13, 

442 

357, 

432 

ii.  11, 

435 

"     xvi.  15, 

342 

"     ii.  49, 

444 

ii.  16,  17, 

430 

"     xvi.  20, 

442 

"     iii.  23, 

444 

ii.  18, 

428 

"     xix.  17, 

431 

"     vii.  2, 

444 

iii.  3,      357 

430 

"      xx.  10, 

428 

"     vii.  5, 

550 

iii.  4, 

430 

u     xxi.  41,    47 

443 

"     viii.  23, 

350 

iii.  6, 

430 

"     xxii.  1-14, 

303 

"     xiv.  34, 

542 

iii.  7, 

436 

•"     xxii.  37, 

49 

u     xvi.  8, 

357 

iii.  11, 

436 

'•     xxiii.  24, 

443 

"     xviii.  3,  13, 

356 

iii.  12, 

437 

"     xxv.  8,    355 

,  443 

"     xx.  10, 

342 

iii.  13, 

437 

"     xxv.40,  301 

,443 

"     xxii.  59, 

13 

iii.  15, 

437 

"     xxvi.  28, 

443 

"     xxiii.  0, 

13 

iii.  17, 

437 

"     xxvi.  73, 

13 

"     xxiii.  15, 

444 

iv.  14, 

357 

"     xxvii.  3, 

304 

"     >:xiii.  38, 

428 

iv.  21,  22, 

437 

"     xxvii.  40, 

14 

"     xxiii.  42, 

357 

v.  10, 

355 

"     xxviii.  19, 

•  '•57, 

v.  13, 

342 

432 

John  i.  16, 

356 

v.  15, 

437 

"     i.  18,     193  t 

qq^ 

v.  21, 

438 

Mark  i.  2,        202 

432 

432 

v.  35, 

467 

"     iii.  17, 

13 

"     iii.  33,  34, 

356 

v.  44, 

428 

"     iii.  18, 

431 

"     iv.  9, 

13 

vi.  2,  5, 

438 

"     iii.  29, 

432 

"     v.  3,  4,    187 

sq., 

vi.  9-13, 

438 

"     v.  41, 

14 

430 

vi.  12, 

473 

"     vii.  34, 

14 

"     v.  35, 

444 

vi.!3,184sq 

.464 

"     viii.  27,  29, 

342 

"     v.  39, 

444 

vi.  25, 

442 

"     ix.  50, 

342 

"     vi.  17, 

356 

vi.  26, 

474 

"     x.  51, 

13 

"     vi.  57, 

357 

vii.  6, 

471 

"     xiv.  70, 

13 

"     vi.  65, 

355 

THE  REVISED  VERSION 

OF 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

OF 

OUR    LORD    AND    SAVIOUR 

JESUS  CHRIST 

TRANSLATED  OUT  OF  THE  GREEK: 

Being  the  Version  set  forth  A.D.  1611,  compared  with  the  most 
Ancient  Authorities  and  Revised  A.D.  1881. 

HAEPER'S  AMERICAN  EDITIONS, 

I.  Franklin  Square  Library,  4to,  Brevier,  20  cents. 
II.  Brevier,  16mo,  Black  Cloth,  45  cents  ;  Full  Leather,  Flexi 
ble,  with  Gilt  Edges,  90  cents. 

III.  Brevier,  12mo,  Cloth,  60  cents. 

IV.  Pica,  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  00. 

V.  Pica,  8vo,  Divinity  Circuit,  Full  Morocco,  Flexible,  with 
Flaps,  $7  20. 

In  Harper's  Editions  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
Readings  and  Renderings  preferred  by  the  American  Revisers  (which  were 
consigned  to  an  Appendix  by  the  English  Committee)  are  placed  as  foot 
notes—thus  facilitating  reference  and  comparison.  All  Harper's  Editions 
have  marginal  notes. 

Revision  of  the  English  Version  of  the  New  Testament, 

THE  REVISION  OF  THE  ENGLISH  VERSION  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT.  With  an  Introduction  by  the  Rev. 
PHILIP  SCIIAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D.  618  pages,  Crown  8vo,  Cloth, 
$3  00. 

This  work  embraces  in  one  volume  : 

1.  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  ENGLISH  NEW  TESTA 
MENT.    By  J.  B.  LIGIITFOOT,  D.D.    Second  Edition,  Revised. 

2.  ON  THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA 
MENT,  in  Connection  with  some  Recent  Proposals  for  its  Revision. 
By  RICIIAUD  CIIENKVIX  TKKNOII,  D.D.,  Archbishop  of  Dublin. 

?>.  CONSIDERATIONS  ON  THE  REVISION  OF  THE  ENGLISH 
VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     By  J.  C.  ELLIOOTT,  D.D. 


PUBLISHED  BY  HARPER  &  BROTHERS,  NEW  YORK. 

®=  Sent  by  mail,  postage  prepaid,  to  any  part  of  the  United  States,  on 
receipt  of  the  price. 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


Bibliotheca  Symbolica  Ecclesm  U/iiversalis.  The  Creeds  of 
Christendom,  with  a  History  and  Critical  Notes.  By  the 
Rev.  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical 
Literature  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  N.  Y.  Three 
Volumes.  Vol.  I.  The  History  of  Creeds.  Vol.  II.  The 
Greek  and  Latin  Creeds,  with  Translations.  Vol.  III.  The 
Evangelical  Protestant  Creeds,  with  Translations.  8vo, 
Cloth,  $15  00. 

No  work  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Schaff  needs  commendation.  His  reputa 
tion  for  ability,  learning,  and  accuracy  is  thoroughly  established.  The  work 
consists  of  three  large  octavo  volumes,  elegantly  printed.  The  first  contains 
the  history,  analysis,  and  critical  judgment  of  the  creeds  of  the  great  histor 
ical  churches.  The  second  and  third  volumes  contain  the  creeds  themselves. 
Every  theologian  needs  to  have  access  to  the  authentic  and  acknowledged 
doctrines  of  the  great  bodies  into  which  Christendom  has  been  divided. 
Familiarity  with  these  different  phases  of  belief  enlarges  and,  within  due 
bounds,  liberalizes  the  mind,  by  showing  that  "  the  precious  faith  of  God's 
elect"  underlies  all  these  great  historical  symbols. — Rev.  CIIARI.ES  HODGE, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  Princeton,  iV.  J. 

These  volumes  appear  to  me  immensely  valuable.  Wherever  I  have 
dipped  I  have  found  the  author's  statements  carefully  and  accurately  made. 
They  will  help  us  very  much  in  our  lectures  in  the  university. — Rev.  C.  A. 
SWAINSON,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge,  England. 

There  is  nothing  like  it  in  comprehensiveness  of  plan  and  execution  in 
the  English  language.  It  contains  matter  which  it  would  be  very  difficult 
even  for  the  professional  scholar  to  find  elsewhere,  and  places  within  reach 
of  the  ordinary  reader  immense  stores  of  information,  which,  so  far  as  I 
know,  are  alone  to  be  seen  gathered  together  in  this  treasure-house  of 
learning  and  painstaking  research. — The  Rt.  Rev.  GEORGE  F.  SEYMOUR,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Springfield. 

No  work  has  appeared  for  years  of  more  importance  than  this.  It  is  a 
history  of  the  Church  expressed  in  its  most  vital  form— the  doctrinal.  The 
life-blood  of  the  Church  flows  through  the  channel  of  creed.  *  *  *  It  was  a 
wise  thought  to  bring  these  faiths  together,  to  see  wherein  they  agree  and 
wherein  they  differ,  to  find  out  what  must  be  eliminated  to  bring  about  a 
universal  consensus  of  Christendom,  and  what  must  be  retained  to  make  this 
consensus  Christian.  Dr.  Schaff  has  done  the  Church  and  the  world  his 
best  service  in  making  this  collection.  Here,  at  last,  are  gathered  the  mate 
rials  for  a  true  comparative  theology.— Christian  Advocate,  N.  Y.  . 


H