Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


mo 


PIPER ἐν δος Frit POI HIT NE, 


Wy, 
δ 
δ 
“Ὁ 
᾿ 
4 
Ἢ 
4 
‘ \ 
FS 
BS 
J ἊΝ 
ἊΣςΝ 
; 
; SS 
i \ 
rN 
ΒΝ 
4 ὡς 
ΣΝ 
Ξε 
r SS 
eS 
, 
" 
+ A 
: Νὴ 
Ν 
4 Ν 
Η ‘ 


σε 


GA. 


SY 
rw 
BN 
rN 
᾿ Ν 
͵ ΝΑῚ 

δὲ 

WAN 

SY 
᾿ 
i 
. 
᾿ 
᾿ 
; 

7 
4 
: 
: 
; 
] 
Ὶ 
᾿ 
4 
j 
. 
7 


NN 


Ν δ SY WX δὰ SS \ 
δὰ ἣν KG SWS 
RAV SR Ν 
AS \ \ << 
IG δὲ SN 


RAG WN 
NK \\ 
MV \\ 
WA . δὰ 


. A 
CRAY 
XK 


\ « 


ON δ RAS ΙΝ 
RAW 
SN SS ςς ΝΝ IX 

Νὰ 


Νὰ 

AS 
WY NS 
WS 


SY 
Sy 


RMA 
AX 


SS δ \ Sy 

RQ AY δ δ 

SY Ay SON ἊΝ 

NMA ADHORDP 
Ἂν 


ἊΝ 


SRS UG 
SS NS AX δ 


Yue 
Yj 


yy 


7 
7 


WN 
QQ 


Ss 


δὸς 


ΑΝ 


SS WY Ν Wh ΝΑ 
δὰ SS SAY 


\ ~ \ 
— 


NN 


\ 


Se 


ΝΑ 
Ν 
νὰ 
\ . 
δὰ 


Na 


ἐὰν 


7 
7; 


mh 
Ν 


a 


SS 


ty 


yy 
753 


SG δ δ δὰ 


Seer ee, 
ies 
ae 
Y KA 


Se 


(__ LIBRARY) 


{γε βου OF {ΠῚ ΠΕ ΠΆΉΙΗ 


Ὁ 


\ 
(7 
oy Ὁ 


JAHRE K.SHORER 
LIBRARY FUND. 


Ὁ πο νιν ene 
συ ον ον, 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/companiontogreekOOscharich 


re 


bs. tt" 
᾿ 


ἡ 
4 


ἢ 
τ 
᾿ 


BA ley ἐδ 


τ 
Saye 


A COMPANION 


THE GREEK TESTAMENT 


AND 


THE ENGLISH VERSION 


BY 
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. 


PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON REVISION 


Wirn Facsimi_e ILLUSTRATIONS OF 


Mss. anp Sranparp ΕἸΡΙΤΙΟΝΒ or THE New TESTAMENT 


FOURTH EDITION, REVISED 


NEW YORK AND LONDON 
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS 


19038 


_ SATRER 
Mod 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, by 
HARPER & BROTHERS, 


In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 


Copyright, 1885, by Harper & Broruers. 


Copyright, 1887, by Harrer & ΒΕΟΤΗΕΕΒ. 


All rights reserved. 


TO THE 


MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE 


IN REMEMBRANCE OF TEN YEARS OF HARMONIOUS CO-OPERATION 


Medicated 


BY THE AUTHOR 


41499 
7 Ὁ Ὁ .9 


PREFACE. 


A Manuat 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 I highly esteem. It embodies the sub- 
stance (thoroughly revised) of my Introduction to the 
American edition of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testa- 
ment, and several additional chapters, besides important 
contributions from Bishop Lee, Professor Abbot, Dr. Hall, 
and Professor Warfield, 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 appear 
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 


vI PREFACE. 


microscopic accuracy, this modest and conscientious scholar 
is facile princeps in America, with scarcely 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 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


Tue call for a new edition of this Manual of Textual 
Criticism has made it my duty to give it a careful revision. 
The chief improvements are the corrected lists of MSS. 
(pp. 94, 101, 102, 133, 134), the additions to the literature 
(pp. 379, 524, etc.), and a number of changes in Appendixes 
I., IIL, and IV. 

It is a pleasure to express my thanks for letters of ap- 
proval and encouragement from many of the most compe- 
tent judges." Those from English Revisers were especially 


11 received such letters from nearly all the English Revisers, and a num- 
ber of Continental scholars—as Drs, von Gebhardt, then of Géttingen ; Dor- 
ner, Dillmann, and Weiss, of Berlin; Gregory, of Leipzig; Grimm, of Jena; 
Bertheau, of Hamburg; Reuss and Holtzmann, of Strassburg; Schiirer, of 
Giessen ; Doedes, of Utrecht; Godet, of Neuchatel, etc. The following re- 
markable letter from the octogenarian, Dr. Reuss, who possesses the largest 
collection of Greek Testaments, and furnished the basis for Dr. Hall’s list 
(Append. I.), will be read with interest. 


“ Hochgeehrter Herr Professor : “ StRasenves, 3b ier. 156. 


“Tch werde so eben in héchst angenehmer Weise iiberrascht durch das 
schéne Geschenk welches Sie mir bestimmt haben, und wofiir ich Sie 
bitte, meinen verbindlichsten Dank entgegenzunehmen. Ich sage Ihnen 
nicht, dass ich es mit Vergniigen lesen werde, denn ich habe es bereits ganz 
gelesen, und zwar in einem Exemplar, das ich der Giite des Herrn Dr. 
Isaac Hall in Philadelphia verdanke. Und ich sage Ihnen, dass, trotzdem 
mir vieles in Ihrem Buche, wie natiirlich, liingst bekannt ist, es fiir mich 
einen reichen Schatz neuer Belehrung enthiilt theils in den Mittheilungen 
iiber die vorhandene englische Literatur, die uns Continental-Europiiern 
ja fast ganz unbekannt bleibt, theils namentlich durch die griindliche 
Darstellung alles dessen was sich auf die Revision der engl. Bibel-Ueber- 


Vill PREFACE. 


gratifying, as I could not avoid discussing the delicate re- 
lations of the two Committees and the merits of the Ameri- 


setzung bezieht, wovon mir bisher nur ein etwas schwaches Echo durch 
die HH. Hort u. Westcott zugekommen ist. Es ist iiberhaupt fiir uns 
deutsche Gelehrte beschiimend zu sehen, wie man jenseits des Kanals und 
des Oceans so genau und verstiindnissvoll mit der deutschen Bibel-Litera- 
tur bekannt ist, wihrend wir selbst kaum den zwanzigsten Theil (vielleicht 
noch weniger) nur der Biichertitel kennen, die dort in diesem Fache er- 
scheinen, geschweige dass sie uns zu Handen kiimen. Aber es hat Thr 
Werk, so wie das kiirzlich erschienene bibliographische von Herrn Hall, 
das ich ebenfalls seiner Giite verdanke, einen sehr deprimirenden Ein- 
druck auf mich gemacht. Sie wissen, dass ich mich des Besitzes einer 
bedeutenden Sammlung griechischer N. T. erfreue, und dass ich auch ein 
bischen stolz darauf bin und gross damit gethan habe. Nun die beiden 
Werke, das Hall’sche und das Ihrige, haben mich in dieser Hinsicht Be- 
scheidenheit gelehrt, und nicht nur dieses, sondern auch muthlos gemacht, 
denn wenn ich auch die Kosten nicht scheute, wiirde mir doch jetzt in 
meinem 80sten Jahre die Zeit mangeln, meine Liicken (die ungeahnten !) 
auszufiillen. Ich habe desswegen Herrn Hall den Vorschlag gemacht, von 
meiner ‘ Bibliotheca N. T. Gr.’ eine englische, durch ihn vervollstindigte, 
Ausgabe zu veranstalten und ihm dazu meinerseits Supplemente angeboten, 
da meine Sammlung seit 1872 sich bedeutend vermehrt hat. 

“ Was nun Ihr Geschenk betrifft so versteht es sich von selbst, dass ich 
Ihr Exemplar, mit Ihrer Handschrift, behalte, und mit dem friiher erhal- 
tenen einen Collegen gliicklich mache. 

“Tch schliesse, unter wiederholtem Danke, mit meinen aufrichtigsten 
Wiinschen fiir Ihre fernere gesegnete Wirksamkeit ; die Hoffnung, Sie noch 
einmal an den Ufern des Rheins zu sehn, welche ja auch Ihre Heimat sind, 
darf ich wohl nicht hegen. Immerhin darf ich Sie versichern, dass die 
sich immer mehr kundgebende Vermihlung deutscher und englischer 
Wissenschaft, an welcher Sie namentlich in so bedeutender Weise Theil 
genommen haben, mir seit lange eine erfreuliche Erscheinung ist, eine um 
so anspruchslosere meinerseits, da ich dabei eine ganz passive Rolle spiele, 
und nur die Ehre dabei habe, kein Verdienst. Vor kurzem ist nun auch 
meine Geschichte des Kanons durch einen Prediger in Glasgow iibersetzt 
worden; ob er damit Anklang gefunden, weiss ich nicht. 

“Genehmigen Sie, verehrtester Herr Professor, die Versicherung der 
unwandelbaren Hochachtung und Ergebenheit womit ich verharre 


“ Thr dankbarer, Ep. Reuss.” 


PREFACE. © 1X 


can preferences.’ I do not even except that venerable mem- 
ber of the Old Testament Company, who, in a scholarly and 
courteous printed letter addressed to me, pronounces the 
Revision of the New Testament a practical failure, because 
it departs too much from the old version, and sacrifices its 
poetic beauty and archaic flavor to pedantic fidelity.2 But 


Dr. W. Grimm (the author of the Clavis Novi Test., and one of the Re- 
visers of Luther’s Bible) brings the book in contact with the new German 
revision, and writes: 

“ JENA, 30 Dec., 1883. 
“ Hochgeehrtester Herr College: 

“Das Jahr 1883 ist im Scheiden begriffen. Ich darf aber dessen letzte 
Stunde nicht herankommen lassen, ohne Ihnen meinen allerherzlichsten 
Dank zu sagen fiir Ihr ausgezeichnetes Werk A Companion to the Greek 
Testament and the English Version, mit welchem Sie mich zu beehren und 
zu erfreuen die Giite gehabt haben. Dasselbe wird einen Ehrenplatz in 
meiner Bibliothek einnehmen. 

“ Die sogenannte ‘ Probebibel’ oder der mit Aenderungen der Revisions- 
Commission versehene Abdruck der lutherischen Uebersetzung ist vor 
Kurzem erschienen und wahrscheinlich auch Ihnen zu Gesicht gekommen. 
Er soll dem theologischen Publicum Anlass geben zu Ausstellungen und 
zu Vorschligen von weiteren Verbesserungen. Die Urtheile werden, wie 
diess in der Natur der Sache liegt, wohl sehr weit auseinander gehen.” ... 

* I may be permitted to quote as a specimen an extract from a letter 
of the late THomas CHENERY, editor of the Times, and a member of the 
Old Testament Company. He wrote me, from ‘‘ Printing House Square,” 
London, Oct. 8, 1883: ‘‘ Allow me to thank you most sincerely for the copy 
of your most valuable book. . . . I rejoice that the defence of the principle 
of revision, and of the actual results attained by the New Testament Com- 
pany, has been so thoroughly and successfully made.” ... 

2 A Letter to the Reverend Philip Schaff, D.D., President of the Ameri- 
can Committee on Revision, by Frederick Field, M.A., LL.D., Honorary Fel- 
low of Trinity College, Cambridge. Oxford, 1883 (15 pages). Dr. Field 
had previously published a criticism of the Revised New Testament in his 
Otium Norvicense. He attributes the failure chiefly to the self-chosen 
isolation of the Revisers from public opinion. They formed a corporation 
in which a few leading men, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, controlled the de- 
bate, and so the Revisers “lost the touch.” 


x PREFACE. 


I still believe that the foundation will stand, while grant- 
ing (as I intimated before, on p. 477) that the Revision 
may need a final editing by the Committee, with proper 
regard to the criticism of competent scholars and the con- 
servative feelings of Christian people. The opposition has 
spent its force and fury without being able to point out 
any serious error. The Revised Old Testament, which was 
finished in December, 1884, will be published in a few 
weeks (May 21, 1885), and produce a favorable reaction. 
It includes few changes of the Hebrew text, and carefully 
retains the old idiom. 

The churches will now be able to form a just estimate 
of the whole work, and to decide whether it shall take the 
place of the old Version. 

The Revision movement must succeed. So much time 
and labor cannot have been spent in vain. It is not con- 
fined to the English-speaking churches, but extends over 
the whole Protestant world. The German commission has 
been at work for twenty years in revising Luther’s Version, 
and has published, tentatively, the Probebibel, so called 
(Halle, 1883), which is submitted to public examination be- 
fore its final adoption. It is as severely criticised as the 
English Revision, but for the opposite reason. It is more © 
cautiously, but far less thoroughly, done. The same German 
scholars who disregard the authority of the textus receptus 
closely adhere in this popular work to the text of the sec- 
ond edition of Erasmus which was used by Luther, and 
depart from it only in a few places (Acts xii. 25; Heb. x. 
34; 1 John ii. 23; Rev. xi. 2). Even the spurious passage 
of the three witnesses in 1 John v. 7 is retained, though in 
small type and in brackets, with the note that it was want- 
ing in Luther’s editions! This timid conservatism can- 


é 


PREFACE. ΧΙ 


not satisfy the just demands of scholarship. Luther’s Ver- 
sion holds the same front rank among German classics as 
King James’s Version among English classics; but while 
the former is the product of one towering genius, the latter 
is the result of three generations of scholars, and far more 
accurate. The English Revision must retain the suprem- 
acy for faithfulness to the original, without sacrificing 
the charm of freedom, beauty, and force of the Authorized 
Version. 

I cannot close this Preface without a tribute of friend- 
ship to the memory of one who strongly urged me to write 
this Companion, who carefully read the proof-sheets of the 
first edition as they passed through the press, and whose last 
work on earth, in spite of weakness and pain, was to bring 
down to the latest date his own classified lists of uncial and 
cursive MSS. (pp. 101 and 133). Dr. Ezra Assor died 
peacefully, as he had lived, March 21, 1884, sixty-four years 
of age. His name Ezra is significant. He was beyond 
dispute the first textual critic of the Greek Testament in 
America; while in thoroughness and minuteness of knowl- 
edge he hardly had a superior in the world. His consci- 
entious accuracy was proverbial. His bibliographical in- 
formation, as shown in The Literature of the Doctrine of 
a Future Life, and his numerous additions to Smith’s Dic- 
tionary of the Bible, was astonishing. His revision of Hud- 
son’s Critical Greek and English Concordance of the New 
Testament is most useful for reference. His book on the 
_ Authorship of the Fourth Gospel is the best vindication of 
the Johannean origin within the limits of external evidence. 
His services in the American Revision Committee, which 
he attended most regularly from beginning to end, were 
invaluable. He took the deepest interest with pen and 


ΧΙ PREFACE. 


purse in Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Greek 
Testament, and followed them page for page, but did not 
live to see them published. The crowning traits of his 
pure and noble character were his modesty and generosity. 
He was always ready to give others the benefit of his own 
investigations. If only the work was done and the truth 
promoted, no matter by whom, he was satisfied and re- 
joiced. His loss to Biblical scholarship seems irreparable. 
His name will be associated with that small but select com- 
pany of scholars who have devoted their lives to the res- 
_ toration of the pure text of the Book of books. 


: THe AUTHOR. 
New York, April 10, 1885. 


PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 


I am thankful for another opportunity of revising and 
improving this book, which has been introduced in several 
institutions as a manual of instruction on the Language 
and Text of the Greek Testament, and its English Version 
and Revision. 

Within the last few years several new editions of the 
Greek Testament (see pp. 1 and 524) and other important 
works have appeared, such as Dr. Thayer’s Greek-Hnglish 
Lexicon, Dr. Warfield’s Introduction to the Textual Criti- 
cism of the VN. T., and the voluminous Critique Textuelle 
of Abbé Martin." The Second Part of Dr. Gregory’s 
Prolegomena to Tischendorf may soon be expected. 


1 As I have no room on p, 84 for the full title of this extraordinary 
work, I shall give it here (from a copy in the Astor Library). Abbé J. 
P. P. Martin (professeur ἃ l’école supérieure de théologie de Paris): 
Introduction a la Critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, Partie théorique. 
Legons professes ἃ UEcole supérieure de théologie de Paris, 1882-’83. 
Paris, 1883 (712 pages, 4to). The other five volumes are published under 
the same general title, but as Purtie pratique, and are numbered sepa- 
rately. Tom. I. (II.), publ. 1884 (327 pp.), contains an account of the 
uncial Codd. &, A, B, C, D, and Origen as a textual witness; tom. IT, 1884 
(554 pp.), is devoted to the disputed section of Mark xvi. 9-20, which he 
defends with as much learning and ingenuity as Dean Burgon; tom. IIL 
1885 (512 pp.), to Luke xxii. 43,44; xxiii. 34; a Supplement, 1884 (204 pp.), 
to a description of New Test. MSS. in the libraries of Paris; tom. IV. 1886 
(549 pp.), to the interpola‘ions in John v. 3, 4, and vii. 58-viii. 11, both of 
which he sustains; tom. 7, 1886 (248 pp.), to the spurious passage on the 
three witnesses, 1 John v. 7, which he thinks Catholics are at liberty to 


x1V PREFACE. 


I have brought down the literature to the latest date, 
and made other improvements (especially on pages 1, 2, 3, 
80, 83, 84, 101, 102, 138, 147, 151, 167, 208, 379, 391, 396, 
397, 417, 524, 609). 

In the third Appendix (pp. 571 sqq.) I had to record 
the death of several Revisers, among them Archbishop 
Trench, whose funeral I attended in Westminster Abbey 
(April 2, 1886), Professor Short, of Columbia College, 
New York, and Bishop Lee, of Delaware, the senior of his 
brethren in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and one of 


accept, to question, or to reject. The whole work is photo-lithographed, 
enriched with numerous photo-lithographic fac-similes, and full of rare 
learning. If the Practical Part is to discuss all the other disputed read- 
ings, it will require many more volumes. A limited number of copies was 
struck off, and the Partie théorique is exhausted. The same author has 
published: Quatre Manuscrits du Nouveau Testament auxquels on peut en 
aqjouter un cinquieme (Extrait de la Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques). 
Amiens and Paris (quai Voltaire, 25), 1886 (62 pp., with fac-similes). He 
traces the four cursive MSS., 13, 69, 124, and 346, which belong to the 
family of the oldest uncials (as shown by W. H. Ferrar and T. K. Abbott, 
of Dublin, 1877), and perhaps also MS. 348 (in the Ambrosian library of 
Milan), to a Greek Church in Calabria or Sicily, chiefly because the 
synaxarion or catalogue of church lessons of the cursive MS. 13 contains 
the names of several Calabrian and Sicilian saints not known elsewhere 
(pp. 14, 16). 

Abbé Martin is an advocate of the traditional (Latin) text of the 
Roman Church, he depreciates the oldest MSS. (&, A, B, C, D) as texts 
“ fabricated” from Origen and other Greek fathers, and gives the highest 
authority to the lectionaries, although he knows them to be incomplete 
and full of liturgical additions and changes! His extraordinary learning 
is controlled by dogmatic prepossessions and strange eccentricities, which 
shake confidence in his conclusions. Some years ago (in Des Versions 
Syriennes) he amused the learned world by the hoax (accepted by Dr. 
Scrivener, in the third ed. of his Jntroduction, pp. 828, 325, 328, 331, in sober 
earnest) that the (older) Curetonian Syriac Version was a corruption of 
the (younger) Peshitto made in the sixth century with the aid of a 
Greek MS. resembling Codex Beze! 


PREFACE. Xv 


the most faithful members of the New Testament Company. 
The number of Revisers is fast diminishing, but their work 
will survive. 

The library, records, and documents of the American 
Revision Committee have been donated to the American 
Bible Society, and are kept in a separate book-case in the 
Bible House, New York, for future use. 


Tue AvtTHor. 
Union THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
New York, Nov., 1887. 


Postscript. —In “The Independent,” New York, Aug. 25, 1887, 
Dr. Caspar René Gregory, of Leipzig, gives an account of the discovery 
of a number of important palimpsest leaves by Abbé Pierre Batiffol, the 
Parisian priest who examined at Berat the purple manuscript ® (Codex 
Beratinus) at the instance of his teacher, Abbé Louis Duchesne, and 
during the last winter made a special study of the Basilian MSS. in the 
Vatican Library. The new MS. is the Codex Vaticanus Grecus 2061, on 
parchment containing upon 316 leaves the sermons of Gregory Nazianzen 
written by Basil, a priest, in the 10th or 11th century, and beneath them 
on twenty-one leaves in three columns considerable fragments of the New 
Testament, which Dr. Gregory is inclined to assign to the age of Constan- 
tine the Great as parts of one of the fifty copies prepared by Eusebius, at 
_ the command of the emperor, for the churches of Constantinople. This 
would make them, as far as they go, of equal authority with the Sinaitic 
and Vatican MSS. Batiffol expects to publish these palimpsest leaves 
about three or four years hence. They contain the following passages: 
Acts xxvi. 4-xxvii. 10; xxviii. 2-31; James iv. 14-ν. 20; 2 Peter ii. [2?]- 
iii. 15; 1 John iv. θ-ν. 21; 2 John 1-13; 3 John 1-15; Rom. xiii. 4-xv. 9; 
1 Cor. iv. [4? ]-vi. 16-xii. 23-xiv. 21-xv. 3-xvi. 1; 2 Cor. iv. 7-vi. 8-vii. 
15-x. 6-Eph. v. (5? ]-vi. [22?]; Phil. i. 1-ii.9; Col. i. 20-iv. 6; 1 Thess 
i. 1,2; 1 Tim. v. 6-vi, 45; 2 Tim. i. 1-ii, 25; Tit. iii, 13-15; Philem, 1-25; 
Heb. xi. 32-xiii. 4. 

2 


ὩΣ a de 
Adie 


Laie 
ΔΝ 
ΤΥ 


PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 


Since the publication of the third edition of this 
volume (1888), the following noteworthy works on 
the textual history of the Greek Testament have 
appeared : 

1. A photographic fac-simile edition, of 100 copies, 
of the New Testament of the Coprx Varticanus 
(No. 1209), at Rome, 1889, which confirms the gen- 
eral accuracy of the more convenient quasi-fac-simile 
edition previously published (1881). See pp. 117 sq. 
I bought a copy from the photographer, Danesi, in 
Rome, May, 1890. 

2. The Second Part of Dr. Grecory’s Proizaom- 
gEnA to Dr. Tischendorf’s eighth critical edition of 
the Greek Testament, Leipsic, 1890 (pp. 441-800), 
which greatly enlarges the number and increases 
our knowledge of the cursive MSS., together with 
a supplement of additional uncial fragments. See 
pp. 101 sq., 135 sq. The Third and last Part has not 
yet appeared. 

8. 4 Full Account and Collation of the Greek — 
Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, together with fac- 
similes and several critical Appendices, by Herman 
C. Hosxier, London (David Nutt), 1890. 

4. A fifth edition of Hammonn’s Outlines of Teat- 
ual Criticism of the New Testament, Oxford (Clar- 


XViil PREFACE. 


endon Press), 1890 (pp. 155). In Appendix B, 
Hammond discusses some disputed readings —1 
John v. 7,8; John v. 3,43 vii. 53—-viii. 11; 1 Tim. 
iii. 16; Mark xvi. 9-20—against the received text 
and in favor of the uncial text. 

5. Three scholarly and useful Appendices of Dr. - 
Wituiam Sanpay of Oxford to a revised edition of 
Lloyd’s Greek Testament, Oxford (Clarendon Press), 
1889. The first appendix gives a collation of the 
Westcott-Hort text with that of Stephanus of 1550 
(pp. 1-92); the second, a selection of the most note- 
worthy readings (pp. 93-181); the third, certain read- 
ings of the Memphitic, Armenian, and Aithiopic ver- 
sions (pp. 182-199). 

6. Dr. Bernnarp Weiss (Prof. in Berlin): Dée 
Johannes-Apokalypse. Textkritische Untersuchun- 
gen und Textherstellung, Leipsic, 1891 (225 pp.), 
in “ Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der alt- 
christ]. Literatur v. O. v. Gebhardt und Ad. Harnack,” 
Bd. vii. Heft 1. 

This is a most elaborate and painstaking attempt 
to restore the original text of the Apocalypse from 
the five remaining uncial MSS., namely, the Sinaitic 
(x), of the fourth; the Alexandrian (A) and Ephraemi 
(C), of the fifth; the Porfirianus Chiovensis (P) and 
the Vaticanus Romanus 2066 (B”*, or Q Tels), 
both of the eighth or ninth century. The famous 
Vatican Codex (B) is here missing, as it extends 
only to Heb. ix. 14. 

These five MSS. present nearly 1650 variations 
in the 400 verses of the Apocalypse. Ood. A shows 
about 210, C (a defective palimpsest) 110, 8 over 


PREFACE. X1X 


515 variations. Dr. Weiss records, classifies, and dis- 
cusses these textual variations with minute care and 
exhaustive fulness. At the close he gives the 
amended text with critical notes which amount 
almost to a commentary. He follows chiefly the 
Alexandrian MS., which, upon the whole, is the 
best for the Apocalypse. He agrees substantially 
with Westcott and Hort, who follow that MS. still 
more closely, while Tischendorf favored too much 
the Sinaitic MS., which he was himself so fortunate 
as to discover. But the agreement of Weiss with 
Westcott and Hort is not so great in the Apocalypse 
as in the Gospels, where they have a more reliable 
common basis in the Vatican MS. Dr. Weiss has 
been confirmed by the textual investigation in his 
conviction of the unity of the Apocalypse against 
the recent hypothesis which would make it a Jew- 
ish production worked over and supplemented by a 
Christian hand. This is an important result. 

In this fourth edition I have made several other 
additions to the literature, and brought it down to 
date. I am indebted for the correction of a few 
slight errors on pp. 87, 188, and 140 to my friend 
Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt (a most competent judge), in 
his appreciative notice of the third edition in Har- 
nack and Schiirer’s “ Theologische Literaturzeitung,” 
March 8, 1890. 

In the Third Appendix, I have had to record the 
death of several members of the Revision Com- 
panies: Dr. F. W. Gotch, Prof. William Wriglit, 
᾿ς Bishop Lightfoot, and Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, of the 
English Revisers; Dr. Woolsey, Dr. Thos, J. Co- 


xx PREFACE. 


nant, and Dr. Howard Crosby, of the American 
Revisers. 

Of the American New Testament Company only 
six members remain among the living. But the 
two Companies have kept up their organization for 
the purpose of preparing an American standard 
edition of the Revised Version, which is to be pub- 
lished as soon as the term of their agreement with 
the University Presses of England shall have come 
to an end. 

It is hoped that the authorized American edition 
of the New Testament will appear in 1894 or 1895, 
with the American Appendix incorporated in the 
text, and with chapter headings, parallel passages, 
and other auxiliaries necessary for popular use. A 
new Appendix, stating the precise relation of the 
American and English texts, will be added. 


Puruie Scuarr. 
New Yors, November, 1891. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER FIRST. 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


PAGE 
ET εν A Sh So RS CPE Lah dtehdicemphe le ἐδ δον ψῷ 1 
THREE ELECT Taster aans FORRES HAN GSD FG ea ae ee sanhs ΤΡ, μα ΠΣ: 4 
SprEaD OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE... 0.00.20. ccccccvccccccvercs 6 
THE JEWS AND THE GREEK LANGUAGE............0-.0eseeeeeees 8 
CHRIST AND THE GREEK LANGUAGE............-.0e0e00: ΚΤ ὑ δὴν 12 
THE APOSTLES AND THE GREEK LANGUAGE.............: Gavan 16 
Tue GREEK AND THE ENGLISH............. mi ae ly Aaa en τὶ eee 
Tue Macepontan DIALECcT......... RS io APO senuveinceeueaen 19 
ΠΝ BOREL TIC TALBOT ΝΣ ogee Nabe 22 
ἘΝ ΡΥ ΟΝ. ΕΙΣ ΑΚ ekuencewe wees 23 
ΠΝ ΡΟ τ COUN Soc y.na's δεν o's 5% bu 0b ς ον Muh ericeieeles ΝΣ 0 BS 
EIA st Sadie Ole eae DoD Sea RENE Pina SP Pua Soiree Aer a OT 
ΠΥ Sica cca ἘΝ μῶν Φρινάψ a bale b'e Shae δ vn Rie Vane 35 
NUMBER AND VALUE OF FOREIGN WORDS............200 seceeees 38 
ΝΥΝ CIOL ΜΝ ὁ τὺ so kos 0 bo 6 bo oon cae senw veeeue anes 39 
PO LLARITIES OF GPYLES 5 di. sis. edo a amen. 43 
NIU ies ais oi Nils WIGAN 006 Vida δι εν εν Rs τὸ βαρ μα sehen 46 
Pa sob 5s CHUM ἐπ aba ea hea eek a shaw seein ee 51 
οἰ eh emer i Sistah id's bpp Se belie κα ἡ Sah eek τὰ ead Ck a ΠΡ Ἢ 54 
ds ang ba 364 Rae edd oad Ve vb aee noble dé 9 gap aiakie ee aaa 62 
ΝΣ aii o's Dye ore MAMA MERE aw ale oa ΝΟΣ Be δεν 66 
ES NIE ag sc ave Uceh sie νυν ΚΗ sa x's» 0 ORR tis 75 


EvipENTIAL VALUE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 80 
Summary OF THE PecutiaR VocaBuLarjes or THE N, T, Waiters, 609 


ΧΧΙΙ TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER SECOND. 
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
LITERATURE ON THE SOURCES OF THE TEXT AND ON TEXTUAL CRIT- 


PAGE 


EE eid veaiiacta uo) d Skea NER La bie σοῖς a aie yn ale nde Bae sia meee 82 
IS ON TT a es, cin o +: cine spain <, eplniti ae abe opera en 85 
FacsimILes OF MANUSCRIPTS..... Seppe: Dt Gas SER BEE Be RIE 91 
GENERAL CHARACTER OF MANUSCRIPTS.........0.scecccesesececs 93 
A. Unctan MANUSORIPTS. .........ccccccnccees < hie hind ise 98 

DIM ARY. ΝΑ τς se aek ds ἐς ds cee vend secu 102 
ΔῊ ie ACCT a a o's) 6 so o.0 9.96 sh de ges Oe 0 .Τι 103 

Tr Gk DAEMON ὁ γε bladers's w ἐδὼ οἴου be © ocho Ream 111 

τυ METS ata eth cic vs aes ἐν ἐν δεν ease eae 113 
TOMER MME OS SOI eh vals ne os 0 oe ve t's 08 cus ΤΥ ΤΟΣ 120 
UIE Σιν tie ev νυ cesses ook 2p 6 RACE 122 
POONA ΠΝ ΘΕΝ RS a. μιν ρὸν ἐν εν 2 oda su, ον Δ Σὲ 124 

ΠΥ ΘΥΥΝ PA MUSORIPT ἐν ει ἐν τως Fs 54-010 elds sins be dav eels 188 
List or ῬΌΒΙΙΒΗΕΡ Unciats. By Prof L. HL Batts 139 


CHAPTER THIRD. 
ANCIENT VERSIONS. 
ALUM OF -VERBIONS ον cc oes idle cdc asses τς ΜΕΝ 142 


LatTINn VERSIONS: 
ΠῊ AICI DATES aha πον ARAN ac. tigntacnis δ @1a-s, ewe pw Re 0 ΩΟΩ͂Ν ἈΝὴ 144 
ΤῊΣ VULGATE........ SR er ee oS seta ela oa ak Gi eay ee 148 


Syriac VERSIONS: 


DYER; PRB CT iS eos 0s km oie oie Slee 5 iw e's sfa'e'n “sata ewes 152 
ἐγ τι TA ὉΠ ΠΥ Uiale's 5 4 on's'a's 0'o'0e o's oe eae OR 154 
ἜΗΝ Οὐ ΜΌΝ, eR vs δον το σὸς ἐς κι ον sce εκ eee 156 
ΤῊΝ SEROMA ie le back Oe ἐς ἐς iis ξτυν νὸς ἐς τς τα ΠΣ 167 


ΕΘΎΡΤΙΑΝ VERSIONS: 
PASE ἀν Δ Ὁ προ δ Oi. a wah ΠΠΠ|Ὸ ERE 158 
PI RE ee ei wun Τ᾿ ἤν as oeaw Rte 159 
Are PAM UMN Rea Winans Uy hig cd oe pes ὁ ἐνερ ἐν ΨΥ ΝΣ 159 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. ΧΧΙΪ 


PAGE 
nna VY RRRION Ge cehe cakes a Ue ζω δ ὃν ἀκ τόνον ἐὰν ἐξ SONS 159 
Peete V ἘΠΗ͂Ν Ne πεσε νι δ oa δὰ eb aa cAgicuene'sen on 160 
ΠΥ ΝΝν “V BUSIOW τ Fons da bviec'wcns-dwse cvecvwewicdeesceas ded . 163 
CHAPTER FOURTH. 
PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. 
VALUE OF PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. ... {τι ..ccccccceccecccceces 164 
GREEK FATHERS............... Ab PRS DTI At VET Dae Sat ah ot RS iy ἐὰ 167 
ΠΝ ΥΒΕΗΝ νυν ον κὸν bee ed weld el nau cddied aiwedmaet 169 
CHAPTER FIFTH. 
TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 
Nature AND Opject OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM...........00-22 ces 171 
τ ΠΑ ORE SIRS A ντε, ΤΜΕΆΜΕΝΎΕ ΑΙ ΤΑ. ee tela Ga ig ati ὙΌΡΥ: 173 
ee RN ABTATIONS 6 πους εκ ζοῦν ρει Ae diode bene hams 176 
OT TES, aR REG ERE 2 Sphere οέγὴς ραν μ UA Ane δ ον 177 
eee tim WV ABTAPIOND, «i's issn os εν evo dad cause ον ἐς φερνε ν caren 188 
MINED ον) Se ae ἐμῷ ere ae pln b wlia uetnane bailed 188 
᾿ς, νου μὰν κεἰς ὸ νῦν ἐδ νῶν ὑπο <idnis> ahaa x aaah Loo 
ἘΣ ΥΡΡΟΝΟ, rats ss we δος φρο εν λάϊνον Ube ee 198 
CriticaAL RULES....... Sid de awa ho τἀ ὦ Kikai bin th Mie ὁ oc cagaksen 202 
MPPLICATION OF THE TULLE. 5... ccccccsscccesvecberceaceseusns 205 


Tue GeNEaLocicaL Mreruop. (By Prof. B. B. Warrietp, D.D.). 208 


CHAPTER SIXTH. 
HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS...........; RR hanni sesame ψ τς nai eee 
I. Tae Periop or THE Textus Recerptus: From ERAsMUS AND 
SrepHens TO Bence. and Wertstein.—A.D. 1516-1750...... 228 
Tae: Taexvus 1} ΠΡ ἐν ΠΡ alts 228 
DAS. ον SI Tees fe ee. 229 
QCOMPLUTENSTIAN ΒΕ ΟΥ νὰν 66s). ieee Se. als 232 
ΟΡ ΟΝ FS Nes οὐχ ἐν Sa 2a Ri eds vale wh ϑος ἐφ ans She 236 


XXiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
εν τ a cae kaka c adic ἐξα own os Fs 2a Meera 237 
7) Se Ome Ppa Peels =<. Ree ae ἐν MAREN Ce |. 240 
WE RETON ee FOLIC ore ΤΥ ρον eee 241 
DNME Eh by GOS okie κα No ee ea τὴν ἐγ dos a ieie's kb DO eee 244 
ΠΝ ον y's, Sata a Vaca Mach τ δι bsae bina Voie bua eu o/s ΕΝ ΝΥ 245 
BORON ss sassy coke eta e eden bk FL ds ddode s és ckassoueen 246 
δ ΠΣ a MLE Re Noe NAS a PR DT ΤΑ. γεν: 247 

II. Skconp Periop: TRANSITION FROM THE TextUS REcEPTUS TO 

THE UncraL Text. From Grikspach ΤῸ LAacHMANN. — A.D. 
PREM cs ooh dies oh aoe aed EG awe AER Doe wR . 249 
δεν το osc ssp va de μον εὐ τορος ἐλυϊῤαμν Salas se 250 
PATOL AT 0355. Ss erties ons Race ee te Νὰ ἐν ρον τυ, ΜΝ 252 
SNM sis δα ΜΆ phe Sk Sa Bie sd aie BEG TAN OAD hake ΘΕ Qin. 0} 253 

III. Turrp Periop: THe RESTORATION OF THE PRIMITIVE TEXT. 

From LACHMANN AND TISCHENDORF TO Westcott AND Hort.— 
ΒΟ ΒΤ τος κε τας σε cgecea! τς εν ΕΣ wen thet 254 
ἘΝ Ss so has Phebe beak RUane eed ede e εν ἘΣ ΣΝΝ 254 
ΠΗ ΣΑΣ τοῦς ον κα ΜΝ tek tee Rae 257 
RROBLL UE ss ἀρ τ ΠΝ κοι ὁ ἢ, 262 
PEMORGY 03 s3c so a sb ur otacneece kines paseeeesh waee te en 266 
WV ΘΤΘΟΥΥ “AND HORT. εν ooo wick eae ee oe ean sae eee eae 268 
SORIVENER AND PALMER Woes ia ΣΥΝ ΚΘ ἢ 282 
RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT, :. 3.25253 53635c60c56 en obeeeee 287 

CHAPTER SEVENTH. 
THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 

MPT soy sola & chs ce prereset bina Vitae @ hace WER Ere RN oe ee 299 
ΠΝ SIBLE AND. CHRISTIANITY «co 0:44 o's ac'vausicn swakackeocMnee 305 
ORIGIN OF KING JAMES’S VERSION.........cccccccccccccccceecs 312 
ΣῊ ἢ ΥΩ F REGORINED . 90 5). 55 4 dane teens) « woases ΝΟ ΟΠ ἢ 317 
PROGRESS’ OF ‘THE | WORKS io. 6 eRieeuge Πρ 319 
ΟΝ; os cst asthe rain ww lel bess em 4 asa a dR MRSC s wee an Ρν ΨῊΣ 3825 
Was Kine James’s VERSION EVER AUTHORIZED?............... 330 
Orrricat EstimaTe.—MERITS..... 2.0.0.5 vecccteccececceccucecs 337 
τος re ot Su Eon τυ τ ΗΛ CAMS ala en 347 


PREPARATIONS FOR REVISION,.....--0ccescecsecccseces εν ἐν ΝΣ 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXV 


CHAPTER EIGHTH. 


THE REVISED VERSION. PAGE 
απο. isan see τυ νέαν, x ole Su dvaWueebeuscectes 371 
ACTION OF THE CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY.........0...0000: 380 
ORGANIZATION AND RULES OF THE BritIsH COMMITTEE.......... 382 
Work OF THE BRITISH COMMITTEE............ceccceesccesceses 387 
Δ ΥΕΟΙΟΝΝ UP-OPERATION 5 Oe ci'v's 5 Leck dasa whedon dev anceeesabpes 391 
CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE........2.eeeeeee005 396 
RELATION OF THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH COMMITTEES AND 
AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY PRESSES............000+++ 398 
PE LOATION "νυ νυ en sais nun een OUT abin ΟΣ ΠΩΣ 408 
RECEPTION, CRITICISM, AND PROSPECT........+0ceesseccscevoecss 411 
MERITS OF THE REVISION AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD VersION.. 417 
Tae GREEK TEXT OF THE REVISED VERSION......... CLA 420 
Sevect List or TEXTUAL CHANGES. .:..0.0 00.0 ole c cles cv cecee 428 
Sevect List or IMPROVED RENDERINGS.............0.eeeceeeees 434 
Tue Ene@iisH Styite or THE REVISED VERSION............. «0+: 455 
ἘΝ, os a-ak «9.6.6 03's bio 8d Lek bled hee enol <i d 459 
EI ΘΗΝ. 565 ane’ c)a-y ace. ον μων RMD Ad ee a 462 
IMPROVEMENTS IN RHYTHM.........ccccccececceseucveceecs 464 
GRAMMATICAL IRREGULARITIES........2c2.cccccccesesseeaes 465 
POMMLTOIUURB 555s 05 6s abs in oo ok ὑφ νυ POUT κὸν 466 
ΝΙΝ TED ai. ou ih νυν κὸν νων ωνος ἐλ χὰ νὸν ΜΕΝ 468 
NEEDLESS VARIATIONS. νον. νου ον ΑΝ eet 474 
Tae AMERICAN Part IN THE JOINT WORK............000e 00000: 478 
PER UMMERIOAN APPENDIC τον αν ΣΥΝ ΡΝ ΣΤ cease ne 482 
το τ κα Αι πὰ ἀπο τ oy clic vd Ge acs v0 aves oq το δὰ tana omeRe 490 


Appenpix I.—List or Printep Epitions or THE GREEK NEW 


TesTaMENT. (By Prof. I. H. Hatt, Ph. D.)............... . 497 
Appenprx II.—Fac-stmiLes or STANDARD EDITIONS OF THE GREEK 

MP AMENE CL oh lec bv sbanee month ΟΝ ce ta wie 525 
Appenpix IJI.—List or ENGLISH AND AMERICAN REVISERS..... 571 
Appenpix [V.—List oF AMERICAN CHANGES ADOPTED BY THE 

EneiisH Commitrec. (By Bishop Atrrep Ler, D.D.)...... 579 
Appenpix V.—ADOPTION OF THE REVISION BY THE BAPTISTS... 607 
EMI AD, SIIVEN ἡ τ ΡΠ 609 


Inpex or SorrprurE PassaGes EXPLAINED, .......sseseeeeeeeee 615 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PAGH 

SPECIMENS OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK 
PS IE MIET j5< n 5:a's sc 'nlo ss Wed eB ne we he 4.0081» vie @a\0n ae keel 91, 92 
SPECIMEN OF CODEX SINAITICUS........... 0c... cece cece ecccccee: 107 
“ “ AEE AMRIT 0 το 5 on cnn bene eee 112 
“ - PE UTIs a be.5s 0 va’ νῆν οἰ διλ λον REE ARTE 114 
66 a πα, πο ΟΣ ty >» 121 
“ “ ROGSAMENGIS, 3-6/0. ιν δῶν JA, A 132 
“ “ BAGILRENGIC. τ 11. . ee 135 
RURAL COTA MBER τος νυ a a Nios cle ob bis CON ge 389 


SPECIMEN PAGES OF STANDARD EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TESTA- 
MENT: 


CoMPLUTENSIAN PoLyGuor, 1514..................000. 530, 531 
που, σε τ Sia vis τυ α ἐν pb Mela, wins ons <p κοῖς Ade an ee alee 532, 533 
i RD ON eet Re ee Prep ern 584, 535 
SRM EMN RON νιν τ as Webb a Bids wes + mas ved aie δὺ δον et 536, 537 
SORPHMNG, 1051 τερον εκ ξέναι δόρει cons ccewes anne ὅ88, ὅ89 
ἘΣ ΑΜ Sao Ee reer Meee hale Nb ck bw cleds ον εν ων τε ΠῚ 540, 541 
TONS BO SAG GAs ER oe Soe 542, 543 
Mrgevin, 2 ϑιν ocaiacn Hui ot 4 PA 544, 545 
WAxtOw's POUT IOUS oo icc soins ve been cre ve RED 546, 547 
ETO is ae ie Hdd d Noose cee ob te wd eae 548, 549 
BENGEL, 1734..... aii a! » Sabie diss, snes ΤΥ αἱ 550, 551 
ΟΝ, AIOE ode αν ΝΒ eb bes crme ons onal peas 552, 553 
ΟἾΟΝ, AIO ake hc kins ον ὁ οικυς βρέ αι οἰ adie 554, 555 
SOME, DOOM νον τ, κευ νιν νυν Cee age epee es 556, 557 
LACHMANN, TOG ΤῈ, τὰ cin daaaaa dae name νὸς ἐς Cree sede 558, 559 
LACHMANN, 184}. 1850... νυ το cc ον τ νον νυν ρος «ον ς. 560, 561 
Tiscummpone, TEAL YE ον ἐξα νον ἴων τ, eed bs Meme 562, 563 
"TISCHEMDORE,, 1869-1872 «40's νοι 56 0100 οὐδ pimsisiedis Hina wislds 564, 565 
TRECRULSE, GODT δον νι Scene ss νι μος aca it epee 566, 567 
W RSTOOTT. AMI TUORT 551. 2.0... κορῶν Rae dnnsiens Babe 568, 569 


TITLE-PAGE OF THE AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION, 1611 570 


CHAPTER FIRST. 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
Literature. 


I. CriricaL Epirions OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


I. By LacHMANN (1842-50, 2 vols.); T1scHENDORF (ed. octava critica 
major, 1864-72, 2 vols., with a vol. of Prolegomena by Gregory and Ab- 
bot, P. I., 1884); TrEGELLES (1857-79); Westcorr and Horr (1881, 
with a separate vol. of Introduction and Appendix, Cambridge, and New 
York, Harpers’ ed., from English plates, with Schaff’s Introduction ; revised 
Engl. ed. of the text, 1885; revised Amer. ed, 1889): PALMER (the text of 
the Revisers, 1881); WeymoutH (7126 Resultant Greek Testament, 1886, 
the agreed text of critical editors, with variations); ScrIvENER (the 
text of Stephanus, 1550, with other readings, 1887); O. ΡῈ GEBHARDT 
(N. T. Gr. ex ultima Tischendorfii recensione, 1887). 

Lachmann laid the foundation for the ancient uncial (instead of the 
medieval 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 principles 
and results. 

II. Bilingual editions: Novum Testamentum Grece et Germanice, by 
OscAR VON GEBHARDT. Lips. 1881; second ed. 1884, (Tischendorf’s 
last text with the readings of Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the re- 
vised version of Luther.) 

The Greek-English New Testament, being Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text 
and the Revised English Version of 1881. New York (Harper and Broth- 
ers), 1882; revised ed. 1889, The Oxford Parallel New Testament gives 
the Greek text of the Revisers with the Authorized and Revised Version, ° 
1882. The Cambridge ed. of Ρ, N. 7. gives the Textus Receptus with the 

readings of the Revisers and the Authorized and Revised Version, 1882, 


Il, GRAMMARS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 


6. B. Winer (Professor in Leipsic, ἃ, 1858): Grammar of New-Testa- 
ment Greek (Grammatik des neutest. Sprachgebrauchs), Leipsic, 1822; 6th 


g THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMEN’: 


ed. 1855; 7th ed. by G. LUNEMANN, 1867. American “ revised and author- 
ized” translation from the seventh edition, by Prof. J. H. Taayer (of 
Andover Theological Seminary, now of Harvard University, Mass.), An- 
dover, 1869, etc. (728 pages). English translation by Rev. W. F. Μοῦ ΤΟΝ 
(Principal of The Leys School, Cambridge), 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 
of classical philology to the Greek of the New Test. 

ALEXANDER BuTTMANN: Grammatik des neutest. Sprachgebrauchs, 
Berlin, 1859.—A Grammar of the New-Testament Greek, translated by J. 
H. THayer. Andover, 1873 (474 pages). Several editions, 

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), 
1870; 4th revised ed. 1885. The Grammar contains 422 pages, the Vocab- 
ulary 180 pages. Intended for students who have not studied the classical 
Greek, and well adapted for the purpose. 

W. H. Siucox: Grammar of New Testament Greek. (Announced, 
London, 1887.) 

III. Dicrionarigs, 


C. L. W. Grimm (Professor in Jena): Lexicon Greco-Latinum in 
Inbros Novi Testamenti. Ed. 2da emendata et aucta. Lipsix, 1879. 
Based upon the Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica of Cur. G. WILKE 
(d. 1856). Third ed. with reference to the readings of Westcott and 
Hort, 1887. 

HERMANN CrEMER: Biblisch-theologisches Wérterbuch der neutest. Grda- 
citdt. Gotha, 1866; 2d ed. improved, 1872; 3d ed. 1883; 4th ed. 1886; 
5th ed. 1887, English translation of the 2d ed. under the title Biblico- 
Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, by William Urwick. 
Edinb, 1872; 2d ed. 1878; 3d ed. 1886, with additions from the third 
German ed. 

Epwarp Rosinson (Professor in the Union Theological Seminary, New 
York, ἃ, 1863): A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. Re- 
vised ed. New York (Harpers), 1850. Αἱ first a translation of WaAl's 
Clavis (1825), then an independent work (1836), Very good, but in need 
of a thorough revision (in course of preparation, 1887), 


THR LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 8 


J. H. THayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ete, 
New York and Edinburgh, 1886, A translation of Grimm’s second ed, 
with many valuable additions. The best in the English language. 


IV. CoNcoRDANCES, 


Car. Herm, BruDER: Ταμιεῖον τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαϑήκης λέξεων, 
swe Concordantie omnium vocum Ν. T. Greci, ed. ster. Lips, 1842; 3d ed. 
1867, 4th ed. 1887. Indispensable. Based on the work of Erasmus 
SCHMID (also spelled Scumipr 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. 

GrorGE V. WicrAM: The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New 
Testament, London (James Walton), 1844; 8th ed., with a Concordance of 
various readings, 1883. The Greek words are given in alphabetical order 
with the Eng. Version (King James’s). Reprinted, N. Y. (Harpers), 1848. 

Cuar.Les F, Hupson: A Critical Greek and English Concordance of 
the New Testament, revised and completed by Ezra ΑΒΒΟΥ. Boston, 
1870; 7th ed. Boston and London, 1882. Very useful, but requiring 
adaptation to the Revision of 1881. 


V. SpectAL TREATISES. 


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

G. Bern. DE Ross! (professor of Oriental languages in Parma): Della 
lingua propria di Cristo e degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina, Parma, 
1772. Against Diodati. 

Het. F. PFANNKUCHE (ἃ, 1833): On the Prevalence of the Aramean 
Language in Palestine in the Age of Christ and the Apostles (in Eichhorn’s 
“ Allg. Bibliothek,” viii. 365-480), 1797, Based on De Rossi, and trans- 
lated from the German by Dr. Ε΄. Robinson, with introductory art., in the 
“ Biblical Repository” (Andover, Mass.), vol. i. 309-363 (1831). Still 
valuable, 

Jou. Leonu. Hue (R. Cath., ἃ. 1846): Zustand der Landessprache in 
Palastina als Matthdus sein Evangelium 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 Aramzan languages were both current in Palestine at the time 
of Christ and the Apostles. 


4 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


ALEXANDER Roperts: Discussions on the Gospels. London, 1863 
Greek the Language of Christ and the Apostles. 1888. Renews the opin. 
ion of Diodati. 

WILuI1AM 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, 

Epwin Harca (ἃ. 1889): Lssays in Biblical Greek. Oxford, 1889, 

See also James HADLEY, art. Language of the New Test., in Hackett 
and Abbot’s ed. of Smith’s “ Dict. of the Bible,” ii.1590. B.F.Wexsrcort, 
art. Hellenist, ibid. ii. 1039; art. New Test., cbid, iii. 21389. Ep. Reuss, art. 
Hellenistisches Idiom, in Herzog’s “ Real-Encyklop.,” v.741 (new ed. 1879). 
Fr. De.irzscu, Ueber die paldstinische Volkssprache, in “ Daheim” tor 
1874,No.27. BiEEk, Einl.i.d. N. Test., 4th ed. by Mangold, 1886 (p.77 sqq.). 


THREE ELECT LANGUAGES. 
IHZOY= O NAZOPAIOZ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕῪΣ ΤΩΝ IOYAAION. 


prin Foe WEP saws 
. δ» τ > ° ΤΣ Ψ - “ 


JESUS NAZARENUS REX 900 ΖΟΒΌΜ. 


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,’ 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 


? 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.” * 

“Jn that inscription of Pilate,” says an able histo- 
rian,’ ‘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 


? John xi. 50, 51. 
* Dr. Charles J. Stillé (late Provost of the University of Pennsylvania), 
in Studies on Medieval History (Philadelphia, 1882), p. 89. 
9— 


6 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


language 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 Cesar, the greatest Ὁ 
of Romans—both of them unconscious forerunners 
of Christ. 

The Greek was spoken in Greece, in the islands 
of the Aigean Sea, in Asia Minor, in Egypt, aye 
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. + 


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 “ Hellen,” 
or Greek, is synonymous with “ the civilized world,” 
as distinct from the barbarians, and with “ Gentiles,” 
as distinct from the Jews.’ 

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 


Ψ»». 


* Rom. i. 14, Ἕλληνες καὶ βάρβαροι; ver. 16, Ἰουδαῖος καὶ Ἕλλην. 


8 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW. TESTAMENT. 


fathers of the Western Church—Clemens Romanus, 
Hermas, Gajus, Irenzeus, 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.’ 


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.* 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 Friedliinder, 
Sittengesch. Roms, i. 142, 481 (4th ed.); Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. des 
Taufsymbols (with reference to the Roman Creed), iii. 267-466; Lightfoot, 
Com. on Philippians, p. 20; De Rossi, Roma Sotteran. ii. 27 sqq. (on the 
Catacomb of St. Callistus) ; Renan, Marc-Auréle, p.454 sqq. Renan says 
that even after the Latin language prevailed Greek letters were often 
employed, and that the only 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, Rénsch, Reusch, E. 
Ranke, and especially Ziegler, Die lat. Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus, 
Miinchen, 1879. 

3 Ἑλληνιστῆς, Acts vi. 1; xi. 20, etc., must not be confounded with 
Ἕλλην, comp. Acts xiv. 1; xviii.4; Rom. i. 14, 16; ii. 9, 10; Gal. iii. 28, 
ete. It is from ἑλληνίζω, to Hellenize, i. 6. 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 Cesar, 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 filth 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 

3 


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, Caesarea Stratonis, Gadara, Hippos, 
Scythopolis (Bethshan ), Sebaste, Ceesarea 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.’ 

This city was the stronghold of the Jewish faith 
and language, of prejudice and bigotry,’ 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 


? 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. 

? This religious bigotry denounced all foreign learning as dangerous. 
Rabbi Eliezer said: “ He who teaches his son Greek is like one who eats 


pork.” 2 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 11 


1 


‘from every nation under heaven.”’ The number 
of Jews present at the Passover, according to Jose- 
phus, sometimes exceeded two millions.” 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.’ 


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. 65 (Bell. Jud. ii. 14,3). He 
also 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. 

8. 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. 
procem.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 (ἀκριβῶς) 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 (ἀκρίβειαν). 
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.’ 


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; the other, that he spoke. 
Greek only, or more than Hebrew.’ 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.* 


who are 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, Finleit. in die Schr. des N. Test. (3d ed. 1826), ii. 30-60, translated 
by Robinson, “ Bibl. Repository,” Andover, 1831, p. 530-551. Schiirer, in 
his Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch., p. 376-385, comes to the same conclusion. 

2 So De Rossi (who wrote against Diodati), Pfannkuche, Mill, Michaelis, 
Marsh, Kuin6l, 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.” 

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


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 18 


Christ was born in Judza, 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 Galileans, 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 
Galilean.” ’ The woman of Samaria recognized 
our Lord by his speech and dress as a Jew, and the 
proud rulers contemptuously called him a Galilean.’ 
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.’ 


Delitzsch. See 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.). 

* Matt. xxvi. 73, ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ; Mark xiv. 70; Luke 
xxii. 59. See Wetstein, zn doc., for examples of various provincial dialects 
of Hebrew or Aramaic. The Galilzans (like the Samaritans) confounded 
the gutturals ἐξ, 9, ΓΙ, and used Τὸ for UW. 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 Rabbunit (Mark x. 51; 
John-xx. 16) for Rabbéni, or Ribboni, are said to be Galilean provincial- 
isms. See Grimm, s.v., and Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Naz. iii. 560 note. 

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

* 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 Alttest. Citate im Ν. T. p. 543): 
“ Der Herr hatte auch schlechthin nur ihm eigenthiimliche Worte und Wen- 
dungen, wie wenn er besonders feierliche Ausspriiche mit amen, aména (bei 
Johannes: Wahrlichywahrlich, ich sage) zu beginnen pflegte, wesshalb er in 
der Apokalypse als der treue und wahrhaftige Zeuge, ‘der 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: Zalitha cuma 
(“ Damsel, arise’’).". He opened the ears of the deaf 
man with Hphphatha (“ Be opened”).* He exclaim- 
ed on the Cross, in the language of the 22d Psalm: 
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? (“ My God, my God, 
why hast Thou forsaken me?’).* He addressed Paul 
on the way to Damascus in the Hebrew tongue, which 
reached the quick of his sensibilities: “ Shatl, Shai, 


wird (iii.14). Aber ihrer Grundlage nach war seine Sprache die seines Volkes 
und Landes. Das Christenthum ist ein galildisches Gewdchs. Schon die 
Namen, die wir fiihren, verrathen es ; der Name Thomas ist griechisch-ara- 
mdisch, der Name Simon ist eigenthiimlich paldstinisch-aramdisch, und der 
Name Magdalena stammt aus Magdala in der schinen Landschaft am 
galildischen Meere. Ja, wir alle reden, auch ohne es zu wissen, in ara- 
mdischen, in paldstinischen Worten. Wenn wir Jesus als Messias bekennen, 
wenn wir des Herrn Mahi das neutestamentliche Passa nennen, wenn wir zu 
Gott mit dem kindlichen Abba beten, so sind dies die aramdischen Worte 
MESCHICHA, PASCHA, ABBA, und wenn wir den Namen Jesu aussprechen 
und mit dem Mariaruf RassBuni ihm zu Fiissen fallen, so sind dies pald- 
stinisch-galildische Formen. Mit dem Friedensgrusse ScHELAMA LECHON! 
begriisste auch noch der Auferstandene seine Jiinger, und mit einem Zurufe 
in dieser Sprache: Scuat., ScHAUL, LEMA REDAFT JATHI? (Saul, Saul, 
warum verfolgst Du mich?) brachte der Erhéhete den Saulus vor Damask 
zur Besinnung (Apg. xxvi. 14). Wie Saulus Worte hérte, ohne ewe Gestalt 
zu sehen, so miissen auch wir zufrieden sein, uns den Klang und der Art 
seiner Rede naher gebracht zu haben—Er selbst bleibt iiber die M dglichkeit 
der Beschauung erhaben; nicht nur seine Herrlichkeitsgestalt, auch schon 
seine Knechtsgestalt blendet uns, dass wir die Augen abwenden miissen, ném~ 
lich die Ihn sinnlich fixiren wollenden A ugen—wir werden [hn einst sehen von 
Angesicht, aber diesseits lasst Er sich nur erschauen mit Augen des Glaubens.” 

* Mark v. 41 (Ταλειϑά κούμ in Westcott and Hort). 

2 Mark vii. 34. ᾿Εφφαϑά 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?’* 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.’ 

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-Pheenician woman,’ with the 
heathen centurion,‘ with the Greeks who called on 
him shortly before his passion,’ 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.* 


1 Acts xxvi. 14, Σαούλ, Σαούλ. In all other passages the Greek form 
Σαῦλος 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 γυνὴ Ἑλληνίς, Mark vii. 26. 

* Matt. viii. 5. 

5 John xii. 20. They are called “ Hellenes” (Ἑλληνες), not Hellenists 
(Ἑλληνισταῖ) 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.’ 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 
Galilewans, 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 “4 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.’ 


the court-language of the proconsuls of Asia and Syria. The procurators 
of Palestine would not make an exception. See Hug, ἰ, 6. 

* Eusebius, who as bishop (and probably a native) of Caesarea, was well 
acquainted with Palestine, declares (Dem. Evang. 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. 

? Aratus, Acts xvii. 28; Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 35; and Epimenides, 
Tit. i, 12, See my Church History, revised ed, (1882), i, 288 sqq, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 


The most conclusive proof of the familiarity of 
the apostles and evangelists with Greek is the fact 
that they composed the Gospels and Epistles in that 
‘Janguage, 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 language of 
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 has 
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 
_@arries 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 tanght, 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 in the year 1881 by the 


1 Jacob Grimm, Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache (Berlin, 1852), p. 50. 
Comp. Schaff, The English Language (Nashville, 1887). 


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 onto dialect, known from in- 
scriptions and grammarians, and from remains of 
Alcgeus, Sappho, and Erinna. 2. The Doric, 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 
Artic dialect differs little from the Ionic, unites 
energy and dignity with grace and melody, and is — 


90 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


represented by the largest literature, the tragedies 
of Aischylus, Sophocles, Euripides, the comedies of 
Aristophanes, the histories of Thucydides and Xen- 
ophon, the philosophical dialogues of Plato, and the 
orations of Demosthenes.’ 

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 Macrpontan or ALEXANDRIAN, and 
also the Common or Hetienic language (ἡ κοινὴ 
διάλεκτος or Ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος). It was used by 
Aristotle, who connects the classic Attic with the 
Hellenic, Polybius, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Dio 
Cassius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, A¢lian, Hero- 
dian, Arrian, and Lucian. 


Examples of new words: ayaSoupyeiv, αἰχμαλωτίζειν, ἀντίλϑτρον, 
ἀποκαραδοκεῖν, ἐλλογεῖν, εὐκαιρεῖν, δικαιοκρισία, νυχϑήμερον, ὀλιγό- 


1 On the Greek dialects, compare the large work of Ahrens, De Grace 
Lingue Dialectis (1839, 1843, 2 vols.); Merry, Specimens of Greek Dialects 
(Oxford, 1875); the well-known grammars of Prof. G. Curtius of Leipzig, 
and Kiihner; 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 


πιστος, οἰκοδεσπότης, πεποίϑησις. From Egypt: πάπυρος, πυραμίς, 
βάϊον. From Persia: ἄγγαρος, γάζα, μάγοι, παράδεισος, τιάρα. From 
the Latin: κῆνσος, κουστωδία, λεγιών. From the Semitic: ἀρραβών, 
ζιζάνιον, ῥαββεί. The Alexandrians had also a special orthography ; 
they exchanged letters—as αἱ and εἰ, ε and 7, y and x—and they retained 
the p before ψΨ and 99 (as in λήμψομαι). 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 (Hermeneutics of the N. T. p. 125) gives the following 
description of the distinctive characteristics of the Macedonian Greek: 
“ Besides the Atticisms, Ionicisms, Doricisms, and olicisms, the διάλεκτος 
κοινή shows still the following peculiarities: (a.) Words that occur seldom 
or only in poetical discourse in the old Greek now become more common, 
and pass over into plain prose, as, 6. g., μεσονύκτιον, Seoorvync, βρέχω, to 
moisten, ἔσϑω for goSiw, and others. (ὖ.) Words in use receive another 
form, as ἀνάϑεμα for avaSnpa, yeviowa for γενέϑλια, ἐκπαλαί for παλαί, 
χϑές for ἐχϑές, ixecia for ἰκετεία, μισϑαποδοσία for μισϑοδοσία, μονόφ- 
ϑάλμος for ἑτερύφϑαλμος, νουϑεσία for νουϑέτησις, ὀπτασία for ὄψις, ἡ 
ὁρκομοσία for τὰ ὁρκ.; ὁ πλησίον for ὁ πέλας, ποταπός for ποδαπός, ete. 
Especially frequent become verbal forms in -iZw, in -w pure instead of in 
-μι (6.9. ὀμνύω instead of durvvpe), formed from the perfect, as στήκω, sub- 
stantives in -μα. (c.) Words entirely new, mostly words formed through 
composition, make their appearance, as ἀντίλυτρον, ἀλεκτοροφωνία, 
ἀποκεφαλίζω, ἀγαϑοποιέω, αἰχμαλωτεύω, νυχϑήμερον, σιτομέτριον, et al, 
(d.) Words long familiar and current receive new meanings, as ἀνακλίνειν 
and ἀναπίπτειν, to recline at table; ἀποκριϑῆναι, to answer; ἀποτάσ- 
σεσϑαι, to take leave; δαίμων or δαιμόνιον, evil spirit; εὐχαριστεῖν, to 
thank; ξύλον, tree; παρακαλεῖν, to pray; στέγειν, to endure, to bear up; 
φϑάνειν, to come, to arrive; χρηματίζειν, to be called; ψωμίζειν, to eat, 
to nourish, οὐ 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; 6. g. 
the Doricism ἀφέωνται for ageivrat, the Holic optative ending in -ea, 
the ending of the second person of the present and future passive and 
middle in -« instead of in -ῃ, etc. (6.) Infrequency of the use of the 
dual, as, 6. g., δύσι instead of δυοῖν. (c.) Infrequency of the employment 
of the optative (in the Johannean writings it does not occur at all). 
(d.) The construing of certain verbs with other cases, especially with the 
accusative, as ἐπιϑυμεῖν τι instead of τινός, φοβεῖσϑαι ἀπό instead of ὑπό 


92 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


and accusative, et al. (e.) The weakening of iva in the formule ϑέλω 
iva, λέγω iva, ἄξιος iva, and many others. (/f-) Use of the subjunctive 
instead of the optative after preterites, etc. A still greater degradation 
of the language finds place in the construction of ἵνα with the indicative, 
and not with the future only, but even with the present indicative, of σύν 
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 H. Newman, — 
Andover, 1877.) 


THE 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 HHellensstic 
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 Egyptian and Orien- 
tal 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 Vulgate. 
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 Septuagmt version of the Old Testament 
Scriptures was gradually made by Jewish scholars 
in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy IL., 
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,’ . 
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 280," 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. 7. lichen Citate im N.T. (Wien, 


1 Isa. xix. 19, 20, 25. 

3 James Scott (Principles of New Testament Quotation, Edinb. 1875, 
Ῥ. 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 his Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu und deren 
Zusammenhang mit der Septuaginta- Vebersetzung (ibid. 1873); C. H. Toy, 
Quotations in the New Testament (New York, 1884), Turpie states the 
result of his examination (p. 266 sqq.) in five 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). Ξ 

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. 

Bohl 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 (Volksbibel)) which he thinks. was in common use at that 
time in Palestine, and which was substantially the Septuagint Version, or 
based on it: “ Die Septuaginta Uebersetzung ist die paldstinensische Bibel 
oder die Bibel im Vulgdrdialect geworden, und daher schreibt 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 Sanhedrin; 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. Important contributions are furnished by E. Nestle, 
Veteris Testamenti Greeci Codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum textu recepto 
collati (Lips. 1880; 2d ed. 1886), and P. de Lagarde, Libri V. T. Grace 
(Pt. I. Gottingen, 1883). 


Jesus himself quotes from the Septuagint, accord- 
ing to the evangelists.’ 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,’ and in their epistles.” Even Paul, who 
was educated at Jerusalem and thoroughly versed 
in rabbinical lore, usually agrees with the Septua- 
gint, except when he freely quotes from memory, 
or adapts the text to his argument.’ 


THE APOSTOLIC GREEK. 

. 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 ἵνα mAnpwS7, 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 (Beitrdge zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, p. 57), and 
is confirmed by Holtzmann (Dze 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; 11. 6, 22; iii. 10-12; iv. 18; v. 5. 

3. Gal. iii. 13; Rom. ii. 24; iii. 4, 10-18; iv. 3; ix. 27-29; x.11, 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 ap. allegatis (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- 


4 


26 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


duction 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 New 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.’ 

The New Testament idiom consists of three ele- 
ments, which we may compare with the three ele- 
ments of man—the σῶμα, ψυχή, and νοῦς or πνεῦμα. 
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 οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, 
πρόσωπον (as applied to the persons of the Trinity), ὁμοούσιος, ὁμοιού- 
σιος, ἑτεροούσιος (of the Son of God in his relation to the Father), évocp- 
κωσις, ἐνανθρώπησις, ἰδιότης, ἀγεννησία. γεννησία, ἐκπόρευσις, πέμψις 
(of the Holy Spirit), ϑεοτύόκος (of the Virgin Mary), ἕνωσις ὑποστατική, 
κοινωνία ἰδιωμάτων, περιχώρησις (of the inner trinitarian relations), 
ἀνυποστασία or ἐνυποστασία (the impersonality of the human nature of 
Christ), etc. For ecclesiastical Greek, see Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus 
e Patribus Grecis, Amst. 2d ed. 1728, 2 vols. fol.; C. du Fresne (du Cange), 
Glossarium ad Scriptores Medie et Infime Grecitatis, Lugd. 1688, 2 tom. 
fol.; and E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lex. of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. 
Boston, 1870; now in course of revision by Dr. Dhayer (1887) 


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.’ 


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 (Lenedictus), and of Simeon (Mune De- 
mittis) are entirely Hebrew in spirit and tone, and 
can be literally rendered so as to read like Hebrew 
psalms. But on the whole Luke and the author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews Hebraize least of all. 
Not a few Hebrew words—as Amen, Eden, Messiah, 
Manna, Hallelujah, 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. 37. He says: 
“ Das neutestamentliche Idiom ist nicht aus einer rohen Sprachenmischung 
hervorgegangen, sondern stellt sich uns dar als der erste Schritt des im Osten 
aufgegangenen Lichtes zur Bewdiltigung und Durchdringung der abendlin- 
dischen Gesittung.” Comp. also Tregelles, in Horne’s Introd. iv. 21-23: 
and Bleek-Mangold’s Fini. i. d. N. Test. p. 78 (4th ed. 1886). 


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, Hosanna, Sabbath, which 
were borrowed from the temple service, and are 
found in the Septuagint), the Hebraisms of the 
New 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. The Hebrew still continued to be the 
sacred language (w3pm jit), and the Scripture 
lessons were read from the Hebrew text, but were 
followed by Aramaic translations (Targumim) and 
sermons (Midrashim).’ | 

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. 


ἀβαδδών = VIAN (destruction), pr. name of the angel prince of the 
infernal regions, Rev. ix. 11. 

aBBa=NaX (Heb. 38), father, Mark xiv. 36; Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6. 

ἁκελδαμά (W. and H., aceddapay)=R2F ὉΠ, Jield of blood, Acts i. 19. 

ἁλληλουιά Ξ- ΠΙΆ 49953, hallelujah, praise ye Jehovah (Heb.), Rev. xix. 
1, 3, 4,6. Comp. Ps. civ. 35. 


1 The word éGpaiori, 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 Josephus. 

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, /remdsprachliche 
Redensarten in den Talmuden und Midrashim (Leipz. 1869). 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29 


ἀμήν = 72% (Heb.), truly, verily, Matt. vi. 18 (2), Rom. 1, 25; ix. 5; 
Rev. iii. 14, etc. 

ἀρραβών = ἸΞῚ9 (Heb.), a pledge, earnest (a mercantile term of 
Pheenician origin), 2 Cor. i. 22; v.5; Eph. i. 14. 

βάτος = = ὯΞ (Heb.), bath (a liquid measure of about 8} gallons), Luke 
xvi, 5, 6. 

βεελζεβούλ = dIDY ὌΣΞ (Aram.), lord of dung (deus stercoris), and 


βεελζεβούβ = AAAI bya (Heb. ), lord 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. 

Mitivig big tk (Wa) τιν 923, Sons of Thunder, Mark iii.17. A name 
given to the sons of Zebedee (comp. Luke ix. 54). 

βύσσος = ΥΞ (Sept.), fine linen, Luke xvi. 19; Rev. xviii. 12, Also 
βύσσινον, Rev. xix. 8, 

yaBBaSa=NNA35 (Gr. λιϑόστρωτον), back, ridge, pavement ; the place 
where Pilate gave sentence against Jesus, John xix. 18, 

yéevva = DSF N49, the valley of Hinnom, 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, 

γολγοϑά (al. ἃ) = = NMP374 (Heb. mph>3), skull (κρανίον, calva, 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, 

éBpatori, Westcott and Hort ἐβραϊστί (from SAY), Hebraice, in Hebrew 
(Aramaic), John v. 2; xix. 13, 17,20; Rev. ix.11, xvi. 16. | 

ἐλωί ἐλωί (or ἠλεί ἠλεί, Heb. ">¥), λεμὰ caBaySavei, My God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me. Quotation from Ps. xxii.2. See Matt. xxvii. 
46; Mark xv. 34. Mark gives the Syriac form, ἐλωΐ ἐλωί. In Matthew 
there are variations, but Westcott and Hort give éAwi in the text and 
ἠλεί in the margin. 

ἐφφαϑά (Aram. ΓΞ δ), διανοίχϑητι, be opened, Mark vii. 84, 

ζιζάνιον (Arab., Syr., Talm.), bastard wheat, tares, Matt. xiii. 25, ete. 

κάμηλος = boa (Heb.), camel, Mark 1.6, Matt. iii. 4; xix. 24, ete. 
(Sept. Gen. xii. i6; xxiv. 10). 

κιννάμωμον = ἼΩΣΡ (Heb.), cinnamon (an aromatic bark used for 
incense and perfume), Rev. xviii. 13, 

ἰουδαΐζω (from M71", Judah), to Judaize, Gal. ii. 14; also ἐουδαϊσμός, 
i. 13; ἰουδαϊκῶς, ii. 14; ἰουδαϊκός, Tit. i. 14; ἰουδαῖος, Acts x. 18, etc. 

κορβᾶν and kopBavac=ja Pp (Heb.), NIBP (Aram.), an offering, 
oblation, Mark vii, 11; Matt. xxvii, 6, 


30 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


κύμινον = {2D (Heb.), cummin (Germ. Kiimmel), a low herb of the 
fennel kind, which produces aromatic seeds. 
λίβανος = M355 (Heb. from the verb 122, to be white), frankincense, 
Matt. ii. 11; Rev. xviii. 18. 
μαμωνᾶς = N2170N2, ἡ Ὁ, riches, Matt. vi. 24; Luke vi. 98. Comp. 
the Heb, M2528, Isa. xxxiii. 6 (Syoavpoi, LXX.); Ps. xxxvii.3 (πλοῦτος). 
Augustin says: “ Lucrum punice mammon dicitur.” 
μάννα (Heb. 12, in the Sept. τὸ μάν), manna, the miraculous food of 
the Israelites in the wilderness, John vi. 31, 49, 58; Heb. ix. 4; Rev. 
ii. 17. 
μαρὰν ἀϑά ΞΞ ΤΣ 370, the Lord cometh, 1 Cor. xvi. 22, 
μεσσίας = Nw (Heb, 11°07), the Anointed, the Messiah, John i. 
41 (42); iv. 25. In all other passages the Greek equivalent, Χριστός 
(from χρίω, to anoint), is used. 
[pwpé = ΓΛ (Heb.), rebel (?), Matt. v. 22.}? 
πάσχα = NMOB (Heb. MOS), passover, Matt. xxvi. 17; John ii. 13; 
vi. 4; xviii. 39, ‘etc. Used in three different senses: (1) the pemchal 
lamb; (2) the paschal meal; (3) the paschal feast from the 14th to the 
20th of Nisan. Mistranslated Laster in E. V., Acts xii. 4; correct in R. V. 
ῥαββί or ῥαββεί, ῥαββονί or ῥαββουνί = ἈΞ (Heb. from 33, much, 
great), 12, {27 (Chald.), my great one, my master, great master, John 
xx. 6; Mark x. 51, etc. The salutation of Hebrew teachers or doctors 
(διδάσκαλοι). Comp. the French Monsieur, Monseigneur. Rabboni or 
Rabbuni, John xx. 16, is the Galilean pronunciation for Ribboni. 
ῥακά (or ῥαχά, Tischendorf) = 8p") (Heb. P"), empty, worthless, 
Matt. v. 22. 
σαβαχϑανί ="INPIY (Chal.), thou hast forsaken me, Matt. xxii. 46. 
σαβαώϑ = MINX (Heb.), hosts, armies (κύριος σαβαώϑ, rina ms 
Lord of Hosts), Luke ii. 13; Rom. ix. 29; James v. 4. 
σάββατον = M2 (Heb.), rest, day of rest, Mark ii. 27, etc. Also the 
‘plural σάββατα (Mark i. 21, ete.) ; σαββατισμός, a keeping of Sabbath, 
Sabbath rest (Heb. iv. 9); ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ σαββάτου (MDE Di), the 
Sabbath day (John xix. 81; Luke iv. 16); ὁδὸς σαββάτου, a Sabbath- 


1 This is usually considered as the vocative of the Greek μωρός, Sool, 
The E. R. recognizes the Hebrew derivation in the margin. The He- 
brew more means rebellious, heretical (Numb. xx. 10); but the Syriac more 
means κύριος, dominus. Dr. Fr. Field objects to the Hebrew derivation 
on the ground that Christ used the Syriac. Otium Norvicense (Oxf. 1881), 
Ῥ. 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 ὦ», LXX. ἄφρων). 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 31 


day’s journey, 2. 6. 6 stadia or 750 Roman paces, equal to about two thirds 
of an English mile (Acts i. 12) ; and προσάββατον, fore-Sabbath, Sabbath- 
eve (Mark xv. 42). 

σατᾶν, caravac= 2 (Heb.), adversary, devil (διάβολος, ὁ πονηρός), 
Matt. xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33; Luke xxii. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 7, ete. 

σάπφειρος = "BO (Heb.), sapphire (a precious stone, next in value to 
the diamond), Rev. xxi. 19 (Sept. Ex. xxiv. 10; xxviii. 18). 

σάτον =NMNO (Heb. NO), a seah (a dry measure of about a peck 
and a half), Matt. xiii. 33. 

σίκερα (τό, indecl.) = "2 (Heb.), sikera, strong drink, Luke i. 15. 

συκάμινος = M2PW (Heb.), a sycamine tree, Luke xvii. 6 (Sept. 1 Kings 
x. 27, etc.). 

ταλιϑά, κούμ = “ὮῬ}) δε, maiden, arise, Mark v. 41. 

ὕσσωπος = Δ"ϊὺξ (Heb.), hyssop, John xix. 29; Heb. ix. 29 (1 Kings v. 
3, etc.). 

χερουβίμ = BID (Heb. plural from 34D), cherubim, Heb. ix. 5. 
Comp. the Greek γρύψ, γρυπός. 

ὡσαννά = NI MP WAN (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: 


Κηφᾶς (Syr. 8D"D, Greek Πέτρος), Μαρία (Aramaic for the Hebrew 
52), Μάρϑα (domina), Μάλχος (1272, King), Χουζᾶ (Luke viii. 3 ; see 
Westcott and Hort’s text), Ταβιϑά (Greek Δορκάς, Acts ix. 36, 40); 
Ἰακώβ or ᾿Ιάκωβος, ᾿Ιησοῦς, ᾿Ιωάννης, Μελχισεδέκ, Σαούλ or Σαῦλος, 
and many others. Also the names compounded with "3, son, as Barabbas 
(son of a father, or son of a rabbi), Bartholomew, Barjesus, Barjonas, 
Bartimzus, Barsabas, Barnabas. 


Hebrew names of several places, as, 

Armageddon (mount of Megiddé, Rev. xvi. 16), Bethlehem (House of 
Bread), Bethany (House of Dates), Bethphage (House of Figs), Bethesda 
(House of Mercy), Bethsaida (Place of Fishing), Gethsemane (oil-press), 
Jerusalem (Dwelling of Peace), Siloam (ridui, translated ἀπεσταλμένος, 
John ix. 7, by Robinson, an aqueduct ; by Grimm, effusio, Wasserguss), etc. 


II. Hebraizing phrases and modes of construction: 


ἀπὸ προσώπου, "2872 or "IBD, from the face or presence of any one, 
Srom 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. 


βασιλεύειν ἐπί (instead of gen. or dat.), by 2% to reign over, Luke 
i. 33; xix. 14,17; Matt. ii. 22, ete. 

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

δύο δύο (bini, for ἀνὰ δύο or εἰς δύο), pair-wise, by two and two, Mark νἱ. 7. 

ei (for οὐ), ON, in forms of oath, as Mark viii. 12, εἰ δοϑήσεται σημεῖον, 
no sign shall be given; Heb. iv. 5, εἰ εἰσελεύσονται, 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. 627). 

εἰς ἀπάντησιν, mip), for meeting (instead of inf. ἀπαντᾶν, to meet), 
Matt. xxv. 1,6; Acts xxviii. 15. 

εὐδοκεῖν ἔν τινι, 3 YDN, to be well pleased with, to take pleasure in some 
one, Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5; Mark i. 11; Luke iii. 22, ete. 

AoyiZe εἰς (δικαιοσύνην), 5 awh, to reckon unto, to impute, Rom. iv. 3, 
22: Gal. iii.6; James ii. 23. Comp. Gen. xv. 6 (Sept.). 

ὁμολογεῖν Ev τινι (comp. by man, Ps. xxxii. 5, slightly differing), 
to make a confession on or respecting some one (in alicuius causa), Matt. x. 
32; Luke xii. 8. 

οὐ... πᾶς, DD ND, for οὐδείς, not one, none, Matt. xxiv. 22; Mark xiii, 
20; Rom. 111. 20; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. v. 5, ete. 

πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, DID DN DIB, face to face (nothing 
intervening), 1 Cor. xiii.12. See Sept. Gen. xxxii. 31. 

πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, 22D NW, to accept the person of any one, to 
Savor, to be partial. In the New Test. only in a bad sense, Luke xx. 
21; Gal. ii. 6 (πρόσωπον ϑεὸς ἀνϑρώπου ob λαμβάνει). 

πρασιαὶ πρασιαΐ (adverbially and distributively, areolatim, for ava 
πρασιάς), in ranks, plat-wise, by plats (like beds in a garden), Mark vi. 40, 
So also συμπόσια συμπόσια, by table parties, by companies, in ver. 39. 

Also ἀκολουϑεῖν ὀπίσω τινος, εἶναι εἴς τι, ὀμνύειν ἔν τινι, προσκυνεῖν 
ἐνώπιόν τινος, the frequent καὶ ἐγένετο (747), ete. 

υἱός, with the genitive in the sense of belonging to, or exposed to, 
deserving of, as υἱὸς Savarov (M72 2), son of death ; υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶ- 
voc, sons of the bridal chamber, bridemen ; υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας, sons of the 
kingdom ; υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ, subjects and followers of Satan; vide τῆς 
ἀπολείας, son of perdition, 2. 6. doomed to perdition (John xvii. 12); υἱοὶ 
τῆς ἀναστάσεως, partakers of the resurrection (Luke xx. 36), etc. 

Foreign derivatives in imitation of the vernacular, as ἀναϑεματίζω 
(from ἀνάϑεμα, Heb. DAM, 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. 32 


matize, to lay under a curse (Mark xiv. 71; Acts xxiii. 12, 14, 21); 
ἐγκαινίζειν (from ἐγκαίνια), to initiate, to dedicate (Heb. ix. 18; x. 20; 
in the Sept. for 724, Deut. xx. 5); σκανδαλίζειν ὦ DD, 9032, 27257), 
to make stumble, to lead to sin, and the passive σκανδαλίζεσϑαι, to stumble, 
to be led astray (Matt. v. 29; xiii. 21, etc., from σκάνδαλον, a trap-stick, 
a snare, a stumbling-block, in the Sept. for win); σπλαγχνίζεσϑαι (from 
σπλάγχνα, DT, bowels), to have compassion (Matt. xx. 34, etc.). 

The intensive adverbial use of the noun in 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, 
Ρ. 466), as χαρᾷ χαίρει, he reoiceth greatly (John iii. 29), ἐπιϑυμίᾳ 
ἐπεϑύμησα, I have earnestly desired (Luke xxii. 15). 

The particles ἵνα and ὅταν are constructed with the present and future 
indicative, Luke xi. 2; Gal. vi. 12 (?); Mark iii. 2. ‘va in classical writers 
denotes the purpose or intention (ἵνα τελικόν, in order that); but in later 
Greek and in the New Test. sometimes simply the consequence or result 
(iva ἐκβατικόν, 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., Thayer, 457 sqq., and Robinson and Grimm sub ἵνα. 


III. Greek words with Hebrew meanings: 


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

(τὰ) ἅγια ἁγίων (for the superlative, Ὁ wp), the holy of holies, 
or the inner sanctuary of the temple, Heb. ix. 3. 

αἰὼν οὗτος and αἰὼν μέλλων, TID pis and N23 p>iy, for the 
two ages or eras (dispensations) befure and after the Messiah's advent, 
modified in the New Test. the present and the future world. So also the 
expressions ἔσχαται ἡμέραι, ἐσχάτη ὥρα, τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων, συντέλεια 
τοῦ αἰῶνος, refer to the last times of the αἰὼν οὗτος, ἴῃ 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, ete. 

αἷμα ἐκχέειν or ἐκχύνειν (03 DV), to kill, Luke xi. 50; Rom. iii. 15, 

ἄρτον φαγεῖν, to take food, to eat Cond DDR ), Mark iii, 20; Luke 
xiv.1. Also ἐσϑίειν ἄρτον, Matt, xv.2. 

ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας (or ὀφειλήματα, παραπτώματα, etc.), to forgive sins, 
etc., to pardon, Matt. vi. 12; ix. 6; Luke xi. 4, etc. Comp. the Heb. 
“IBD, Sept. Isa. xxii. 14; NW, Gen. 1. 17. 

βαπτίζειν, βαπτισμός, βάπτισμα, 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. 

\ 6 RAR y 


\ ‘or THE 


UNIVERSIT ¥ 


34 ‘THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


γλῶσσα, in the sense of nation (jr), Rev. v. 9; vii. 9, ete. 

δαιμονιζόμενος, possessed by a demon or evil spirit. Often in the 
Gospels. 

δέειν and λύειν, to bind and to Mioee 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 κρατεῖν and ἀφιέναι. 

διάβολος (accuser, slanderer), for Satan, Matt. iv. 1; ix. 34, etc. Comp. 
Job i. 7, 12; Rev. xii. 9, 10. 

δύναμις Ae δυνάμεις, i in the sense of miraculous powers (mindEa, 
Sept. Job xxxvii. 14), Matt. vii. 22, and very often. See Dictionaries. 

ἔϑνη, in the sense of Gentiles, heathen (855), as distinct from the Jew- 
ish nation (λαός, DY), Luke ii. 32, ete. 

εὐλογέω, to bless (533), Luke i. 64; Matt. v. 44, etc. 

ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός, from birth, from infancy (AN 1232), Gal. i. 15. 

ζητεῖν τὸν ϑεόν, to seek God, i.e, to turn to him as a sincere worshipper, 
Acts xvii. 27; Rom. x. 20. Quoted from Isa. Ιχν. 1 (Sept.). 

ζητεῖν ἡ νὰν to seek one’s life, i.e. to seek to kill him (WE? wR), 
Matt. ii. 10; Rom. xi. 3. 

ἰδεῖν, to see, in the sense to experience (to suffer, or to enjoy, like TX"), 
Luke ii. 26; Heb. xi. 5. 

ὁδός, manner of life (73), Matt. xxi. 32; Rom. iii. 17; Acts xviii, 25; 
James v. 20, 

ῥῆμα, in the sense of thing (as “3), Luke ii. 15; Acts v. 32. 

σάρξ ("W3), in the sense of man (mortal), or human nature, or natural 
descent (κατὰ σάρκα), or frailty, or the corrupt, carnal nature, in opposition 
to πνεῦμα. Very often, especially in Paul’s Epistles. See Dictionaries. 

σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα, for men, with the accessory idea of weakness and frailty, 
Matt. xvi. 17; Eph. vi. 12; Gal. i. 16. 

σπέρμα, seed, in the sense of offspring, posterity (21), Matt. xxii. 24, 
25; Mark xii. 19-21; Luke i. 55; xx. 28; Rom. iv. 18, 18, ete. 

cuvvaywyn, a Jewish synagogue (assembly), Luke viii. 41, ete.; a 
Christian congregation, James ii. 2; synagogue of Satan, Rev. ii. 9; iii. 9, 

χριστός, anointed, in the sense of the Messiah. 


IV. 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.” 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. 


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

5 Cicero (Pro Arch. 10): “Greca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus ; 
Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur.” 


36 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


ἀσσάριον, as, a Roman copper coin, worth three English farthings, or 
1} cent (one tenth of a denarius), Matt. x. 29; Luke xii.6. Probably the 
neuter form of the old Latin assarius, as δηνάριον is of denarius, 

δηνάριον, denarius, a Roman silver coin of the value of ten asses (as 
the name indicates), and afterwards of sixteen asses (the as 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 dendry, or shilling, Matt. 
Xviil. 28; xx. 2,9, 10,13; xxii. 19; Mark vi.37; John vi.7; xii. 5; Rev. 
vi. 6, ete. 

kevTupiwy, centurio (originally a commander of a hundred foot-soldiers, 
ἑκατόνταρχος), Mark xv. 39, 44, 45. 

κῆνσος, census (Greek, ἀπογραφή) ; in the New Test. tribute, poll-tax, 
Matt. xvii. 25; xxii. 17; Mark xii. 14 (δοῦναι κῆνσον Kaicapi). 

κοδράντης, guadrans (from guatuor), a small copper coin, the fourth 
part of an as, a farthing (ὦ, e. fourthing), two fifths of one cent, Matt. v. 26; 
Mark xii. 42. 


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

KovoTwoia, custodia, custody, guard (of Roman soldiers), Matt. xxvii. 
65, 66; xxviii. 11. Corresponds to the Greek φυλακή. 

κράββατος, or κράβαττος (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and 
Hort), grabatus, a small couch or mattress, Mark ii. 4, ete. 

Aeyewr (Westcott and Hort, λεγιών), legio, legion, Mark v. 9, 15; Matt. 
xxvi. 53; Luke viii.30. Also in rabbinical Hebrew (7732). See Buxtorf. 

λέντιον, linteum, a linen cloth, a towel or apron, worn by servants, John 
xiii. 4,5. From the Greek λίνον, a flaxen cord. 

λιβερτῖνος, libertinus, a freedman, Acts vi. 9. 

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

μάκελλον, macellum, meat-market, shambles, 1 Cor. x. 25. 

μεμβράνα, membrana (from membrum), skin, parchment, 2 Tim. iv. 13. 

μίλιον, milliarium (for mille passuum), a thousand paces, a mile, Matt. 
v. 41. 

μύόδιος, 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 iy. 21; Luke xi. 33. 

ξέστης, sextarius, in the New Test. a small measure, or vessel, pot, Mark 
vii. 4, 8. 

πραιτώριον, pretorium, the general’s tent in a camp; and also the resi- 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 37 


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

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

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

σιμικίνϑιον, semicinctium (from semi, half, and cingere, to gird), an apron, 
Acts xix.12. For ἡμιζώνιον. . 

σουδάριον, sudarium (from sudor, sweat), sweat-cloth, handkerchief, Luke 
xix. 20; John xi. 44; xx. 7; Acts xix. 12, 

σπεκουλάτωρ, speculator, a pikeman, a soldier of the body-guard em- 
ployed as watch and in messages, Mark vi, 27; also in later Hebrew. For 
σωματοφύλαξ. 

ταβέρνη, taberna, tavern, Acts xxviii. 15. 

τίτλος, titulus, inscription, superscription, John xix. 19, 20. For ém- 
γραφή. 

φαιλόνης (φαινόλης), penula, a woollen cloak, or mantle for travelling 
(and also in rainy weather), 2 Tim. iv. 13. 

φόρον, forum, market; part of the name of the village Appit forum, 
Acts xxviii. 15. - 

φραγέλλιον, flagellum, a scourge, John ii. 15, 

φραγελλόω, flagello, to flagellate, to scourge, Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark χν. 18, 

(χάρτης), charta, paper, 2 John 12, 

χῶρος, corus, or caurus, the northwest wind, Acts xxvii. 12. 

Total, 31 Latinisms. Potwin gives 24, Thayer 30 (omitting xdprns). 


Latin proper names of persons: 


Agrippa, Amplias, Aquila, Caius, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, 
Crispus, Drusilla, Felix, Festus, Fortunatus, Gallio, Julius, Julia, Junia, 
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 ( Σεβαστός ), Tiberius, 
Claudius. The generic name Cesar ( Καῖσαρ) 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, Cesarea, Italy, Rome, Spain, Tiberias, Tres Tabernax, 
Latin phrases : 

ἐργασίαν δοῦναι, operam dare (Luke xii. 58); συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν, 


consilium capere (Matt. xii. 14, etc.); τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν τινι, satisfacere 
alicus (Mark xv, 15). 


38 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


NUMBER AND VALUE OF FOREIGN WORDS. 


Professor Lemuel 8. Potwin (of Western Reserve 
College, Hudson, Ohio) has made a list of native 
words of the New 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.) The total number of words in the Greek 
Testament (according to Tischendorf’s 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 363 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 
prwatiwum being very frequent, as the English 
compounds with wn are constantly increasing. 

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


1 See Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, July, 1880, pp. 503-527; and Oct. 
1880, pp. 640-660. The results are stated on p. 652 sqq. Prof. Potwin 
has published lists of Latinisms in Bibl. Sacra for Oct. 1875, p. 703 sqq., 
and of Hebraisms, zbid. Jan. 1876, p. 52 sqq. I made my lists indepen- 
dently, from Bruder, Hudson, etc. Comp. also Thayer’s Append. to his 
ed. of Grimm (1886) See p. 80. 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39 


double- minded, wavering, Jas. i. 8; iv. 8; also in 
Clemens Rom. Ad Cor. ¢. 23; σύμψυχος, or σύνψυ- . 
xoc, concors, like-minded, congenial, Phil. ii. 2; 
Aoyouaxia, word-strife, 1 Tim. vi. 4; ᾿μακροϑυμία, 
longanimity, forbearance, Rom. ii. 4, etc.; Seodida- 
κτος, taught of God, 1 Thess. iv. 9; and the com- 
pounds with ayaSo-, avti-, érepo-, and ψευδο-. 

(4.) The doctrinal and practical value is great in 
proportion to the idea expressed. Such words as 
ἀγάπη (caritas, as distinct from ἔρως, amor), ἀποκά- 
λυψις, ἀπολύτρωσις, ἁμαρτωλός, βάπτισμα, βαπτισμύς, 
βαπτιστής, ἱλασμός, παλιγγενεσία, συνείδησις, have a 
definite theological significance, and cannot be re- 
placed by classical words. 


- 


THE CHRISTIAN ELEMENT.’ 


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 


~ Comp. Schleiermacher, Hermen. 66, 138; Immer, Hermen. 129; Cremer, 
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 (εὐαγγέλιον) 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 (ἐκκλησία, συναγωγή) 
has passed through a heathen, Jewish, and Christian 
stage; it denotes first a lawful assembly of free 
Creek 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. Fazth (πίστις, 
from πείϑω, to persuade, meiSopat τινι, 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 (ἀγάπη is not found in elassical writ- 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 41 


ers, but in its place φιλία. πὰ φιλανϑρωπία, and the 
verb ἀγαπάω, 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 (ἐλπίς) 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 
(ταπεινός, ταπεινόφρων, ταπεινοφροσύνη, ταπεινότης, 
ταπείνωσις) designate to the proud heathen meanness 
and baseness of mind, but in the New Testament a 
fundamental Christian virtue. Repentance (μετάνοια) 
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 (ἅγιος, ἁγιάζω. 
ἁγιασμός, ἁγιωσύνη), Whether applied to God or man, 
rise as far above the cognate terms of secular Greek 
(ἁγνός, σεμνός, ὅσιος, ἱερός) 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.’ It per- 


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


5 


492 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 χαίρειν and the Hebrew shalom lecha, 
into the idea of spiritual and eternal welfare, so that 
χάρις and εἰρήνη comprehend the blessings, objec- 
tive and subjective, of the Christian salvation. Yet 
Aristotle’s definition of χάρις (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.’ 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 religions meaning, much 


Rudolph von Raumer, Die Einwirkung des Christenthums auf 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 (κυριακόν), Bischof, bishop (ἐπίσκοπος); Priester, 
priest (πρεσβύτερος), Almosen, alms (ἐλεημοσύνη), Predigt, preaching 
(predicatio); but terms which express the inner life of religion are 
originally German or Saxon, and impregnated with a far deeper meaning; 
as Heiland (Heliand), Heil, Erlésung, Bekehrung, Wiedergeburt, Glaube, 
Liebe, Hoffnung, Himmel: atonement, new birth, love, hope, heaven. 

1 Rhet. ii. 7, quoted by Trench (p. 252), who says, “the freeness of the 
outcomings of God’s love is the central point of χάρις," comp. Rom, iii. 24 
(δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι) and other passages, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 48 


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 days of Paul that 
“the natural man” (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος), who is guid- 
ed only by the light of reason (though he may not 
be σαρκικός), “ 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.” ’ 
PECULIARITIES OF STYLE.” 

The general unity of language admits of great 

variety of style. Every man has his style, and “the 


? Or, examined, πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται, 1 Cor. 11. 14, 

? On this subject the following works may be consulted: Christoph 
Gotthelf Gersdorf, Beitrdge zur Sprach-Charakteristik der Schriftsteller 
des N. Test. (Leipz. 1816 ; only the first part published), This work was 
suggested by Griesbach, and opened the way for this kind of investigation. 
T. α. Seyffarth, Beitrag zur Special-Characteristik der Johann. Schrifien 
(Leipz. 1823), Credner, Kinleit, im dus N. T. vol. i. (Halle, 1836), Wilke, 
Der Urevangelist (Dresden and Leipzig, 1838), Neutestamentl. Rhetorik 
(1843), and Hermeneutik des N. T. (Leipzig, 1843-44, 2 Parts). Zeller, _ 
ip the “Theol. Jahirhiicher,* Tubingen, 1843 (pp. 449-025). 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 sanctifies 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. No 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 Irenzeus, Jerome, Augustin, Chrys- 
ostom, Luther, Calvin, and other great biblical schol- 


Das Johann, Evang. (revised ed. 1875; Engl. translation by Gregory, 
Edinb. 1876, vol. i. pp. 20-63). Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels 
(Lond. and Cambr. 1860; 6th ed. 1881; Amer. ed. by Hackett, Boston, 
1862, pp. 264 sqq.). Holtzmann, Die Synopt. Evangelien (Leipz. 1863, 
pp. 271-358). Holtzmann, on the Yphesians and Colossians (Leipz. 1872), 
and on the Pastoral Epistles (ibid. 1880, pp. 84-117), where the linguistic — 
peculiarities and hapax legomena of Ephesians and Pastoral Epistles are 
investigated for the purpose of proving their un-Pauline character. The 
two critical works of Weiss on Mark and Matthew (1872 and 1876). Im- 
mer, Hermeneutics of the N. Test., translated by A. H. Newman (Andover, 
1877, pp. 132-144). Scholten, Das Paulinische 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. Comp, the lists of Thayer-Grimm, Append., made since, 


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 Auman 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 Theile in seiner Hand, 
Fehit leider nur das geistige Band.” 

Rationalism has 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 


46 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 Heinrich 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.’ 

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 word, 


“ Jesus, divinest 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 


* Eph. iii. 10, πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ Seov, 1 Ῥεῖ, iv, 10, ποικίλη 
χάρις Seov, Comp. Rom, xii.; 1 Cor, xii,-xiv, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 47 


a translation.’ 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.’ 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: κακοὺς κακῶς (pessemos pessime ) 
ἀπολέσει αὐτοὺς, “ Those wretches he will wretchedly 
destroy ” (xxi. 41).° : 

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. 


? The ancient witnesses, from Papias to Eusebius 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. 

* This distinction has been first observed by Credner and Bleek, and 
further examined and accepted by Holtzmann (Die Synopt. Evang. 
Ρ. 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. 

* Or, as the Rev. V. renders the Greek, “He will miserably destroy 
those miserable men.” The A. 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 Ueblen vernichten (Ewald) ; 
schlimm wird er die Schlimmen umbringen (Lange). Other paronomasias: 
vi. 16, agpavicovory τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ὕπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνϑρώ- 
ποις νηστεύοντες, “they disfigure their faces that they may figure as 
men fasting ;” vi, 7, βαττολογεῖν and πυλυλογία, 


48 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


He has a preference for rubrical arrangement, prob- 
ably in accordance with his previous habits of book- 
keeping at the custom-house. He gives headings to 
some of his sections, as Βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Xpr- 
στοῦ (i. 1-18, corresponding to the Hebrew Sepher 
tholedoth ; comp. Gen. v.13 ii. 4), Τῶν δώδεκα ἀπο- 

στύλων τὰ ὀνύματά ἐστιν ταῦτα (xX. 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.’ His Gospel is eminently didactic, 
and in this respect quite different from that of 
Mark, which deals more with facts and incidents. 
He alone uses the term “the kingdom of heaven” 
(ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, thirty-two times); while 
the other evangelists and Paul speak of “the king- 
dom of God” (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Seov). With this cor- 
responds his designation of God as “the heavenly 
Father” (6 πατὴρ 6 οὐράνιος, or 6 ἐν τοῖς ovpavoic).” 
He has a peculiar formula of citing Messianic pas- 
sages, ἵνα (or ὅπως) πληρωϑδῇῃ τὸ ῥηδέν, OF τότε 
ἐπληρώϑη τὸ ῥηϑέν, which occurs twelve times in his. 
Gospel,* but only once in Mark,’ seven times in John,’ 


1 Chs. v.-vii.; x.3 Xlii.; Xxiii.; xxiv.; and xxv. 

2 v, 16,45, 48; vi. 1, 9. 14, 26, 32; vii. 11, 21; x. 82, 88; 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 (in the plural, ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν ai γραφαί) ; xxvii. 9. 

4 Mark xiv. 49, iva πληρωϑῶσιν ai γραφαί. The passage xv. 28, 
ἐπληρώϑη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, is omitted by critical editors on the author- 
ity of NBC*, etc., as a probable insertion from Luke xxii, 37. 

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


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49 


and nowhere in Luke.’ He uses τότε ninety-one 
times (Mark only six times, Luke fourteen times). 
Matthew alone calls Jerusalem “the holy city,” and 
a “city of the Great King.”* 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 a 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. 

Worps PECULIAR To Marruew, and not found 
elsewhere in the New Testament. They number 
about 130. I give the most important, as collected 
from the concordances of Bruder and Hudson: 


ἀγγεῖον, vessel, xxv. 4. Barrodoyéw, to use vain repetitions, 
ἄγγος (plur. dyyn), vessel, xiii. 48} νἱ. 7. 

(Tisch., Treg., W. and H.). βιαστής, violent, xi. 12. 
ἄγκιστρον, hook, xvii. 27. δεῖνα, such a man, xxvi. 18, 
aS@oc, innocent of, xxviii. 24, διακωλύω, to hinder, iii. 14. 
aiperiZw, to choose, xii. 18, διαλλάττομαι, to be reconciled, v. 24, 
ἀκμήν, yet, xv. 16. διασαφέω, to explain, to tell, xiii, 
ἀναβιβάζω, to draw, xiii. 48. 36; xviii. 31. 
ἀναίτιος, guiltless, xii. 5, 7. διέξόδος, with τῶν ὁδῶν, highway, 
ἀπάγχομαι, to hang one’s self,| xxii. 9. 

xxvii. 5, διετής, two years old, ii. 16. 
ἀπονίπτομαι, to wash, xxvii. 24, διστάζω, to doubt, xiv. 31; xxviii. 
βαρύτιμος, very precious, xxvi. 7, 17. 
βασανιστής, tormentor, xviii. 34. | διυλίζω, to strain out, xxiii. 24. (To 


Except the somewhat similar phrase, τὸ γεγραμμένον δεῖ τελεσϑῆναι 
ἐν ἐμοί, xxii, 37, 

* ἡ ayia πόλις, iv. 5; xxvii. 53; πόλις τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως, ν. 35. 
The temple or the hill of Moriah is called τόπος ἅγιος, xxiv. 15. 


00 


strain αὐ in the E. V. is ἃ typo- 
graphical error perpetuated). 

διχάζω, to set at variance, x. 35. 

ἑβδομηκοντάκις, seventy times, 
XViii. 22. 

ἔγερσις, resurrection, xxvii. 53. 

ἐϑνικός, heathen, v. 47 (correct read- 
ing for τελώνης); vi. 7; Xvill. 17 
(the plural occurs once in 3 John, 
ver. 7, and the adverb ἐϑνικῶς in 
Gal. ii. 14). 

εἰρηνοποιός, peacemaker, v. 9. 

ἐκλάμπω, to shine forth, xiii. 48, 

ἐξορκιζω, to adjure, xxvi. 63. 

ἐπιγαμβρεύω, to intermarry, to mar- 
ry a brother’s widow (with refer- 
ence to levirate marriage, accord- 
ing to Jewish law), xxii. 24. 

ἐπιορκέω, to forswear one’s self, v. 33. 

ἐπισπείρω, to Sow among, Xilii. 25. 

εὐνοέω, to agree, v. 25. 

εὐνουχίζω, to make a eunuch, xix. 
12; εὐνουχίζειν ἑαυτόν, to make 
one’s self a eunuch, ¢. 6. to live in 
voluntary celibacy and abstinence, 
xix, 12, 

εὐρύχωρος, broad, vii. 13, 

Savpaouoc, wonderful, xxi. 15, 

ϑυμόω, to be wroth, ii. 16, 

ἰῶτα, jot, v. 18. 

καταϑεματίζω, to curse, XXVi. 74, 

καταμανϑάνω, to consider, vi. 28. 

καταποντίζω, Mid. or Pass., to bay 
xiv. 30; to be drowned, xviii. 6. 

κῆτος, whale, sea-monster, xii. 40. 

KovoTwoia, watch, xxvii. 65, 66; 
Xxviil. 11. 

κώνωψ, gnat, xxiii. 24, 

μαλακία, disease, iv. 23; ix. 35; x. 1. 

μίλιον, mile, v. 41. 

μισϑύω, to hire, xx. 1, 7. 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


μύλων (μύλος), mill, xxiv. 41 (but 
see Rev. xviii. 22, φωνὴ μύλου). 

οὐδαμῶς, by no means, ii. 6. 

παγιδεύω, entangle, xxii. 15. 

παλιγγενεσία, restitution, xix. 28 
(also in Tit. iii. 5, but in a differ- 
ent sense, regeneration of the in- 
dividual by the Holy Spirit). 

παρακούω, neglect to hear, xviii. 17 
(add Mark v. 36 for ἀκούω). 

παρομοιάζω (ὁμοιάζω), to be like 
unto, xxiii. 27. 

παροψίς, platter, xxiii. 25, 26. 

πλατύς, wide, vii. 13. 

πολυλογία, much speaking, vi. 7. 

προφϑάνω, to anticipate, xvii. 25, 

πυῤῥάζω, to be red, xvi. 2, ὃ. 

ῥαπίζω, to smite with the palm-of 

_ the hand, v. 39; xxvi. 67, 

σαγήνη, drag-net, xiii. 47. 

σεληνιάζομαι, to be lunatic (epilep~ 
tic), iv. 24; xvii. 15. 

σιτιστός (from σῖτος, grain), fatted, 
plur. τὰ σιτιστά, fatlings, xxii. 4. 

συνάντησις, with εἰς, to meet, viii. 
84. L., Tr., W. and H. read ὑπάν- 
τησις, meeting; which occurs 
also in xxv.1; John xii. 13. 

συναυξάνω (Mid.),to grow together, 
xiii. 80. 

τάλαντον, talent, xviii. 24; xxv. 
15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 

τελευτή, death, ii. 15. 

τραπεζίτης, exchanger, xxv. 27. 

τρύπημα, eye of a needle (i. 9. τρῆ- 
pa, Luke xviii. 25), xix. 24. 

τύφω (Pass.), to smoke, xii. 20. 

φράζω, to declare, xiii, 36 (dtaca- 
φέω) ; xv. 15. 

φυτεία, plant, xv. 13. 

χλαμύς, 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 wasa mere abbreviator of Matthew, 
or of both Matthew and Luke, has been thoroughly 
reversed by modern research.’ 

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 
ealls 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 bread”); iv. 37; v.3,4. He is 
fond of pictorial participles, as ἀναβλέψας, ἐμβλέψας, 
περιβλεψάμενος, ἀναπηδήσας, κύψας, ἐμβριμησάμενος, 
ἐπιστραφείς, ἀποστενάξας. 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 Zalitha kuma, 
Ephphathah, and Hlow βίοι. He characterizes the 
acting persons by names, relations, company, or situ- 
ation. He repeats again and again the adverb forth- 
with, straightway (ebSéwe, or evSbc), 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 παιδίον (little child), κοράσιον 
(damsel), κυνάριον (little dog), ϑυγάτριον (little 
daughter), ἰχϑύδιον (small fish), ὠτάριον (little ear). 
He uses several Latin terms, as ξέστης (sextarius, a 
measure), κεντυρίων (centurio), κῆνσος (census), 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 53 
σπεκουλάτωρ (speculator, a pikeman), and the Latin 
phrases ἐσχάτως ἔχειν (in extremis esse, to be at the 
point of death, v. 23), and τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν (satesfa- 
cere, to make satisfaction, xv. 15). This is all the 
more natural if he wrote in Rome for: Romans, as 
the ancient tradition uniformly affirms; but most 
of these Latinisms occur also in Matthew and Luke, 


and even in the Talmud. 


PrEcULIAR worps oF Mark, not occurring else- 
where in the New Test. (in all about 100): 


ἀγρεύειν, to catch, xii, 13. 

ἄλαλος, dumb, vii. 37; ix. 17, 25. 

ἀλεκτοροφωνία, cockcrowing, xiii. 

ἄναλος, saltless, insipid, ix. 50, 

ἀναπηδάω, to leap up, x. 50. 

avaorevazey, to sigh deeply, viii. 
12. 

ἀπὸ μακρόϑεν, from far, viii. 3. 

ἀπόδημος, going abroad, xiii. 84, 

ἀποστεγάζειν, to uncover, ii. 4. 

ἀφρίζειν, to foam, ix. 18, 20. 

yapioxery,to givein marriage, xii.25. 
(Tisch., W. and H. read γαμίζον- 
rat for the text.rec. γαμίσκονται.) 

γναφεύς, fuller, ix. 3. 

δισχίλιοι, two thousand, v. 13. 

δύσκολος, hard, x.24. The adverb 
δυσκόλως (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). 

ϑανάσιμος, deadly, xvi. 18. 

εἷς κατὰ εἷς, one by one, xiv. 19. 
(This occurs also in the disputed 


passage, John viii. 9, and ἕν xa’ 
ἕν in Rev. iv. 8.) 

εἶτεν, then, iv. 28. 

ἐκϑ͵αμβεῖσϑαι, to be greatly amazed, 
ix. 15; xiv. 33; xvi. 5, 6. 

ἐναγκαλίζεσϑαι, to take in one’s 
arms, ix.36; x. 16. 

ἐνείλέω, to wrap in, xv. 46. 

ἔννυχα, in the night, i. 35. 

ἐξάπινα, suddenly, ix. 8. 

ἐξουδενόω, to set at naught, ix. 12. 

éEwSev, from without, vii. 15, 18. 

ἐπισυντρέχειν,ἴο run together, ix. 25. 

ἐπιρράπτω, to sew on, 21. 

κωμόπολις, town, i. 38, 

feSopia, border, vii. 24. (But Tisch., 
Treg., W. and H. read τὰ ὅρια.) 

μογιλάλος, having an impediment 
in his speech, vii. 32. 

vouvexwe, discreetly, xii, 84. 

πρασιαὶ πρασιαΐ, in ranks, vi. 40. 

προμεριμνᾶν, to take thought be- 
forehand, xiii. 11. 

προσάββατυν, Sabbath-eve, xv. 42. 

προσκεφάλαιον, cushion, iv. 88, 

προσορμίζεσϑαι, to draw to the 
shore, vi. 53, 


54 


πυγμῇ 0} the fist (up tothe elbow), 
R. V. diligently, A. V. oft, vii. 3. 

σμυρνίζειν, mingle with myrrh, xv. 
23. 

σπεκουλάτωρ, a soldier of the guard, 
vi. 27. 

στιβάς, twig, xi. 8. 

συνϑλίβειν, to throng, v. 24, 31. 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


τηλαυγῶς, Clearly, viii. 25. 

ὑπερπερισσῶς, beyond measure, vii, 
37. 

ὑπολήνιον, wine-vat, the under-vat 
of a wine-press, into which the 
juice of the grapes flowed, xii. 1. 

χαλκίον, brazen vessel, vii. 4. 

ὠτάριον, ear, xiv. 47. 


LUKE. 


Luke is the most literary among the evangelists.’ 
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 Herodian 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- 
larity with the ancient medical writers, or at all 
events agrees with technical usage.” 


1 Renan (Les Evangiles, p. 232): “ L’Kvangile de Luc est le plus littéraire 
des Evangiles.” He also calls it “le plus beau livre qu’il y ait” (p, 283). He 
admires the classic style, the joyful tone, and charming poetry of the book. 

? Rev. W. K. Hobart, LL.D., of Trinity College, Dublin, has published a 
work on The Medical Language of St. 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.’ 

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 anonymons 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.” 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, Aretzeus, Dioscorides, and Galen. 

1 See James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 4th ed. 1880 
(revised by Walter E. Smith, with a Preface by the Lord Bishop of 
Carlisle); the respective chapters in the biographical works of Conybeare 
and Howson, Lewin, and Farrar, on St. Paul; and the commentaries of 
Hackett, Lechler, Howson and Spence, and others, on Acts, ch, xxvii. and 
xxviii. James Smith, of Jordanhill, Scotland (b. 1782, d. 1867), 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. 

* The preface of Herodotus has nearly the same number of words (40) 
as that of Luke (42), and is as follows: Ἡροδότου ᾿Αλικαρνασῆος ἱστορίης 
ἀπόδειξις ἥδε" ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνϑρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα 
γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ ϑαυμαστὰ, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ 


56 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


part of the Acts, where Luke writes as an eye- 
witness, he 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 νομικός or νομοδιδάσκαλος. 
for γραμματεύς, τὸ εἰρημένον in quotations for pnSév, 
νῦν for ἄρτι, λίμνη of the lake of Galilee for ϑάλασσα, 
ἑσπέρα for ὀψία. He frequently uses the attraction 
of the relative pronoun and the participial construe- 
tion. He likes the word χαρά, in accordance with 
the spirit of cheerfulness which animates his books.’ 
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.’ 

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


βαρβάροισι ἀποδειχϑέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τὰ τε ἄλλα Kai OV ἣν αἰτίην 
ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι. See Schafi, Church History, 1. 656. 

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

2 πνεῦμα, either with or without ἅγιον, 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 χάρις, 
ἔλεος, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, δίκαιος, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, γνῶσις, 
δύναμις κυρίου." 

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 
26% per cent.; that of Matthew, 10,363, or 214 per 
cent.; that of Mark, 43814, or 9 per cent.? Luke’s 
Gospel has ὅδ, and the Acts 1385 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα. 
The number of words in the Gospel of Luke which 
do not occur elsewhere in the Greek Testament is 
about 300. The peculiar vocabulary of Acts num- 
bers about 470." 


WorDS PECULIAR TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE: 


ἀγκάλαι,, arms, ii. 28. ἀναίδεια, importunity, xi. 8 

ἄγρα, draught, haul, v. 4, 9. ἀνάπηρος, maimed, xiv, 13, 21. 
ἀγραυλέω, to abide in the field, ii. 8. | ἀναπτύσσω; to unroll, to open, iv. 17 
ἀγωνία, agony, xxii. 44. (but the critical editors read 
αἰσϑάνομαι, to perceive, ix. 45. avotéac). 

αἰχμάλωτος, captive, iv. 18 (19). avaracoopat, to set forth in order, 
adXoyerne, stranger, xvii. 18. iT. 
ἀνάβλεψις, recovery of sight, iv. ἀναφωνέω, to speak out, i. 42. 

18, ἀνέκλειπτος, unfailing, xii. 33, 
ἀνάδειξις, showing, i. 80. ἀνένδεκτος, impossible, xvii. 1. 
ἀνάϑημα, gift, xxi. 5 (ἀνάϑεμα oc- ᾿ἀνϑομολογέομαι, to give thanks, ii. 

curs several times in Paul), 88, Υ 


1 See a long list of parallel passages in Holtzmann, /. c. 516 sqq. 

3 The above estimate is made from Tischendorf’s Greek Testament, as 
printed in Rushbrooke’s Synopticon (1882). See my Church History, 
revised ed. 1882, vol. i. p. 596. 

* See lists in Thayer-Grimm, p. 703, 


58 


ἀντιβάλλω, to cast back and forth, 
to exchange, xxiv. 17. 

ἀντικαλέω, to bid again, xiv. 12, 

ἀπαρτισμός, completion, with εἰς, to 
complete, xiv. 28. 

ἀπελπίζω, hope for again, vi. 35. 

ἀποϑλίβω, to press, to crowd, viii. 
45. 

ἀποκλείω, to shut, xiii. 25. 

ἀπολείχω (ἐπιλείχω), to lick, xvi. 
21. 

ἀπομάσσομαι, to wipe off, x. 11. 

ἀποπλύνω, to wash, v.2; but Tisch. 
(ed. viii.) reads (with &) ἔπλυ- 
vay, Lachm, and W. and H. ἔπλυ- 
γον (with Β). See Rev. vii. 14. 

ἀποστοματίζω, provoke to speak, 
xi. 53. 

ἀποψύχω (expiro), to leave off 
breathing, to faint, xxi. 26 (comp. 
ὡσεὶ νεκροί, Matt. xxviii. 4). 

ἀρχιτελώνης, chief among the pub- 
licans, xix. 2. 

ἀστράπτω, to lighten, to flash, xvii. 
24; to shine, xxiv. 4. 

ἀσώτως, riotously, xv. 18, 

ἄτεκνος, childless, xx. 28, 29. 

αὐτόπτης, eye-witness, i. 2. 

ἄφαντος, with γίνομαι, to vanish 
out of sight, xxiv. 31. 

ἀφρός, froth, foam, ix. 39. 

ἀφυπνόω, to fall asleep, viii. 23. 

BaSivw, to deepen, vi. 48. 

βαλλάντιον, purse, x. 4; xii. 33; 
xxii. 35, 36. 

Bapivopa, to be overcharged, xxi. 


βελόνη, needle, xviii. 25. 
Bodn, ἃ cast, a throw, xxii. 41. 
βουνός, hill, 111. 5; xxiii. 30. 
γελάω, to laugh, vi. 21, 25, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


δακτύλιος, ring, xv. 22. 

δεσμέω (text. rec. and Lachmann), 
to bind, viii. 29, Tisch., Treg., 
W. H. read δεσμεύω, which is 
also used by Matthew (xxiii. 4), 
and Luke in Acts xxii. 4. 


διαγογγύζω, to murmur, xv. 2; xix. 


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

διαλείπω, to cease, vii. 45. 

διαμερίζω, to divide, xi. 17,18; xii. 
52, 58; xxii. 17. 

διαμερισμός, division, xii. 51. 

διανεύω, to beckon, i. 22, 

διανόημα, thought, xi. 17. 

διανυκτερεύω, to continue all night, 
vi. 12, - 

διαπραγματεύομαι, to ae by trad- 
ing, xix. 15. 

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

διαταράσσω, to trouble, i. 29. 

διαφυλάσσω, to keep, iv. 10. 

διαχωρίζομαι, to depart, ix, 33, 

διήγησις, narration, i. 1. 

δοχή, feast, v. 29; xiv. 18, 

ἐγκάϑετος, spy, xx. 20, 

ἔγκυος, great with child, ii, 5, 

ἐδαφίζω, lay even with the ground, 
xix. 44, 

égiZw, to accustom; pass., to be cus- 
tomary, ii. 27. 

ἐκκομίζω, to carry out, vii. 12, 

ἐκμυκτηρίζω, to deride, xvi. 14; 
xxiii. 35. 

ἐκτελέω, to finish, xiv. 29, 30. 

ἐκβάλλω, with εἰς, to cast into, xii, 
5. 

ἐκχωρέω, to depart out, xxi. 21. 

évyevw, to make signs to, i, 62, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


ἐπαϑροίζομαι, to be gathered thick 
together, xi. 29. 

ἐπειδήπερ, forasmuch as, i. 1. 

ἐπεῖδον, to look on, i. 25. 

ἐπικρίνω, to give sentence, xxiii. 24. 

(ἐπιλείχω, for ἀπολείχω;, tolick over, 
xvi. 21; see ἀπολείχω.) 

ἐπιμελῶς, diligently, xv. 8. 

ἐπιπορεύομαι, with πρός, to come 
to, viii. 4. 

ἐπισιτισμός, victuals, ix. 12. 

ἐπισχύω, to be more fierce, xxiii. 5. 

ἔσϑησις, garment, xxiv. 4. 

ἐξαιτέομαι, to ask for, xxii. 31. 

ἐξαστράπτω, to glister, ix. 29. 

evpopéw, to bring forth plentifully, 
xii. 16. 

ἡμιϑανής, half dead, x. 30. 

ϑορυβάζω (text. rec. rupBaZw), to 
confuse by noise, to disturb, x. 41. 

Spavu, to bruise, iv. 18. 

ϑρόμβος, large drop, xxii. 44. 

ϑυμιάω, to burn incense, i. 9. 

ἱδρώς, sweat, xxii. 44. 

καϑοπλίζω, to arm, xi. 21. 

κατακρημνίζω, to cast down head- 
long, iv. 29. 

καταλιϑάζω, to stone, xx. 6. 

κατανεύω, to beckon unto, v. 7. 

καταπλέω, to arrive, viii. 26. 

κατασύρω, to drag, xii. 58. 

κατασφάζω, to slaughter down, to 
slay, xix. 27. 

καταψύχω, to cool, xvi. 24. 

κέραμος, tiling, v. 19. 

κεράτιον, husk, carob-pod, xv. 16. 

κλινίδιον, couch, ν. 19, 24. 

κόραξ, raven, xii. 24. 

κόρος, a measure, xvi. 7. 

κραιπάλη, surfeiting, xxi. 84. 

λαμπρῶς, sumptuously, xvi, 19, 


59 


λαξευτός, hewn in stone, xxiii. 53. 

λεῖος, smooth, ili. 5. 

λῆρος, idle tales, xxiv. 11. 

μακρός, far, xv. 13; xix. 12. 

μεριστῆς, divider, xii. 14. 

μίσϑιος, hired servant, xv. 17, 19. 

μόγις, hardly, ix. 39. 

voootd, brood, xiii, 84, 

oikovopéw, to be steward, xvi, 2. 

ὄμβρος, shower, xii. 54. 

ὀπτός, broiled, xxiv. 42. 

ὀρεινός, hilly, i. 39, 65. 

ὀφρύς, brow, iv. 29. 

παμπληϑεί, all at once, xxiii. 18. 

πανδοχεῖον, inn, x. 34. 

πανδοχεύς, host, x. 35. 

παράδοξος, strange thing (neut.), 
v. 26. 

παρακαλύπτω, to hide, ix. 45, 

παράλιος, sea coast, vi. 17. 

παρϑενία, Virginity, ii. 36. 

πεδινός, with τόπος, plain, vi. 17. 

πενιχρός, POOr, XXi. 2. 

πεντεκαιδέκατος, fifteenth, iii, 1. 

περικρύπτω, to hide, i. 24. 

περικυκλύω, to compass around, xix. 
48. 

περιοικέω, to dwell round about, i. 
65. 

περίοικος, neighbor, i. 58. 

περισπάω, to distract, x. 40, 

πινακίδιον, writing-tablet, 1, 63. 

πλήμμυρα, flood, vi. 48. 

πρεσβεία, embassy, message, xiv. 
32; xix. 14. 

προσαναβαίνω, to go up, xiv. 10, 

προσαναλίσκω, to spend, viii. 43. 

προσδαπανάω, to spend more, x. 35. 

προσεργάζομαι, to gain, xix. 16. 

προφέρω, to bring forth, vi. 45. 

πτύσσω, to roll up, iv. 20, 


60 


ῥῆγμα, ruin, vi. 49. 

σᾶλος, waves, xxi. 25. 

σίκερα, strong drink, i. 15. 

σινιάζω, to sift, xxii. 31. 

σιτευτύς, fatted, xv. 23, 27, 30. 

σιτομέτριον, portion of meat, xii. 42. 

oKkanTw,to dig, vi.48, xiii. 8; xvi. 3. 

σκιρτάω, to leap, i. 41, 44; vi. 23. 

σκῦλον, spoil, xi, 22. 

oopoc, bier (coffin), vii. 14. 

σπαργανόω, to wrap in swaddling 
clothes, ii. 7, 12. 

ovyyevic, kinswoman (for συγγενής), 
i, 36. : 

συγκαλύπτω, to cover, xii. 2. 

συγκατατίϑεμαι, to deposit together, 
to consent to, xxiii. 51 (with εἰμί). 

συγκύπτω, to be bowed together, 
xiii. 11. 

συγκυρία, chance, x. 81. 

συκάμινος, sycamine tree, xvii. 6. 

συκομωρέα, Or -opéa (the spelling 
of W. and H. for -wpaia), syca- 
more tree, xix. 4. 

συκοφαντέω, to accuse falsely, iii. 
14; xix. 8, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


συμφύω (pass.), to spring up with, 
viii. 7. 

συμφωνία, music, xv. 25, 

τετραρχξω, to be tetrarch, iii, 1. 

τραῦμα, wound, x. 34, 

τρῆμα, a hole, the eye of a needle, © 
Xviil. 25 (the reading of Lachm., 
Tisch., Treg., W. and H. for the 
text. rec, τρυμαλία). 

τρυγών, turtle-dove, ii. 24, 

(τυρβάζω, see ϑορυβάζω.) 

ὑγρός, green, xxiii. 81. 

ὑδρωπικός, dropsical, xiv. 2. 

ὑποκρίνομαι, to feign, xx. 20. 

ὑποστρωννύω, to spread, xix, 86. 

ὑποχωρέω, to withdraw one’s self, 
v. 16; ix. 10. 

ὑφαίνω, to weave, to spin, xii. 27. 

φάραγξ, valley, 111, 5. 

φάτνη, manger, ii. 7,12, 16; xiii. 15. 

φίλη (fem.), friend, xv. 9. 

φιλονεικία, strife, xxii, 24, 

φόβητρον, fearful sight, xxi. 11, 

φρονίμως, wisely, xvi. 8. 

χάσμα, gulf, xvi. 26. 

wor, egg, xi. 12. 


Tue Nautica, VocapuLary of Luke is rich and 


remarkable. It is used mostly in the last two chap- 
ters of Acts. He 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 πλέω): 


πλέω, to sail, Luke viii. 23; Acts 
xxi. 3; xxvii. 6, 24. 

ἀποπλέω, to sail from, Acts xiii. 4; 
xiv. 26; xx. 15; xxvii. 1. 

βραδυπλοέω (from βραδύς, slow), 
to sail slowly, Acts xxvii. 7. 


διαπλέω, to sailthrough (not “over,” | 


avayopa, to get under way, to put 
to sea, Acts xxvii. 4. 

διαπεράω, to sail over, Acts xxi. 2. 

διαφέρομαι, to be driven to and fro, 
Acts xxvii. 27. 

ἐπικέλλω, to run the ship ashore, 
Acts xxvii. 41. 


as in the A. V.), Acts xxvii. 5. 
ἐκπλέω, to sail away, Acts xv. 39; 
xviii. 18; xx. 6. 
καταπλέω, to arrive, Luke viii. 26. 
ὑποπλέω, to sail under the lee, Acts 


evSudpopéw, to make a straight 
course, Acts xvi. 11; xxi. 1. 

παραλέγομαι (middle), to sail by, 
Acts xxvii. 8, 13. 

ὑποτρέχω (aor. 2, iwidpapor), to 


xxvii. 4, 7. run under the lee, Acts xxvii. 16. 
mapamhéw, to sail by, Acts xx.| φέρομαι (pass.), to be driven, Acts 
16. 


Xxvii. 15, 17, 


To these may be added the phrases for lightening 
the ship: ἐκβολὴν ἐποιοῦντο, they began to throw 
the freight overboard, Acts xxvii. 18; and ἐκούφιζον 
τὸ πλοῖον, they lightened the ship, Acts xxvii. 38. 
Julius Pollux mentions ἐκβολὴν ποιήσασϑαι τῶν 
φορτίων and κουφίσαι τὴν ναῦν among the technical 
terms for taking cargo out of aship. See Smith, 
ὦ. ὁ. pp. 114, 139. 


1 Smith, ὦ, c. p. 103, remarks on ὑποδραμόντες, 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 ὑποδραμόντες : they sailed with a side wind 
to leeward of Cyprus and Crete, hence it is ὑπεπλεύσαμεν." 


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 New Testament.’ 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 δικαιοσύνη, δικαίωσις, 
πίστις, ἀγάπη, σάρξ, πνεῦμα, ἀπολύτρωσις, ἱλασμός, 
karaAAayh, χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη. 

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. He 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 
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 (literas seculares), 
but imperfectly (licet non ad perfectum). 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63 


tions, and ex absurdo. He frequently uses logical 
particles and phrases, as οὖν, apa, ἄρα οὖν (hane igt- 
tur, therefore then, 80 then, twelve times), * γάρ, εἰ γάρ, 
εἰ δέ, οὐκέτι, τί οὖν, τί οὖν ἐροῦμαι, ἐρεῖς οὖν, οὐ μόνον 
δέ... ἀλλά. He introduces and answers objections, 
and drives the opponent to the wall by close argu- 
ment. He ts fond of antitheses, paradoxes, oxymora, 
and paronomasizs. Farrar.cuunts “ upwards of fifty 
specimens of upwards of thirty Greek rhetorical 
figures” in Paul.’ 

Here are some of these antithetic and paradoxical 
phrases: εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν 
ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ (Rom. iii. 26): διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέ- 
ϑανον (Gal. 11. 19): ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ 
Χριστός (Gal. ii. 20): φϑόνος and φόνος : ἀσύνετος 
and ἀσύνϑετος : ἄφρων and φρόνιμος : ἄνομος and 
ἔννομος : μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾽ ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν, ἀλλὰ 
φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν (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): 
ἀόρατα . . . καϑορᾶται (¢nvisebilia videntur, unseen 
things are seen, Rom. i. 20): παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι 
(Rom. iv. 18): τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα (Rom. iv. 17): 
TO μωρὸν TOV Jeov σοφώτερον τῶν avdpwrwyv (1 Cor. 
1.25): ὅταν. . . ἀσϑενῶ, τότε δυνατός εἰμι (2 Cor. 
xii. 10). Specimens of cutting sarcasm: κατατομή 
(Phil. iii. 2, with reference to the περιτομή of the 
carnal Judaizers of the malignant type: concision, 
circumcision); ἀποκόψονται (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, 


1 
i. 


64 Ὁ 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” (ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ), though not in 
knowledge (οὐ τῇ γνώσει). He knew that he ear- 
ried the heavealy treasure in earthen vessels, that 
the power and grace of God might .become more 
manifest.” His speéchs 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 now 
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 Παῦλος ὁ 'Γαρσεύς among the greatest 
orators, and a master of dogmatic style. Jerome 
charges him with using Cilician provincialisms 
(solecisms), but felt when reading his epistles as if 
he heard “non verba sed tonitrua.” Erasmus com- 
pares Paul’s style to thunder and lightning: “ ¢onat, 
Fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus.” He 


1 2 Cor. xi. 6. Comp. 1 Cor. 1.17; 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 ἰδιώτης as com- 
pared with the Sophists (De Venat. 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 unquam Cicero diait grandilo- 
guentius.” 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. He 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.’ 
Renan, 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 


1 LZ. c.i.623. Farrar thinks, with Baur, that the style of Paul “more 
closely resembles the style of Thucydides 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.” 


66 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


epistolary style of Paul,” he says,’ “is the most per- 
sonal that ever existed. His language is, if I dare 
eall it so, hackled (6royée), 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, Pressensé,* 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- 
fusion 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 Paul, ch. ix. p. 232. 
2 Apostolic 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 “ verlis facillumus, 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.. 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 solecisins 
because it avoids all idiomatic expressions; and that 
its grammar is common to all language. Godet 


* Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. 116): “ Die Sprache des Buchs” 
[the 4th Gospel] “δέ ein merkwiirdiges Geftige adchtgriechischer Leichtig- 
keit und Gewandtheit und hebrdischer Ausdrucksweisen in ihrer ganzen 
Schlichtheit, Kindlichkeit, Bildlichkeit und wohl auch Unbeholfenheit. So 
hat sich die Union der Gegensdtze der Parteien selbst in der Sprache ver- 
kérpert.” 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 (himmlische Herrlichkeiten), 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 eritic, 


68 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.. 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- 
hannean origin.” 


* “ La langue de Vévangeliste n'a pas d’ analogue dans toute la littérature 
profane ou sacrée: simplicité enfantine et transparente profondeur, sainte 
mélancolie et vivacité non moins sainte; par dessus tout, suavité dun amour 
pur et doux.... Dans la langue de Jean, le vétement seul est grec, le corps 
est hébreu ; ou, comme le dit Luthardt, il y a une dme hébraique dans le lan- 
gage grec.”—Com. sur Vévang. de Saint Jean, 3d ed. thoroughly revised 
(Paris, 1881), vol. i. pp. 226, 232. 

? The passage is worth quoting in full as a contribution to the solution 
of the Johannean problem: “ Man hat einst wohl gemeint, das reine Grie- 
chisch des Evangeliums passe nicht zu dem Fischer vom Gennezaretsee. 
Heute zweifelt Niemand mehr daran, dass gerade die niederen Stdnde Gali- 
laa’s im tdglichen Verkehr mit dem umwohnenden und tiberall bereits mitten 
in das eigene Volksthum eingedrungenen Griechenthum sich des Verstdnd- 
nisses der griechischen Sprache gar nicht entrathen konnten. Hatte vollends 
Johannes einige zwanzig Jahre bereits in griechischer Umgebung gelebt, so 
musste er sich eine gewisse Gewandtheit im Gebrauch der griechischen 
Sprache angeeignet haben. In der That aber blickt durch das griechische 
Gewand dieses Evangeliums iiberall der Stilcharakter des Paldstinensers 
hindurch. Diese unperiodische Satzbildung, diese einfachste Verkniipfung 
der Sdtze, die von dem reichen griechischen Partikelschatz zur Andeutung 
threr logischen Beziehung keinen Gebrauch macht, diese Vorliebe fiir Anti- 
thesen und Parallelismen, diese Umstdndlichkeit der Erzéhlungsweise und 
Wortarmuth im Ausdruck, diese ganz hebrdisch-artige Wortstellung zeigen 
mehr als einzelne Verstésse gegen griechisches Sprachgefihl, die doch auch 
nicht ganz fehlen, dass das Evangelium wohl griechisch geschrieben, aber 
hebrdisch gedacht ist. Die mit Vorliebe eingestreuten aramdischen Aus- 
driicke, die etymologisirende Deutung eines hebrdischen Namens (ix.7) lassen 
deutlich den Paldstinenser erkennen, dem nach einigen seiner Citate selbst der 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 69 


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 ἄρα), 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 ϑεᾶσϑαι, ϑεωρεῖν, ἑωρακέναι, 
μαρτυρία. 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); 
“1 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.”’ He 
Grundtext der heiligen Schrift nicht ganz unbekannt gewesen zu sein scheint.” 
Das Leben Jesu, Berlin, 1882, Ba. i. 90. 

1 ζωή occurs 36 times in the Gospel (with the verb ζῆν 16 times), φῶς 
23 times, ἀλήϑεια 25 times, ἀληϑινός 9 times, δόξα 20 times (with 
δοξάζεσϑαι 24 times), μαρτυρία 14 times (with μαρτυρεῖν 33 times), 
γινώσκω 55 times, πιστεύειν 98 times (but πίστις only in 1 John v. 4). 
See Luthardt, i. 20 sq. (Gregory’s translation); Godet, i. 227 (8d ed.). 
Hase (Geschichte Jesu, 1876, p. 43) makes a striking remark on this repe- 
titiousness of John: “Er ist nicht ein beweglicher, der Rede méchtiger Geist, 
sondern still und tief, festhangend an Wenigem ; aber dieses Wenige ist das 


Gottliche selbst, dem sein Sinnen und seine Liebe gilt, ein Adler der still in 
der Hohe schwebt,” 


70 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 ἐκκλησία, εὐαγγέλιον, 
μετάνοια, παραβολή, σοφία, but the substance is there 
in different form. He uses few particles, but uses 
them very often—namely, καί, δέ, we, ἵνα, and espe- 
cially οὖν, which with him is not syllogistic, but 
marks simply the progress in the narrative or re- 
sumes the train of thought (like the German nwn).’ 
He never employs the optative. He is fond of di- 
minutives (as παιδάριον, παιδία, rexvia), 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 ;? 
he calls him the “only begotten Son,” “the Light of 


? The English Revision renders οὖν 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 ἀμήν (verily) in the speeches of our 
Lord. He never calls the forerunner of Christ “ the 
Baptist,” but simply “John.” He 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.’ 

Westcott calls the Gospel of John “the divine 
Hebrew Epic,” and says of his style:* “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* 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. 16,26; xv. 26; xvi. 7; 1 John ii. 1. 

2 In his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 278, Comp. 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 (about 130 in the Gospel 
and the Epistles; for the Apocalypse, see next para- 


graph): 

ἁλιεύω, to fish (rendered in A. V. 
and R. V. “to go a-fishing ”), xxi. 
3. 

ἀλλαχόϑεν, from elsewhere, x. 1. 

ἀλόη, aloe, aloe-wood (greatly prized 
as a perfume), xix. 39. 

[ἀναμάρτητος, sinless (“ without 
sin” in A. V. and R. V.), viii. 7. ] 

ἀντλέω, to draw, 11. 8; iv. 7, 15. 

ἄντλημα, haustrum, a bucket, iv. 
LM, 

ἄραφος (dppagoc), seamless, xix. 
23 


βιβρώσκω, to eat, vi. 13. 

γέρων, an old man (senezx), iii. 4. 

δακρύω, to weep, xi. 35. 

δειλιάω, to be afraid, xiv. 27. 

ἐβραϊστί (so W. and Hort, but the 
usual spelling is ἑβραϊστί), He- 
brew, or in the Hebrew tongue 


(hebraice), v. 2; xix. 13, 17, 20; 
xx. 16 (also in Rev. ix. 11; xvi. 
16). 

ἐκκεντέω, to pierce, xix. 37 (also 
Rev. i. 7). 

ἐμπορίον, merchandise, ii. 16. 

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

Shen, sheath, xviii. 11. 

Spéupa, cattle, iv. 12. 

κέρμα, money, ii. 15. 

keppatioTnc, money-changer, ii. 14, 

κηπουρός, gardener, xx. 15. 

κλῆμα, branch, xv. 2, 4, 5, 6. 

κοίμησις, taking rest, xi. 13. 

κολυμβήϑρα, pool, v. 2, 4 (Ὁ), 7; ix. 
7, 11. 

κρίϑινος, of barley (adj.), vi. 9, 18. 

λέντιον, towel, xiii. 4, 5. 

λόγχη, Spear, xix. 34, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


μή τις ; OF μήτις ; any one? iv. 33; 
vii. 48, 

μίγμα, mixture, xix. 39. 

(νίκη, victory, 1 John v. 4.) 

virrnp, basin, xiii. 5. 

[ vdonpa, disease, v. 4. ] 

vioow (viTTw), to pierce, xix. 34. 

6Zw, to stink, xi. 39. 

παράκλητος, advocate, xiv. 16, 26; 
xv. 26; xvi. 7 (of the Holy Spir- 
it); 1 John ii. 1 (of Christ). 

πενϑερός, father-in-law, xviii. 13. 

προσκυνητῆς, worshipper, iv. 23. 

πτύσμα, spittle, ix. 6. 

péw, to flow, vii. 38. 


- 


JOHN IN HEBREW. 
idiomatic translation of 


73 


σκέλος, leg, xix. 31, 32, 33. 

oxnvornyia, feast of tabernacles, 
vii. 2. 

τετράμηνος, --- voy, quadrimestris, 
of four months, iv. 35. 

τίτλος, title, xix. 19, 20. 

pavoc, lantern, xviii. 3. 

φοίνιξ, palm-tree, xii. 13 (also Rev. 
vii. 9). 

φραγέλλιον, scourge, ii. 15. 

(χάρτης, paper, 2 John 12.) 

χείμαρρος, brook, wady, xviii. 1. 

χολάω, to be angry, vii. 23. 

(χρίσμα, unction, 1 John ii. 20, 27.) 

ψωμίον, sop, xiii. 26, 27, 30. 


The following faithful and 


the Prologue to John’s 


Gospel, by Professor Delitzsch, will illustrate the 


Hebrew genius of his Greek style. 


Hebrew New Testament, 


It is from the 
published by the British 


and Foreign Bible Society (1880). 
John i. 1-18. 


NADI aI vA miata 
ΘΟ ΞΝῚ ΠΝ ms mn 
P55 mn 

2m$ MUNDI AN Nn 
Pornban 

gqIp>a08 ἸἼΛΤΌΣ msn: bon 
Mn wigs AD Nb 


4 aT OMT) DA ba 
roe ὩΣ 

6 yen] WEN sepin TiN 
ελθτι NP 


"EN ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ 1 
λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ 
Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

Οὗτος ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν 2 
Θεόν. 

Πάντα Ov αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ 8 
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ 
γέγονεν [or, ἕν. ὃ γέγονέν ἐν]. 

Ἔν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἣν 4 

τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 

Καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, 6 
καὶ ἡ σκοτίᾳ αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλα- 


βεν, 


[4 


θ ὈΠΓΘΝ maa mds was aaa 
soni fois 


79M MII. ΝᾺ NIN 
ὩΞ5 s17N0 W325 ΠΝ πτὸρ 
εὐπατὸς 


8 ἜΝ 9D THN MANS ΝΗῚ 
ΝΙῸΣ ΣῚΡ 

g-bob “Sen ΠΌΣΙΝ 
PDpisH-Oe NZ AT DIN 

10 AAD HsH-byy msn pbiva 
pinsan ND D>ism odisn 

11 HbR) > ὝΣΝ ΤΟΝ RD NA 
:anbap ND baw 

iad το τ] 9 ἸῸΝ D"DON IT} 
bob nbn pa mind 
‘Howe pogo 


12 


13 
"ah YEMeN> OR awan 
panbis prtbyarpe ἊΞ 


14 jue) wa ΓΤ) "35 
sins2 Hine nin pina 
TONS] May MT Ἰ5 


ISN IPM MP WyQ BTM 
"WR NIN OT mA MeNe 


yea sbi na ND ἜΝ 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


᾿Εγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμέ- 6 


νος παρὰ Θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ 
᾿Ιωάνης. 

Οὗτος ἦλϑεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα 7 
μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, 
ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι᾿ 
αὐτοῦ. 

Οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 8 
μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. 

Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληϑινόν, ὃ φωτί- 9 
ζει πάντα ἄνϑρωπον, ἐρχύ- 
μενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 

Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος 
Ov αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κύσμος 
αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. 

Εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλϑεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι 
αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. 

“Ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν 
αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ 
γενέσϑαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν 
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ" 

ot οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ 18 

᾿ ϑελήματος σαρκὺς οὐδὲ 
ϑελήματος ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐ 
Θεοῦ ἐγεννήϑησαν. 

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ 14 
ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐϑεα- 
σάμεϑα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, 
δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ 
πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ 
ἀληϑείας. 


Ἰωάνης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ, 15 


καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων “Οὗτος 
pay γ 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 75 


SUNN NBT Dd ἼὩΝ ἣν ὃν εἶπον [W.and Η.: ὁ 
sb-pip "D> ἘΡΗ man εἰπών] ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμε- 
al voc ἔμπροσϑέν pov γέγονεν" 


OTe πρῶτός μου Hy.” 

16 SOM ἼΣΞ5 ὭΣΤ ἽΝ 8 Ὁ Ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ 16 
ἐ ἼΌΤΙ ΤΣ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ 

ι χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος " 

17 ΓΙΣΌΤ Ξ AWM MVM ἫΞ ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωῦσέως ἐδόϑη, 17 


ey ANE MART Tom , ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήϑεια διὰ 
ἱ : mean sau Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. 
18 BIN ΝΣ απ DYNAN MN | Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν wore’ 18 
“WX TMT jan pis ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός [ W. and H.: 
PTI WAM ARM pw μονογενὴς Θεὸς], ὁ ὧν εἰς 


τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖ- 
νος ἐξηγήσατο. 


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,’ the 
other with equal force for that of the Apocalypse.’ 


1 So Schleiermacher and his followers, Neander, Liicke, Bleek, De Wette, 
Meyer, also Ewald and Diisterdieck. Most of them are disposed to assign 
the Apocalypse to the mysterious “ Presbyter” John, whose very existence 
is doubtful. 

2 So Baur, Renan, and the whole Tiibingen and Leyden schools, 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 
ery and the shouts of victory." It is the rolling of 
thunder from the Son of Thunder.* 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 New Testament.* 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.‘ The Hebraizing character is the natu- 


1 The words “war” and “to make war,” πόλεμος and πολεμέω, 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, 175; xili. 5,7; xvi. 14; xvii. 14; 
xix. 11, 19; xx. 8. 

2“ Un éternel roulement de tonnerre sort du tréne.... Une sorte de 
liturgie divine se poursuit sans fin” (Renan, L’A ntechrist, p. 381). 

3 W. H. 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 in 
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. 

* The most striking apparent irregularity occurs in i, 4; ἀπὸ Ὁ ἊΝ 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. TT 


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 Tiibingen school, 
who calls the fourth Gospel the Apocalypse spir- 


καὶ ὁ ἦν Kai ὁ ἐρχόμενος, “from Him who is and who was and who is to 

come.” But this is evidently a periphrasis of the divine name MM. 
(comp. Exod. iii. 14, Sept.: ἐγώ εἰμι Ὃ ὭΝ, and in the same verse Ὁ ἊΝ 

ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς), and the nominative reflects his eternal un- — 
changeableness; hence we need neither insert τοῦ with Erasmus and the 
textus receptus (against the authority of δὲ AC P), nor supply τοῦ λεγο- 
μένου before ὁ ὦν. The great cod. B (cod. Vat. 1209) does not contain 
the Apoc.; but B of the Apoc. (cod. Vat. 2066) has the passage, and reads 
ϑεοῦ (OY) before ὁ ὦν. Other Hebraisms are more easy, and not con- 
fined to the Apocalypse, as ὀνόματα (names), for persons (iii. 4); πολεμεῖν 
pera (ὩΣ mm>3), instead of κατά, to make war against (ii. 16); ψυχὴ 
ζωῆς (for ζῶσαν = men WD), “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 Com.), 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.' 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 (6. 150 in all): 


᾿Αβαδδών (Hebrew V7, destruc-| the abyss, explained by the Greek 
tion), the name of the angel of ἀπολλύων, the destroyer, ix. 11. 


1 Baur, Die Evangelien, p. 380. “ Man kann mit Recht sagen, das vierte 
Evangelium sei die vergeistigte Apokalypse.” And in his Gesch. der christl. 
Kirche, vol. i. p. 147, he says: “Man kann nur die tiefe Genialitat und feine 
Kunst bewundern, mit welcher der Evangelist die Elemente, welche vom Stand- 
punkt der Apokalypse auf den freiern und héhern des Evangeliums hiniiber- 
leiteten, in sich aufgenommen hat, um die Apokalypse zum Evangelium zu 
vergeistigen. Nur vom Standpunkt des Evangeliums aus ldsst sich das Ver- 
hdltniss, in das sich der Verfasser desselben zu der A pokalypse setzte, richtig 
begreifen.” Weiss turns this confession against Baur, and says most 
admirably (Leben Jesu, i. 101): “Ja, das Evangelium ist die vergeistigte 
Apokalypse, aber nicht weil ein Geistesheros des zweiten Jahrhunderts dem 
Apokalyptiker gefolgt ist, sondern weil der Donnersohn der Apokalypse 
unter der Leitung des Geistes und unter den gottlichen Fiihrungen zum 
Mystiker verklart und herangereift ist, in dem die Flammen der Jugend zut 
Gluth ewer heiligen Liebe herabgeddmpft sind,” 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


τὸ ἼΑλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Westcott and 
Hort; τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ 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. 6; 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. 

ἀλληλούϊα, alleluia (Hebrew 
F742 217), ὃ. 6. praise ye Jehovah, 
xix. 1, 3, 4, 6. Comp. Ps. civ. 35, 

ἀπολλύων, Apollyon (7. 6. Destroy- 
er), ix. 11. 

ἄρκος (so Tischend., W. and Hort, 
for ἄρκτος of the text, rec.), a 
bear, xiii. 2. 

βασανισμός, torment, ix. 5; xiv. 11; 
xviii. 7, 10, 15. 

Barpaxoc, frog, xvi. 13. 

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

βιβλαρίδιον, a little book, x. 2, 8, 9, 
10. In ver. 8, W. and H. read 
βιβλίον. 

βότρυς, cluster (of grapes), xiv. 18, 

βύσσινος, byssine, of fine linen, xviii. 
12, 16; xix. 8 (βύσσος, fine linen, 
occurs xviii. 12 in text. rec. for 
βύσσινος, and also in Luke xvi. 
19). 

δράκων, dragon, xii. 3, 4, 7, 18, 16, 
17; xiii. 2, 4, 11; xvi. 13; xx. 2. 

éyxpiw, to anoint, 111, 18. 

ἐκκεντέω, to pierce, i. 7 (also John 
xix. 37). 

ἐλεεινός, miserable, 111, 17 (the com- 


79 


par. ἐλεεινότεροι in 1 Cor. xv, 
19). 

ἐνδόμησις, building, xxi. 18, 

ἑξακόσιοι, six hundred, xiii. 18. 

ἴασπις, jasper, iv. 3. 

κατάϑεμα, a curse (for the text. rec, 
κατανάϑεμα), xxii. 3. 

κατασφραγίζω, to seal, v. 1. 

καῦμα, heat, vii. 16; xvi. 9. 

κεράννυμι (κεραννύω), to mix (wine 
with water), to pour out, to fill (a 
cup with the wine already pre- 
pared), xiv. 10; xviii. 6. 

κριϑή, barley, vi. 6. 

κρυσταλλίζω, to be as crystal, xxi. 
ΤΣ, 

κρύσταλλος, crystal, iv. 6; xxii. 1. 

κυκλόϑεν, round about, iv. 3, 4,8; v. 
11, 

λιβανωτός, censer, viii. 3, 5, 

λιπαρός, dainty, xviii. 14. 

μαζός, breast (for μαστός), i. 18, 

pappapoc, marble, xviii. 12, 

μασσάομαι, to gnaw, xvi. 10. 

μηρός, thigh, xix. 16. 

ὅμιλος, company, xviii. 17. 

ὅρμημα, violence, xviii. 21. 

ὄρνεον, bird, xviii. 2; xix. 17, 21. 

οὐρά, tail, ix. 10,19; xii. 4. 

πάρδαλις, leopard, xiii. 2. 

περιδέω, to bind about, xi. 44. 

ποδήρης, garment down to the foot 
(χιτών), i. 18. 

πολεμέω, to make war, ii. 16; xii. 7: 
xiii. 4; xvii. 14; xix. 11 (only 
once besides in Jas. iv. 2). 

πύρινος, of fire, ix. 17. 

πυρρός, red, vi. 4; xii. 3. 

ῥέδα, chariot, xviii. 13. 

ῥυπαρεύομαι, to be filthy, xxii, 11. 

σαλπιστῆς, trumpeter, xviii, 22. 


80 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


σάπφειρος, sapphire, xxi. 19. φαρμακεύς, φαρμακός, sorcerer, xxi, 
σάρδιος, σάρδιον, sardius, iv. 3 (foi | 8, 15 
σάρδινος). xxi. 20, χαλκηδών, chalcedony, xxi. 19. 
σαρδόνυξ, sardonyx, xxi. 20. xAtapoc, lukewarm, iii. 16. 
σεμίδαλις, fine flour, xviii. 13. χἕς Ξε ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ, six 
σίδηρος, iron, xviii. 12. hundred and sixty-six, xiii. 18. 
σμάραγδος, emerald, xxi. 19. The mystical number of the 
στρῆνος, luxury, xviii. 3. beast. Irenzus already mentions 
σφάζω, σφάττω, to slay, v.6,9,12;| another reading, 616. It is re- 
vi. 4,9; xiii. 3,8; xviii. 24 (also| markable that both numbers give 
8 John iii. 12). the name Nero (n) Cesar (666= 
ταλαντιαῖος (adj.), weighing a tal-| the Hebrew SOP 9°73, 616=the 
ent, xvi. 21. Latin Nero Cesar). 
τόξον, bow, vi. 2. χοῖνιξ, measure, vi. 6. 
τοπάζιον, topaz, xxi. 20. χρυσόλιϑος, chrysolite, xxi. 20. 
ὑάκινϑος, jacinth, xxi. 20. χρυσόπρασος, chrysoprase, xxi. 20, 
ὑάλινος, of glass, iv. 6; xv. 2. χρυσόω, to deck, xvii. 4; xviii. 16. 
ὕαλος, glass, xxi. 18, 21. Q, Omega, i. 8; xxi.6; xxii. 18. 


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 ΑΟΘΕΡΙΨΆΘΩΝ 
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 501] 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, Hermas, 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." 

No 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. 


1 The style and vocabulary of the Didache, first published in 1883, 
come nearest the Greek of the N.T. See Schaff, The Teaching of the 
Twelve Apostles, N. Y., 3d ed. 1889, pp. 95-113. 


CHAPTER SECOND. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


Literature on the Sources of the Teat and on Teatual Criticism 
of the New Testament. 


I. PROLEGOMENA TO THE CRITICAL EDITIONS. 


Jo. Jac. WETSTBIN: Ἢ Καινὴ Διαϑήκη. Novum Testamentum Grecum 
editionis recepte cum lectionibus variantibus, etc. Amstel. 1751-52, 2 tom, 
fol. Prolegomena in tom. i. pp. 1-222; tom. ii. pp. 3~15, 449-454, 741- 
743. 

Jo. Jac. GriesBacu: Novum Testamentum Grece. Ed. secunda. Hale 
Sax. et Lond. 1796-1806, 2 vols, ϑνο. Ed. tertiam emend. et auctam cur. 
David Schulz (vol. i. Berolini, 1827). Prafationes et Prolegomena (vol. i. 
pp. iii.-Ivi., i-cxxvii.). Also his Symbole Critice (1785-93), with his 
Meletemata, and Commentarius Criticus in Textum Grecum N, Τ. (1798 
and 1811). 

I, Mart. Auaustin. Scuoiz: N.7.Gr. Textum ad fidem testium criti- 
corum recensuit, etc. Lips, 1830-36, 2 vols. 4to. Prolegg. vol. i. pp. i.—clxxii. ; 
vol. ii. pp.ilxiii, Also his Biblisch-Kritische Reise, Leipzig u. Sorau, 1823. 

Car. LACHMANN: Novum Testamentum Grace et Latine. Berolini, 
1842 and 1850, 8vo; Prefatio, 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. 

AENOTH. (Germ. LopecoTT) Frip. Const. TiscHeENDORF: Novum 
Testamentum Grace. Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit, apparatum 
criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem isagogicam pra- 
tecuit. 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. CAsPAR Reni 
Grecory, with the aid of Dr. Ezra Aspor. The first Part was pub- 
lished in June, 1884, at Leipsic (440 pages). 

SAMURL PRIDEAUX TREGELLES: The Greek New Testament, edited 
from Ancient Authorities, with the Latin Version of Jerome, from the Codex 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 83 


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

Henry Atrorp: 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 Hort: Jntroduction 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 Introd. and Append. ‘They are of the greatest value. 


II. SpecraL Works on TExTUAL CRITICISM. 


Sam. Prip. 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 Horne’s Jntrod., 10th ed, 
London, 1856; with “ Additions” and “Postscript” in the 11th ed. 1860, 
14th ed. 1877. Very valuable. . 

SAMUEL Davipson: 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. 

As. KuUENEN: Critices et Hermeneutices N. T. Lineamenta. L. Bat. 1858. 

Ep. Reuss: Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Greci. Brunsvige, 1872 
(pp. 313). The most complete list of all the printed editions of the Greek 
Testament, supplemented in this book. See Appendix I. 497 sqq. 

Fr. H. AMproseE ScrivENerR: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism 
of the New Testament, 1861; 2d ed., thoroughly. revised, Cambridge and 
London, 1874 (626 pages); 3d ed. 1883 (751 pages). 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 Augiensis, to which 
is added a Full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, with a Critical Introduc- 
tion (the latter also issued separately), Cambridge, 1859; and Collation 
of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the N. T. 2d ed, 1867. 

Ezra Aspor: Notes on Scrivener’s “ Plain Introduction,” etc., edited 
by Dr. Jos.-H. Thayer. Boston and New York, 1885. (Points out numer- 
ous errors in Scrivener.) 


84 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


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

C. E. Hammonp: Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New 
Testament. Oxford, 1872; 2d ed. 1876; 3d ed. 1880; 5th ed. 1890. 

Epwarp C. ΜΙΤΟΗΕΙΙ͂,: Critical Handbook to the New Testament. 
London and Andover, 1880 (the part on textual criticism, pp. 67-143, 
revised by Ezra Ansor); French translation, Paris, 1881. Very brief. 

GerorRGE E. MERRILL: The Story of the Manuscripts. Boston, 1881. 

Abbé J. P. P. Martin: Introduction ἃ la Critique Textuelle du Nouveau 
Testament. Paris,1883-86,6 vols. Lithographed, with numerous fac-similes, 

BenJAMIN Β. WARFIELD: An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 
the New Testament. London and New York, 1886 (225 pp.). 


Ill. CriricaAL 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 ΕἸΟΗΉΟΕΝ, MIcHAgLIs (ed. by HERBERT Marsu, Lond. 1823, 6 vols.), 
Hve, De Werrr, BLEEK (4th ed. 1886), Reuss (6th ed. 1888), HOLTZMANN 
(1885, 2d ed. 1886), B. WxEIss (1886, 2d ed. 1889),G. SaLmon (8d ed. 1888), 


IV. ARTICLES ON BIBLE Text. 


TISCHENDORF and VON GEBHARDT, in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. (new ed. 
ii. 400-437); translated and revised by Dr. Ezra Assor for Schaff’s 
“Relig. Encycl.” 1882, vol. i. 268 sqq. 

Canon Westcott in Smith’s Dict. 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 Gospels in Greek, Andover, 1876 and 1880. 

Two essays of Dr. Ezra ΑΒΒΟΥ (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. H. 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 Burcon in three articles in the London 
“Quarterly Review” for Oct. 1881, and Jan. and April, 1882 (enlarged in 
Revision Revised, with reply to Bishop Ellicott, Lond. 1883); with defences 


UNIVERSITY 
OF 

CA IFORN\S 

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 85 


from Dr. W. SANDAY in the “ Contemporary Review” for Dec. 1881; Canon 
FARRAR, 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 two 
members of the New Testament (English) Company (supposed to be 
Bishop Euticorr and Archdeacon PALMER) in The Revisers and the Greek 
Text of the New Testament, London, 1882, etc., etc. 


SOURCES OF THE TEXT. 


The text of the New 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 autographs’ of the apostolic writers, 
whether written by themselves or dictated to clerks,’ 
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.* They perished probably before the 


1 Autographa, ἀρχέτυπα, ἰδιόχειρα. 

3 Notari, amanuenses, ταχύγραφοι, καλλίγραφοι. 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 librarius, or calligraphist, the beautiful writer, who carefully trans- 
cribed the first copy, and the corrector, who answered to our modern 
proof-reader. 

3 Tertullian (De Prescr. Her. 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 (cathedre apostolorum suis locis 
president), in which their own authentic letters are read (apud quas ipse 
authentice littere eorum recitantur), uttering the voice and representing 


86 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." The paper then in common use 
was made of Egyptian papyrus (hence our word 
paper), and very brittle and perishable.” 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. g. Marcion’s Luke); but in any case the testimony 
is too isolated and rhetorical to be entitled to credit. Irenzeus, who wrote 
twenty years earlier (about A.D. 180), knew different copies with two dif- 
ferent readings of the mystical number in Αροο. xiii. 18, without being 
able to appeal to John’s autograph (Adv. Her. v. 30,1); and Origen 
knew no older text of the Gospel of John than the copy of Heracleon 
(Cn Joh, tom. 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 
Tischendorf, in Herzog, 11, 400; Tregelles, in Horne, iv. 24; Scrivener, 
p. 503; Harris, in the “ Amer. Journal of Philology,” N. 12, Baltimore, 1882, 

1 These three writing materials are mentioned in 2 John 12; 3 John 13; 
2 Cor. iii. 3: ὁ χάρτης (Lat. charta), a leaf of paper, made of the layers 
of papyrus, ὁ κάλαμος (calamus), the reed-pen, and τὸ μέλαν (neuter 
subst. from μέλας, black), the ink (atramentum). The best qualities of 
paper used for letter-writing were called by the Romans charta Augusta, 
from their emperor; Liviana, from his wife; Saitica, etc. See Pliny’s 
Nat. Hist, xiii. 12 (23, 24). 

2 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. δῖ 


mentions that in his day the library of Pamphilns 
of Ossarea, 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 Herculaneum 
(since 79). | Parchment,* 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,’ and no parchment copies 
of the New Testament older than the fourth. The 
“parchments” which Paul ordered were probably 
sacred books of the Old Testament.’ 
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 are well preserved, and contain poems, novels, pray- 
ers for the dead, etc. Those of Herculaneum (publ. in 21 vols. fol.) have suf- 
fered from the eruption of Vesuvius, The Fayum papyri deposited in Vienna 
contain fragments of the Copto-Greek Gospels, and a portion of a homily 
quoting from our Gospels. See Woodruff, in “ Andover Rev.” for Sept. 1885. 

3 The name (Fr. parchemin, from Pergamena) 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. 

42 Tim. iv. 13. Paul ordered his cloak (φελόνην), and the books (ra 
βιβλία, probably papyrus rolls), and especially the ea (τὰς 


μεμβράναρ). 


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 
profiteth 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 
Truth, and the Life. 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. So 


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

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). 
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. They 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 


? Much has been written on this passage. The doctrinal question in- 
volved is whether Paul calls Christ God, or not; in other words, whether 
Sedc refers to the preceding ὁ Χριστός, or to God the Father. The A.V. 
and the R. V. (in text) take the former view. The i. 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 Exegesis for 1881, Middletown, 
Conn., 1882, pp. 22-55 and 87-154, 

? 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, “ the end of all things 
being at hand” ΑἹ Pet. iv.7). Euseb. HW. £. vi. 14; note of Heinichen, i, 279. 

8 


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.” ? 
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, 
2 Die Sinatbibel, p. 73. 


Specimens or tHE Curer MSS. or tut New TEstaMENT 


3, ς«τἈΑςιοκΚΑιδυδλεν)δΥ 
Ἕ AEN GINONGPaBKoyN 


εἶ ‘LX p KON: +> 


Codex VAricANus: Fourth Century.—Mark xvi. 8 
στασις και οὐδενι ov |Oev εἰπὸν epoBovr | ro yap: | 


kara | papkov. 
(The accents and breathings are by a later hand.) 


sf’ 


μιν ΜΆΡΧ ΠΗ NOAOrOCIcAroAo roc 
J TIfecTrONeNkal@CHNOAOCrac. 


Codex ALEXANDRINUS: Fifth Century.—John i. 1. 
Ἐν ἀρχὴ nv ολογος Kato oyog ἢ | προς τον ϑ[ εο07ν᾽ καὶ ϑ[ εο]ς nv o λογος 


H ATATIH 
OYAENOTEEKNINTE! # 


Codex CLARoMoNTANUS: Sixth Century; Greek Text.—1 Cor. xiii. 8, 
ἡ ἀγάπη | ὀυδέποτε ἐκπίπτει 


CARITAS 
NUMIGUxM ExcidEet 


Codex CLAROMONTANUS: Sixth Century; Latin Text.—1 Cor. xiii. 8, 


caritas | numquam excidet 


THN CJ¢ IXAH CIsn 
TOYICYy 


Codex Laupranus: Sixth Century; Greek Text.—Acts xx, 28 
τῆν ἐκκλησιαν | τὸν «[ pro ]y 


aot 513 [1100 4m 0] S[03]g Slashoa s[no]p wayne ysasnyn00T 6 “IIA ΒΊΟΥ 
1 ‘I Uyor—'AinquaD YANO :SMOLLIVNIg ΧΡ —'az8S[NA OY} Jo “GPL UMOUY 459010 04} : [FG ἙΓῪ ‘SANILVINY ΧΘΡΟΩ 


232289HNSION 50 WALNXLSISDLNIO] 


"3 So [1109 928] 34 cordlizoan | Sv13g/3003 Sls ο.; ao aokoy aos 


Ὁ IL “wy, T—"Aunjuag ΓᾺ PETS xopop 0g “AX uyor—'AinjuaDy YIXIS :snawndyng xepop 
OND IDIAIDHLOL AO O.! ovA OL exd 


Sroyzhin lgdm .rsnnazau az ligonowg? .14 | dvo a3 Ugmdsand3 S[o3]g 9 .dordtsoan Sni(2)2g/3093 Sls 
ὋΙ ‘IL Ὅπ|, [—"*AInjueD YyIUIE7INOT :SISNAULSHOIA'T ΧΘΡΟΩ 


“ον fiw VDE? ρου J JIT NORMA A AQ 72 ναννοίφυν - fre 
Fy 4.5 «ore Iném D269 “410. Ay arf “smb Jao (rp Dees 


pinag aos axXvy2 ‘oni22nd21 ot 9063 04 psvy a[oida]y Ags 124043 NoOLAY on)d3lG3 obs 133 
6 8 1 ayNT—,SeAIsIND 98} JO Usen?g),, 981 ‘AInjJUED YIUaARTY :SANILAAAION xepop 


pring naLigkoyy cro pimig ox. sig hast eyo pichlgepiiry aig pha tenga 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 93 


GENERAL CHARACTER OF MANUSCRIPTS. 


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 


? The art of reading ancient MSS. and determining their age and value 
is a special science, called diplomatics, and, in a wider sense, paleography. 
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 traité 
de diplomatique, par deux religieux bénédictins ['Toustain and Tassin], 
Par. 1750-65, 6 vols. 4to. The principal works on Greek paleography 
are: Montfaucon, Palewographia Greca, sive de ortu et progressu littera- 
rum Grecarum, Par. 1708, fol.; Bast, Commentatio Paleographica, ap- 
pended to G. H. Schaefer’s edition of Gregorius Corinthius De Dialectis, 
Leipz. 1811; Silvestre, Paléographie universelle, Par. 1839-41, fol., tom. ii. 
(splendid fac-similes); Westwood, Paleographia Sacra Pictoria, Lond, 
1843-45; Wattenbach, Anleitung zur griech. Paleographie, 2d ed. Leipz. 
1877, 4to, and 12 plates, fol. ; id., Schrifttafeln zur Gesch. der griech. Schrift 
und zum Studium der griech. Paleogr., 2 vols., Berl. 1876-77, fol. ; new ed., 
1883, under the title of Scripture Grece Specimina ; Wattenbach and A. von 
Velsen, Exempla Codicum Grecorum litt. minusc. scriptorum, Heidelb. 1878, 
fol.,50 photogr. plates; “ Paleographical Society of London,” F'ac-similes of 
Ancient MSS., edited by Bond and Thompson, Parts i—xii., Lond. 1873-82, 
fol., still continued ; Wattenbach, Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter, 2d ed. 
Leipz. 1875, 8vo (an excellent work); Gardthausen, Griechische Paleo- 
graphie, Leipz. 1879, large 8vo (the most important recent treatise). 

A good compendious introduction to Latin paleography is Wattenbach’s 
Anleitung zur lat. Paleogr., 3d ed. Leipz. 1878, 4to (90 pages). L. A. 
Chassant’s Dict. des abréviations lat. et frangaises, 4. δᾶ, Par. 1876, 16mo, 
is very helpful in reading Latin MSS. or early printed books. Comp. also 
the great work of Wailly, Elements de paléographie; Zangemeister and 
Wattenbach’s Kxemplu Codicum Latinorum; Egger, Histoire du livre 
(1880); Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (1882). 


94 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 ot 
folio, quarto, or octavo, or smaller size, in sheets 
folded and stitched together. Hence they are called 
Codices." The pages are usually broken into two, 
very rarely into three or four columns. 

The number of MSS. now known is not far from 
two thousand, 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.” 

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 of wood split or sawn into planks, leaves, or tablets (tabelle), 
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. 

3 The total number of MSS., including Lectionaries, is stated by Dr. 
Scrivener, in the second ed. of his Jntroduction (1874, p. 269, comp. p. x.), 
to be 158 uncials and 1605 cursives. But in the third edition (1883, p. 
xxx.), he swells the number of the cursives to 1997, and the total num- 
ber of uncial and cursive MSS. of all classes to 2094, He assigns (p. 661) 
to England, 373; to Italy, 417; to France, 238; to Denmark, 3; to Ger- 
many, 96; to Greece, 1; to Holland, 6; to Ireland, 3; to Russia, 79; to 
Scotland, 8; to Spain, 23; to Sweden, 7; to Switzerland, 15; to Turkey, 
120; to the United States, 3; unknown, 37. But this gives only 1429, to 
which should be added about 300 discovered by Dean Burgon in 1883. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 95 


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 A’schylus 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 the 
Harris papyrus fragments in the British Museum are 
“perhaps of the 1st century B.C.,” and the Bankes 
papyrus of the “2d century” A.D. Of the Medita- 
tions of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius only one com- 
plete MS. is known to exist, that in the Vatican library, 
and it has no title, and no inscriptions of the several 
books; the other Vatican and three Florentine MSS. 
_ contain only extracts from the imperial book. 
It is not impossible, though not very probable, that 
MSS. of the New 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 Diocletian 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 lecttonaries). Those which cover more 
than one of these classes, or the whole New 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. Seme 
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 So = 
Sede (God), κσΞεκύριος (Lord), vo= vide (Son), io = 
Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), xo = Χριστός (Christ), . πῆρ = Tarp 
(Father), πναΞξεπνεῦμα (Spirit); also onp for σωτῆρ 
(Saviour), ανος for ἄνϑρωπος (man), and ουνοσ for 
οὐρανός (heaven). Most of them give the Greek 
text only, a few the Latin version also (hence called 
codices bilingues or Greco-Latini), e.g. Cod. D (or 
Bezee) 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 


* See on these abbreviations Scrivener, pp. 46, 47, 2d ed.; pp. 48, 49, 
3d ed.; and Gregory, /’roleg. i. 341 sq. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 97 


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 Bezze; perhaps also the 
Codex Rossanensis, which was discovered in Calabria 
in 1879, but Von Gebhardt and Harnack 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.’ 

All the MSS., whether complete or defective, are 
divided, according to the size of letters, into two 
classes, wnczal and cursive. The former are written 
in large or capital letters (/etéer@ unciales or majus- 
cule), the latter in small letters (/étter@ minuscule) 
or in current hand.*? 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 Sinaitie. 

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


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

* 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 a foot, or an inch. It is not to be 
taken as literally describing the size of the letters, Majusculus (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. 


98 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


either from the Gospels alone (called Hvangelistaria 
or Hvangeliaria), or from the Acts and Epistles 
(Praxapostoli), or from the Epistles (Zpistolaria), 
or from the Gospels and Epistles (A postoloevangelia, 
or simply Hvangelion and Apostolos). They are some- 
times 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, Ο, D, etc.), with the help 
of Greek letters for a few MSS. beyond Cod. Z, and 
the Hebrew letter Aleph (Δ) for the Sinaitic MS., 
which was discovered last and precedes Cod. A.’ 
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 Beze 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 Alexandrinus was designated as Cod. A in the lower margin of 
Walton’s Polyglot (Scrivener, loc. cit. p. 75, 3d ed.). A far better system 
would be to designate them in the order of their age or value, which 
would place B and & 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, 6. 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. 99 


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 
B, is the Vatican MS. which contains the Apoca- 
lypse; D is the Codex Beze for the Gospels and 
Acts, D (2) or D, 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,' 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 
ANDTHEWORDWASWITHGODAND 
THEWORDWASGODTHESAMEWAS 
INTHEBEGINNINGWITHGODALL 

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


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

2 The earliest dated New Test. uncial seems to be I 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.40, 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 (κεφάλαια, capitu- 
a) in the Gospels, the Eusebian Canons (or tables 
of references to the Ammonian sections, after 340, 
when Eusebius died), the Euthalian sections in the 
Acts and Epistles, and the stichometrie divisions or 
lines (στίχοι) corresponding to sentences (both used, 
if not first introduced, by Euthalius, cir. A.D. 458, 
in his editions of the Acts and Epistles),* marks 
of punctuation (ninth century), etc. Sometimes a 
second or third hand introduced punctuation and 
accents or different readings. Hence the distinc- 
tion of lectiones a prima manu, marked by a star (*); 
a secunda manu (**, or, or”); ὦ tertia manu (***, 
or*, or’). In Cod. C Tischendorf used small figures 
(Οὗ, C?, Οὐ), in Cod. δὶ he used small letters (&*, x, x°). 
The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected as late as 
the twelfth century. 

Some MSS. (as Codd. OC, P, Q, R, Z, %) have been 
written twice over, owing to the scarcity and costli- 
ness of parchment, and are called codices rescripti, 
or palimpsests (παλίμψηστοι) ; the new book being 
written between the lines, or across, or in place of 
the old Bible text. 

Constantine 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.” ἢ 


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

* Eusebius, Vita Const. iv. 36, Πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφϑέραις 
ἐγκατασκεύοις . .. ὑπὸ τεχνιτῶν καλλιγράφων. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 101 


To judge from this fact, the number of uncials was 
once very large, but most of them perished. Only one 
contains the whole New Testament (Cod. Sinaiticus). 

The whole number now known is over one hun- 
dred. The statements vary. Scrivener reckons 
97 in all—viz., 57 for the Gospels (in another place 
he counts 61), 14 for the Acts, 6 for the Catholic 
Epistles, 15 for the Pauline Epistles, 5 for the Apoc- 
alypse, exclusive of the uncial lectionaries, which 
are not marked by capitals, but by Arabic numerals, 
like cursive MSS. of all classes... Dr. Abbot, in his 
last communication to me, Jan., 1884 (a few montlis 
before his death), counted 105 classified or 85 dis- 
tinct MSS..of the New Testament (exclusive of 
lectionaries)—viz., 64 for the Gospels, 15 for the Acts, 
7 for the Catholic Epistles (16 for Acts and Cath. 
Epistles together), 20 for the Pauline Epistles, 5 for 
the Apocalypse. Dr. Gregory agreed with this 
statement in 1884, but added two Gospel fragments 
(Tf and W?).’ 

Since then several more uncial MSS. have been 
discovered—namely, by Dr. Zahn (1884), two small 
fragments in the Egyptian Museum of the Louvre, 
containing 1 Tim. ili. 15, 16 (confirming the reading 
és), and vi. 2; by Abbé Batiffol (1885 and 1886), the 
purple codex ® at Berat (Codex Beratinus) contain. 
ing Matthew and Mark, and a number of important 
but as yet an published palimpsest leaves of portions 
of Acts and Epistles.° 


1 Introd. 3d ed. (1883), p. 75. But he contradicts himself, p. 307. 
3. Prolegomena to Tischendorf, Pt. I. pp. 887 sq. and pp. 439 sq. 
ὃ See postscript to the preface of the 3d ed., p. xv. 


102 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


With these additions the whole number of dis- 
tinct uncial MSS., including all fragments, was stated 
in our last edition (1888) to be 91, as follows: 

SA BB #pec C Ὁ evv. act Τὴ paul Ἐὶ ἘΣ act ἘΣ paul F Ἐ' paul Ἐ' a G G act (G paul) 
G > (act) H act Ἡ paul 1 1.9.3.4.5.6.7. [ Ὁ K K cath. paul J, J, act. cath. paul yy 
M paul N N ἃ N paul CO Oa bedefg Ο paul Ο ὃ (paul) p P act. cath. paul. apoc QQ paul 
RRWST (or T*) Two Tbedef Uy Κ᾽ Wabcdefgh ΧῪ Z TA @arbcdetgh 
A @ IL = @ Zahn and Batiffol fragments—91. 

This list must now again be enlarged by the new 
discoveries which have been made chiefly by Dr. 
Gregory, on his journeys to Italy and Greece in 
1886, and described by him in 1890, as follows:’ 

Ob Te (We X V) Wi W* W! W™ W® W? (4, Beratinus) Y (Athous 
Laure) Q (Athous Dionysii) 3 (Athous Andree) αν (Vaticanus Ro- 
manus Gr. 2302) S (Athous Laure) = (Rome Vatic. Gr. 2061) S and 3 


(numbered again for Paul Epp.) ΧΡ (Monacensis bibl. reg. 208, formerly 
numbered among the cursives) ΤῈ (Cairo). . 


The total number of uncial MSS. at this date 
(1891) may be roughly estimated at about 110. 


I. PRIMARY UNCIALS. 

There are four uncial 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 (CQ). 
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, Z, and of A in Mark, is better 
than that of A, but in the rest of the New Testa- 

1 Prolegomena, Pars 11. Supplementum, pp. 441-450. His supplement- i 
ary list includes W* X V and Φ (Cod. Beratinus, published 1886) which 


I have numbered in the preceding list. We must await the third Part 
for Gregory’s final list. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 103 


ment A is undoubtedly, after 8 and B, the most im- 
portant MS. 


CODEX SINAITICUS. 


x (Aleph). Codex Srvarricus, 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 (134 inches wide by 14% high), in 
large uncials, with four columns to a page (of 48 lines 
each). It has 3463 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.’ A photographic fac-simile edition 


 Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis 
Imperatoris Alexandri 11. ex tenebris protraxit in Europam transtulit ad 
duvandas atque illustrandas sacras litteras edidit CONSTANTINUS TISCHEN- 
DorF. Petropoli, MDCCCLXII. The first volume contains the dedica- 
tion to the Emperor (dated Lips. 7 Sone 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 
(1842 leaves), the Epistle of Barnabas (foll. 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 Hermas, was also 
separately edited by Tischendorf in smaller type in 
quarto (Leipsic, 1863), in four columns; and an 
octavo edition in ordinary type (ἰδία. 1865). 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 καὶ 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 uncialium solus integer omni- 
umque antiquissimus.” He 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 
Constantine had ordered to be prepared for the 
churches of Constantinople in 331, and that it was 
sent by the Emperor Justinian to the Convent of 


Pastor Herme (foll. 142-1473). 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, Hartford, Rochester, Auburn, 
in the Astor Library, the Lenox Library, New York, in the University 
libraries of Harvard, Yale, etc. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 105 


Mount Sinai, which he founded.’ 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 
Herme in Greek (1474 leaves). It is much disfig- 
ured by numerous corrections made by the original 
scribes or several later writers, especially one of.the 
fourth century (85), whose emendations are very valu- 
able, and one of the seventh (x°). It often confirms 
Cod. Vaticanus in characteristic readings (as μονογενὴς 
Sede for υἱός, in John 1.18; τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
for κυρίου, 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. ὅ8--ν111. 11); ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, 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.”? In 1 Tim. 


+ See Tischendorf’s edition of the English New Test., Leips. 1869, 
p. xli., and Die Sinaibibel (1871), p.77. After a more careful inspection of 
the Vatican MS. in 1866, 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 8 (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. 602. Von Gebhardt, in Herzog’s Real-Ency- 
klopddie (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. 

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


9 


106 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


iii. 16 it supports the Alexandrian and Ephraem 
MSS. in reading ὃς ἐφανερώϑη for Sede, 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 (1869), 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." 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.” Tregelles inspected 


portant ones (dusserst merkwiirdige und wichtige), which are sustained by 
the oldest fathers and versions, are found neither in the Vaticanus nor the 
Alexandrinus.” 

1 Nov. Test. Grece ex Sinaitico Codice .. . ed. Lips. 1865, Prolegg. p. xii.: 
“ Ut erat constitutum, sine mora suscepta est totius textus antiquissimi tran- 
scriptio atque laboris sociis adsumptis duobus popularibus, altero medicine 
doctore, altero medicamentario, intra duo menses absoluta.” 

? He says (Vorwort zur Sin, Bibelhandschrift, etc., Lips. 1862, pp. 19, 
20): “In die Druckeret gelangte nichts anderes als Abschriften meiner 
Hand, die bei erneuerter Vergleichung des Originals, das nie aus meinen 
Hénden kam, durch vielfache Zeichen fiir das Verstiéndniss der Setzer 
eingerichtet wurden. Hierzu kam eine andere nicht geringe Arbeit. Nachdem 
die ersten Correkturabziige von anderer Seite, besonders durch Dr. Miihl- 
mann, den Herausgeber eines Thesaurus der classischen Latinitadt, nach 
meiner Abschrift berichtet worden waren, blieb mir allein die Aufgabe, 
dyeselben Druckbogen noch zwei Mal 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 Collatzon (1864), were wrong in every 
instance.’ Considerable portions of it have been 
photographed, and real fac-similes are given in 


KAIOM OAOTOYMe 
NCD CMETAECTIN 
TOTHCEYCEBEIAC 
MYCTH PIONOCE 
<pANEP@OHENG?P 
KI‘ CAIKAIODOHEN 

MIN IdCo<pOHATRXK 
‘  €KHPYXOHENE 

© NECINETMICTEY 

ΘΗΕ NKOCMW- 

ANEAHM<peHEN 

AOZH 


SPECIMEN OF THE CopEXx SINAITICUS, CONTAINING 1 TIM. m1. 16: 

kat opodoyoupe | νως peya εστιν | τὸ τῆς ευσεβειας | μυστηριον ος εἰ 
φανερωθὴ εν cap| κι᾿ εδικαιωϑὴ ev |TV whSn ayyedouc | εκηρυχϑὴ 
ev εἰ Sveow ἐπιστεὺ  ϑὴ ev Koopw | ανελημφϑὴ ev | δοξη. 


1 See Tischendorf’s Nov, Test. Grace ex Sinaitico Codice (Lips, 1865), 
Prolegg. pp, xiiii,—li, 


108 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


Tischendorf’s three editions, in Scrivener’s Jntroduc- 
tion, and in Abbé Martin’s Criteque Textuelle. Dean 
Burgon, also, in his book on the Last Twelve Verses 
of Mark, 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. 


Nore ΟΝ THE Discovery or Copex Srvarricus.—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. Sinaiticus 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 Reise in den 
Orient (1845-46), and Aus dem heil. 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 Anfechtungen der 
Sinaibibel (1863), and Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863) ; 
and most fully in his Die Sinaibibel, thre Entdeckung, Herausgabe 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 THE 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 Hermas. 
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. 

“Tt 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.” ! 


? Die Sinaibibel (1871), pp. 18, 14. As this book (one of the last from 
his pen) may become very rare, I will add the original: “ Hrst auf meinem 
Zimmer gab ich mich dem iiberwailtigenden Eindruck der Thatsache hin; 
meine kiithnsten Hoffnungen und Trdume waren iibertroffen. Ich wusste, 
dass ich einen unvergleichlichen Schatz fiir die christliche Wissenschaft in 
meinen Hinden hielt. Mitten in der tiefsten Riihrung erkannt’ ich jetzt auch 
auf Bléttern vor meinen Augen in blassen Schriftziigen die Aufschrift: 
‘Der Hirte.”’ Inder That lag ausser dem vollstdndigen Briefe des Barna- 
bas auch ein Theil vom Hirten 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 erklarte, fast verschwunden. Die Biicher unseres Neuen Testa- 
ments waren volistdndig: welch ausserordentlicher Vorzug vor unseren 
beriihmtesten Bibelhandschriften, der Vatikanischen und der Alexandrini- 
schen. Vom Alten Testament waren nicht nur jene 86 Blitter wiedergefunden, 
sondern—und wie kostbar war jedes einzelne Blatt—noch 112 andere mit 
sdmmilichen poetischen Biichern, 


110 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


He secured first the temporary loan of the Codex. It was carried by 
Bedawin 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 (1869) permanently transferred to the imperial library. 

Thus the four great Eastern uncials are distributed throughout Europe 
—the Sinaitic is in St. Petersburg and the Greek Church, the Vatican in 
Rome and the Roman Church, the Alexandrian in London and the 
Anglican Church, Codex Ephrem in Paris and the Gallican 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 holy 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 Russian, 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 erleuchtete nur spdrlich mein 
Zimmer ; ein Mittel zur Heizung gab es nicht, obschon es am Morgen im 
Kloster sogar Eis gefroren hatte. Aber es war mir nicht méglich, gegeniiber 
dem entdeckten Reichthume zu schlafen. Ich setzte mich vielmehr sofort 
daran, den Brief des Barnabas, dessen erster Theil nur erst aus einer 
saangelhaften lateinischen Uebersetzung bekannt war, abzuschreiben. Es 
war mir klar, dass ich die ganze Handschrift qbschreiben mysste, wenn ich, 
ste nicht im Original sollte erwerben kinnen.” Ἰὼ τ 


. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 111 


a copy of Tischendorf’s edition of the Septuagint (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 
1869 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 Russias as “a testimony of eternal 
devotion” (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς ἀϊδίου ἡμῶν Kai τοῦ Σινᾶ εὐγνωμοσύνη). 
See his own account of the final delivery in Die Sinaibibel, p. 91. 


CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 


A. Codex Atrxanprinvs of the fifth century, in 
quarto and two columns (12? inches high, 10} 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 


pee 


convent, Gregory, Proleg. i, 352 sq, 


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. 6, John vi. 50-vili. 52, and 
2 Cor. iv. 13—-xii. 6. 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 (1875). The New Testament of 


ὦ ~ 2 7 ~ z 


MAPKtiEMo1HCENGoe-TONGY 
PANON KATH NrHN HAErH H NAO 


patoc IKATATCATACIKCEYACT oc. 
KAICIKOTOCENANWTHCAB γος oy. 


AARP μκάνασῴιο GAYTOIC KA ITTANTIN 

IMNILGYECNUDY MACTOTATo 
ἈΓΙΟΝ Ε OE TOETTIC!<OTTOYC: 
TITOIMAINEIIINSCTHN Gk IcAHCIAN 
TOY I< YHNTTEPi ETTOIHC ATOAIA 
TOYAIMATOCTOYLAIOY': 


SPECIMENS OF THE CopEX ALEXANDRINUS. 


The first is in bright red, with breathings and accents, and contains 
Gen. i. 1, 2, Sept. (Ev ἀρχῆ ἐπόιησεν ὁ So τὸν dv | pavdy και τὴν 
γῆν ἡ δὲ γῆ ἣν a6 | ρατοσ Kat ἀκατασκεύαστοσ᾽ | και σκύτοσ ἐπάνω 
τῆσ αβύσσου.). The second specimen is in common ink, and contains 
Acts xx. 28 (Προσεχετε eavrow και παντι Tw | ποιμνιω" εν ὦ ὕμασ 
τοπνατοὶ αγιον εϑετὸ ἐπισκοπουσ᾽ | ποιμαινειν τὴν ἐκκλησιαν | Tov 
κυ nv περιεποιήσατο δια του aysarocg Tov ἰδιου.). A favors κυρίον 
versus Θεοῦ, 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 113 


the Alexandrian MS. was published by Charles G. 
Woide in uncial type (London, 1786), and by B. H. 
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 wsed by 
biblical scholars (although Cod. D was known 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 8 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 Varicanvus, 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 104), preserved 
in the Vatican Library at Rome (No. 1209). It is 
the most valnable 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 


uty τὸν λίϑον ἐκ rie 
| Sipao τῦυ μνη- 
μέϊου | κὰι ava 
βλέψασαι Sew! piv- 
σιν ὅτι ἀνακεκύ | 
λισται ὁ λιϑοσ ἦν 
γὰρ | μέγασ σφό- 
dpa κὰι éd | ϑῦυσαι 
ἐισ TO μνημὲᾶι | ov 
ἐϊδον νεανίσκον | 
καϑήμενον ἐν τῦισ 
| δεξιῦισ περιβε- 
βλημέϊ νον στολὴν 
λευκὴν | eae ἐξε- 
ϑαμβήϑησαν | ὁ δὲ 
λέγει ἀυτᾶισ μὴ | 
ἐκϑαμβξέισϑε ιν ζη- 
τειϊ τε τὸν ναζα- 
ρηνὸν τὸ-- | ἐσταυ- 
ρῳμέμον ἠγέρ [3η 
ὀυκ ἔστιν ὧδε ἴδε 
| ὁ τόποσ ὕπου 
é3nka' ἀυτὸν ἀλλα 
ὑπάγετε | ἐίπατε 
τῦισ μαϑητᾶισ | 
ἀυτοῦ κὰι τῶ πέ- 
τρω | ὅτι προάγει 
ὑμᾶσ iso | τὴν γα- 
λιλάιαν exit ἀν 
| τὸν ὄψεσϑε κα- 
Swo ἔϊ | πεν ὑμῖν 
Kae ἐξελϑῦν | σαι 
ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τῦυ | 
μνημέιου ἐΐχεν 
γὰρ | ἀυτὰσ τρό- 
poo κὰι ἔκ | στασισ 
κὰι ὀυδενὶ dv | δὲν 


3 


pire’ 


MIN TONATOON ἐκ τῆς 
Oy PACT OyMNHMEi0Y 
καιλναβλέψαςαιθεω 
ἢ Υοιν ὅ τιλ να εκ 
AIC TAIGAIGOCHNFAP 
MErACCSDOAPAKAIEA 
edycaié C TOMNHME! 
ON CLAONNEANTCKON 
KRAOHMENONENTOIC 
AEZIOICNEsIBERAHME 
NON C TOAHNACYKAN 
KAIESECOAME HOHCAN 
OMEAETEIAY-TAICMN 
€K OAMREICOGINZHTE 
TETGNNAZAPHNONT 
ECT AYLDMENONALES 
@HOYKECTINGAC TAS 
OTONOCONOYEOHKA 
RY TONAAAAynKre Te 
EINATE τ OIC MACHTAIS 
Ay του Kit One po 
OTIMpoaAresymsceEic 
THN CAAIAAIANE KEIAY 
TONOY εοϑεκλϑωῶςδ, 
nenty IN KAIG ZEA QT 
CAIE γον ΤΟΥ 
ΜΝΗΜ EIOYEIXEN γὰρ 
RY TACT pomocKAaleK 
CTACICKAIGY AGNIOY 
AENEINON OBQYN 
Jroray: ««Ὑ Ὁ 


ἐΐπον ἐφοβῦυν | ro oe PEM 


yap: 


Kara 
Μάρκον. 


ἶ 


VKATR* 
“LAP KO Ν᾿ te 


SPECIMEN OF THE CopDEX VATICANUS, CONTAINING MARK XvI, 3-8. 


[Reduced from Dean Burgon’s photograph of the whole page. 


By permission). 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 115 


complete.’ 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 
on the other hand the corrections, the remarkable 
difference in the order of the books of the New Test.,’ 
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 Rome shortly after the 
establishment of the Vatican Library by Pope Nich- 
olas V. in 1448; 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. Tregelles was so much impressed with the antiquity of B that 
he thought it was written before the Council of Nicwa (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. 

7 In Cod. & 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,’ and the New Testament as far as Heb. 
ix. 14 (inclusive), and breaks off in the middle of the 
verse and of the word xaSa| 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,’ 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. ev. (evi.) 27 —cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) 6, and the 
Books of Maccabees. 

3 If not already in 1522, as Tregelles thinks, Horne’s Jnér. 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); but 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.’ 

A critical, though by no means infallible, quasi- 
fac-simile edition of the whole Vatican MS. by Ver- 
cellone (d. 1869), Jos. Cozza, and Gaetano Sergio 
(who was associated for a short time with Cozza 
after Vercellone’s death), was published at Rome, 
1868-81, in six stately folio volumes. The type 
used was cast in Leipsic, at the expense of the Prop- 
aganda, from the same moulds as those employed for 
Tischendorf’s edition of the Codex Sinaiticus, al- 
though the Vatican Codex is written in much smaller 
letters. Tischendorf unjustly complained of the bad 
use which the Roman printers made of his type.’ 


1 Novum Testamentum Vaticanum ... ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1867, with 
Prolegomena. Comp. his Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869, and his Responsa 
ad calumnias Romanas, 1870 (the charges of the “ Civilt& Cattolica”), 

2 The full title of the Roman quasi-fac-simile edition reads: “ Bibliorum 


118 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


At last a photographic fac-simile edition has ap- 
peared in Rome, 1889 (one hundred copies only).’ 

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. 3B has numerous corrections by 
a contemporaneous hand, and was supplied with 


Sacrorum Grecus Codex Vaticanus auspice Pio IX. Pontifice Maximo 
collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabite et Josephi Cozza 
Monachi Basiliani editus. Rome, typis et impensis S. Congregationis de 
Propaganda Fide.” 1868 to 1881. Beautifully printed on vellum paper. 
Four volumes contain the Septuagint (i. Pentateuch and Jos,; ii. Judges, 
etc.; iii. The Psalms, etc.; iv. Esther, etc.); one volume the New Testa- 
ment, which appeared in 1868 as tom.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 p. 285 to 302) are supplied from 
a later text (recentiort 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 contains prolegomena. 

1 Under the title: H NEA AIAOHKH | Novum Testamentum | 6 
Codice Vaticano 1209 | nativi textus graeci primo omnium | photo- 
typice repraesentatum | auspice | LEONE XIII, PONT. MAX, | curante | 
Josepho Cozza-Luzi Abate Basiliano | S. Rom. Ecclesiae Vicebibliothe- 
cario | Romae | E Bibliotheca Vaticana | Agente Photographo Danesi | 
MDCCCLXXXIX. I compared it carefully with the original in the 
Vatican Library, April, 1890, and gave an account of it in “The Sunday- 
School Times,” Philadelphia, May 17,1890. Comp. Ο. v. Gebhardt in the 
“Theol, Literaturzeitung ” for Aug. 9, 1890, 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 119 


accents and breathings by a third hand in the tenth 
century or later." It is more free from Western or 
Alexandrian readings than x. It presents on the 
whole, with δὲ, 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 8 is (with 
few exceptions) a strong presumptive evidence for 
the genuineness of a reading, and, when supported by 
other ante-Nicene 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 &, 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 ἐξ 
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 
δὲ 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 Κλήμης), 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 
“to Cod. B at least as much weight as to any single document in existence” 
(Introd. p. 108), and calls it, “in common with our [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. Hort’s /ntroduction, pp. 212-224. He arrives at the conclusion 
that, with some specified exceptions, 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 δὲ and B 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 Stephanic 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 Chichester, whose learning is only equalled 
by his dogmatism, but we come to the opposite conclusion. “ Codices B and 
&,” he says,’ “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 both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view. 
The question will have to be fought out, and it must be fought out fairly.” 

Magna est veritas et prevalebit. 


CODEX EPHR AMI. 


C. Codex Reatvus, or Eporami Syrt, in the Nation- 
al Library at Paris, is a codex rescriptus, and has 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; or The Revision Revised, p. 
365. 


MANUSORIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


father, Ephrem (d. 372), were 
written over the original Bible 
text, which is scarcely legible.’ 
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- 
ly 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 ΟἿΣ O***, or ΟΣ, 03), 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 Ephrem. It was making void the Word of 
God by the traditions of men. Comp. Matt. 


xv. 6. 
10 


Ἵ[ὩὈΥ 63 ax az? lgennng? .1x0n0 


-a3 igmozang3 o[03]e .aoiduso, | an omgfz0nz ols ot ait93 vd3 omasnaokoyono my | 


.ovnghyo ols vim 


‘9 61 ‘Il ‘WIJ, 1 ONINIVINOO ‘INWUHAY XAGOD AHL 10 NAWIOAdG 


122 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


CODEX BEZZ. 


D, for the Gospels and Acts, is Codex Brza, 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. Irenzeus 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, 6. g., 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- 
ity.” 

oe 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 


124 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


Western text, which in the Epistles of Paul is of 
inferior value. (See below.) 


2. SECONDARY UNCIALS. 


The secondary uncial MSS. are defective and of 
later date—from the fifth century (Q and T) to the 
ninth 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. von Gebhardt (1878), 
and again revised by Dr. Abbot (1882 and 1884).? 


B (2), for the Apocalypse: Codex Vaticanvs 2066 (formerly Basilian 
Codex 105); eighth century. Edited by Tischendorf, imperfectly 1846, 
carefully 1869, after a fresh collation made in 1866. Cozza published a 
few unimportant corrections to this latest edition in Ad editionem A poca- 
lypseos 5. Johannis juxta vetustissimum codicem Basil. Vat. 2066 Lips. anno 
1869 evulgatam animadversiones, 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 CLARo- 
MONTANUS; 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 Relig. Encyclopedia, vol. i. 271-273 (published in New 
York and Edinburgh, Nov. 1882, revised ed. 1886). Comp. also Gregory’s 
Proleg. i. 372 sqq., and the second vol. of the great work of Abbé Martin, 


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 BAsILEENSIs; eighth century; in the 
library at Basle; defective in Luke. Erasmus overlooked it. Collated 
by Tischendorf and Miiller (1848), and by Tregelles (1846). It is better 
than most of the second-class uncials. It approaches to the Textus Re- 
ceptus, 

E (2), for the Acts: Codex LAupIANUs; in the Bodleian Library at 
Oxford; a present from Archbishop Laud in 1636 (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 (ἃ. 735), newly published by 
Tischendorf, in the ninth vol. of his Monumenta Sacra, 1870. Very valu- 
able for the Greek-Latin text of the Acts. 

E (8), for the Pauline Epistles: Codex SANGERMANENSIS; Greco- 
᾿ Latin; formerly at Saint-Germain des Prés (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 BoREELIANUS; 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 Augia 
Dives or Major, a monastery at Reichenau in Switzerland); bought by 
Richard Bentley at Heidelberg, and bequeathed by his nephew to Trinity 
College, Cambridge; Greco-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. 

Ἐπ; 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 HARLEIANUS; 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, τ 


126 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


65, 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 (Hort), or from the same archetype (Tischendorf, Scriv- 
ener). Ninth century. It isa part of the same MS. as A of the Gospels, 
Purchased by Prof. C. F. Boerner at Leipsic, 1705; in the Royal Library 
at Dresden. Published by Matthzi, Meissen, 1791. 

H (1), for the Gospels: Codex Srmpei1; tenth century; beginning 
Matt. xv. 30, and defective in all the Gospels. Now in the Public Library 
of Hamburg. Collated by Tregelles, 1850, and examined in 1854 by 
Tischendorf. 

H (2), for the Acts: Codex Murinensis; ninth century; lacks about 
seven chapters, Now at Modena. Carefully collated by Tischendorf, 
1843, and by Tregelles, 1848, 

H (3), for the Pauline Epistles: Codex Coisiintanus; 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 Library at 
Paris; and two formerly there are now at St. Petersburg. ‘T’hese fourteen 
leaves, containing fragments of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, ‘ Timothy, Titus, 
and Hebrews, were published by Montfaucon in 1715, in his Bibliotheca 
Coisliniana. ‘Two more leaves at Moscow (Sibi. S. Syn. 61), containing 
parts of Heb. x., were first described and collated by Matthei (1784), and 
have been edited in fac-simile by Sabas (Specim. paleogr., Moscow, 1863), 
They are designated as N° 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., 3° sér., 
tom. iii. p. 420 sqq., Paris, 1876. Two more leaves, containing 1 Tim. vi. 
9-18, 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 T1sCcHENDORFI- 
Anus 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: 
I’, of John xi., xii, xv, xvi,, xix, 17. of 1 Cor, xv., xvi.; Tit, i,; Acts 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127 


xxviii. I*, of Matt. xiv., xxiv., xxv., xxvi.; Mark ix., xiv. I*, of Matt. 
Xvii.-xix.; Luke xviii.; John iv., v.,xx. I, of Acts ii, xxvi. 1°, of 
Acts xiii. I’, of Luke vii, xxiv. 1.3.3 are of the fifth century; 157 of 
the sixth; 15:5 of the seventh. The text of 1.2.5 4.7 has a close affinity 
with SABCDL. Published by Tischendorf in his Mon, sacr. med. N.C., 
vol, i. (1855). 

I>, for John’s Gospel, formerly N>; 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 MosqQuensis; 
ninth century; brought from Mount Athos to Moscow. Lacks a part of 
Romans and 1 Corinthians. Collated by Matthei. 

L (1), for the Gospels: Codex Reerus; published by Tischendorf, 1846 ; 
written in the eighth century; full of errors in spelling, but very remark- 
able for its agreement with ἐξ, B, C, and Origen; now in Paris. 

L (2), for the Acts, Pauline aad Catholic Epistles: Codex ANGELICUS, 
or ῬΑΒΒΙΟΝΕῚ (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 CAmMPrANus; complete; end of ninth 
century; now in Paris. Copied and -used by Tischendorf (1849), 

M (2), for the Pauline Epistles: Codex Ruser; 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 Θ C=Sedc, K σε κύριος, 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 scientifiques, 3° sér., tom. iii, 1876, 


128 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


N (2), for Galatians and Hebrews: two leaves; ninth century; con- 
taining Gal. v. 12-vi. 4 and Heb. v. 8-vi. 10. Brought by Tischendorf to 
St. Petersburg. 

N», The manuscript now marked by Tischendorf I. 

O (1), for John’s Gospel: eight leaves, ninth century; containing a 
part of John i. and xx., with scholia; now in Moscow (S. Syn. 120). 
Edited by Matthzi (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, 

O O° (1) Of O4 O& OF: Psalters or other manuscripts, containing 
some or all of the hymns of Luke’s Gospel (i. 46 sqq., 68 sqq., ii. 29 sqq.). 
Ο 5 is at Wolfenbiittel (ed. Tischendorf, A necd. sacr. et prof., 1855). O°” at 
Oxford. O* at Verona, the Greek text in Roman letters (ed. Bianchini, 
1740). O4 at Zurich, on purple vellum in silver letters (ed. Tischen- 
dorf, Mon. sacr. ined. N.C., vol.iv.). O* and Of at St. Gall and St. Peters- 
burg (collated by Tischendorf). O° is of the sixth century; O4 of the 
seventh; O2>¢f of the ninth. 

O> (2), for the Pauline Epistles: sixth century ; a leaf, which imperfect- 
ly presents Eph, iv. 1-18. Collated by Tischendorf at Moscow in 1868. 

P (1), for the Gospels: Codex GUELPHERBYTANUS 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- 
erally confirms A and C, but often δὲ against all the rest. 

Q (1), for Luke and John: Codex GUELPHERBYTANUS IL.; fifth century; 
a palimpsest containing fragments (247 verses) of Luke and John; now 
at Wolfenbiittel. Edited by Tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined. N. C., 111, 1860, 

Q (2): PorFrrrianus, 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 Nirriensis; 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, 9-19; convent of Grotta Ferrata, near Rome; published by Cozza in 1867. 


MANUSORIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129 


S, for the Gospels: Codex Varicanus 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 Boretanus I.; fifth century; now in the 
College of the Propaganda in Rome, 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. H. Alford. 

T woi: fragments of Luke xii. 15--xiii. 32, John viii. 28 -- 82, 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. 

T>: fragments of the first four chapters of John; sixth century; now 
at St. Petersburg. 

T°: a fragment of Matthew (xiv. 19-xv. 8), resembling the above. 

Τὰς; fragments of a Greek-Sahidic Evangelistary (seventh century) 
found by Tischendorf (1866) in the Borgian Library at Rome. Con- 
tains Matt. xvi. 13-20; Mark i. 3-8; xii, 35-37; John xix, 23-27; xx. 
30, 31. 

Το: 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. 13-16. Readings given in the Postscript to Tregelles’s 
Greek Testament, p. 1070. [E. A.] 

U, for the Gospels: Codex NAntaAnus; 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 Mosquensis, of the Gospels to John vii. 39; 
ninth century; almost complete. Written at Mount Athos, Matthzi 
collated and described it in 1779. 

W and W°: 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 1866. 

W°*: three leaves (ninth century), containing Mark ii. 8-16; Luke i. 
20-32, 64-79; now at St. Gall. Edited by Tischendorf, Afon. sacr. tned., 
N.C., vol. iii. (1860). 

W 4: 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. 


W ©: a fragment containing John iv. 9-14, discovered in 1865 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. 

W‘: so we may designate a palimpsest leaf (ninth century), contain- 
ing Mark v. 16-40, found by Mr. Vansittart in Cod. 192 of the Acts. 

W &: the Sunderland palimpsest, ninth century; see above, p. 102. 

X, for the Gospels: Codex Monacensts; fragmentary; end of ninth 
or beginning of tenth ceutury; now in the Munich University Library. 
Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. 

Y, for the Gospel of John: Codex Barserint; fragmentary; eighth 
century; now in the Library of the Prince Barberini at Rome. Tischen- 
dorf published it in Mon. sacr. ined., 1846. 

Z, for Matthew: Codex DuBLINENSIS; rescriptus; sixth century; one 
of the chief palimpsests; text in value next to δὲ and B. Edited by 
Barrett, 1801, in faulty fac-simile; Tregelles supplemented his edition in 
1868 ; re-edited with great care by T. K. Abbott, Lond. 1880. See notice 
by Dr. Gregory in Schiirer’s “ Theologische Literaturzeitung,” Leips. 1881, 
col. 228 sq. 

I, for the Gospels: Codex TiscHENDORFIANUS IV.; 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 SANGALLENSIS (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 Vulgate, 
Published by Rettig in lithographed fac-simile, Zurich, 1836. 

@?, for Matthew: Codex TISCHENDORFIANUS i.; seventh century; 
now in the Leipsic University Library; containing fragments of Matt. 
xlii., 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). 

@>: six leaves (sixth or seventh century), fragments of Matt. xxii., 
xxiii, and Mark iv., v. Brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg in 
1859. 

@°: two folio leaves (sixth century), with Matt. xxi. 19-24, and 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131 


John xviii. 29-35. Tischendorf brought the first, and Archbishop Porfiri 
the second, to St. Petersburg (now at Kiev). 

64: a fragment (eighth century) of Luke xi, 37-45. Brought to 
St. Petersburg by Tischendorf. 

Θ΄: a fragment (sixth century) of Matt. xxvi. 2-4, 7-9. 

Θ΄: fragments (sixth century) of Matt. xxvi., xxvii., and Mark i, ii. 

ΘΕ: a fragment (sixth century) of John (vi. 13, 14, 22-24), like O (2). 

Θ᾿: Greco-Arabic fragments (ninth century) of Matt. xiv. and xxv., 
which, together with 6°, belong to the collection of Archbishop Porfiri 
formerly at St. Petersburg (now at Kiev). 

A, for Luke and John: Codex ΤΙΒΟΗΕΝΘΟΒΕΊΑΝΟΒ 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 ZACYNTHIUS; 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, 1861. The text is very valuable, and is sur- 
rounded by a commentary. 

II, for the Gospels: Codex PerroPoLiTaNnvs; ninth century; brought 
by Tischendorf from Smyrna; collated by him, 1864 and 1865, The MS. 
is nearly complete, lacking 77 verses. 

>, for Matthew and Mark: Codex RossAnensis; found by two German 
scholars, Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt, of Gottingen, and Dr. Adolf Harnack, 
of Giessen, in March, 1879, at Rossano, 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 fine 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 water-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, ΕΥ̓ΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ KATA MATOAION. Gebhardt and Harnack 
assign it to the sixth century. The text shows a departure from the 
oldest MSS. (δὲ and B), and an approach to the amended text of A ATI. 
It frequently agrees with D and the old Latin against the mass of later 


TAF <1 


yx poyn ὌΝΘ᾽ πε 


TTONH OovyoT} 
COY ECTAALH Ba 
CIAEIAIVAINAY 
NW ARALC) Al HAS 
ZAEICTOY CAl~ 
NACAMHDE 

Canrapadare 

ene i © ta Oy, @ = i OY ον 

| TTADATE TOD MATa 


EV MATTHAET . VI 42414 


GOD: FOL 2624 


SPECIMEN OF THE CopDEX ROSSANENSIS, CONTAINING MATT. vi. 13, 14. 


movnpov ort| cov ἐστιν ἡ Bal σιλεια και ἡ du| ναμις και ἡ δὸο ἕα εἰς 


τους αἰω νας αμην. αν yap agnre| τοις αν ϑρωπΊοις ταὶ παραπ- 
τωματα. 


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 8 BD Z, 
Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, and originated in liturgical use in Syria. 
It accords most remarkably with N of the Gospels (Cod. Purpureus). 

See Evangeliorum Codex Grecus purpureus Rossanensis (2), litteris 
argenteis sexto ut videtur seculo scriptus picturisque ornatus, by O. von 
Gebhardt and Adolf Harnack, Leipsic, 1880; with fac-similes of portions 

. of the text and outline sketches of the pictures. The whole text has 
been published from the original collation by O. v. Gebhardt in Texte und 
Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., vol. i., No.4. Paris, 1886. 

®, for Matthew and Mark, with lacune: Codex BreraTinus; sixth or 
seventh century; publ. by Pierre Batiffol, Rome, 1885. See O. von Geb- 
hardt, in “ Theol. Litztg.” for Dec. 12, 1885. 


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 bombycina, also charta Damascena, 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. 

Some of these MSS. contain the whole New Tes- 
tament, others only the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 
or the Pauline Epistles, or the Revelation. 

Besides, there are over a thousand lectionaries, 
which contain only the Scripture lessons for the 
public service, either the Gospels (Lvangelostaria) 


134 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE Ν EW TESTAMENT. 


or the Epistles (Prawapostoli). They date mostly 
from the tenth to the twelfth century. Uncial writ- 
ing continued to be used for lectionaries some time 
after it had become obsolete for ordinary copies. 

Many cursive MSS. have been collated in whole 
or in part by Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Birch, Alter, 
Scholz, Matthsi, Muralt, Tregelles, Tischendorf, 
Scrivener, Hoskier,’ and Gregory. 

Their number has lately very much increased, 
especially by the discoveries of Dean Burgon and 
Dr. Gregory. Hence the estimates of Tischendorf, 
Scrivener, and Abbot are superseded.” 

Dr. Gregory, in the second part of his Prolegomena 
(1890), gives the latest and fullest account of cursive 
MSS. He numbers in all 3553, as follows: 


ἘΥΟΜΘΙΝο 5:04) εὐ πα RIES 508% gs0'g we Σὰ Wd a a ee ee 1273 
Acts and Catholic Epistles.................2.220000: 416 
ΠΗ ΟΟΣΒΕ ΒΒ s.'6 so Crowne yy eos two ew μον ἡ ἐν ΏΡΕΣ 480 
AOCRNT PMCs 6 Skis ishd.v re το ἐν Κη ΛΕ whee a ei t.k oe habla 1}: 188. 
: A Gospels, 936 ‘ 
Lect: TSM AGIATS wip lc ekodic wm Mais h Maan 1201 
aed Apostles, 265 eee: 


The critical value of the cursive MSS. is, of course, 
far inferior to that of the uncials, because they are 


1 See Hoskier’s Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evang. 604 (in 
the British Museum, numbered Egerton 2610), London, 1890. Hoskier 
is a defender of the traditional text, and an admirer of the late Dean 
Burgon, to whose memory he dedicated his work. 

2 Dr. Abbot’s statement of Jan. 20, 1884 (furnished to me, shortly be- 
fore his death, for the second edition), counted only 1600 cursive MSS. 
and over 500 lectionaries. Dr. Scrivener counts 1997 cursives, including 
300 new ones discovered by Dean Burgon. Many more MSS, may yet 
be discovered, but will not alter present conclusions, or the δροεξίψιον 
relations between the existing documents, 


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 BastLeensts; of the tenth century; in the 
University Library at Basle; known to Erasmus, but little used by him; 
collated by Wetstein, Ὁ. L. Roth, and Tregelles, 


—— —— τ τε. 


Sa Saat a οτος ee : 


ἘΠ τς ΠΗ See Se Spun a 
> 


Ray oe ΤῸΝ ἣν 7 


SS πὸ Ἃ 
“πα sot Ret x pee Snr Ale 
φ 


25: ἐγησινα το ν᾽ -τοον ττυσισλνοο OF P ptr nop 
ty may ~wryoawreone Karboor-wap et. oO ae 
δι rerup Dee Orr ones κιὼ ΣΧ Cra pF yoyo pbeyes 


SPECIMEN OF THE CopEXx BASILEENSIS, OF THE TENTH CENTURY, CON- 
TAINING LUKE 1. 1, 2, NEARLY AS IN ALL GREEK TESTAMENTS, 


ἐυαγγέϊ λιον] κατὰ λουκᾶν: 
ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασϑαι | διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πε- 
πληροφορημένων | ἐν ἡμῖν πραγματων. καϑὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖ | oe 
ἀπαρχῆσ αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρεται γενόμενοι. 


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 Cotserttnus; 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” 
(Horne, iv. 209). Collated by Griesbach, Scholz (cursorily), and especially 
by Tregelles in 1850. It agrees most with B, D, andL. “It has an 
unusual proportion of pre-Syrian readings, chiefly non-Western” (Hort, 
ii. 154), 

37, for the Pauline Epistles; identical with No. 69 of the Gospels. 

47, for the Pauline Epistles: Codex Bopt. Ror 16; eleventh or twelfth 
century. Collated by Tregelles. 

61, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles: Codex TiscHenDorF,; in the 
British Museum; dated April 20, 1044. Collated by Tischendorf, who 
discovered it, Tregelles, and Scrivener. Formerly called lo", 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.” 

69, for the Gospels (Acts 31, Paul 37): Codex LEIcEsTRENSIS; eleventh 
sentury; collated by Tregelles (1852), Scrivener (1855), and Harris (1886). 
This manuscript, together with 13, 124, 346 of the Gospels, are derived from 
an old uncial archetype (perhaps of Calabria). See T. K. Abbott: Collation 
of Four Important MSS. of the Gospels, Dublin, 1877; Abbé Martin: Quatre 
MSS. importants du N. T., Paris, 1886; J. R. Harris: The Origin of the 
Leicester Cod. of the N. T., Lond. and Camb. 1887 (66 pages, with fac-simile). 

81, for the Gospels; at St. Petersburg; called 2P® 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 PARHAM 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 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137 


Codex Montrortianvus, probably written in Eng- 
land between 1519 and 1522 (certainly not be- 
fore 1500), formerly the property of Dr. Montfort, 
then of Archbishop Ussher, now in the Trinity 
College Library at Dublin, numbered 61 in the 
Gospels, 34 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, ¢f 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 
Vulgate. Luther did not translate the passage. 
See a full account by Tregelles in Horne, iv. 218-- 
217, with a fac-simile. The only other Greek MSS. 
which contain the passage in any form are No. 162, 
the Codex Ottobonianus, a Greco- Latin MS. in 
the Vatican Library (No. 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 Ravianus at Ber- 
lin is a literary forgery, being almost entirely a mod- 
ern transcript from the Complutensian Polyglot, 
11 


138 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


with a few readings from the text of Erasmus. See 
Tregelles, ὦ. ὁ. iv. 218, also 856 sqq. On the con- 
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, by Criticus [1. e., Rev. William Orme]. 
A New Edition, with Notes and an Appendia, by 
Ezra Abbot. New York, 1866, 12mo (xii. and 213 
pages). Also the note of Dr. Hort, V. 7. ὧν Greek, 
vol. ii. App. p. 103 sqq., and Armfield, Zhe Three 
Witnesses. The Disputed Text in St. John, London, 
1883 (pp. 230). The most recent and most learned 
defence of those three heavenly witnesses is by 
Abbé Martin, who devotes to it a volume of 248 
pages: Introduction ἃ la Critique Textuelle du N. 
Test. Partie pratique. Tome cinguieme. Paris, 
1886. He admits, however, that Catholics may 
question or reject the disputed verse, and that it is 
not a part of the Catholic creed, “quod semper, quod 
ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (Vincentius 
Lirinensis). All Protestant critics, even Scrivener 
and Burgon, give it up. The Revised Version ig- 
nores it. 

Prof. J. Rendel Harris, in his monograph, ‘The Origin of the Leicester 
Codex of the New Test. (London and Cambridge, 1887), devotes a chapter 
to the Montfort Codex (pp. 46 sqq.), and assigns to it a Franciscan origin 
through the common ownership of William Clark and the similarity of 
the text of the Apocalypse. He thinks that Roy, who was a friar of the 
Franciscan convent of Greenwich, but joined Tyndale at Hamburg, and 
suffered martyrdom in Portugal in 1531, apparently on the charge of 


heresy, wrote the Codex Montfortianus, including the forgery in 1 John 
y. 7, in opposition to Erasmus. 


PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. 139 


LIST OF PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. 
By Proressor Isaac H, Hatt, Ph.D. 


[Notr.—This list is intended to include only those publications which give ac- 
curately the whole contents of Uncial Manuscripts of the Ν, 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.—P.§. ] 


Date of MS. Name of MS. Date of Publication, and Editor. 
Cent. IV. δὲ. Srnarricus. 1862. Tischendorf, St. Petersburg, 
fol. (Facsimile type.) 
1863. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to. 
1865 (1864). Tischendorf, Leipzig, 
8vo; Addenda, etc., 1869. 
B. Vaticanus (n. 1209). 1857. Mai, Rome, 4to. Reprinted 
(1859) in Leipzig (London, 
New York) in 8vo, and 
1860. Kuenen & Cobet (with cor- 
rections), Leyden, small 8vo. 
1859. Vercellone, Rome, 8vo. 
1867. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to. 
Appendix, 1869. 
1868-1881. Vercellone & Cozza 
(and Sergio), Rome, fol. 
Quasi facsimile type.) 
Cent. V. A. ALEXANDRINUS. 1786. Woide, London, fol. (Fac- 
simile type.) 
1860. Cowper, London, 8vo. 
1879. Brit. Mus., Lond. (Autotype.) 
C. EPHRAEMI. 1843. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to. 
Q. GuELPHERBYTANUSB. (1762.) Knittel, Brunswick, 4to. 
1869. Tischendorf (Mon, Sac. Ined. 
vol. iii.), Leipzig, 4to. 
T. Boretanus I, _ 1789. Giorgi, Rome, 4to. 
Two « me 1799. Ford (App. Cod. Alex.), Ox. 
ford, fol, = 


140 


Date of MS. 


Cent. V. 


Cent. VI. 


PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. 


Name of MS. Date of Publication, and Editor. 
I. TiscHENDORFIANUS II. 1855. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. i.), Leipzig, 4to. 


I>, Muse: Brirannict. 1857. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. ii.), Leipzig, 4to. 
Ὁ. Bezz. 1798. Kipling, Cambridge, fol. (Fac- 
simile type.) 
1864. Scrivener, Cambridge, 4to. 
P. GuELPHERBYTANUS A.(1762.) Knittel, Brunswick, 4to. 
1869. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. vi.), Leipzig, 4to. 


R. NirRIENsIs. 1857. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. ii.), Leipzig, 4to. 

Z. DuBLINENSIS. 1801. Barrett, Dublin, 4to. (Sup- 
plement, Tregelles, London, 
1863, 4to.) 


1880. Abbott, Dublin, 4to. 

I. TiscHENDORFIANUS II. 1855. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. i.), Leipzig, 4to. 

N. Purpurgvs. (Portions scattered.) 1846. Tischendorf 
(Mon. Sac. Ined.), Leipzig, 
4to. 

1876. Archives des Missions Scien- 
tif. etc., Paris. (Patmos 
Fragments.) 

6. TISCHENDORFIANUS I. 1846. Tischendorf (Mon Sac. 
Ined.), Leipzig, 4to. 

1857. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. ii.), Leipzig, 4to. 

EA. Lavpranvs, 35. 1715. Hearne, Oxford, 8vo. 

1870. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. ix.), Leipzig, 4to. 

DP. Craromontanus. 1852. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to. 

ἪΡ, Corsuintanus. a, 6.1715. Montfaucon ( Bibliotheca 
Coislin.), Paris, fol. 

(a, 5, ¢, d, e, f, are ὁ. 1863. Sabas (Specimina Palewogr.), 

scattered portions.) Moscow, 4to. 

e. 1876. Archives des Missions Scien- 
tif. et Littér., Paris, 

>. RossanENsIs. 1883. Gebhardt, Leipzig. 

©, BERATINUS,. 1886. Batiffol, Paris. 


Date of MS. 
Cent. VII. 


Cent. VIL. 


Cent. IX. 


PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. 141 


Name of MS. Date of Publication, and Editor. 

Ἐπ ComsLinianus I. 1846. Tischendorf (Jon. Sac. Jned.), 
Leipzig, 4to. 

L, Reerus. 1846. Tischendorf (J/on. Sac. Jned.), 
Leipzig, 4to. 

I. TiscHENDORFIANUS II. 1855. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined. 
vol. i.), Leipzig, 4to. 

ΒΡ, CRYPTOFERRATENSIS. (1867.) Cozza (Sacror. Bibl. Vetust. 
Frag., pars 2), Rome. 


=. ZACYNTHIUS. 1861. Tregelles, London, sm. fol. 

Ε΄. Rueno-Trasectinus (Boreeli). 1843. Vinke, Utrecht, 4to. 

Y. BaRBERINI. 1846. Tischendorf(Mon.Sac.Jned.), 
Leipzig, 4to. 

W*. Reaius, 314. 1846. Tischendorf(Mon. Sac. Ined.), 
Leipzig, 4to. 

W°. SANGALLENSIS 18 et 1860. Tischendorf (Jon. Sac. Ined. 

45. vol. iii.), Leipzig, 4to. 


GA. Vaticanus, 9671. 1877. Cozza (Sacror. Bibl. Vetust. 
Frag. pars 3), Rome, 8vo. 
BE. Vaticanus, 2066. 1846. Tischendorf (Jon. Sac. Ined.), 
Leipzig, 4to. 
1869. Tischendorf (App. Cod. Vat.), 
Leipzig, 4to. 
A. SANGALLENSIS. 1836. Rettig, Ziirich. (acsimile.) 
O. Mosquensis, 120. 1785. Matthaei (Zpp. Pauli ad 
T hess., etc., and facsimile 
in Joannis Apoc. etc. ), 
Riga, 8vo. 
1861. Tregelles (App. to Cod. Za- 
cynth.), London, 4to. 
W4. (Trinity Coll., Cambridge.) ? Photographs by Brad- 


shaw. 
GP. BomRNERIANUS. 1791. Matthaei, Meissen, 4to. 
FP . AUGIENSIS. 1859. Scrivener, Cambridge, 4to. 


PAPR, PorFIRIANUS. 1865-69. Tischendorf (Jon. Sac. 
Ined. vols. v. & vi.), Leipzig, 
4to. 

MP. Roper. 1800. Henke, Progr. Helmstadt, 
410. 

1855. (ed. alt. 1861). Tischendorf 
(Aneed. Sac, et Prof.), Leip- 
zig, 4to, 


CHAPTER THIRD. 


THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 
VALUE OF VERSIONS. 


Next to the study of the MSS., the most impor- 
tant aids in textual criticism are the ancient versions, 
or translations of the New Testament from the 
Greek into vernacular languages. They are, how- 
ever, only ¢ndzrect 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- 
bus bone voluntatis, it is evident that the translators 
found in their Greek copy the genitive εὐδοκίας, and 
not the nominative εὐδοκία (voluntas). The transla- 
tion unigenitus Filius, in John i. 18, supports υἱός 
instead of Sedge (Deus). The translation habeamus 
pacem, in Rom. v. 1, presupposes the reading of the 
subjunctive ἔχωμεν (let ws have), and not the indica- 
tive ἔχομεν (habemus, 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. 143 


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, ete.), 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 A‘thiopic, the 
Gothic, and the Armenian. 

The Vulgate was the first version made use of us 
a collateral witness in the printed editions οὗ Eras- 
mus and the scholars of Complutum. 


ἢ Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, Amer. ed., vol. iv. p. 3479, art. “ Vulgate,” 


144 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 


LATIN VERSIONS. 


1. The Oxp Larry ([rara). 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 Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Victorinus, Je- 
rome, Rufinus, Augustin, Pelagius, and in the 
Apocalypse of Primasius, its text can be in large 
measure restored. See Hermann Ronsch, Das J. 7. 
Tertullian’ 8, aus den Schriften des letzteren moglichst 
vollstandig reconstruirt, 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. 11. 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 


ΤΠ 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 tala, 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 


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 Dr. Westcott, art.“ Vulgate” in Smith’s Det. 
of the Bible (iv. 3455 sqq., Amer. ed.), often differs 
widely in his use of these letters from Tischendorf, 
whom we follow. The principal MSS. of the Gos- 
pels generally regarded as representing the African 
text are— 


Codex VERCELLENSIS (a), supposed to have been written by Eusebius, 
Bishop of Vercelli, cir. A.D. 365. 

Codex VERONENSIS (b), of the fourth or fifth century. 

Codex CoLBERTINUS (c), at Paris, of the eleventh century, the only 
complete MS. 


Codex Brrx1anvs (f), at Brescia, of the sixth century, represents a later 
revision, probably Augustine's tala. 

Codex ΒΟΒΒΙΕΝΒΙΒ (k), now in Turin, of the fourth or fifth century, 
collated by Tischendorf, has a remarkable and valuable text; and the 
same is true of Codex PALATINUs (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 abe he 
would designate as pee while f and q are ᾿ 
classed as /talian. 

The most complete salir of the Old Latin ver- 
sion is Peter Sabatier’s Bibliorwm Sacrorum Latine 
Versiones Antique, sew Vetus Italica et coctere que- 
cunque in Codd. MSS. et Antiquorum Labris reperure 


THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 147 


potuerunt (Remis, ὁ. e. Rheims, 1743-49, 3 tom. 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 Lvangeliarium 
Quadruplex Latine Versionis Antique, seu Veteris 
Lialice, editum ex Codicibus Manuscriptis, Rome, 
(1749, 2 tom. fol.; Scrivener’s Codex Bezw, Cam- 
bridge, 1864; Tischendorf’s Hvangeliwm Palatinum, 
Lips. 1847; and Haase’s Codex Rehdigeranus, Bres- 
lau, 1865-66. For the Acts, see Scrivener’s Codex 
Beze,and Belsheim’s Die Apostelgeschichte und die 
Offenbarung Johannis in einer alten lat. Vebersetzung 
aus dem Gagas Lrabrorum, Christiania, 1879. For the 
Pauline Epistles, Tischendorf’s Codea Claromonta- 
nus, 1852; Matthei’s Codex Bernerianus, Misene, 
1791; and Scrivener’s Codex Augiensis, Cambridge, 
1859. For the Catholic and Pauline Epistles (mere- 
ly fragments), see Ziegler’s Lialafragmente, 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 Greeco- Latin MSS. 
Devwvact J) paul act G paul F'paul (mostly Vulgate), have 
no independent authority except where the Latin 
differs from the Greek. Bishop John Wordsworth’s 
Series of Latin Biblical Texts was begun, Oxford, 
18838, with Zhe St. Germain St. Matthew. 

The Codex Lugdunensis, published by Ulysse 
Robert, Paris, 1881, contains a version apparently 
of African origin (comp. Renan, Aare Auréle, p. 456, 
note 2). This, however, is a MS. of the Pentateuch. 


148 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 


On the whole subject, consult Hermann Rénsch, 
Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchrist- 
lichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata, 2d ed., 
revised, Marburg, 1875; L. Ziegler, Dee latein. Bi. 
beliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die [tala des 
Augustinus, Miinchen, 1879 (he maintains the exist- 
ence of several Latin versions or revisions before 
Jerome); O. F. Fritzsche, Latein. Bibeliibersetzun 
gen, in the new ed. of Herzog, vol. viii. 1881, pp. 483- 
472; Westcott’s art. “ Vulgate,” in Smith’s Déct. of 
the Bible; and Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testa- 
ment, vol.ii., Introd., 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 Vuteatr. 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 New 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 instruetions, and make a new version 
of the Old Testament direct}y from the Hebrew, of 
which, however, it does not concern us at present 
to speak. In the New 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, 11. 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 
“dipedes 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 Dee. 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 “ternus ale (dated March 1, 1589), in 
which the pope said, “ By the fulness of apostolica: 
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, and unquestioned, in all public 
and 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 Amr1attnvus, 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 c.700, 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). 

(δὴ Codex FuLprnsts, 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. Ranke, Marburg 
and Leipsic, 1868. : 

(c) Codex ForoJu.iensis (sixth century), at Friuli; Matthew, Luke, 
and John published by Bianchini, Evang. Quadruplex, Appendix. Part 
of the same MS. is at Prague (PRAGENSIS). 

(ὦ Codex HARLEIAN. 1775 (seventh century), of the Gospels, partially 
collated by Griesbach, Symb. Crit. vol. i. 

(e) Codex Toteranus, at Toledo; written in Gothic letters in the 
tenth century ; collated by the Sixtine correctors and by Vercellone. It 
contains both Testaments. Its readings are given by Bianchini, Vindicie 
Canon. Scripturarum, Rome, 1740. 


The best edition of the variations is that of Carlo 
Vercellone, Variw Lectiones Vulg. Lat. Bibliorum 
Lditionis, Rom. tom. i. 1860; tom. ii. pars 1, 1862; 
pars 2, 1864. Unfinished. An important work, but 
without either the authorized or the corrected text. 
The MSS. of the Vulgate are quoted by abbrevia- 
tions of their names, as am (Cod. Amiatinus), fuld 
or fu (Fuldensis), for, hart, tol. 


1 Tt was formerly dated 541, but was written between 690 and 716. 
probably by an Italian scribe, in the monastery of Wearmouth, England. 
and presented by Abbot Ceolfrid to Pope Gregory II. See the interesting 
correspondence between John Wordsworth, Sanday, and Hort in the 
London Academy for Feb., 1887, The Guardian, and the Durham University 
Journal for March, 1887, and Εν Ranke in the Theol. Literaturzeitung tor 
June, 1887, 


152 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS.’ 


1. The ῬΈΒΗΙΤΟ (or Prsurrro, Prsurrra, 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 obela 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 Tremellius), more fully by Wal- 
ton, Mill, Wetstein, and with 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- 


Ὁ See especially Tregelles, in Horne’s Introd. (14th ed. 1877), vol. iv. 
258-284, and on the Syrian text, Westcott and Hort, ii. 132-146. 


THE 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- 
tioch.’ 

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 1680. 
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, Ὁ. 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. Justin Perkins at Urmi, or Ooroomeyah, in 
Persia, 1841, and its reprint in New 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 ¢eéle- 
pages dated 1709, 1717, but no other change), the 
Syriac text is accompanied with a close Latin ver- 
sion, and an appendix of various readings. Schaaf’s 
Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale, published as a 
companion volume, is an invaluable help to the stu- 
dent. 

2. The ῬΗΙΠΟΧΈΝΙΑΝ or HARcLEAN version, 80 
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 Harclean (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 unrevised Philoxenian was thought by Adler’ 
to exist in a Florence Codex (in the Medicean 
Library) of the eighth century; but this opinion is 
disputed by Bernstein,’ 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 Beirit, 
brought to light by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in 1876, 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 Hebrews, with large portions of the Pas- 


1 N. T. Versiones Syriace, p. 55. 
® Das heilige Ev. d, Johannes, pp. 25-30, 


156 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 


toral Epistles, besides a few other lacunw where a 
leaf is lost.’ 

3. The Currrontan Syriac is a mere fragment of 
the Gospels (consisting of 823 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, Hermansen, Ewald, Crow- 
foot, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort—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 
Tattam 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 Professor 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 was published in the Journal, vol. ii. 1883. 


THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 157 


Rédiger 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. 

The Curetonian Syriac, including these new leaves, 
has been translated into Greek by J.R.Crowfoot in his 
Fragmenta Evangelica, 2 parts, London, 1870-71[72], 
and better by Fred. Baethgen in Hvangelienfrag- 
mente, ete., Leipzig, 1885. 

4. The Jerusatem 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 Miniscalechi 
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.’ 


There are three Egyptian translations in three 
different dialects —the Tursaic or Sanipic, the 


1 Copt (comp. Arabic Kebt) is supposed to be of the same origin as the 
Greek Ai-yumr-o¢ (Καλὲ Ptah, “country of Ptah”). Another derivation 
is from the city Κοπτίς or Κοπτός 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 Αἴγυπτος itself. See the authorities collected in Athanasius 
Kircher’s Prodromus Coptus (Rome, 1636), cap. I., De Etymo Coptos, 
pp. 7-15. The name Copt (Kozriryc, Latin Copfites) is far older than 


158 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 


Mempuiric or Banrric, and the Basumuric. The 
Thebaic and Memphitice 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 
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 editio princeps of the Mrmrutric Version 
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) and 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 /ntroduction, pp. 319-357, 2d ed.; revised in 3d ed. pp. 365-406, 


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 
basis of this edition is a copy belonging to the Cop- 
tic Patriarch. 

2. The editio princeps of the Tuxrparc 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 
Latin and the Old Syriac. 

3. Of the Basumuric or Erzarcuran 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 
Now. Test., Havniae, 1811). It is a secondary ver- 
sion made from the Thebaic, but useful in passages 
where that is defective. 


AETHIOPIC 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 Dillmann 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 Rome, 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 Vulgate or the 
Greek. Bode’s Latin translation (1753) of Walton’s 
text is the only accurate one. The New 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 A‘thiopic MSS., 
but they are all comparatively modern. Gilde- 
meister, Professor in Marburg, collated some por- 
tions of the AXthiopic New Testament for Tischen- 
dorf’s edition of 1859. 


GOTHIC VERSION. 


It is the work of Ulphilas, Vulfila, or Wulfila 
(311-381, or 313-383),’ 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 1s Wulfila, 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: 
Ulfilas, Gothorum Episcopus (Holm. 1700); G. 
Waitz: Ueber das Leben und die Lehre des Ul fila. 
Bruchstiicke aus dem vierten Jahrh. (Wann. 1840) ; 
W.L. Krafft: De Fontibus Ulfilee Arianism (Bonn, 
1860); W. Bessell: Das Leben des Ulfilas und die 
Bekehrung der Gothen zum Christenthum (Gottingen, 
1860); Hdinb. Review for October, 1877. 

There are seven famous codices of this version : 

(a) Codex Argentens, 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. 

(6) Codex Carolinus, in the library at Wolfer 
biittel, discovered by Knittel in a palimpsest, 1756, 
published 1762 and 1763; contains forty verses of 
the Epistle to the Romans. 


\BRAR 
ν OF THE r 


UNIVERSITY 


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 
H.C. von der Gabelentz and J. Loebe: Ulfilas. Vet. 
et LV. Test. Versionis Gothice Fragmenta que super- 
sunt (Leipsic, 1836-46), with a Latin version, and a 
very copious grammar and lexicon; and by E. Bern- 
hardt (Halle, 1875), in which the Gothic is accom- 
panied by the Greek, with full critical notes. 
Stamm’s Ulfilas, 7th ed. by Moritz Heyne, with 
grammar and lexicon (Paderborn, 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 Uppstrém (ἃ. 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 
Argenteus, Upsala, 1854; Decem Cod. Argentei re- 
diviva folia, ibid. 1857; Hragmenta Gothica selecta, 
1861; and Codices Gotict Ambrosiani, Stockholm 
and Leipsic, 1864-68. Compare also The Gothic and 
Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns with the 
Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, by Jos. Bos- 
WORTH, assisted by GroreE Warrine, 2d ed. Lond. 
1874, with a fac-simile of the Codex Argenteus. 

Dr. R. Miller and Dr. H. Hoeppe have published 
the Gothic Gospel of Mark with a grammatical com. 


THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 163 


mentary: Ulfilas: Evangelium Marci grammatisch 
erliutert, 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 Vulgate. 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—New Testa- 
ment, 1789; whole Bible, 1805, and again 1816. It 
is now published by the British and Foreign Bible 
Society. 

On the Armenian Version, see Tregelles in 
Smith’s B2ble Dict., Am. ed., vol. iv. p. 3374. 

We pass by the Slauanse, Arabio, 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. 


Tue 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 Irengeus, 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 where 
we most wish and need information. Besides, their 
editors have so frequently thought they were doing 
a service when they corrected their quotations that 


PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. 165 


it is often difficult to tell just what was the text be- 
forethem. 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 unsupported, they deserve 
little or no credit.’ 

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 


? See the judicious remarks of Tregelles, in Horne’s Introduction (14th 
ed. London, 1877), vol. iv. pp. 329-342. Comp. also Reuss, Gesch. der ἢ, 
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 
Catene Patrum, which are chiefly compiled _ 
Chrysostom and Theodoret. 

Of the Latin fathers, Tertullian is the εἰν 
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. Augus- 
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 with 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.” * | 

The number of ecclesiastical writers that have 


1 Hort, 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.’ 
A. GREEK FATHERS. 


First Century till the middle of the Srconp: The 
apostolic fathers, so called—Clement of Rome, Bar- 
nabas, Polycarp, Ignatius, Hermas, and Papias. Also 
the newly discovered ‘ Teaching of the Apostles.” 

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 New Testament. The first literal 
quotation from the New Testament with the solemn 
formula, “ It is written,” occurs in the Greek Epistle 
of Barnabas—namely, the passage in Matt. xxii. 14: 
“Ὁ Many are called, but few are chosen.”* The 
Didache contains about twenty reminiscences from 
Matthew.* Clement and Polycarp have allusions 
to Epistles. Papias gives us valuable testimonies 
of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, preserved by 
Eusebius, but no quotations. His work on the Ora- 
cles of the Lord is lost. 

Szconp Century: Justin Martyr (d. 167) comes 
next in the order of time, and makes much use of 


1 Alford (i. 140-148) gives an alphabetical list of over one hundred and 
fifty ancient writers. See also the lists in Tischendorf, Scrivener, and 
Mitchell. Biographical sketches of the chief fathers in the second and 
third vols. of Schaff’s Church History, revised ed., N. Y., 1883, 84. 

? Ep. Barn. c. 4: προσέχωμεν μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ 
κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν. In ch. 5 Barnabas 
quotes also from Matt. ix. 18 (but without naming the writer or the book). 

* See Schaff: The Oldest Church Manual, etc., 2d ed. 1886, pp. 82 sqq. 


168 PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. 


the four Gospels, particularly of Matthew and Luke, 
but in a very free and loose way. From John he 
quotes the passage on regeneration (iii. ὅ). Irengeus 
of Lyons (d. 202) is the most important witness of the 
second century, and his great work against the Gnos- 
tic heresies is replete with quotations from the New 
Testament, but exists for the most part only in a 
Latin version.’ 

Tuirp Century: Clemens Alexandrinus (ἃ. 220), 
and still more Origen (184-254). See p.165. Next 
to them Hippolytus (disciple of Irenzeus, about 220), 
Gregory Thaumaturgus (disciple of Origen, 243), Dio- 
nysius Alexandrinus (265), and Methodius (d. 311). 

In the Fourrn and Firru Centourirs: Eusebius 
the historian (d. 340, much used by Tischendorf and 
Tregelles ), Athanasius (d. 373), Basilins Magnus 
(d. 379), Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389), Gregory Nys- 
sen (d. 371), Ephraem Syrus (d. 373), Cyril of Jern- 
salem (d. 386), Didymus of Alexandria (d. 395), 
Chrysostom (d. 407), Epiphanius (d. 403), Theodore 
of Mopsuestia (d. 428), Oyril of Alexandria (d. 444), 
and Theodoret (d. 458). 

About the ΞΊΧΤΗ Century (or perhaps later) we 
have the commentary of Andreas, bishop of Ceesarea 
in Cappadocia, on the Apoealy pse, which he divided 
into twenty-four chapters and seventy-two sections. 


He testifies, 6. 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 Cesar); the other 616, which is the numerical value of Nero 
(without the final n) Cesar, 


PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. 169 


With him is closely connected a later bishop of 
Ozsarea, 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). 

In the SeventH Century the most important: 
writer is Maximus the Confessor (d. 662). 

In the Mippite Aces: John of Damascus (about 
750, see his Parallela Sacra), and the later com- 
mentators, Zicumenius (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. 


Sxconp Century: Tertullian (about 200), impor- 
tant for the Old Latin Version, though he often 
translates independently, or quotes loosely. 

Tuirp Century: Cyprian (d. 258), whose numer- 
ous quotations (in his Zestimonza, etc.) are in gen- 
eral carefully made from the African Old Latin, 
current in his time, Novatian (fl. 251), Lactantius 
(806), and the anonymous writer of the treatise De 
Lebaptismate, printed with the writings of Cyprian. 


1 Rettig (Die Zeugnisse des Andreas und Arethas, in the “ Studien und 
Kritiken” for 1831) assigns him to the close of the fifth or early part of 
the sixth century. But Dr. Otto (in Corpus A pol. iii. p. xi., and more 
recently in his Des Patriarchen Gennadios Confession, nebst einem Excurs 
tiber Arethas’ Zeitalter, Wien, 1864) quotes a MS. which states that it was 
written by Baanes, νοτάριος of Arethas, archbishop of Cesarea, 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, Dig 
U berlieferung der griech. A pologeten u,s.w., Leipz, 1882, p. 36 sqq, 


170 PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. 


Fourts and Firra 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). 

Srxtn Century: Primasius, already mentioned as 

important for the text of the Apocalypse. 
~The ΜΈΡΙΖΨΑΙ, commentators of the Latin Church 
depend almost exclusively on the Latin Vulgate, and 
have therefore no value for textual criticism. 


CHAPTER FIFTH. 
TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


NATURE AND OBJECT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


Tue 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: ΤΈΧΤΟΑΙ, or ΈΕΒΑΙ, 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 hermeneutics 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 good critic must have full command of 


172 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


all sources of evidence, an acute mind, and a clear, 
sound judgment. He 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, Vercellone 
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 Vulgate 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 has 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. No 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 mnch 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 


. 


114 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


Gnostic notions, is exceptional, and was generally 
understood in its true character. The mutual charges 
of corruption made by the orthodox and heretical 
parties in times of heated controversy were mostly 
unfounded.’ 

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 
pene exemplaria quot codices), and that the text of 


1 Examples of possible changes in the interest of dogma: the omission 
or insertion of πρωτότοκος in Matt. i. 25 (the best authorities omit it); of 
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, 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 (comp. Epiphanius, 
Ancor. 31); the substitution of “ Joseph” for “father” (πατήρ), 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. 6; 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 Penn (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- 
fgunded with wilful corruption.” wr 


TEXTUAL ORITICISM. 175 


the Gospels especially was in confusion (apud nos 
mista 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 pete 
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 ἃ falsarius and sacrilequs 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 8, 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 Hort 
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. 


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 
1874, and now cannot fali much short of 150,000, if 
we include the variations in the order of words, the 
mode of spelling, and other {165 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. TTY 


of the Greek and Roman 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 New 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 Zextus Receptus of Stephens, Beza, 
and Elzevir, and of our English Version, 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- 


178 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: “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 New 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 New 


ΞῚ 


2 Anglo-American 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 has 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 ‘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 
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- 
ment. 

This fact was long ago clearly stated by 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:’ “ Tf 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 (17138), 
represented the 30,000 variations of Mill as fatal to the authority of the 
New Testament. 


FEXTUAL 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 isa 
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 Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesy- 
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 vara- 
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 


182 ᾿ 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 New Testament.’ 
** 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.” * “So far,” says Dr. Scrivener,’ 
“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 Aischylus 
give for the like guidance through the obscurities 
which vex his patience and mar his enjoyment of 
that sublime poet?’ Dr. Hort,‘ 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 


? Comp. Tischendorf’s popular tract: Haben wir den dchten Schrifitext 
der Evang. und A postel? Leipzig, 1873. Dr. O. von Gebhardt (Nov. Test. 
Gr. p. viii.) mentions two special Dutch essays on the subject, by W. H. 
van de Sande Bakhuyzen and W. C. van Manen, Haarlem, 1880. 

* Gr. N. Test., Prolegomena, p. x. 

* 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 iu eiviegten of words 
or phrases. 

1. OMISSIONS. 


Omissions occur frequently from like endings 
called hom@oteleuton ( ὁμοιοτέλευτον). 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 ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν 
kal τὸν πατέρα ἔχει (the same ending as in the pre- 
ceding clause), which is not found in the Textus 
feceptus, and is italicized in the English Version ; 
but sustained by καὶ, A, B, O, 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 Teatus 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.’ They began probably 
with the Gospel Harmonies, the oldest of which is 
Tatian’s Dzatessaron, from the second century. By 
such interpolations the idiosyncrasy of style and 
manner is more or less obliterated. 

For examples, see in the Zext. Fec., 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 (comp. 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. 87); 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), ete. By removing 
these interpolations of words and clauses, otherwise 
genuine, we lose nothing and gain a better insight 
into the individuality of each Gospel. 

(ὁ.) 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 
Ἢ alius evangelista plus dixit, in alio quia minus putaverint addiderunt ; vel 
dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille gui unum e quatuor primum 
 legerat ad ejus exemplar ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos: unde 
accidit ut apud nos mixta sunt omnia et in Marco plura Luce atque Mat- 
thei, rursus in Mattheo plura Joannis et Marci. .inveniantur.” 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 185 


19; Rom. xiii. 9; Heb. ii. 7; xii. 20, ete. 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 Ἰησοῦς (ὁ. g., Matt. iv. 18; 
viii. 5; xiv. 22; John i. 43). Comp. also Luke vii. 
31 (the prefix εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριυς), and x. 22 (καὶ στραφεὶς 
πρὸς τοὺς μαϑητὰς εἶπε, omitted by Tregelles, West- 
cott and Hort, but retained by Tischendorf and 
Von 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 Bezse (D) and 
Codex Claromontanus (1) ὦ.) 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 (καὶ τῆς νύμφης, 
after τοῦ νυμφίου); 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. 


i 


1 Vol, ii, p. 122. 
14 


186 TEXTUAL ORITICISM. 


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.’ 

(e.) 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. 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 Ad Suniam et Fretelam: “ Miror quomodo e latere annotationem no-. 
stram nescio quis temerarius scribendam in corpore putaverit quam nos pro 
eruditione legentis scripsimus. . . . Si quid pro studio ex latere additum est, 
non debet poni in corpore,” ' 


TEXTUAL ORITICISM. 187 


and is missing in the oldest MSS. (x, B, D, Z), in the 
Itala and Vulgate. 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 first in the Didache and the Syriac Version, 
and thence passed into the common text at the time 
of Chrysostom. 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: 
ὅτι σοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις, καὶ ἡ δόξα, 
τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, νῦν 
καὶ ἀεί. But in all the extant Latin liturgies the 
doxology is omitted.’ 

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 ἐκδὲε- 
χομένων, Ver. ὃ, to κατείχετο νοσήματι, 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 Rossanensis 
has the doxology, but belongs to the sixth century. See p. 131. 

? The English Revision puts the doxol6gy 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” (ἐὰν γάρ) 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 Chrysostom (d. 
407), but it is wanting in x, B, Οὗ, (Ὁ), 33, and other 
authorities, and omitted by the critical editors, and 
the Revisers of 1881.’ | 

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 8 and B, and other Greek 
MSS.; there is no room for it in A and O, 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-. 


* The Revision relegates it to the margin with this note: “Many 
ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, waiting for the moving of the 
water: 4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the 
pool, and troubled the water : whosoever then first after the troubling of the 
walter stepped in was made whole, with whatsoever disease he was holden.” 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 189 


ing many sins,’ 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.’ 

4. The concluding twelve verses of Mark (xvi. 9-- 
20) presenta peculiar case. The section is wanting in 
the two oldest MSS. (ἃ 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 ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις, not one ἁμαρτία, as in the text. 

? For the details the reader may consult the critical editions (Tregelles, 
p. 286-243; Tischendorf, ed. viii.; Hort, ii. Noées, ii, 82-88), and the com- 
mentaries of Liicke, Meyer (6th ed. by Weiss), Lange, Alford, Wordsworth, 
Godet, and Westcott. In my annotations to Lange’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 evidence for 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 ν, 14; Luke vii. 37 sqq.).” 


—__ 


190 TEXTUAL ORITICISM. 


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 Irenzeus, who is a much 
older witness than any of our existing MSS., quotes 
ver. 19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark (Adv. Her. 
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 ἐφοβοῦντο 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 Neronian 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 For full information on this interesting case we refer to the critical 
apparatus of Tischendorf and Tregelles, 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 


Mark (Das Marcusevang. pp. 512-515), and especially to the exhaustive 
discussion of Westcott and Hort in the second volume (A ppend. 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 (/ntrod. pp. 507-513), Morison (Com. 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 
S. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objections and Established, 
Oxf. and Lond. 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 his “ Revision 
Revised,” Burgon makes a savage attack upon Westcott‘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 thou believest with all thy heart, 
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I 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. 198 


first omitted it; Luther did not translate it, though 
it crept afterwards into his German Bible.’ 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.’ 
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 1. 18: ὃ μονογενὴς υἱός (abridged ¥'C), 


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- 
ten Worte fehlen in der Uebersetzung Luthers und sind ihr erst spdter 
beigefiigt worden.” 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. 186 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. O sancta simplicitas! O for another Tischen- 
dorf or Simonides! ‘ 


194 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


the only-begotten Son (text. rec.), or μονογενὴς Sede 
(abridged Θ0), an Only-begotten One who is God. (A 
third reading, 6 μονογενὴς ϑεός, “the only-begotten 
God,” found in x°, 2. 6.) δὲ as corrected by the third 
hand, and in No. 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: Sed¢ is supported by the old- 
est Greek MSS., nearly all Alexandrian or Egyptian 
(x*, ὁ. ¢., the original or uncorrected x, B, Οὗ, L, also 
the Peshito Syr.); υἱός by the 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., ΘΟ and YC, may 
easily be confounded. The connection of μονογενής 
with Sed¢ is less natural than with υἱός, although 
John undoubtedly could call the Son Sede, and did 
so in ver. 1. Μονογενὴς ϑεός simply combines the 
two attributes of the Logos, Sede, ver. 1, and povo- 
yevne, ver. 14. 

For a learned and ingenious defence of Sede, see 
Hort’s Zwo Dissertations (Cambridge, 1877), West- 
cott in the Speaker’s Commentary on John (p. 71), 
and Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Zest. vol. ii. (LVotes, 
Ρ. 74); also. Weiss in the 6th ed. of Meyer’s Com. on 
John (1880). It is urged that the substitution of 
υἱός for ϑεός is easily explained as being suggested 


? Weiss renders the passage (p. 86) thus: “ Gdttliches Wesen hat 
niemand je gesehen; ein Eingeborener géttlichen Wesens ... hat davon 
Kunde gebracht,” i. e., “the Divine Being no one has ever seen; an Onlve 
begotten One of Divine Being .. . . has brought knowledge of it.” 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 195 


by the primary meaning of μονογενής, while the 
converse substitution is inexplicable by any ordi- 
nary motive likely to affect transcribers. But Sed¢ 
in connection with μονογενής is not sustained by 
any parallel passage in the New Test., and sounds 
strange. Tischendorf adopts υἱός, and Dr. Abbot 
ably defended this reading in two essays—one in 
the “ Bibliotheca Sacra” for 1861, pp. 840-872, and 
one printed for the American Revision Committee 
(and afterwards published in the “ Unitarian Re- 
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. Μονογενής 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 πρωτότοκος (Col. i. 15) his 
sovereign relation to the world. 

2. Luke ii. 14: εὐδοκία (nominative), or εὐδοκίας 
(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,” ? 


"ἐν ἀνϑρώποις εὐδοκία. The A. V. is certainly wrong in ignoring 


196 *EXTUAL 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,” ὦ 


with three corresponding ideas—glory and peace, 
God and men, in the highest (heaven) and on earth.’ 
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 (bone 
voluntatis), the Gothic Version (godis viljins, “ of 
good will”), Origen, Jerome; while the nominative 
εὐδοκία is sustained by the cursive MSS., the Syriac, 
Coptic, and other versions, and many Greek fathers, 
and the Greek Gloria in Fiuxcelsis, as appended to 
Cod. A (which, however, in Luke ii. 14 reads the 
genitive), and in the Apost. Constitutions. Tischen- 
dorf adopts εὐδοκίας, so also Westcott and Hort, and 
the Revisers, but with the other reading on the 
margin.° 


the preposition (as the Vulgate and Luther do), and translating “Good 
will towards men,” as if it were the dative. 

1 εὐδοκίας, bone voluntatis, 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. Ad/ men are meant, 
not a particular class (comp. John iii. 16; Tit. ii. 11). This relieves the 
passage of a great difficulty. Comp. εὐδοκία in Phil. i. 15; ii. 13; Eph. i. 
5,9; 2 Thess. i. 11; and εὐδοκέω in Matt. iii, 17; xvii. 5; Mark i. 11; 
Luke iii. 22. 

* Dr. Hort (Notes on Select Readings, ii. p. 56) suggests a more equal 
division, by connecting “and on earth” with the first clause : 

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Seq καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, 
εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. 
* The famous “ Quarterly Reviewer” (Oct. 1881), of course, denounces 


*EXTUAL CRITICISM. 197 


8. Rom. v. 1: ἔχομεν, we have (habemus), εἰρήνην, 
peace, or Zxwuev (the hortative), let us have (habea- 
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 »*, B®, F, G, P, Didymus, 
Epiphanius, ete.; and o and w may easily be con- 
founded. Hence Lachmann in his ed. major, and 
Tischendorf in his former editions, favored ἔχομεν, 
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 ἔχωμεν is, 
upon the whole, better supported by δ (uncorrect- 
ed), A, B*, C, D, Itala, Vulgata, 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” (τὴν 


the reading of εὐδοκίας as a “ grievous perversion of the truth of Scrip- 
ture,” and holds the evidence for εὐδοκία to be “absolutely decisive.” 
Canon Cook, the editor of the Speaker’s Commentary, 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, Lond. 1882, p. 27.) 


198 TEXTUAL ORITICISM. 


ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Seov), or “the church of the Lord” 

(τοῦ κυρίου). The difference derives doctrinal 
importance from the addition: ‘‘ which he purchased 
with his own blood” (ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος 
τοῦ ἰδίου). The reading Seov would furnish a strong 
argument for the divinity of Christ, but also an al 

most patripassian or monophysitic view of his death.’ 
The two Revision Companies are divided here—the 
English put “God” in the text, and “the Lord” in 
the margin; the Americans reverse the order. The 
critical editors are also divided—Westcott and Hort 
adopt τοῦ Seov, Tischendorf τοῦ κυρίου. The former 
is supported by 8, B, a number of cursives, Vulg. ; 
the latter by A, O*, D, E, 13, and other cursives, 
and by the Old Latin, Coptic, and Sahidic versions. 
The testimony of the fathers is divided.’ The ablest 
arguments on the two sides of the question are by 
Dr. Hort, in favor of Seov, in Votes on Select Read- 
ings, pp. 98-100, and by Dr. Ezra Abbot, in favor 
of κυρίου, in the “ Bibliotheca Sacra,” Andover, for 
1876, pp. 313 βαᾳ. Dr. Hort suggests at the end of 
his note that possibly υἱοῦ may have dropped out 


2 Comp. Watts’s “ When God the mighty Maker died;” and the old 
German hymn, “ O welche Noth! Gott selbst ist todt.” 

? 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 κυρίου without variation among the MSS. in 
his Hom. on Eph. iv. 11, but (what I did not know when I wrote my arti- 
cle) the best MSS. of Chrysostom read κυρίου in his homily on this passage 
of the Acts, and that reading is accordingly adopted in the translation of 
his Homilies on the Acts in the Oxford Library of the Fathers.” 

® The essay was first privately printed for the use of the Am. Revision 
Committee. 


*EXTUAL CRITICISM. 199 


after tov ἰδίου 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 κυρίου. Paul often speaks 
of “the church of God” (1 Cor. 1. 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, ete.). 

5. 1 Tim. iii. 16: ϑεός (OC), or ὅς (OC), “ God was 
manifested in the flesh,” or “ He who [%. e., Christ] 
was manifested in the flesh.” Here the weight of 
external and internal evidence is decidedly in favor 
of ὅς, 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." The arguments 


? Even Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln, the most conservative of Eng- 
lish commentators, adopts the reading ὅς. So the Bishop of London, in 
the Speaker’s Commentary, in loc. ; Canon Spence, in Ellicott’s Com., and — 
Dean Plumptre, in Schaff’s Popular Com., vol. iii. (1882), p. 570. Canon 
Farrar, St. Paul, ii. 522, regards it as “ἃ certain reading.” In opposi- 
tion to the almost unanimous consensus of modern critics and commenta- 
tors, Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised, 1883, pp. 424-501) boldly veut- 
ures upon a long dissertation in defence of the reading Sedc. His inde- 
fatigable researches in the Libraries of Europe have increased the number 


200 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


are: (1) The best MSS. (x, A*, Οὗ, F, 6) read ὅς, 
although some have been corrected by later hands. 
In καὶ 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. B 
cannot be quoted here, as it does not contain the 
Pastoral Epistles." (2) All the ancient versions of 
any weight have a relative pronoun here. (8) The 
Western 6, guod, which is a manifest correction 
of ὅς and adaptation to the preceding μυστήριον. 
(4) The oldest fathers: Origen (que manifestatus 
est), Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
Jerome. The reading ϑεός 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 ϑεός, as certainly did Theo. 
doret. (5) It is much easier to account for the 
change of the difficult ὅς into the easy Sede, than 
vice versa, although the mechanical resemblance of 
OC and ΘΟ made the other change more easy. 
(6) While ϑεός well suits the first of the six verbs, 


of cursive MSS. of the Pauline Epistles, including lectionaries which read 
Sede or ὁ Sed (4), to 290 (258 +32). He has found two others which read 
ὃς Sede, and 3 lectionaries which read ὅς, which are to be added to the 3 
cursives before cited for that reading. But the evidence for ὅς he neither 
states fairly nor fully, and ine fails to account for this reading. See p. 298, . 

? Not “because the jealousy of Rome has prevented accurate collation,” 
as the Speaker’s Com. @ii. 780) strangely remarked in the year 1881, thir- 
teen years after the publication of the fac-simile edition of Vercellone! 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 201 


it does not naturally harmonize with the other five. 
We may say that God “was manifested in the 
flesh,” but not that he 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 
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 ὅς, but also for the rhythmical structure of the 
whole passage, which can be arranged in three par- 
allel pairs: 

Ὃς ἐφανερώϑη ἐν σαρκί, 

ἐδικαιώϑη ἐν πνεύματι, 

ὦφϑη ἀγγέλοις, 

ἐκηρύχϑη ἐν ἔϑνεσιν, 

ἐπιστεύϑη ἐν κόσμῳ, 

ἀνελήμφϑη ἐν δόξῃ. 

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 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 


15 


202 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


6. Apoc. xvii. 8: καίπερ ἔστιν, OF καὶ παρέσται. 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 
ἐν τοῖς προφήταις for ἐν τῷ Hoaia τῷ προφήτῃ, in 
Mark i. 2; BnSaBapa for Βηϑανία, 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 all 
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 ἃ doctrine, nor a book, nor a 
creed, nor a church—He is a Person.” 


TEXTUAL ORITICISM. 2038 


(8.) 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 δὰ, 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 ORITICISM. 


are derived from ancestries which “ diverged from 
a point near the autographs, and never came into 
contact subsequently; so that the coincidence of αὶ 
and B 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. 

(6.) The shorter reading is preferable to the 
longer, because insertions and additions are more 
probable than omissions. “ Lrevior lectio praferen- 
da est verbosior.” (Griesbach). Porson 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. 1, 556 sq, 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 905 


or “ Proclivi scriptiont prestat 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, ungrammatical, 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 idiosynerasies 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 
medigeval copies and printed editions. 

(12.) The primary uncials, x, B, C, and A—espe- 
cially αὶ and B—if sustained by other ancient Greek 
uncials (as D, L, T, Ξ, 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 Zextus Feceptus, 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 


206 TEXTUAL ORITICISM. 


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 ORITICISM. 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 Irenzeus or the middle of the second century. 

It has taken a long time for scholars to become 
emancipated from the tyranny of the Zeatus Recep- 
tus, 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 Hras- 
mus, amicus Stephanus, amicus Beza, sed magis 
amica 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 presarved from all essential altera- 
tions. 


THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD. 


[This section was kindly contributed to this work by Professor BENs. 
B. WarFIELD, D.D., of the Theological Seminary at Allegheny, Pa., now 
at Princeton, N. J. He has made textual criticism a special study, and 
has published since an able Jntroduction to the Textual Criticism of the N.T. 
(London, 1886). Comp. chs. ii. and iii—P. S.} 

In attempting to recover the original form of any 
ancient text, the first step must always be to gather 
the testemony, which in the New 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 testumony. It is, indeed, conceiv- 
able that all witnesses might be equally important ; 
but most certainly this is not ὦ priort 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 facts more apparent : 


Autograph. 
| 
| | | 
A B Ὁ 
| | 
| | | | | | 
w x y Ζ 8 t Vv 
| ἯΣ | 


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, 8, t, v, 
are made; and of A four, w, x, y, z, of which, again, 
Xx, Υ, 2 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 we are to reconstruct it. Shall 
we allow equal weight to each? Olearly 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 
eases where they are like it and in those where they 
are unlike it, must be absolutely neglected. The 


910 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


same is, of course, true of the relation of s, t, v to B. 
In other words, the fourteen MSS., A, w, x, y, Z, 1-9, 
can rank in combination as only one witness ; the 
four, B, 8, t, v, again as only one; and, althongh 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. 8, 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 8, 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, 


{EXTUAL CRITICISM. 911 


working backward on the simple and almost self- 
evident principle that community in readings means 
community in origin, we should 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. Ο 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 intrinsic 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—~. 6.. 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 


912 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


use elsewhere—to the text of the New Testament 
was first hinted at by Bentley and Mill, and first 
actually made by Bengel, followed especially by 
Griesbach. It has been reserved, however, to our 
own day and to Dr. Hort 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. 913 


sages it is exceedingly difficult, and sometimes im- 
possible, to classify the readings with any certainty. 
These difficulties and complications limit the appli- 
eation 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, De, Gs—of which B seems 
purely Neutral in the Gospels,and D, Do, Gs purely 
Western throughout. In the rest of the New Testa- 
ment B has a Western element; and &, though large- 
ly Neutral, has Western and Alexandrian elements 
throughout. Such MSS. as A, C, L, P,Q, R, T, ZT, 
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 


914 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


very rough and ideal genealogical diagram may 
perhaps suggest the above facts to the eye, as con- 
cerning some of the chief documents in the Gospels. 


Autograph.’ 
| 
| 


| 
a n w 


| | | 
exe [ Bs | he ν.. .. 
w'=a! a" 4}}} η ΩΝ m4 ΗΝ w'=a' wt wil wi’ 
: | 
τες πλόος, + 
al’ aviu nvin n'* n¥ n’ = wa' wa wri wY 
| | 
a’ wan'=a! B n* n’'=wan wan wa! wilt ν 
avi waan = n* N  waaann=waiii wit Ὁ 
: | 
‘ | a 
a“i=waann Memph. waann' w* 
| | 
| | χ ' ᾿ 
σ waaann = waiii wi 
[1] Old Latin, 


The Alexandrian, Western, and Neutral groups— 
which each originated in a single document—are 
represented by the letters a, w, and n, respectively ; 
the pure or mixed’ representatives of each being 


? 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 Memph. are as closely related to one another 
as the diagram represents them to be. 

? The usual genealogical sign of marriage (=) is used in the diagram 
to denote mixture. 


TEXTUAL GORITICISM. 915 


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 καὶ 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 
a reading is supported by B, x, D, 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, ἢ, 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 
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. 


216 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


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, ts the Neutral, and kv the Alexandrian; wp 
represents the Syrian. Now, it is evident that B, 
placed at a point between k and t, or just beyond t 
on the line ts, is the nearest to the originals of any 
MS. Bx will carry us back to a point on stx, or to 
a point at, or prior to,k or z. BD will take us to, 
or prior to,z. %&D, on the contrary, may be equal 
to BD, and so land us on zx; or may be equal to 
D alone, and so carry us only amid the abounding 
corruption of zq. 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 with its own various readings. In such 


TEXTUAL ORITICISM. Q17 


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,’ 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 ΒΡ, κ᾿, 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 a 
like 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., 
aid to such MSS. as B, x, C, L, D, T, Ξ, 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, D. 

16 


218 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


in the Gospels; B,x, A, C, Ὁ, E, 13,61 in Acts; B, 
x, A, C, 13 in the Catholic Epistles; B,s, A, C, Ὁ, 
G, P, 17, 67** in Paul; and x, A, C, P, 95, 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 ἔγειραι with support which disappears entirely 
with the Syrian documents, while its rival, ἔγειρε, is 
left with the support of B,x, C, D, L, ete. A like 
case is Mark i. 2, where “ the prophets” is read only 
by documents which sift out by this process, leaving 
its rival, “ Jsazah, the prophet,” still testified to by 
B,x, D, L, A, 33, Latt., Memph., and Syrr. Pst., He. 
mg. and Hier. We add three further examples 
from Mark: iv. 24, where B, x, C, D, L, A, Latt., 
Memph. omit “that hear,” against Syrian witness 
only; xv. 28, where the whole verse is omitted by 
B,x, A, C, D, Theb., against Syrian (and late West- 
ern) witness; 111. 29, where “sz” is read instead of 
“judgment” by B,s, L, A, 88 (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, ἃ, 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 CO, 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 tv. Our pro- 
cedure in such cases, again, could not be doubtful. 
The following are examples of such cases: In John 
i. 4, ἔστιν is read by 8, D, 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 zq. Its rival, ἦν, is read by B, OC, L,, Memph., 
Vulg., 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 


220 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, 88, 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, OC, L, A, Memph.= Neutral 
and Alexandrian, inserted by D, Old Lat., Vulg., 
Syrr.= Western; Mark ix. 49, last clause, omitted by 
B, 8, L, A, and inserted by ©, 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,x, L, A, and insert- 
ed by Ὁ, 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; althongh 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 ORITICISM. 921 


non - interpolations.” There are only some half- 
dozen of these, but they are very instructive. 
Matt. xxvii. 49 is a fair sample. Here B, x, Ο, L, 
(Ὁ), Γ, 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 ¢nsertion, 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 Jeaves to internal evidence the other task (see 
p- 211). 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 stem from which the classes 


422 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 plus 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 THE FirrH CHAPTER OF St. MATTHEW.! 


(1) Ver. 1) προσῆλθαν W., T., Tr. | B, &. 
προσῆλθον C, Ὁ, Τ', A— Western. 
(2) “ 4,5) order of verses (5,4) | T.,Tr. | D,33, Old Lat.,Vulg., Cur. 
Syr.— Western. 
erase beh: fest W. B,&,C,T,A, Memph., Syrr. 
(8) “9 add αὐτοί [ W., Tr.] |B, Γ, A, Cur. Syr., Memph. 
omit “ ‘he &, C, Ὁ, Latt., Pst.— West- 
ern, 
(4) “ 11) add ῥῆμα C, 1,4, Syrr.,Orig.—A lew 
andrian. 
omit “ W., Tr., T. | B, δὲ, D, Latt., Memph. 


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. 


(5) Ver. 11 
(6) “ 13 
(7) « 22 
(8) { “ 
(9) “ 28 
((0) “ 25 
(11) “ 27 
(12) * 98 
(13) “ 30 
(14) “ 82 
(15) “ {{ 
(16) “ 87 
(17) “ 39 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


add ψευδόμενοι 


omit “ 

βληϑὲν ἔξω κατ. 
βληϑῆναιξξω καὶκατ. 
omit εἰκῇ 


insert “ 


paya 


ῥακά 

κἀκεῖ 

καὶ ἐκεῖ 

omit σὲ παραδῷ 
insert “ 


omit τοῖς apy. 


6“ [ 


add 


omit αὐτήν (1st) 
insert “ 
ε.γ. ἀπέλϑῃ 


μοιχευϑῆναι 
μοιχᾶσϑαι 


» 
ἐσττω 


ἔσται 

e , ’ 
ῥαπίζει εἰς 
ῥαπίσει ἐπί 


W,,T., Tr. 
[ Tr. mg. ] 

W.; Tr., T. 

W.,Tr.mg., 


ἐν 
[ Tr. ] 


223 


B, &, C, I, A, Vulg., Cur. 
Syr., Pst., Memph. 

D, Old Lat., Origen,— 
Western. 

B, &,C,33, Syr. Hcl., Orig. 

Ὁ, Γ, A (Latt.)— Western. 

B, &, Vulg., Orig. 


D, L, Γ, A, 33, Old Lat., 
Cur. Syr., Syrr., Memph. 
— Western. 

&, D, Old Lat., etc.— West- 
ern. 

B, ete. 

B, ἐξ, L, Γ,, 33, Orig. 

D, A, etc.— Western, 

B, &. 

(D), L, Γ, A, 33, Old Lat., 
Vulg., Cur. Syr., Theb., 
Memph., Pst.— Western, 

B, &, D, VF, Old Lat., 
Memph., Pst. 

L, A, 88, Cur. Syr., Hel., 
Vulg.—A lexandrian? 
&, A, Clems., Orig. 3 times, 

B, D, L, I. 

Β, &, 88, Old Lat., Vulg., 
Cur. Syr., Memph. 

L, I, Δ, Syrr.—Alexan- 
drian. 

Β, &, L, A, 33, Vulg., Syrr. 

D, Old Lat., Cur. Syr., 
Memph.— Western. 

B, &, D, 33, Orig. 

Ι,, A—Alexandrian? 

&, D, L, A, Old Lat., Vulg., 
Clems. (once). 

B, Clems, (once). 

B, & (88). 

D, L, A— Western, 


224 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 


(18) Ver. 39 | omit σου 
add “ 
(19) “ 41 ἀγγαρεύσει 
ayyapevoy 
(20) “ 42) δός 
idov 
(21) “ 44) omit clauses 


(22) “ 46 


(23) “ 47 


(24) ς εἰ 


(25) “ “ 


(26) “« 48 


(27) {1 [ 


add clauses 


‘ ’ , 
τὸ αὐτό 
οὕτως 


ἀδελφ. 


φίλους 


ἐϑνικοί 
τελῶναι 


4 > , 
τὸ αὐτό 
οὕτως 


« > , 
ὁ οὐράνιος 


ἐν τ. οὐρανοῖς 


if 
[W.] Tr. 
Wrst Τι., Τ᾿ 
ΤῊ, Ἐν 


W., Tr., T. 


W,, T. 
W. mg., Tr. 
W., T., Tr. 
Ws tr., T. 


We tts Ἐν 


Wh Ain ks 


Wi, Tr, T, 


&, 33, Orig. 

B, D, L, A, Latt. 

B, L, (D). 

&, Δ, 33— Western ? 

B, &, D. 

L, A—A lexandrian? 

B, &, Latt., Memph., Cur. 
Syr., Orig. 

D, L, A, 33, ete.— West- 
ern. 

B, &, L, A, Syrr., (Latt.). 

D, Z,33, Cur. Syr., Memph. 
— Western, 

B, &, D, Latt., Cur. Syr., 
Pst., Memph. 

L, A—Alexandrian ? 

Β, δὲ, Ὁ, Latt., Memph., 
Cur. Syr. 

L, A, Pst.—A lexandrian ? 

Β, ἐξ, Ὁ, 33, Pst., (Latt.). 

L, A, Memph., Cur. Syr.—- 
Alexandrian? 

B, &, L, Z, 33, Clems., Orig. 


| D, A— Western. 


Β, &, L, Z, 33, Vulg., Syr. 
Hel. 

(D), A, Old Lat., Pst., Cuz 
Syr.— Western, 


CHAPTER SIXTH. 


HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TES- 
TAMENT. 

Tue 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 New Testament 
was published in the original Greek." The honor 


? I mean 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 1486. 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 Nurnberg 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 Bibeliibers, in Herzog 
(new ed.), ili. 545 sqq., and Kehrein, Gesch. der deutschen Bibeliibersetzung 
vor Luther, Stuttg. 1851. England, which now far surpasses all other 
countries in the publication and circulation af the Scriptures, was far 
behind the Continent in the sixteenth century. Wiclif’s version existed 


996 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


of pioneership in this great enterprise is divided 
between a Roman 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. Reuss, of Strassburg, who is in possession 
of the largest private collection of editions of the 


then only in manuscript. The first edition of William Tyndale’s English 
New Testament was printed on the Continent (partly at Cologne, partly 
at Worms) in 1526, 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.’ This list has been enlarged 
in 1882 to the number of 924 by Professor Hall (see 
First Appendix). He 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.’ 


1 See his Bibliotheca Novi Test. Greci (1872), and Appendix I. Reuss 
classifies his editions as follows: 

I. Editio Complutensis; II. Editiones Erasmice ; III. Editio Compluto- 
Erasmica; IV. Editio Colinzi; V. Editiones Stephanice; VI. Editiones 
Erasmo-Stephanice; VII. Editiones Compluto-Stephanice; VIII. Edi- 
tiones Bezane; IX. Editiones Stephano-Bezanz; X. Editiones Stephano- 
Plantiniane; XI. Editiones Elzeviriane; XII. Editiones Stephano- 
Elzeviriane; XIII. Editiones Elzeviro-Plantiniane; XIV. Editiones 
critice ante-Griesbachiane; XV. Editiones Griesbachiane; XVI. Edi- 
tiones Mattheziane; XVII. Editiones Griesbachio-Elzeviriane ; XVIII. 
Editiones Knappiane; XIX. Editiones critica minores post - Gries- 
bachiane; XX. Editiones Scholzianz (including the Bloomfield and the 
Bagster editions, London); XXI. Editiones Lachmanniane; XXII. Edi- 
tiones Griesbachio-Lachmanniane; XXIII. Editiones Tischendorfiane ; 
XXIV. Editiones mixte recentiores (Theile, Muralt, Reithmayr, Anger, 
Wordsworth, Hahn); XXV. Editiones nondum collate; XXVI. Editi- 
ones dubie; XXVII. Editiones spurie. ‘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 
one hundred and fifty) 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 
at New York, by sale and donation, are as follows: 


928 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. Tue Periop or tHE Trextus ReEcEeptus: FROM - 
Erasmus AND STEPHENS ΤῸ BenaeL AnD Wert- 
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; bunt all present substantially the 
same text. The changes are numerous, but rarely 
affect the sense. The Greek Testaments printed in 
England are 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- 


A.D. 1880, 540,065 copies. A.D. 1883, 524,416 copies. 
1881, 491,105 ᾿“ φς, 1884, 552,629 “ 
1882, 424,642 “ 1885, 897,17 “ 


In 1886 the British and Foreign Bible Soc. published 568,610 whole Eng- 
lish Bibles, and 1,123,903 English New Tests.; the American Bible Soc, 
295,769 English Bibles, and 326,918 English New Tests. 


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 Complutensian 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 Vulgate, and that needs a 
thorough critical revision. 


ERASMUS. 


The first published (not printed) edition of the 
Greek Testament is that of the famous DxrsipErivs 


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 Reformation. 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.’ 

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 pages (as I myself observed on a visit in 1879). 
They date from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. 
Erasmus compared them with two or three others 
on the same books. For the Apocalypse he 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 Miiller (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;' 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 Gicolampadius 
(the friend of Zwingli and reformer of Basle), in 
all five successive editions, with improvements, all 
Greco-Latin. Second edition, 1519 (the basis of 
Luther’s translation); third, 1522; fourth, much im- 
proved, 1527; fifth, 1535. Besides, more than thirty 
unauthorized reprints are said to have appeared at 
Venice, Strassburg, Basle, Paris, ete. 

The entire apparatus of Erasmus never exceeded 
eight MSS. The oldest and best of them he 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. 

Nore.—Reuss 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 


* By Dr. Delitzsch, in the library of the princely house of Oettingen. 
Wallerstein. See his Handschrifiliche Funde, Heft i. and ii., 1861 and 1862, 


932 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


the second edition) is far below the mark; see Scrivener, Jntrod. p. 385, 
Of the first edition, Erasmus himself says that it was prepared with head- 
long haste (“precipitatum 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 first inserted 
the spurious passage of the three witnesses (1 John v. 7), “ e codice Britan- 
nico,” 2. 6.7 from the Codex Montfortianus of the sixteenth century; but 
Erasmus did not consider it genuine, and admitted it only from policy, 
“ne cut foret ansa 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 Complutum, or Alcala de 
Henares, in Spain. This opus magnum, the great- 
est of the kind since the Hexapla of Origen, was 
prepared under the direction and at the expense of 
Cardinal Francis ΧΙΜΈΝΕΒ DE Cisneros, Archbishop 
of Toledo, Great Inquisitor, and Prime-minister of 
Spain, and published in 1520, with papal approba- 
tion, in 6 vols. fol.’ 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 


? See a full account of the University of Alcala, founded by the cardinal 
(1508), in Hefele’s Der Cardinal Ximenes, Tiibingen, 1844, pp. 101 sqq., 
and of the Polyglot, pp. 120 sqq. Also in Tregelles, Account of the Printed 
Text, etc., pp. 1-19. 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 2383 


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 hereulean 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. He employed for the Polyglot 
the best scholars he 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 Nufiez 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 


~ 


* This is the correct date; not March 20, 1521 (as Hug gives it), See 
Hefele, J. c. p. 142, 


17 


934 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


had the income of a king and the wants of a 
monk.” * 

Only six hundred copies were printed, and sold 
at 64 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, ὁ. ¢., the 
Roman or Latin Church, was crucified between two 
robbers, ὁ. ¢., the Jewish Synagogue and the schis- 
matical Greek Church!’ The sixth volume contains 
lexica, indexes, ete. 

The text of the New Testament is mostly derived 


’ Hefele, p. 126. 

* Some have denied that Ximenes wrote this preface, since he elsewhere 
gave the preference to the original text. Hefele (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 teat nor the Septuagint, 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK 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 et emenda- 
tissima), and procured from Rome, for which Leo X. 
is thanked in the Preface.’ 

The Complutensian text was reprinted, though 
not without some changes, by Christopher Plantin 
at Antwerp (1564? 1578, 1574, 1584, 1590, etc.), at 
Geneva (1609, 1619, 1620, 1628, 1632), in the Ant- 
werp Polyglot (edited by Spaniards under Philip IL., 
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 Professur 
at Tiibingen, afterwards at Bonn), with changes in 
the orthography and punctuation, and with the Clem- 
entine Vulgate (Tiibingen, 1821; 2d ed. Mayence, 
1827; 3d ed. 1851, in 2 vols.), and by Leander van 
Ess (1827), who, however, incorporated the text of 
Erasmus with 10. By the third edition of Stephens 
it is to some extent connected with the textus re- 


? On the textual sources of the Complutensian Polyglot, see Tregelles, 
I. c. pp. 12-18. Hefele (p. 182) says, the Greek text of the Polyglot 
stands there without any authority, as if it were fallen from heaven. 
Reuss (Biblioth. pp. 16-24) gives a list of the readings peculiar to this 
Greek Testament. The great Vatican MS. (B) was not used. ‘ 

3 The title of this editio Compluto-Erasmica is Novum Test. Gr. et Lot. 
expressum ad binas editiones a Leone X. P. M. adprobatus Complutense:n 
scilicet et Erasmi Roterod., with the Clementine text of the Vulgate in 
parallel columns, and readings from Stephens, Matthzi, and Griesbach in 
foot-notes. Tubing, 1827. Leander van Ess was a zealous promoter of 
the study of the Bible among Roman Catholics. His invaluable librarv 
was acquired for the library of the Union Theological Seminary in New 
York through the agency of Dr, Edward Robinson, 


936 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 AUS. 


Srmon Cotinzvs (Smuon DE Coxtnss), 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.’ 


STEPHANUS. 


The editions of the great printer and scholar, 
Ropert STEPHANUS, or STEPHENS’ (1503-59), were 
published at Paris in 1546 and 1549, 16mo (called, 
from the first words of the preface, the O 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” (edttio regia) of 1550 
is the most celebrated, and the nearest source of the 
textus receptus, especially for England.* The text 
was mainly taken from Erasmus (the editions of 1527 


? See Reuss, p. 46, who indicates the sources of Colineus. 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, 

* Reuss (p, 53): “ Kst hee ipsa editio ex qua derivatur quem nostri 
textum receptum vulgg vacant, nomine ret minus bene aptato,” 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 237 


and 1535), with marginal readings from the Complu- 
tensian edition, and fifteen MSS. of the Paris library, 
two of them valuable (D@ and L), but least used. It 
was republished by F. H. A. Scrivener, 1859, at Cam- 
bridge; new edition 1877, and again 1887, with the 
variations of Beza (1565), Elzevir (1624), Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Tregelles [W. and H. and Revisers].’ 

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.’ 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. 


THkoporE DE Brze (Beza, 1519-1605), Calvin’s 
friend and successor in Geneva, and the surviving 


1 Nov. Test. Textiis Stephanici A.D, 1550, cum variis lectionibus editio- 
num Beze, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii, Westcott-Hortii, 
Versionis Anglicane emendatorum. Cantabr. et Lond, 1887. 

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). He also issued several 
octavo editions with his Latin version and brief 
marginal notes (1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604). He 
came into possession of two bilingual (Greeco-Latin) 
uncials of great value, Dq) and D @ (Cod. Beze, or 
Cantabrigiensis, for the Gospels and Acts, and Cod. 
Claromontanus for the Pauline Epistles), but made 
very little use of them, because they differed very 
much from the Erasmian and Stephanic 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.’ 


1 Beza called the edition of 1565 the second; but his first, 1557, was 

only his Latin version with annotations, for which he cared more than 
for the Greek text. Scrivener (/ntrod. 2d ed. p. 890) gives 1559 as the 
date of the first edition ; but this is an error; see Reuss, Biblioth. pp. 72 sqq. 
Others speak of an edition of 1576; but this was edited by Henry Stephens. 
See Masch’s Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, pars i, pp. 307-316 ; and Abbot’s Notes 
on Scrivener’s Introd. pp. 48-50, 

2“ Nam hoc scito, post unice Scripture sacratissimam cognitionem, nullos 
unquam ex omni memoria temporum scriptores extitisse, quos memorabilt 
viro Johanni Calvino tibique preferamus,” Dr. Scrivener, the editor of 
Cod. D, in quoting this passage (Jntrod, p, 112), makes the strange re- 
mark that this yeneration for Calyin and Beza « boded ill for the peaeg 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. 


Nore.—Beza had already, by his Latin. version and notes, suggested 
several improved renderings to the authors of the Geneva Version (1557 
and 1560), 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 was yet rising,” or “at the rising of the sun,” 
for “when the sun was risen;” Rev. xi. 1, “and the angel stood saying,” 
καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος εἱστήκει, for “ one said,” λέγων or λέγει). 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 given); Acts ii. 47 (“such as should be saved,” 
which cannot be the meaning of τοὺς σωζομένους, 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,” 
“stquis se abduxerit,” for ἐὰν ὑποστείληται). This charge is not well 
founded, as has been shown by Archbishop Trench in his treatise on 
Revision. Beza was undoubtedly the best exegetical 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” (Laws 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 (Heidelb. 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 he 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 Bible, pp. 296, 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. 648-656, gives a list of the passages wherein the Authorized 
Version departs from the readings of Beza’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 E. 


ELZEVIR. 


The brothers Bonaventure and Apranam Etzz- 
vir, enterprising publishers in Holland, issued, with 
the aid of unknown editors, several editions at Ley- 
den, 1624, 1633, 1641; originally taken (not from 
Stephens, hut) 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: “ Zeatwm ergo 
habes, nune ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil im- 
mutatum aut corruptum damus.” Hence the name 
textus receptus, 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.’ Erasmus is the first, Elzevirs’ editor the last 


1 Mill observed but twelve variations. Tischendorf (p. lxxxv. Proleg. 
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 


Ι ‘ 
PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 241 


author, so to say, of the textus receptus. 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.’ 


WALTON’S POLYGLOT. 


Brian Watrton’s Polyglot Bible, Lond. 1657, 6 
tom. fol. The New Testament (tom. 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 Annales typographiques, par ALPHONSE WILLEMS, 
Brux. et Paris, 1880, 2 vols. The titles of the first two editions (1624 and 
1633) are as follows: 

Η' Καινὴ Διαϑήκη. Novum Testamentvm, ex Regijs alijsque optimis 
editionibus cum curd expressum. Lygdvni Batavorvm, ex Officina Elze- 
viriana. clolIoc xxiv. 12mo, or 24mo. 

(“ Cette édition du Ν. T. est réputée correcte, mais elle a été effacée par 
celle de 1633.” Willems, i. 98.) 

Η' Καινὴ Διαϑήκη. Novum Testamentum. Lz Regiis aliisque optimis 
editionibus, hac nova expressum: cui quid accesserit, Prefatio docebit. Lvgd. 
Batavorvm, ex Officina Elzeviriorum. clo loc xxxim, 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 Leyden with a new title-page dated 1641. Four later editions (1656, 
1662, 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 (Reuss): 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 
essentially 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,” 


942 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


Greek text of Stephens, 1550, with the Latin Vul-~ 
gate, the Peshito Syriac, the Atthiopic, 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- 
eluding 1) ῳ and Dw 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 I., 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 
“Joyal,” and dedicated to Charles II.’ 


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 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 243 


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.”* To this Walton re- 
plied, forcibly and conclusively, in Zhe Consederator 
Considered, London, 1659. He 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 


Brian Walton, together with the 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 Helvetici,” 1675. 


944 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


Antwerp Polyglot (Plantin. 1569-1573, in 9 vols.), 
and the Paris Polyglot (Paris, 1628-1645, in 10 vols.), 
but more ample, commodious, and critical. 


MILL. 


Joun Mit’s Vovwm Testamentum Grecum, Oxon. 
1707, 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 manuscr ipts, versions, and aes 
cially from patristic quotations.’ 

It had been preceded by the New Testament of 
Bishop Jonn Fret, 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. elxvii. 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 Wetstein, vol. i. pp. 176 sq. 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 245 


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 Vulgate 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 asaspecimen. 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 Vaticanus, 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 valn- 
able contribution towards the establishment of a 


946 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


settled text: it would at least have shaken the 
foundations of the teatus receptus; 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. 


JoHann Atprecut Brenert (1687-1752), “ Prail- 
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 
multum in parvo. He edited a Greek Testament 
at Tubingen, 1734, 4to, together with an Apparatus 
Criticus, containing in three parts critical disserta- 
tions.’ | 

Bengel became a critic from conscientious scru- 
ples, but was confirmed in his faith by thorough 
research. When he studied theology at Tiibingen, 
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. He found that the 


? 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 Bengel’s Leben und Wirken, Stuttgart, 1831, pp. 19 sqq. and 200 
sqq.- Comp. also Oskar Wachter, Bengel’s Lebensabriss, 1865; and a good 
article by Hartmann and Burk in Herzog’s “ Encykl.” vol. ii. pp. 295-301 
(abridged in Schaff’s “ Rel. Encycl.”). 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 247 


variations leave the evangelical faith intact. His 
excellent motto in biblical criticism and exegesis 


was: 
“Te totum applica ad textum, 
Rem totam applica ad te.” 


He 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,’ “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. Werstein (1693-1754): Novum Testa- 
mentum Grecum Editionis Recepte cum Lectioni- 
bus, etc., Amstel. 1751-52, 2 tom. fol.? A herculean 


1 Introd. p. 403. 
? 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 gives his critical judgment 
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, 
1. 1-222; ii. 3-15, 449-454, 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 them 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 textus receptus’ in 1 Tim. iii. 16 
(ϑεός), in favor of the reading 0, 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 22, 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 (Zpistola ad J. Krighout, 
Bas. 1754), whereupon Krighout vindicated his memory (Memoria Wet- 
steniana Vindicata, Amst. 1755). See Hagenbach, J. J. Wetistein der 
Kritiker und seine Gegner, 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 New 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. Jonann Satomo SemueEr, the 
father of German rationalism (1725-91), but, in 
what he called “ Privat- Frommigkeit ” (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. Seconp Prriop: TRANSITION FROM THE TExtTUS 
Recertus ΤῸ tHE Uncrat Text. From Griss- 
BAcH To Lacumann.—-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 textus recep- 
tus, and approach to an older and better text; but 
the former was still retained as a basis on a pre- 
scriptive right. 

18 


250 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


GRIESBACH. 


The period is introduced by the honored name of 
JoHANN Jacos Griespacn (1745-1812), Professor of 
Divinity at Halle and then at Jena... He 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 (Symbol Critica, 1785-98 ; 
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- 


* Griesbach was the son of a Protestant pastor in Hesse-Darmstadt ; 
educated in Tiibingen, Leipsic, and Halle, where he became an ardent 
disciple of Semler. He 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. 95, in 2 vols., con- 
sist chiefly of university programmes and addresses. See Augusti, Ueber 
Griesbach’s Verdienste, Breslau, 1812; Reuss, Biblioth. pp. 193-204, and his 
article “Griesbach” in Herzog, new ed. vol. v. pp. 480-482, 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. 201 


mony ; that 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, O, L, 
etc.),a recension of the corrupt Western text, and 
the Constantinopolitan 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 and 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). ἢ 

Principal editions, Halle, 1775-77; Halle and 
London, 1796-1806, 2 tom. 8vo; Leipsic, 1803-1807, 
4 tom. fol. (called by Reuss, p. 200, “ edztio omnium 
que exstant speciosissma”’); reprinted, London, 
1809 and 1818 (a very fine edition); an improved 
third edition of the Gospels by David Schulz, 1827, 
with Prolegomena and an enlarged apparatus (but 
differing from Griesbach’s text, as Reuss 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 Scnorr, Knapp, Trrrmann, Haun (re- 
published at New York by Dr. Edward Robinson, 


952 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


1842), Tuere (11th ed. Leipz. 1875), and of several 
English and American editions.’ 

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. 


MATTH AI. 


C. F. Mattar (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 Vouwm Test. Grace 
et Latine (Vulg.) was published at Riga, 1782-88, 
12 vols. 8vo; an edition with the Greek text only, 
in 3 vols. 8vo (1803-7). ‘“ Matthei was a careful 
collator, but a very poor critic; and his manuscripts 
were of inferior quality ” (Abbot). 

The Danish scholars Brrou, ApLER, and Mot- 
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. 


? Bloomfield’s editions, London, 1832, 9th ed. 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. Atrer, in his Greek Testament ( Vienna, 
1786-87, 8vo), 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. 


SCHOLZ. 


J. M. A. Scnorz (a pupil of Hug, and Roman 
Catholic Professor in Bonn; ἃ. 1852): Wovum 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. He 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.’ It marks no advance upon Griesbach. 


1 In several editions, including The English Hexapla (which gives, with 
Scholz’s Greek Testament, the versions of Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Gene- 


954 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


At a later date (1845) Scholz 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. 


111. Turrp Prriop: tHE REsTORATION OF THE PRIM- 
1iveE Text. From LacHMANN AND TISCHEN- 
poRF to Werstcotr anp Hort.—A.D. 1830-81. 


LACHMANN.’ 


Cart Lacumann (Professor of Classical Philology 
in Berlin; Ὁ. 1793, ἃ. 1851): Movwm Testamentum 
Greece et Latine, Berol. 1842-50, 2 vols. Compare his 
article in the Studien und Kritiken, 1830, No. 4, 
pp. 817-845. Lachmann had previously published 
a small edition in 1831, with the variations of the 
teatus receptus (Elz. 1624) at the end. In the larger 
edition he was aided by the younger Pamir Borr- 
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, Rhemish, 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 sig Appendix, and in Reuss, Bib- 
liotheca, 235-238. 

1 See his Biography, by Hertz, Berlin, 1851; also the article Bibeltext 
des N, T., by O, von Gebhardt in Herzog, Eneyhl (ed. 11.), ii, 425 sqq. 


PRINTED 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 Vzebelungenlied, W al- 
ther von der Vogelweide, 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, 
2. 6. 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, Vulgate, ante-Nicene fathers, 
especially Irengeus, 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. He 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 Vulgate 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. Verss., a, Ὁ, ec, Vulg., and 
Western fathers from Irenzeus 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. B 
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 ear- 
ried out the hint of Bentley and Bengel, and had the 
boldness to destroy the tyranny of the textus receptus, 
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 Wette, 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 Tregelles says (p. 99): “Lachmann led the way in casting aside the 
so-called textus receptus, and boldly placing the New Testament wholly 
and entirely on the basis of actual authority.” Reuss calls him (Biblioth. 
p. 239) “ vir doctissimus et κριτικώτατος." The conservative Dr. Scrivener 
(p. 422 sqq.) depreciates his merits, for he defends as far as possible the 
traditional text. But Dr. Hort (Gr. Test, ii. 13) does full justice to his 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 257 


TISCHENDORF. 


Constantin von Tiscuenporr (Professor of The- 
ology at Leipsic; Ὁ. 1815, d. 1874): Movuwm Testa- 
mentum Grece, ete., ed. octava critica maior, Lips. ; 
issued at intervals, in eleven parts, from 1864 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 
von Gresuarvt: Vovwm Testamentum Grace Recen- 
sionis Tischendorfiane ultime Teatum cum Tre- 
gellesiano et Westcottio- Hortiano contulit et breve 
adnotatione critica additisque locis parallels wlus- 
travit O. pe G. Ed. stereot. Lipsiz, 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 textval 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. Encycl. 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 fextus 


receptus.” 


258 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


ture. His working power, based on vigorous health 
and a hopeful temperament, was amazing. He had 
the advantage of the liberal support of the Saxon, 
and afterwards of the Russian, government in his 
expensive journeys and publications. He 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 
οὗ Leipsic in 1843. 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. He visited 
the principal libraries of Europe in search of docn- 
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, Ba, C, Da, 
Εἰ). 1) ; and published, between 1841 and 1873, no 
less than twenty-four editions of the Greek Testa- 
ment (including the reissues of his stereotyped editio. 
academica). Four-of these—issued 1841, 1849, 1859 
(editio septima critica major), and 1872 (ed. octawa) 
—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 Profana (1855, new ed. 
1861), etc., and the catalogue of his publications, most 
of them relating to biblical criticism, covers nearly 
fifteen octavo pages in Gregory’s Prolegomena.' 


? Pars i. pp. 7-22. His first publication was a poem, 1835, 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 9259 


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 
avery 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 and 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.’ 

Unfortunately he 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 Hmendanda 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 René Gree- 
ory, who with the efficient aid of Dr. Ezra Axzor, 
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.” 

Thus America, which has none of the ancient 
manuscript treasures of the Bible, is permitted to 


1 Scrivener, Jntrod. Ὁ. 470, made the last calculation to,the disparage- ' 
ment of Tischendorf; O. von Gebhardt, /. 6. 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. 

3 The first Part of the Prolegomena appeared in Leipsic, 1884; the second 
Part in 1890; a third and last Part is promised. Dr. Gregory examined 
the libraries of Europe and the East, and is now Professor in Leipsic. 


PRINTED 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. 


Norre.—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 25-jahrigen schrifistellerischen Wirksamkeit, Leips. 1862; Dr. Abbot’s 
article on Tischendorf in the Unitarian Review for March, 1875; Dr. Greg- 
ory’s article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1876; his Prolegomena, 
1884, Part 1. 1-22; and in Schaff-Herzog, iii. 2363 sq., for his moral 
and religious character, the addresses of his pastor, Dr. Ahlfeld, and his 
colleagues, Drs. Kahnis and Luthardt, Am Sarge und Grabe Tischendorf’s, 
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. “ Bet allem”—he says, in self- 
defence against a malignant attack (Waffen der Finsterniss, Ὁ. 28)—“ was 
mir gelungen in der Fremde wie in der Heimath, beim unermiidlichen ent- 
behrungsvollen Wandern durch Lander und Volker, Wiisten und Meere, unter 
den mannigfaltigsten Erfahrungen und Gefahren, unter Arbeiten bei Tag 
und Nacht, war ich freilich von ganzer Seele gliicklich mich des Herrn 
riihmen zu kinnen, des Herrn der in dem Schwachen mdchtig gewesen. Und 
dieses Riihmen, trotz Neider, Spétter und Verleumder, soll mir denn auch 
bleiben mein Lebelang, bis an des Lebens letzten Athemzug. ‘O dass ich 
tausend Zungen hdtte und einen tausendfachen Mund: so stimmt’ ich damit 
in die Wette vom allertiefsten Herzensgrund ein Loblied nach dem andern 
an, von dem was Gott an mir gethan.’” 

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 
Friedrichshafen, 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 behalf of Religious Liberty in Russia, New York, 1871.) In view of this 
participation, and his eminent services to the cause of biblica] 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 Greco-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. 


SamveL Prmravx Treeevrizs (Ὁ. Jan. 30, 1813, 
ἃ. 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 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 263 


Testament in 1848.’ 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 he says,” 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.’ 


? 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 Horne’s Jntrod. (vol. iv., 
also issued separately). These two excellent works supply to some extent 
the place of his Prolegomena. He contributed many articles for Kitto’s 
Journal of Sacred Literature, made a translation of Gesenius’s Hebrew and 
Chaldee Lexicon (1847), and aided in several useful biblical publications. 

? See his Preface to 10th edition of Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. p. xiii., dated 
Plymouth, Sept. 18, 1856. 

* Dr. Scrivener remarks (p. 486): “ 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 Vaticanus, which he was not permitted to 
collate in Rome by the jealous authorities.’ 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, and C, 
Bertheau in Herzog, rev. ed. vol. xv. 844, 

1 The Gospels were printed 1857 and 1860, before the publication of δὲ 
(which he first inspected in Tischendorf’s house at Leipsic in 1862), and 
the printing of the Pauline Epistles had begun in 1865, before Vercellone’s 
edition of B (which appeared in 1868). Tregelles retained a number of tradi- 
tional misreadings of B. O.von Gebhardt mentions as examples, Mark iii. 
1, ἦν (which B does not omit), xiii. 7, ἀκούετε (B, axounre) ; xiii. 21, εἴπη 
ὑμῖν (B has ὑμὶν evn). See the long list of corrections in the Appendix, 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 265 


compiled and edited in a supplementary volume 
four years after his death by Dr. Hort and Rev. A. 
W. Streane, 1879. 


Notre.—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, 


19 


΄ 


266 PRINTED 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): “ Lachmann’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 Chichester (formerly Vicar of 5. 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 Twelve 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. 167) 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 !” 

Comp. also two able articles of Dr. Carl Bertheau on Tischendorf and 
Tregelles, in the revised ed. of Herzog, vol. xv. (1885), 672 sqq. and 841 sqq. 


ALFORD. 
Among the recent English commentators on the 
New Testament who embody the Greek text, Dr. 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 267 


Henry Axrorp, 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.’ 
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. He praises Lachmann and 
Tregelles for “the bold and uncompromising demoli- 
tion of that unworthy and pedantic reverence for 


’ 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, 


968 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 HORT. 


Westcott and Hort: Zhe 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 (ὦ. 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). 


1 Gr, Test. vol. i. pp. 76, 85, 87, 88, 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 269 


The first volume appeared in a corrected issue, Dec. 
1881, and in smaller size (618 pp.) in 1885. Both 
volumes were republished from duplicate English 
plates, New York (Harper & Brothers), 1881, the 
first in a revised ed. 1886." 

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: Zhe Revised Greek- 
Linglish New Testament, New Y ork, 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 (VYovwm Testa- 
mentum Groce et Germanice. Das NV. Test. griechisch 
und 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 


? The first volume of the American edition (as also the American diglot 
edition) contains an Introduction by Philip Schaff, which was prepared 
by previous arrangement with the editors and publishers, before the sec- 
ond volume appeared, and contains preliminary information 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. 


270 PRINTED 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. Itis the joint work of two biblical scholars and 
theological professors in the University of Cam- 
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 H.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 New 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- 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE 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 Griesbach’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.’ 

Westcott and Hort distinguish four types of text 
in the surviving documents :’ 

(1.) The Syrian or Antiocuian.’ 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, For an adverse criticism see Burgon and Scrivener. 

3 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 Horne’s /ntroduction, vol. iv. pp. 66-107 (14th edition, 1877). 

* Bengel called it “ Asiatic,” Griesbach and Scholz “ Constantinopolitan,” 
or “ Byzantine,” The best term would be “ Greco-Syrian.” 


272 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK 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 teatus 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), 2. 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 Greeco-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, 


PRINTED 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 Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, that certain 
copies of the New Testament with questionable 
readings were called after them.’ An authoritative 
recension by the learned fathers of the Nicene and 
post-Nicene age, who had access to much older man- 
uscripts than we now possess, would enhance rather 
than diminish the value of the teatus 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. Tischendorf 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 was the heiress of Antioch, the centre of the 


1 Epist.ad Damasum: “ Hoc certe cum in nostro sermone discordat et in 
diversos rivulorum tramites ducit, uno de fonte querendum est. Preter- 
mitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum 
adserit perversa contentio, quibus utique nec in toto Vetert Instrumento post 
LXX interpretes emendare quid licuit nec in Novo profuit emendasse, cum 
multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse que 
addita sunt.” In De Viris illustr. 77, Jerome says: “ Lucianus, vir doc- 
tissimus, Antiochene ecclesie presbyter, tantum in Scripturarum studio 

_laboravit, ut usqgue nunc quedam exemplaria Scripturarum Lucianea 
nuncupentur.” Comp. Decret. Gelas. vi. 14: “ Evangelia que falsavit 
Lucianus apocrypha.” 


974 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


Eastern Church, and the guardian of Greek learning, 
which after the migration of nations died out in the 
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 Da) of the Gospels and Acts, and 
De 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- 
Nicene 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. 43 vii. 538—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. 275 


post-apostolic writings, as the Epistle of Barnabas, 
the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Ignatian Epistles. 
(3.) The ALexanprian or Egyptian text.’ It is 
found in the abundant quotations of the Alexandrian 
fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, 
Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, partly, also, Eusebius 
of Cesarea, 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 Nevrrat 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 αὶ (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 ἃ in the Church during the 
first two centuries), that the ancestors of B were 


1 Called the African text by Bentley and Bengel. 


276 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual 
sense), and the ancestors of & partly Alexandrian.’ 
The later corrections of clerical errors and textual 
readings in these MSS. by different hands (especially 
those of 8*, 8”, and 8°) furnish at the same time 
important contributions to the history of the text. 
Next to them in authority are OC, L, P, T, D, 3, 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. Among the fathers 
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 


Side 


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 & was likewise written in Rome, it is not 
easy to explain how it ever was transported to the Convent at Mount 
Sinai. 


PRINTED 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 PRINTED 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 Hort’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. Hort 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 GREEK 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 with 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,’ 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.” 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 and investigations 
of the original form of the Greek Testament. 


Norr.—Dr. Brooke Foss Wesrcorrt was born Jan. 12, 1825; educated 
at Trinity College, Cambridge, appointed Canon at Peterborough in 1869, 
and Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1870. He has written 


1 A few insignificant errors of the first edition, as ὡμῶν for ὑμῶν in 
Matt. x. 9 (p. 23), have since been corrected. 

* E.g., Westcott and Hort read in John i. 18, μονογενὴς ϑεός in the 
text, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός 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: τοῦ Seov, text, κυρίου, margin; Revis- 
ers: “of the Lord,” margin “God.” See the convenient list of noteworthy 
variations in Harpers’ diglot edition, pp. xci.—cii. 


/ 


280 PRINTED 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”), the Epistles of St. John, and valuable con- 
tributions to Smith’s “ Bible Dictionary.” Dr. Fenron Joun ANTHONY 
Hort was born April 23, 1828, educated at Trinity College, Cambridge 
and appointed Hulsean Professor of Divinity in the University of Cam- 
bridge in 1878. He wrote Two Dissertations on μονογενὴς Θεός and on 
the Constantinopolitan Creed (a singularly able and acute plea for the read- 
ing *‘ only begotten God,” in John 1. 18), the Introduction and Appendix to 
the Greek Testament (a masterpiece of critical learning and sagacity), 
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 Westcott and Hort 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 1865. 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 [ Westcott 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 
Hort’s readings in his recent issue of Tischendorf’s latest text (both the 
Greek and the Greco-German edition, Lips. 1881), and pays them this 
weighty tribute (Nov. Test. Gr. et Germ., Introd. p. vil.): “ Wie Tregelles, 
so huldigen auch Westcott und Hort im wesentlichen den Grundsdtzen, welche 
in die Kritik des Neuen Testaments eingefiihrt zu haben, das bleibende Ver- 
dienst Lachmanns ist. Was aber die neuste englische Ausgabe vor allen ihren 
Vorgdngerinnen auszeichnet, ist die systematische, in solchem Umfang bisher 
unerreichte Verwerthung der Textesgeschichte zur Classificirung und Ab- 
schdtzung der verschiedenen Zeugen, und die consequente Handhabung der so 
gewonnenen Grundsdize bet Ausfiihrung der kritischen Operation.” Dr. Carl 
Bertheau notices Westcott and Hort most favorably in Harnack and 
Schiirer’s “ Theologische Literatur-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 (“wegen der angewandten Methode und der aus- 
serordentlichen Genauigkeit 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 with the uncial text as a whole, but frequently 
sides with Cod. B and Westcott and Hort versus Cod. δὲ and Tischendorf, 
6. g., in John i. 18 (μονογενὴς ϑεός) ; 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. Hund- 
hausen, of Mainz, declares in the “ Literarischer Handweiser fiir das Katho- 
lische Deutschland,” Miinster, 1882, No. 19, col. 590: “ Unter allen bisher 
auf dem Gebiete der neutestamentlichen Textkritik erschienenen Werken 
gebiihrt dem Westcott-Hortschen unstreitig die Palme.” The same intel- 
ligent writer says (col. 585): “ Die einfachen und klaren Grundprincipien 
Lachmann’s in Verbindung mit den verbesserten und richtig angewandten 
Ideen Griesbach’s, die umfassenden und zuverldssigen documentarischen 
Forschungen Tischendorf’s, Tregelles’ u. A. und die eindringenden krit- 
ischen Operationen der beiden Cambridger Professoren haben sich vereinigt, 
um in den vorliegenden zwei Banden ein Werk von grosser Vollendung zu 


20 


δῶ 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. 586) that, as to the rest, 
Westcott and Hort present the New Testament text “in a purity and 
primitiveness (in einer Reinheit und Urspriinglichkeit})) superior to any 
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: “ Voici un 
livre destiné a faire époque dans la critique du Nouveau- Testament,” 


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. H. A. Scrrvener (Prebenda- 
ry of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon), and is published 
by the University Press of Cambridge under the 
title: Zhe New Testament a the Origunal 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 mm the 
ftevised 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 GREEK 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 teatus receptus are said to number over 
five thousand.’ 

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- 
erue from it;” that “his judgment has been influ- 


1 T 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, Lond. 
1882, p.38 sq. Dean Burgon asserts (“Quarterly Review,” No.304, Oct. 1881, 
p. 307) that “the ¢extus receptus has been departed from (by the Revisers) 
far more than 5000 times, almost invariably for the worse.” According to Dr. 
Scriyener 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 giowing 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.”* 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.” ? 


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 L.c. p. 83 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 published in 1883, occupies substantially the same position. 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 ϑεός, 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. & ought to have closed, since it adds a first-rate un- 
cial witness to a case already very strong through the support of versions, 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 285 


The other edition is edited by Dr. E. Patmer 
(Archdeacon of Oxford), and published by the Clar- 
endon Press under the title: H KAINH AIAOHKH. 
The Greek Testament with the Readings adopted 
by the Levisers of the Authorised Version, Oxford, 
1881.’ 7 

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 (2. 6., the edition of Stephens, 
1550)? and of the version of 1611 in foot-notes. 
The Revisers state, in the Preface from the Jerusa- 
lem Chamber (p. xili., 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 has been brought against 
it.” In his Jntrod. ed. iii. p. 637-642, he speaks hesitatingly. In his last 
ed. of the Stephanic text (1887) he records the readings of Westcott and 
Fort, but calls their ed. a “ splendidum peccatum, non κτῆμα εἰς ἀεί "Ὁ 

1 The University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge have also published 
The Parallel New Testument, 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, 

2 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, 


986 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK 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. We 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! 


PRINTED 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 up 
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 fight 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,” ’ 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 


? This is the literal rendering of Tertullian’s well-known “ Semen est 
sanguis Christianorum” (A pologeticus, last chapter). 


988 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


envious traditional learning of the Complutensian 
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 Savia for ‘Iowavia in Rom. xv. 28. 
Robert Stephanus had to flee 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, Matthei. Lachmann was scornfully criticised 
by the learned rationalist, C. F. A. Fritzsche, who 
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” (bepedes asellz), as he rather coarsely called 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK 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 
highly offended at Jerome’s substituting hedera 
(ivy) for cucurbeta (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 new 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, and cast 
into the brook Swift, which, as Fuller says, “ con 


990 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK 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 doe- 
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.’ 
Tyndale himself was strangled and then burned in 
his prison at Vilvorden (Oct. 6, 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 Westcott, Hist. 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 
Késtlin, Martin Luther, i. 607. 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 291 


of our English Bible, and as the man who “ caused a 
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 Bibles 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.’ 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 Revisers—e. g., Dan. iii. 5.” 

I have examined (in the Astor Library) the works of Hugh Broughton ~ 
which were published in London, 1662, 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. 661. It is addressed to the King’s attendant, and begins as 
follows: “ The late Bible (Right Worshipfull) was sent to me to censure, 
which bred in me a sadnesse that will grieve me while 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. 26].” 
He even charges the translators with leaving “atheism in the text.” 
He protests (p. 663): “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 fulmen, 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 1s 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. Even in the enlightened State 
of Connecticut 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 Re- 
vision, Greek and English, to the flames ad majorem 
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 
have since been republished under the title: The Revision Revised, by 
JoHN WILLIAM Bureon, B.D., Dean of Chichester, London, 1883. The 
book is enlarged by a very sharp reply to Bishop Ellicott (as a “'Textual 
Critic,” not as a “ Successor of the Apostles”). The severity of tone is in- 
creased rather than softened, and the Revision is unsparingly condemned, 
in italics, as “the most astonishing, us well as the most calamitous, literary 
blunder of the age” (Preface, p. xi.) Dean Burgon is the author of a 
most elaborate vindication of the genuineness of The Last Twelve Verses 
of the Gospel according to S. Mark, Oxford, 1871 (834 and xv. pages). In 
this work he clearly foreshadowed his animus towards the revision move- 
ment on p. 264, where he says: “I cannot so far forget the unhappy cir- 
cumstances of the times as to close this note without the further sugges- 
tion (sure therein of the approval of our trans-Atlantic brethren [%. e., 
Episcopalian churchmen 7) 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 


994 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


They abound in patristic quotations, polemical skill, 
and oracular assertions. The modern Broughton 
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 Hort 
and of the Revisers (for he regards the two as iden- 
tical) as “utterly untrustworthy,” “entirely undeserv- 
ing of confidence,” and “ demonstrably more remote 
from the Evangelic verity than any which has ever 
yet seen the light.” And as to the English Revision 
(which he 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, 


should be confided to Churchmen. The Church may never abdicate her 
function of being ‘a Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ.’ Neither can 
she, without flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence, ally her- 
self in the work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all may she associ- 
ate with herself in the sacred undertaking 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 ortho- 
dox churchmen as Westcott and Hort, and the whole body of Revisers, 
decided the question of the closing verses of Mark against the “demon- 
stration” of this Doctor irrefutabilis, he regarded this as “a deliberate 
insult to the Majesty of Heaven.” inc ille lacryme. 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 295 


anlovely, 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.”* 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, Hort, 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 


1 See No. 304, p. 368; No. 306, pp. 312, 818. An American Bishop of 
considerable rhetorical culture has taken inspiration as well as comfort 
from the English Dean, and pronounces the style ‘of the Revision to be 
“ wilful Greek and woful English.” 


* 


996 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


would turn the wheels of biblical learning back for 
at least fifty, if not a hundred, years.’ For among 
the readings of the revised text which he rules out 
as utterly untenable by his zpse dzat 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 odzwm theologicum, 
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 ;”* and, 
secondly, that the revised translation has ‘‘ never se- 
riously obscured a single feature of Divine Truth,” 
and that it “ bears marks of an amount of conscien- 
tious (though misdirected) labor which those only 
can fully appreciate who have made fhe same prov- 
ince of study to some extent their own.”* It is a 
pity that he was not taken into the company of Re- 
visers. The discipline and experience 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 transparently foolish than 
such a method, can scarcely be conceived; but it has prevailed for fifty 
years, and is now at last more hotly than ever advocated by Drs. Westcott 
and Hort ” (No. 306, 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. 

* “Quarterly Review,” No. 306, p. 331. 
3 No. 305, p. 63 (Revision Revised, p. 232). 


PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 297 


Westcott 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 Heinrich 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 (Zr 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 New Version against this vehement assault, 
without noticing ‘“flouts and gibes,” and conclude 
with these words:* “It has been the desire of the 
Revisers to bring back the text to its original shape. 
They do not claim the title of discoverers. They 
have done little more 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.” 

Norr.—To this reply the Dean devotes no less than 159 pages in his 
Revision Revised (pp. 369-528). ‘The personal attack on the venerable 
Bishop Ellicott (Archdeacon Palmer is kindly or contemptuously ignored) 
is simply scandalous, and the new defense of the received text in 1 Tim. 


iii. 16 (Sed¢), against the consensus of modern critics is a learned fiasco 
and brutum fulmen. 


' The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by Two Revisers 
of the New Testament Company (London, 1882, 78 pages). 


21 


2998 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 


I may here make a little contribution, from personal inspection during 
the summer of 1884, in addition to the remarks on pp. 199-201. 

On p. 444 Dean Burgon casts doubt on the testimony of the valuable 
Upsala Codex Paul. 73 (Act. 68, bought at Venice by Sparfvenfeld) in favor 
of ὅς (who), and against Sed¢ (God). But on a visit to the University 
Library at Upsala, July 21, 1884, I examined the famous Gothic Codex 
Argenteus, and also Cod. 73, carefully, and found that it reads ὅς as plainly 
as pen and ink can make it. My friend Dr. Myrberg, Professor of Greek 
exegesis in Upsala, who was with me, agreed that there could be no room 
for doubt. The passage in question is on p. 364, about the middle of the 
page. The librarian showed me two letters of inquiry from Dr. Gregory 
(dated Feb. 8 and 21, 1884), called forth by Burgon’s doubts, and in- 
formed me that a photograph of the page containing the reading had 
been sent to him. This testimony is all the more important as Codex 
73 agrees in the Pauline Epistles with the famous Cod. 33 (Gospels, or 
Paul. 17), and contains comments of Chrysostom and Oecumenius from 
the Cetena Patrum. But for this reason it should be transferred from the 
MS. witnesses to the patristic authorities. (See my letter from Upsala 
in the New York “Independent” for Oct. 2, 1884.) 

As to Codex A (Alexandrinus) in the British Museum, on which Bur- 
gon lays so much stress, I examined it again, July 2, 1884, together with 
one of the librarians and Dr. Chambers of New York (one of the Revisers), 
and we came unanimously to the conclusion that it had been tampered 
with, and that the middle and upper strokes in OC (ϑεός) were added by 
a later hand and in different ink. The fac-simile edition issued by the 
authorities of the Museum shows this almost as plainly as the original. 

I may add that Prof. Zahn, in Erlangen, discovered recently two fray- 
ments of a very old (4th-6th century) MS. of First Timothy, in the Egyp- 
tian Museum of the Louvre at Paris, one of which reads in 1 Tim, iii. 16, 
w, that is, ὁ (certainly not ϑεός). Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. Tlichen 
Kanons, vol. iii. (1884), p. 277 sq.: “ Das w in der vorletzten Zeile bedeutet 
sicherlich nichts anderes als 0. Diese bisher nur durch die Lateiner, durch 
andere zweideutige oder zweifelhafte Zeugen und wahrscheinlich durch die 
erste griechische Hand des Claromontanus vertretene Lesart hat hiedurch 
ein sehr altes, echt griechisches Zeugniss fiir sich gewonnen.” 

I was surprised to learn in England, in 1884, from several of the first 
Biblical divines and Church dignitaries, that the Revision Revised, owing 
to the well-known eccentricities and extravagances of the learned au- 
thor, made no impression whatever upon critical scholars, who think that 
it best refutes itself, like the charge of “atheism” and “ popery” which 
was brought against the Authorized Version of 1611, 


‘CHAPTER SEVENTH. 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 
Literature. 


Tue 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. 


Joun Lewis, A.M. (Minister of Margate in Kent, Church of England): 
A Complete History of the Several Translations of the Holy Bible and New 
Testament into English, both in MS. and in Print, etc. London, 1781, 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.” Westcott (1st ed., 
Ρ. 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.” 

Baaster’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” (Westcott). In a later, undated issue of the Hexapla, a 
different account (ascribed to Mr. Anderson) was substituted. 

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. ΚΆΜΕΙ, IRENzUS 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, 1856; new edition, revised by Dr 
Tuomas J, Conant (a member of the Old Testament Revision Company), 
New York (Funk ἃ Wagnalls), 1881. A condensed and popular account, 
continued to the publication of the Revised New Testament (282 pages). 

Brooke Foss Westcortr (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. 

Joun Sroucutron, 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. Mouuron (Wesleyan, and member of the New Testament Re- 
vision Company): History of the English Bible. London (Cassell, Petter, 
& Galpin), 1878. Chiefly a reprint of the author’s articles in Professor 
Plumptre’s “ Bible Educator.” The result of careful comparative study 
of the characteristics of the several versions (232 pages). 

Joun Eaviz, 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 Conpir (Presbyterian, Terre Haute, Ind.): The History 
of the English Bible: Extending from the Earliest Saxon Translations to 
the Present Anglo- American Revision; with 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 (6. g., 
Wittemburgh for Wittenberg, Ximines for Ximenes). 

J. I. MomBert, D.D. (Episcopalian): A Hand-Book 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 Schaff’s “ Rel. Encycl.” 
vol, 1. 731-739. 


II. BrsLioGRAPHICAL WoRKS ON THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 

Rev. Henry Corton (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 Doway. An Attempt to show what has been done by 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 3801 


Roman Catholics for the Diffusion of the Holy Scriptures. Oxford (Uni- 
versity Press), 1855 (8vo, 410 pages). 

W. J. Lorrig, B.A., F.S.A.: A Century of Bibles, or the Authorized Ver- 
sion from 1611 to 1711. London (Basil Montague Pickering, 196 Piccadilly), 
1872 (249 pages). 

The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition MDCCCLXXVIL., or a Bibliograph- 
ical Description of nearly One Thousand Representative Bibles in Various 
Languages Chronologically Arranged, from the First Bible Printed by Guten- 
berg in 1450-1456 to the Last Bible Printed at the Oxford University Press 
the 30th June, 1817. By Henry Stevens (an American residing in Lon- 
don). London (Henry Stevens, 4 Trafalgar Square), 1878. 

For fac-similes 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 1611, 1613, 1617, 1634, 1640. By Francis 
Fry, F.S.A. Illustrated with Titles, and with 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 with 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. Β. O’CALLAGHAN (d. 1880): A List of Editions of the Holy Scriptures 
and Parts thereof, Printed in AMERICA previous to 1860: with Introduction 
and Bibliographical Notes. Albany (Munsell & Rowland), 1861 (415 
pages, royal 8vo). 

JoHN GILMARY SHEA: A Bibliographical Account 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). 


Ill. SraAnDARD 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 Wycliffe and Tyndale. 2d ed., London, 1874, 


302 THE AUTHORIZED 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. JostAH ForsHA.t, F.R.S. (late Fellow of Exeter College), and 
Sir FrEDERIC MappEn, 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 Hexapla, 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 first volume they give a list 
of 770 MSS. (pp. xxxix.-lxiv.). 

3. Modern English: Tyndale. 

New Testament. Tyndale’s First Edition, supposed to have been Printed 
at Worms by Peter Scheffer in 1526; a Fac-simile on Vellum, Illumined, 
heprinted from the Copy in the Baptist College, Bristol. With an Intro- 
duction by Francis Fry. 1862. “Mr. Fry has rendered a great service in 
reproducing this rare volume with so much care and fidelity ” (Stevens). 

The First Printed ENauisH New TestaMEnt. Translated by WILLIAM 
TYNDALE. Photo-lithographed from the Unique Fragment, now in the 
Grenville Collection, British Museum. Edited by E>wArp 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. 908 


Francis Fry, 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 Sotheran & Co., 36 
Piccadilly), 1878, 4to. A magnificent work. (American Bible Society.) 

4, Then followed: CovERDALE’s Bible (1535, etc.); MATTHEW’s Bible 
(Grafton and Whitchurch, 1537, etc.) ; TAVERNER’S (1539) ; “The GREAT 
Brs_e” (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 Bisuors’ 
Bible (“ The Holie Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New: The 
New Testament of our Saviour Jesus Christe. 1568. Richard Jugge. Cum 
Privilegio Regiz Majestatis”). See for full titles and descriptions of these 
versions the bibliographical works above quoted, especially Stevens, 
pp. 68 sqq. 

5. The Authorized Version (King James’s). 

(a) The editio princeps, 1611.—The | Holy | Bible, | Conteyning 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 | Maiesties speciall Commandement. | Appointed to be read 
in Churches. | Imprinted | at London by Robert | Barker, Printer to the | 
Kings most Excellent Maiestie. | Anno Dom.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 (πὴ). 

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 shows, 
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” (printed in very 
small italics), and reads thus; “ The | Newe | Testament of | our Lord and 


904 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


Sauiour | Jesvs Christ. | Newly Translated out of | the Originall Greeke: 
and with | the former Translations diligently | compared and reuised, by 
his | Maiesties speciall Com- | mandement. | Imprinted | at London by 
Robert | Barker, Printer to the | Kinys most Excellent | Maiestie. | Anno 
Dom. 1611.”* 1 have also seen (in the library of the American Bible So- 
ciety) two quarto editions of 1613, 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 1611, differing in every signature, but it is 
unknown which is the first. See Francis Fry, A Description of the Great 
Bible, 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). 

(Ὁ) The Oxford Reprint, 1833.—The folio edition of 1611 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. 

(c) 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 | Authorized English Version, | 
with the text revised by a collation of its early and other | principal editions, | 
the use of the itulic type made uniform, | the marginal references remodelled, | 
and a critical introduction prefixed | by | the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, .Μ.4.. 
LL.D., | Rector of St. Gerrans, Editor of the Greek Testament, Codex 
Augiensis, etc. | one of the New Testament Company of Revisers of the 
Authorized Version. | Edited for the Syndics of the University Press. 
Cambridge (at the University Press), 1873, 4to. 


1 Loftie observes the same fact (/.c. 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 VERSION. 305 


This edition is based upon a comparison of the editions of 1611, 1612, 
1613, 1616, 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.” Revised ed. of the Jntrod. Cambridge, 1884, 

(4) 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 the 
Greek New 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 
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- 


306 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 
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 peo- 
ple 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 ineredible 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 AUTHORIZED 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 AUTHORIZED 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 Rome, 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. Czedmon’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- 


HE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 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 Jolin 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 sv 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 εἰρεσιώνη, 
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 ' traditions; a Physician’s shop (St. Basil calleth 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 Gop, 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 
Gop’s Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, 
Gop’s Word, Gop’s testimony, Gop’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, undefiled, 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. CHRISTOPHER WorDSWoRTH (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 
for 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 Sacré Scripturd’ (Origen, in Epist. ad Roman. c. 1). 
‘ Nihil vacuum, neque sine signo, apud Deum’ (Irenzeus, 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 


* 7. 6.. mouldy. 


ΨΥ  Ψν τὰν 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 9511 


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. Ropertson, 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 Carmel. 
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 Brown 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 


ato 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, 7. e., 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 Gesprdche mit Eckermann, shortly 
before his death): “ We 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.” 

ἨΕΙΝΕΙΟΗ EwAL.p, 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. 1604. When King James L., the 


? Old style, January, 1603. 


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 Christi College, 
Oxford, as the spokesman of the Puritans, proposed 
among other reforms a new translation of the Bible. 
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 hima 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; 


22 


/ 


314 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


“ Dr. 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, 
συστοιχεῖ, is ill translated, ‘bordereth.’ Psa. cv. 28, in the original, ‘ They 
were not disobedient,’ is ill translated, ‘ They were not obedient.’ Psa. evi. 
30, in the original, ‘Phinehas executed judgment,’ is ill translated, 
‘ Phinehas stood up and prayed.’ 

“ Bishop ΟΕ Lonpon.—If every man’s humour might be followed, there 
would be no end of translating. 

“ His Magesty.—lI 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 Lonpon.—But it is fit that no pit Se notes should be 
added thereunto. 

“ His Magesty.—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. 16, 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 
Regno saith, that ‘a king with some weakness is better than still a change;’ 
so rather a church w:th 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 ee 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 well 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, in 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 wonder of the world in this latter age.” 

It 1s 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, Whitgift, 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 which it Pleased 
his Excellent Majestie to have with the Lords, Bishops, and Others of his 
Clergie...inhis Majesties Privie-chamber, at Hampton Court, Jan.14, 1603, 
reprinted in Cardwell, 2. 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. 


Majestie,” 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 was 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 Christi 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 pugne? ubi victus gaudet 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: ‘ Jncertum 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 
haud, probably under the direction of Bancroft, in 
the name of the King, and are as follows:’ 


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 holy 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 ta 
be translated Congregation, etc. 


’ 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. 


818 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 thinketh 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 meéting, 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 diviues 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,’ 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.”* The 
necessary expenses were mostly borne by the printer 
and publisher, Robert Barker, to the extent of £3500.° 
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.* 


1 The translators, in their Preface, call him “the chief overseer and 
ἐργοδιώκτης 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. 4 3 

? Anderson, ii. 381; Westcott, 145 sq. 

* Eadie, ii. 201. Matthew Barker (the son of Robert, citizen and 
stationer of London) paid afterwards £600 for a reversionary 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, farlow, Henry Savile was knighted, 


320 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


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.” He 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- 
drewes, 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 Preces Private (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. Bedwell 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”). 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. 


322 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. He 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 “ Chaldee, 
Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, 
Italian, and Dutch [German] translators or com- 
mentators.” John Selden, who was about twenty- 
five years old when the translation appeared, has 
preserved a significant hint. He 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, ete. ; 
if they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read 
on 2) 1 

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 
Reyna (1569) and De Valera (1602); the Italian that 


1 Published after his death (1654) by his amanuensis, Richard Milward, 
in 1689. I quote from the edition of Edward Arber, London, 1862, p. 20, 
Selden represented the University of Oxford in the Long Parliament. 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 3238 


of Diodati (1607); the “ Dutch” (omitted by Selden, 
but mentioned by the Translators) those of Leo Jude 
(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,’ and the folio edi- 
tion of 1613 again differs from both.’ All three are 
disfigured by numerous and serious typographical 
errors. Translators, editors, and printers are not in- 
fallible,’ 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, Ilxxxvi. sqq. 

2 The Oxford fac-simile 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. 


Nore.—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 thee” for “serve me” (Exod. ix. 13); “ hoops” for “hooks” (Exod. 
XXXvViii. 11); “plaine” 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, where “she” is preferred by Jerome in the Vulgate, ingressa 
est, but the Hebrew verb is masculine, 83"); “ shewed” for “hewed” 
(Hos. vi. 5), etc. 

The folio edition of 1613 varies from the one of 1611 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 fast of the beast” 
for “the fat of the beast” (Lev. vii. 25); “water” for “matter” (1 Sam. 
x. 16); “were” for “year” (2 Kings xxii. 3); “in the throne of David” 
for “in the room of David” (2 Chron. vi. 10); ‘we would not leave” for 
“we would leave” (Neh. 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. 16). 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. ¢ 
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” (Heb. xii. 1); “ Drusilla which was a Jewess” 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 Baskett-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, 1631, 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 
ef 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. lxviii.- 
lxxxvi. 


RECEPTION OF THE NEW VERSION. 


The new version was received with cold indiffer- 
ence by some, and with violent opposition by others.’ 


1 Compare here Trench, On the Authorized 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 mostly unfounded. 


326 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


This is just what the translators expected. They 
begin their Preface to the Reader 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- 
serveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth 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.” 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.” * 

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." Arminians discovered in it ἃ Calvinistic’ 


? See above, pp. 291, 292. 

? Works, vol. i. p. xv., quoted by Eadie, ii. 344. 

* 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 VERSION. 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.’ 
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.”* Arians and Socinians of a later 


Bible, in 1683; 2d ed. 1688; reprinted in Dublin, 1807; with a Preface 
by Lingard, 1810; and with a letter by Milner, 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. 267). The best answer to such 
calumnies is the eulogy of the Authorized Version by such a fervent con- 
vert as Dr. Faber. 

1 Essay towards the Amendment of the Last English Translation of the 
Bible, London, 1659. Gell charged the translators with deliberate mis- 
translation in favor of Calvinism, for inserting the words i 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. 266): “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 « Kaster” 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. 


328 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 flatter King 
James’s notions about witchcraft and demonology, 
on which he wrote a treatise; but all these terms 
occur also in the older versions." With the same 
right republicans might charge them with having 
flattered 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 ~vas accompanied 
with convenient explanatory notes. It continued to, 
be reprinted, even “cum prwvilegio Regiw 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 κυριακόν, 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. 268 sq. 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 329 


the Scripture for lack of the spectacles of those 
Gcnevan annotators.” ’ 

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 Eadie (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 1616, 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 America (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 R. 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 1061, | 


330 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


failed because of the dissolution of the Parlia- 
ment.’ 

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 : " 

“ 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, things 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 2 


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. 
ἢ Church History of Britain, iti, 274, 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 881 


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.’ 

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.” 

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.’ 
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 (/7esh 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, 
_ ? See his letter to Bishop Wordsworth in Notes below, 

* See ante, p, 303 sq. 


832 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


to be equivalent to “authorized,” which came into 
use In 1574.’ 

(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,’ the text is taken 
from the Genevan Version in 27, from the Bishops’ 
Bible in 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.) 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.” * 


1 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. 

? See his article in “ Macmillan’s Magazine” for October, 1881, pp. 440 sqq. 

3 Eadie, ii. 51, 4 So stated by R, Τὶ Davidson, ἐν δ, 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 333 


(4.) The long-continued opposition to King James’s 
Bible, which is an undoubted fact," 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 Mune 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.’ 

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 


? See preceding section, p. 328 sq. 

? See Arch. J. Stephens: The Book of Common Pret (Lond. 1849), 
‘Introd. p. clxix.; and Fr. Procter: A History of the Book of Common 
Prayer (11th ed. Lond. 1874), 116. The Black-letter Prayer-book (1636) 
which contains the MS, alterations and additions made in 1661 was after 
long search discovered in the Library of the House of Lords, and photo- 
zincographed, 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.” ’ 


Nore.—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: 

“ RISEHOLME, LINCOLN, May 25, (1881.) 


“My pEAR Lorp,—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. i 

“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. 
Ifaclergyman 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. 266) 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- 


* See Perry’s Journals of General Conventions, vol, ii, pp. 54, 58, 73, 95, 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 335 


said’ (Wilkins’s Concilia, iv. 328; Cardwell, ‘Documentary Annals, 
No. cv.). 

“As to our present Authorized Version of the Bible, which was first 
printed in 1611 at London by Robert 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 Praver- 
book was displaced, and the translation of them in the Authorized Version 
_ of 1611 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. 

“Tf, 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, 

“T am, my dear Lord, very faithfully yours, 


᾿ 40, LINCOLN, 
“To the Right Hon, the Lord Chancellor,” 


336 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


“30 PoRTLAND-PLACE W., May 27, 1881. 


“My DEAR Lorp,—Lord Carnarvon, finding that the facts were not 
exactly as he understood them to be, decided not to put the question to 
me of which he had given notice. 

“T 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 has 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. 

“Tt 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 1600 to 1613 inclusive were destroyed by a fire at Whitehall on the 
12th of January, 1618 (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 by 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, 


‘HE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 337. 


were ‘now ordered to be read according to the last translation ;’ while as 
to the Psalter, they ‘noted’ 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 1661-2 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 1611, 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 1611 and ever since—~. 6., 
‘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, accustomed to the use of earliest versions, may 
have continued to use them in their sermons or other writings after 1611. 
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 1611 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, 
“ SELBORNE, 

“The Right Rey. 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 


338 THE AUTHORIZED VERSIONS 


to make a good one better, or out 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.’ 
For the idiom and vocabulary Tyndale deserves 
the greatest credit, for the melody and harmony 
Coverdale, for scholarship and accuracy the Geneva 
Version.” 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. 26), decease (Luke ix. 
31), reprobate (Rom. i, 28), impenitent (ii. 5), unction (1 John ii, 20), mys- 
tery (1 Cor. ix. 7), contemptible (2 Cor. x. 10), confess, propitiation, seduce 
(allin 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 Roman 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 Bible Faithfully Translated into 
English out of the Authenticall Latin, etc., 2 vols. 

3 Eadie, i. 802: “ 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 bajdness of fornt 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.’ 

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- 
eal, thongh 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 


Δ “Tt is obvious,” says Dr. Moulton (History of the English Bible, p. 207), 
“that the Genevan and Rhemish 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 60 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, 
1. c. 294 sqq.; Eadie, ii. 16 sqq. 


340 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.’ 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. 13, 20), “contristate” (to make sad, Eph. iv. 30), 
“exinanite” (Phil. ii. 7), “ domestical” (1 Tim. v. 8), “repropitiate” (Heb. 
ii, 17), “ zealatours” (Acts xxi. 20), “ azymes,” “dominator,” “ pasche,” 
“ 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,” μὴ συσχηματίζεσϑε. . . ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσϑε), 
and in Acts xxvi. 28, “Almost thou persuadest me to 
be a Christian” (which cannot be the meaning of 
ἐν ὀλίγῳ, but would require ὀλίγου or παρ᾽ ὀλίγον 
or ὀλίγου δεῖ. 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,) 


949 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


Testament (1 Sam. xxv. 22, 34; 1 Kings xiv.10; 2 
Kings ix. 8; xviii. 27; Isa. xxxvi. 12, οἵ), 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 
“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 μὴ γένοιτο (“ may it not be,” or 
“never happen,” “ far from it,” Luke xx. 16; Rom. 
lil. 4, 6, 81; vi. 2,153 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 “Ais” for “its” (Matt. v.18; Mark ix. 50; 
Luke xiv. 34, etc.); and the connection of the singu- 
lar verb with a plural noun, as “ This people who 
knoweth/ not,” 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”),’ “ bosses” (“‘ knobs”), “ clouts” 


Fast in “shamefast” (=bashful, modest, Eccles. xxvi. 15), and in 
“ shamefastness” (1 Tim. ii. 9), has the same meaning as the German 78, 
and as in “steadfastness.” The Revised Version has returned to “shame- 
fastness” of the Authorized Version of 1611. But “ modesty” would be 
as good a rendering of αἰδώς in 1 Tim. ii. 9, and far more intelligible, at 
least in America. 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 843 


(“ patches”’), “ daysman” (“arbitrator”’), “dulcimer” 
(a musical instrument), “earing” (‘ ploughing”), 
“habergeon” (“coat of mail”), “kine” (the old 
plural of “ cow”), “knop” (“ bud,” compare the 
German Anospe), “ 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 let” (for “to 
hinder”), “to prevent” (for “‘to precede”), “to wit” 
(for “to know”), “atonement” (for “ reconciliation”), 
“by and by” (for “immediately 7), “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’’).’ 

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 ccumenical 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. 


* See The Bible Word-Book: A Glossary of Old English Bible Words, 
by J. Easrwoop and W. Apis Wriau'r, 1866. Also the article of Dr, 
Crosby on Archuisms, in “ Anglo-Amer. Bible Rev.” p. 144 sqq. 


344 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


Nearly all the Continental versions were the pro- 
duction of a single mind—as Luther, Leo Jude, 
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 protomartyr 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 VERSION. 845 


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 HAtuam: “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 JamesI. It may, in the eyes of many, be a better English, 
but it is not the English of Daniel or Raleigh 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). 

GEORGE P. MArsH 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 TrReNcH has a special chapter on the English of the 
Authorized Version (ch. iii.), 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 verborum 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 ; 


24 


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 are 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. Witi1AM Faber. 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 
Suints, p. 116 (prefixed to a Life of St. Francis of Assisi, which forms 
vol, xxv. of the Oratory series of the Lives of Modern Saints), then in the 
“ Dublin Review ” for June, 1853, p. 466, and has often been quoted since, 
sometimes under the name of John H. 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 
car 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. EAptE (ii. 226): “The English style is above all praise. .. . While 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. B47 


it has the falness 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.” 

Joun Sroucuton: “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 uncandid 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. 252 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-book 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. 


No 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 teat, 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.’ 

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 Bezze 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 Schaff’s 
Introduction to the Revision Essays, Ὁ. Xxix.; and Scrivener’s New Testa- 
ment in Greek, pp. 648-656. 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 in thirty or forty places, where the variations 
are mostly trivial, a) 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 849 


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 Ephrem, 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). 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 


1 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.’ 

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 
Vulgate 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 Vulgate, 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 ὦ virgin 
and ¢he virgin, @ mountain and ¢he 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, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, A!- 
Jord, and the Uncial MSS, Second edition, London (Bagster & Sons), n, ἃ, 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 351 


and the feast, a falling away and the falling away, 
a confession and the confession, ὦ fight and the fight, 
@ crown and the crown; the Son of God and a Son 
of God, the woman and ὦ woman, the root of all evil 
and ὦ 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,ete.). “A 
law” is a rule or principle, natural or revealed ; while 
“the law” is the written law of Moses. ‘ Zhe many” 
(οἱ πολλοί) is used by Paul in Rom. v. repeatedly in 
the sense of “all,” as distinct from ‘the one” (6 εἴς, 
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 “ ὦ root of all kinds of evil,” 
but 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. 255 viii. 233° tm. 2a 
ΧΙ]. 41; ΧΙ. 42; xix.14; xxiii. 24; xxiv. 12; Mark 
iv. 21; Luke vii.5; viii. 6,7; xvii.17; xviii. 11,15; 
John iii. 10; vi. 4; xii. 36,46; xviii. 8, ὅ, 1ὅ ; Acts 
.1.18,11: iv.12; Rom. v. 2,9, 15, 17, 19 (οἱ πολλοῦ; 
1 Cor. v.9; vii. 17; ix.5; 2 Cor. vii. 8; x.9; Col. i. 
19; 2 Thess. ii.38; 1 Tim. vi. 12,13; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8; 
Heb. xi. 10; Rev. vii. 14. 

Examples of wrong insertion of the definite arii- 
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, δικαίους); xxvi. 74; 
xxvii. 54; John iv. 27 (μετὰ γυναικός, the wonder of 
the disciples was that Christ should, contrary to 
Rabbinical custom, converse not with that particu- 
lar woman of Samaria, but with @ woman or any 
woman); xvii. 19; Acts xxvi. 2; Rom. ii. 14 (ἔϑνη, 
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 ἡ ἁμαρτία and ὃ Sava- 
τος, “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 ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὁ Παῦ- 
Aoc); while the English and German require the 
omission. In Greek, countries (and cities) have the 
article (ἡ Γαλατία, ἡ ᾿Ιταλία), but not in English, except 
when the place is qualified by an adjective (6. ¢., ‘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.” 

(ὁ) 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, and 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 euphony and rhythm 


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,' or narrative tense, which expresses a mo- 
mentary and completed act or event; (2) the /m- 
perfect, a descriptive and relative tense, denoting 
an action which is either contemporaneons, 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 (J went, J wrote), the Perfect by the Per- 
fect (7 have gone, I have written), the Imperfect by 
the use of the auxiliary verb (J was going, I was 
writing), the Pluperfect by the Pluperfect (J had 
gone, 1 had written). 

Justice requires that this distinction should be re- 
produced at least in all cases where the sense is affect- 


? Aorist, ἡ, ¢., indefinite, is properly a misnomer, unless it signifies the 
indefinite relation of this tense to the other tenses, 


THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 355 


ed. 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, 6. g., Matt. xxv. 8, ai λαμπάδες ἡμῶν 
σβέννυνται, “ our lamps are going out,” not “are gone 
out;” 2 Cor. iv. 3, ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, “in those 
who are perishing,” not “are lost.” 

The Present mistranslated by the simple Past: 
Heb. ii. 16, ἐπιλαμβάνεται, “ he takes hold,” not “took 
on him;” Rev. xii. 2, κράζει, * 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, δεδιωγμένοι, “they that have been persecuted,” 
not “are persecuted ;” Gal. ii. 20, συνεσταύρωμαι, “ I 
have been crucified with Christ,” not “I am cruci- 
fied.” 

The Aorist misrendered by the Present: Matt. xv. 
94, ἀπεστάλην, “I was sent,” not “Iam sent;” 1 Cor. 
xii. 18, ἐβαπτίσϑημεν, “ we were baptized,” not “are 
baptized;” Rom. vi. 2, οἵτινες ἀπεϑάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, 
“we who died to sin” (at our conversion and bap- 
tism), not “are dead ;” so also ver. 7 and 8; Gal. ii. 
19, διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ge Sabay. “ 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, 
εἴρηκα, “I have said,” not “said. - 

The Aorist misrendered by the Perfect: Matt. ii. 


356 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


2, εἴδομεν, “ we saw,” not “have seen ;” Luke vii. 5, 
ακοδόμησεν, “he budlt us our synagogue,” not “ he 
hath built ;”’ John i. 16, ἐλάβομεν, “ we received,” not 
“have received ;” ili. 33, ἐσφράγισεν, “ he sealed ;” 
ver. 34, ἀπέστειλεν, “he sent ;” viii. 52, ἀπέϑανε, “ he 
died ;” Rom. ii. 12; iii. 23; v. 12, ἥμαρτον, “ they 
sinned,” not “have sinned;” vii. 6, ἀποθανόντες, 
“having died,” not “ being dead;” 2 Cor. v. 14, εἷς 
ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέϑανεν, ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέϑανον, “ one 
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, ἐκάλουν, “they were calling,” not “called ;” 
v. 6, διερήσσετο τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν, “their nets were 
breaking,” not “brake ;” vili. 23, συνεπληροῦντο, 
“they were filling with water,” for “they were 
filled ;” xviii. 3, ἤρχετο, “she kept coming,” or “she 
came oft,” to the unjust judge, for “she came;” 
ver. 13, ἔτυπτε τὸ στῆϑος αὐτοῦ, “he kept smiting his 
breast,” for “smote” (retained in the Revised Ver- 
sion); John vi. 17, ἤρχοντο, “they were goug,” for 
“they went;” Gal. i. 13, ἐπόρϑουν, “1 was destroy- 
ing” (attempted to destroy), not “destroyed” or 
“‘ wasted ;” so also ver. 23. 

(c) The prepositions are often confounded or mis- 
translated. Thus ἐν is indiscriminately rendered 
“in,” “within,” “among,” “through,” “ with,” 
“by,” “at,” “under,” “into,” “unto,” “toward,” 
οἷο, ; 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, ἐν Χριστῷ "Ino. ; xiv. 14, ἐν κυρίῳ Ἴη- 
gov; xv. 17; 1 Cor. xii. 3, 9,13); while in other pas- 
sages it is correctly rendered (as Rom. viii. 1,2; ix.1; 
ΧΙ]. 5, etc.). Εἰς is variously translated “into,” “to,” 
“unto,” “toward,” “upon,” “among,” “ through- 
out,” “by,” “with,” “against,” “ till,’ ‘ until.” 
Both prepositions, the one expressing vest in, the 
other motion into, are sometimes confounded, as in 
Luke ii. 14, “ towards men” for “among men” (ἐν 
avSpwroic), and vice versa, as in the baptismal for- 
mula, Matt. xxviii. 19, “in the name,” instead of 
“into” (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) ; Luke xvi. 8; xxiii.42. The 
omission of the preposition in 2 Pet. i. 5-7 (ἐν τῇ 
πίστει---ν τῇ γνώσει), turns the organic development 
of the Christian graces and their causal dependence 
one upon another into a mechanical accumulation. 
In 1 Pet. ii. 12 and iii. 16, ἐν ᾧ is rendered “ where- 
as,” instead of “ wherein.” Rom. xi. 2, we have 
“of Elias,” instead of “in (the history of) Elijah” 
(ἐν ᾿Ηλίᾳ). The instrumental διά with the Genitive, 
“through,” and the causal διά with the Accusative, 
‘because of ” or “on account of,” are likewise con- 
founded—e. g., Gal. iv. 13 (δι ἀσϑένειαν, 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; Rom. iii. 25 
(διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν, because of the pretermission or 
passing by); 1 Cor. vii.5. The distinction between 
ἀπό, “away from” (=ab), ἐκ, “out of,” ὑπό, “from 
under,” “ by,” παρά, “ from beside,” is often disre- 


358 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


garded. The same is true of the difference between 
urd, which signifies the remote agency or source, 
and διά, 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. g., Matt. i. 22 (τὸ pnSiv 
ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου); 11. 5,17, 23; ii. 3; 
ἷν. 14, ete. In 2 Cor. ν. 20, ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, “in behalf 
of Christ,” is falsely rendered “in Christ’s stead” 
(as if it were ἀντί). 

(α) The same inaccuracy meets us in the render- 
ing of pronouns, conjunctions, and adverbs. “ But” 
is used indiscriminately for ἀλλά, yap, ἐάν, εἰ μή, 
ἐκτός, ἤ, μέντοι, ἐὰν μή, μόνον, οὖν, πλήν. ‘The con- 
nective δέ (and and but) is rendered indifferently by 
“and,” “now,” ‘“ but,” “then,” ‘ nevertheless,” 
“ moreover,” “ notwithstanding,” or dropped alto- 
gether. In Gal. ii. 20, the Greek ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ 
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 οὖν (so then), 
the adversative ἀλλά (but), and the simple continua- 
tive or retrospective οὖν (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 


ϑέως, which is Mark’s favorite adverb, and well 
expresses the rapidity of his motion, is variously 
rendered “straightway,’ “immediately,” “ forth- 
with,” “as soon as,” “anon,” “ by and by,” “shortly.” 

(ὁ) 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, archeology, 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.’ 


52 “ 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 


360 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 thing 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. But that we should 
express the same notion in the same particular word—as, for example, if 
we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it 
intent ; if one where journeying, never travelling ; if one where think, never 
suppose; if one where pain, never ache ; 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 greatly 
moved, that one of newfangleness called κράββατον σκίμπους, though 
the difference be little or none; and another reporteth that he was much 
abused for turning cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) 
into hedera, 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 Bible always, and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be ban- 
ished for ever, we might be taxed peradventure 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— 
6. g., 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 Version varies simply for the 
sake of variation in a great many cases where faith- 
fulness to the original absolutely requires the same 
word. Thus αἰώνιος is rendered “ eternal” and 
“everlasting” in one and the same verse (Matt. xxv. 
46); ἐπίσκοπος 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, Prepuce, 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, 

; 20 


362 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


17); πάσχα is correctly translated “ Passover,” but 
in Acts xii. 4 “ Easter” (which did not exist in the 
apostolic age); καταλλαγή is now “atonement” 
(Rom. v. 11), now “ reconciling” (xi. 15), now “ rec- 
onciliation ” (2 Cor. v. 18, 19); παράκλητος, when 
used of the Holy Spirit, is “comforter” (John xiv. 
16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7), but when used of Christ, 
“advocate” (1 John ii. 1); Ἕλλην is now “ Greek,” — 
now “Gentile;” ἀποκάλυψις is “ revelation,” “ man- 
ifestation,” “ coming,” and “appearing ;” ϑρόνος is 
“throne” and ‘“seat;”’ πρόσκομμα is “ offence,” 
stumbling,” “stumbling-block,” and “stumbling- 
stone.” Λόγος has no less than twenty-three ren- 
derings in the English Version, τύπος eight, ὄχλος 
six, παιδίσκη five, πόλεμος three, χρεία nine, ψυχή 
four, καταργέω seventeen, μένω ten, παρίστημι six- 
teen, φέρω 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 Agar and Hagar, Elijah 
and Elias, Elisha and Eliseus, Gedeon and Gideon, 
Isaiah, Esaias, and Esay, Jeremiah, Jeremias, and 
Jeremy, Hosea 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 Heb. 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 umportant distinctions by using one and the 
same word for two or more Greek and Hebrew 
words which convey different meanings. 

Thus the words ‘* Hades” (2. 6., the spirit-world) 
and ‘“Gehenna” (the place of the lost) are both 
translated by “hell,” which occurs twice as often 
in the English New Testament as it ought. Every 
᾿ς little “demon” (δαίμων, δαιμόνιον) or evil spirit is 
raised ‘to the dignity of a “devil,” although there is 
but one διάβολος. 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 ζῶα and Snpia of the 
Apocalypse, both rendered “ beasts”), between a 
“crown” and a “diadem” (στέφανος and διάδημα), 
“servants” and “ bondmen” (διάκονοι and δοῦλοι, in 
the parable Matt. xxii. 1-14, where the former are 
angels, the latter men) is obliterated. The word 
“child” is used for no less than seven Greek words 
(βρέφος, babe, νήπιος, infant, παῖς, boy, slave, παιδίον, 
little child, παιδάριον, little boy, τέκνον, child, vide, 
son), “ conversation ” for three (ἀναστροφή, τρόπος, 
πολίτευμα), “ world” for two (κόσμος and αἰών, age), 
** Godhead ” for three (ϑειότης, τὸ ϑεῖον, Sedrn¢), 
“people” for four (λαύς, δῆμος, ἔϑνος, ὄχλος), “ tem- 
ple” for three (vadc, ἱερόν, οἶκος), “ light” for six 
(φῶς, φέγγος, λύχνος, λαμπάς, φωστήρ, φωτισμός), 
“repent” for two verbs (μετανοέω, to change one’s 


364 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


mind, and μεταμέλομαι, to regret, used of Judas, 
Matt. xxvii. 3), * worship” for six (εὐσεβέω, ϑεραπεύω, 
λατρεύω, προσκυνέω, σεβάζομαι, σέβομαι), “ 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 idiosyn- 
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 De 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.’ 

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 Joh. Fr. von Meyer, 
Stier, De Wette, H. A. W. Meyer, Weizsicker, and 
the official revision of Luther’s Version (the Probe- 


* Canon Cook, the editor of The Speaker’s Commentary (London, 10 
vols., 1871-1882) claims fur his contributors to have “anticipated, both 
in conception and execution, the purpose of the Revisea 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 Lange's 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 nearly 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. 1864) it is about one 
half; in the Gospel of John (published 1871) two thirds to three fourths; 
in Romans (1869), Galatians, and Ephesians (1870), more than two thirds. 
See Dr. Riddle’s detailed statement in the American edition of Dr. Rob- 
erts’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, 


3866 THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 


bibel, 1883). The number of English versions is 
much larger, and began as early as the last century 
with Campbell (the Gospels, 1788), Macknight (the 
Epistles, 1795), Archbishop Newcome (1796). From 
the present century we have several translations 
of widely differing merits, by Charles Thomson 
(1808), John Bellamy (1818), Noah Webster (New 
Haven, 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 
xvill. 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 Μο- 
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),' the Gospel 


1 The Old Testament was translated by Dr. F. W. Gotch and Dr. Benja- 
min Davies; the New 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, Rev. 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, R. L. Clarke, 5. R. 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 
Revisers, as far as the idiom and the reverential 
handling of the Authorized Version is concerned.’ 


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. 

*The London Times, in ἃ semi-official article of May 20, 1881, says of 


8608 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 the English Language, 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—viz., 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. 859 


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 W. Sel- 
wyn (1856), 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. 


? Preface to his Revised Version of the New Testament, p. vi. 


810 THE REVISED VERSION. 


This is the object of the Anglo-American Revision 
movement, which began in 1870, and was completed, 
the New Testament in the year 1881, the Old Testa- 
ment in 1885. 

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. 
THE REVISED VERSION. 


Literature. 
_I. Eneuisu Epirions, 


The | New Testament | 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 | Oaford 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, Greek 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 


$72 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 & BrorHers, New York, 1881. Three editions in different sizes, 
one in Pica, Demy 8vo (pp. 652), which precisely corresponds to the 
Oxford edition except that the American renderings of specific passages 
are 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 Greek text 
with the Revised Version on opposite pages.) 

Forps, Howarp, & HuLpert, New York, 1881 (Long Primer, crown 
8vo). Edited by Rev. Roswell Ὁ. 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.” 

Rurus WENDELL (“Minister of the Gospel”), Albany, N. Y., 1882 
(pp. 616). 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. 

HussarpD Broruers, 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 Socrery, Philadelphia, 1881. With 
this prefatory notice: “In this edition the changes suggested by the 


THE REVISED VERSION. 873 


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.” 

Propie’s Epirion. 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 S. Hoyt, 
D.D., American Editor of Angus’s Handbook of the Bible. With more 
than one hundred engravings. New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1881 
(Methodist Episcopal Book Concern). 

Porter & CoarTEs, Philadelphia, 1881 and 1882. Comparative Edition. 
The Authorized Version and the Revised Version in parallel columns. 

Funk ἃ WAGNALLS, New York, 1882. Teachers’ 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. 

Dopp, Meap, & Co., New York, 1881. Two editions, one with the 
Authorized Version and the Revised Version on opposite pages. 

AMERICAN TRAcT Socrery, New York, 1881. Same as Dodd and 
Mead’s. i 

Other editions by Lez & SHeParD (Boston); LotrHropr & Co. (Bos- 
ton); Henry Britt Pusiisuine Company (Norwich, Conn.); A. J. Hot- 
MAN & Co. (Philadelphia, several editions); ZrmGLER & Co. (Philadelphia 
and Chicago); SCAMMELL & Co. (St. Louis); LeGco Brorners ἃ Co. 
(New York); GeorGE Munro (in the “Seaside Library,” New York, 
1881, with Tischendorf’s Tauchnitz edition of the Authorized Version) ; 
R. Wortuincton (New York); AMERICAN Book ExcuancE (New York, 
defunct) ; CauL, CALKINS, ἃ Co. (Chicago), etc., etc. 


III, CoNCORDANCES OF THE REVISED VERSION, 


A Complete Concordance to the Revised Version of the New Testament, 
embracing the Marginal Readings of the English Revisers as well as those 
of the American Committee. By John Alexander Thoms, London (W. 
H. Allen & Co., 18 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 REVISED 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. 441 pages). Republished from English plates by 
D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1882. 

The compilers say in the Preface that they “ hegan 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 Greék 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 entirely 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 New 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. Lond. 1859), Bishop Etiicorr (Considerations on the Revision 
of the English Version of the New Testament, Lond. 1870), and Dr. (now 


THE REVISED VERSION. 375 


Bishop) Licutroor (On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, 2d ed. 
Lond. 1871); authorized American edition, in 1 vol., with introduction 
by Puitip Scuarr, 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. 

WiLuiAM 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 Altered by Transmission and 
Ascertained by Modern Criticism. Edinburgh, 1873 (262 pages). 

W. MILiar Nicotson, 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). 

Anglo-American Bible Revision, by members of the AMERICAN REVISION 
CommMITTEE. Philadelphia (American Sunday-School Union) and New 
York (42 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 republished in 
England, by Nisbet & Co., and by the “London Sunday-School Union,” 
under the title: Biblical Revision, its Necessity and Purpose. London (56 
Old Bailey), 1879 (186 pages). 

B. Works published after the publication of the Revision (1881). 

(a) Friendly criticisms by Revisers and others, 

Auex. Rogerts, 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, ἃ Co., 
and jointly by Funk & Wagnalls), 1881 (213 pages), 

FREDERICK Fi«exp, M.A., LL.D, (Member of the O. T. Revision Com- 
pany): Otium Norvicense. Notes on Select Passages of the Greek Testa- 
ment, Oxford, 1881. Scholarly and able. 

The New Revision and its Study. By Members of the American Revision 
Committee (Drs. ABBoT, RippLE, Dwicut, THAYER, KENDRICK, CROSBY), 
Reprinted from “ Sunday-School Times,” Philadelphia, 1881 (107 pages). 

Dr. SamuEL Newru (Princ. New College): Lectures on Bible Revision, 
London, 1881. 

G. Vance Smirn: Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament 
affecting Theological Doctrine. London, 1881 (51 pages). 


376 THE REVISED VERSION. 


B. H. Kennepy (Canon of Ely; Hon. Fellow of St. John’s College, 
Cambridge; Member of the N. T. Revision Company): The Lly Lectures 
on the Revised Version of the New Testament. Lond. 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 theologicus,” 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.” 

The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament. By Two Mem- 
bers of the New Testament Company [Bishop ELticorr and Archdeacon 
PALMER]. 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. 

Epwarp Byron Nicuouson, M.A.: Our New New Testament. An 
Explanation of the Need 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. CHARLES SHort (Professor in Columbia College, New York, and 
Member of the N. T. Revision Company): The New Revision of King 
James’ Revision of the New Testument. 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. Vaueuan, D.D. (Dean of Llandaff, and Master of the Temple, 
Member of the N. T. Revision Company): Authorized or Revised? WSer- 
mons on Some of the Texts in which the Revised Version Differs from the 
Authorized. 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. 2,11, 24; Luke xxi. 16-19; Col. ii. 18, 23; Phil. ii. 5-10; 
Heb. x. 19-22; Rom. v. 18, 19; Col. iii. 1-4; John vi. 12; 1 Pet. i. 13; 
Heb. xii. 17; Eph. ν. 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 »ne 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 unity 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, than the Bible tenaciously clung to by the 
English Episcopalian.” 

Rev. W. A. OsBorNE (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. 
“T 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 Fathers, 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. Humpury, 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.), 1882 (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. 

(Ὁ) In opposition to the Revision. 

[Dean Jounn WiLL1AmM Burcon, B.D.]: Three Articles on New Testa- 


26 


378 THE REVISED VERSION. 


ment Revision in the London “Quarterly Review” for October, 1881, Jan- 
uary, and April, 1882. Republished under the author’s name in The Re- 
vision Revised. London (John Murray), 1883 (549 pages). The book is 
enlarged by a reply to Bp. Ellicott in vindication of the traditional read- 
ing of 1 Tim. iii. 16. By far the most learned, able, and vigorous as well 
as the most sweeping and intemperate attack on the Revised Text and 
Version. See above, pp. 119 sq. and 293 sqq. 

Sir EpMunp Beckett: Should the Revised New Testament be Au- 
thorized? London, 1882 (194 pages). Condemns with more wit than 
learning the English style of the R. V., and prefers even the “ beasts,” for 
ζῶα, Rev. iv. 6. The ablest attack on the R. V. by a layman. 

G. WASHINGTON Moon, F.R.S.L.: The Revisers’ English. With Phows- 
graphs 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. He severely criticises the Revision 
according to the strict rules of modern grammar; but most of the de- 
partures which he condemns are found in the old version and sustained 
by classical usage. The book is amusing, and not without some good 
points. 

F. C. Coox, 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 
Tov πονηροῦ (“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. Leary (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). 

Roserr Youne, LL.D. (author of the Analytical Concordance of the 
Bible): Contributions to a New 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 Reyision.” 


THE REVISED VERSION. 379 


Dr. S.C. Maan: Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881 revised; and 
Select Readings, etc., revised. London, 1881-82. 

Dr. ἃ. W. 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 Ages and Churches. Cambridge, Mass. 
(132 pages). A curious anachronism. The “blind” 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 ff). 

(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 Leary), London (Hatchards, 
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 Bibliotheca 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. 

ADDITIONAL (since 1883). 

Ex1As Ries: Suggested Modifications of the Revised Version, Ando- 
ver, 1883 (94 pages). Friendly and valuable. 

Fr. T. Basserr: An Examination of some of the more important Texts 
in the New Testament that relate to the Deity of our Lord, etc. London, 
1883. Charges Revisers with an “ Arianizing” tendency for not admit- 
ting μονογενὴς Θεός into the text, John i. 18. See notice in “ Church 
Quarterly Review ” for October, 1883, pp. 209 sq. 

DanixeL R. Goopwin (Prof. in the Episcopal Divinity School, Phila.) : 
Notes on the Late Revision of the New Testament. N. Y., 1883 (212 pages). 
He approves of the changes of text, but objects to many renderings. 

B. F. Wesroort, D.D.: Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New 
Testament. Several articles in “ The Expositor ” for 1887. Very valuable. 
He says: “ Most of the popular objections to the separate are either 
altogether groundless, or outweighed by corresponding gains, 


380 THE REVISED VERSION. 


THE ACTION OF THE CONVOCATION 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 REVISED 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. 8. 
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 effeet— 


“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 ¢losely followed. . 

“5, That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of 
its own members to undertake 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.” . 


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 Bishops’ 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 REVISED VERSION. 383 


eight Presbyters,' 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: 


“Reso_veD: 1. 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 Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay. 

“TII. That the company for the revision of the Authorised Version of 
the New Testament consist of the Bishops of Winchester,? Gloucester and 
Bristol,? and Salisbury,‘ and of the following members from the Lower 
House, the Prolocutor,> the Deans of Canterbury ὁ and Westminster,’ and 
Canon Blakesley. 

“TV. 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 portion 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 Hervey). 

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. 

3 Dr. Wilberforce. 3 Dr. Ellicott. * Dr. Moberly. 

5 The Very Rev. Edward Bickersteth, 6 Dean Alford. 

7 Dean Stanley, 


384 THE REVISED VERSION. 


ALEXANDER, Dr. W.|FIexp, Rev. F. PEROWNE, Professor J. 
L. GinsBuRG, Dr. H. 

CHENERY, Professor. Gorcu, Dr. PLumptTRE, Professor. 

Cook, Canon. Harrison, Archdea-| Pusey, Canon. 

Davipson, Professor A.| con. Wricut, Dr. (British 
B. LEATHES, Professor. Museum). 

Davies, Dr. B. McGi11, Professor. Wrieut, W. A. (Cam- 

FAIRBAIRN, Professor. | PAYNE Smit, Canon.’ bridge).? 


“VII. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join the 
New Testament Company: 


Aneus, Dr. LigutTFoot, Dr. Scorr, Dr. ( Balliol 
Brown, Dr. Davin. MILuIiGANn, Professor. College). 

Dustin, Archbishop of.| Moutron, Professor. | ScRIVENER, Rev. F. H. 
ἜΑΡΙ, Dr, Newnan, Dr. J. H. Sr. ANDREW’s, Bishop 
Hort, Rev. F. J. A. Newru, Professor. of. (Dr. Wordsworth.) 
Humpney, Rev. W. G. | Ropers, Dr. A. TREGELLES, Dr. 
KENNEDY, Canon. Smiru, Rey. G. VANCE, | VAUGHAN, Dr, 

Lex, Archdeacon. Wesrcort, Canon.® 


? Afterwards Dean of Canterbury. 

? The following gentlemen were afterwards added to the Old Testament 
Company: Mr. R. L. Bensly, Prof. Birrell, Dr. Chance, Rev. Th. K. Cheyne, 
Principal Douglas, Dr, Driver, Prof. Geden, Prof. Lumby, Prof.W Robertson 
Smith, Prof. Weir, Prof. W. Wright, making the total number of members 
thirty-seven.—Bishops Thirlwall and Ollivant, Canon Selwyn, Archdeacon 
Rose, Drs. Fairbairn, McGill, Weir, and Davies, and Prof. Chenery died dur- 
ing 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 few 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 1876, 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. 

“5, 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. 

“6, 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. 

“TX, 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. 

“ΦΧ, 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 
corréctions proposed in the portion agreed upon for consideration. 

“ May 25th, 1870. S. Winton., Chairman,” * 


ing members of the New Testament Company varied from twenty-four 


to twenty-eight. 
1 Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester. The general and special 


386 THE REVISED VERSION. 


These resolutions were faithfully carried out, with 
the exception of the revision of the chapter-head- 
ings (vill. 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 be- 
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- 
ties 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, 24 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, 18 in the New Tes- 
tament Company), seven Presbyterians, four Inde- 
pendents (or Congregationalists), two Baptists, two 
Wesleyans (or Methodists) and one Unitarian.’ 


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 
VIL.) 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 among sub - committees, 
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 1880." 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, 11th 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,’ 
“than the Chamber of Jerusalem, the fairest in the 
Dean’s lodgings, where King Henry IV. 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 OCircuin- 


? Wilberforce, Alford, Tregelles, Eadie. Dean Stanley died a few 
months after the publication (July, 1881). 
3 Church History of Britain, book xi., cent. xvii., A.D. 1643. 


ΠῚ 


ΤΠ 


ἶ Ν .1 ay, 


” = me “1 a i) 
x rae te 


SSS 
SS SSS 


Ὁ 


i 


a 
Gq 
τῇ 
μα 
& 
4 
Ω 
-- 
> 
< 
& 
& 
£ 
= 
5 
ζ 
μὰ 
m= | 
»- 
Ζ 
na 
a! 
Bf 
Es 
> 
[ 
[5] 
B 
a] 


cies 
Welt 
ATE wk 


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 fire of the hearth—then a rare luxury in Eng- 
Jand—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.’ 


ea 


11 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 


390 THE REVISED VERSION. 


The Revision of the New Testament was finished 
in November, 1880, just five hundred years after 
the first complete translation of the whole Bible 
into English by Wiclif, whose memory was cele- 
brated in that year. The Revision of the Old Testa- 
ment was completed in December, 1884, and will 
be published by the English University Presses in 
May, 1885. 

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 
known,” says Dr. Scrivener,’ “ 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 Homiletic Quarterly for October, 1881, p. 512. 


THE REVISED 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.” The invitation was unsolicited, and was 
no doubt prompted by genuine feelings of kind- 
ness and courtesy, which characterized all the sub- 
sequent correspondence. It was at the same time 
good policy. For the American churches have 
too much self-respect and sense of independence to 


1 Documentary History of the American Committee on Revision. Prepared 
by order of the Committee for the use of the Members, N. York, 1885 (186 pp.). 
Of this book (compiled by the President, P. S.) only 100 copies were printed 
for the Revisers, but an extract of it, entitled: Historical Account of the Work 
of the American Revisers, N. York (Ch. Scribner’s Sons), 1885, was sent to 
each subscriber to the Memorial ed. of the R. V. of the O. T. in May, 1885. 

? 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 two English 
Companies on the rules that had been already laid down in this country,” 


27 


[2] 


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 Dr. Schaff 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),’ 
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 Re- 
yision becomes authorized by the action of the churches, 


THE REVISED VERSION. 393 


out one and the same Revision for both countries. 
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 man- 
agement of the general interests of the two Com- 
panies, which held joint meetings from time to time. 
The former was to conduct the foreign correspond- 
ence. Ex-president Dr. Woolsey, of New Haven, 
was elected permanent chairman of the New Testa- 
ment Company, Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, 
chairman of the Old Testament Company. The 
American and British Committees exchanged the 
results of their labors in confidential communica- 
tions. 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 


394 ‘THE REVISED VERSION. 


Canterbury, under the fifth resolution. The Amert- 
can churches were not consulted, except the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church, which, for reasons not 
stated, declined to act officially." 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 Dr. Schaff, 
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, 
issued by the American Committee after the completion of the whole 
work, contains the official correspondence, 


THE REVISED VERSION. 395 


pected to make monthly journeys to New 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.’ 

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- 


* See the list of members in Appendix ΠῚ, 


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. Hackett, Henry 
B. Smith, Charles Hodge, and Professor James Had- 
ley) had died before the work was completed; two 
(the 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. Their final account forms a part of the Doc- 
umentary History which was printed for the use of 
the Revisers in 1885. 


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-operate with them, shall be composed of biblical scholars 
and divines in the United States. 

“TI, This Committee shall have the power to elect its officers, to add 
to its number, and to fill its own vacancies. 

“TTI. The officers shall consist of a President, a Corresponding Secre- 
tary,and a Treasurer.! The President shall conduct the official corre- 
spondence with the British Revisers. ‘The Secretary shall conduct the 
home correspondence, 

“TV. New members of the committee and corresponding members 
must be nominated at a previous meeting, and elected unanimously by 
ballot.” 

ΕΥ̓, The American Committee shall co-operate with the British Com- 
panies on the basis of the principles and rules of Revision adopted by 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.” * 


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 acted as treasurer till the 
close. He was also treasurer of the American Bible Society till 1886, 
The "expenses of the Committee were all met, mostly from the sale of 
Memorial copies of the Revised Scriptures bought from the English Uni- 
versity Presses, and imported free of duty by a special act of Congress. 

* 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 REVISED 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 New 
Testament in this country, which has no parallel 
in the history 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. 9090 


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 Syndies 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, 
1873, 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- 
panies, and vice versa. 


400 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. AOL 


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 probably 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 


402 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 
($100,000) 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: 2 2s protected by law in England, it is free 
on America. 

The American Revisers have been blamed in some 
quarters for abstaining from the publication of an 
authorized American edition, and exposing even their 
ewn 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 VERSION. 403 


unlimited license of unauthorized publications in 
America; but the Authorized Version is exposed 
to the same danger, and the success of any edition 
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 Revised 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 
‘modern facilities which the printing-press arid 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 few thousand hearers 
on the hills of Galilee and in the temple court at 
Jerusalem, while the Greek and Roman world out- 
side of Palestine were ignorant of His very exist- 


404 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.’ 
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.’ 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 Revised 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 (Zhe Tribune and The Times) had 
- the book telegraphed to them from New York, and 
sent it to their readers two days after publication, at 
a distance of nine hundred and seventy-eight miles.’ 


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, The 
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 


ANG 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 hon- 
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. Making 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 manyfold 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 REVISED 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 Re- 
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 were 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 $16; 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, $175; Tur- | 
key morocco, circuit, gilt edges, $2 50; Levant, $4, Brevier, 16mo, cloth, 


28 


408 THE REVISED VERSION. 


limp, red edges, 50 cents; Levant, $5 25. Long primer, 8vo, cloth, boars, 
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 was 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 its 
revision. ... 


“THE BIBLE IN WALL STREET. 


“Tt 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 Wall 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 
slowly 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 day 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,’ of Thomas 
Nelson & Son, Bleecker Street, said that orders continued to flow in on 
pretty much the same scale as on Friday. He had been compelled to 
decline new orders unless the persons ordering consented to wait their 
turns. He 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 $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 five 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.—£d. } 


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; and 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 Observer, 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 by 
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 Press, came in two lots, one by the 
steamer Montreal into New York, and the other by the Lord Clive 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 8. A. George & Co., is making seven sets; A. J. 
Holman & 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 the 
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. 


ences to the will of the majority.’ 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.” ’ 

The first 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, 
tlte conservatives for fewer, departures from the old 


1 The Bishop of Salisbury, himself one of the Revisers, says (in his 
Charge, 1882, p.18): “The Version as it stands does not exhibit the real 
judgment of any of the Revisers. Each one was, many times, outvoted in 
points which he greatly valued.” 

? 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 “ whiches” 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- 
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 
suocked 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 Version 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 
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, it must in all fairness be admitted that it is 
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 first 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 
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 


Τὴ “ The Church Quart. Review” for 1883, p.345; comp. the conclusion, 
p.868, where the critic protests “against the absolute indecorum of assailing 
the work of these distinguished scholars with words of disrespect and con- 
tumely,” 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 Εἰ, 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 
century 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. No one can tell 
whether, when, and how it will act. Three ways 
are open—to reject, to recommit, 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, by its own 
merits, 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. But the English Companies have dis- 
banded, and are not likely to meet again. 

The non-episcopal denominations are more free 
to use the Revision, even without ἘΡΘΟΙΑΙ 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 would be well to revise the Bible every fifty 
years, and thus to renew its youth, that the people 
might read it with increased interest. 

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 which 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. 


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, ete. 

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. 

6. Intelligible words and phrases in place of mis- 
leading and obsolete archaisms. 

7. Revision and reduction of words supplied in 
italics; rectification of punctuation. 

8. 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, including nearly 6000 changes in the Greek 
text. Thisis probably an exaggerated estimate, since 
there are only 7960 verses in the New Testament. 
It includes no doubt the changes in punctuation, and 
all the alternate readings and renderings 1 in the mar- 
gin, and the American suggestions in the Appendix. 

Upon examination, however, the importance of 


THE REVISED VERSION. 410 


the alterations falls far below their number. They 
do not unsettle a single article of the Christian faith 
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. 


Nore.—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, 
ΠΡ. 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 Gospels, 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 really hardly 
be perceptible.” 


420 THE REVISED VERSION. 


The Rev. Rufus 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 154,526 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 Speeches 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- Ὁ 
ized Version and the critical text of the Revised 
Version will be sufficient.’ 

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—z. e., Manuscripts, Versions, and Patristic 


? See chapters ii.—vi., and especially pp. 253-298, 


THE REVISED VERSION. 421 


Quotations. It is best that it is so; for such 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 
medizval to the Nicene, from the Nicene to the 
ante-Nicene, and from the ante-Nicene 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 medizeval 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 were 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 
Nicene age. 


429 THE REVISED VERSION. 


The critical text can be traced to the third and see- 
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, (@) among 
manuscripts, by Cod. A (Alexandrinus) of the fifth 
century (but only in the Gospels), several of the later 
uncials, and the great mass of the medizeval cursives, 
with some very weighty exceptions; (6) among ver- 
sions, by the Syriac Peshito in its present revised 
shape (whose authority, however, has been weakened 
by recent discoveries and researches); and (6) 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 (Vaticanus) and x (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 1, T, 
=, Z (A in Mark), D, OC, Q, P, R, X (and even by A 
in many cases, especially in John); (0) 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. 493 


6. The traditional text is abandoned, and the crit- 
ical text accepted, by all the standard editors of the 
present century, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Von Gebhardt, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort.’ 

7. The traditional text is longer on account of in- 


Versions (which are among the most ancient) most closely agree with B, 
but accounts for it by deriving them from “the same school” and “the 
same recension,” without any proof. He also admits that the MSS. of the 
Old Latin Version “agree with B 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. 148). 

1 To these may be added such writers on textual criticism as Thomas 
Sheldon Green (in his Developed Criticism), Samuel Davidson (Biblical 
Criticism), the two American scholars Abbot and Gregory (see the criti- 
cal 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 Mattheusevangelium and the Marcusevangelium), Dean 
Alford (in the last editions of his Commentary), Bishop Ellicott (Commen- 
turies 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 Revision as one of the members of the New Test. Company. In the 
second edition of his Jntroduction (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. 16; 
1 John ν. 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 the second edi- 
tion of his /ntrod. p. 495, with the third edition, p. 569, where he says: 
41 can no longer regard this doxology as certainly an integral part of 
S. Matthew’s Gospel} but I am not yet absolutely convinced of its spuri- 
ousness.” He stands midway between the textus receptus and the text of 
the Revisers. See his latest edition of the Stephanic text of 1550 in 1887, 


29° 


494. THE REVISED VERSION. 


terpolations from parallel passages (especially in the 
Gospels), supplements of abridged quotationsfrom the 
Septuagint, liturgical usage, and explanatory 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, I'rey 
and Iselin towards Wetstein, Matthzei 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 VERSION. 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 kommt der durstge Geist auf Wegen der Erfahrung 
Durch Ueberliefrungsgrund zum Quell der Offenbarung.” 


Note.—The champions of the textus receptus make special efforts to 
undermine the value of Codd, B and &, which are 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). δὲ and B are admitted to be the oldest known MSS., as well 
as the most complete; δὲ 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 the 
First Three Gospels, London, 1882, he derives the omissions of δὲ and B 
partly from “ extreme haste,” partly (and this was never done before) even 
from heretical bias. He conjectures that & 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 
eonvenient form,” for the rapidly growing churches of Constantinople or 


426 THE REVISED VERSION. 


New Rome (Eusebius, 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 Eusebius died. (Cook here differs widely 
from Dean Burgon, who, in his The Lust Twelve Verses of S. Mark, 1871, 
p. 293 sq., had categorically denied the Eusebian origin of B, and asserted 
on what he considered “infallible” notes of antiquity, that δὲ was written 
from fifty to one hundred years later. “1 am fully persuaded,” he says, 
“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 
Constantine (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. Hort 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 Lightfoot 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 Nicza, 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. & and B, in the two strongest passages which bear on the divinity 
of Christ, favor the more orthodox reading—namely, John i. 18 (μονογενὴς 
Sedc, instead of ὁ μονογενὴς vid), and Acts xx. 28 (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, instead οἵ... τοῦ 
κυρίου... .). In the first passage a subsequent corrector of δὲ put υἱός 
above ϑεός. It is very surprising, by the by, that such a scholar as Canon 
Cook should suppose that “the asterisks” after δὲ 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 when 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 εὐδοκίας in, Luke ii, 14 was changed to εὐδοκία. in. & by a cor- 


THE REVISED VERSION. 497 


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 culpabi 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 & 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 δὲ and B 
contain many valuable corrections by later hands. 

5. δὲ 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 τρισσὰ 
kai τετρασσά (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 guaterniones), 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 δὲ 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 home- 
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 eut 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 ease of an ancient classical author, affurd the clearest evidence 


498 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 FROM TEXT WITHOUT MARGINAL NOTE. 

Matt. i. 25: “her firstborn” son (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον); 
for υἱόν, “a son.” 

Omitted by &, B, Z, 1,33, αὐ, b,c, g', Κι Sah., Cop., Cur. Syr., etc.; sup- 
ported by Pesh. Syr., C, D, and later uncials (A is here wanting). In- 
serted from Luke ii. 7, where all authorities have it (“ ube 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” (ϑρῆνος Kat). 

Omitted by ἐξ, 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 good 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 δὲ, B, 1, 22, 209, Itala, Vulg., Cop., Cur. Syr., Theophil., 
Athenag., Clem. Alex., Orig., Euseb. 

Matt. xx. 16: “for many be called, but few chosen.” 

Omitted by &, 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 (πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ 
éxXexroi), where all authorities have the passage. 

Luke xxiii. 38: “in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.” 

Omitted by &*°, 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: “itis hard... said unto him.” 


«(ἰ ΨΌΌΌΣ 


THE REVISED VERSION. 429 


Omitted in all Greek MSS., interpolated from Acts xxii. 10; xxvi. 14 
(first by the Vulgate and then by Erasmus). 

Rom. viii. 1: “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” 

Derived from yer. 4, where the words are genuine. 

1 Cor. xi. 24: “take, eat” (λάβετε, φάγετε). 

Omitted by &, A, B, C*, Ὁ, E, F, G, ἃ, 6, f, g, Sah., Cop., Armen. In- 
serted from the parallel passage in Matt. xxvi. 26. “ Broken” (κλώμε- 
voy), 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,” instead of “ihe 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 textus 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. 180 sqq. and 192 sq.; also Tischendorf, and 
the notes of Alford, and Wordsworth in loc. Ladda note from Dr. Hort 
(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 (‘et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est Et 
tres unum sunt’), as he elsewhere finds ‘ sacramenta 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), ‘guia tres testimonium perhibent, spiritus et 
aqua et sanguis, et isti tres unum sunt,’ The silence of the controversial 


430 THE REVISED VERSION. 


writings of Lucifer, Hilary, Ambrose, Hieronymus, 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 (Zp. xxviii. 5). They are absent from the Latin Vulgate. 
according to its oldest MSS., am, fu [Cod. Amiatinus at Florence, and Cod. 
Fuldensis at Fulda], and many others, as also from the (Vulgate) text 
of the Gallican (Luxeuil) Lectionary.” 

Rev. i. 8: “the beginning and the ending” (ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλορ). 

Supported by &*, Vulg., Cop., and a few cursives; but absent in δὲ, 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. 1.11: “Jam Alpha... last: and” (iyo... kat). 

Omitted by &, A, B, C, Vulg., Cop., Syr., Aeth., Arm., and about fifty 
cursives; inserted from xxii. 13; comp. 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, 64,68; xxiv. 
1; John i. 27; iii. 15; v.16; vi. 11, 22,51; x. 12,13, 26; xi. 41; xvi. 16; 
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; 1 Thess.i.1; 1 Tim. iv.12; vi.5; Heb. 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. 
ii, 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. Amen.” 

See the authorities on p. 186 sq. 

Luke i. 28: “ blessed art thou 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. 451 


A popular superstition, for which John should not be held responsible. 
The authorities for the interpolation vary, which always looks suspicious. 
See p. 187 sq. Even the consérvative 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. 87: “ And Philip . . . Son of God.” 

The baptismal confession of the eunuch inserted wholly or in part 
from old ecclesiastical usage. See p. 191. 


III. Dousrrut Sections RETAINED IN TEXT, BUT WITH MARGINAL 
Nore, 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. SusstTirurions, 

Matt. x. 4 (and Mark iii. 18): “Simon the Cananean” (Kavavaioc, 
from an Aramzan word meaning “ Zealot ;” compare Luke vi.15; Acts i, 
13), instead of “the Cunaanite” (Kavavirne). 

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?|(ri pe λέγεις ayaSov;) There is 
(ri pe ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαϑοῦ ;) | none good but sponses iy (οὐδεὶς 
One there is who is good (εἷς ἐστὶν | @varee, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ο Θεός). 

ὁ ἀγαδόφ)." 

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, ἀξ, B, Ὁ, L, Cur. Syr., Cop., Vulg., 
Orig. (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 


_\BRAARY 
or THE ᾿ 


432 THE REVISED VERSION. 


purely humanitarian and moral standpoint) had asked Christ (ver. 16) 
“what good thing” he should do to have eternal life; and Christ directed 
him to the supreme source of all goodness, cod himself, and thereby struck 
at the root of his besetting sin, the love of riches (ver. 22), 


Mark i, 2: “As it is written inj O. V.: “As it is written in the 
Isaiah the prophet (ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ) prophets (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις)" 
τῷ προφήτῃ)." 

The old text is evidently a correction to suit the quotation (verses 2 and 
3), which combines two prophetic passages, Mal. iii. 1 and Isa, xl. 3; Lut 
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 &, B, Ὁ, L, A, 33, Itala, Vulg., Cop., Pesh., Iren., 
Orig.), yet the Revisers put the textus receptus on the margin. 

Mark iii, 29: “ Whosoever shall| O.V.: “He that shall blaspheme 
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit | against the Holy Ghost, hath never 
hath never forgiveness, but is guilty | forgiveness, but is in danger of eter- 
of an eternal sin (ἁμαρτήματος)." | nal damnation (judgment, cpicewc).” 

An important change, which sheds light on the sin against the Holy 
Spirit, and suggests the reason why it is unpardonable. It may 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. Κρίσεως is supported by A, C?, Syr.; 
ἁμαρτήματος by &, B, L, A, Itala, Vulg. (Some MSS. read ἁμαρτίας, an- 
’ other early correction.) 

Luke ii, 14. The angelic anthem. On this much-disputed passage 
(εὐδοκίας or εὐδοκία), see p. 195 sq. The old rendering, “ towards men,” 
is wrong, at all events (instead of “among men,” ἐν ἀνϑρώποις) ; but the 
Revised Version is not wholly satisfactory in rendering the genitive 
εὐδοκίας, “in whom he is well pleased.” This periphrase destroys the 
terse brevity in the threefold parallelism of the Greek (δόξα correspond- 
ing to εἰρήνη, ἐν ὑψίστοις to ἐπὶ γῆς, and Θεῷ to ἐν ἀνϑρώποις εὐδοκίας). 
“Among men of his [God’s] good pleasure” would be shorter than the 
R. V., and more correct than the “bone. voluntatis” (men of good-will) of 
the Vulgate; but the Revisers wished to conform to the rendering of the 
verb εὐδοκέω in Matt. iii, 17; xvii. 5. 

John i. 18: “God only begotten” (μονογενὴς Θεός) 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” (ὁ μονογενὴς vidc), retained in text (as in Tischendorf, and as sug- 


THE REVISED VERSION. 433 


gested 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 (ἔχωμεν) peace with God;” for “we have” 
(ἔχομεν). See p. 197, 

1 Tim, iii. 16: “He who was manifested in the flesh;” for “ God was 
manifest in the flesh.” 

On the difference of reading between ὅς and Sedc, see p. 199 sqq., and 
an article by Dr. William H. Ward in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, 
Mass., for Jan., 1865, The chief defender of ϑεός is Dean Burgon. 

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 és.” 

A manifest improvement, καὶ παρέσται (&, A, B, P, forty cursives), 
for καίπερ ἔστιν, which is an error of transcription, and makes nonsense. 


VY. PASSAGES GAINED BY THE REVISION. 

1 John ii, 23: “ He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also” (6 
ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν Kai τὸν πατέρα ἔχει). 

A very important passage, supplementing the preceding clause; lost in 
the Greek teatus receptus by homeoteleuton (ἔχει stands at the end of each 
clause in verse 23); italicized in the A. V. (which inserted it from the Latin 
Vulgate, “qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet”); 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” (ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ), sustained by δὲ, A, B, 
D, Ἐς, Vulg., Syr., Sah., Cop., Eus., Chrys., Iren. (Lat.), Tert., Lucif., Hil. 

Acts viii. 10: “This man is that power [better, ‘ Power’] of God which 
is called (καλουμένη) Great.” καλουμένη is important to characterize 
the boastful title as a self-designation of Simon the sorcerer, and rests on 
the authority of the oldest MSS. (&, A, B, C), versions, and fathers (Iren., 
Orig.). 

Acts xvi.7: “The Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.” ᾿ἸἸησοῦ is well 
sustained and adopted by the best editors. 

Acts xx.4: “as far as Asia” (ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας). This is supported 
by many authorities, but not by & and B, and omitted by Tisch. in his 
eighth edition. 

Col. i. 6: “bearing fruit and increasing” (καὶ αὐξανόμενον), supported 
by &, A, B, C, Ὁ, Ital., Vulg., Sah., Cop., Syr., ete. 

1 Thess, iv. 1: “even as ye do walk” (kaSwe¢ καὶ περιπατεῖτε), sup- 
ported by δὲ, A, B, D*, F, G, Ital., Vulg., many cursives, and versions, 
Internal as well as external evidence favors the addition. 


434 THE REVISED VERSION. 


James iv. 12: “and judge” after “lawgiver.” The omission of καὶ 
κριτής is perhaps owing to homeoteleuton (see νομοϑέτη ς). Tischendorf 
and Westcott and Hort likewise retain it with &, A, B, P, Syr., ete. 

1 Pet. ii. 2: “that ye may grow thereby unto salvation” (εἰς σωτηρίαν). 
Abundantly sustained by ἐξ, A, B, C, K, P, Vulg., Syr. 

1 John iii. 1: “and such we are” (καί ἐσμεν). We are not only called 
(kAnS@pev), but we really are children of God. 

&, A, B, C, P, and many cursives have καί ἐσμεν, and the Vulg. et sumus. 

Jude 25: “before all time” (πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος). Well sustained 
by &, A, B, C, L, Vulg., Syr. 

Rey. 1. 8: “God” after “the Lord.” 

All uncial MSS. of the Apoc. read κύριος 6 ϑεός, “the Lord God,” in- 
stead of ὁ κύριος. 

Rev. iii. 2: “before my God” (ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ μου), instead of “be- 
fore God.” 

Rev, viii. 7: “and the third part of the earth was burnt up” (καὶ τὸ 
τρίτον τῆς γῆς KaTEKan). 

This important clause dropped out from the repetition of καὶ τὸ τρίτον. 

Rev. xiv.1: “ Having his [i. 6. the Lamb’s] name, and the name of his 
Father,” instead of “having his Father’s name.” The words αὐτοῦ καὶ 
τὸ ὄνομα dropped out from homeoteleuton (ὄνομα twice), and have been 
restored with the best authorities. 

Rev. xx. 14: “even the lake of fire” (ἡ λίμνη τοῦ mupédc). 

The words lost in the textus receptus are sustained by ἐξ, 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 (μνηστευ- 
Seionc) to Joseph ;” for “ espoused 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. 26) ; 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 
either by substituting the definite for the indefinite, or vice versa. 

I, 22: “spoken by (ὑπό) the Lord through (διά) 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” (ἡ mapSévoc); 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 
προσκυνέω denotes an act of homage or worship (usually by kneeling 
or prostration), whether paid to man (as in Matt. xviii. 26; comp. Sept. in 
Gen. xlii. 6, Joseph’s brethren kneeling before Joseph; xlviii. 12, Joseph 
before Jacob), or to God (as iniv. 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 (ὅστις ποιμανεῖ) 
my people Israel ;” for “that shall rude 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,” καὶ ἐλϑόντες . . . εἶδον... καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνη- 
σαν); for “when they were come. .... they saw..., and fell ἄοννῃ .. . 


436 THE REVISED VERSION. 


II. 16: “and slew all the male children” (τοὺς παῖδας) ; 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 pueros. Herod had nothing to fear from the female 
children. In the same verse “borders” for “ coasts,” which is now con- 
fined to the seashore. This change is made throughout. 

Il. 17: “by [better ‘through’ ] Jeremiah ;” for “ by Jeremy.” 

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, Mary and Miriam, James and Jacob), 

III. 3: “by Isaiah the prophet” (the order of the Greek) ; for “ by the 
prophet Lsaias.” 

Another variation of spelling: Hsaias (Greek) and Jsaiah (Hebrew). 
So Elijuh and Elias. See ii. 17. 

III. 4: “ Now John himself” (αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης) ; for “ And the same 
John.” 

III. 4: “his food” (τροφή) ; 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. 6: “They were baptized in the river Jordan” (ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ πο- 
ταμῷ); for “in Jordan.” ποταμῶ is added by Lach., Tisch.,Treg., W.and H. — 

The Authorized Version, contrary to English (and Greek) usage, omits 
the 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. 
All 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 (γεννήματα) of vipers ;” for “O generation.” 

III. 11: “ with water,” with marg. “Or, zn.” 

The marginal rendering, being more literal (ἐν ὕδατι), should have been 
put in the text, as recommended by the American Committee (Appendix 


THE REVISED VERSION. 43% 


No. [X.). So in the last clause of this verse. Luke differs from Matthew 
by using simply the dative (ὕδατι) of water-baptism ; but when speaking 
of the baptism of the Spirit he likewise uses the preposition (ἐν πνεύματι, 
iii. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16). 

IIL. 12: “threshing-floor” (τὴν ἅλωνα) ; 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” (τὸ πτύον) 
should have been changed into “ winnowing-shovel.” 

IIL. 13: “John would have hindered him ;” for “John forbade him.” 

διεκώλυεν is here the imperfect of the attempt, as ἐκάλουν, Luke i. 59; 
συνήλλασσεν, Acts vii. 26; ἐπόρϑει, Gal. i, 23. 

III. 15: “Then he suffereth him” (τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτόν) ; for “then he 
suffered him.” 

III. 17. The rendering of this verse has been retained, except “out of 
the heavens” (ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν), for “from heaven.” But the Committees 
labored long on the phrase ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα (Hebraizing construction, 
3 ὙΠ), 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. 
Cémp. xii. 18 (from Isa, xlii. 1), where εὐδόκησεν is parallel with ypérioa ; 
also xi. 27; John xvii. 24; Eph. i. 4. 

IV. 21, 22, and often: “boat” (πλοῖον, πλοιάριον, used in the Gospels 
of small fishing-vessels on the lake of Galilee); for “ship.” 

IV. 24: “epileptic” (σεληνιαζόμενοι) ; 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 
δαιμονιζόμενοι) 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 σεληνιαζόμενος, notwithstanding the ety- 
mological correspondence. 

V. 15: “Neither do men light a lamp (λύχνον) and put it under the 
oushel, but on the stand” (λυχνίαν) ; 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, 
1 avidson) would be better than “stand,” though the preceding “lamp* 
prevents any ambiguity, 


438 THE REVISED VERSION. 


V. 21: “It was said to them of old time” (τοῖς ἀρχαίοις) ; instead of 
“by them.” So also ver. 38. 

VI. 2,5: “They have received their reward;” for “they have their 
reward.” The Greek is not ἔχουσι, but ἀπέχουσι, ὃ, e., they have re- 
ceived all the reward they sought from men, and need not expect any 
more. 

VI. 9-13. The Lorp’s Prayer. No lessthansix 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 (ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς), 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 ἐπιούσιος 
(either from ἐπιέναι through ἐπιών, ἐπιοῦσα, or from ἐπεῖναι, as a com- 
pound of ἐπὶ and οὐσία) is elaborately discussed by Lightfoot in the Ap- 
pendix to his work on Revision, Ὁ. 195-242. Meyer, in loc., like Fritzsche | 
and Lightfoot, derives the word from ἐπιέναι, “ to-morrow’s bread,” and 
objects to the derivation from ἐπεῖναι that it would require ἐπούσιος. But 
this is refuted by such examples as ἐπίορκος (connected with ἐπιορκέω), 
ἐπιεικής, ἐπίουρος, ἐπιόγδοος. 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, Bleek, Keim, and Holtzmann adopt 
substantially the same view. 

8. “As we also have forgiven [literally, we forgave] our debtors;” for 
“as we forgive our debtors.” There is here a difference of reading, ἀφήκα- 
μὲν or ἀφίεμεν. 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 Meyer and Weiss defend ἀφήκαμεν : “ Jesus setzt mit Recht voraus, 
dass der Gléubige, welcher Gott um Schuldenerlass bittet, bereits denen 
verziehen habe (Sir. xxviii. 24 Mark xi. 25), welche sich an thm verschuldet 


THE REVISED VERSION. 439 


4, “Bring us not into temptation ;” for “Jead us not” (Vulgate, ne nos 
inducas, etc.). So also in Luke xi. 4. The former verb better expresses 
εἰσενέγκῃς (from εἰσφέρω), and may refer here more to outward circum- 
stances; while “dead” (which would require εἰσαγάγῳς; from εἰσάγω) 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. 1. 13)—7. e., solicit us to sin—but he may permit us to get 
into tempting positions which are under the control of his providence.! 
εἰσφέρω is, with this exception, and in Luke xi. 4, always in the Author- 
ized Version rendered to bring in (with εἰς, to bring into, or to), Luke v. 18, 
19; 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 ἄγω (Rom. ii. 4), or ἀπάγω (Matt. vii. 18, 14); but it is inconsistent 
in rendering εἰσάγω (with and without εἰς) like εἰσφέρω, to bring (Luke ii. 
27; xiv. 21; John xvii. 16; Acts vii. 45; xxi. 28, 29,37; Heb. i. 6), instead 
of to lead, to lead into (as in Acts ix. 8). 

5. “ Deliver us from the evil one” (¢. 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 shape”). But Canon 
Cook, also, in the name of high Anglican orthodoxy, strongly protests 
against the innovation.? The Greek (τοῦ πονηροῦ and ρύεσϑαι with ἀπό) 


haben, und giebt dem Beter dadurch Anlass zur Selbstpriifung, ob er das 
auch gethan und sich dadurch als ein rechtes Gotteskind bewahrt habe, wie 
es allein dies Gebet sprechen kann.” 

' Meyer and Weiss, in loc.: “ Gott fiihrt in Versuchung, in so fern die 
versuchlichen, d. i. die zur Siinde Anlass gebenden Lagen und Umstdnde durch 
ihn, vermdge seiner Regierung hergestellt werden, und es also von Gott 
geschieht und er es macht (1 Kor. x. 13), wenn der Mensch in solche Seelenge- 
Jahren gerath. ... So list sich zugleich der scheinbare Widerspruch mit Jak. 
ὃ. 13, wo von der subjectiven, inneren Versuchung die Rede ist, deren wirkendes 
Princip nicht Gott, sondern die eigene Begierde ist. In letzterer liegt auch 
beim Glaubigen vermége seiner σάρξ (waxvi.41; Gal. v.17) die grosse sittliche 
Gefahr, welche dieses Gebet immer wieder nothwendig macht.” 

? As Goethe admirably says of the Rationalists : 

“ Den Bosen sind sie los, 
Die Bésen sind geblieben.” 
* He speaks of “the extreme surprise and grief” which this change has 


30 


440 THE REVISED VERSION. 


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 ὁ πονηρός, as a noun, designates Satan, 
who is emphatically the Evil One, the Wicked One—namely, Matt. xiii, 
19, 88; Eph. vi. 16; 1 John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; ν, 18, 19 (probably also 
Matt. v.37; John xvii. 15; 2 Thess. iii.3); while rd πονηρόν, as a noun, 
occurs only twice in the New Testament—Luke vi. 45 and Rom. xii. 9. 
In Matt. v. 39 ὁ πονηρός is used of an evil man. 

(Ὁ) The preposition ἀπό with the verb ρύεσϑαι more naturally suggests 
a person, the preposition ἐκ a danger, but not necessarily.’ 

(c) The close connection of “not” and “but” (wy... ἀλλά) 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 ;? while the post-Nicene Latin Church, under the 
lead of Augustin (a malo),’ and the Lutheran Church, under the lead of 
Luther, favor the neutral rendering. The Heidelberg Catechism (Re- 


caused to him and will cause to “ millions of devout and trustful hearts.” 
To which Bishop Lightfoot 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 ρύεσϑαι occurs seventeen times in the New Testament with ἀπό and 
éx. Lightfoot lays no stress on the preposition. 

? 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 any 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 malus 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, 


Ρ. 87 sq.). 


THE REVISED VERSION. 441 


formed) translates vom Bésen; 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). 

(6) The testimony of ancient versions and liturgies is prevailingly for 
the masculine rendering, as Lightfoot has shown. 

(f) Modern commentators are divided; the most exacting philological 
exegetes (Fritzsche, Meyer, also Keim and Hilgenfeld) 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, Bleek, Ewald, Keil, and Weiss (in the seventh edition of Meyer 
on Matthew) are on the other side. 

(9) In any case, τοῦ πονηροῦ here refers to moral, not physical, evil, 
although the latter is a consequence of the former. Comp. the contrast 
between τὸ πονηρόν and τὸ ἀγαϑόν in Rom. 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 
Bésen). It is not likely that the Revision will change the habits of the 


449 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” (μὴ μεριμνᾶτε) ; for “take no 
thought.” 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.g., “to die of thought,” “sicklied o’er with the 
pale cast of thought.” 

IX. 17: “wine-skins” (ἀσκοί) ; 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. 

XI. 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; Rev. i.18; vi. 8; xx. 13, 14. 

Restoration of an important distinction between Hades (or Sheol)—1. 6.) 
the realm of the dead, the spirit-world—and Hell (or Gehenna, also once 
Tartarus, 2 Pet. ii. 4)—#. 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, προβιβασϑεῖσα from προβιβάζω] by her mother;” instead 
of “ being before instructed” (from the Vulgate, pramonita). 

XV. 27: “Yea, Lord, for even (καὶ 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,” ete. 

An error of grammar. 

XVI. 26: “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 ψυχή 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 ver. 26. The difference in the text is between the lower physi- 
cal or temporal life and the higher spiritual or eternal life, 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 κακοὺς κακῶς (=pessimos pessime) ἀπολέσει 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 filtering 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, σβέννυνται) ; for 
“are gone out.” 

The flax was still smoking, as is apparent from the virgins trimming 
the wick (ver. 7). 

ΧΧΥ, 46: “Eternal punishment ;” for “everlasting.” ° 

The same word, αἰώνιος, 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 διαϑήκη ( ΞΞΤ 3) occurs, except 
Heb. ix. 16, 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 (εἰς) the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;” for “iz the name” (from the Vulgate, 
tn nomine). 

Compare Gal, iii. 27 (baptized into Christ); 1 Cor, x. 2 (into Moses) ; 


444 THE REVISED VERSION. 


Acts viii. 16 (into the name); 1 Cor. i. 13 (into the name). The Greek 
preposition εἰς 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. 68). 


LUKE. 

II. 2: “This was the first enrolment (ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη) made when 
Quirinius was governor of Syria;” for “this taxing was first” (which 
would require πρῶτον) “made when Cyrenius,” ete. 

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.” 

The Greek (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ, literally, in the things 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 Commentary, 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 

e,” 

VIL. 2: “ At the point of death” (ἤμελλε τελευτᾷν) ; 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 (πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ), but the context leaves 
no doubt as to the meaning of Pilate. 


JOHN. 
V. 35: “He [John the Baptist] was the lamp (ὁ λύχνος) that burneth 
and shineth ;” instead of the “ light.” 

Christ was the self-luminous light (τὸ φῶς, 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 ἐρευνᾶτε admits of both translations, but the context 
(especially the ὅτι, the emphatic ὑμεῖς, the position of ἐν αὐταῖς, and the 
contrast expressed in καὶ οὐ ϑέλετε) 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 superstitiously; it 
was their boast and pride, and they used this very word (compare vii. 52, 
where they tell Nicodemus, “ Search [ἐρεύνησον | and see,” etc.) ; but 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 [τὰς γραφάς, not τὸν λύγον τοῦ Seov], 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.194sq. See also Beza, Bengel, 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 (γενέσϑαι), 1 am” (εἰμί) ; 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 yevéaSar, which 
signifies temporal or created existence, beginning in time and presupposing 
previous non-existence, and εἶναι, 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 ἣν is applied to the 
Logos, ver. 1, while ἐγένετο is used of the genesis of the world, ver. 3, 
the birth of John the Baptist, ver. 6, and the incarnation of the Logos, 
ver. 14. 

X. 16: “They shall become (γενήσονται) one flock (ποίμνη), one 
shepherd ;” instead of “There shall be one fold” (which would require 
αὐλή, 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. ‘he error of the 
Authorized Version, derived from the Vulgate (ovile), 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.” 

ΧΙΠ. 2: “During supper” (or, “as supper was beginning,” δείπνου 
γινομένου), for “Supper being ended” (which is inconsistent with ver. 
26, where the meal is still going on). The δεῖπνον was the principal 
meal of the ancients, and corresponds to our late dinner. 

XIV. 16: “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 παράκλητος, which means advocate, helper, intercessor, coun- 
sellor. It is passive, one called to aid (advocatus), not active (παρακλή- 
Twp); but after long deliberation the Revisers 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 Revisers 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 ἐλέγχειν 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, διαμεριζόμεναι), “like as of fire;” for 
“cloven tongues” (from Tyndale, giving the wrong idea that each tongue 
was forked). 

II. 31: “neither was he left in Hades” (or, abandoned unto Hades, 
οὔτε ἐνκατελείφϑη εἰς ἅδου, 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.” The omission of “ his soul” is due to a change of 
reading; ἡ Ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ of the textus receptus is not supported by any of 
the oldest authorities, and was probably inserted in contrast to ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ. 

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, τοὺς σωζομένους, as indi- 


THE REVISED VERSION. 447 


cating a class of persons predestinated for salvation, has been traced to a 
Calvinistic bias of the Authorized Version and the influence of Beza, but 
it is derived from Tyndale and other versions, The same word is used in 
1 Cor. i, 18, and contrasted with ἀπολλύμενοι, “those that are perish- 
ing.” 

III. 19, 20: “that so (ὅπως) there may come (ἔλθωσι) seasons of re- 
freshing from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send (ἀποστείλῃ) 
the Christ (τὸν Xp.), who hath been appointed (προκεχειρισμένον) for 
you ;” instead of “when the times of refreshing shall come. . . . And he 
shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached (προκεκηρυγμένον) 
unto you.” 

Both verbs depend upon ὅπως; which never means when. The Author- 
ized Version and older English versions were misled by the Vulgate (ut 
cum venerint). 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 ἀποκατάστασις refers to the general renovation of the world 
at the glorious coming of the Messiah. Compare Matt. xvii. 11 (ἀποκα- 
ταστήσει πάντα), and xix. 28 (ἐν τῇ παλινγενεσίᾳ). 

XII. 4: “Passover ;” for “ Easter.” 

The Jewish festival is meant. Easter is of medizval Germanic origin, 
but was regarded as the precise equivalent for Passover. Luther made 
the same mistake (Ostern), 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 benevolentiw. δεισιδαιμονέστεροι (the comparative of δεισιδαί- 
μων, literally, “ demon-dreading,” but almost equivalent to our “ -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 (0) ye worship in ignorance” (unknowingly, 
ἀγνοοῦντες), for “whom (dv) ye ignorantly worship.” Compare John iv. 
22: “Ye (Samaritans) worship that which ye know not.” 

XX. 28: “ Bishops” (ἐπισκόπους), for “ overseers.” 

This important change (ignored by Humphry) is required by con- 


. 448 THE REVISED VERSION. 


sistency with the uniform rendering of the word in Philippians and the 
Pastoral Epistles, and by the undoubted fact that bishops (overseers) and 
presbyters (elders) in the apostolic age were identical. The same officers 
at Ephesus, who are here called ἐπίσκοποι, are in ver. 17 called πρεσβύτεροι. 
The change was 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 (ἐν ὀλίγῳ) thou wouldest fain 
make me a Christian.” 

The Authorized Version, “ Almost [from the Geneva 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 viel), and Grotius, “ Almost” would 
require παρ᾽ ὀλίγον or ὀλίγου. It assumes, moreover, that Agrippa, a 
most frivolous character, was in earnest and on the very point of conver- 
sion, which is contradicted by his later history. The phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ 
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. 3). The former is preferred by Neander, De Wette, Hackett, 
and is suggested by the American Committee as a marginal alternative; 
the latter is the interpretation of Meyer (“mit wenigem iiberredest du mich 
ein Christ zu werden”), Lechler (in Lange), Wendt, Plumptre, etc., and 
corresponds better to the quantitative ἐν μεγάλῳ in Paul’s answer (adopted 
by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and English Revisers, in- 
stead of ἐν πολλῷ). The periphrastic rendering, “ with little persuasion” 
(or “ effort”), is not quite satisfactory, but it is extremely difficult to trans- 
late the terse and sententions 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, 
ver. 29: “whether with little or with much” (καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ καὶ ἐν μεγάλῳ), 
for “almost and altogether” (also from the Geneva Version), The Re- 
vised Version requires the supply of the word persuasion. The American 
Committee suggests in the margin, “ Or, both in little and in great, i. 6., in 
all respects.” The exquisite courtesy of Paul’s answer is obvious whether 
Agrippa was in earnest or not, and all the more striking if he was not. 


ROMANS. 
I. 18: “ Who hold down [or better, “ hinder,” κα τ εχόντων | the truth 
in unrighteousness ;” instead of “ hold,” 


THE REVISED VERSION. 


449 


The preposition κατά in the verb has the sense of suppressing, not of 
holding fast ; compare Luke iv. 42; 2 Thess. ii. 6. 

III. 25: “ Because of the passing over [or, preetermission, διὰ τὴν πάρε- 
σιν, from παρίημι, 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 (πάρεσις) of sins is an act of God’s long-suffering or 
forbearance (dvoyn), remission (ἄφεσις) an act of God’s mercy (χάρις) ; 


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 (ἥμαρτον) points to a definite act in the past, whether this 
be the potential fal! of all men in Adam, or the actual fall of each de- 


scendant. 
23. 
V.15: “ But not as the trespass (τὸ 
παράπτωμα), 80 also is the free 
gift (τὸ χάρισμα). For if by the 
trespass of the one (τοῦ ἑνός) the 
many died (οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέϑα- 
γον); much more did the grace 
of God, and the gift by the grace 
of the one man (τοῦ ἑνὸσ ἀνϑρ.), 
Jesus Christ, abound unto the 
16 many (εἰς τοὺς πολλούς). 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 (τοῦ 
évdc), 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 (δι᾿ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος) 


the free gift came unto all men 


The Revisers ought to have made the same correction in iii. 


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 many. 


16. 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 
of life, 


450 THE REVISED VERSION. 


19 to justification of life. For as 19. For as by one man’s disobe. 
through the one man’s disobe-| dience many were made sinners: so 
dience the many (οἱ πολλοί) | by the obedience of one shall many 
were made sinners, even 80 be made righteous.” 
through the obedience of the one 
shall the many (οἱ πολλοί) 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. 6.. all (ΞΞ πάντες, compare ver. 18 and 1 Cor. xv. 22) and the one (ὁ εἷς). 

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 by the one and the 

universal reign of righteousness and life brought to light by the other; and 
he emphasizes by the repeated “much more” (πολλῷ μᾶλλον, 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 (πάντες) die, so also in Christ 
shall all (πάντες) 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 wills 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 οἱ πολλοί, the many, in an antithesis to 
the one, are equivalent to πάντες, 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 πολλοί changes the sense materially—e. g., Matt. xxiv. 12- 
1 Cor. ix. 4. 


THE REVISED VERSION. 451 


VI. 2: “We who died (ἀπεϑάνομεν) to sin, how shall we any longer 
live therein ;” for “‘ How shall we that are dead to sin,” ete. 

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 state for an act, and makes the question 
superfluous. The same neglect of the aorist in ver. 4 (συνετάφημεν), 
6 (συνεσταυρώϑη), 7 (ἀποϑανών), 8 (ἀπεϑάνομεν) ; also vii. 6; 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 (complantati), mistook 
the etymology of σύμφυτοι, literally grown together, which comes from 
φύω, to grow, not from φυτεύω, to plant. Compare Heb. xii. 15 (ῥίζα 
πικρίας φύουσα, a root of bitterness springing up). 

VI. 17: “To that form [or, pattern] of teaching whereunto ye were de- 
livered” (εἰς ὃν παρεδόϑητε τύπον διδαχῆς) ; 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. Beza: “ Hoc dicendi genus magnam 
quandam emphasin habere videtur. Ita enim significatur evangelicam 
doctrinam quasi instar typi cuiusdam esse, cui veluti immittamur, ut eius 
Jigure conformemur, et totam istam transformationem aliunde venire.” 

XII. 2: “Be not fashioned (συσχηματίζεσϑε) according to this world; 
but be ye transformed (μεταμορφοῦσϑε) 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 (σχῆμα) of this world. Compare 1 Cor. vii. 31 (παράγει τὸ σχῆμα 
τοῦ κόσμου τούτου). 

XIII. 2: “They that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment” 
(κρῖμα): 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 (ἐξου- 
cia), 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), dumned (three times), damnable (once, 2 Pet. ii. 1), for judg- 


452 THE REVISED VERSION. 


ment, condemnation, etc. Compare Rom. xiv. 23; 1 Cor. xi. 29; 1 Tim. v. 
12; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47. In the Revised Version these words 
never occur, but are replaced by condemnation, judgment, condemned, iy 0 
destructive (2 Pet. ii. 1). 


CoRINTHIANS. . 

1 Cor. iv. 4: “I know nothing against myself” (ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδαλ); for 
by myself.” A misleading archaism. 

XI. 29: “He that eateth and drinketh [unworthily, compare ver. 27], 
eateth and drinketh judgment (κρῖμα) unto himself, if he discern (Gr. 
discriminate) not the body ;” for “ damnation.” 

The same mischievous archaism as Rom. 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” (ἀγάπη) has been substituted 
for “ charity” (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 (7. 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. Tyndale and the older versions 
used Jove, a word as sacred as the other, besides being a strong Saxon 
monosyllable. 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 (ἀπέϑανεν) for all, therefore all died” (a7é- 
Savoy) ; 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 


GALATIANS. 


II. 20: “I have been crucified with Christ (συνεσταύρωμαι, at the 
time of my conversion); yet I live (ζῶ δέ); and yet no longer I (οὐκέτι 
ἐγώ, with a comma after δέ), 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, “and it is no longer I that live (ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, without a 
comma), but Christ liveth in me.” At his conversion Paul was crucified 
and died to the law (ἀπέϑανον, not “am dead,” ver. 19), according to his 
old man of sin under the curse of the law, but he rose with Christ, who 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; 2 Cor. 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” (7. 6.5 in this bodily, temporal form of existence) “I 
live in faith,” etc. 

IV. 13: “ Because of an infirmity of the flesh (δι᾿ ἀσϑένειαν τῆς σαρκός) 
I preached the gospel unto you,” instead of “ through infirmity” (which 
would require du’ doSeveiac). 

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. g., the Excursus 
of Lightfoot, and in my Commentary). 

VI. 11: “See with how large letters (or, characters, πηλίκοις γράμμα- 
σιν) 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, γράμματα. 


FRoM THE REMAINING Books, 


Phil. ii. 6, 7: “ Who being in the form of God, counted it not a prize 
(ἁρπαγμόν, a thing to be grasped) to be on an equality with God, but 
emptied himself” (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε) ; for “thought it not robbery to be 
equal with God: but made himself of no reputation.” 

This Jocus classicus 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 ἁρπαγμός. See 
the American note, and the Commentaries. 

Phil. ii. 10: “In the name of Jesus” (ἐν rq ὀνόματι) ; for “ αὐ the name.” 

Phil. iii. 20: “ Our citizenship (πολίτευμα) 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 
(τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως), that it may be conformed (σύμμορφον) to 
the body of his glory ;” for “ who shall change 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” (ἔκγονα) ; 
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 (ῥίζα, 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 (ἐπιλαμβάνεται) and the meaning 
of the verb, as if it referred to the incarnation. ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι 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” 
(βοηϑῆσαι), ver. 18. See the elaborate note of Bleek given by Alford in doc. 

Heb. ix. 27: “ It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh 
judgment ” (κρίσις) ; 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” (ἀσπασάμενοι) ; instead of “embraced them.” 

1 Pet. iii. 21: “The interrogation (ἐπερώτημα) of a good conscience 
toward God ;” instead of “the answer.” 

Whatever be the sense of this difficult passage, ἐπερώτημα cannot 
mean an answer, but must mean inquiry or seeking after God. 


THE REVISED VERSION. 455 


Rev. vi. 6-9: “ Living creatures” (ζῶα); 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 
(Snpia) 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 both 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 by 
faithfulness, consistency, and the progress of the 
Pees enemies Fidelity to the original must 


456 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- 
luthie periods of Paul (6. g., Eph. i. 3-14) into short, 
smooth sentences, although these would be more 
congenial to the genius of the English language. 

I. Arcuatsms.— 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- 
ered 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 
guated 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. AOE 


througiaout, 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.) Misteapine Arcuatsms.—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- Ὁ 
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 καταλλαγή, but theologically it is now used in the sense of expiation 
or propitiation (ἱλασμός, 1 John ii. 2; iv. 10; ἱλαστήριον, Rom. iii. 25). 

“ By-and-by,” for “immediately” or “forthwith” (εὐθύς or εὐθέως), 
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” (ὅρια, μέρη, χώρα), for “ borders,” “ parts,” “country,” Matt. 
ii. 16; xvi. 13; xix. 1; Mark vii. 31; Acts xix. 1; xxvi. 20. 

“ Conversation” (ἀναστροφή), 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. 1.15; ii. 12; iii. 1,2,16; 2 Pet. ii. 7; iii,11. In Phil. iii, 20 “con. 
versation” is replaced by “ citizenship” (πολίτευμα). 

* 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 
XXvVili. 13. 

“ His,” for “its,” Matt. v. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 38, etc. 

“ Horse bridles,” for “ horses’ bridles,” or “ bridles of the horses,” Rey. 
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 (σπουδαίως) ; Acts xxvi.7 (ἐν 
ἐκτεγείᾳ). 

“ 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 Thess. 
ii.7. The word means now the reverse, except in the phrase “ without let 
or hindrance.” 

“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 prevenire, to come before, to forestall), for “ precede,” 
1 Thess. iv. 15 (οὐ μὴ φϑάσωμεν), or “spake tirst,” Matt. xvii. 25 (προ- 
ἐφϑασεν αὐτόν). Now the verb has the opposite meaning, “ to hinder.” 

“ Proper,” for “beautiful,” Heb. xi. Ἐτόντεῖονν of Moses, "ἃ 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,” ὁ. e., once, formerly, Eph. v. 8. 

“ Thought,” in the obsolete sense of “ anxiety.” Matt. vi. 25: “ Be not 
anxious,” for “take no thought” (μὴ μεριμνᾶτε). Compare Phil. iv. 6, 
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 Clomauiittane é 


THE REVISED VERSION. 459 


“Charger,” 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” and “haling,” in the sense “to drag” (haul), 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, 
φαρμακεία). 

(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 “ti” ending of the 
verb (ath 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 indicative) for “are,” “he was an hungred” for “he 
hungered ” (Matt. iv. 2; xii. 1), “whales” for “ while” 
(Matt.v.25; Acts v.4), “wot” for“ know” (retained in 


460 THE REVISED VERSION. 


Acts iii.17; vii.40; Rom. xi.2; Phil.i. 22), and “wis” 
for “knew” (Mark ix.6; xiv.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. 17, and in six other pas- 
sages), “often,” used as plural adjective for “frequent” 
(1 Tim. v. 23, “thine often infirmities”), “but and 
yf” (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 Revisers, 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 ;* 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,” ete. 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 zhat is the old English relative and 
the most common in Wiclif, but was often replaced 


” E. σιν they have introduced the archaic “howbeit” 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,” and 
is now again used as a relative, sometimes for the 
sake of euphony, sometimes with a slightly defining 
force. “ Which” was originally an adjective (qualis, 
“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” (gut, ὅς, 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 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. 9), but in the old-fashioned and now ungram- 
matical form, “ Vater unser,” 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 unser,” and “ Erldse uns vom Uebel ;” the Reformed, “ Unser Vater,” 
and “ Erlése uns vom Bésen,” 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, 
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 μὴ γένοιτο, by “ God forbid,” 
which has been retained from the Authorized Ver- 
sion in all the fifteen passages where it occurs (ex- 
cept Gal. vi. 14, “Far be it from me”). 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 set ferne”). The pro- 
fane use of the name of God in the Elizabethan age 
and by Queen Elizabeth herself (ὁ. g., in her letter 
to the Bishop of Ely: “ By God, I will unfrock 
you ")s as well as by her successor James, should 
receive no aid and comfort from the English Bible. 

II. New Worps Inrropucep.—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 follos the Authorized Version and 
the American custom. 


THE REVISED VERSION. 463 


Abyss, active, actually, advanced, aforepromised, aim, ancient, anew, 
animals, announce, anxiety, anxious, apparitivii, 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, intru*ted, irksome, its. 

Justice. 

Kinswoman. 

Late, later, lawlessness (2 Thess. ii. 7; 1 John iii. 4, ἀνομία), 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, pretorian 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 shamefacedness; 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, wranglings, wrong-doer, wrong-doing. 


III. Improvements 1n Ruytam. — 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 : 

MarTrt. Vv. 6. 
Revised Version. Authorized Version. 
Blessed are they that hunger and| Blessed are they which do hunger 


thirst after righteousness: for they | and thirst after righteousness: for 
shall be filled. they shall be filled. 


Mart. vit. 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-| swine ran violently down a steep 
ished in the waters. place into the sea, and perished in 

| the waters. 


Acts 11. 20. 


Revised Version. Authorized Version. 
The sun shall be turned into dark- The sun shall be turned into dark- 
ness, ness, and the moon into blood, be: 
And the moon into blood, fore that great and notable day of 


Before the day of the Lord come, the Lord come, 
Chat great and notable day. 


THE REVISED VERSION. 


Cot, tv. 10. 


Revised Version. 
Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, 


Authorized Version. 
Marcus sister’s son to Barnabas. 


2 Tuuss, 1. 11. 


Revised Version, 
That our God may count you 


Authorized Version. 
That our God would count you 


worthy of your calling, and fulfil | worthy of this calling, and fulfil all 
every desire of goodness and every | the good pleasure of his goodness, and 


work of faith, with power. 


the work of faith with power. 


REVELATION vit, 17. 


Revised Version. 

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 


Authorized Version. 

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 
away ail tears from their eyes. 


eyes. 


IV. GrammaticaL Irrea@uiaritres.—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 


466 THE REVISED VERSION. 


is better than violation, unless there is a good rea- 
son for the exception. 

The singular verb is repeatedly used with two or 
more subjects. The following are examples: 


Matt. vi. 19: “ Where moth and rust doth (for do) consume.” So in the 
Greek (ἀφανίζει) 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 has hang, following the 
textus receptus (κρέμανται); but the Revised Version adopts the reading 
κρέμαται after νύμος. 

Matt. xxvii. 56: “ Among whom was (for were) Mary Magdalene, and 
Mary the mother of James and Joses, 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?” But the Greek has the 
singular ἦν, and the Authorized Version was. The verb is adjusted to 
the first name, and is silently repeated. The case is different when two 
or more nouns precede, as in Matt. vi. 19. 

Mark iii. 33 : “ Who ὦ (τίς ἐστιν} my mother and my brethren?” Mr, 
Moon exclaims: “ Who is they!” and refers to Matt. xii. 48: “ Who ἐξ my 
mother? and who are (τίνες εἰσίν.) my brethren?” But in both cases the 
Revisers simply followed the Greek. 

Acts xvii. 34: “ Among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and 
a woman named Damaris, and others.” 

Rom. ix. 4: “ Whose is the adoption, and the glory,” etc. Here the 
Greek omits the verb, and the Authorized Version supplies pertaineth. 

Compare also 1 Cor, xiii. 138; Eph. iii. 18; 1 Tim. i. 20; James iii. 10, 16; 
Heb. ix. 4. 

An example of the reverse irregularity we have in Rev. xx. 13: “ And 
they were judged every man according to their works.” Mr. Moon thinks 
it ought to be “ his works,” but the Greek has αὐτῶν, as required by the 
plural verb ἐκρίϑησαν. The ἕκαστος individualizes the judgment. A 
comma before and after “every man” would make all plain. 


V. Inreticrtixs.—Here belong some harsh and 
clashing renderings which arise mostly from a slay- 
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, 
aud the true reading 6 (for οὕς), which expresses the undivided totality 
of believers; compare ver. 2 (πᾶν-αὐτοῖς). 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 1 am,” ete, Westcott (in the Speaker’s Commentary) proposes: 
“As for that which thou hast given me, I will that... they.” This 
does uot relieve the difficulty. Better, though less literal, “ As for those 
whom,” etc., with a marginal note: Gr. “ As for that which.” ? 

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 (ἡμεῖς 
ot ζῶντες, οἱ περιλειπόμενοι). 

Heb. xii. 13: “that that which is lame be not turned out of the way.” 
Avoided in the Authorized Version by “lest that” (iva μή). Or, “ that 
the lame” (Noyes and Davidson). 

Heb, xi. 19: “he did also in a parable receive him back.” Literal (ἐν 
παραβολῇ), but unintelligible to the English reader. Davidson’s render- 
ing, “in a symbol,” is no improvement. Noyes: “figuratively.” The 
old version is preferable, except that it puts the words “in a figure” 
wrongly after the verb. Better in The Speaker’s Commentary: “ from 
whence he did also in a figure receive him back.” 

2 Pet. i.7: “in your dove of the brethren love” (ἐν τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ aya- 
anv). Intolerable. Better with the Authorized Version and the Amer- 
ican Committee, “brotherly kindness” for φιλαδελφία (so also Alford, 
Noyes, Davidson), or “universal love” for ἀγάπη. 

Matt. v. 35: “footstool of his feet” (ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ); for 
“his footstool.” From the Hebrew, Ps. xcix. 5; cx. 1; Isa. lxvi. 1, and 
the Septuagint. So also Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 43; Acts ii. 35; vii. 49; 


‘ 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 Revisers, in 
Schaff’s /Ulustr. 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 6 for οὕς, 


468 THE REVISED VERSION. 


Heb. i. 13; x. 13. Reproduced in the Vulgate (scabellum pedum ejus), 
Luther (Schemel seiner Fiisse, retained by De Wette and Weizsiicker), the 
Hutch Version (voetbank zijner voeten). 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 wud 
is introduced no less than six times in one sentence in scrupulous fidelity 
to the original. The repetition of the little dé 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 δέ, 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 ina 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 we 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 
Anthorized 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—e. g., 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”’); 
“the falling away” and “the 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 “ὦ city”); “the good fight” 
of faith, “the course,” “the crown of righteousness,” 
2 Tim. iv. 7, 8 (instead of “ὦ 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 (τὸν Ἰσαάκ, but 
᾿Αβραάμ in Matt. i.1,2sqq.) or countries (ἡ Ἰουδαία, 
ἡ Γαλιλαία, ἡ ᾿Ασία, ἡ Alyumroc’); in the designa- 
tion of a class or genus (6 ἄνϑρωπος, man, αἱ ad- 
mexec, foxes); in Rom. v.12, ἡ ἁμαρτία and ὁ Savaroc, 
sin and death, as a principle or all-pervading power. 
But it is used in English where it is omitted in 


? Winer says Αἴγυπτος never takes the article, but Lachmann, Tregelles, 
Westcott and Hort admit it in Acts vii. 36, on the authority of B, C, etc.; 
while Tischendorf, eighth edition, omits it with &, A, E, H, P. 


470 THE REVISED VERSION. 


Greek in a number of adverbial phrases (ἐν ἀρχῇ, in 
the beginning, ἐν ἀγορᾷ, in the market-place); be- 
fore ϑεός (while the plural οἱ Seoi 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.’ 

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 5, 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 “loguacissime gentis flabellum.” 
But he is certainly wrong in censuring the Revisers for omitting the ar- 
ticle in John iv. 27. “a woman,” μετὰ γυναικός, for “the woman” (the ὁ 
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,” ῥίζα, 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. 411 


duced by the English preterite not only in ἃ con- 
secutive narrative, but also in didactic discourse, 
whenever the writer refers to a definite act in the 
past, as crucifixion and resurrection (Rom. iv. 25; 
vi. 10; Gal. iii. 21, ete.), or the conversion and bap- 
tism of the readers (Rom. vi. 3,4; Gal. 11. 19; ii. 27; 
2 Cor. v. 14, 15, ete.). 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 δικαιοσύνη 
ϑεοῦ than “a righteousness” (or “the righteousness” in the Authorized 
Version), and the contrasted “ God’s wrath,” ὀργὴ Seov, in the following 
verse, instead of “the wrath of God,” which the Revised Version incon- 
sistently retained from the Authorized Version, with “a wrath” in the 
margin. 

In Matt. vii. 6 the definite article before κυνές and χοῖροι is generic 
(as before ἁμαρτία and Savaroc 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 the 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 ἀλώπεκες, 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, “the weeping and gnash- 


92 


472 THE REVISED VERSION. 


ing” (consistency would require “the gnashing”), for ὁ κλαυϑμὸς καὶ 6 
βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. The Authorized Version, which omits the article 
in both cases, is preferable. 

Other questionable uses of the definite article are: “the bushel,” Matt. 
νυ. 45; “the rock,” Matt. vil. 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 Rey. 
xxii. 15. Compare also the important class of passages mentioned in 
No. XIII. of the American Appendix. 

One of the most difficult questions connected with the article is the 
Pauline use of the anarthyous νόμος. The Revisers vary between “the 
law,” “a law,” and “law.” On general principles we would say that 6 
νόμος, “ the law,” means the Mosaic or written law (moral and ceremonial), 
while νόμος, “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 νόμος had, like Θεός, Κύριος, 
γραφαὶ ἅγιαι (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 νόμος and ὁ νόμος without danger of being mis- 
understood. In Galatians he uses νόμος without the article even more 
frequently than with it.’ In Gal. ii. 16, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, and in ver. 19, 
διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέϑανον, he can hardly mean any other law but that 
of Moses, and hence the Revisers have correctly rendered the passages 
“by the works of the law,” and “I through the law died unto the law,” 
although they have put “law” on the margin. So in vi. 13: οὐδὲ ot περι- 
τεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν, “not even they who receive cir- 
cumcision do themselves keep the law” (so the Revised Version, with the 
useless margin, “Or,alaw”). The same holds true in Rom. ii. 17: “Thou 
art called a Jew and restest upon the law” (νόμῳ) ; compare ver. 23 (ἐν 
νόμῳ and τοῦ νόμου) and ver. 27; vii. 1: γινώσκουσι νόμον λαλῶ, “I 
speak to men that know the law” (again with the useless margin, “ Or, 
law"); x. 4: xiii. 8, 10.? 


1 From my counting in Bruder’s Greek Concordance the figures are 
these: in the six chapters of Galatians the anarthrous νόμος occurs twen- 
tv times, ὁ νόμος ten times; in the sixteen chapters of Romans νόμος 
occurs thirty-four times, ὁ νόμος thirty-five times. 

3 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 ἀφήκαμεν (which 
is better supported than the present ἀφίεμεν) 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 (ἦραν) the Lord,” and ver. 3: “they have laid him (ἔϑηκαν),᾽ 
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” 
(πάντα μοι παρεδόϑη, in the Authorized Version “all things are deliv- 
ered,” which is certainly wrong); xxv. 20: “I have gained” (ἐκέρδησα). 
But in Matt. xxvii. 4 the rendering “I sinned in betraying innocent 
blood,” seems better adapted to the terse Greek (ijuaprov παραδούς) and 
the desperate state of Judas than “I have sinned i that I [have ] betiayed 
innocent blood,” which the Revisers retained from the Authorized Version 
with the exception of the second “have.” In Rom. iii. 23, ἥμαρτον» should 
have been rendered “sinned” for “have sinned,” consistently with Rom. 
y. 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. ‘“ Alzguando 
dormitat bonus Homerus.” 


“ Thy house” in Matt. ix. 6 and Luke v. 24, but “thine house” in Luke 


Weiss on Romans ii. 12 sqq., Wieseler and Lightfoot on Galatians ii, 15, 
19,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 νόμος and ὁ νόμος ; 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, 


474 THE REVISED VERSION. 


vil. 44, “Quick” (ζῶν) is changed to “living,” Heb. iv. 12, but left in 
Acts x. 42 (“judge of quick and dead,” perhaps in deference to the Apos- 
tles’ Creed) ; “‘ quickening” (ζωοποιοῦν) is changed to “ life-giving,” 1 Cor. 
xv. 45; but “quickeneth” is retained in Juhn vi. 63. The obsolete form, 
“he was an hungred,” is changed in Matt. iv. 2, xxi. 18 into “he hun- 
gered,” 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” ?* 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”?* Why should the phrase 


1 Matt. vi. 26: τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. So also Matt. viii. 20; Luke 
ix. 58, etc. The Authorized Version is here, as often, inconsistent in using 
five times bird (Matt. viii. 20; xiii. 32; Luke ix. 58; Rom. i. 23; James 
iii. 7), and nine times fow/ (Matt. vi. 26; xiii. 4; Mark iv. 4, 32; Luke 
viii. 5; xii. 24; xiii. 19; Acts x.12; xi.6). οὐρανός is in most passages 
translated heaven, four times sky, nine times air. 

2 Rey. v. 8; xv. 7, and in ten other passages of the same book. The 
Greek φιάλῃ, corresponding in the Septuagint to P74, is a broad, flat, 


THE REVISED VERSION. 475 


“which, being interpreted, is God with us,” Matt. i. 
23, be made to run, “ which is, being interpreted, 
God with us”?* 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 ” ?? 

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 
isa 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 φιάλη 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. 

* This is simply to conform to the Greek order (0 ἐστι μεϑερμηνευόμε- 
voy), 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 1.41 (42); Actsiv.36. 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 Authorized? p. 50.) 

? 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 é THE 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 
_ Jandatory 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. Not 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 “ 7zdiculus 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 lazy’ (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” fur January, 1883, p. 385. 


THE REVISKD VERSION. 477 


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. 6; 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, and 
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 are few and small, and mostly the result 
of overtidelity to the Greek original and to the Eng- 
lish idiom of King James’s Version. Such defects 
are an excess of virtue, and have their redeeming 
advantage. They place the English reader in the 
position of the Greek scholar, and give him at the 
same time the assurance of the substantial accuracy 
of the old version. 

Faithfulness must be the supreme law of a trans- 
lator of the Bible, which is the inspired record of 
God’s revelation to man, and the original charter of 
our faith. To this law all other considerations must 
bend. Faithfulness was the ruling principle and 
highest aim of the Revisers. Their revision will 
be modified and improved at some future day, but 
the foundation will stand and outlast the critics. 


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 WORK. 


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 1. 18 
(μονογενὴς ϑεός, Or ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός); on Acts xx. 
28 (ϑεοῦ, or κυρίου); 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 Isaran and of the Epis- 
tle to the Hrsrews, 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 New Testament Com- 
pany, to the writer: 


“WILMINGTON, DeEL., April 25, 1881. 


“My Dear Sir: 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. 

“1 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 Gospeleictiihesssk ha cidieeases 318 
ACES .'. i ieee IgE Eobeae > oo cet Hees ss 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 food for meat, Hudes 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. 

“Tf you wish for more particular information upon any of these points, 
I shall be happy to supply it as far as I can. 

“Very truly yours, © 
“ ALFRED LEE.” 


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 1880, 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 REVISED VERSION. 481 


Mead, of Andover, Mass., ἃ 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 Dear Pror. 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—+.e., whether 
to call it one, two, or three, when a whole clause is transformed. In gen- 
éral 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 Revisers........ 1781 
Whole number of changes made by the English Revisers.......... 1004 
Changes identical in: both ig adits os «tite § stds ond REPS 4 Thies 455 
Changes substantially the same in both...............200++0000- 134 
Passages differently changed by both. ..........00-.eeseeeeeereee 289 


Changes in Amer. Revision where there are none in English Revision 913 
Changes in English Revision where there are none in Amer. Revision 236 
American readings found in English margin ..............-++.++- 53 
English readings found in American margin .........-..+0e+ee005 12 


“The general result is that in about half the cases we coincide. More 
exactly, the identical changes form about 45} per cent. of the changes 
made by the English. Adding the cases of substantial coincidence, we 
have made 582 per cent. of the changes which they have made. In 
multitudes of other cases there would be a ready 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 


482 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 
few 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 
Angust 3, 1877, which is as follows: 

“If any differences shall still remain, the American Committee will 


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 disttnctly 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 we 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 by the American Committee, 
recorded at their desire. See Prefuce, 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 ali 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- 
pany), 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. 

The Appendix consists of two parts. The first 
contains fourteen classes of passages, and implies 
general rules;’ 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.’ 


1. THe TirLes 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 


Ὁ In Rule XIII. the reference to “Col. i. 3” ought to be stricken out, 
because the Revisers read τῷ Seq πατρὶ without the intervening καί of 
the textus receptus. 

3 For a fuller vindication of the Appendix, see the writer’s additional 
chapter in the American edition of Dr. Roberts’s Companion to the Revised 
New Testament, pp. 192-206, and in an article contributed to “ Christian 
Opinion and 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 
MSS. (x, B, Ὁ, 8, Ὁ, 6, q, ete.) read simply: “ Accord- 
ing to Matthew” (Kara MaSSaiov), or “ The Gospel 
according to Matthew” (Εὐαγγέλιον τὸ κατὰ M.). 
Some of later date add the title to the book (not the 
author): “ Zhe Holy Gospel according to Matthew.” 

(6.) 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 ἅγιος to all believers, as being separated from 
the world, consecrated to God, and destined for holi- 
ness. See Rom.i. 7; xii. 13; xvi. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 9; 
Acts ix. 18, 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 “ Samt” 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 


A86 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, “ Zo the Romans” (Πρὺς Ῥωμαίους), ete., 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. 

(c.) 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, “ Zo the Hebrews” (Πρὸς Ἑβραίους). 
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 REVISED VERSION. 487 


(f.) The title “ General” (“ Catholic,” καϑολική) 
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 each 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, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul. 
The highest order of merit and distinction needs no 
epithet of honor. 

2. RENDERING OF TERMS DENOTING CoINs, 
“Let ἀσσάριον (Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 6) be translated ‘penny,’ and 


δηνάριον “ shilling, 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 λεπτόν (the eighth part of an ἀσσάριον, or ace, 
half a guadrans, or about one fifth of one cent), and 
“farthing” for κοδράντης (quadrans, the fourth part 
of an ace, equivalent to two mites, δύο λεπτά), as in 
Mark xii. 42, “a poor widow cast in two mites which 
make a farthing.” But the more valuable coins are 
mischievously perverted and belittled. Bishop Light: 
foot, me, the most influential of the English Re 


488 THE REVISED VERSION. 


visers, has shown this so well that I can do no better 
than quote him in full justification of the American 
view. He says:’ 


“Why ἀσσάριον, the late Greek diminutive used for the as, of which, 
therefore, the κοδράντης is a fourth part, should still be translated a 
farthing (which elsewhere represents kodpayrnc) rather than penny, it is 
difficult to see (Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 6). 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 
δηνάριον 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 (6. 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 χοῖνιξ, here translated ‘ measure,’ falls below the 
amount of a quart, while the word δηνάριον, 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« 4 Fresh Revision of the 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 ἀσσάριον (Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 
6), and twice for κοδράντης (Matt. v. 26; Mark xii. 
42), and the “penny” (with “pence” and “ penny- 
worth’) for δηνάριον 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,” ὁ. ¢., 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 twe 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 δηνά- 
ριον and the Latin denarius. Sometimes a little 
matter gives great trouble. This is an instance. 
The inevitable penny was discussed over and over 
again in the Jerusalem Chamber and in the Bible 
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 dendry might be mispronounced 
deanery, and give rise to the jest that the Revisers 


490 THE REVISED VERSION. 


sold a deanery fora penny. The precise rendering 
would be “eight pence and a half,” but this is no 
single coin. ‘‘ Siw 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 “ shelling,” “frane,” 
“ 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. 87; xiv. 5; Luke 
vii. 41; x.35; John vi. 7; xii. 5); for denarw sounds 
too much like Latin for an English Bible. They 
agreed at last upon “ shelleng,” 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, shelling 
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 
Convocations of Canterbury and York before it can 
be used in public worship. All other churches can 
act independently, or leave the matter with minis- 
ters and congregations, If approved, the Revision 


THE REVISED VERSION. 49] 


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—. ¢., 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,’ some approve it,’ 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, 

? 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 Atheneum (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,” Mr. Thoms, the compiler of the 
Complete Concordance to the Revised Version of the New Testament, Pubs 


492 THE REVISED VERSION. 


demned it. In the United States public opinion 
seems unanimously in favor of the American readings 
and renderings." 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 Revisers, for they only retained 
certain words and phrases of the old usage which is — 
still preferred by the majority of Englishmen.’ 


lished under the Authorization 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 schclar, Professor W. 5, 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.” 

? The following are specimens from the Appendix in one of these 
Americanized editions: 


AMERICAN EDITION. University EpIrion. 
“ List of Readings and Renderings| “ List of Readings and Renderings 
preferred by the English Committee. | preferred by the American Commit- 
tee, recorded at their desire, 


II. In the title of the Pauline II. Strike out ‘the Apostle’ from 


Epistles (except those to the 
Galatians, Titus, and Phile- 
mon) insert ‘the Apostle; 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,’ 


the title of the Pauline Epis- 
tles, and ‘of Paul 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 


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. 


III. 


VII. 


AMERICAN EDITION. 

Wherever ‘ Holy Spirit’ oc- 
curs, substitute ὁ Holy Ghost, 
except in Mark iii. 29, Luke 
li. 25, 26; iv. 1; x.21; xi. 13; 
xii, 10,12; John i. 33; xiv. 
26; Acts ii. 4; vi. 5; 1 Cor. 
xii. 3; Ephes. i. 13; iv. 30; 1 
Thess. iv. 8; Jude 20. 


. Use ‘which’ of persons as well 


as ‘who’ or ‘ that;’ ‘be’ as well 
as ‘are’ in the present indica- 
tive; ‘wot’ or ‘wist’ as well as 
‘know’ or ‘knew ;’ and ‘hale’ 
for ‘drag.’ 


Substitute for ‘demon’ (‘ de- 
mons’) the word ‘devil’ (‘dev- 
ils”); and for ‘demoniac’ or 
‘ possessed with a demon’ (‘ de- 
mons’) substitute ‘ possessed 
with a devil’ (: devils ΝΜ 


ΠΙ. 


VII. 


University EpDITIon. 

For ‘ Holy Ghost’ adopt uni- 
formly the rendering ‘ Holy 
Spirit.’ 


. Substitute modern forms of 


speech for the following ar- 
chaisms, viz., ‘who’ or ‘that’ 
for ‘which’ when used of per- 
sons; ‘are’ for ‘be’ in the 
present indicative; ‘know,’ 
‘knew,’ for ‘wot,’ ‘wist;’ ‘drag’ 
or ‘drag away’ for ‘hale.’ 
Substitute for ‘devil’ (‘devils’) 
the word ‘demon’ (‘demons’) 
wherever the latter word is 
given in the margin (or repre- 
sents the Greek words dai- 
μων, δαιμόνιον); and for ‘pos- 
sessed with a devil’ (or devils’) 
substitute either ‘demoniac’ 
or ‘ possessed with a demon' (or 
‘demons’).” RCM Pe eae 


494 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 isa 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. 


Ω 


i ad 


"ἢ 


ὅν 


αὖ 
ΤΆ 


3 


δὴ 


ΙΑ ἡ 


APPENDIX I. 


LIST OF PRINTED EDITIONS OF 
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


By Proressor Isaac H. Haiti, New Yor«x. 


Norr.—The following list consists of the “ Index I. Editio- 
num” from the Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Greci, Brunsvige, 
1872 (pp. 289-301), by Professor Epuarp Reuss, 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. Τὶ is 
rather less than twenty-five. A list of each, supplemented 
and continued to the present time, would add at least half as 


498 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


many more Harmonies, 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 τὸ 1870. 


List of Reuss enlarged. 


(The numbers are Reuss’s; editors’ names in SMALL CAPITALS; publishers’ in 
heavy type; places of publication in italics.) 


ἈΠ 1514. Biblia polyglotta Complutensia. fol. [Carp. XIMENES. 
Alcala. The first printed, published 1522. ] 
*2. 1516. Erasmi I. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. [The first pub- 
lished. } 
8, 1518. Biblia gr. Aldina. Venet. fol. 
4, 1519. Erasmi IT. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. 
5. 1621. Gerpeti. Hagenow. Anshelm. 4. 
*6. 1522. Erasmi IIL. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. [1 John v. 7 
admitted. The basis of the ¢extus receptus, except in Revelation. ] 
ἡ. 1524. Cephalei. Argent. 8. 
8. 1524. Bebelii I. Basil. 8. 
9. 1527. Erasmi IV. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. [With Vulg.] 
10. 1531. Bebelii II. Basil. 8. 
11. 1531. Rescii. Lovan. 8. 
13. 1584. Colinei. Paris. 8. [The first attempt at a critical 
edition. ] 
14. 1535. Erasmr V. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. 
15. 1535. Bebelii III. Basil. 8. 
16. 1536. Valderi. Basil. 82. [The first miniature-sized. ] 
18. 1538. Plateri I. Basil. 8. 
19. 1538. Ant. de Sabio II. Venet. 8. [Kd. 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.) Erasmr VII. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. 
28. 1541. Brylingeri I. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 
24. 1542. Brylingeri II. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 499 


25. 1543. 


26. 1543. Bogardi. gr. lat. Paris. Guillard. 12. 


Brylingeri III. Basil. 8. 
[ Toussarnr. 


Displays some critical effort. ] 


(26.) 1648. 
27. 1548. 
(27.) 1544, 
28, 1544, 
[ 1544. 
29, 1545. 
1545. 
81. 1545. 
1546, 
. 1546, 
1547. 
85. 1548. 
36. 1549. 
37. 1549. 
(37.) 1549. 
38. 1549. 
39. 1549. 
(39.) 1549. 
*40, 1550. 


Roignyi. gr. lat. Paris. Guillard. 12. 
Plateri III. Basil. 8. 

Plateri ΠΠ. Basil. 8. 

Brylingeri IV. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 
Erasmiana. Honter. gr. lat. Corone. 4.] 

Curionis. Basil. 16. 

Frobenii. Basil. 4. 

Biblia gr. Basil, Hervagii.fol. [MsLancutuon’s ed. ] 
Brylingeri V. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 

Ros. StepHanr 1. Paris. 16. [‘‘O Mirificam.”’] 
Froschoveri I. Tiguri. 8. 

Brylingeri VI. Basil. 8. 

Brylingeri VII. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 

Dupuisii. gr. lat. Paris. 16. 

Granjon (Marnef, Fezandat). gr. lat. Paris. 16. 

Ros. StepHani Il. Paris. 16. [“0 Mirificam” Π.] 
Prevotii. Paris. Haultin. 16. 

Prevotii. Paris. Birkmann. 16. 

Ros. StepHani III. Paris. fol. [‘‘ Editio regia.” Eng- 


[ToussainT. ] 


lish textus receptus, so called. ] 


41. 1550. 
*42. 1551. 


Brylingeri VIII. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 
Ros. Stepuant IV. gr. lat. (Genev.) 16. [First divided 


into modern verses. ] 


43. 
44. 
45. 
46. 
41. 
48. 


1552. 
1553. 
1558. 
1553. 
1556. 
1558. 
49. 1558, 
50. 1559. 
51. 1559. 
52. 16559. 


Beza’s Latin o 


(52.) 1559. 
(52.) 1560. 
54, 1562. 
5D. 1563. 


Oporini. Basil. 16. 

Brylingeri IX. Basil. 8. 
Brylingeri X. gr. lat. Basil. 8, 
Jo. Crispini I. (Genev.) 16. 
Brylingeri XI. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 
Brylingeri XII. gr. lat. Basi. 8.. 
Brylingeri XIII. Basil. 8. 
Froschoveri II. Tiguri. 8. 
Tornesii. gr. lat. Lugd. 8. 
Barbirii. gr. lat. Basil. fol. 
nly. | 

Tiguri. gr. lat. fol. 
Barbirii. gr. lat. Basil. fol. 
Brylingeri XIV. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 
Brylingeri XV. Basil. 8. 


[Pseudo-Brzm. It has 


500 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


56. 1563. 
57. 1563 (1564). 
58. 1564, 
59. 1564. 
(59.) 1565. 
1565. 
61. 1565. 
62. 1565. 
68. 1566. 
64, 1566. 
65. 1567. 
66. 1568. 
(66.) 1569. 
67. 1569. 
68. 1570. 
69. 1570. 
70, 1571. 
(67.) 1571. 
“1. 1571, 


*60. 


Polyglott. | 


72. 1572. 
73. 1573. 
74, 1574. 
75. 1574, 
76. 1576. 


Voegelini I. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 

Voegelini II. Lips. 8. 

Brylingeri XVI. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 

Jo. Crispini II. (Genev.) 16. 

Jo. Crispini II. (Genev.) 16. 

Bez major. I. gr. lat. (Genev.) Steph. fol. 
Bez minor. I. gr. lat. (Genev.) Steph. 8. 
Voegelini III. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 

Froschoveri III. Ziguri. 8. 

Brylingeri XVII. gr. lat. Basil, 8. 

Bez minor. Π gr. lat. (Genev.) Steph. 8. 
Rob. Stephani jun. Paris. 16. 

Rob. Stephani jun. Paris. 16. 

TREMELLII triglotton. (Genev.) Steph. fol. 
Fract I. Perna. Basil. fol. 

Voegelini IV. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 

Brylingeri XVIII. gr. lat. Basil. 8, 
TREMELLI triglotton. Ζαρα. fol. 

Biblia polyglotta. Antwerp. Plantin. fol. [Antwerp 


Plantini I. gr. lat. Antwerp. fol. 
Plantini Il. Antwerp. 8. 
Plantini III. Antwerp. 32. 
Vignonii I. (Genev.) 16. 


Henr. SrepHani I. ((fenev.) 16. [Preface contains 


his celebrated essay on the style of the Gr. N. T.] 


77. 1577. 
18. 1578. 
79. 1580. 
? 1581. 
80. 1582. 
81. 1582. 
82, 1583. 
83. 1583. 
(88.) 1583. 
84. 1584. 
85. 1584. 
*86. 1584. 
(86.) 1586. 
87. 1586. 
88. 1587. 


Brylingeri XIX. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 
Steinmanni I. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 

Bez minor. IIT. gr. lat. (Genev. Steph.) 8. 
Burgis Araconensium. fol. [Same as No, 72?] 
Bez major. II. gr. lat. (Genev. Steph.) fol. 
Steinmanni II. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 

Plantini IV. gr. lat. Antwerp. 8. 

Selfischii I. gr. lat. Μοῦ. 8. 

Jegeri. gr. lat. Amst. 8. 

Plantini V. gr. lat. Antwerp. fol. 

Vignonii II. (Genev.) 16. 

BoperianI triglotton. Paris. Prevoteau. 4. 
Boperiani triglotton. Paris. Le Bouc. 4. 
Ostenii I. Basil. 8. 

Henr, StepHani II. (Genev.) 10, 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 501 


89. 1587. 
1587, 
91. 1588. 
1588. 
? 1588. 
1588. 


90. 
92. 


*93. 
Steph. ) fol. 


#(93.) 1589. 
loco et typog. sed Genev. 


*[(93.) 1589. 


Henr. Steph. fol. | 
1590. 
? 1590. 
95. 1591. 
1591. 
1592. 
1592. 
1594, 
1595 (1594), 
1596 (vel antea). Rihelii. gr. lat. Argent. 8. 
1596. 
1596. 
1597, 
(51.) 1597. 
*106. 1598. 


94. 


90. 
97. 
98. 
100. 
101. 
102. 
103. 
104. 
105. 


No. 93. ] 


#(106.) 1598. 


ties exist. ] 


107. 1599. 
108. 1599. 
(108.) 1599. 
(108.) 1599. 
| 1599. 
1599. 
1599. 
1600. 
1601. 
1601. 
(108.) 1602. 
115. 1602. 
116, 1604. 


109. 
110. 
ΜΕ, 
112. 
118. 
114, 


Vautrollerii. ZLond.16. [First Gr. N.T. pub. in Eng. ] 
Vignonii III. (Genev.) 16. 

.Ostenii II. gr. lat. Basil. 8. 

Steinmanni III. gr. lat. Lzps. 8. 

Stoerii. [gr. lat. Masch.] Genev. fol. [Same as No. 80?] 
Bez& major, III. gr. lat. ( Genev. | 


[ With No. 106, 
| the chief basis of 
our A. V.N. T.] 


Bezz major. III. gr. lat. 
Steph.) fol. 
Bez major. IL. gr. lat. Genev. 


(Sine 


Bez minor. IV. gr. lat. (Genev. “Vignon, )8. 
Plantiniana. Antwerp. 8. [Doubtful.] 
Raphelengii I. Lugd. Bat. 32. 
Lanzenbergeri I. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 
Londinensis Θ typogr. regia. 16. 

Mylii. gr. lat. Colon. Birkmann. 8. 
Voegelini V. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 

Voegelini VI. Lips. 8. 


Palthenii. gr. lat. Francof. 8. 

Wo tpekr! trilinguis. Hamb. Lucius. fol. 
Biblia gr. Wecheliana. Francof. fol. 
Roussini. gr. lat. Lugd. 8. 

Bez major. IV. gr. lat. (Genev.) Vignon. fol. [See 


Brez& major. Sine loco et typog. fol. [Other varie- 
Biblia Commeliniana. gr. lat. Heidelb. fol. 
Commelini. gr. lat. (Heidelb.) 8. 
Vincentii. gr. lat. Lugd. 8. 

Genev. gr. lat. 8. 

Harsyi I. gr. lat. Lugd. 8. 

Lanzenbergeri II. gr. lat. Lips. 8. 
Hurreri dodecaglotton. MNorimb. fol. 
Wecehelii II. Prancof. 16. 

Wechelii III. /rancof. fol. 

Raphelengii II. Zugd. Bat. 48. 
Commelini. gr. lat. (Heidelb.) 8. 

Hurreri tetraglotton. Norimb, 4. 

P. Srepuani I. (Genev.) 16. 


502 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


117. 1604. 
118. 1605. 
(118.) 1606. 
2 1609. 
[  (1609.) 
120. 1609. 
1609. 
1609. 
1609. 
1610. 
1611. 
1611. 
(126.) 1611. 
127. 1612. 
128, 1612. 
129. 1618. 
130. 1014. 
(180.) 1614. 
131. 1615. 
(115.) 1615. 
(107.) 1616. 
138. 1617. 


121. 
122. 
128. 
124, 
12. 
126. 


as Vignon. | 


(180.) 1617. 
184. 1618. 
135. 1618. 
136. 1619. 
137. 1619. 

(137.) 1619. 
138. 1619. 
(188.) 1620. 
(188.) 1620. 
1622. 
1622. 
1622. 
1623. 
1624. 


139. 
140. 
141. 
143. 
*144, 


Brez& minor. V. gr. lat. (Genev. Vignon.) 8, 
Selfischii II. gr. lat. Viteb. Seuberlich. 8. 
Selfischii II. gr. lat. Viteb. Seuberlich. 8. 
Raphelengii. gr. lat. Lugd. Bat. 8. 

Lond. 8.} 

Roverii I. gr. lat. (Genev.) fol. 

Roverii II. gr. lat. Aurel. Allobrog. 8, 
Roverii III. (Genev.) 24. 

Stoerii I. gr. lat. (Genev.) 12. 

Roverii IV. gr. lat. Aurel. Allobrog. 16. 
Harsyi II. gr. lat. Lugd. 16. 

Bez minor. VI. gr. lat. (Genev. Vignon.) 8. 
Brza minor. VI. gr. lat. (Genev. Crispin.) 8. 
Raphelengii III. Δα. Bat. 32. 

Sam. Crispini I. gr. lat. Genev. 12. 
Raphelengii IV. gr. lat. Lugd. Bat. 8. 
LusinI trilinguis. Rost. Pedanus, 4. 

Luin! trilinguis. Amst. Janson. 4. 
Vignonii IV. Genev. 16. 

Hourreri tetraglotton. Amst. 4. 

Biblia Commeliniana. gr. lat. (Heidelb.) fol. 
P. Stephani Il. S. Crispin. (Genev.) 16. [Text same 


Lusini trilinguis. ost. Hallerfeld. 4. 
HAFENREFFERI. gr. lat. Jub. Werlin. 4. 
Selfischii III. gr. lat. Viteb. Seuberlich. 8. 
Roverii V. gr. lat. (Genev.) fol. 

Roverii VI. gr. lat. Aurel. Allobrog. 8. 
Roverii VI. gr. lat. Sine loco. 8. 

Roverii VII. Col. Allobrog. 4. 

Roverii VII. Col. Allobrog. 4. 

Roverii VII. Genev. 4. 

Gereani. Witteb. Borheck. 4. [For use in Greece. ] 
Billii. Lond. 8. [R. Wuirraker. } 

Sam. Crispini II. gr. lat. (Genev.) 12. 
Selfischii IV. gr. lat. Viteb. 8. 


Elzevirorum [ Elzeviriorum] I. Jwgd. Bat. 24. 


[European ¢extus receptus, though not so called till after 1633.] 


145. 1625. 


Stoerii II. gr. lat. Genev. 12. 


[(158.) 1625. Buckii. Cantab. 8.] 


(180.) 1626. ΠΟ ΒΙΝῚ trilinguis, 


Rost. Ferber. 4. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 503 


146. 1626. 
147. 1627. 
149, 1628. 
(149.) 1628, 
150. 1628. 
151. 1628, 


[Henrici Laur(entii), not] Laurii I. gr. lat. Amst. 8, 
Stoerii III. gr. lat. Genev. ὃ. 

Tournesii I. (Genev.) 24. . 

Tournesii I. Awrel. Allobrog. 14. 

Tournesii II. trilinguis. Genev. 8. 


Jannonii. Sedan. 32. [The smallest ever published, 


except No. 450. ] 


152. 1628. 


Morini biblia greca. Paris. fol. [4 edd.; Sonnius. 


Chappelet, Buon, and A. Steph. } 


(150.) 1629. 
168. 1629. 


Tournesii II. Genev. 8. 
Wechelii IV. Hanov. 12. 


*154. 1680, 1633. Biblia polyglotta Parisiensia. Vitré. fol. 


2 1630, 
(187.) 1631. 
155. 1632. 
156. 1682. 
(156.) 1682. 
157. 1682. 
158. 1632. 
159. 1632. 
*160. 1633. 


Janssonii. Amst. 16. 

Roverii [VI.] gr. lat. Aurel. Allobrog. 8. 

Janssonii I. Amst. 16. 

Jac. Crispini. (enev.) 16. 

Tournesii III. 16. 

Tournesii IV. (Genev.) 24. 

Buckii. Cantabr. 8. 

Gorponl. gr. lat. Paris. Cramoisy. fol. 

Elzevirorum [Elzeviriorum, and so No. 167] II. Lugd 


Bat. 24. [The famous t¢extus receptus. ] 


161. 16383. 
162. 1633. 
168. 1635. 


Whittakeri. Lond. 8. [Elzevir. | 
Blaeuii. Amst. 32. 


Selfischii V. gr. lat. Vteb. 8. 


[  1685(2). BR. Whittakeri. 4.] 


164, 1638. 


Cyritt1 Lucaris bilinguis. Sine loco. [With the 


first Modern Greek version. ] 


165. 1639. 
166. 1639. 
(152.) 1641. 
167. 1641. 
(161.) 1641. 
168. 1642. 
169. 1642. 
2 1643. 
170, 1645. 
112. 1647. 
118. 1648. 
176, 1652. 
[ (662) 
34 


Janssonii II. Amst. 16. 

Janssonii III. Amst. 8. 

Morini biblia greca. Paris. Piget. fol. 
Elzevirorum III. Lugd. Bat. 24. 
Whittakeri. Lugd. Bat, Elzevir [1633]. 8. 
Danielis I. gr. lat. Cantadr. fol. 
Mazariniana. Paris. typ. reg. fol. 
Amsterd. 8. [Henr. Laurentii?] 
Borcteri I. Argent. Mulb. 24. 
[Laurentii, not] Laurii II. gr. lat. 
Frerii. Lond. 12. 

Danielis IT. Lond. 12. 

Danielis. Lond. 32.] 


Amst, 8, 


504 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


177. 1653. Danielis ITI. [IV.] Lond. 4. 
᾿ 178, 1653. Witteb. Roetel. gr. lat. 8. 
179. 1658. Hoorn. Lond. Norton. 12. 
180. 1654. Leersii I. oterd. 12. 
(153.) 1655. Ammonii. Hamb. 12. 
181. 1656. Elzevirorum[Elzeviriorum,and sobelow]IV. Amst.32. 
182. 1657. Kirchneri. gr. lat. 7225. fol. 
*183. 1657. Biblia polyglotta Watron1. Lond. Roycroft. fol. 
184. 1658. Leersii Il. Roterd. 12. 
*185. 1658. Curcettarl. Amst. Elzevir. 12. 
186. 1658. Er. Scumipnm. gr. lat. Norimb. fol. 
187. 1659. Fracu II. gr. lat. Francof. Beyer. fol. 
188. 1660. Pricz1 Comment. Lond. Fiesher. fol. 
189. 1660. BoxrctEri II. Argent. Staedel. 24. 
190. 1661. Wiistii I. gr. lat. Veteb. 8. 
191. 1661. Endteri. gr. lat. Francof. 8. 
192. 1662. Elzevirorum V. Amst. 16. 
198. 1663. Bodmeri 1. gr. lat. Tiguri. 8. 
194. 1664. Hoorm II. Lond. Norton. 12. 
195. 1665. Prarsonu. Cantabr. Field. 12. 
196. 1669. Hampolii. gr. lat. (88. 4. 
197. 1670. Elzevirorum VI. Amst. 16. 
198. 1671. Bodmeri II. gr. lat. Tigurz. 8. 
199. 1672. Hoorm III. Lond. Ranew. 12. 
4 1678. Hoot. Lond.12. (Wrongly suspected by Reuss.)] 
200. 1673. Montensis trilinguis. Migeot. 8. 
$196.) 1678. Wiistii IT. gr. lat. Francof. 4. 
(196.) 1678. Wistii IL. gr. lat. Hrancof. 8. 
201. 1674, Molini. Zugd. 12. 
202. 1674. Hooru IV. Lond. Mearne. 12. 
203. 1674. Redmainiil. Lond. 8. 
204. 1674. Wistii III. gr. lat. Francof. 8. 
205. 1675. Coccen I. Amst. Van Someren. fol. 
*206. 1675. Feri. Oxon. Sheldon. 8. 
207. 1675. Curcettar Il. Amst. Elzevir. 12. 
208. 1675. Lxruspenn I. Trajecti. Smytegelt. 16. 
209. 1675. Psrupo-Leuspentana. Trajecti. Smytegelt. 24. 
210. 1677. Bodmeri ΠῚ. TZiguri. 16. 
211. 1678. Elzevirorum VII. Amst. 16. 
212. 1685. Curcettar III. Amst. Blaeu. 12 
213. 1686. Wiistii IV. gr. lat. Mrancof. 12. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 505 


214. 1687. 
215. 1688. 
(215.) 1688. 
216. 1688. 
217. 1689. 
218. 1691. 
. (218.) 1691. 
219. 1692. 
220. 1692. 
(220.) 1693. 
221. 1693. 
222. 1693. 
224. 1697. 
225. 1697. 
(188.) 1698. 


Dulei biblia greeca. Venet. fol. 
Leuspent II. Amst. Boom. 16. 
Leuspeni II. Lond. Smith. 16. 
GezeLu. Aboe. 8. 

Coccen II. Francof. Wiist. fol. 
RecuenBere 1. Liimeb. Lipper. 12. 
RecHENBERGII I. Lips. Heinichen. 12. 
Patavina I. Cagnolini. 16. 

Rup. Leuspenu. Francof. Wiist. 8. 
Rup. Leuspenu. Francof. Wiist. 8. 
Wiistii V. gr. lat. Francof. 12. 
WInKELERI. gr. germ. Liineb. Lipper. 8. 
RecuenBerail II. Lips. Richter. 12. 
Fricku. Lips. Koenig. 8. 

Wattont N. Τὶ polygl. Zond. Smith ἃ Walford. fol. 


[Other copies of the N. T. vol. exist with different titles. ] 


226. 1698. 
(226.) 1698. 
(226.) 1698. 
1699. 
1699. 
1700. 
1700. 
[ 1701. 
1701, 
1701. 
1701. 
1701. 
1701. 
1702. 
1702. 
1703. 
1708. 
1704. 
1705. 
(248.) 1705. 
244. 1705. 
245. 1708. 
*246. 1707. 
248. 1708. 
(248.) 1708. 


227. 
228. 
231. 
232. 


233. 


234. 
235. 
236. 
237. 
238. 
239. 
240. 
242. 
248, 


Levuspent IIT. (Wetstenii I.) Amst. 12. 
Levuspenu III. (Wetstenii I.) gr. lat. Amst. 12. 
Levuspeni! II. (Wetstenii I.) gr. belg. Amst. 12. 
CurceELLaAI IV. Amst. Blaeu. 12. 

Leuspent1 IV. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24. 
Wiistii VI. gr. lat. Hrancof. 12. 

Cantabrigice. Jeffray. 12. 
Hoon. Lond. 8. (Suspected and omitted by Reuss.)] 
Coccen III. Amst. Blaeu. fol. 

Ruddimanorum. Hdinb. 16.] 

Wetstenii II. Amst. 16. 

Londini. Churchill. 8. 

Londini. Churchill. 12. 

Franxu. Lips. Koenig. 8. 

RecHeNBeRGI III. Lips. Richter. 12. 

Grecoru. Oxon. Sheldon. fol. 

Pritt I. Lips. Gleditsch. 12. 

Quillau. Paris. 24. 

Mat. Gisse. Vulpius. 12. 

Mat. gr. germ. Gisse. Vulpius. 12. 

Erasmi VII. gr. lat. Van der Aa. Lugd. Bat. fol 
Redmainii II. Lond. 8. 

Mittu. Oxon. Sheldon. fol. 

Bodmeri IV. Tiguri. 12. 

Bodmeri IV. gr. lat. Tiguri. 12. 


506 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


249. 
250. 
251. 
*252. 


253. 


1708. 
1709. 
1709. 
1710. 
(252.) 1710. 
1710. 


(249.) 1710. 
254. 1711 [error for 1709]. Wetusu. gr.eng. Ozf. Knaptou. 4 
[First English attempt at a critical text; 10 parts, 1709-19. ] 


*255. 1711. 

(255.) 1711. 
ing, etc. 

(249.) 1712. 
1713. 
1714. 
1715. 
1715. 
1715. 
(228.) 1716. 
1716. 
1717. 
(261.) 1717. 
1717. 
1717. 
1720. 
1720. 
1722. 
1722. 
(252.) 1723. 
1724. 
1724. 
1725. 
1725. 
1727. 
1728. 
1728. 
1728. 
1729. 
1730. 
1730. 
1730. 


256. 
257. 
258. 
259. 
260. 


[ 


261. 


262. 
263. 


_ foes 


264. 
265. 
266. 


267. 
268. 
269. 
270. 
271. 
272. 
218. 
214. 
275. 
276. 
277. 
278. 


Reyheri. gr. lat. Goth. 12. 

Priti Π. Lips. Gleditsch. 12. 
RECHENBERGI IV. Lips. Richter. 12. 
Kisrert. Amst.fol. [Kiister’s Mill.] 
Kisteri. Roterd. fol. 
Orphanotrophei 1. bilinguis. Hal. 12. 
Hanschii. gr. lat. Goth. 12. 


GeruarDil. [“G.D.T.M.D.”] Amst. Wetstein. 8. 
GreruarDI I. Amst. Wetstein. 8. [Varied in pag- 


The editor was GerHaRD VON Masrnicur. } 


Hanschii. gr. lat. Goth. 12. 

Rerwecci quadrilinguis. Zips. Lankisch. fol. 
Mairrarrii I. Lond. Tonson. 12. 
Bowyer I. Lond. 12. 

Cypriani. Goth. Reyher. 12. 

Emeryi. Paris. 8. 

Leuspeni IV. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24. 
Iyon. Say. 32.] 

Wetstenii III. Amst. 12. 

Wetstenii III. gr. lat. Amst, 12. 
Wiuiscnu. gr. lat. Chemnitz. Stoessel. 8. 
Wiuiscuu. gr. germ. Chemnitz. Stoessei. 8 
BENTLEI specimen. Lond. 8. 

Aboe. 8. 

Brocasii. Paris. 16. 

Vossii I. gr. lat. Lips. 12. 

Kisteri. Lips. Gleditsch. fol. 

Vossii II. Lips. 12. 

Pritu III. Lips. Gleditsch. 12. 

Reineccn I. Lips. Breitkopf. 8. 

Patavina Il. Manfré. 12. 

Vossii III. gr. lat. Lips. 12. 

Bowyer! II. Lond. 12. 

Lond. Knaplock. 8. 

Marrrarri II. Lond. Tonson. 12. 
(Macm.) gr. ang. Lond. Roberts. 8. 
Nevupeckeri. Hal. Renger. 8. 

Vossii IV. Lips. 12. 

Marrrairu III. Lond. Tonson. 12. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


(262.) 1730. 
(263.) 1730. 
1181. 
1182. 
1188. 
1184. 
1184. 
1785. 
1735. 
1736. 
1736. 
1787. 
1181. 
1181. 
(288.) 1188. 
1189. 
1740. 
1740. 
1740. 
1740. 
1740. 
(296.) 1740. 
(295.) 1741. 
(294.) 1741. 
1741. 
1742. 
1742, 
1748. 
1744. 
1745. 
1745. 
1746. 
(252.) 1746. 
(256.) 1747. 
305. 1749. 
306. 1750. 
307. 1750. 
808. 1750. 
309. 1751. 
(228.) 1751. 


279. 
280. 
281. 
*282. 
288. 
284. 
285. 
286. 
287. 
288. 
289. 
290. 


291. 
292. 
298. 
294. 
295. 
296. 


29. 
298. 
299. 
800. 
801. 
802. 
808. 
804. 


Wiuuiscnu. gr. lat. Chemnitz. Stoessel. 8. 


Wiuiscuit. gr. germ. Chemnitz. 
Srocxu. Jene. Mayer. 8. 
Vossii V. gr. germ. Lips. 12. 


Stoessel. 8. 


Retveccu II. Lips. Breitkopf. 8. 


Bence 1. Tubing. Cotta. 4. 
BencGeE.u II. Stuttg. Faber. 8. 
Primm IV. Lips. Gleditsch. 12. 


Geruarpi [Masrricuti] II. Amst. 


RecuenBereit V. Lips. Heinsius. 12. 


Greorcu I. Witteb. Teubner. 8. 


Geroret II. gr. lat. Wéitteb. Teubner. 8. 


Burtieu. ips. Weidmann. 8. 
Vossii VI. gr. lat. Lips. 12. 


Bence II. Zubing. Berger. 8. 


Vossii VII. Lips. 12. 
Ruddimanorum I. Zdinb. 8. 


DestE.tt. gr. lat. Vindob. Kaliwoda. 8. 


Orphanotrophei II. Hal. 12. 
Wetstenii IV. Amst. 12. 


MutuHManni. Zullichov. Orphanotr. 4. 


MourHMannl. gr. germ. Zullichov. Orphanotr. 4. 


Wetstenii IV. gr. lat. Amst. 12. 


Halle. gr. germ. Waisenhaus. 12. 


Taurini. typogr. regia. 12. 
Oxonii. Broughton. 8. 
Reieccn ΠῚ. Lips. Breitkopf. 
Bowyer III. Lond. 12. 


8. 


Scnorerrcent I. Lips. March. 8. 


Patavina 11. Manfré. 12. 
Vossii VIII. gr. lat. Lips. 12. 
Ewingii I. Dublin. 12. 
Kisterr. Amst. Wetstein. fol. 


Rerneccit quadrilinguis. ips. fol. 


Birrau. Basil. Mechel. 8. 
Vossii IX. Berol. 12. 
Ruddimanorum II. Zudinbd. 8. 
Glasgue. Urie. 8. 
Venetiis. Bortoli. 12. 
Leuspenu IV. Lugd. Bat. 


*310. 1751,1752, J.J. Wetstenu, Amst, 


Luchtmans. 24. 


Dommer. fol, 


507 


Wetstein. 12. 


508 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


811. 
812. 
818. 
814. 
81. 
816. 
(316.) 
817. 
318. 
(318.) 
819. 
890. 
821. 
829. 
323. 
894. 
82. 
326. 
327. 
328. 
829. 
880. 
(228.) 
331. 
882. 
888. 
884. 
88. 
886. 
337. 
*338. 
Curt. 8. 
#339, 


340. 
841. 
842. 
848. 
344. 


1753. 
1753. 
1753. 
1753. 
1755. 
1756. 
1756. 
1756. 
1757. 
1757. 
1758. 
1759. 
1760. 
1761. 
1762. 
1762. 
1762. 
1762. 
1763. 
1763. 
1763. 
1765. 
1765. 
1766. 
1768. 
1770. 
1771. 
1772. 
1774. 
1774. 
1774. 

[ Matt. Mare. Luc. ] 
1775. 
[Joh. Act. Epp. Apoc. ] 
1775. 
1775.) 
1775. 
1776. 
1776. 


Bence. III. Tubing. Berger. 8. 
Reece IV. Lips. Breitkopf. 8. 
GotpHAGENU. Mog. Varrentrapp. 
Vossii X. gr. lat. Berol. 12. 

Patavina IV. Manfré. 12. 
Orphanotrophei III. Hal. 12. 
Orphanotrophei III. gr. germ. Hal. 12. 
Marrramu IV, Lond. Tonson. 12. 
Vossii XI. Berol. 12. 

Vossii XI. gr. lat. Berol. 12. 
Stregnesie. Collin. 8. 

Charnleyi. Glasy. Foulis. 

Bowyer IV. Lond. 12. 

Vossii XII. gr. lat. Berol. 12. 
Patavina V. Manfré. 12. 

Patavina VI. (sine typog.) 12. 
Beneetur IV. Zubing. Berger. 8. 
Orphanotrophei IV. Hail. 12. 
Bowyeri V. Lond. 12. 

Baskervillii I. Oxon. Clarend. 4. 
Baskervillii II. Ozon. Clarend. 8. 
ScnoetrGent II. Vvratis/. Gampert. 8. 
Levspenu IV. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24. 
Rernecern V. Lips. Breitkopf. 8. 
(Harpy1I.) Lond. Richardson. 8. 
Bowyeri VI. Lond. 12. 
Ruddimanorum III. Ldinb. 8. 
Wetstenii V. gr. lat. Lugd. Bat. 12. 
Vossii XIII. Berol. 12. 

Patavina VII. Manfré. 12. 


7 is I. ἰ, 
GriesBacut Synopsis I. Ha [These two together 


form Griesbach’s 


GriespacoHi 1. Hal. Curt. 8. fret edition. 


Ewingii II. Dublin. 12. 

Orphanotrophei V. Hal. 12. 

Mairrairnit V. Lond. Rivington. 12. 

Beneetu V. Tubing. Berger. 8. 

Harwoopu. ond. Johnson. 8. [Critical edition of 


some merit, but neglected. | 
(338.) 1776. Grixspacuu Synopsis I. Hal. Curt. 8. [Vol. 2. Epp. 


Apoe. 1775.] 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 509 


1776. Lond. J. D. Cornish. 8.] 

(339.) 1777. Grimspacut I. Hal. Curt. 8. [Mt., Mc., Le. not in 
Synopsis; 1775, Joh., Act.; vol. 2, Epp., Apoc. ] 

(339a.) 1777. GrrespacntI. Hal. Curt. 4. 

845. 1777. Bowyert VII. Lond. 12. 

? 1777. Stregnesice. 8. 

347. 1777. Fiscuert. Prag. Hagen. 8. 

348. 1778. Harpyr II. Lond. Richardson. 8. 

849. 1778 sqq. ΚΟΡΡΙ 1. Goetting. Dietrich. 8. [Sine Evv.] 
351. 1779. Εἰ. SrepHani. Argent. Stein. 8. 

852. 1782. Scuorrrerenm III. Vratisl. Korn. 8. 

*358. 1782-1788. Marraarl.gr.lat. Riga. Hartknoch. 8. 
354. 1783. Bowyerr VIII. Lond. Nichols. 4. 

355. 1783. Rerneccu VI. ips. Breitkopf. 8. 

(228.) 1785. Leuspeni IV. Jugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24. 

856. 1786. Marrrarrm VI. Lond. Rivington. 12. 
*357. 1786,1787. Aurert. Vienne. De Trattnern. 8. 

358. 1787. Detmold. Helwing. 8. 

359. 1787. Bowyrrtr IX. Lond, Nichols. 12. 
*360. 1788. Biron. [Evangelia.] avn. Schulz. 4. 

361. 1789. Patavina VIII. Bettinelli. 12. 

862. 1790. Brneetu VI. Tubing. Heerbrandt. 8. 

804. 1794. Londini. Longman. 12. 

365. 1794. Londini. gr. lat. Wingrave. 12. 

366. 1794. Dublinit. Ekshaw. 12. 

1794. Bowyerri. Lond. Nichols.12. This deranges Reuss’s 

numbering of the Bowyer editions. | 

867. 1795. Scnorrreenn IV. Vratisi. Korn. 8. 

868. 1796. Patavina IX. Venet. Fracasso. 12. 

869. 1796-1806. Grizspacnu II. Hal. Curt. 8. 

(369.) 1796-1806. .Griespacuu Il. Hal, Curt. 4. 

871. 1797. Kwnaprul. Hal. Orphanot. 8. 

872. 1798. Waitt. Ozon. Collingwood. 12. 

[ 1798-1808. Wauuitu. Ozon. 2 voll. 8.] 

378. 1800. Wigornie. [AtexanpeR. Mitu1ana.] Thomas. 12. 
[First American edition. ] 

$74. 1800-1802. PavutusI. 746. Bohn. 8. 

375. 1801. Lonpint. Woodfall. 12. 

[ 1801. Bowyzri. Lond. Nichols. 12. This again deranges 
Reuss’s numbering of the Bowyer editions. ] 

876, 1803. Londini, Reeves. 12, 


510 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


377. 1803-1807. Griespacui III. Lips. Goeschen. fol. 
378. 1808-1807. Marruat II. Witteb. etc. [Matthei, vol. 2, at 
end, says this is an error for Curie Variscorum. | 


379. 1804. 
(358.) 1804. 
380. 1804. 
1805. 
1805. 
1805. 
1805. 
1806. 
[(385.) 1806. 
1806. 
1807. 
1808. 
1808. 
1808. 


381. 


383. 
384. 
385. 


386. 
387. 
388. 
389. 
390. 


Londin. gr. lat. Wingrave. 12. 

Duisburge. Baedeker. 8. 

Pavtus II. Lib. Bohn. 8. 

Biblia gr. Oxon. Clarendon. 4. 

Oxon. E typ. Clarend. 16.] 

Scnorru I. gr. lat. Lips. Marker. 8. 

GriesBacui III. Lips. Goeschen. 8. 

[Leuspenrana. gr. lat.] Philadelphie. Bradford. 12. 
[Leuspenrana. gr. only.] Philadelphie. Bradford. 12.] 
Upsalic. Edman. 8. 

Edinburgi. Bell. 12. 

Daxinsu. Lond. 12. 

Wuirtr. Oxon. Clarendon. 8. 

Wisonu. Neo-Hbor. Wallis.12. [Anerror. Wil- 


son’s N. T. first appeared in 1822.] 


391. 


397. 


898. 1810 


1809. 
. 1809. 
. 1809. 
. 1809. 
. 1809. 
1810. 
(397.) 1810. 


Londini. Longman. 12. 

Griespacut II. Lond. M'Kinlay. 8. 
GrizsBacuiANa III. Cantabr. [| Mass.] Wells. 8. 
GRIESBACHIANA. gr. lat. Zips. (Linz.) 8. 

Arrtoni. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 12. 

Chelsee. bilinguis. Tilling. 12. 

Londini. bilinguis. Tilling. 12. 
sqq. Koppu II. Goett. Dietrich. 8. [The various 


parts of this edition have different editors’ names; and some parts 
passed to a 3d ed.] 


2 1810. 
[(388.) 1810. 

399. 1811. 
[(414.) 1811. 
401. 1812. 
(888.) 1812. 
[(380.) 1812. 
1812. 
1813. 
1813. 
1813. 
1813. 
(397.) 1814. 


402. 
408. 
404. 
405. 
406. 


Vie ae 


Con 4 tA 7, 
Daxinsit. Lond. 12.] 

Scuorru II. gr. lat. Zips. Marker. 8. 
Dicxinsonu. Edinb. 12.] 

Bowyeri X. Lond. 

Daxinsu. Lond. Wilson. 12. 
Pautus II. Lips. Barth. 8.] 
Gaul. Paris. Delalain. 12. 
Londini. Bagster. 32. 

Oxonii. Clarendon. 8. 

GarLarpi. Genev. Bonnant. 12. 
Knapru II. Hal. Orphanot. 8. 
Londini, bilinguis. Tilling. 12. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


408. 1814. 
409. 1814. 
410. 1814. 
[(382.) 1814. 
411. 1816. 
412. 1816. 
1816. 
1817. 
1817. 
1818. 
417. 1819. 
418. 1819. 
[(414.) 1819. 
[(397.) 1819. 
419. 1820. 
420. 1820. 
(420.) 1820. 
421. 1820. 
422. 1820. 
1820. 

423. 1821. 
424. 1821. 
(388.) 1821. 
(405.) 1821. 
Ε΄ .185.. 
1821. 

425. 1822. 
420. 1822. 
»λίω. Fry. 8. 
[(426.) 1822. 


413. 
414. 
415. 


phie. Fry. 8.] 


(390.) 1822. 
428, 1828. 
[(426.) 1823. 


lins. 12. 
(417.) 1824. 
(428.) 1824. 
431. 1824. 
432. 1824. 

438. 1824. 


[Mit1ana.] Bostonit. Thomas. 12. 
Gamuu II. Paris. Delalain. 12. 
London. Pytt. 12. 

Masrricutiana. Edinb. Carol. Stewart. 12.) 
Bowyer XI. Lond. Nichols. 12. 
Vatryi1 I. Lond. Valpy. 8. 

Arrron. Glasgue. 12.] 

Glasgue. Duncan. 24. 

Dickinson. Ldinb. 12. 
GrigsBacuil II. Lond. Rivington. 8. 
Londini. bilinguis. Tilling. 12. 
Oxonit. Clarendon. 12. 

Dickinsonu. LHdinb. 12.] 

Bilinguis. Chelsew. Tilling. 12.] 
Patavina X. typ. Semin. 8. 

Harpy III. Lond. Bliss. 8. 
Harpy III. Zond. Allman. 8. 
Gawiu III. Paris. Delalain. 12. 
Tirrmanni I. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
(Polyglott.) Bagster. Lond. 12.] 
Gratz I. gr. lat. Tubing. Fues. 8. 
Biblia gr. Mosquensia. 4. 

Daxinsu. Lond. Wilson. 12. 
Gattarpi. Lugd. Rusand. 12. 
Arrton. Glasgue. 32. | 
Leuspeniana. gr. lat. WVeo.-Hbor. Long. 12.] 
Glasqgue. typ. acad. 24. 


.- 


9 


11 


[GriesBacuiaNa.] KwneeLanpi. [gr. angl.] Philadel. 


(GRIESBACHIANA.) KNEELANDII. (gr. only.) Philadel. 


Wusonu. Hartford. Wallis. [error for Cooke.] 12. 


Londini. Bagster. 8. 


(GrigsBacHIANa.) KneeLanpul. Philadelphice. Fry. 8.] 
429. [563.] 1824. [Psxupo-Leuspen. gr. lat.] Neo-Hbor. Col- 


Londini. bilinguis. Tilling. 12. 
Londini. Bagster. 8. 
Boissonapu. Pars. Eberart. 24. 
Tirrmanni II. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8, 
Londini. Whittaker. 12. 


512 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


484. 
435. 


1824, 
1824. 
436, 1824. 
437, 1820. 
(428.) 1825. 
438, 1825. 
(390.) 1825. 


Knaprn ΠῚ. Hal. Orphanot. 8. 
Knappiana III. Lond. Valpy. 8. 
Vateri. Hal. Gebauer. 8. 
Basilee, Thurneisen. 8. 
Londini. Bagster. 8. 

Boothii. gr. angl. Londini. 8. 
Wusonu. Hartford. Cooke. 12. 


439. 1825. 
440. 1825. 
[ 1825. 
. 1826. 
1827. 
1827. 
1827. 
447, 182. 
448. 189. 
[(890.) 1827. 
450. 1828; 
451. 1828. 
452. 1828. 


Scnorri III. gr. lat. Lips. Marker. 8. 
GriesBAcHII IV. Lips. Goeschen. 8. 
Mitiiana. Oxon. E typ. Clarend. | 
Vatpyi II. Lond. Valpy. 8. 
Gratzu II. gr. lat. Mogunt. Kupferberg. 8. 
Van Essu. gr. lat. Tubing, Fues. 8. 
Londini. bilinguis. Watts. 8. © 
GRIESBACHIANA ΒΟΉ ΖΗ. [Vol.I. Evv.] Berol. Laue. 3 
Paris. Delalain. 12. 
Wusonu. Hartford. Cooke. 12.] 
Londini. Pickering. 64. [Smallest edition.] 
Londini. bilinguis. Tilling. 12. 
Luoypi. Oxon. Clarendon. 12. 
453. 1828. Lxurscuit. gr. lat. Lips. Serig. 8. 
(422.) 1828. Tirrmanni I. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
455. 1828[-29]. [Triglotta. Bagsteri.] Lond. Watts. 4. 
[ 1828-30-82. Hurarion. bilinguis. Lond. 8.] 
(414.) 1829. Dicxinsonu. Hdinb. 12. 
(388.) 1829. Daxinsi. Lond. Cadell. 12. 
456. 1829. Londini. Bagster. 12. 
457. 1829. Greenrietpu. Lond. Bagster. 32, [Polymicrian.] 
(390.) 1829. Wutsonn. Hartford. Cooke. 12. 
(890.) 1829. Wisont. Wallis [error fer Towar]. Philadelphice. 
12. 
(446.) 1829. 
458. 1829. 
459. 1829. 
[(462.) 1829. 
1829. 
((455 3) 1829. 
401. 1880. 


445. 
446. 


Londini. bilinguis. Watts. 8. 

Knapri lV. Hal. Orphan. 8. 

Meyer. gr. germ. Goett. Vandenhoeck. 8. 
Glasgue. Hutchison. 24. ] 
GrigspacHiana. Lond. Rivington. 12. | 
(N. T. Polyglott.) Bagster. Lond. 4.] 
Luoypu. Oxon. Clarendon. 12. 

(446.) 1880. Londini. bilinguis. Watts. 8. 

462. 1830. Glasgue. Hutchison. 24. 

*463. 1830-1836. Scuoiziu. Lips. Fleischer. 4, 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 513 


464. 
465. 


466. 
467. 
468. 
469. 
*470. 


1830. 
1880. 
1880. 
1881. 
1881. 
1881. 
1881. 
1881. 
(482.) 1881. 
[(890.) 1881. 
1881. 

[457. 1881. 
471. 1882. 
412, 1882. 
474, 1882. 
(462.) 1882. 
476. 1888. 
(890.) 1883. 
411. 1884. 
418. 1884. 
i 1834, 
482. 1835. 
488. 1835. 
(414.) 1835. 


Londini. Valpy. 48. 

Paris. Delalain. 32. 

Duncan, Ldinb. 12.] 

Burroni I. Oxon. 8. 

Brossetu. Paris. Didot, 24. 

Vatpyi ΠῚ. Lond. Valpy. 8. 

Naestt. gr. lat. Zips. Koehler. 8. 

Lacumanni I. SBerol. Reimer. 12. 

Trrrmanni II. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8. 

Wusonn. Towar. Philad. 12.] 

(Bibl. Polyglott.) Bagster. Lond. fol.] 
GREENFIELDI. Lond. Bagster. 32. ge 
GorscHENtI. gr. lat. ips. Weidmann. 8. 
Jaumanni. Monach. Lindauer. 8. 

Bioomrietpi 1. Cantab. 8. 

Glasgue. Brookman. 24. 

Venetiis. 
WILSONII. 
Bork int. 
SMITHII. 
ScCHOLEFIELD. gr. angl. 
Burrtoni II. Ozon. 8. 
[Kwnapprana.] Parronu. NVeo-Hbor. Starr. 4. 
Dickxinsonit. Edinb. Stirling. 12. 


Philad. Towar. 12. 
Christianstadt. Schmidt. 8. 
Iond. Hurst. 12. 
Cambridge. 12.] 


[(429, 563.) 1835. Pszupo-Levuspen. Collins. gr. lat. Meo-Hbor. 12.] 


486. 1836. 
487. 1836. 
488. 1836. 
(472.) 1836. 
(462.) 1836. 

1836. 


16.] 
491. 
492. 
498. 
494. 


1837. 
1837. 
1881. 
1881. 
(470.) 1887. 
(467.) 1881. 
[(536.) 1837. 
[(527.) 1837. 
[ 1881. 


Bioomrretpu If. Lond. Longman. 8. 

Vatpy1 IV. Lond. Valpy. 8. 

Oxonit. typ. acad. 12. 

Jaumanni. Monach. Lindauer. 8. 

Glasgue. Brookman. 24. 

ScHOLEFIELD. gr. angl. Deighton & Bell. Cambridge 


CARDWELLII. Oxon, typ. acad. 8. 

Trotiopu. Lond. Rickerby. 8. 

Berol. Nauck. gr. germ. 8. 

Bioomrietpi [ Amer. 1.1. Boston. Perkins. 8. 
Lacumanni I. Berol. Reimer. 12. 

Brossetu. Paris. Didot. 24. 

GriesBacHi:Na. Lond. Taylor & Walton. 16. | 
Bioomrietpi minor I. Lond. 12.] 

Airton. Lond. 12.] 


514 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


496. 1838. 


(390.) 1838. 


497. 1839. 
498. 1839. 
499. 1839. 


(453.) 1839. 
1839. 

1839. 

501. 1840. 
502. 
508. 1840. 


(388.) 1840. 


1840. 


Iondini. Parker. 16. 

Wusoni. Philad. Haswell. 12.. 
Kerstent. Leod. Kersten. 8. 
Betezu. Paris. Delalain. 12. 
Scnorti IV. gr. lat. Lips. Barth. 8. 
Leutscatl. gr. lat. Lips. Serig. 8. 
GRIESBACHIANA. ΑΙΤΤΟΝ. Glasgue. 24.] 
Bioomrietpi III. Lond. 8.] 
Daroitiu. Tolos. Delsol. 32. 
Kwnapru V. Hal. Orphan. 8. 
Hannu I. Lips, Tauchnitz. 8. 
Daxinsu. Lond. Cadell. 12. 


[(429, 563.) 1840. (Psrupo-LeuspEN.) Dean. gr. lat. MNeo-Hbor. 12.] 


504, 1841. 
#505. 1841. 
506. 1841. 
(418.) 1841. 


[ 1841. 
[(519.) 1841. 
1842. 
1842-1850. Lacumannr II. gr. lat. Berol. Reimer. 8. 
1842. 
1842. 
1842. 
1842. 
[(567.) 1842. 

516. 1843. 

517. 1848. 
[(527.) 1843. 
1843. 
1844. 
1844 [error for 1841]. Bagsteri Hexapla. Lond. 4. 
1844, 
1844. 
[(563.) 1844. 
[(527.) 1845, 

523. 18465. 
(508.) 1845. 
[ 1845, 
[(483.) 1845. 

524. 1846. 


508, 
*509. 
510. 
511. 
512. 
515. 


518. 
519. 
520. 
521. 


Hannu Il. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 

Tiscuenporri I. Zips. Koehler. 16. 

Bioomrietpi1 IV. Lond. 8. 

GREENFIELDIL. [Eneues.] Philadelphie. Perkins, 32. 
GRIESBACHIANA. Lond. 12.] 

Scuotziana. Eng. Hexapla. Bagster. Lond. 4.] 
[Haun.] Βοβινβονπ. NVeo-Hbor. Leavitt. 12. 


TiscHENDORFIU If. Paris. Didot. 12. 

TiscHenporril III. gr. lat. Paris. Didot. 8. 
TiscHenpDorFu IV. [T’s own No. III.] Paris. Didot. 12 
PuHarmacipis. Athen. 8. 

ScHouziana. gr. angl. Bagster. Lond. 16.] 
Jowett. Cantabr. Pitt. 16. 

GrinFieLDI. Lond. Pickering. 8. 

BioomFieLput minor III. Lond. Longman. 8.] 
Bioomrietpi V. Lond. Longman. 8. | 

[Mintr1ana.] Ozoniz. typ. acad. 16. 


Venetiis. 

Tenn 1. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
(Pseupo-LEuspEn.) gr. lat. Dean. δου. δον. 12.] 
BLooMFIELDII minor IV. Lond. Longman. 12. 
THEIL Polyglott. Bielefeld. Velhagen. 8. 
[Hann.] Ropinsonu. Neo-Hbor. Leavitt. 12. 
ΨΆΓΡΥΙ minor. Whittaker. ond. 12.] 
Knappiana, Parronu. Neo-Hbor. Riker. 4.] 
Moratti minor. Hamburg. Meissner. 16. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 515 


(470.) 1846. LacumanniI. Serol. Reimer. 12. 
525. [(494)] 1846. Broomrietpi. Boston. Perkins. 8. 


(418.) 1846. 
[(478.) 1846. 


32.] 


[(519.) 1846. 
1847, 
526. 1847. 
(512.) 1847. 


[ 


ἰ 
[ 
L 


GREENFIELDI. [Enaixs.] Philad. Perkins. 32. 
GREENFIELDH. [EnauxEs.] Philad. Perkins & Purves. 


Scnonziana. Eng. Hexapla. Bagster. 4.] 

Luoypu. Oxon. E Typ. Acad. 18.] 

Reiramayri. Monach. Weiss. 8. 

TiscuenporFit IV. [T.’s No. III.] Paris, Didot. 12. 


527. 1847. Buoomrrerpu [minor] V. Zond. Longman. 12. 


528. 1847, 
(516.) 1847. 
530. 1847. 
1847. 
1847. 
1847. 
581. 1848. 
(521.) 1848. 
(524.) 1848, 
[(511.) 1848, 
[(494.) 1848. 
*533. 1849. 


Venetiis. Phoenix. 8. 

Jowettu. Cantabr. Pitt. 16. 

Spencers. Neo-Hbor. Harper. 12. 

TueiLu (Polyglott.). Biel. 8.] 

Bioomrietpir VI. Lond. 8.] 

Vatpyi V. Lond. Bohn. 8. | 

Burtoni III. Oxon. Parker. 8. 

Tueitn II. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 

Moratti major. Hamb. Meissner. 16. 
Tiscuenporru V. (T.’s No. III.) gr. lat. Paris. 8.} 
Bioomrietpu (Amer. V.). Boston. Perkins. 8.] 
Tiscnenporri V. [T.’s own No. IV.] Lips. Winter. 8. 


*534. 1849-1861. ALrorpu. Lond. 8. 


(623.) 1849. 
[(524.) 1849. 
[(563.) 1849. 
536, 1850. 
1850. 
nitz. 8. 
(521.) 1850. 
(462.) 1850. 
1850. 
1850. 
1850. 
(612.) 1851. 
1851. 
(444.) 1851. 
1851. 
1851. 
1851. 
1852. 


[ 
[ 


[ 


537. 


516. 


540. 
541. 


542. 


THEILU triglott. [Polyglott.] Bielef. Velhagen. 8. 
Mouratt1. Hamb. Meissner. 16. ] 
(Psevpo-LevspEn.) gr. lat. Dean. Meo-Hbor. 12.] 
[GriesBacHtaNna.] Londini. Taylor & Walton. 16. 
TiscnenDorriul VI. [T.’s own No. V.] Lips. Tauch. 


TueiLu III. Lips. Tauch. 16. 

Glasgue. Brookman. 24. 

Ex ed. Stern. Cambridge. 18.] 
ScHOLEFIELD. gr. engl. Cambridge. 16.] 
ScHOLEFIELD. gr. engl. Cambridge. 4.} 
TiscHenporFru IV. [T.’s own III.] Paris. Didot. 12. 
Jowett. Cantabr. Pitt. 12. 

Gratz II. gr. lat. Mog. Kupferberg. 8. 
Oxonii. 

Venetiis. 

Large Print. Crit. Lond. Bagster. 8. | 
Burtonr IV. Ozon. 8, 


516 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


543. 1852. 
(521.) 1852. 

1852. 
[(530.) 1852. 
546. 1853. 
547. 1853. 
549. 1854. 


THEILI. gr. germ. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
ToemuIV. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 

Large Print. Crit. Lond. Bagster. 8.] 

Spencert. WVeo-Hbor. Harper. 12.} 

Vatpy1 V.[VI.] Lond. Valpy. 8. 

Stuttgardt. gr. germ. Liesching. 8. 

Tiscuenporrur VII. [T.’s own No. VI.]  triglott 


Tips. Avenarius. 8. 


550. 1854. 


B51. 1854. 
(508.) 1854, 


TuHEILi. gr. lat. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
MacmicuarEtis. [Whittaker. Zond.] 16. 
[Hanniana.] Rosinsonu. Weo-Hoor. Loavitt. 12. 


553. 1854 [ete.]. Neo-Hbor. Amer. Bible Union. gr. angl. 4. 


(523.) 1854. 
(521.) 1854, 


THEIL Polyglott. Bielef. Velhagen. 8. 
THe V. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16, 


[ 1854 sqq. ALrorp II. Lond. 8.] 


1854. 
[(890.) 1854. 


[(390.) sine anno (sed 1854.) Wutson. 
Haswell. 12.] 


(549.) 1855. 
delssohn. 16. 
(523.) 1855. 
(536.) 1855. 


Large Print. Crit. Lond. Bagster. 8.] 
Wisonu. Philad. Lippincott, Grambo, & Co. 12.] 
Phila. Barrington & 


TiscuenporFi VII. (T.’s own No. VI.] Lips. Men- 


TEL Polyglott. Bielef. Velhagen. 8. 
Londini. Walton & Maberly. 16. 


555. 1855-61. Wessrert [ἃ Witxinsonu]. Lond. Parker. 8. 


[ 1855. 
1855. 
[(563.) 1855. 
556. 1856. 
557. 1856. 
558. 1856. 
(521.) 1856. 
[ 1856. 
1856. 

1856. 
560. 1857. 
(508.) 1857. 
(549.) 1857. 


Bioomrietpu IX. Lond. Longman. 8. | 
BLoomFiELpi minor VII. Lond. Longman. 12. 
(Psxupo-LxuspEn.) gr. lat. Lippincott. Philad. 12.] 
Colonie Agripp. Soc. Bibl. 32. 

Burtont V. Oxon. 8. 

Burrmanni I. Lips. Teubner. 16. 

Turin VI. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 

Jowett. Colon. Brit. Bibl. Soc. 12.] 

MiLuiana. Oxon. 16.] 

Daxinsi. Lond. Longmans. | 

Cantabrigie. gr. angl. 12. 
[Hannrana.] Rosrnsonit. Neo-Hbor. Leavitt. 12. 
TiscnenporFil VII. [T.’s own No. VI. Ed. acad. V-] 


Lips. Mendelssohn. 16. 
561. 1857 [1856-60]. Worpsworrni 1. Lond. Rivington. 4. 


[(567.) 1857. 
[ 1861. 


ΞΟΘΗΟΙΖΙΑΝΑ. gr. lat. Lond. Bagster. 4.] 
ScHOLEFIELDIANA. “R.O.” gr. angl. Lond. 16.] 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 517 


[ 1857-79. TrecELLtesi. Bagster. Lond. 4.} 
562. 1858. Londini. gr. angl. Bagster. 18. 
(528.) 1858. Tse Polyglott. Bielefeld. Velhagen. 8. 
(521.) 1858. Tuemm VIL Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
(549.) 1858. Tiscnenporrit VII. [T.’s ed. VI.] gr. lat. Lips. 
Mendelssohn. 8. 
563. 1858. [Psrupo-LeuspEn.] Philadelphic. gr.lat. Lippincott. 
12. 
(890.) 1858. Witsonu. Philad. Lippincott. 12. 
(512.) 1859. Jaaeri [Tiscuenporriana]. Paris. Didot. 12. 
*565. 1859. Tiscnenporru VIII. [crit. maj., T.’s ed. VII.] Lips. 
Winter. 8. 
(565.) 1859. TiscnenporFm VIII. [crit. min., T.’s ed. VII.] Lips. 
Winter. 16. 
566. 1859. Buoomrieipu [minor] VIII. [Lond.] 
(457.) 1859. Greenrietpu. Lond. Bagster. 32. 
(580.) 1859. Spencert. Veo-Hbor. Harper. 12. 
(536.) 1859. [Griespacntana.] Londini. Bohn. 16. 
567. 1859. [Bagster. Scuonziana.] Veo-Hbor. Wiley. 16. 
1859 sqq. Worpsworrai II. Lond. 8. | 
[(563.) 1859. (Pseupo-Leuspen.) gr. lat. Phila. Lippincott. 12.] 
[ 1859. Minirana. E typ. Clarend. 4. | 
1859. Mivirana. E typ. Clarend. 16. | 
[(890.) 1859. Wiutsonu. Philad. Lippincott. 12.] 
[ 1859. Scriveneri I. Cantabrigie. 16.| 
568. 1860. Burrmanni II. Lips. Teubner. 16. 
(524.) 1860. Muratti major. Hamb. Meissner. 16. 
569. 1860 sqq. Axrorpu IV. Lond. 8. 
(519.) 1860. [Scuorziana.] Bagsteri Hexapla. Lond. 4. 
[(563.) 1860. (Psrupo-Leuspen.) gr. lat. Phila. Lippincott. 12.] 
[ 1860. Ornssyr. Dublin. 8.] 
1860. Scrivener II. Cantabr. 16.] 
[(492?) 1860. TrotLopu. Tegg. Lond. 8.] 
[(524.) 1860. Murari minor. Hamb. Meissner. 16.] 
[ 1860, etc. Amer. Bibl. Union. gr. angl. Neo-Hbor. 4.] 
[ 1860-61. Guxes. gr. angl. Lond. 12.] 
1861. ‘* Narrow ed.” ScHonztana. Lond. Bagster. 12. ] 
[551?) 1861. Macmicuartis. Lond. Bell ἃ Daldy. 16.] 
[(511.) 1861, Tiscuenporri IV, [T.’s No. 1Π.} gr. lat. Didot. 
Paris. 8. | 


[(549.) 1861. Tiscuenporru Υ 11. (1.5 ed. VL.) Zips. Mendels, 16. 


518 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


(537.) 1862. Tiscnenporri VI. [T.’s ed. V.] Lips. Tauchnitz. 8. 
572. 1862. . Borrmanni III. Berol. Decker. 8. 
[ 1861-63. Worpsworrau III. Lond. 8.] 
573. 1862. Locnt. Ratisb. Manz. 8. 
(550.) 1862. Tueri. gr. lat. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
[ 1862. Sorrveneri III. Cantabr. 16.] 
574. 1863. Colon. Agr. gr. angl. 16. 
[ 1863 Lxioypu. Ozon. 18. ] 
[ 1863. Luoypi. Oxon. 4.] 


[(491.) 1868. 
[(577.) 1863 


575. 1864. 
(549.) 1864. 
[(527.) 1862. 
(549.) 1864. 
Mendelssohn. 
(568.) 1864. 
[ 1864. 
1864. 

(568.) 1865. 
577. 1865. 

[ 1865. 
[ 1865. 
[ 1865. 
(521.) 1865. 
[ 1865. 
[ 1866. 
[ 1866. 
[ 1866. 
[(549.) 1867. 
4 1867. 
Ϊ 1867. 
[ 1867. 
[ 568. 1867. 
[(508.) 1867. 
[(508.) 1868. 
[ 1868. 
1868. 

[(494.) 1868. 


ἃ 64. B. ὙΊμβονπ Emphat. Diaglott. 


CaRDWELLIL gr. angl. Ozom Macmillan. 8.] 
Geneva, Ill.] 
Colon. Agr. gr. germ. 16. 
Tiscuenporri VII. [T.’s ed. VI.] Zips. Mendels. 16. 
Bioomrietpiu minor IX. Lond. Longman, 12.] 
TiscuenporFit VII. [T.’s ed. VI.] gr. germ. Lips. 
8. 
Burrmanni. ips. Teubner. 16. 
HansE.ui. Oxon. 8.] 
Worpswortui IV. Lond. 8.] 
Burrmanni. Lips. Teubner. 16, 
[B. Witsontr Emphat. Diaglott. ] Neo-Ebor, Fowler. 
OrnsByI. Dublin. Duffy. 16.] 
Worpswortai V. Lond. 4.} 
THEIL Polyglott. 8. ] 
Tae VIII. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 
The Twofold N. T. Green. Bagster. Lond. 8.] 
Worpsworrtar VI. Lond. 4.] 
Canpyi. Lond. 8.]| 
Duncan. Simpkin. | 
TIscHENDORFU ed. acad. V. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16.] 
ScrivenerR1 IV. Cantabr. 16.]} 
Canpyi. Lond. 8.1} 
Canpyi minor. Lond. 8.] 
Burrmanni III. Lips. Teubner. 16.} 
[Hann.] Rosinsonu. Veo-Hbor. Appleton. 12.] 
[Haun.] Rosinsonu. Neo-Hbor. Appleton. 12.] 
Miturana. Oxon. 12.] 
Mitiiana. Oxon. 4.] 
Bioomrretp (Amer. XIV.). Phila. Lippincott. 8.] 


*581. 1869[-72]. Tiscuenporri IX. [ed. crit. maj. VIII.] Lips. 1, 
Winter [post., Giesecke & Devrient]. 8. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 519 


1869. Atrorpu minor. Philadelphie. Lippincott. 8.] 
1869. A.rorpu-minor. Lond. Rivington. 8. | 
1869. Lioypu. Oxon. Clarend. 16.] 
582. 1870 [-1876]. Wesrcorrm & Horr. Cantabr. 12. [Pri- 
vate issue. | 
[ 1870. Btioomrrerpi minor XII. Loxd. Longmans. 12. 
[ (1870.) Bagster. gr. angl. Lond. 4.] 
[ 1870. Τούρ. Oxon. E typ. Clarend. & Macmillan. 12. | 
[ 
[ 
L 


ame πῶ. ca | 


1870. Muintrana. Oxon. Macmillan. 16. ] 
1870. “‘Worpswortuu. Lond. Rivington. (ed. vii.) 8.] 
1870. TreceLtesu. Parts I—V. Gospels, Acts, Epistles. 
Bagster. Lond. Also, Neo-Hbor. Wiley. 4.] 
[ 1870. Travelers’ N. Τὶ gr. angl. Neo-Hbor. Wiley. 16.] 
[ 1870. TiscHENDorFu. ed. acad. Zips. Mendelssohn. 16. | 


SINE ANNI NOTA. 


(470.) Lacumanni, Berol, Reimer. 12. 

(457.) Greenrietpn. Lond. Bagster. 32. [Also, Neo-Hbor. Wiley; 

also, Phila. Lippincott. | 

(567.) Lond. Bagster. 16. 

583. Fix. Paris. Dezobry. 12. 

584. (Lerranc.) Paris. Belin. 24. 
(478.) Greenrietpu. [Eneues.] Philadelphie. Peck. 32. 
[(473.) Greenrietpu. [Enexes.] Philadelphie. Bliss. 473.] 
[(473.) Greenrretpu. [Enouxs.] Philadelphice. Lippincott. 32.] 
[(455.) Bagsteri triglotta. Lond. 4.] 

[(390.) Witsonn. Philadelphie. Barrington & Haswell. 12.] 
[ The Twofold N.T. Green. Lond. Bagster. 8. | 
[ E typ. acad. Cantabr. & Lond. Rivington. 16 (no paging). | 
Large Print Crit. Lond. Bagster. 8. | 
[(567.) Scnonziana. Crit. gr. angl. Bagster. Lond. 16.] 
[(567.) ScHoLziana. Crit. gr.angl. Wiley. Meo-Hbor. 16.] 
[(508.) [Hany.] Βοβιίνβονιι. Weo-Hbor. Leavitt & Allen. 12.] 
[ Scnotziana. “Narrow ed.” Lond. Bagster. 12.] 
[ Lond. Bagster. 16 (ex Polyglottis.)] 
Lond. Bagster. 32.] 
[(483.) Parrot, Neo-Hbor, Riker. 4. (In“ The Student’s By 
ble.”)} 


30 


520 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


II. SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF EDITIONS, 1871 TO 1882. 


1871. 
1871. 
1871. 
1871. 
1872. 
1872. 
1872. 


B. Witson. Emphatic Diaglott. Geneva, Ill. (Reuss, 577.) 
Twofold N.T. Green. London. Bagster. 8. (With App.) 
Atrorp. Boston. Lee ἃ Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 534.) 
Jowett. Colonie. 12. 

Serivener V. Cantabr. 16. 

Taemwe X. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16. 

Worpswortx VI. Lond. 8. 


1872-77. TiscuenporF VIII. (new ed. crit. minor.). Lips. Mendels- 
sohn. 16. 


1872. 
1873. 
1873. 
1873. 
1878. 
1878. 
haus. 8. 
1873. 
1874. 
1874. 
1875. 
1875. 
1875. 
1875. 
1875. 
1875. 


TiscHenDorF. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8. 

Sorrvener VI. Cantabr. 16. 

Mituiana. Oxon. E typ. Clarend. & Macmillan. 16. 
Aurorp. Boston. Lee & Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 534.) 
TiscHENnDoRF (ad ed. VIIL conformata). ips. Tauchnitz. 8. 
TiscHENpDoRF IX. (ad ed. VIII. conformata). ips. Brock- 


TiscHENDORF. ed. acad. ips. Mendelssohn. 16. 
Butrmann. Teubner. Lips. 8. 

Analytical Gr.T. Lond. Bagster. 16. 

LIond. Geo. Bell. 16. (Reuss, 536.) 

Scrivener VII. Cantabr. 16. 

TiscHENDORF. ed. acad. Lips. 16. 

Hann II. Kelly. Dublin. 16. (Reuss, 504.) 

[Hann.] Ropinson. Weo-Hbor. Appleton. 12. (Reuss, 508.) 
Psevpo-Lruspen. gr. lat. Philadelphia. Lippincott. 12. 


(Reuss, 563.) 


875. 


1875. 


1876. 


Scnozrana. gr. engl. Mew York. Wiley. 16, (Reuss, 567.) 
The same. Lond. Bagster; and New York. Wiley. 
Brit. & For. Bib. Soc. (In Paragraphs.) Cambridge. Univ 


Press. 32. 


1876. 
1877. 
1877. 


1877. 
1877. 
1877. 


Tiscuenporr. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8. 

Scnonzrana. gr. engl. New York. Wiley. 16. (Reuss, 567.) 
Englishman’s Gr. Test. Bagster. Lond. 8. 

Miti1ana. Ozon. Clarend. 16. 

Lioypu. Ozon. Clarend. ἃ Macmillan. 16. 

Scrivener VIII. Cantabr. 16. 

Worpsworts VII, Lond. Rivington. 4. 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 521 


1877. Jowett. Lond. Brit. & For. Bib. Soc. 16. 

1877. TiscHENporF. ed. acad. Jips. Mendelssohn. 16. 

1878. Atrorp. Boston. Lee & Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 534.) 

1878. Pszupo-Leuspen. gr. lat. Philada. Lippincott. 12. (Reuss, 
563. 

ioe B. Witson. Emphatic Diaglott. WV. Y. Wells. (Reuss, 577.) . 

1878. Tiscuenporr. ips. Tauchnitz. 8. 

1878. TiscHEenporr. ed. acad. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16. 

1878. Scuotertetprana. “E. A.” gr. engl. Lond. & Cambridge. 16. 

1879. Scnotermetpiana. “Εἰ A.” gr.engl. Lond. ὦ Cambridge. 16. 

1879. TiscnenporF. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8. 

1879. Lond. Geo. Bell. 16. (Reuss, 536.) 

1879. Luoyp. Oxon. Clarendon. 16. 

1879. Scrivener. New York. Holt. 16. 

1880. TiscHenporr. ips. Brockhaus. 8. 

1880. TiscHEnporr. ed. acad. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16. 

1880. B. Witson. Emphatic Diaglott. WV. Y. Wells. (Reuss, 577.) 

1880. Pseupo-Levuspen. gr. lat. Phila. Lippincott. 12. (Reuss, 563.) 

1880. ScHonzrana. gr. engl. Mew York. Wiley. (Reuss, 567.) 

1880. Atrorp. Boston. Lee & Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 534.) 

1880. Ἔν Βασιλείᾳ [Basel]. (Bibelgesellschaft.) sine editoris no- 
mine. 16. Also, the same, RieGenpacH & Srockmeyer. Also, an 
edition with Greek church-lessons and Psalms appended. 

1881. Tiscnenporr. Jips. Tauchnitz. 8. 

1881. TiscHENDorF. ed. acad. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16. 

1881. Scrivener. (A. V. text.) Cambridge. Univ. Press. 16. 

1881. Paumer. (Rev. V. text.) Ozford. Clarendon. 16. 

*1881. Westcott ἃ Hort. Cambr. ὦ Lond. Macmillan. 16. 
1881-82. Wexstcorr & Hort (Scuarr). Mew York. Harpers. 16. 
1881. TiscHENDORFIANA. VON GeBHaRDT. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8. 
1881. TiscHENDORFIANA. VON GEBHARDT. gr. germ. (Luther, Rev.) 

Lips. Tauchnitz. 8. ΐ 

1881. ῬεΕκοννε. Cambridge. (Only part yet published.) 

1882. Parmer. (Rev. Vers. text with marginal references.) Oz- 
ford. Clarendon. 8. 

1882. Westcorr & Horr. gr. engl. (Rev. Vers.) New York. Har- 
pers. 16. . 


WITHOUT DATE, 


The Student’s Analytical. Scuonziana. Lond. Bagster. Small 4. 
(TISCHENDORFIANA.) Conn’s Hexaglott, Lond, Abraham J. Lev. 4, 


522 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


ADDITIONS TO REUSS’S LIST, UP To 1870.* 


[(457.) 1880. 
[(563.) 1888. 
[(418.) 1840. 

1840. 
[(478.) 1844. 
[(508.) 1845. 
[ 1847. 
[(494.) 1848. 


GREENFIELDU Polymicrian. London. Bagster. 32. ] 
Pseupo-LeuspEen. Veo-Hbor. Collins, also Dean. 12.] 
GREENFIELDU. (EnGirs.) Philadelphie. Perkins, 32.] 
GrizsBacHiana. Londini. Taylor & Whittaker. 12.] 
GREENFIELDU. (EnGLEs.) Philadelphie. Perkins, 32. | 
[Hany.] Βοβινβονιι. Neo-Hbor. Leavitt. 8.] 
Lioypi. Oxon. E typ. acad. 18.] 

BioomrieLpu (Amer. V.). Philadelphia. Perkins. 8.] 


Also, the same with a slightly different title-page. | 


[ 1851. 
[(563.) 1853. 
{(473.) 1854. 
[(527.) 1854. 
[(390.) 1860. 
[(563.) 1863. 
[(508.) 1870. 


Trottopi II. Lond. Tegg. 8.] 

Pseupo-Leuspen. Gr.-Lat. Neo-Hbor. Dean. 12.] 
GREENFIELDIL (Enouxs.) Phila. Clark ἃ Hesser. 32. ] 
BioomFieLpu minor. London, Longman. 8.] 
Wiuson. Phila. Lippincott. 12.] 
Psrupo-Lxeuspen. Phila. Lippincott. 12. 

[Hauy.] Rosinsonu. WVeo-Hbor. Appleton. 12.] 


ADDITIONS TO SUPPLEMENTARY LIST, SINCE 1870.* 


1878. Gr.-Eng. 

1876. MiLiiana. 
1876 (misdated 1866). 
1876. B. Witson. Emphatic Diaglott. 


(Reuss, 577.) 


Cologne. 
Oxon. 


Brit. & For. Bible Soc. Sq. 16. 

E typ. Clarend. & Macmillan. 16. 
Cologne. Brit. & For. Bible Soc. 16. 

New York. Wells. 12. 


1876. In Paragraphs. Gr.-Eng. Cambridge. Univ. Press for Brit. 
& For. Bible Soc. Sq. 16. 
1878. ΤΕ (Von Gepuarpt). Jipsie. Tauchnitz. 16. 


1879. Haun. 


Lipsie. Ἐ. Bredt. 12. 


1880. Tuite (Von Gesuarpt). Gr.-Lat. Lipsie. Tauchnitz. 12. 

1880. Witson. Philadelphie. Claxton, Remsen, ἃ Haffelfinger. 
12. (Reuss, 390.) 

1880. Gr.-Germ. Berlin. Brit. & For. Bible Soc. 16. 

1881. Gr.-Eng. London. Soc. Prom. Chr. Knowledge. 16. 

1881. Liroyp. Oxon. E typ. Clarend. & Macmillan. 16. 


ee eee 


* These additions have been made since the foregoing pages were 
electrotyped, 


EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 523 


1882. Scuonziana. Critical Gr.-Eng. New York. Wiley. 16. 

1882. Scrrvener. The Parallel N.T. Gr.-Eng. (A. V. text, with 
A. V.and R.V.) Cambridge. Univ. Press. Small 4. 

1882. Parmer. The Parallel N. T. Gr.-Eng. (R. V. text, with 
A.V.and R.V.) Ozford. Clarendon Press. Small 4. 

1883 (printed 1882). TaE1Le (Von Gesuarvt). XIII. Lips. Tauch- 
nitz. 16. 


Nortr.—Eight editions in the list of Dr. Reuss, denoted by a ? in- 
stead of a number, were classed by him as “ Eprtiones Dusia,” 
because he had not been able personally to verify or disprove their 
existence. Eighty-four others, mentioned by former bibliographers, 
he classed as “ Epirrones Spur1#,”’ 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 169. 

The Supplementary List, 1870-1883, comprises 82 editions, making 
the entire total 924. 

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 true of the Ameri- 
can 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 Soci- 
ety has issued as many as 60,000 of a single edition; so that the 


524 EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


The number of editions of the entire Greek New Testament issued 
in America, including reprints of European editions, together with 
(the comparatively few of) those actually printed abroad, but bearing 
an American imprint, is over a hundred and fifty. The number of 
editions of harmonies, and other portions of the Greek text, issued in 
America is a little over one hundred. See my article, “The Greek 
Testament as Published in America,” Zrans. Amer. Philol. Assoc., vol. 
xiii., 1882; and “ American Greek Testaments: A Critical Bibliogra- 
phy of the Greek New Testament as Published in America (Philadel- 
phia, Pickwick & Comp.), 1883.” 


Postscript TO THIRD Epirion.—The number of new editions of fhe 
Greek New Testament issued since 1883, which have come to my knowl- 
edge, is rather more than thirty; but many are repetitions from stereotype 
plates, or impressions in stock furnished with a new date. The better 
editions are driving the incorrect ones from the field. Of the older ones, 
the various cheap Cambridge and Oxford editions, the critical Greek- 
English (Scholz), with some of the British Cologne editions, seem still to 
hold their ground. The 1881 editions of Scrivener and Palmer respec- 
tively, and the “ Parallel” editions of each, have been issued a few times 
with later dates. Von Gebhardt’s Tischendorf, Von Gebhardt’s Theile, 
and Tischendorf’s small “ Editio Academica” have likewise been reissued 
twice or more. Westcott and Hort’s edition was reprinted again in 1881, 
with the verse-division conformed to the original one of R. Stephen, 1551, 
and the table of Old Test. quotations removed to the first volume. A 
school edition of Westcott and Hort was published by Macmillan & Co., 
Cambridge and London, 1885, and again in 1887. A second issue of the 
American (Harpers’) Westcott and Hort appeared in 1885; and a school 
edition (without Dr. Schaff’s Introduction) the same year. Another new 
issue of the American edition, with improvements in the text communi- 
cated by the editors, and with Dr. Schaff’s Introduction revised, appeared 
in 1886. The Greek-English, also, reappeared in 1885, and again in 
1886. Von Gebhardt’s Tischendorf, editio minor, Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 
1887; and The Resultant Greek Testament, by Richard Francis Wey- 
mouth, Ὁ. Lit., Elliott Stock, London (n. d., but 1886). Scrivener’s 
“editio major” of his Greek New Test. appeared in 1887; Bell, Cam- 
bridge and London, and Holt, New York. An edition of the Greek New 
Test., with notes based on De Wette’s, is in progress; E. Anton, Halle: 
Gospels (all thus far), 1886. 


Isaac H, HALL, 
‘New York, June 6, 1887, 


APPENDIX II. 


FAC-SIMILES OF STANDARD EDITIONS 


OF THE 


GREEK TESTAMENT. 


I. CompitutenstaN Potyetot, 1514. The first printed Greek Testa- 
ment. 
1. Fac-simile of title-page (reduced). Hat and Shield of Car- 
dinal Ximenes. Size of original, 114 in. Χ 7 in. 
2. Fac-simile of Colophon (reduced), Rev. xxii. 17-21. Size of 
original, 113; in. X 7 in. 


II. Erasmus, 1516. The first published Greek New Testament. 
1. Fac-simile of title- sate (reduced). Size of original, 8$ in. x 
4,7, 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. Χ 6 in. 


III. Cotinaus’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. Srepnens’s Hditio Regia, 1550. 
1. Fac-simile of title-page of Gospels and Acts (reduced). Size 
of original, 104 in. X 52 in. 
2. Fac-simile of page containing Matt. viii. 12-30, with readings 
contrary to all his authorities. Size of original, 11 τς in. 
x Τὰς in., including marginal notes, 


526 LIST OF FAC-SIMILES. 


V. SrepHens’s Epition or 1551. The first edition with the modern 

versicular division. 

1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 4,4 in. X 2,% in. 

2. Fac-simile of fol. 18 Ὁ, 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 Doxology 
at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, which is present in the 
other texts. Size of original, 45% in. x 34 in., including 
marginal notes. - 


VI. Brza’s Epirion, 1598. The latest δὲ Beza’s folio editions, and 

one of those which formed the basis of the common Eng- 
lish version of 1611. 

1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 103 in. x 542 in. 

2. Fac-simile of page containing Rev. x. 9-xi. 8, showing the 
unauthorized addition to the Greek text of 6 ἄγγελος εἱστήκει, 
and the corresponding Latin “ adstititque Angelus,” in xi. 1, 
which has passed into our common English version. Size 
of original, 11,3; in. Χ θὲ in. 


VII. Brza’s Enitton, 1604. The latest of Beza’s smaller editions 
which could have aided in forming the text followed in our 
common English version of 1611. 
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 64 in. Χ 3} in. 
2. Fac-simile of page containing Heb. x. 36—-xi. 6, showing Beza’s 
interpolation of “quis” in x. 38. Size of original, 6} in. Χ 
33 in. 


VIII. Exzevirs’ Eprtion, 1633. The ‘Textus Receptus.” 
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Full size. 
2. Fac-simile of page containing Rom. vi. 19-vii. 4, showing the 
omission of τοῦ νόμου in vii. 2. Full size. 


IX. Watton’s PotyeLor 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, inciuding the fifth volume 
which contains the New Testament, are prefaced by sub- 
titles only. Size of original, 14} in. x 94 in. 

2. Fac-simile of left-hand page containing the Greek text, and 
the Syriac and part of the Ethiopic versions, with corre- 
sponding Latin translation, of 1 Tim. iii, 13-iv.4. The opposite 


LIST OF FAC-SIMILES. ΒΟΥ 
\ 
(right-hand) page contains the “ Versio Vulgata Latina,” the 
‘‘ Versio Arabica cum Interpretatione Latina,” and the con- 
tinuation of the “Versio Aithiopica cum Interpretatione 
Latina,” of the same passage. Size of original, 15;% in. 
X 94 in. 


X. Mitu’s Epirion, 1707. 
1. Fac-simile of title-page (reduced). Size of original, 127 in. 
xX 7p 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, 114 in. x 6} in. 


XI. Beneet’s Eprrion, 1734. The first German critical edition. 
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 73 in. x ὅξ in. 
2. Fac-simile of page containing Gal. vi. 7-18; Eph. i. 1-6; the 
notes showing Bengel’s judgment on the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 
in Eph.i.1. Size of original, 74 in. X 53 in. 


XII. Wersten’s Epition, 1751. 
1. Fac-simile of title-page (reduced). Size of original, 10} in. 
Χ 5f in. 
2. Fac-simile of p. 891, John vii. 51-viii. 2, showing a part of the 
disputed ΠΕΡῚ MOIXAAIAO® ΠΕΡΙΚΟΠΗ. Size of orig- 
inal, 10} in. X 57 in. 


XIII. Griespacn’s Seconp Epirion, Halle and London, 1796-1806. 
The first edition appeared at Halle, 1774 and 1775. 
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 64% in. x 32 in. 
2. Fac-simile of page containing Matt. xix. 29-xx. 6, showing 
some of the signs used to denote different grades of prob- 
ability. Size of original, 62 in. x 3% in. 


XIV. Scnouz’s Eprtion, 1830-1836. 

1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 7} in. X 53 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 “‘Symbole 
Critice.” Size of original, 743 in. x 54% in. 


XV. Lacumann’s Epition, 1831. The first text constructed accord- 
ing to actual documentary evidence, without reference to the 
“Textus Receptus.” 


528 LIST OF FAC-SIMILES. 


1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 542 in. Χ 3} in. 

2. Fac-simile of page containing Mark xvi. 14-20; Luke i. 1-8. 
Size of original, 5f in. Χ 88 in. 

XVI. Lacumann’s Eprrion, 1842-1850. 

1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 6§ in. X 32 in. 

2. Fac-simile of page containing 1 Thess. iii. 2-8, showing the 
division of the uncial writing followed in ver. 7 (τὸ μηδὲν 
ἀσαίνεσθαι). The Latin version is the Vulgate, with the 
readings of the most noted Codices. Size of original, 7, in. 
Χ 4 in. 


XVII. Tiscnenporr’s Epition, 1841. Made before the editor’s jour- 
neys, or established reputation as a critic. 

1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 54 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 ϑεὸς for ὅς. Size of original, 53 in. X 3% in. 

XVIII. Tiscnenporr’s Epirion, 1869-1872. 

1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 53 in. Χ 88 in. 

2. Fac-simile of page containing 1 John v. 6-8, showing the 
interpolated passage of the three heavenly witnesses. Size 
of original, 6% in. X 3% in. 

XIX. TreGeLius’s Eprrion, 1857-1879. 

1, Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 72 in. X 6} in. 

2. Fac-simile of page containing Apocalypse i. 1-5. Size of 
original, 7, in. x θεῖς in. 

XX. Westcott anp Hort’s Epirion, 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, 183 in. x 885 in. See description, p. 303. 


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. 


Ash 
eee se Ps, 
ν᾿ tes 


+ 
a OY 
Mare? ἜΡΡΕΙ 


> aw 


igh 


Waec tibi pentadecag terragonon refpicit ud. 
[Dofpitium petri z paull ter quing; bierum. 
Wamg;inkrumentum vetus vebdoas mnvit.octo, 
Ler nous fignatur.ter quing3receptat vrurg. 


SY, 


mS 


ΞΞΞ ΤΕ 


A tea 


Me 


ΟΣ 


Zz Pe, δ) 
«2 E26 


NN 
ἊΨ ; 
_——— ee ας  ς 5 


δὰ 


ouum teftamentum 


“ 


ee Sy, grecez larine in academia 
rind complutentinouiter 
LAD tmp2effum, 


aye vero figillatim zper ozdinem in totoope τας τῳ . hy yrs Arce tin eplas canonicas: 2 fy argyha 
consndtur:bic tudiofe lectoroculia tuia fabiici : @ In Calde alterius Doctons Srect nominatl. Pokk bec les 
TPuMuow ubloccureteple uktopspbul βάτο! ρωπάυς δι θα ρίείρίς δὰ Ἰρμυϊρεϊτειίαϑ πουκιεβξ ορεομιοια τὰ 
cocordta quatinozeuageliond . Sequitur deinceps prologus interpretatione Latina etuidé beak bieronymie regioe Deide 
bieronymt ad Dama sus Pappa τ alt) emfdes doctors prologi. fabtugitur vocabularia grecii cOtmes οὔθ victibcs totudno 
Pott bec ucceadur Quattuot euagelia Greco fermée ci lonna seflamentt i: wfuper fapientic ἃ cc fiaftici grece τ latme cia 
bti bteronymt trifletse ἐς oppoitto.Deide (equiitur duo are breurffima quada in initio ad grecas litterae teroductioe. Po 
Gi traclatus.alter be peregrinatise bti Youli:z eutbsly Pat firemo loco librd claudunt interpretatioes Own toting nowi te 
tg alter De tprb? pdicatioie:2 martyno emide. Succediit po Ramenti vocabulowum que tam grecam qua bcbraiea Σ chal? 


fue arguméta theodonn voctows grect emi Scene fungetymologiaab imaomatine: viqzad fine 


530 


(1.---2.} 


Bpocalppfis, 


ψώμ' ερχεσθωιο ϑελωμ' λαβετω ὕλωρ orig 
»λωρεάμ. "μαρτυρώ "εγώ * DaypTi*akovopts 
sTouc? λόγου, Της τυροφητείας Tov BiBAI 
ou* Tov rov'edy Ἴς επιθή' ἐπ’αυτά"Ξπιθήσαι ἐπ᾽ 


“αυτόμ, ο᾽θϑεόςτας επίά πληγάς ας" yeypax - 


δας ἐμ, Too'BiBAia* Ἰούτω 'και “εάμ"Ἴς αφέ 
Anfansy Top Acyap/tov’ "βιβλίου της" ῶρο- 
φητείας ταύτης "αφέλομο'θεος,το μερος᾽ αν 
του '"αποιον ξυλου της 3ωής και εκ της πὸ 
λεωςτησ'αγίας τομ᾽ γεγραλαέμωμεμτωῦθι 
Βλίω' τούτω." λεγε ο" λαρτυρώμ' ταύταν μαι 
‘epXouat' TaXv,"auHp.‘par,” epXou "κύριεη- 
σού. Χάρις, του"κυρίου Ἰησού“Χριστού με 
τά ωάμντωμιτωμ΄ αγιωμοίαμημ. 

Ἰέλος Τῆς "ασοκαλνψεως- 


Capri, 


* veniat:t" 4‘ τα τ accipiat*aquam ‘vite ogg 
“gratis. ' Conteftoz™cnim "omar audienti 
PverbaP prophetic’ libzi οὐσοσσσοσσοσοσοο 
"bur. § Si°ds ‘appofucnt'ad’bec:* 
*ocus'fup-rillu;‘plagas' fcriptas cocatag 
Min libzoifto. ‘Er ἢ" quis*oiminuent ao 
Foes verbis ‘libu’propbetie .conccnccny 
*buius:‘auferet‘ocus' partes’ cus coco 
"oe" libro‘ vite’ coe" cinitate Copco 
*fcta ct d¢ bis*quefcripta® fir'in"libzo coo 
‘io."Dicit"4*teftimonii" phiberittog2E 
NG" vento’ cito:*emé.' Clent‘dfic "iefu.cxo 
’ Sratia*ofn noftn*refu “ΟΣ ΠῚ "cus coco 
“omnibus vobis.* Zimen. 
Explicit liber’ Apocalypiis, 


Wecogratias, 


a, eS AL 


Vel Alta oY LMS On eee 
KERR Nez Ὁ. COV 


SSIES 


Si 


Nu 


K Ἶ 


ros titul ancte Belbine fancte Romane ecche 
byteri ardinalie bifpanie Bircbichi to 
letam « Mifpaniay pzimatis ac regnoy 
caftellearchicacellarij:induftria tfoler 
tia bonozabilis viri Zimaldi guilia 


SINS 


' 


{1 3..5 


ΝΟΝΝΜΙΝ 


diligenmerab ERASMO ROTERODAMO 
ose iat υίρε: folum ad preecam weritatem,ue- 
απιυπαυγεηβεθ.τανττυ αὐτο lingua codiam, eorumgs we 
terum fimal & emendarorum fidem, poftremo ad pro- 
bariffimoram autoram citationem,emendationem 
Sinterpretationem. pracipue,Origenis, 
foftomi,Cyrilli, aah NG ry 
priani,,Ambroffj, Hilarij, Augufti: 
nijunaci Annotationibus,quz 
leétorem doceant,quid qua 
ratione mutatum fic. 
Quifguis igitur 
amas ue- 
fam 
i i 
iatn,lege,coono 
eae deinde radia 
Neg ftatim offendere, fi 
quid mutatum offenderis,fed 
expende,num in melius mutatum fits 


APVD INCLYTAM 
GREERMANIAE BASILABA M 


CVM PRIVILEGIO 
MAXIMILIANE CAESARIS AVGVST, 
NB QVIS ALIVS IN SACRA ROMBs 
NI IMPERII DITIONE, INTRA QVATY 
OR ANNOS EXCVDAT, AVT ALIBI 

BXCVSVM IMPORTET. 
532 


(t1.—2.) 


ANOKAAITIS 


ἀγγέλου Te Φακνύοντός μοι ταῦτα,κοὶ λῖ» 
faa parse μὰ, σιώφουλός ot Fp εἰμι νὴ CH 
ἀδελφῶμ cov προφητῶρ, δ᾽ τῶρ TxgowTap 
τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιδλίου τούτον, GS ϑεῷ 
“προσκαώκσορ. νὴ λέγα orm σφραξίσῃς τοὺς 
λόγυς Ol προφκτείας F βιθλίς τότου,ὅτι 
καιρὸς τγγύς δξιν.ο ἀδικῶρ ἀδικχσάτω th, 
W) 0 ξυπῶρ,ζυπωσάτωξτι, νὴ Ὁ δίκαιος δικακ 
θέτω ἔτι, χοὴ ὃ ἅγιος ἀγϊαδϑάτω ἔτι, ποὺ 
iow ἔρχομαι ταχὺ, κὰι ὃ prides μου wet 
ἐμοῦ, αποδῦναι ἐκάσῳ ὡς ὁ ἔφγομ ἀντουΐ 
ἔσαιψεγώ tees Pagan) ἴδιο, ἀρχὴν τέλος ὃ 
στῶτος no) ἔχατο'΄, Μακάριοι Of ποιοῦν / 
τια τὰς WPAGS BvTO, ἵνα ἔσο ἃ σζουσία ἂν 
hy Ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλο PD) Ἰωῦο. NQ) οἷς πυλεῶ, 
oly εισέλθωσι pig Ὁ πόλιριεξω ὃ δὲ naveg 
no) διφαρμακὸι, Hod ττόρνοι, Koc. δὲ oveis,vy 
Ὁ, ἐιδωλολάτγρα,μαὶ wae Ὁ φιλῶρ,καὶ ποι 
Sp ψεῦδος, Εγὼ zo rz ἔπεμψα τὸν ἀγγεῖ 
Adp μου μαφτυφᾶσαι Ὁμῖμ ταῦτα τάϊς Ἐκ] 
κἈκαίαις. ἔγώ tips Mayo) P YOO’ τὸ δα 
οἴδιὸ Ese λαρμαιρός, κοὰ δοθρινὸρ, κοὰ ὁ πνεῖ 
μα καλλνύμφν λέγουοιρ, λθὲιποὴ δ᾽ ἀκόωμ 
ἐπάνω; ξλθὲ,καξὺ δι ῶρ, ἐλθέτω, καὶ ὃ Atl, i: 
λωχ,λακξανέτω ὃ ὕδωρ Waits dagedp, συμ. 
μαρτυροῦμας yup παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λό! 
γοὺς προοφετείας βιθλίσυτότα, ἔπις ἔτ Τιθὰ 
meas Ἰαῦγα ἐπιθάσα 5 θεὸς τ ἜΣ Τὰς πιλκ 
γὰς τὰς γνγραμρθθας WECAl τδτῳρὰ Ὧι 
Tie ἀφαιρὴ ae F λότωμ Biers “ὁ προφαείας 
Ἰαύτχς, ἀφαιφέσα Βεὸς τὸ μέρ Θ΄ αὐτο cz 
βίθλον Ἰωὰς nod πόλεως Ky fag, καὶ δ) γε 
yee phon τὺ βιδλίῳ τούτο. λέγει δ διαφία 
«ὧρ ταῦναινὰ ἔγχοριαα Tox, ἀμὸν, οὰιἵν 
χρυκύζιετησου ἃ χάρις τῶ nuplow ys dip τὴν 
Σοτχϑτστου μετα τσάντωρ ὑμῶρ. Δμὶὸ» 


APOCALYPSIS 
angeli qui mihi hac oftendebat. Etdi- 


citmihi. Vide ne feceris. Coferuus em 
ruus {0,8 fratritmoz pphetar& eox 
ui feruant uerba pphetiz libri huius. 
eum adora. Et dicit mihi. Ne figna- 
weris uerba prophet libri huius. Té 
pus enim prope eft. Quinocet, noceak 
adhuc, & qui in fordibus eft, fordefcar 
adhuc,& qui iuftus eft, iuftificerur ads 
huc, & (τι {crificerur adhuc,& eceue 
nio cito,8& merces mea mecii eft,ut red- 
da unicuigyut opus illiuserit. Ego fam 
alpha & σι primus & nouiffimus, priny 
cipium & finis. Beati qui feruancman~ 
daraillius ut fit poteftas eorum in li- 
gno uite,& per portas intrent in ciuita 
tem. Foris autem canes & uenefici δέ 
impudici & homicide & idolis feruien 
res,& omnis qui amat & facit. menda- 
cium.Ego Iefus mifiangeli meit teftifi 
cari uobis hzcin ecclefijs . Ego fum ger 


-nus&radix Dauid/ftella fplendida & 


matutina- Εἰ fpiritus & {ponfa dicunt, 
ueni,Ec quiandir dicarueni.Er qui fitit 
ueniat,& quinalt,accipiataquam uita 

ratis . Conteftor enim omni audienti 
uerba pphetizslibri huius. Si quis ap- 
pofuerit.ad hacapponet deus fuperil 
lum plagas feriptasin libro ifto.Etfigs 
diminuerit deuethis libri ppheriz huy 
ius,auferetdeus parté eius de libro ui 
tz,8¢ dociuitare fancta, &dehis ἃ feris 
ptafuntin libro ifto.Dicit qui teftimo 
nit phibet iftoz.Etidzuenio ato.A mé, 
Etiam Veni dite Jefu. Gratia ἐπί τιο» 
Atri Jef Chriftic oibus uobis. Amen. 


Einis Teftamenti toriusad praca ueritaté neruftiffimoriig: Codicam Larinoy 
fidem & ad pbati{limor:authorii citationé & interpretationem acc. 
ratexecogniti, opera {tndiog D,Erafimi Rorerodami. 
533 


(11.—1.) 
H KAINH ALIAO HK H& 


Sf 
SS 
μ», “jy | =| Z 
y ἣ 
υ. “πὰ 
ὅτ KA τῇ 
Σ 102 |Z 
aN ΓᾺ 
ΔΑΝ <a. a 
: ἄλλ] να 
͵ S . eo 
πὰ & + “ὦ μὰ Ζ 
ΚΞ \\ sf 
Ad . fey εν 
ΤΕΜΡΝνϑδν 


εν λένκωτιοι τῶν ταιρκοίων, MEG Σί- 
μῶν! τῷ KoAWouw dA Keubers ulwog 
δὲντόν οἱ φθίγόντος «1 a0 τῆς Ho- 
Doving ,α. Φ. A. σῇ. 


534 


(IT.—2.) 
EPIX TOAH 


γυϑονεμῆνον ix 18 ϑεῦ, νικᾷς ὃν πδσμον χοὶ 
αὗτη δὴν ἡ νίκα," γικήσοκ(ϑυ τὸν κόσμον, ἡ πὶ. 
sis ἡμῶν. Us hav ὃ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον͵ ἐ μὲ | 
“πιρεύων, ol τι(οῦς Biv ὁ υἱὸς 7B HS ἔγ ἕξη 
ὁ ἰλϑων σὶ ὕδαῶς uf αἱμοιζετπ(ῦς γιὰ; 
Suc S ὕσδιτ) movoyv, aM’ οἱ B ὕσαὶ xf δ᾽ 
ceitccl. y 8 πνδῦμοί δξι ὸ μοιρτυροῖω, δ, 
3 πνϑύμμοι δξιν ἡ ἀλήϑεικ, ὅτι Bas dav οἱ 
μιοαιρπτυροίστες, 3 πυδῦ μοι, Kote “ὁ ὕσωρ κὶ 3 
ok uce καὶ οἱ Néig dee οὐ dow. εἰ τίωΣ μιὰρ. 
Vela TA αὐϑρώπων λαμβίσομᾷν, i μαῤε 
τυρία 13 LS μείων ὄξῥν οἷς αὐτὰ Kary 

rela TS Sue, μεμαρτύρηκε τοϑοὶ Τῷ Ye 
εἰὐζῦ. ὃ πιτεύων ἃς ὧν Yor Τῷ ϑε, χα τὼ 
μαρτυρίαν τῷ Jed οὗ Ἑουντξξιὃ μὴ -mselar S 
Sas, α{ούςην τεφοίηικεν cosy , δὲς x σγεπίςευ- 
κεν εἰσ 7d Uccervetew lw utpap-rpuners 
ϑεὸς abe TH Ys αὐζῦ, κὶ corn BG H μαρ 
“υρία, 046 atu) αἰώνιον ἔσῶοκεν ἡ μὲν ὁ Hog, 
πῇ αὔτη ἡ ζωὴ οὐ τῶ YO WOT ἔξιν. δ Cur PY 
εἶον τ KS, ἔχει τ] lw. ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν yor ἢ 
Ks. πίω ξοίω te χει. ταῦτο toga V- 
par Gig, mistisay εἰς ἃ ὄνομος 7H Yi BS, 
ἵνα AIRE OU τοί celdvioy Ὥχωτε, καὶ ἵνα πὶ 
«εἴτε εἰς δ ὅνομοι 78 Ys “8 δε J οὔτα hy 
ἡ παῤῥησία, lw λομῆν mess αὐτὸν δῖε ἰα! 
ae oe le αἱτωμέ" 


(IV.—1.) 


THS ΚΑΙΝΗ͂Σ AIAOHKHS AIANTA. 


EYTAFLPBAION 
Kam Μαγϑάϊγον. 
Κατὰ Μάρκον. 
Κατὰ “Λουκαῦ. 
Κατα Iwate, 


TRPAZEIS ΤΩΝ ἀποστόλων. 


Nouum IES V. Chrifti D.N. 
Teftamentum. 


EX BIBLIOTHECA REGIA. 


ασιλᾷ τ' ἀγαθῷ κρατερῷ πὶ aby pare 
LVTETIAE 
Exofficina Robetti Stephani typographi Regli, Regiis typis. 
M6 DP OL 


936 


(IV.—2.) 


« Digh£ aw hpeclibv. © Tiel δ λαϑώτον Sel ποικίλοι νόσοι, T τ Περὶ τῷ αὐ totem phil berate 
KATA MATO. 9 Kr 
οὐρανῶν" οἱ Rol τῆς βασιλείας ἐκιβληϑέσονται εἰς υπό. 
a τος Ὁ Eerneponroues ἔραι 6 ὁ κλαυθμὸς κα 146 ὁ βρυγμὸς ᾧ ὀδόντων. 
ναημέρᾳ. ° Καὶ εἶπέν ὁ ὁ Ἰησοῖ τῷ ἑκατοντάρχων : Ὑπαρε, ἃ ὃ ὡς Ἰλίρτυσαρ 
᾿ ἡβρηϑήτω σοι. Καὶ άϑι, ὃ παὶς chee ἂν τὴ a ᾳ ἐκείνην - τὸ 
φτἰρνόας κ ϑαὸν ὁ Lnoots ae ol οἰκέαν Πέζγυ, σε αἰεὶ πενϑερα αἱ aif be mer 
ee sl ; Θλημδρίω; Xe mae yinfacro χϑρὸς αὐτίς, χαὶ a~ 
eine" φῆχεν αὐτίωὐ omuperag: ἃ ἡγέρϑυ, ὃ δοιιόνᾷ αὐπῦῖς: ᾿Οψίας es 
αν 5 ἡμομδύης «σϑραϊνείκαν ares ΚῈ ene rth πολλοιὶ νὰ ὸ “ 
ὀξέξαλε G πνδματα λόγω ij ποιύταρ ἐ- 
ϑεροίπευσεν ὅπως manepsn > ῥηϑὲν δι  Ἡσοῖου & ξ, περφήϊε, 
- Λέγοντος, Ade τοὶ ddevdeeg maid ἤαζε, καὶ ταὶ νόσοις ἐξα. T amend 
sear, ἵ δῶν ἢ 34 ὁ ἕπσοις πρλλοις ἐὄχλοις ae αὐτὸν, 
Tamers ἐς ὃ πέραν. ᾿Καὶ ππέροελϑὰν ἃς γαμματαὶ ἄς. amr 
‘ πεν αἰπὲδ. ,Διδασμαδι, ἀκολοσϑήσω Gu ὅπου deed at ἀπέρχη. "ἢ Ka} 
λέγᾳ um ὁ ἰησοῦ, Αἰ λλώπέκες φωλεοιὶ ἔλρισι, x04 ( Ὅπε- 
τειν ΤΣ $ οὐρανοῦ κατασκίευὠσφρ ὁ Ὁ ὃ os es duSpamov οὐχ e- 
dios τίω κεφαλίεὴ κλίνη, Ἑπροςδὲ a μαϑηπῶν ἀνθ᾽ 
‘w πεν ἀεὶ, Κύρκε Salpenlss μοι ree ὥ τον ἀπελϑην, ἃ Sate 
arene psu oes tant Εἶπεν my Aransas 
panes ις γεκρουὶ See ἑαυτῶν yenp "Καὶ ἐμ τί 
teaciam| εἰς ὃ πλόϊον, ἡκολούϑησαιν dems oj i eS} ee ἀμφ, Cie ἰδοὺ 
 adajudg μέγας ἐδλυετοὲν 9 ϑαλαίατη, ὥςτε τὸ πλοῖον καλύ- 
αεἰῆεϑαι Vai? κυμάτων αὐτὸ 9 ἐχαϑευδε. Καὶ ππερσελϑέν- 
τς οἱ ice Sr ὁ au δ΄ ἡγέραν αὐτὸν, ,λέλογτερ, Κύεχε ow Gy ὑ- 
«μας οὐπολλύμεϑοι. Καὶ λέγᾷ αὐτοῖς, Τὶ (δφλοίς ws, ὀλιγοπηροιβ 
Tore yep no ¢ ἐπεήμησε Gis ἀμέμοις δῇ ϑαλοία. POLY 
ayrem γαλίεη μεγάλη. οἱ αὶ Αὔϑρωποι ἐθαύμασαν, Adorn, A 
ἹΠοπαπὸς ἔξην cit, a @ od tos WH ϑέέλαατα ὑπακούσισι 
¢ cium}; Καὶ Goovn εἰυπτῇ εἰς “ὁ πέραν cig τ Ὑχώραν Ἃ # Γεργέση- 
ε — πε. δύο » yp μονιζοιδροι, ἐκ a μνημείων 
0, χαλεπαὶ» λίων, ὥςτε niouidy Leva ἐ παρῇ ϑὲν διὰ 
ay éxdonc, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔ αν λέγοντες, Τί ἡμῖν ( '@ Gh inood 
ag Sead sia Sec ὧδι anes xoupod βασανίσαι ἡ ἡ pair y ὃ μα 
κραὶ ἐπὶ αὐτῶν aylanasiegy πολλῶν βοσκομδώη. οἱ 4 duf- 


ες Weel} GaraiosT zon, ee) Nis Doyo Qe 
537 


" 


᾿ 


(vit 


APFANTA TA THs KAINHSE 
dans. 


Nouum IESV Chrifti D.N. 
Teftamentum. 
Cum duplici interpretatione, D. Erafmi, & Veto 


risinterpretis: Harmonia item Euangelica, & 
copiofo Indice. 


Ex officina Roberti Stephant 
Me Dye: DA, 


538 


Cap. Vi. 


Infra 23.¢-19 


eccls.g.2 


Harm.z.33 


E. 


Et neinducas 13 


Nos in tentatio- 
nem , fed libera 
nos-a | malo. 
Quia tut eft re. 
gnum,& posen- 
tia, & gloria in 
fecula.Amen. 


[Proinde fi re- 
miferitis homi- 
nibuserrata fua, 
remittet & vo- 
bis Pater vefter 
czleftis: 


Quod fi né re- 
miferitis homi- 
nib? errata fua, 
nec Pater vefter 
remittct errata 
veftra. 


Porro quum 
jeiunaueritis,ne 
fitis veluri hypo 
critz tetrici: ob- 
fcurantenim fa 
ciesfuas,quo per 
{picuum fit ho- 
minibus ipfos ie 
junare.amen di- 
¢o yobis, habent 
anercedé foam. 

Txverdquum 


» wnge "7 


14 


49.3.) 


EVANG. 


Ka oz | εἰσιν hed ἡ-- 
μας εἷς πειρασχμὸ, “amat 
ῥῦσαι ἡμας ς So Τὰ πον η.- 
pod ὃ ὅτι συ bewy βασ:- 
λεία, ἢ καὶ δευύαμις, αἱ 
Bea εἰς Gy αἰῶνας. 
cil, 

Ea’ np CONTE ποῖς 
ail arms ἃ apse 
Hate αὐτῶν 7 φησι Cc 
ὑμῶν ὁ τατὴρ UM ὃ οὐ- 
exrios: 

Eat δὲ un ἀφῆτε Gig 
ὀὐβρώποις τα α΄ απῆω-. 
ματα αὐτῶν, οὐδὲ ὅπα- 
mip up’ ἀφήσῃ τὰ πα.-. 
es 7A capac UM. 

Orns ὃ ἢ γηςευ τε, μων 98 
VE ὡς τῷ οἱ ὑσυκριταὶ 
σκυβρωποί, ἀφανίζοισι 
Ry @ πρόσωπα αὑτῶν, 
ὅπως φανῶσι τοῖς Ab Spa 
wig νησεύοντες. ped "λέ 
yw ὑμῖν ὅτι  αἰπεχοισι τὸν 
μιῶιν αὑτῶν. 

Σύ δὲ ryswar ἄλει-. 


89 


ν. 


Ee ne new 
inducas in 
tentarioné, 
fed dibera 
nos ‘a mde 
Jo.Amen. 


δὲ enim 
dimiferizis 
hominibus 
peccata com 
gum, dimit 
ger & vobis 
Pacer vefter 
caleftis de- 
lida veftsaz 


$i autem 
non dimife 
sitis homie 
nibus, nee 


Pater vefter 


dimiectet vo 
bis peccata 
veftra. 


uum 2a 
pie we pkeee 


tis, nollte 


fieri ficuthy 
pocrite tri 
fics: extere 
minatenim 
facies fuas, 
vt pareant 
hominibus 
iciunentes. 
amen dico 
vobisga re« 
ceperutmer 
eedé fuam. 
Tuapterm 
quum fe=- 
danas vad 


(VI.—1.) 


IESV 


GHRISta 


DOMINI NOSTRI 
Nouum Teftamentum, 
fue Noun fedut, 
coc nin 


EIVSDEM TH.BEZAE ANNOTATIONES 
in quibusratione ationis vocum reddita,additur Syndpfs dottring: 
sn Enangelica hifforia,éx Epiftolis Apoftolicis ΚΝ 
Co ipfe quoque conrextus,quafibrewi commen~ 


Onuiannng denmmr,Vicima adhibita manu, quim accuratiffimé emendarséean- 
Gavt quodammodo nouum cpus yideripoffir. 


SVMPTIBVS 
HAERED. EVST. VIGNON. 


MD, XCVIIL 
540 


(VI.—2.) 


IOANNIS 
ἰγιχφηλάδι χε cralgaye αὐτό κοι] |bivAcchpe®e devora corn 55. “ 
γππξανο σου φίω κοιλίαν; dO ὦ ἢ "εχσγνογνὰ erit doldis δ coerce baad 
φόμοτ rv igey γλυκιὶ ἐς μέλι. A gs δ plana 
ee Bibrsel ta cepi i ellom ὁ πιο | 4 bride 
na y τ τα κὐτέ] [ον put ory ‘devoraui ews) |<estic deueran i 
Ba wt kono up) |, oe dl τεκοῦσ τς, 
mS eae se δα Fagen αὐτὸ, Smeg On» yo <a argaruit yonter endian 
ΜῊΝ λέ oe peach ον a “to ἀἰκίεταῖαῖ, Oporterre χ Opera 
pivoey Sai Agog ἃ ϑγισεν paws yg) jiterum prophetate feoram po- a gona, 
nls Boge tibos , S&linguiss&| | 2 Pepelect tm 
ΡΩΝ veh regia , ging ree Se 
okt. 
Kiva ronan 1" ~ ce me ie bosses 
γα ὁ ὁ ἀγῆελος εἰρήκει, mus fimilis vir ie ‘sere 
ir pnoey τὸν γαὸν τῶ Gur, urque Angelus,dicens,Surge & per mowing ον 
Sacer exon, @ med engymmmoud-| |metireteroplum Dei &altare; Jor aleare cp axoraxten 
& eos quiadorant in cos ἰφεῦς, 
ag en ΡΣ γαδῦγε! Sed serium"quod extra rem |° πα | 
peasteamrioes | feel cent | (eee eae 
ἡ jrisillud:nam daru ἽΝ dant 
ts Indep agen ον bus: & Vrbem Sotto aie eran snd ταῖᾳ 
παδϑὸν «ράκον- ἊΝ méfibus quadragintadwo-| Voc ; ἕω 
Rios τοῖς δυοὶ μοίρτυσί μον. 3] Sed dsbo illansiducbus Wlis| 3] 222abe dahon fin 
«οὐφητάϊουυσιν ἡμέρας, “λίαι teftibus ns sipnopheubei γένει dive 
co ag τ iefnarra πἰξαθιθλυμδμοι diebus mille pala fexagin« τῆς amills fom 
᾿ ᾿νε δὶ faccis. = 
Kite adie wen pe RIT 6 ae duzilfz ΟΝ 4 Fe idle 
tig αἱ coum φῶ Cyne “ [can fa incon nu” i Au — 
terrz pofita, Domus terre Ramen 
fore, 
Phage yeti μὰ mip |, Qehd βιμάενεδ νου ϊεᾶνε if Ru a ele ες 
sera, ἐκ s i mH bones, oat 
gandla ποιὶ md he ae αν asd πρὶ me Doon inter umentien werden si 
αὐτοιξ ϑέλυ ὡδοκῆσαι, οὕτω δεῖ αὐτὸν fiquis velie slates pos} μετὰ cos oper= 
Spray. : Εἰ cum oc {tee cam ore, τ 
POF om nat sam Fp ener 
am pluuial '. 
_ 1 sth “3 larly en diebus relia ipfortsx po. Debus prophesia rt 
τι ad jteftacem habent in aquasycon-| 1 oorefiatems haben fos 
ΤῊ ἰδάτων, spipen αὐτὸ εἰς jucreendi eas in fanguinem : δὲ ᾿οὐτμινκαῃνυνοντάσος 
μα: καὶ πατάξαι τω γίω πείσῃ wn | |percutiendi cerram omni plaga| [reterram om plage gud 
ἢ cy hen τ! τ ' φανδον ascents, ah . 
μαάρτυρ! 7| Porro ροϊΐοῦ eregcrint” aed ae) 
eet τοί detec 66 rim ee mes og ee “πώ 4 tha 
cendensex a =| que abyffefa 
prockrd πόλειων yer’ αὐ ἠῥ, xg} τραίσει pear hated ΝᾺ [0 adenine Sabet 
era fc ea: FO) Ie 
loccidereoss >So  Ύ 
Καὶ τοὶ a duo oe Aim memra-|s\ Etcadaucra corumiacebunt 2, Ereaperacoran lee 
ἣν Amartadioem adferct.xmeg i. Hedr: if lekki 
goo Vilgata, Racleamarican,tc in Notre γε μα φρο | ee alk wih setae arteries μα pects oeeoreer 


ἘΣ. Coram popelis Sc. τὴ καίτι Bec Sic rfurparur przpos pa >.Ad verbum. Eye fers. Arison et 
MoM Mar38 54 δι Τ σι δ. 


IN CAP VT XL 
iJ fy gene εἷς 
geltituohunc 


4. Tea i 
ex Socratic ἘΣ egies 


Ὁ erorum ab hoe atnio tract feiundta, ahamoruealte 


figasfcabatur. Nape ve. 


ei ec pein nace Videtur abfordum 


unt , potarunt leg endam 


ste Hecquace ¢ ΣΝ 


᾿ 


& didtum eft mihi veadem_manente fententia. Sed 


samc von) ded 


® Qpad exsra templon fl Tod ord, πε cht vers em ror alt 


ἔχξη ΠΩΣ hoe adderetur? 


ἀν tchpontebt Vebe tale | Wis Ta ny aim 
atur it Hel i πδεγειντ esa: 
aed agar referetur 4 quo ἡ magirGanim. Ἐκ τς ματα 


ΓΝ τδνΔὰ εἶ; fant t 


541 


mpi 


(VII.—1.) 


NOVVM 


IESV CHRISTI 


TESTAMENTV™M 
Grace & Litine: 
T heodoro Bexa interprete 


Additz fant ab eodem fummz breues doGrinz yno- 
quoque Euangeliorum, & Actorum loco compre- 
henfz. Item, Methodi Apoftolicarum epiftoloram 
bfeuis explicatio. 


Hic autem guinte-editionz, Pe lecorasm 
recognitionttty accefferunt brexes difficihoram phrac 
fean expofitiones , alia quadam annotatientulas 
cum ex matoribus ἦρα BeX« annotahombys. tum 
aliunde excerpté, 


Anno, M: DCIIIL 
542 


(VII.—2.) 


Cap.XT 


Abu. ἡ Ἐρδ« 
ὑφ ν.17. 


ρκάας 


Genef.t.2., 
lob.1.t2. 


Gee.4.4-. 


Ge.5.14., 
44. 17. ὦ 
το 9.16. 


AD HEBR&Z OS. 146 
* Lao. waviis γὸ ἔχετε χρείαν. |36| Nam patiente animo,vo~ 
ἕνα. τὰ ϑέλυμᾳ. τὰ Θευῦ ποιή- bis eft opus, ve voluntati 
σαντες,κομέση cd Tw ἐπαγ- Dei obfequuti reportetis 
λίαν. promiffionem illam. c 
-, Ἐτεγὰρ μεχρὸν ὅσον ὅσον ὁ | 37 ΛΟ enim Bh pp of disap a 
ἔρχόλϑρμος iF er,i9 καὶ χρονειῖ. uavtulumcunque,&qui ων. 
ἢ roy 28 eenturus ef veniet,neque Pend a 
ins ἐν ies ; tardabit.” ν 
11 Ὁ 5 dingyos δε, πίσεως ζή- 38| 77? Iuftus autem ex fide del Ἀν νεός 
lan, ταν ποςειλητα., ὅκ 1 | viner: at fi quis fe fubdu-| ab «ὅ- 
Minox wou ἐν αὐτοί. xerit, non eft geatum 2-} ent μεν 
oe es Fate nimo meo. witd iter : qua 
᾿ Ἡμεῖς ὃ ἐκ Loe§) ὑποςο- | 39) TAt nos non ij fumws qui| Goteatian if 
AM, εἰς ἀπωλειαν, ddd m-| | nos fubducamus ad ¢6xi- Ἔν» 
τὼς εἰς αἰωηοίπσιν ψυχές, tium,fed qui credamus ad ἊΝ 
anima falutem. 
Cc A P, ΧΙ. μ v Excel 
1. Traltat ufque ad finem capitis non aliunde falutems adeptos| Geek πε σα 
eff patres,auicunque ab initio midi Deo probati γμεγῆξ, quamex| Bie ab «δε- 
fide:vt {eiat Iudat hac fola fe colligari patribus in fan&ia unitate, oat ne 
Zn δὲ πίς το ὐλπιζομάίων 1 ἘΠ * autem fides, * illud — repre- 
ὑπύς-ασις ρα γμοίτων ἔ- “que; 4Ὀδπίξαπε" qug | fag aon 
λεγχος ὅ βλεπορμᾶμων. fperantur,& quz demgn- is fubii- 
e Rhea ἢ: ftrat quz non cernuntur. | ¢it~ 
Ἐν ταύτη 2p εὐμφᾳρτυρήδης.  χ}] 2Ob camenim teftimo-| ἢ Ad ya 
oun 01 πρεσβύτεροι. nio fuecunt ornati > ma-| rae que Beret 
iores. Ω 
Mises νοξβ hy κατηρτίδϑοη 3» Per fidem intelligi.| ἢ Ῥοςες Pa- 
1 τοὺς divas ῥήματι Θεοῦ, εἰς 1} mus compactum fuilfe eerie et 
τὸ μὴ cH φαινορόμων τὰ βλε- mundum verbo Dei, © ve} εθς κΔίαιλη.. 
πυρᾶνα yppvevey. quz videmus non fint ex b Ad ver.f2 
eer i 7 apparentibus factas wiores ii8i Pa’ 
Tice πλείογα, ϑυσιαν A- "4 Abel per fidem , ma- | "77 4 quibas 
va doce ’ ἀν" i : 2 οἱ o 
Ben «δα Κάϊν mescriveyne τοῦ ἰοεὶς pretiy facrificium ob} δ΄ — pe ha 
Oc ding ἐμαρτυρήϑη ei vay tulic Deo quam Cain: | risase ἐν exem- 
dius μτυρρωῦτος 3 οι per quam teftimonium | pleases plavi- 
δώρρες αωτοὺ τοῦ Osod-vy δὲ obtinuitquod effet iuftus, | **™ som 
ἀυτῆς ἄσοϑαγὼν in λαλεῖ- teftimonium pechibente| 3” bro S. 
ται." Deo de donis cius:& mor baat Adit, 
taus adhu¢ per, cam lov Propofitis fe- 
Ἢ ͵ uitur, i u 
, MigerEvaly, μετετέϑη,τοῦ | 5. Ὃς Per fidem Enoch fuit \oondhe 2 
be idtv θάνατον" ry ou x εὑ- trafdtusmed videret mor> dot Ecclefa 
ρίσκετο, dion were Snnay au tem : nec fuit innentus,|¢ ἐμ τὲ moe 
tS Θεός eoag yap τῆς μεέται- propterea quod tranftu-| da ife quem 
WEDS ATE μεμα PTUpN TY lerat tum Deus:priu(qua | Sree mee 
ijl mivy Te Θ εὐ, enim transferretur, telti- bain κι 
moniumobtiaucrat quod | flasemateriay 
gratus fuerit Deo. fed ox wipile 
Χωρὶς δὲ πίσεας cSubarev|6| Atqui Gerind porett ve] * Sesh 
οὐευσηφι. πιρεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ] | δίῃ; fide quifqua Deo Gt) ἃ Nemaree 
παρροτβόμῆμον ns Ged,in| | gratus : nam qui accedit ka 
T y 


Γ 


9 


48 


(VIII.—1.) 


H ΚΑΙΝΗ͂Σ 
AIAOHKH. 
Novum 
Teftamentum.. 


Ex Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus,hac 
mvA saree cui quid accelferit, 
Prafatio docebits. ἃ 


Lyvcv. BATAVORVM, 


Ex Officina Elzcviriorume 
clo lo ς XXXIth 


544 


(VILII.—2.) 


ria) ἀνομίαν" Sra γι᾿ οοὔδα φί σοῖε re μέ-- 
An ὑμῶν DBA τῇ δυχρμοσουύῃ ts ἀγεασιμκόν, 

20 Ox ἣν δέλοι ἦτε ἡ ἁμαρϊίας,ἐλσύθεροι 
ἥτε τῇ καοσχεύῃ, ὶ ᾿ 

2Ι Thad χριρπὸν ede MT sO οἷς yu 
ἐποοιο εούεοϑ 5 τὸ Ὁ σέλ(- CHEWY » 9.- 
γε». | 

22 Νιωὶ αὶ ἐλσύθερωθέγτες dan Fa pmerp los, 
δυλωθέντες αὶ τῷ Od, ἔχξε ἢ κρρπτὸν ὑμῶν 
εἰς ἁγίασμθν' τὸ καὶ τέλίΘ» ζω ζω αἰώγιογ» 

2.3 ὙΤὰγ ὀψώνια ὃ ἁμορίκας, ϑοίνε Ὁ" τὸ 

ἢ terry ξ΄ Θεῶ, ζωὴ aban ewKerseh 
Lact τι Κυρέω ἡμῶν, - 
Κεφ, ζ΄ 7. 

r H ἀγνοξίτε ἀδελφοὶ (γινώσεεστ yO" νό-- 
“pS λαλῶ) ὅτι ὃ ἊΝ κυρλσῦᾳ Ὁ ἀν). 
ὦπϑ ἐφ᾽ coc χρόνον ζῇ 53 

τ Hyp ἡ γειυὴ τῷ Coie ἀνδρὶ δέ 

δεῖ γομῳ" tex oll δοτοθοίνη ὃ ἀνὴρ » χρτήρτα 
on’) δισὸ ξ΄ ἀνδρός. 


545 


(X.—1.) 


BIBLIA SACRA 


POLYGLOTTA, 


COMPLECTENTIA 
Te ak Hesratcum, cumPen- TRL pares. 
cuss) — tateucho Samaritano, Grecum. 
SAMARITANA, ARABICA, 
Verfionumque | GR&c# LXX[Interp.| | ATutorice, 
eniguram =} CHALDAICA, PERSIC#s 
SYRIACA, | [Vure. Lat, 


Quicquid comparari poterat. 


(am Textuum, (σ᾽ Verfionum Orentalium Tranflationibus Latinis. 
EX 
VETUSTISSIMIS Mss. UNDIQUE CONQUISITIS, 


optimifque Exemplaribus imprelsis , fumma fide collatis. 
Quz in prioribus Editionibus deerant fuppleta. 
Multa 


antehac inedita , denovo adjeéta. 
Omnia co ordinedifpolita, ut Textus aim Verfionibus uno intuitu conferri poffint. 


Cum Apparatru, AprENDICIBUS, LABULIS, VARIIS 
Lecrionisus, AnnoTationisus, Inpicisus, ὅτε. 


Opus totum in fex Tomos tributum. 


Edidir BRIANUS VVALTONUS, 5. Τ. Ὁ. 


Rationes quibus Opus hoe fufceprum, 

Quorum Aufpiciis @* munificentia promotum, 
Quorum collatis ftudjis cx laboribus perfetlum, 
Quidque in hac Editione pre reliquis prefiitum, 


Sequens Prafatio indicabit. 
LONDI AY, 
ImprimebatT HOMAS ROYCROFT, 
M DC LVII. 


546 


(Χ.--2 


0:6 EPISTOLA 8. PAULI Car.1V, 
ENTESTOAW ΠΡΟῈ ἀϊμοθεον A. KES. κ΄, 277 δ΄. 
Witew ὕω toon apron, 2 ovum SapQificacar este per werbum Dei & opine, x δα. 
90) Ὁ wads Pasaioctiy Baduds ἑαυτοῖς nade wesmidrrars eres ᾿Αγχάζυχα oan ie πρὶ bongs Tern el 
np saffoniarde oncte ΤΊ Ὦ μὲς Yast Tarn oe yaoor ὑλαζον inks webs Aaoate, wands ἕῳ διάκο 16) tae χωρῶν ὀγητερόμανθ. τοῖς Sayre δ σαι, 
cités δὲ φεῦαν tardevero, τὲ [εἶχ φυοσιοδὺ opormrat in domo De) B boos os. ot μέσωι αὶ 
gi Co (Ὁ τέων» “Ede 5 Geelive, ἵνα ἰδὲὲ woe SH ἐν sine Θιῦ a7 καλῆς (Υ)Σ ναμεκαλέϑεκαι, Tis 5 βεζίλες καὶ χαύδονι pabes 5 
φρονεῖ κί ῳ «ΒΜ αι Dei υἱς colomns ἃ firmarectum προετ «κεῖσε autep teipfam wd phectent « Noo a 
ἀνα, δεν ἂν inasle OF CNG, 5 ὍΣΟΣ, | wf canard” ponte Ὁ malin σελ ἐσίσευ. “BS ssid ey 


. ve » ΟΝ emal πεεερείοας i" 
λοενεζών» ὧν σαρκὶ} ὑδιαρεύϑα ἂν Γίνου ὃ th? 
στῶ εἰ ἴα mundo, recep eft in gloria. & isboramar, μότο βόα, quis Goemme ~ ig De [Ὁ 
Honea, Zemin ὧν αὐσμῳ, ἀνιλέξου ἦν δύ; )-. din (A). ὡπιῶμορ., καὶ (Ὁ) δνδυζόμιϑαί, ἃτε ὀλπίσμάν inl ως 
ere qui εἴ Balvator omaiam bowinum, qarime Sdelion, ἀνω han, 
CAP. lV. δ΄ bite Se tee ie elem Rneie pies user. Tacha ναῦτα, of 
Solritas $ Qua in noviflimls temporibas qidas = Tue jecmen = contemmer: exemple ey * 
To 3 Tha forse “Ou iv sigs wile a κασαδ, aes py δίδλεσχα., Madws Ce tie-vebar@ wresynim”™ ἀλλὰ τύτθ- tng 
attendentes  @iritibus deeeperies, & ᾿ ἀοδειοῖν dancslorum .,  Βδεῖτεαν, id “verbo, inconverfations, t»  charieme, i | Siri, io 
el clone “φοσίχοντες πνεύμαα πλάνοι » G\Adasatalast δωαμόνανς πῶν τῶν ἂν Aye, ἣν ἀνανιοῦ, ὦν (Ὁ arene, ‘ee ermal, So dom, 
Ts & faifs loqeentiany courertarem Chae De vaio avrende ~ tection, | sexbornatbont « 
Ὁ Ἔν ὑσνερισον ψάδολδγων. 4) ceravmuceuiows vir ἰδίαν (υνείδυειτ, ἡγνήφε Ἕως ἔγχομαν wphanzg τῇῷ ἀναγνώσει 5 τῷ «πρραλέσοι, τῇ διά, τὴ 
. φδπὸ — cite. φυον Deus, ad Peas He M Mints se ὦπα, 2. 
BXkenirrer your, dain Brourer, af ὃ Oude ἕεισιν εἰς μεϊάλεψμε id dylan $3 bo Col neciopas@ra δδύδη Coo διὰ εγομτώα, 14 
cam grathicon “ἀκ παώπαι : ‘tom mnpolitions _ Dee. presiyverity 
G00 ὑνχαρικίας τοῖς σνωῖεν ἡ ἐπεγαιδει σὲν ἀλήάϑιια»" “Ὅτ, wie φῷ tots xe opeeSureciey 
bors, ἄς abil <am gratiarumaftions faepuet 


Silos pul names We ἀδὲν ἀπϑέώλετον, aaxepenas Day harisdyet 
MSA. QDizzdxyy> «Kg, '.MS.AL (ἡ ssegvenqsomsbion ἢ χρεξ Lev (5) Fe (A) 33 coma, i) ἀγειζεῖια, Ὁ ἐγῆσν, trons 


‘Verfio SYQIACA.com Inverprecatione LATIN A 


satin Sf Lee Saale BELLE ek ont SF sgtheaedemti tain 
sq bit iit SLs arent δ. +a ΕΠ ον Sue τ eins tie He Chrifti. Hac tibi fers τ 


me brevi venrurum adte, Sia if 


1s JeDokSackSoants, fois uly ΣΕ FSA δ. ®, “phon i eatin dons Be quz eft Ecciclia 


peta iit οὐ εἶ ἡ Rina * fize7 imho SEN SuaR pyrene Bee “coopera 


ose bud heals wise peli wae) ee amas atl εἸξδδη ον titcan Ics Spender tpn με angels, δι ταν 
ΕΎΡΦΕΡΡΙ δ οὸ ΕΣ ΕΘ τοῦ. δεῖ ἀαῖμρε μόκορει ag 


“ἢ: wiles = Car. 1% 
' οὐξιί,ον ay οὖν SS ng ie πον ath sche Sin me tes ek 
» δι δουγϑ, S45 sia ibs sae 163 ας; “ΚΣ ag earn ton a, 


it SA See « a Saliio 520: Helos eens ab gS Send Gorsid ng fs caso fe 
A ΠΣ Panos τὶ Τ ἐσιαϑι; BAT ISS τὸς Sg En oes δι gratias 3g 
e Qocnam guage nag omy 


Abadso 200 a2, WS ja} Wp 08S 5. ie κολρβο capac mel man efts & mid 


5 Alain joj Sata μὸν 06h tito * παρα Ἰδνηοῖςο Sears pe Pipes ΞΕ ΕΣ 
6 "αἴ PISS v7 «. ¥ . Say Sok μτ 42 yok SD pal fe kins Se.» comnion otra 
(Mies pisces © buf orypaiplarciad γον, nee ΜΈΡΗ SS ΤΈΣΣ 
silsya βοΐ Sasi RS ise Wigs yl wife af SS SS recede ver aes ws Ch 
epbeic Ha Licht - «ἦτον Picci oS Kujo Les poy Vos οἱ “ eacitqeraaree 


its 


ΔῊΝ Keo iS μοῦ κὦ = Peri φοίκιδ po reerrtBlimen. 4. 
ο--ἰ νι οοῆδ, 5 « Ola 5 διοζς, wen Made fisSoun }teaciso δας en τι δια πῶ, μήτ nee 


10.2 Geer 6% Kap he aS te , ae ἐξα το δ στ ne Me 
ἀπο μεν να λιν πηρν qidotssS Se, ΝΎ ΟΥ̓ nies 
prey Sasod tacos. : pactuad sbaSctrad Assia» pisescesa, lang marae, & Sie, δι τοῖον Ripe oa 
: ν γῦν 0 νυν wee pe & precaione Be dodynd i Sy οί, yer tars 
714 tga Nop Praciasae [mal jo PINE Lid ES cee Seed ine of god we δ ν 
Verfio ΩΣ I cum Interpretatione LATINA 


85 Ἐπ Ds ΠΧ τ CM4::=> ἜΝ Tek Lager 
tht: AWMADHC : At: : Ηλι : HPO. Dia. > fakiare weviceta. Quam 
WEL ARR => 2 ONL: HPAMY : Od : ARLY : HANPCAP 1 WAV hecene , o> “ations fea ee Inter, © μονα nee 
2: -ΦΆΚΨ {NPN : GANECAPO  APOANE ; OPM : Orr: Ad ἀν Aut! cts Omen. Gao atten am, Ὁ, = 
“τῶ: CRAP LS 2 OOP: ΛΔ τ D001: Nddahtuss goria 


(135 


H KAING 
AIA © HK 


NOVUM 


TESTAMENTUM. 


Cum Lecrronrsus VARIANTIBUS 
MSS Exemplarium, Verfionum, Editionum, SS Patrum& 
Scriptorum Ecclefiafticorum; ὅς τα eafdem Noris. 


ACCEDUNT 


(Loca Scripture PARALLELA, aliaque ἐξηγηπχὰν ὃς APPENDIX 
ad Variantes Leétiones, 


PREMITTITUR DISSEKXTATIO, 
ds qua de Libris N. T. εὐ Canonis Conftitutione agitur; Hiftoria 5. Textus N. Federis ad το 
wfque sempora deducitur: Et quid in bar Evxx10N8 praftitum fit, explicatute 


Stupio ET LABORE 
FJOANNIS MUILLII 5. Tv. P. 


OXONTL 


H THEATRO SHELDONIANO, MDCOVIL 
548 


(X.—2.) 


ΚΕΦ, β΄, 2. ΤΑΛΚΩΒΟΥ. 697 
δὲ, * γέγονας αἴδαξάτυς" τόμου " 12 Οὕτω agntine, χρὴ οὕτω made, ὥς 
alg δ νόμου ἐλδυ)ερίας μέγλοιτες 'κοξνεδχαι. 13 Hp xetew ὃ ζύλειο" 
πὶ μὰ ποιήσαντι “ἕλεν. ἢ ἀχολ" “ χαταχαυχάται “Zrs@" κρύσεως. 
14 Τί ὄφελος, αδελφε yon, Ede πίριν λέγῃ le ἔχειν, ἔργα wh "ἔχῃ", 
μὲὰ ϑιωύατωι ἣ wisi πῶστωι αὖον BS Edd ἢ δὲ" ἀδελφὰς ἢ ἀδελφὰ youth 
ηὐσάρχωῦι, Tyo’ Λειπόμϑμσι fie τῆς ἐφημέρου Ἑξῆς, 16 " ἄπῃ δέ" Ud 
αὐτοῖς ἐξ Opis Ὑσιίγετε tv siglum, Ὁ )ερμοάνεδ)ε HY χορτάζεδε". μὴ δῆτα 
δὲ αὐτοῖς ὅ τὰ Crider γᾷ ounce, ag ὄφελος: 17 Οὕτω ὦ ἡ minty 
edd μὴ ἔργα ἔχειν νεκρῷ Ch χοϑ᾽ cowl, 1B AW Fee Te aD misy 
ἔχος»» κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω" δεῖξον μοι sled misw Gu “im” Sy ἔργων "Gy", 
nye δείξω Cr cen HP ἔργων Ῥ μου" ahd πίστιν μου" 1 Ὁ SD πισεΐεις ὅπ 
ὁ Θεὸς ἧς Gr *xgade ποιῶρ" * yg} πὶ δαιμόνια πισευουσί, τὸ oh. 
26 Θέλεις δὲ γγιῶνα!» 9G" ὥνϑρωπε xevt, ὅτι fi πίπουχωξιᾳ GU ἔργων Pecae 
veg.” “Cpu; ax Αὐρμοὸμ ὃ πατὴρ ἡμὴ! Gina ἐξ ἔργων Ἐδικυμώϑα, " ὧν» 
ἔγχας ‘Toude” * Gav αὐτοῦ δῆς τὸ ϑυσιαςῆσκον; 22 ὅπ i mist 
5 σμνύργεν"" Cig ἔργοις. cient, vy om iS ἔργων ὁ πίας ἐτελειώϑη! 
ξαληρώϑη ἡ ypadn ἃ λεγουσι Ἐπίσξυσε “ δὲ Alcode πῇ Θεῷ, 


WVerl.rz *Sepreti2y. Verl.13. Mat.6.15- 18.35.62 . Marxv26: Locr6 2! 
προ δ Κα]. Joba θη μοι og 8 ἀκ : ἀξ γε tar «τς 2 
. °7 +2! » 


v.37 Mat.7 
Verl. 17. Supr. v.14. Infr.v. 20,26«, 
pa tees fa 22.9.12.16 

. 21: ie en: 516. 
Gals 3,6. 1Mastabs2 $2. ΝΜ 


« EXioSmrins Alex, δ᾽ Avtaswr Maga.1.Cov.3, 
Peri 3. Aviase Alex. Baroc: Laud.2. Lin. N:2. 
Per. x. Cove2: Genev. Oecumens ¢ Eacr Baroy 
Barb.4¥N.2. Pet.3. Colb.7. Cols, a Deek dlexa 
Laud.2.Colb.7. Cant.2. Cov.2.3-4- Pet.1.3«Ge~ 
nev. Magd.t. N.1.2. Lin, Vulg. Syre € Katexgum 
γοίϑω Alex.Cov.4.Genev. f δὲ trsos_Alex.Barb,%, 
Valg. Arab., Ἑλιον Lin, N.1.2. Baroc.Coy.2.3.40 
Laud.2,Burb.4.Geney.Occumem. g° Exar.Cov:3- 
4 Deel Cov.4. Arab.,’ ὃ Deelt:Colb.7- Legune 
3 Alex. At. Ab. Exhiop. v k KaiGory Alex.Colb.7 -Ge~ 
nev.Syr.Arab. Athiop. | Omittit Lim. aw Ἐκτὸς 
Codd. al. fi Hftio Fides. Ego quidemrinnullos 
haétenus incidi, qui ita legant: neg puto'fic 
Kcripfifle Facobum, Ἐκτὸς, pro fine, nafquam 
occurrit in N.'T. uti nec apnd Lxx quidem 
Interpretes, quod {ciam. "Χωεὶς Steph. ta. Alex 
Cov.2. Barb.1. Colb.7. Col, Editial. Valg. Syr. 
Athiop. ny ἐμ Regienfis, in Epiftula‘quidam, 
Ledtionem hanc ideo cert? inve&tam atbitror, 
qudd altera illa abfurdi aliquid in fe habere vi- 
p ewig ‘Quomodo enim fidem ex operibus often- 
dat, qui verbis proxim’ precedentibus ope- 
yam expers defcribitur? Ad evitandam hanc 
icultatem; mutatum ἐκ in yo¢ls, in antigquif- 
Gimis aliq.. Exemplaribus,, Quanquam neque 


fic expedita omnia. Silegas {ine operibu,non vir Ais 


wh 
Li 
ΕΙΣ 14. Supr. 


; eer ae 
4716. Lut-3.%%.Gal.6.1u. 1F0.3.17,18». * Vide Fob.33.20. © Τήν ὁ. ἅς 
Phiia:tors Borah Jade. dpoccnatier Vettaortr oss Mitocn 
1s. “2.10.2 Bet 7 παν... TQ. 2 μῖ 

fool Wer 2a He’nix.t7,oen ρας τι Geet 


plzz > 


dcorqui confter fenfis: eam fides) on 
ifi factis; inquit Erafinus, quod 
ἔκδίο πεσέρσα {enfum ‘prebear na’ faci, 
em; ὅς Apottoli {copo congruentiffimum: Dis 
xerit, inquit, piu veréque Chriftianus aliquix, box 
mini inani ifti qui'ex nuda ἢ ἀεὶ profefione, megle- 
Go pieratis fludio, fe faluteny confecuturam γύναι 
tratur: Age vero, tu fidem habes, gamque mird 
ddtiras; ego, de fide mea racens, operahabeay Fie 
deique (quam crepas) legemipfamvita-ac moribue 
exprime. Oftende mihi fidem tuam ex fais τοῖς 
Ex fattis, inquam; neque enim alidsnotimte.cre- 
dere. Verum hoc non potes: opera non-habes, que 
oftendas. Ego vero interim ex operibus meimnulle 
negotio Fides meam indicabos Operaspfa qua dis 
to, funt aneree api oven se 
étiam me tacente, fontem ipfum ex quo profluunt. 
Clara bic omnia: nec poner tah το IN Editis 
moftris: # Deelt Alex, Barb. x, Colb.74 Vulg. 
Syr. Totum illud ἐκ ἔργων aw omitrit Oscumen- 
ὁ Ta ἕργα us ἐκ ὁ aistds μὲ Cov.4. Geney. omninog 
perperam. p Deelt Valg: Colb.7.. χῳ Omitcit 
Cov.3.' ¥ Apyi Cov.4. Geneva f Ka3’ ἑαυτίω ade 
dit Athiop. ex verf.x7.' εἰ Deck. Lim Sea ad 
oram Libri pofuit recentior calamusz fa Same 
ot Alex. x Non reddunt Valg. 871, drabe 
@ Og 


Tett 


549 


(XI.—1.) 


H KAINH AIAOHKH 


 NOVVM | 
TESTAMENTVM 
GRAECVM 


ITA ADORNATVM 


TEXTVS 


PROBATARVM EDITIONVM MEDVLLAM 


VARIANTIVM LECTIONVM 
IN SVAS CLASSES DISTRIBVTARVM 
LOCORVMQVE PARALLELORVM 
LECTVM 


APPARATVS SVBIVNCTVS 


CRISEOS SACRAE MILLIANAE PRAESERTIM 


COMPENDIVM; LIMAM, SVPPLEMENTVM AC ERVCITVM 
EXHIBEAT 


10. ALBERTO BENGELIO. 


TV BINGAE 
symptizvs 10. GEORGII COTTAE 
AD, MDCCXXXI 


Ve 


550 


(XI.—2.) 


Wreos FA 


AAT AZ 


vate y Seg αὶ ἡ puxrnesCerey ὃ ϑ γὰρ tay 
σπείρῃ ἄνϑρωπ(.: » τῶτο καὶ ϑερίσει' 
ὅτι ὃ σπείξων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτα» ἐκ 
τῆς φιρκὸς ϑεράσει φϑοράν- ὁ δὲ omes- 
θὼν ¢ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα» Cm τὰ πνεύματί» 
ϑεράσεε ὧν αἰώνιον. "τὸ dei καλὸν 
ποιξντες μὴ ὁ ζκκακῶμεν" καιρῷ γὰρ in 
10 δίῳ ϑεράσομεν» μὴ ὀκλυόμενοι: ὥρᾳ 
BY ὡς καιρὸν ἔχομεν ; ἐργαζώμεϑα τὸ τὸ 
ἀγαϑὺν πος: πάντας, μάλιςαᾳ δὲ τορὺς 
τές οἰκείως τῆς πίξεως. ; 
αι ἴδετε πήλίκοις ὑμῖνγ γεάμμασιν eyes 
12 Ψψα τῇ ἐμῇ ete ὅσοι ϑέλεσιν εὐ- 
πουσωπῆσαι ἐν y σειρκὶ » τοι. 
σιν ὑμᾶς τοβιτέμνεοθειῃ, 9 μόνον iva, μὴ 
13 τῷ σαυρῷ τῷ xessit διώκωνται. εἰδὲ 
γὰρ οἱ πξιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυ- 


9 


Adorsow: ἀλλὰ ϑέλεσιν ὑμᾶς wecré-b 


375 ww 
povedSoy she CH τῇ ὑμετέρας σαιρκὶ! | secu 
χήσωνται, ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο χαυχᾶ- Τα 
Soy εἰ μὴ & cw τῷ ταυρῶ τὰ mug sit ἡμῶν 
inns nesses δὲ 8 ἐμοὶ xéa OY isaus 
θώωτα!». χάγω τῷ κόσμῳ. ἐν yee xe τῇ 
τῷ inet ἅτε Eero τι ἰχύε ἅτε ἀκρε- 
Costa » ake xcuey κτίσιςο “χαὶ ὅσοι τα 
τῷ κανάν; rere τοιχήσεσιν» cgi | ἐπ᾿ 


αὐτὸς χρὴ ἤλε(θ.» καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἰσρφὰλ. 


τὰ ϑεξ. 

(Ti λοι, κόπες por μηδεὶς παρε 17 
χέτω. ἐγὼ 1 γὰρ τῷ πίγματα τα ικυρᾷς 
ing Pa) τῷ σώματί pe ξαςάζω, Ht g 
χάρες TH nes ἡμῶν ino esse μετὰ 
τῷ πνεύματί» ὑμῶν ἀδελφοί, ἀμήν. 


Tpes γαλῖται τγραη ass pope 


ΠΡΟΣ 


ἘΦΕΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 


ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ITAYAOY. 


I AvA@ ἀπόςολ(. σὰ Xesse | 
διὰ Serra εξ», τοῖς. ὡς 
γίοις τοῖς saw “ [9 ἐφίσῳ καὶ Wie 

φοὶς ὧν 2εισῷ ‘nos χάρας, ὑμῶν xg} 

εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Sex πατρὸς ἡμῶν Καὶ κυρᾷϑ 
ines eSB 

Εὐλογητὸς ὃ ὁ ϑεὺς καὶ πατὴρ τὸ κυρίῳ 
ἡμῶν ines. XOAS8 > ὃ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς 


VI. 2 tn μὴ -- dlr J oti ἐμὴ 
διώκωνται ὃ 
12 περιτεμνόμενοι | κεριτετμῳμένοὶ δ 


fai 6 γὰρ bogus in irae a 


‘ee 1 isiy ὃ 


37 


ow πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς Ἦ 
ἐπερᾳνίοις cr KASH > κωϑὼς ἱξελέξα- 4 
τὸ ἡμᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ wey καταξολῆς noc p>” 
εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίως καὶ  ἁμώμας ικατενώ: 
πιοῦν aired ¢ ἐν ἀγάπῃ» Rte * § 
μᾶς εἰς υἱοϑεσίαν da i inet χρασὸ ‘us 
αὐτὸν, xara τὴν͵ εὐδοκίαν TH ϑελήμα- 


1@» αὐτῶ» εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάφα- © 


16 ςοιχήσασιν σειχξειν ὃ 
Era. I. 1 wighy] ~ 7 
Pearson -ε 


Mm 2 «9. 


ὅ01 


H KAINH AIA@HKH 
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM 
G RIAUE ΘΟ ΜΕ 


EDITLON Ια RECEPTAE 
CUM LECTIONIBUS VARIANTIBUS 


Coptcum MSS, Eprrionum AUIARUM, 
VERSIONUM ET PATHUM 


NEC NON COMMENTARIO PLENIORE 
Ex Scriprorisus VETEKIBUs Hesraris, Graces er Larinis 
HIsToRIAM ET VIM VERBORUM TLLUSTRANTE 


OPERA ET STUDIO 
JOANNIS JACOBI WETSTENIL 


Tomus L 


ConTINEN QUATVOR EVANGEDIA 


AMS TELAEDAMYI, 
Ex Orrrerwa DOMMERLANSA 


MDCCLL 
552 


(XII.—2.) 


VII. KATA ISX ANNHW Sor 


ει WG ἁμῶν χρίνει. τὸ ἡ ἄνθρωπον, ἃ cl rang σιν αὐτο @, DPOTEM , y fe τὶ συΐη 
4: ᾿᾿Απαρίθησα»» καὶ % ὦπον αὐτῷ" Μὴ καὶ ob tx ὃ Ταλιλαίας : εἶ, ἢ, paneer ors ate 
$3 φάτης tx? Ταλιλαίας Οὐκ tyiryp). —— Kal ἐπορεύθη inae@ εἰς. Σ sear. 


Σ ..ὕ. Hos δὲ ἱπορεύθη" εἰς τὴ ὅς» TE Ἐλαιῦε; “ Ophpou δὲ συάλιν wa 
ἃ me ὡς τὸ seg, χαὶ Was ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο τυρὸς αὐτόν agi καθίσας ἐδίδασχεν abrels 
Te 
[δουρί abfolvit , ipfe el, ut defineret.. Auguflin. de Adulter: Conjug. II. δ. 
; r Chrsftus ait pret al gnc νος te races non intelhgat, dcbereignofcere mada . pak 


viel iene Dommum amborum , nec jain fe dicere , cujus poenitentis crimen diving ores 
dit. miferatione meee Sed hoc videlicet infidelium fenfus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicae , vel ὩΣ inia 


=e rs arse ae aduttera in Evangelio locum concedere, fed ad calcem rejicere coma, oats fufpe~ 
Gam. gore nm iad hanc pericopen memorat » fed fatente Scldeno de uxore ye TH, 14, ila ut mani- 


» Camerarins , Beza 
monixs , ea Se ane μὲς inferant, Eufebi hilo δε ὅπ τ ad Hebraeos mca monet, in ng τα 
oria ae 


1.3.3. 3. 6. 7. 9-20.41. Ἐν τ ττ ΤῈ ‘Sonia: hie vero ornatior comm. 9, 10, Non 
mca oil ie» —— Sees See ag veritate conciliari poffunt : lege Mofis adulteras fuiffe 
J: » & ad aliquid ancopiiedan ng fibi famentis; judicem, qui-e« 
animadvertere in delinquentem ἢ ole tempore fea 


27. vill. ἃ. &. quae acommate 1a. dicuntur usque ad finem capitis, do fut wo νει. Jam ὧς : pers 


it, Judaeos toto illius — tem fe ἌΡ ee So ὃς rum, de lucernis accenfis ἃς de 
libertate wie jorum venia die μιμοῦ proxi des Sed ; non folum quae de aqua fpiritu- 
ali dicuntur V1I. 37. fed etram quae πων de sop apron mings in q verfarentur VIII, 11, de peccatis Jus 


ram nondum, condonstis comm. 21, ὃς de fervitute actor ναοῖς 32. multo aptiori tempore & cons 

woleaatels dum agebantur dies fefti, quam poftea. Deinde tamen apud Graecos publice le(ta eft , vel εἰς mre 
ravirea infcripta Cod. 3, §. vel ἐπὶ uexizar Evang, 14) Vel ORobris VIII, fefto + avec Πιλαγικς 23326 
33- 16- 17 10. 20. vel 3 φαῦθάτ» γὙ, mpaxas ον τῇ TesTIpacosy 17. vel primo Aprils, fe to Manse Agyp- 
tiacae. Syriace etiam. vertit Maras Amidac Epifeopas, quod teftatur D. Bar/al:bacns, 

a, "Tarts δὲ Ἴ x} ο Ἴγσοῦς Colb, duo 40. 64. 71. 75- ν᾿ 8ο. εἶν 89. 90. 91:- αἱ Ἰησοῦς tr. 1%. ὅσ, 

izopnts } ixopmrre 47, 64. pas τό, 

a. onde ob βαθίας φιαι. Fs 40-4 ‘AT. ep -$4.93.64. 65. δή 74. η6.η8. 87. 90: 91. Entbymins. 
μον δα 47. δ $2.98 59. 65. 6. in ora73. τι 76.78.90. 9. Colb, duo, 
op ὁ Tyrors 11. 40. 7}. 74. D8. Cab. duos δεν 64. 6 ay was ὁ λα ἄνχιτο κρὺς αὐγὰ | —— dg, 

ἌΡΑ 37. 37. ie: 47. $3 71: 57. 73) | unus wn Steph if ο. τα. χλῶν Pro ὁ Anse 
πρὸν ee) a EGH ~ 2, $6. 58. Go. 61. 67. Οἱ 
αὶ κοϑεσεὶς δι δον ciety —D 69. probante il prol. 1280. 


‘bam! det mihi difcipulum fapientis ? morde- Laan * 

rem Ea ange oe Non quod odiffet fapiéntes 1, Euripid. Heraclid. 180. +is ar Pop aithieay 

fed quia ἤ #05 fuperbire &infolefcerecon- » wine Ἄύγενγνιν w map am φεῦ witha θαμὰ raps pala 

tra Seka tast & quia difcipuli fapientum o- rfophanes in Vefp. 724. are ovis Ὁ, isk ἴρασκεν 

etiam. quia non permittebant fe ΕἼ ἀμοεῶ dares yyy ne oe διαάνκῳ, 

(pins “TON. Targum Hol, 1V. 14. & “pli ἐς δ A spadhop mgs νὼ σώ εν Ἢ 
i ο “εὐ cull gene εἴσω mya dadrad τὰ #5 enty at, ac ὡσυλύγυψι 

Jatione, quae nihil movit in ‘sebabbach € τῇ, pre bale inure epreta- ca ae 

& non edat feminifluus Poanteeus cum feminitice we, Bouies ἃ ed ole “Ἐζαῖκν extern) χα «8 


553 


(XIII.—1.) 
NOVV™M 


TESTAMENTVM 


GRAE CE. 


TEXTVM™M 
AD FIDEM CODICVM VERBSIONVM. ET PATRVM 
RECENSVIT 
ET 
LECTIONIS VABIETATEM 


ADJECIT 


Ὁ, JO. JAC. GRIESBACH. 


VOLVMEN 1. 


IV. EVANGELIA 
COMPLECTENS. 


EDITIO SECYNDA 


EMENDATIOR MVITOQVE LOCVPLETION. 


HALAE SAXONVM. 
APVD 30 TAC CVRTIL HAELREDES 
EY LONDINI 
APYD PETR. “ELMSLY, 
MDCCLXXXXVIL 


CAP. XIX. XX. 


(XLL.—2.) 


πατέρα, ἢ μητέρα," © ἢ γυ- 
wana,” ἢ, τέκνα, κα ἀγροὺς, 
ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματος" μου, 
f ἑκατονταπλασίονα" λήψε- 
ται, καὶ ζιυὴν αἰώνιον κλη- 
5ορονομιήσει. ἹἸΠολλοὶ δὲ ἔσον-. 
ται. πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι" καὶ ἔ- 
1 σχατοι πρῶτοι] [Ὁμοίᾳ 
γὰρ ἐστιν") βασιλεία τῶν οὐ- 
ρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ» 
ὅστις ἐξήλϑεν ἅμα πρωΐ pu- 
σϑώσασϑάι ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν 
ς ἀμπελώνα αὑτοῦ. Soo Sup: 
φωνήσας. δὲ" μετὰ τῶν ἔργα- 
στῶν ἔν δηναρίου τὴν ἡμέραν, 


5 πελῶνα αὑτοῦ: 


ΚΑΤᾺ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ. 


ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς εἷς: τὸν ἀμ- 
Καὶ ἐξελ- 
Sav περὶ + τρίτην ipa, 
i εἶδεν" ἄλλους ἑστῶτας ἐν 


hy τῇ ἀγορᾷ. ἀργούς", Ἐ op Κά- 


Γ ce. % : 
κείνοις“. εἶπεν ὑπάγετε καὶ 
ὑμεῖς εἰς Tov ἀμπελῶνα Le καὶ 

᾽ 3 tw 
ὃ ἐὰν y δίκαιον, δώσω ὑμὶν. 


5 Οἱ δὲ ἀπῆλϑον. πάλιν τα ξξιελ- 


Awe περὶ ἕκτην ual m co ἐν- 
vary” ὥραν, erolyasv ὡσαύ- 


6 τως. Περὶ δὲ» τὴν ἑνδεκάτην 


Ὁ = Woav” ἐξελϑθωῶν, P εὖ- 
ρεν" ἄλλους ἑστῶτας ἅ +, 
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς" τί ὧδε ἑστή- 


Fs xaTa 


FO καὶ συμῴφωνήσας. h tay. kK. oo καὶ ἐκείνοις. 


N ODO ἐνάτην, q t ἀργοὺς. 


(e) = BD. 1. Syr. hier. cant. -verc. veron, .corb.2. 2. lar. 
Orig. dif. Iren, Hilar. Ambr. femel. Paulin. (f) πολλαπλασίονα, 
L. Barb. 1. Syr. hier. Sahid. Orig. Cyr. | | -- μισθὺν. Ev. 44. 
(g) EFGHKM: 12. 17. 77. 108. 118. 124- 127. 131. 218 (cum 
al. 3.) Ev. 1- 2. 18- 19. 33. $6. 8]. 59. Mt. BHV. z** al. 13. 
Ed. Arm. Antioch. Chryf. etiam in Mt. 6 codd. (ἢ) = 
BDEFGHKLMS. τ. 13. 07. 69: 124. 131. 157. Ev. τ΄ 2. 4 §- 
18. 32. 33. 36. al. 51. Me. BH. al. 1g. Ed. Orig. Cyr- Theo- 
phyl. (i) εὗρεν, D. Mt. o. cant.-yeron. -verc. colb..corb. 2. clar. 
Juv. (k) FGH. alii. Mt. BHY. alii. Ed. Theophyl. (1) -- μου, 
13. 17- 33- 69. 124- 235. al. 8. Mt. n. y.iEd. Arr. Aeth. Arin. 
Sahid.'Syr. p mf. Slav. ap. Beng. Vulg. mf, vere. corb. 1. 2. 
clar. brix. colb. germ. gat. Chryf. Op. imp. Gregor. (m) + 
δὲ. CDL, 51. 77. Mt. ὦ, Ed. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm.Slav-ap. Beng. 
Syr. p. cum ait Vulg. cant. verc. veron, corb. 2. for. Cyr. 
Op. imp. (1) CE. alii. Mr. HV. alii: Ed. (0) — BDL. Aeth, 
Sahid. Slav. 2. Vulg. {t. (exc. brix. colb.) Orig. Cyr. Op. imp. 
(p) sev. 60. ap. Mills 90.-116. Sahid. Chryf. in Mt. 6 codd, 
(q) = BC*DL. Copt. Sahid. Aeth..Arr. VulgxSax. It. (exc, 
brix. clar.) Orig. Cyr. Arnob. {| Ante ἐστωτας habent 74, 


Mt. q. 
555 


(XIV.—1.) 


NOV U M™M 
TESTAMENTUM 


GRAEC E 


Textum ad fidem testinm criticorum 
retenusnuib, 


lectiouum familias 


wuhiecity 
© graecis codicihus srmuscriptis, qui in Europae et Asiae bibliothecis 
reperiuntur fere pad το γόνα us antiquis, conciliis,  sanctis Patrihua 
et scriptoribus i A eas vel primo vel fferum 
is copias criticas 
pddidit, 


atque conditionem horum festium criticoram historiamque textus Novi 
Testamenti in prolegomenis fusius 


exposuit, 
practerea Synaxaria codicam KM 262. 274 typis exscribenda 
euravié 


De. L MART. AUGUSTINUS SCHOLZ 


Vol. I. 
IV Evangelia complectens. 


LIPSIAE 1830, 
sumrvrxescs Frivemxer Fxuyexsckeuh 


Cipi4: antes Eno a: 2) 


556 


(XIV.—2.) 


534 EPISTOLA 1, AD TIMOTH. CAPUT ΠῚ. 

διακογήσαντες, Bodpoy * ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν" περιποιοῦνται, καὶ πολλὴν παῤῥησίαν 
4} ἐν ‘alien τῇ ἐν" Χριστῷ Ἰηποῦ.] Ἰαῦτά * σοι" γράφω, ἐλπίζων ἐλϑεῖ» 
45 4 πρὸς σε * τάχιον." Ἐὰν δὲ © vw", ἵνα κ, εἰδῇς “ pri 


» πῶς" δεῖ!» ἐγ 
vast, 


δὲ alex. ἐν τάχει, 
Dei ar debasing ἐν 
ψείστει τὴν ἐν 


ec) de Lect. Ναὶ 
δι 67°". 137 al. Arm: Rite 2 Sei ponit 


ἔχεν KCD* 17. 71. 73 al. raysior 93. ταχέως 
Δ) ῥραδώναιν ¥7. 


γου μέγως “ἡ τ' “omissis. ἐκ- 
Εἰ καὶ ἐδ Tig τῆς ἀληϑείας, (ot 


δ unt 7s edd. 
} pe tharse 66 in ov, Post Gly Seles novam \perio- 
dum inchoant baa Patr, Pat Ἐπ, δὲ lat, edd. 


ΠῚ ὌΨΑ on # 
m) ἐχχλησίαξ 3 γμότέπν 105. a By Veri> 
satis Aeth, pretatis A 


m) θεὸς hab. codices a me parse of 6. ro. 33. 
5 44- 46; 67,68, Spa gp bot tom te th 


Lectionaria ‘ot Arab: ‘Slew της: Geo 
ad a rth ot es ἀ 
ocum respicit) Chrysost. Piet ἢ 
Bore. £ Did pm tae ton 83 Euthal. ewe pe vids og 
Theoph*l, γι τ πὰ 4 3. Bt. 
Fen cee oli aliique bonnu vai 


ersaepe 
5 wadioes AC 


8 pri nor, on it wonoullis visuni fuerat. 
ae OF habuisse, ‘im collice constr primitis*O 


lectum a char fx Symbolanim ei OE mus 


tatum ‘Sym carumt 
tomo ἔν pags ὙἹΙ - LIV et tomo δὰ «να 
demonstrare, studuit: ‘codiced βόγαπι, gf Mies 


in ἈΝ, ΩΣ 
m, Cyr: a nee 
a Seema ste ἃ mr 


donium sub τε: im 


Qn 

Sermo, de incarpat, ict Chrys. ‘T. 
of pad Cyr. cgopak. Nagas oles ᾿ 
κὸ μέγα. τῆς Pimgeens f ἔφανι ψυντήριον. " D. .. 
gui κ᾿. φυοά Syc, ute. Erp, Acth. εἰ Arm. Patres 


μέγα ἐσεὶ τὸ 


ρέφεσϑαι, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐχκλησία ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, ' στύλος xab ἑδραίωμα ig 
τε Selag”- | Καὶ“ ὁμολογουμένως 


τῆς "᾿εὐσεβείας" μυστήρταν» " gee 


n) alex. ὃς const, et ree. Fe0¢. 


— ommium seculorum omnes legerunt mysteriam 
eo rameoagh τ manifestatum etc. licet det Christa 

jatelligerent. Hilar. Aug. Pelag. Iulian. pelagy 
en “Idacius,_ Ambrosiaster . ton My Victorim 
Cassiam ΚΝ πὰ Vigil. taps. "Beda.: Chrysologus 


wang τα ‘a Toannem Philadelph. ἐπ 
moege amp) a vol, 201 Bis 8134 
ἘΝ versione idem extat ὡς) 


latine babeat,. Qui manors δα esi 


Arianae; neo Cyr. 
Tutianum Im 


Christum @ ipsum nonoulli μυστήριον 
bant, et scribere potuit v. c τρύπας τὰ Diognet.a 
ἐπέστειλε λόγου iva κόσμῳ φανῇ, fie διὰ ἀποστόλων 
κκηρυχϑεὶς ὕπο ϑγὼν ἐπιστεύϑη 5 Orig. Cols. 3. Jn- 
mous ἐν δόξῃ & itunes λέγεταια Idem in Rom 
a, 2 pao! rage ay B Verbum Lago 
plus iy, “steal sor Pell yo apostolus dicit, 
guia (fortasse gu) maiden ἃ est in carne , tustifie 
eatus orc. Theodotus ey 


(sed Sede καὶ ὥνϑρωνοε idem: av. Theodoret. 
Cllinaris potius ap. 
σαρχὶ φανερωϑείς Εἰ 
€ Yocutionum in commate 


verte non gratis re Clem. alex 

οἱ (ἄγγελοι, τὸν XK ἀντ δ μα [ας par 

εἾ εν 

wae en βαλε " ἀν - mg Ὡς 

rperamt ues iticis 

ee αἰπαῦ eacta fidé ad “Cheadosinr: 

Tag poole α ͵ πορεῖαι Ὠζριστος, ὃς 

τὸ τῆς wos porte 

Ἐς ΣΤ, ΜΑΣ acd manele Biss, ὦ 

SpareeesSy ete. et sa R w τῖς & ἢν σαομὶ φανερῶν 
Seis; ὃ δῆλον ἅτε πιάγχμ τε καὶ αἰάχεμς ἃ ἐκ Beal am 


557 


(XV.—1.) 


NOVUM 


~TESTAMENTUM 


GRAECE 


EX RECENSIONE 


CAROLI LACHMANNL 


Editto Stereoftypas 
bn __ 
BEROLINI 


G@ Reis se wm 


MDCCCXXXIe. 


558 


(XV.—2.) 
46 KATA MAPKON. 99 


eoxaodiay, ὅτι τοῖς ϑεασαμένοις αὐτὸν eynyeoudvov 2x 
vexowy ove ἐπίστευσαν. “"καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" Πορευϑέντες 
εἰς τὸν χύσμον ἅπαντω κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσ 
τῇ κτίσει. ᾿δὃ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισϑεὶς σωθήσεται, ὃ 
δὲ ἀπιστήσας καταχριϑήσεται. "σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεί- 5 
σασιν παραχολουϑήσει. ταῦτα. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί, μου δαι- 
μόγια ἐχβαλοῦσιν, γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς, "ὄφεις 
ἀροῦσιν"-“χἂν ϑανάσιμόν τὶ πίωσιν, οὗ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλά- 
ψῃ" ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιϑήσουσιν, ταὶ “καλῶς 
“ἕξουσιν, ὃ μὲν οὖν χύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι 10 
αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφϑη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐχάϑισεν ἐκ δε- 
ξιῶν τοῦ ϑεοῦ" *2xeivoe δὲ ἐξελϑόντες ἐχήρυξαν nay~ 
ταχοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαι- 
οὔντος διὰ τῶν ἐπαχολουϑούντων. σημείων. 


EYAITEAION KATA AOYKAN. 


Ἐπειδή meg πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασϑαε διήγησιν 15 
περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, ὅχα- 
ϑὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ am ἀρχῆς. αὐτόπταε καὶ" ὑπηρέ- 
ταί γενόμενοι, τοῦ λόγου, Ξἔδοξε χἀμοὶ παρηκολουϑηκότε 
ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἄχριβῶς χαϑεξῆς σοι γράψαι, χράτιστε 
Θεύόφιλε, “ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν χατηχήϑης λόγων τὴν 20 
ἀσφάλειαν. 

“Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως 
τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας. ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι. Ζαχαρίας ἔξ ἐφημε- 
ρίας Apia, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν ϑυγατέρων Aagwy, 
καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ. δἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοε ἂμ- 15 
φότεροε ἐνώπιον τοῦ ϑεοῦ, πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς 
ἐντολαῖς. xat δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι. Ἶκαὲ 
οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς téxvoy, καϑότε ἦν Ἐλισάβετ στεῖρα, καὶ 
ἀμφότεροι προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῶν ἤσαν, 
Siyéveto δὲ ἐν τῷ ἱερατεύειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ τάξει τῆς 30 

24. χαὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ 
ἢ γυνή Ee 
559 


(XVI.—1.) 


NOVVM TESTAMENTVM 


GRAECE ET LATINE 


CAROLVS LACHMANNVS RECENSVIT 


PHILIPPVS BVYTTMANNVS PH. F. GRAECAE 
LECTIONIS AVCTORITATES APPOSVIT 


TOMVS PRIOR. 


Wiseasnate ns STENT Se τος νος 
BEROLINI 
IN AEDIBYS GEORGIX REIMERI 


A. MDCCCXXXXII 
560 


(XVI.—2.). 
ὭΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΔΌΝΙΚΕΙΣ A. (32-8) 524 


τῷ εὐαγγελίφ' τοῦ χρισιοῦ, εἷς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι 
ὑπὶρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν "τὸ μηδὲν ἀσαίγεσθαι ἐν ταῖς. ϑλίψισιν 
ταύταις" αὗτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ὅτι εἷς τοῦτο κειμεϑα’ txal γὰρ ὅτε 
nods ὑμᾶς ἦμεν, προελέγομεν; ὑμῖν ὅτι μέλλομεν ϑλίβεσθωι, καϑὼρ 
καὶ ἐγένετο χαὶ οἴδατε. ὁδιὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ μηκέτι στέγων ἔπεμψα ε 
εἴς πὸ! γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν. ὑμῶν, μή πως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὃ πειρά- 
ζων καὶ. εἶς κενὸν γένηται ὃ χόπος ἡμῶν, δἄρτι δὲ ἐλϑόντος Τίμο- 
Stow πρὸς ἡμᾶς dg’ ὑμῶν καὶ εὐαγγελισαμένον ἡμῖν τὴν πίστιν 
καὶ, τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν, καὶ ὅτι ἔχετε μνείαν ἡμῶν ἀγαϑὴν τιάγτοτε 
ἐπιποθοῦντες ἡμᾶς Ἰδεῖν χαϑάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς, Ἰδιὰ τοῦτο πα- 1 
ρεζλήϑημεν, ᾿ἀδελφοί, eg ὑμῖν ἐπὶ πάσῃῃ τῇ ἀνάγκῃ καὶ ϑλίψει 
ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως, 8ὅτ νῦν ζῶμεν ἐὰν ὑμεῖς σιήκητε ἐν 


3 »“ 
1. παρακαλεσαι ABAG{g0, add ὑμᾶς ¢ 2) wntg ABAG, περὶ ς, 
po συ. 10 AA, τω Bs, σὰ G μηδενασαινεσϑαι BA, μηδένα 
σαίνισϑαι 5, μηδενασεγεῦϑε A, μηδὲν αὐ! ἐγεσϑαιί (id est μηδένα 
σιαίνισϑαι) G, nemo moveatur ff ef add vel terreaturg, ne moveatur f 
4, essemus' gu, fuimos f movtheyouey ABs, praedicavimus fy, 
mgnaeyopey A στι μελλυμεν ϑλιβεσϑαί ABAGYs; passuros nos 
tribulationem f 4, 5. καϑως καὶ ABAvs, καϑως ΟἹ 6. πιστιν 
φψμων AAGfgus, vuwy mor B 7 εἰς καινὸν G, inanis 750 
veniente [30 © ‘mattheo pr g, timothen core g 8, bene (om fv) 
amountiante fgv ημιν BAGfguce, ypuy Α 8. ἔχετε ureoy ru 
ΠῚ, μνιαν ἔχεται ἡμῶν AGg, memoriam nostri habetis fu 

40. vpug ABAGgs, et vos f παρεχληϑημεν BAGs, παρακεχλη- 
μεϑὰ A 11.1ὰ vohis Ὁ επει(εν ασυς) πασή ty avayxy και 
θλίψει (94. χαὶ ἂν, ¢) ABAGgvs, per omnem necessitatem et tri- 
bulationem f 12. ἡμῶν δια της ὑμῶν πιστεως BAG{gs, vuuy 
wm δια τῆς πιστεὼς ὑμων A στηκητε BAGs, στήκετε A, statia 
py, steteritis f 


gelio Christi, ad confortandos (tonfirmandos LZ) uos et exhortandog 
(exort.) pro fide westra, Sut. nemo modueatur in tribulationibus istis: 
ipsi (ipse) enim svitis quod in hoc positi umus. “nam et cum aput (-d) 
wos essemus,; praedicebamus,uobis passuros. nos tribulationes, sicut 
et factum est et scitis. (10) 5Propterea et ego amplius) non:sustinens 
misi ad cognoscendam fidem uestram, ne forte temptauerit uos is 
Chis F) qui temptat, et inanis fiat labor noster, (11) “Nunc autem 
ueniente Timotheo ad nos a uobis δὲ adnuntiante nobis fidem eb ca- 
‘itatem uestram, et guia memoriam nostri habetis bonam semper 
desideranies nos uidere sicut (et LZ] nos quoque uvs, 7ideo consclati 
sumus, fratres, in uobis in omni necessitate et tribulatione (ft. et n.) 
nostra per uestram fidem (ὦ u. F al), *quoniam nunc uinimus, a 


561 


(XVII.—1.) 


NOVUM 


TESTAMENTUM 


GRAEC E 
TEXTUM AD FIDEM ANTIQUORUM TESTIUM 


RECENSUIT 


BREVEM APPARATUM CRITICUM 


UNA CUM: VARIS LECTIONIBUS 


ELZEVIRIORUM, KNAPPH, SCHOLZII, LACHMANNE 
SUBJUNXIT 


ARGUMENTA ET LOCOS PARALLELOS 


INDICAVIT 
COMMENTATIONEM ISAGOGICAM 
NOTATIS PROPRUS LECTIONIBUS. 


- EDD. STEPHANICAE TERTIAE ATQUE MILLIANAE, 
MATTHAEIANAE, GRIESBACHIANAE 


PRAEMISIT 


AENOTH FRID. CONST. TISCHENDORE 
‘THEOL, LIC. PHIL. DR. SOCIET. HIST. THEOL, LIPS: SODALIS, 


LIPSIAE, MDCCCXLI. 
SUMPTUS FECIT Cc F. KOEHLER 


562 


(XVIL.—2.) 


Somma doctrinae de Cho servatore breviter proponitar, CTIM. il, 16,943 


βαϑμον ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περιποιόῦνται καὶ πολλὴν γταῤῥησίαν ἐν πιὶ 
pre τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 

"Ταῦτά cor γράφω, ξλπίζων ἔλϑεῖν πρὸς σὲ ἐν τάχει" 15 ἐὰν 14 
δὲ βραδύνω, iva. εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ ϑεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσϑαι, ἥτις 
ἐστὶν ἐχκλησία: ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, στῦλος χαὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληϑείας. 

1. δχαὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα oti τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὃς 16 
ἐφανερώϑη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδιπαιώϑη ἐν πνεύματι, ὥφϑη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύ- 
χϑη ἕν ἔϑνεσιν, ἐπιστεύϑη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφϑη ἐν δόξῃ. 


44. Om. zg. σέ FG al. Ατπιῖς etiam ante 24, pon. —Re. Κα. SZ. τάχιογ- 
[ἐν τάχ. ο. ΑΟ Ὁ 411 

45. Hab. δεῖ σὲ D* Arm. Vg. d, Or. Ambrst. 

16. Re. Kn. Sz. pro ὅς ἢ. Geos... ὃς (OC) lectionem haec commendant; 
I.) ὅς τι. A* ΟἿ (ὅς lectionem veram edd, A et C esse; a Woidio aliisq. 
addubitatam illam quidem, confirmarunt Wtst. et Griesb.) FG gr. 17. 
(9.Χ1) 73. (s. XL.) 184. (5, XL) [hiant BEH aliique.] cdd. eorum qui 
(ut Victor,tun., Liberatus, Hincmarus,) Macedonium_sub Anastasio 
imp. ὅς in ϑεός mutasse referunt; Cpt. Sah. Syr. p. in πι, Cyr. alex. 
(τὸ μέγα τὰς svoep. κυοτήρ. τουτέοτιν Χριοτός, ὃς ἐφανερώϑη etc. 
et alibi; ediliones repugnantibus mss. saepe ϑεός hab.) Thdr. mopsv. 
Epiph.; Gelas. cyz. s.Mac. hr.ap. Gelas.; Hier. ; Acta concil. cstinop.2. 
(citatum 6 Thdr. mopsv.) IL) h. 6 D* Vg. It. Hil, Aug. Pel. Ambrst. 
ommnesq. reliq. praetec Hier. modo citatum. JIL) 8. ὅς 8. ὅ hab. Syr. 
utr. Erp. Aeth, Arm. 1V.) certe non @<0¢ legisse videntur: Thdotus 
(6 σωτὴρ ὥφϑη natwwy τοῖς ἀγγέλοις), Tust.'ad Diogn. (ἀπέστειλεν 
λόγον, Wwe κόσμῳ φαγῇ, ὃς διὰ ἀποστόλων κηρυχϑεὶς ὑπὸ ἐϑνῶν 
ἐπιστεύϑη.) ΟἹεπι; ἀρ. Occ. (μυστήριον μεϑ᾽ ἡμῶν εἶδον of ἄγγελοι 
τὸν Χριστόν.) Οτ. (Ἰησοῦς ἐν δόξῃ ἀναλαμβάνεσϑαν λέγεται.) et 
Or. int. Rufino (Js qui Verbum caro factus apparutt positis (al. 
positus) dz carne, sicut apostolus dicit, quid mantfestatus est in 
carne, justificatus ete.); Gr. nyss. (τὸ μνοτήριον ἐν σαρχὲ ἔφανε- 
ρώϑη" καλῶς τοῦτο, λέγων,. οὗτος ὁ ἡμέτερος Aoyos.) Bas. (τοῦ με- 
γάλουσ μυστηρίου ὅτ᾽ ἃ κύριος ἐφανερώϑη ἔν σαρκί.) Nestor. ap. 
ads Yom.ta3 bv τῇ Μαρίᾳ γεννηϑέν etc. ἐφανερώϑη yao, φησίν, ἐν 
ononis ἐδιιαιωϑὴ ἐν mv.) Sermo inter Opp. Chts. (ὁμολογουμένως μέγα 
ἐστὶν) τὸ τ. εὐοεβ. μυστήριον" ὥφϑη ἀγγέλοις; ἐπιοτεύϑη ἐν χόσμῳ.)....-. 
ϑεός (ΘΟ hi Let eddy reliqui lit. mimusculis scr. praeter tres supra 
allatos fere ommes; Lectt.; Ar, p:Sl.ms. Chrs. Thdret, Did. Euthal. 
Maced. _Damsc, Qec. Thphyl. Praetereaqueé huic lectioni favere pu- 
tant: Ign. (ad Eph. ϑεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον.) Catitt. apost. 

(ϑεὸς κύριε ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν ἐν σαρκί.) Hippol. (ϑεὸς ἐν σώματι épaves 

ρώϑη. Gr. thaum. 5, potius Apollin. ap, Phot. (ϑεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ pavegu= 

Θεῖ(.) — bs ὥὄφϑη ἀν ϑρώποες δ: Clem, ap. Oec, 


563 


(XVIII.—1.) 


NOVUM TESTAMENTUM 
GRAECE. 


AD ANTIQUISSIMOS TESTES DENUO'RECENSUIT 


APPARATUM CRITICUM OMNI STUDIO PERFECIUM 


APPOsULT 


COMMENTATIONEM ISAGOGICAM 


PRAETEXUIT 


CONSTANTINUS TISCHENDORP. 


EDITIO OCTAVA CRITICA MAIOR 


ae 


VOLUMEN 1]. 


LIPSIAE 
GIESECKE & DEVRIENT, 
18T2. 


564 


(XVIII.—2.) 


IQANNOY. Καὶ 5,8 337 


3 > ΄ ~ - 
“Χριστόσ' οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἔν κῷ αἴματι" 
4 - ΄ ~ - 
καὶ τὸ πγεῦμά ἔστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἔστιν ἡ ἀλήϑεια, 
a ~ Ὅς - - Ἃ 
Ἶ ὅτι τρεῖσ εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντεσ, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ 


cum ἈΑΒῚ, al plu arm Cyrioh 1386, 318 etnest142 efacts+ Thphyl Occ .., 
KP h 15. 22. 33. 34. 36, 32. 56, 100, 192. cat sah Ambspir§ χριστ, 
oO. ... $ ey. O yout. Cum minusc vix mu syrP (Thphyl et Oec in 
commsémel) | μόνον: B μογω αλλ cum KBEEP ete... a adda ... 5. 
6. 8. 66** 80. al®Scr αλλα και, item syrP | ty τ. udate ~~ αἱματε (cav 
tol aeth add et spiritu): e 81* 83. arm ξ. 7. αἰματέ = — dats... A 91. 
41. Cyrioh 8%8 ¢, ¢.wdate -- --πνευματὶ, 66°* 80, £4. aiaatim - mre 
pats | ev tert cum ABLP 4, 5, 13. 17. 18, 21. 33. 40, Al. 66°* 80. 83. 
118. jsct ΒΟΥ cat Cyrioh 876 _,_ ¢ om cum ἘΚ al plu vg Cyrnest 42 (om 
et. tw) etioh 196 etact δά Thphyl Occ Rebapt®®* | το πνευμα sec et. m'? 
Rebapt®® Amb*pir3,10 al ... 34. vg (et. am fu cav demid harl lux tol 
et ppaliq lat) armuse Christus, χριστοσ (:: quae lectiq Latina Gracce 
in codicem 34. Dublinensem illum Montfortianum recepta luculenter 
testatur versionem ‘vulgatam ad eum conficiendum valuisse.) 

T. ote τρεισ (et, Cyrnest 142 epact δέ). x 69, 4597 ors oF TE. 

7 et 8. os μαρτυρουντεσ: ¢ (=Gb Sz) add ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 6 Πατὴρ, ὁ 
Abyos, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον TIvevxpa’ καὶ οὗτον οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἶσι. 5 ΚΚαὶ τρεῖς 
εἰσιν οὗ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ἢ haec-verba ex omnibus cdd Graecis 
duo tantum tuentur, alter saeculi 16. alter Graecus Latinus fere 
15. saeculi, numeris signati 34 (Dublin.) et 162 (Vat.). In singulis 
vero satis ab editis differunt. Sic enim 34.: ore rose εὐσιν οἐ μαρτυ- 
Lovvtes ἐν TH ουρανω, πατήρ λογοσ' nas πνευμα AYO, και OVTUL οὐ 
TOT EY εἰσι. χαν TEELG εἰσιν ον μαρτυρουντεσ ἐν τῇ γῆ, pergens: 
πνευμα υδωρ καὶ Cue, εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν, Item 162: bts τρεισ' εἰσιν 
Ob μαρτυρουντὲσ ἀπὸ του οὐρανου, πατὴρ λογοσ xae zvevpa αγιον, 
XO οὐ τρεισ εἰσ τὸ EV εἰσι. καὶ τρεισ εἰσιν OF μαρτυρουντεσ ἀπὸ τηῦ 
γήσ, pergens: τὸ πνευμα το ὕδωρ και τὸ αιμα. εν τὴν μαρτυριαν, 
His duobus accedere videbatur, Βίχγοῃϊοι θὲ Scholzio testibus, 173. 
At is verba ista non habet nisi in margine manu recenti, unius ut 
mihi videtur ex bibliothecariis, 5866. fere 17. adscripta: id quod 
alienum’ab antiquorum codicum auctoritatetesse apparet. Praebet 
autem margo éius codicis locum sic ut ex solis editis imotuit: ἐν tw 
οὐρανγω, ο΄πατήρ καὶ (ita multi ediderunt, ut Beza 1590, Goldhagen 
1753. atque iam antea Compl.) o λογοσ xaeto ayloy πρξυμα" καὶ 
οὗτοι OF TELE ἐν εεσί, KALE TOE ξιδιν OF μαρτυρουντεσ εν τῇ γή. Simi~ 
liter ex ed. Complut. eundem Jocum_exscriptum habet codex qul 
dicitur Ravianus: evo ovgara, 0 πατὴρ xav ὁ λογοσ, xabrto γιοῦ 
STV EUMce, και οὐ ἐρεισ εἰσ TO ἐν εἰσί. KOE τρεῖσ. εισιἡ OF RAQTUQOVITET 
ἐπετησ γησ, post quac verba pergitur: τὸ πρευμα χαρτο υδωρ xas τὸ 
“ina, εν τὴν μαρτυριαν; Vulgatae codices, quorum plus ὃν 
Wetst Gb (in diatribe insigni hunc in locum’addita editioni 5. 1806. 
Ῥ. 1—25.) aliisque notati cum eisque qui posthac innotuerunt omninm 
antiquissimi am et fa, itemque qui Alcuini fuisse ereditur vallicell”, 

"LisCHENDORF, N. T. ed. 8. 228 


565 


(XIX.—1,) 


THE 


GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, 


EDITED FROM ANCIENT AUTHORITIES, WITH THEIR 
VARIOUS READINGS IN FULL, 


LATIN VERSION OF JEROME, 


SAMUEL PRIDEADX TREGELLES, LLD. 


LONDON. 
RAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS: PATERNOSTER ROW. 
α J, STEWART: KING WILLIAM STREET, WEST STRAND. 
1857—1879. 


566 


(XIX.—2.) 


ATIOKAAY@IS TQANOY. 


Incod 5 ee Tesa Chelsti, 
Atty, + 4° Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, "ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ. quam dedi dew cons pees 
PQ. ὃ θεὸς, δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ α a γενέσθαι ἐν howe —_ et ξο πων 
a ἐ ιανεν ἀποστείλας ἰὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου angelum ‘suum servo ταν 
“Val. Mem τάχει, καὶ ἐσήι ΠῚ ” 2g§a yh Ῥεβκαι 13 φαΐ testimonium 
vy Arm. th. Sr: αὐτοῦ" τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ avy » "Os ἐμαρτύρησεν perhibait rb ἀεὶ x teats 
ame 
mo τὸν λογον hie θεοῦ "καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ χρι- ae Ga tea a) git 
La B 0 ἀναγινώσκων, καὶ οἱ ἐς qui junt verba «pro- 
ot ΝΣ στοῦ, ὅσα * εἶδεν μακάρι ς ὁ ἀναγι Ἶ πὴ ae γι. 
ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας, καὶ L τηροῦντες quae in ia seria sant: tem 

po = 
τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα: ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς. ἀκ τ ἰκυαδ μὰ κέν σείειν 

43? * quae sunt in Asia, . 

ἢ Ἰωάνης" ταῖς ἑπτὰ ΠΣ ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ al ce toe de SCL OR 
# Ex.3: 04. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ἴ “ ὁ ὧν καὶ ᾧ ἦν καὶ ὁ ri τελ δ olan Hoge 
ρόδων ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ : πνευμάτων τῶν" ἐνώ- ue Giron cius sunt, et ab 

@ C23 14, πιον τοῦ “θρόνου αὐτοῦ, “και ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, ee Mgnt ea 3. 


@ Pe. 38 
Gime 


μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος * τῶν νεκρῶν, και 


I 
τ 9 fidelis, primogenitus +mortuo- 
0 


Tuscriptio - 
ATIOKAAYPIE IQDANOY K(C-avvov 
et A. in subser.) 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ Tor Ail IoANNOY 
KAI EYAITEAIs TOY P. 
ANOKAAYWIZ 19 TOY OEOAOTOY 
KAI EYAITEAIZTOY Q. 
‘Iwavvoy ἀπόοκαλυψις 95. 
ἀποκάλυψις ἴωαννου τοῦ θεολογοῦ 14, 
91. 

Twavvov του θιολογοῦ ἀποκαλυψις 6. 
Βποκαλυψις τοῦ ἁγιου καὶ ἐνδοξου ακὸ- 
στολοῦ και ἐναγγιλιστου Ιωαννου τοῦ 
θιολογον ἣν ἐν Harpy τὴ νησω᾿ εθεα- 

σατο 7. 


? 38, 
Αποκαλυψες γον ayiov Ἰοαννου (sic) rou 
θεολογου Er. 
3. awry Dion. Alex. ap. Eus. YE. vii. 
35.(558.) | avr Q. 
w=Sevleig Dion. Aler. 1 ἅγιοις x 


eux) 


38 


1. τῷ δουλρ rov δούλου A, 

— 0 Mog ct & dee γενεσθαι} om. Dion, 
Alex. ap. Ens. 11K. 

— iwavn sie ἐξ, in inseriptione] Twaver 
S*, | t1wavvy S. AN rel. [h. C.] 
2. Ἰησοῦ χριστόν] avrov Dion. Alex. ap. 

Ens, 

— tea om. 95.) ἢ add. τε 5,1. Arm. 
edd, nonnulli. Er. om, ANC. 6.7. 14. 
88, PQ. 91. 95, Vulg. Memph. Arm. 
edd. th. Syr. Dion, Alex. Cmpl. 

— adey (ἰδὲν AN. 7. 0.) C. 1.6, 14, 38. 
P. 91. 95.) add. και driva aoe χαι ἃ 
(τινα 38) xen yeveoOat pera ravra 
7. (38.) 91. Arm, Cmnl, Er, in Annot. 
| om, rel, Vulg. Memph, Jith. Syr. 
Er, 


3. rove λόγους. ACC). rel. Valg. | roy 
Aoyor RQ. Uh. (rove Aoyoug Fovrove 
[59] 

— τροφητειαςἿ add. ravene 7. Vailg. ΟἹ, 
im. Memph, Arm. edd, Syr. Prme. om, 
Fuld. Tol. 


4. Iwavne 8, 1 t Ιωαννης ς΄, AC. rel. 


567 


4. 6 wv) f praem. row β΄. Er: Ἶ praem. 


θεου 14. Q. Arm. edd. Prms. | nihil 
Ahabent ANC, 1. 6. 7. 38. P. 91. 95. 
‘Vulg. Memph. Arm.cdd. Aith. Syn 
Cmpl. Er. in Annot.. 


“= ἐρχομενος add. omnipotens ᾿Ῥγπιϑὲ 


— 6 ην] ὡς ἣν Ere 

— τὼν Αἰξ, 1 aC. 6.14.Q. | there 
5.1. 7. 88, P. 91. 95. Memph. Atm, 
Er. Cmpl. qui in conspecta thrvni ejue 
sunt Vulg. 

—avrov] Domini Jesu Christ Zh, ὦ 
dei sunt Prme 

5. row νεκρων} PT praem-ex-e. 1. 91, 
Arm. edd. ZEth, ut vid. Hipp. ( 
180.) Er. Cmpl. (vid. Coli.) | om, 
ANC. 6. 7. 14. 38. PQ, 95. Vulgy 
Memph. Syr. Meth. (Jahn. 67, 951} 
Prms. in mortnis Arm. eds 


Ὕ, WH Ame | ἢ 
sa tera cx δ’ δέ τοῦς CH ἢ meee ἢ 


in 
943 


(XX.—1.) 
THE NEW TESTAMENT 


IN THE 


ORIGINAL GREEK _ 


THE TEXT REVISED BY 


BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, D.D. 


CANON OF PETERBOROUGH, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE 
AND 


FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D. 


HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE 


AMERICAN EDITION 


WITH AN INTRODUCTION 
By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. 


PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK 
PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION COMMITTEE 


NEW YORK 
HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE 


1896 
568 


(XX.—2.) 
14 KATA MAO@CAION VI 


3 a “a Ν - 3 , Ν ΄ Ce 
αὐτῶν. σοῦ δὲ ποιοῦντος ἐλεημοσύνην μὴ γνώτω ἡ apt- 3 
a 7 > ε , 
OTEPA σου τί ποιεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου, ὅπως ἡ Tov ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη 4 
a ΄“ “ a ? 
ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ: Kalo πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν TO κρυπτῷ ἀπο- 
¢ > 
δώσει σοι. Καὶ ὅταν προσεύχησθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε ς 
«ε 3. ’ὔ σ “ ΕῚ “a a“ νι: 
ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί: ὅτι φιλοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν 
ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι, ὅπως 
-" a > a > 
φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσι τὸν 
a “ , ” > \ 
μισθὸν αὐτῶν. σὺ δὲ ὅταν προσεύχῃ, εἴσελθε εἷς TO 6 
“ει ‘ ’ ‘ 
TAMEION COY KAI κλείοδς THN θύρδν coy mMpdceyzZal 
“- , “ > ΄“Ὕ a. Ν ε ’ ε 
τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ᾽ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ σου ὁ 
a ἐδ τ , , 
βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι. Προσευχόμενοι δὲ 7 
Ν , Ψ 4 3 4 “ ‘ "4 » 
μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, δοκοῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι ἐν 
“- > A , “-“ 
τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται: μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε 8 
ΕῚ a“ > A e \ ε Ν ε a = ¢ Ν 
αὐτοῖς, οἷδεν γὰρ [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε 
wn e aA a > 4 a > 
πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν. Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε 9 
ε aA 
ὑμεῖς 
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" 
“A 6 l4 \ em” ’ 
γιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, 
ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, 20 
΄ . 47 ἢ ; 
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημα σου, 
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς" 


Ἀ » ε ΄“ Ἁ >. 4 
Tov aptov ἡμῶν tov ἐπιούσιον τὶ 
δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον" 
Ἁ Ν) can \ 3 ’ ε ~ 
καὶ aes ἡμῖν ta οφειλήματα ἡμῶν, 12 
ε Ἀ e “~ > 4 “ > 4 ε ~ 
ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς αφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν" 
Ν ‘ A , 
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, 13 


> 4A en ε »-2ὅ: » A ~ ~ 
αλλα ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. 
3 A 4 > “- ΄“- 5» 4 . ’ 5» =: 
Eav yap αφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, 14 
> , . ε ~ ε A ε ΄» ε > ’ ““Ἀ" QA A 
αφήσει καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐρανιος: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ 15 
es “ ν θ , ‘ , er oan ε 
ἀφῆτε τοῖς ανθρώποις [τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν], οὐδὲ ὁ πα- 
A ε ΄“ > , \ , -“" 
THp ὑμῶν adyoe Tu. παραπτώματα ὑμῶν. Ὅταν 16 
Ν , . , e 
δὲ νηστεύητε, μὴ γίνεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ σκυθρωποί, 
> , ‘ Ν ’ > “A a “ ~ 
αφανίζουσιν γὰρ 74 πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ὅπως φανώσιν τοῖς 


569 


B 
2 
ΕἾ 
- 
ῷ 
A 
5 


C onteyn 


inall 
” 


mf ‘ated out of the Ort 
ΓΟ withthe) Tran 


NewlTr 


570 


APPENDIX III. 


LIST OF REVISERS. 


This is the most complete list ever published, and includes all who ac- 
cepted the appointment and have at any time taken part in the work of re- 
vision. The members are given the titles and positions held by them during 
the progress of the Revision. For farther biographical information see the 
Supplement to the Schaff-Herzog Rel. Encyclop., published at N. York and 
Edinburgh, 1887. 


I. ENGLISH REVISION COMMITTEE. 


(1) Otp TresTAMENT COMPANY. 

Right Rev. Epwarp Harotp Brownr, D.D., Bishop of Winchester 
(Chairman), Farnham Castle, Surrey. (Born March 6, 1811.) 

Right Rey. Lord ARrHuR 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. 16, 1882.) 

Right Rev. Connor Turruwatt, D.D., Bishop of St. David’s, Bath. 
(Born Feb. 11,1797, at Stepney, Middlesex; died at Bath, July 27, 1875.) 

Right Rev. CuristropHER WorpswortnH, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln. 
(Born in 1807 at Ashby, Norfolk; resigned 1870; died March 21, 1885.) 

Very Rev. Jonn JAMES STEWART PeEROWNE, D.D., Dean of Peter- 
borough, Deanery, Peterborough. (Born March 18, 1823, at Burdwan, 
Bengal.) 

Very Rev. EpwAarp Hayes Puiumprre, D.D., Dean of Wells, Wells. 
(Born Aug. 6, 1821; resigned March 17, 1874.) 

Very Rev. Ropert Payne Smirn, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, Deanery, 
Canterbury. (Born November, 1818, in Gloucestershire.) 

Ven. BENJAMIN Harrison, M.A., Archdeacon of Maidstone, Canon of 
Canterbury, Canterbury. 

Ven. Henry Joun Ross, Archdeacon of Bedford. (Died Jan, 1, 1873, 
at Bedford.) 


572 LIST OF REVISERS. 


Rev. ΑΜ LinpsAy ALEXANDER, D.D., Professor of Theology, Con- 
gregational Church Hall, Edinburgh. (Born Aug. 24, 1808, at Edin- 
burgh; died Dec. 22, 1884.) 

Rosert Lussock ΒΕ ΝΒ, Esq., Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Gonville and 
Caius College, Cambridge. (Born Aug. 24, 1831, at Eaton, near Norwich.) 

Rey. Joun BirreE LL, Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrews, Scot- 
land. (Born Oct. 21, 1836, near St. Andrews.) 

FRANK CHANCE, Esq., M.D., Burleigh House, Sydenham Hill, London. 
(Born June 22, 1826, in London.) 

THoMAS CHENERY, Esq., Reform Club, London, 8.W. Editor of “The 
Times.” (Born in 1826, in Barbadoes; died Feb. 11, 1884.) 

Rev. THomas Κεῖ ΟἬΕΥΝΕ, Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Balliol Col- 
lege, Oxford. (Born Sept. 18, 1821, in London.) 

Rev. ANDREW Bruce Davipson, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church 
College, Edinburgh. 

Rev. BengAmMin Davies, D.D., LL.D., Baptist College, London. (Born 
Feb. 26, 1814; died July 19, 1875.) 

Rev. GzorcEe Doveuas, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Principal of Free 
Church College, Glasgow. (Born March 2, 1826, at Kilbrachan, Scotland.) 

Rev. SAMUEL Ro.es Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Can- 
on of Christ Church, Oxford. (Born Oct. 2, 1846, at Southampton.) 

Rev, C. J. Extiorr, Winkfield Vicarage, Windsor. (Died 1882.) 

Rey. Patrick Farrparrn, D.D., Principal of the Free Church College, 
Glasgow. (Born January,1805, at Greenlaw ἃ. Aug.6,1874, at Glasgow.) 

Rev. FREDERICK FIELD, M.A., LL.D., Hon. Fellow of Trinity College,Cam- 
bridge. (Born in 1801, in London; died April 19, 1885, at Norwich.) 

Rev. Joun Dury GEDEN, Professor of Hebrew, Wesleyan College, Dids- 
bury, Manchester. (Born May 4, 1822, at Hastings; died March, 1886.) 

Rev. Curist1aAn D. Ginsspure, LL.D., Elmlea, Wokingham, Berks. 

Rev. FRepERICK WILLIAM Goren, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the Baptist 
College, Bristol. (Born in 1807, at Kettering ; d.at Bristol, May 17,1890.) 

Rev. Joun Jess, Canon of Hereford. (Born 1805,in Dublin; resigned 1870.) 

Rev, Witt1AM Kay, D.D., Chelmsford. (Born April 8, 1820, at Pickering.) 

Rev. Stantey Leatues, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, King’s College, Lon- 
don. (Born March 21, 1830, at Ellesborough, Bucks.) 

Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumpy, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity, 
Cambridge. 

Rev. — McGu1t, Professor at St. Andrews. (Died March 16, 1871.) 

Rev. ARCHIBALD Henry Sayce, Deputy Professor of Comparative Phi- 
lology, Oxford. (Born Sept. 25, 1846, at Shirehampton.) 

Rev, WiLL1AM SeLwyny, D.D., Canon of Ely. (B. 1806; d. April 24, 1875.) 


LIST OF REVISERS. 573 


Rev. WILLIAM Rosertson SmitH, LL.D., Lord Almoner’s Professor of 
Arabic, Cambridge (formerly of the Free Church College, Aberdeen). 
(Born at Keig, Aberdeenshire, Nov, 8, 1846.) 

Rev. Duncan Harkness Wetr, D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the Uni- 
versity of Glasgow. (Born in 1822, at Greenock; died Nov. 24, 1876, 
in Glasgow.) 

Witi1am Wriceut, LL.D., Professor of Arabic, Cambridge. (Born Jan. 
17, 1830, in presidency of Bengal, India; d. May 22, 1889.) 

Wiiram Apis Wricut, Esq. (Secretary), Fellow and Bursar of Trinity 


College, Cambridge. 
Old Test. Company, 37, 


(2) New TestAMENT ComMPANy. 

Right Rev. CHARLES JonHn Exticort, 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. RicHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin, 
Palace, Dublin. (Born Sept. 9, 1807; died March 28, 1886, in London.) 

Right Rev. JosepH Barser Licnrroot, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Dur- 
ham. (Born April 13, 1828, at Liverpool; ἃ, Dec. 21, 1889.) 

Right Rev. Gzorcr MosErty, D.C.L., Bishop of Salisbury, Palace, Salis- 
bury. (Born Oct. 10,1803, at St. Petersburg; d. July 6, 1885, at Salisbury.) 

Right Rev. CHARLES WorpsworrtH, D.C.L., Bishop of St. Andrews, Bish- 
opshall, St. Andrews, Scotland. (Born Aug. 22, 1806, at Bocking, Engl.) 

Very Rev. Henry Atrorp, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, (Born Oct. 7, 
1810, in London, died Jan. 12, 1871, at Canterbury.) 

Very Rev. Epwarp ΒΙΟΚΕΒΒΤΕΤΗ, D.D., Dean of Lichfield, Deanery, Lich- 
field. (Born Oct. 28, 1814, at Acton, Suffolk.) 

Very Rev. JosepH WILLIAMS BLAKESLEY, B.D., Dean of Lincoln, Deanery, 
Lincoln. (Born March 6,1808, in Lond. ; died April 18 1885, at Lincoln.) 

Very Rev. Cuarves MERIvAte, D.D., Dean of Ely. (Born March 8, 1808, 
in London; resigned 1873.) 

Very Rev. Rosert Scort, D.D., Dean of Rochester, Deanery, Rochester. 
(Born Jan. 26, 1811, at Bondleigh, Devonshire.) 

Very Rev. AkTHUR PENRHYN Sranuey, 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. Cuartes Jonn VaueGnan, D.D., Dean of Llandaff. (Born 
Aug. 6, 1816, at Leicester.) 

Ven. Witu1AM Lez, D.D., Archdeacon of Dublin, Dublin. (Born in 1815. 

_ ἴῃ Ireland; died May 11, 1883.) 

Ven. Epwin PAwmer, D.D., Archdeacon of Oxford, Christ Church, Ox- 
ford. (Born July 18, 1824, at Mixbury, Oxfordshire.) 

Rev. JosepuH Anous, D.D., President of the Baptist College, Regent’s 
Park, London. (Born Jan. 16, 1816, at Bolam, Northumberland.) 

Rev. Davip Browy, D.D., Principal of the Free Church College, Aber- 
deen. (Born Aug. 17, 1803, at Aberdeen.) 

Rev. Joun Eanie, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in the 
United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow. (Born May 9, 1810, at Alva, 
Stirlingshire, Scotland; died Jan. 3, 1876, in Glasgow.) 

Rev. Fenton Joun Antruony Hort, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Di- 
vinity, Cambridge. (Born April 23, 1828, in Dublin.) 

Rev. Wixt1Am Gipson Humpury, B.D., Vicar of St. Martin-in-the 
Fields, Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. (Born Jan.30, 1815, 
at Sudbury, Suffolk; died Jan. 10, 1885, in London.) 

Rev. BENJAMIN HALL Kennepy, D.D., Canon of Ely and Regius Pro- 
fessor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. (Born Nov. 6, 1804, 
at Summer Hill, near Birmingham.) 

Rev. WiLi1AM MILuieAn, D.D., Professor of Divinity and Biblical Crit- 
icism in the University of Aberdeen. (Born March 15, 1821, at Edinb.) 

Rey. Witu1AmM Fippran Moutron, D.D., Master of The Leys School, 
Cambridge. (Born March 14, 1835, at Seek, Staffordshire.) 

Rev. SAMUEL Newt, D.D., Principal of New College, Hampstead, Lon- 
don. (Born Feb. 15, 1821, in London.) 

Rev. ALEXANDER Roserts, D.D., Professor of ἘΜῊ in the Uni- 
versity of St. Andrews. 

Rev. FreperRicK Henry AMBROSE SCRIVENER, LLD., D.C.L. Preben- 
dary, Hendon Vicarage, London. (B. Sept. 29, 1813; d. Oct. 27, 1891.) 

Rev. GEORGE VANCE SmirtH, D.D., Professor, Parade, Carmarthen, Wales 
(Born June 13, 1816, at Portarlington, Ireland.) 

Mr. SAMUEL PRiIpEAUX 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., Regius Professor of Divinity, Trinity 
College, Cambridge. (Born Jan. 12, 1825, near Birmingham.) 

Rev. Joun ,TRouTBECK (Secretary), Dean’s Yard, Westminster, London. 
(Born Nov. 12, 1832, at Blencow, Eng.) 

New Test. Company, 30. 
Members in both Companies, 67, 


UNIVERSITY 


OF 
Ca, iFORNS 
LIST OF REVISERS. 575 


Il. AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE. 


GENERAL OFFICERS OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE. 


Puitie Scuarr, D.D., LL.D., President. 
GrorcE E, Day, D.D., Secretary. 


(1) Otp Testament CoMPANny. 


Rev. Witt1am Henry 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. GrorcE E. Day, D.D. (Secretary), Professor of Hebrew in the Di- 
vinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (Born March 19, 
1815, in Pittsfield, Mass.) 

Rev. Cuarues 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. Tatsor W. CuAmBers, 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.) 

Rey. THOMAS JEFFERSON Conant, D.D., Brooklyn, N. Y., formerly Profess- 
or of Hebrew in the Theological Seminary at Rochester, N.Y. (Born 
Dee. 13, 1802, in Brandon, Vt.; ἃ. at Brooklyn, N. Y., April 30, 1891.) 

Rev. Joun De Wirt, D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the Theological Semi- 
nary, New Brunswick, N.J. (Born Nov. 29, 1821, in New Brunswick, 
N. J.) 

Rev. Grtorce μιν Hare, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew in the 
Divinity School, Philadelphia. (Born Sept. 4, 1805, in Philadelphia.) 

Rev. CHARLES PoRTERFIELD KrAutTH, 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, Union College, 
Schenectady, N.Y. (Born March 27, 1802, in Northumberland, N. Y.; 
died May 11, 1877, in Schenectady.) 

Rev. CHARLES Marsu Mzap, D.D., formerly Professor of Hebrew in the 
Theological Sem. at Andover, Mass. (Born Jan, 28, 1836, at Cornwall, Vt.) 

Rev. Howarp QOscoop, 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 Packarp, D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the Theological 
Seminary, Alexandria, Va. (Born Dec. 23, 1812, in Wiscasset, Maine.) 


576 - LIST OF REVISERS. 


Rey. CALvin Exiis Stowe, D.D., Hartford, Conn., formerly Proressor of 
Hebrew in Andover, Mass. (Born April 26, 1802, at Natick, Mass. ; 
resigned 1876; died Aug. 22, 1886.) 

JAMES StrronG, 8.T.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew in Drew Theological 
Seminary, Madison, N.J. (Born Aug. 14, 1822, in New York.) 

Rev. Corne.ius V. A. Van Dyck, D.D., M.D., Professor in the American 
College at Beirfit, Syria. (Born Aug. 18, 1818, in Kinderhook, N. Y. 


Advisory Member on questions of Arabic.) 
Old Test. Company, 15. 


(2) New Testament CoMPANy. 

Rev. THEoporeE Ὁ. Wootsey, D.D., LL.D. (Chairman), Ex-President of 
Yale College. (Born Oct. 31, 1801,in New York; d.at New Haven, 
July 5, 1889.). 

Rev. J. Henry TuHayer, D.D. (Secretary), formerly Professor of New 
Test. Exegesis in the Theological Seminary at Andover, now in Cam- 
bridge, Mass. (Born Nov. 7, 1828, in Boston, Mass.) 

CHARLES SHort, LL.D., Professor of Latin in Columbia College, N. York. 
(Born May 28, 1821, in Haverhill, Mass.; died Dec. 24, 1886, at N. York.) 

Ezra Assor, 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; died at Cambridge, Mass., March 21, 1884.) 

Rev. J. K. Burr, D.D., Trenton, N.J. (Born Sept. 21, 1825, in Middle- 
town, Conn.; died at Trenton, N. J., April 24, 1882.) 

THomas Cuask, LL.D., President of Haverford College, Pa. (Born June 
16, 1827, in Worcester, Mass.) 

Rev. Gzorce 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. Howarp Crossy, D.D., LL.D., Ex-Chancellor of the University of 
New York. (Born Feb, 27, 1826,in N. Y.; d.in N. Y., March 29, 1891.) 

Rev. Timorny Dwieut, D.D., Professor of New Test. Exegesis in the 
Divinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (Born Nov. 16, 
1828, in Norwich, Conn.) 

Jamres Haney, 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 Batcnu 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. CHartes Hopes, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theology in the Theo- 
logical Seminary at Princeton, N.J. (Never attended the meetings, 


LIST OF REVISERS. δι. 


but corresponded with the Committee. Born Dee. 18, 1797, in Phila- 
delphia ; died June 19, 1878, in Princeton, Ν, J.) 

Rev. ASAHEL CLARK Kenpricx, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Greek in the 
University of Rochester, N.Y. (Born Dec. 7, 1809, in Poultney, Vt.) 

Right Rev. Atrrep Lez, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Diocese of Delaware. (Born Sept. 9, 1807, in Cambridge, Mass. , 
died April 12, 1887, at Wilmington, Del.) 

Rey. Marruew B., Rippiz, D.D., Professor of New Test. Exegesis in the 
Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. (Born Oct. 17, 1836, in Pitts- 
burgh, Pa.) 

Rey. Puirie Scuarr, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Sacred Literature in the 
Union Theological Seminary, New York. (Born Jan. 1, 1819, in Coire, 
Switzerland.) 

Rev. Henry Boynron Smiru, 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. E>DwarD ABIEL WASHBURN, D.D., LL.D., Rector of Calvary Church, 
New York. (Born April 16, 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 in 1871, 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 McIlvaine, Whittingham, and Williams, Dr. Whedon ( Methodist), Dr. 
Nevin (Reformed), Dr. Shedd (Presbyterian.)] 


Number of English and American Revisers on the Old Test. Com- 


ED SPE ραν τὰ ταὶ POO POTEET = OP) UA Py 7 te PIES , 02 
Number of English and American Revisers on the New Test. Com- 
MTGE Ao: ad alvin thie ον hie pies bed ΣΎΝ Le Ma aaa eee p cate es «cele 49 
ROG ΤΕ eve τ Ὶ bis Aiki sss ikesne sia ρον ὁ 101 
The English Committee up to June, 1887, lost by death and resigna- 
tion 27 members; leaving the number still living ........ .....+ 40 
The American Committee up to June, 1887, lost by death and resig- 
nation 14 members; leaving the number still living............. 20 


Total eoeeree CORP PEM νυ OH eH aE OBES CHEERED 60 


Sates sanity Thats abil 
ΝΣ, con ‘r j aa Geis ἐπέ μα τὶ. 
ASAE ΝΑ ΜΕ} co χε Ch MARR ἦτ ἦν 
ἐμ, A ae Kens ΤΗΥ 
ee hha: “WE MBE Ati { igifhigd £4) 
Fe amt Pt A) a eo eas τῆ 
7 ἜΝ till Riku 

ay ΠΕ Υ Lis 


μὴ 


᾿ veal Ry τὴ Ay 
AED Ab sey : 


igh 


ee 


ἦν 44 
eae ΠΤ 


Be i Ts fis ὙΥ ᾧ 
wy. og if , 


1 
ἶ this bf 


ore eae 


$3 FD as ἜΧΩΝ μὰ 

: πος Be γ 

ἌΡΗ ry aie : 

7 ashe ia 7A) 

ee 3 ‘at ἜΝ 
παν hale 


: ΝΗ ἐν Abhi gos Me 
nT SIN pit 3 i'l ἀμύμονα 


has ἘΠΕ} tian hie 


ἔν 
Ar 


1} ΝΥ δον, sa a 
ἥ va χρυ ϑαν fa? ‘a it ἌΡΤΙ 
: ἫΝ 
a att wh Ait ay 


sagafenien 
ἕω 


ἃ 


APPENDIX IV. 


LIST OF CHANGES 


PROPOSED BY THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE AND 
ADOPTED BY THE ENGLISH COMMITTEE. 


By ALFRED 188, D.D., 


BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DIOOESE OF DELAWARE. 


[This list was prepared from the official records of the American Commit- 
tee (printed, but not published), and kindly placed at our 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. In 
some cases, slight differences between the rendering suggested and that 
adopted are not noticed.] 


I. AMERICAN SUGGESTIONS ADOPTED IN TEXT. 
MatTHEew. 


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” 


VI. 


VEL 9, 


VIII. 1. 


IX. 81. 


ΧΕ 5, 


26. 
XII. 2. 
4. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. “which sought” : “that sought ” 

. “shall be called” : “should be called” 

. “meat” : “food” ; and so elsewhere for τροφή. 

. “Jordan” : “the Jordan”; and so elsewhere. 

. “lunatic” : “epileptic” ; and so elsewhere. 

. “was seated”: “had sat down” 

. “candle” : “candlestick” ; “lamp” : “stand”; and so in 


Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33. 


. “lest at any time” : “lest haply”; and so often for 


μήποτε. 


. “neither” : “nor” 

. “when thou hast shut” : “having shut” 

. “But in praying” : “ And in praying” 

. “Be not ye therefore” : dele “ye” 

. “sour”: “sad”; and new paragraph. 

. “much better”: “of much more value” ; and Luke xii. 24. 


“ of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he give” : “ who, 
if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give” 


. “a fish” : “for a fish” 


“will he give” : “will give” 
“came down” : “ was come down” (A, V.). 


. “this man”: “this one” ; and Luke. 
. “and west”: “and the west” 
. “multitudes” : “great multitudes” 


“other shore”: “other side” ; and so elsewhere. (With A.V.) 


. “the whole city ” : “all the city” 


“And they” : “ But they” 
“that country” : “that land” 


. “and father shall deliver up child” : “and the father his 


child” 
“the gospel” : “good tidings”; and so in Luke vii. 22. 


. “look upon”: “behold”; and so in Luke vii, 24. 
. “order thy way” (E.I.)?: “prepare” (A. V.).? 
. “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. 

“that so” : “for so” ; from margin. 

Read, “‘ But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said,” 

“save for the priests alone” : 3 but only for the priests” 


? First English Revision. * Authorized Version. 


XII. 


ΧΠΙ. 


XIV. 


XV. 


XVII. 


XVIII. 


12. 
28. 


45. 

2. 
12. 
15. 


21. 


25. 
. Margin, “is” (KE. I.) : “ denotes” 

. “for joy thereof” : “in his joy” ; from margin. 

. “report of Jesus” : “report concerning Jesus” 

. “and took ” ; “and he took” 

. “his disciples ” ; “the disciples ”’ 

. “in their fear” : “for fear” 

. “ All plants” : “ Every plant” 

. “to cast”? : dele “to” 

. “good that we be here’ : “good for us to be here” 


LIST OF CHANGES. 581 


! instead of ? 

“but if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God” : “ but if 
I by the Spirit of God cast out devils ” 

“is” : “becometh ” 

“the whole” : “all the” 

“taken” ; “taken away”? 

“should understand ” : “ understand ” 

“is offended” : pro, “falleth away” : ad. “stum. 
bleth” 

“amidst the wheat” : “among” 


(A. 0); and so in Mark and Luke. © 


. “no man”: “no one” ; and Mark ix. 8. 

. “truly” : “indeed” 

. “be converted” : “turn” ; and John xii. 40, ete. 

. “seventy times and seven” : “seventy times seven” 


Exchange text and margin. 


. “For this” : “For this cause” (A. V.) ; and Mark x. 7. 
. “the hardness of your hearts” : “your hardness of 


heart” ; and so Mark x. 5. 


. *whoso marrieth’”’ : “he that marrieth ” 

. “beso”: “is so” 

. “the sixth and ninth” : “the sixth and the ninth” 
. “hired” : “hath hired” (A. V.). 

. “that is thine” : “‘ that which is thine” 


“it pleaseth me”: “it is my will” 


. “moved”: “stirred” 

. “And when” : “ But when” 

. “likewise’’: “in like manner’”’ 

. “But when the husbandmen saw . . . they said” : “ But 


the husbandmen, when they saw . . . said” 
“keep his inheritance”? ; pro. “ have’ : ad. “take” 


582 


XXI. 


XXII. 


XXIII. 


XXIV. 


XXV. 
XXVI. 


XXVII. 


39. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. “his vineyard” : “the vineyard” 
. “this was the Lord’s doing” : ‘‘this was from the Lord”; 


and so Mark xii. 11. 


. “ministers” : pro. “attendants” : ad. ‘‘ servants ” 
. “the seven”: “the seventh” (A.V.).  . 
. “were gathered” : pro. “gathered” : ad. “gathered 


themselves ” 


. “in spirit” : “in the Spirit ” 


“master” : “teacher” : (Another reading.) The Amer- 
ican Revisers preferred always to translate διδάσκα- 
λος, “teacher.” 


. Margin, “and that” : “even while” ; and so Mark 


xii. 40. 


. “to leave the other” : “to have left the other” 

. “may be” : “may become” 

. “escape from the judgment” : dele ‘“‘ from” 

. “pains” : pro. “pangs” : ad. “travail” ; and Mark xiii. 8, 
. “this gospel” : margin, ‘‘ Or, these good tidings” 

. “which be”: “that are” 

. “should have been” : “ would have been” 

. “foretold you” : “have told you beforehand” ; and se 


Mark xiii. 23. 


. “the thief cometh” : “ was coming” 


Dele “ Nay” 


. “betray him”: “deliver him unto them” ; and elsewhere, 
. “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.). , 
“praying and saying” : “and prayed saying ” 


. “saying the same words again” : “saying again the 


same words ”’ 


. “forthwith” : “straightway ” 


“kissed him” : margin, “ Gr., kissed him much” ; and 
elsewhere. 


. “Ts it this for which thou art come?’ : Do that for 


which thou art come.” 


. “guilty” (of death) : “ worthy”; and so Mark xiv. 64. 
. “silver pieces” : “ pieces of silver” 

. “They said” : ‘“‘ And they said” 

. “a tumult-was made”: “a tumult was arising” 


XXVII. 44. 


41. 
50. 


58. 
61. 


XXVIII. 11. 
16. 


Ill 8. 


ΕΥ̓ 8, 


Th 2, 


LIST OF CHANGES. ὅδ 


“cast the same in his teeth”: “cast upon him the 
same reproach ” 

“Some” : “ And some” 

“ And Jesus, when he had cried again... yielded”’: 
“ And Jesus cried again . . . and yielded” 

“begged” : “asked for” ; and so in other places for afréw. 

“ And there was there Mary Magdalene” : “ And Mary 
Magdalene was there” 

“ were done” : “were come to pass” 

“ appointed ” : “had appointed ”’ 


Mark. 


. “there came John” : pro. “John appeared” : ad. 


“ John came” 


. “having torn him, and cried” : “ tearing him and crying” 
. “solemnly” : pro. “sternly” [Put in margin] : ad. 


“ strictly” ; and Matt. ix. 30. 


. “carried” : “borne” 
. “cometh to pass” : “came to pass” 


“all the things” : ‘“‘ what great things” 


. “for to touch him” : “that they might touch him” 
. “riseth up” : “hath risen up” 


“thirty... sixty... a hundred”: “thirtyfold... 
sixtyfold . . . a hundredfold” 


. “but rather that” : “ but that” 
. “place it?” : “set it forth ?” 


“it groweth up”: dele “it” 
“all herbs” : “all the herbs” 
“putteth forth” : pro. “maketh” : ad. “ putteth eut”’ 


. “take him” “take him with them” 

. “arose”: “awoke” 

. “among the tombs” : “in the tombs ” 

. “nigh unto the mountain” pro. “by the mountain” : 


ad. *‘on the mountain side”’ 


. “Be not afraid” : “ Fear not” 
. “people” : pro. Roman type : ad. “many” 
. “when he had”: “having” 


“the many ”’4E.1.): ‘“‘many” and change margin. 


. “his daughter Herodias” : substitute margin, “the 


daughter of Herodias herself” 


584 


VI. 24. 
δά. 

ΥΠ. 8. 
18. 


21. 
VIII. 13. 
18. 


19, 
se ἢ 


XII. 2. 


XIV. 8. 


XV. 37. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


“should I ask”: “shall I ask” 

{ they ”? : ( the people ” 

“lay aside” : pro. “let go” : ad. “leave” 

“Ts it so that ye also are” : pro. “So then are ye also” : 
ad. “ Are yeso... also” 

“proceed all evil thoughts” : “evil thoughts proceed ” 

“neither had they” : “and they had not” 

“remember, when” : “remember? When” 

20. “ye took up?” : “took ye up ?” 

“such that no fuller . . . can so whiten them”: “so as 
no fuller on earth can whiten them” 


. “when they had looked” : “looking” 
. “truly” : “indeed” 
. Exchange margin and text, “rendeth him” : “dasheth 


him down” ; and Luke ix. 42. 


. “and they asked” : dele “ they” 
. “thy left hand” : “thy” italics. 
. “leaves”: pro. “boughs with leaves” ; and dele margin ὃ: 


ad. “‘ branches ”’ 


. “shall”: “ will” 
. “so much as this” : “ even this” 


“on another” : “upon another” 


. “lead you’’ : pro. “lead you away” : ad. “lead you ¢o 


judy ” 


. “which be” : “that are” 

. “as hath not been” : as there hath not been” 

. “should have been saved” : “ would have been saved” 

. “foretold you all things” : “told you all things before- 


hand” 


. “from the end” (E. 1.) : “from the uttermost part” 
. “either” : “whether ” 


“to the burying” : “ for the burying” 


. “drink no more” : ‘no more drink ” 
. “while I shall pray” : “while I pray” 
. “all the council” : ‘the whole council” 


“‘when he had uttered .. . gave up”: “uttered ... and 
gave up” 


. “begged”: “asked for” 


“ counsellor” : ‘‘ councillor” 
“go your way”: “go” 


II. 


III. 


VI. 


Vil. 


VIII. 


12. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 585 


LUKE. 


. “was waiting” : “were waiting” 
. Exchange margin and text. ‘“‘Endued with grace” : “ high- 


ly favoured” 


. “grace”: “favour” 

. “from God no word” : “no word from God” 

. “how”: “that” 

. “were calling’: pro. “were about to call” : ad. “would 


have called ’”’ 


. “Quirinus ” : “ Quirinius” 

. “keeping” : “and keeping” 

. “stood over” : “stood by” 

. “shall pierce” : “shall pierce through” 

. Read, “‘in my father’s house?” with E. I. 

. “worthy of your repentance” : dele “your” ; put in margin. 
. “Many other things, therefore, in his exhortation preached 


he unto the people” : “‘ With many other exhortations, 
therefore, he preached good tidings unto the people” 


. “Salah”: ‘“Shelah” 

. “a great famine came”: “there came a great famine ” 

. “forbade them” : “suffered them not” 

. “What”: “Why” ; put in margin. 

. “so much as this” : “even this” 

. “do well” : “do good” 

. “After that” : dele “that” 

. “held in honor by” (E. 1.) : pro. “highly valued by” : ad. 


“dear unto” 
“ Ready to die”: pro. “about to die”: ad. “at the point 
of death” 


. “was justified’ : pro. ‘‘ hath been” : ad. “is’”’ 

. “proclaiming” : “ preaching” 

. “fell down on the rock” : dele “down” 

. “as they go”: “as they go on their way”’ 

. “who then is this? for he” : “ who then is this, that he” 
. “caught” : “seized” ; and Acts vi. 12, and elsewhere. 


“Bound, being kept with chains” : ‘‘ kept under guard 
and bound with chains” 

8. “of” : “by” (ter). 

“here we are” : “we are here” 


586 


XIII. 


XIV. 


XV. 


XVI. 


XVII. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. Margin: “roosting places” : “lodging places” 
. “seventy and two” E.I.: “seventy” and change margin, 


and v. 17. 


. “workman” : “labourer” 

. “that so”: “forso” Ex. text and margin. 
. “to whomsoever” : “he to whomsoever”’ 

. “willing” : pro. “ wishing” : ad. “ desiring” 
. “careful” : “arixious ” 

. “dish” : “platter” 


“thus saying,” : “in saying this ” 
“unto” : “before” 


. “and ye yourselves” : ‘*and be ye yourselves” 

. “faithless” : “ unfaithful” 

. “exactor” : “officer” 

. “debtors” E. I. : “offenders” ; margin, “ Gr. debtors.” 

. Insert “well” after “thenceforth ”’ 

. “to be loosed” : “‘to have been loosed ” 

. “chief Pharisees” : “rulers of the Pharisees ” 

. “compel”: “ constrain” 

. “just” ; “righteous” 

. “a country afar off” : “a far country” (and Luke xix. 


12, A. V.). 


. “mayest be” : “canst be” 

. “I cannot dig” : “I have not strength to dig” — 

. “mocked” : “scoffed ” 

. “the kingdom”’: pro. “the glad tidings of the kingdom”: 


ad. “the gospel of” 


. “warn”: “testify unto” 

. “profitable” : pro. “gain” : ad. “ well” 

. “would obey” : “ would have obeyed” 

. “were there not the ten” : “‘ were not the ten” 

. “shall quicken it” : “shall preserve it” (A. V.). 

. “the rest” : “all others” 

. “Yet lackest thou one thing” : “ One thing thou lackest 


yet ” 


. “being himself also rich” : “and he was rich” 

. “Take heed of” : “ Beware of ” 

. “waves” : pro. “the swelling waves” : ad. “ the billows” 
. “break in” E. I. : “come” 

. Read “I appoint unto you a kingdom” 


XXII. 37. 
XXIII. 1. 
12. 


23. 
‘35. 
55. 
XXIV. 22. 
39. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 587 


“for indeed that” : dele “indeed” 

“number” : pro. “ multitude” : ad. “ company ” 
“together” : “with each other” 

“with each other’ : “ between themselves ” 
“requiring” : pro. “demanding” : ad. “asking” 
“derided” : “ scoffed at” 

“sepulchre” : “tomb” ; and so elsewhere for μνημεῖον. 
“ made us astonished” : “‘ amazed us” 

“behold me have” : “ behold me having” 


JOHN. 


. Exchange text and margin. “overcame”: “ appre- 


hended”’ 


. “There was”: pro. “ appeared” : ad. “came” 
. “through him might believe” : “ might believe throug 


him” 


. “but that he might” : “but came that he might” 

. Exchange text and margin. “power” : “the right” 

. “the glory” : “glory” 

. “spake” : “said” 

. Exchange text and margin. ‘God only begotten” : “ the 


only begotten Son” 


. “Holy Ghost” : “ Holy Spirit”? ; and Acts vi. 5. 

. “(Which is by interpretation, Peter).” 

. “before that Philip” : “ before Philip” 

. “the manner of the purifying of the Jews” : “the Jews’ 


manner of purifying” 


. “largely” (E. I.) : “ freely” 
. Exchange margin and text. “The Spirit breatheth” : 


“The wind bloweth”’ 
“at Jerusalem”: “in Jerusalem ” 


. “of the Jews” : “from the Jews”’ 

. “tell us”: “declare unto us” 

. “talked” : pro. “ was talking” : ad. “ was speaking ”’ 

. “perfect” : “accomplish” ; and xvii. 4. 

. “for the word” : “ because of the word” 

. “Wilt thou” : “ Wouldest thou” 

. “of mine own self” : “of myself” 

. “seriptures ; for ye think *’ : “scriptures, because ye think” 
. “over” ; “to the other side of ” 


VUl. 3. 
. “Jesus therefore again” : “ Again therefore Jesus ” etc. 
. “came out” : “came forth” 

. “say the truth”: dele “the” 

. “ye do dishonour” : dele “do” 

. “ Whensoever” : “ When” 

. “scattereth the flock” : “scattereth them” 

. “IfI do”: “If I do them” 

. “John did” : “ John indeed did” 

. “he shall be saved” : “he will recover” 

. “Mary sat still” : “ Mary still sat ” 

. “her sister, saying secretly” : “her sister secretly, saying” 
. “miracles”: “signs” Exchange margin and text. 

. “reckon” : pro. “consider” : ad. “ take account” 


XII. 28. 


Xill. 18. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


“all which” : “all that which” 


. “at”: “concerning” 
. “ After this” : “ Upon this” 
. “present” : “come” (A. V.). 


17. “doctrine” : “teaching” 


. “his glory that sent him” : “the glory of him that sent 


him” 


. “Why have ye not brought him?” : “Why did ye not 


bring him ?” 


. “hear him” : “hear from himself” 
. Exchange margin and text. ‘see: for out of Galilee”: 


“see that out of Galillee ” 
“when they had” : “having” 


“from heaven” : “out of heaven” 


. “was hidden” (E. I.) : “hid himself” 
. “who believed” : “ who hath believed” 
. “whatsoever” : ‘the things which” 


“T chose” : “I have chosen” 


23, 28. “at meat”: “at the table” 


84. 


XV. 3. 
5. 
15. 
XVI. 8. 
18. 
XVII. 18. 


“T loved you”: “TI have loved you 
“may love” (E. I.): dele “may” 
“Even now”: “ Already” 
“without me”: “apart from me” 
“have heard” : “ heard” 

“of sin” : “in respect of sin” 
Return to A. V. 

“ And now”: “ But now” 


XVII. 


24. 


XVIII. 6. 


II. 


Il. 


9. 
15. 


20. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 589 


“they also may be with me where I am” : “ where I am, 
they also may be with me” 

“As soon then as” : “ When therefore” 

“of them which” : “of those whom” 

“and that disciple” : “‘ Now that disciple ’’ 

“whither all the Jews resort” : “where all the Jews 
come together ” . 


. “would not” : “should not” 

. “whosoever” : “every one that” 

. “a place” : “the place” 

. “gave up the ghost”: “‘gave up his spirit” (παρέδωκε 


τὸ πνεῦμα). 


. “which”: “he who” 

. “went up”: “went aboard” (In margin.) 

. “seest’ : “ knowest” 

. “leaned on his breast” : ‘‘ leaned back on his breast” 


Acts. 


. “saith he” : “ said he” 

. “room”: “chamber” 

. “acquired” ; “ obtained” 

. “ Wherefore of the men” : “Of the men therefore” 
. “appointed” : pro. “set forth”’: ad. “‘ put forward ” 


6,11. “speak” : “speaking ” 


. “before the great and notable day of the Lord come’’: 


“before the day of the Lord come, that great and no- 
table day” 


. Exchange text and margin. “ powers” : “mighty works” 
. “pains” ; “pangs” 

. “rest” : “dwell” 

. “of whom” : “ whereof” ; and so iii. 15. 

. “for the remission ” “ unto the remission” 

. “unto you” : “to you” 


‘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. 


. “for the hour” (E.1I.): “at the hour” 
i 73 gate ” : *t Gate ” 

. “which was’’: “who hath been” 

h 4 say ” ‘ “ce speak ” 


590 


VL 


VIL. 


VII. 


IX. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. “being troubled” : “being sore troubled”; and xvi. 18. 
. “be examined” : “are examined” 
. “our salvation is not in any other” (E.j1.) ; “in none other 


is there salvation ”’ 


. “hast made” ; “didst make” 

. “hast.said” : “didst say” 

. “hast anointed” : “ didst anoint” 

. “to be done” : “should come to pass” : ad. “to come to 


pass ” 


. “and one soul” : dele “one” 
. “some of them’’: “some one of them” 
. “early in the morning” : pro. “about the dawn of day” : 


ad. “about daybreak ” 


. “ye hanged on a tree, and slew” : “ye slew, hanging him 


on a tree” 


. “wished” : “were minded” 
. “reputation” : “ honour” 


“little space” : “little while” 


. “intend to do” : “are about to do” 

. “brought to nought” : “came to nought” 

. “And in these days” : “‘ Now in these days” 

. “delivered us” : “delivered unto us” 

. “he removed” : “ God removed” 

. “dearth” : “famine’’; also xi. 28. 

. “first” : “the first time” ipa. 
. “Emmor” : “ Hamor” 

. “from off thy feet” : dele “ off” 

. “brought” : “led” 

. “receiving it after,” : “received in their turn, and” 

. “ye were even now”’: “ye have now become ” 

10. 
. “this word’: “this matter” (A. V.). 

. “for gall” : “in the gall” Margin, pro. “art become bitter 


“great” : “Great” 


gall” : ad.“ wilt become gall (ov, a gall root) of bitterness” 


. “went down both” : “both went down” 

. “mightest ” : “mayest” 

. “counsel’’ : “counsel together ” 

..“passed”’ : pro. “ was going” : ad. “went” 

. “and was sick of the palsy” : “for he was palsied” 
. “maketh thee whole” : “ healeth thee” 

- “when he had called” ; “calling ” 


x. 10. 


XIII. 


XIV. 


XV. 


XVI. 


1, 
10. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 591 


“would have eaten” : pro. “ wished to eat” : ad. “ desired 
to eat” 


. “porch” ; “gate” 

. “and to me”: “and yet unto me” 

. “are commanded”: “ have been commanded ” 

. “He sent the word”: “The word which he sent” : “he is 


Lord of all” in ( ). 


. “rehearsed” : pro. “set forth” : ad. “ expounded ” 
. “which stood and said” : “standing... and saying” 
. “They then which” : pro. “ Now they that” : ad. ‘“ They 


therefore that ” 


. “in the purpose of their heart” : “ with purpose of heart” 
. “assembled themselves” : pro. “came together” : ad. 


“were gathered together” 
“in the church” : “with the church” 


. “minister” : pro. “ assistant” : ad. “attendant” 
. “who called” : “The same called” 

. “thou child” : “thou son” 

. “sailed” : “set sail” ; also xvi. 11, xx. 3. 

. “with his hand” : “ with the hand” 

. “about the space of” : “ for about " 

. “faithful” : “sure” 

. “waxed bold” : “spake out boldly” 


“have been spoken”: “ be spoken” 


. “perceived it” : “became aware of it” 
{ς And 6 Ch But ” 


“came thither certain Jews” : “came Jews thither” 
“drew”: “dragged” 

“manner” : ‘*custom” ; also xvii. 2. 

“to put” : pro. “by putting” : ad. “that ye should put” 


17, 18. Read ‘“‘ who maketh these things known” ; and margin. 


25. 


18, 


“being assembled with one accord” : pro. “having come 
to one mind” with marg., “having come together” : 
ad. ‘‘ having come to one accord” 


. “at the exhortation” : “for the consolation” (A. V.). 

. “not right” : pro. “meet not” : ad. “not good” 

. “that were ordained” : “ which had been ordained ” 

. “preach” : “speak” 

. “and they passed by Mysia, and came”: “and passing by 


Mysia, they came” 
“ the spirit came out” : “it came out” 


592 
XVIL 23. 
XVIII. 10. 
18. 
24. 
25. 
26. 


27. 

XIX. 2. 
7. 
8, 
15, 
31. 
89. 


XXII. 18. 


XXIII. ὁ. 


XXIV. 11. 


14, 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


“things that ye worship” (E. I.): “objects of your worship” 

“ hurt ” : “ harm ” 

“unto Syria” : “for Syria” 

“born at Alexandria” : “δὴ Alexandrian by race” 

“in the spirit” : “in spirit” ; and xix. 21, same change 

proposed. 

“John. The same”: “John: and he” 

“synagogue: but”: “synagogue. But” 

Exchange text and margin : “helped much through 
grace them which had believed”: “helped them 
much which had believed through grace” 

In margin for “be a Holy Ghost” : “is” ete. 

“all the men were” : “they were in all” 

9. “disputing” : pro. “ discoursing” : ad, “ reasoning” 

“ Jesus I acknowledge” : “Jesus I know” 

“which were his friends”’ : “ being his friends ” 

“enquire” : pro. “seek for” : ad. “ seek” 


. “three months were past” : “he had spent three months 


there” 


. “had come” : “had gone before” : change of text. 
. “Trouble not yourselves” : ‘Make ye no ado” 


“all the counsel ”’ : “the whole counsel” 


. Exchange text and margin. “overseers” : “ bishops” 
. “Now the same man” : “ Now this man” 

. “zealous of the law” : “zealous for the law” 

. “strangled” : “ what is strangled” 

. “sought” : “ were seeking” 


“chief captain” : margin, “ military tribune” 
“an uproar”: “confusion” 
“standing over me”: “standing by me” 


. “his witness” : “a witness for him” 
. “believe” : “ believed” 


“of the hope” : pro. “ for the hope” : ad.“ touching” ete 


. “for that ye would” : “as though ye would” 
. “would have been slain”: “ was about to be slain” 


“my soldiers” : “ the soldiers ” 


. “touching” : pro. “ concerning” : ad. “about” 


“understand” : pro. “ascertain” : ad. “take knowledge” 


. “gathering” : “stirring up” 


“so worship I” : ‘so serve I” 


XXIV. 


XXV. 


XXVL 


XXVII. 


XXVIII. 


II. 


ΠΙ. 


14. 
18. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 593 


“and written” : ‘and which are written” 
(:) after “ offerings” instead of (. ) 


. “his own wife” : “his wife” 


“the province” : “his province” : ad. in margin, 
“answered for himself” : “said in his defence” 


. “I be a wrong-doer” : “I am” ete. 

. “that he which is accused” : “ that the accused” 

. “superstition” : “religion” : text in margin. 

. “should wish” : “could wish” 

. “because thou art specially expert” : “especially be. 


cause thou art expert”: pro. for margin, ad. in text. 


. “pricks” ; “goad” 
. “wherein thou hast seen me”: “which thou hast 


seen” ; put in margin. 


. “the succour of” : “the help that is from” 
. “already past” : “gone by” : ad. “already gone 


by »” 


. “run into” : “fall away into” : ad. ‘be cast upon” 

. “furniture” : pro. “ movables” : ad. “tackling” (A. V.). 
. “not set sail” : “not have set sail” 

. “justice” ; “ Justice” 

. “mind” : “minds” 


“it came to pass” : pro. “it happened’: ad. “it was so” 

“to whom” : “unto whom” 

“were of the Jews first” : ‘‘were chief of the Jews”; 
ad. “were the chief of the Jews” 


. “not because” : “not that” 


Romans. 


. “bondman” ; “servant” ; marg. “ Or, bond-servant” 
. “holy scriptures” : “the holy scriptures” 

. “resurrection ”’ : “the resurrection ” 

. “the righteousness” : “ἃ righteousness” 

. “affections” : “ passions” 

. “do” : “practise” (δὲ8) : “commit” : “do” 
. “inexcusable” : ‘‘ without excuse” 

. “art named” ς “ bearest the name of” 

. “in a law” : “in the law” 

. “through the letter” : “ with the letter” 

. “asa man”: “after the manner of men” 


594 


ΠῚ. 


ΥἹ. 


VIL. 


XII. 


XIV. 


20, 


31. 


21. 


τῇ 


12, 
14, 
16. 


. 22, 


30. 
3. 


18. 


28. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


28. “works of law” : “the works of the law” ; from 
margin. 

“law”: “the law” (bis) ; dele margin. 

“through the faith” : “through faith” 


. Dele “that he might be” (Εἰ. 1.). 

. “was spoken” : “had been spoken” 

. “regarded” ; ‘‘ considered” 

. “maketh not ashamed ” : “ putteth not to shame” 
. “establisheth” : “commendeth” 

. “our reconciliation ” : “ the reconciliation” 


“a law”: “the law” 


. “live any longer” : ‘any longer live” 

. “even so we”: “so we” . 

. “from being dead” : “from the dead” 

. “therefore had ye then” : “then had ye at that time” 
. “know law” : “ know the law ” 

. “by the law”: “through the law” 

. “lust” : “ coveting ” 

. “Wherefore” : “So that” 

. Dele margin, “thee” for “‘me” 

. “with them” : “to them” 

. “therewith bearing me witness” : “bearing witness with 


me ” 


. A marginal rendering was suggested (see American Ap- 


pendix), for which three others were substituted. 

“one vessel” : “one part a vessel” ; from margin. 

“ deep 7) : [1 abyss ” 

Pro. “ being rich” : ad. “‘and is rich” 

Dele margin, “of whom” 

“obey” : “hearken to” 

23. “abide” : “continue” 

“ yet ” : “ but ” 

“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” 

“it is not” : “he eateth not” (A. V.). 


19. 
> wae s 
XI. 7%. 
1, 2,3. “and have not” : 
. “reckoneth not the evil” (E. L.): “taketh not account of evil” 
. “in a glass” : “in a mirror” ; and 2 Cor. iii. 18. 
. “greater” : “greatest”; margin, “Gr., greater” 
. “wherefore the tongues”: dele “the” 
. “declare” : 


XIII. 


. “Moses put” 
. “afflicted” : 
. “having multiplied may through the many” : 


. “sin for us” : 
. Margin, “ Gr., Contain us” : “‘ Make room for us” 


. “for he accepted” : 


LIST OF CHANGES. 595 


1 CoRINTHIANS. 


. Insert “them that are” before “ sanctified” 
. “grace” : 
. “shewn”: pro. “made known” : ad. “signified” 
. “And this I say” : 
. Dele “likewise” before “ Greeks” 

. “my message” : “my preaching” (A. V.). 
. “necessity” (E. I.) : “distress” (A. V.). 

. “virgin” : “virgin daughter” 

. “willingly” : 


‘‘ Grace”’ 


“Now this I mean” 


“of mine own will” 

“unwillingly” : “ ποῦ of mine own will” 

“being” free : pro. “though I am’: ad. “though I was” 
‘into Moses” : “‘unto Moses” 

“a man”: ‘a man indeed” (A. V.). 

“but have not” 


“make known ” 
Dele “as touching” before “ the gospel” 


. “as is right” : “ righteously ” 
. “God's will” (E. I.) : “his will” 


“that he should come” : “to come” 


2 CoRINTHIANS. 
: “Moses, who put” 
“* pressed ” 
“being 
multiplied through the many may” 
“ sin on our behalf” 


“defrauded” : “took advantage of ” 


. “of their own” : “they gave of their own” 
. “ they offered the grace” : 


“for the grace” : ad. “in regard 

of” ete. 

“for indeed he accepted” 

“‘ for the subjection of your profession to the gospel ” : “ for 
the obedience of your confession unto the gospel” 


596 


ΧΙ. 


XIII. 


20. 


28. 


6. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. Dele “an authority” and enclose “which . . . down” 


in( ). 


. “as it were to”: “as if I would” (A. V.). 
. “forcible” : “strong” 
. “do not understand” : “are without understanding” 
. “have espoused” : dele “have” 


“may present” : “might present” 


. “in everything we have made manifest the gospel among 


all men unto you”: “in everything we have made ἐξ 
manifest among all men to you-ward” 

“taketh you” : pro. “catcheth you” : ad. “taketh you 
captive” 

“Tam more than they” : “I more” 

“exceedingly”: pro. “beyond measure” : ad. “above measure” 


. “mighty” : “ powerful” 
. “might” (E. 1.) : “power” dis. 


“should” : “may” dis. 


GALATIANS. 


. “what they once were” (ΕἸ. I.) : “whatsoever they were” 


(from margin). 
“imparted nothing more” : “imparted nothing” 


. “works of law” : “works of the law” éer, and iii, 2, 6, 10. 
. “in the law”: “by the law”; margin, “Gr., in” 
. “I have toiled for you” : “I have bestowed labour upon 


you” (A. V.). 


. “zealously court you” (E. I.) : “zealously seek you” 
. “courted” (Εἰ. 1.) : “sought”; (.) after “you” instead 


of (,) 


᾽ . 
εἰ my ” : “cc My ” 
. “put away”: “severed” 


“fallen” : “fallen away” 


. “For ye were called... brethren” ; “For ye, brethren, 


were called ”’ 


. “do such things” : “ practise such things ” 


EPHESIANS. 


“raised us up” : “raised us up with him” 
“to sit together” : “to sit with him” 


Il. 


IV. 


LISt OF CHANGES. 597 


. “even the enmity, in his flesh, having abolished” : “having 


abolished in his flesh the enmity” 


. “slain the enmity in it” : “slain the enmity thereby” 
. “ye being rooted” : “to the end that ye,” etc. 
. “that ye may have strength” : pro. “may be fully able” : 


ad. “may be strong” 


. Insert “ Amen” at end of verse. 

. “by him” : “in him” 

. “decayeth according to”: “‘ waxeth corrupt after” 

. “speaking to yourselves” : “speaking one to another” ; 


and Colos. iii. 16. 


. “take up unto you” : “take up” 
. “in incorruption” : pro. “in Jove incorruptible” : ad. “in, 


uncorruptness ”’ 


PHILIPPIANS. 


. “compassions” (E. I.) : pro. “tenderness” : ad. “tender 


mercies ” 


. “giving no offence” : “void of offence” 
. “supposing” : “ thinking” 
. “ashamed”: “put to shame” 


“to them”: “for them” 


. “themselves” : “ himself” 

. “on his own” : “to his own” 

. “unto death” : “even unto death” 

. “in earth”: “on earth” 

. (;) after “trembling” instead of (. ). 
. “unto”: “in furtherance of” 


“keep your hearts” : “ guard your hearts” 


. “make account of” (E. I.) : “think on” (A. V.) 


“enableth me” : pro. “‘giveth me power” : ad. “strength- 
eneth me” (A. V.). 


. “chiefly” : “ especially ” 


COLOSSIANS. 


. “holy” : exchange with margin, “saints” 


“the redemption ”’ : “our redemption ” 


. “be not moved away” : dele “be” 
. “with how great striving I contend” : pro. “how great a 


contest I haye” : ad. “how greatly I strive” 


II. 


ΙΝ. 


ΠῚ. 


Il. 


VI. 


o> oo τί ἃ PO 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. “fulfilled” ; “made full” 

. “taking his stand upon” : “ dwelling in” 

. “not of any value” : “ but are not of any value” 
. “instant” : pro.-“ stedfast” : ad. “stedfastly ” 

. “would open”: ‘‘may open” 


“a door of utterance” : “a door for the word” ; from 
margin. 


1 THESSALONIANS. 


. “with much contention” : “in much conflict ” 


“put in trust” : “intrusted ” 


. “babes”: “gentle” 


“of us” : “from us” 


. “forewarned you” : pro. “told you before” : ad. in margin, 


“told you plainly” 


2 THESSALONIANS. 


. “the calling” : “ your calling” 
. “an object of worship” : “that is worshipped” (A. V.). 
. “to the intent” : “to the end” 


“his season” : “his own season” 


. “appearing of his presence” (E. I.) : “ manifestation of his 


coming” 


. “power”: “the right” 


1 Trorny. 


. “Now”: “But” 

. “whoremongers ” : “ fornicators”’ 

. “to minister” (E. I.) : “to Aés service” 

. “a good report of” : “good testimony from” 

. “liveth in pleasure” : “giveth herself to pleasure” 
. “come to wax” : pro. “have grown” : ad. “have waxed” 
. “women” : “widows” Text and margin exchanged. 
. “thine own self” : “ thyself” 

. “be otherwise” : “are otherwise ” 

. “the more” : “the rather” 

. “other” : “a different ” 

. “all evil” ; “all kinds of evil” ; so E. I, 


LIST OF CHANGES. 599 


2 Timoray. 
I 14. “by”: “through” 
II. 14. “testifying unto” : “ charging” 
18. “who concerning the truth ” : “men who” ete. 
19. “iniquity” : “ unrighteousness ” 
25. “might” : “may” 
II. 9. “ Howbeit’’: 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. 


. “are wanting” : “were wanting ” 

. “a lover of hospitality” : “ given to hospitality ” 

. “slow bellies” : “idle gluttons” 
“become” : “ befit” 

dele margin “ discipline ” 

‘“‘a pattern” : “an ensample” 

. “principalities” : pro. “ governments” : ad. “rulers” 

. “the laver” (E. I.) : pro. “‘a washing” ; ad. “the washing” 
“the renewing” : pro. “a renewing” : ad. “renewing” 


_ 


OO AT HR bo oO δι 


Ill. 


PHILEMON. 
2. “our sister” : “the sister” Put in margin. 


HEBREWS. 


L 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, ὕ, 6. “his house” : pro. “ His house” : margin added, “ That is 
God’s house” 
8. “in so much” : pro. “ by as much” : ad. “by so much” 
13. “daily : “day by day” 
14. dele( ). 
“ pyartakers of Christ” : add in margin, “ Or, with Christ” 
IV. 2. “a gospel” : “good tidings” 
8. “would he not” : “he would not” 
10. “himself also hath” : “hath himself also” 
40 


600 


IX. 


II. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


“of joints and marrow” : “of both joints and marrow ” 


. “profession ” : ‘ confession ” 

. “but that” : “but one that” 

. Arrangement (that of A. V.) changed. 
. “because” : “since” 

. “as our forerunner” : “as a forerunner” 
. “bringing in” : “ bringing in thereupon 


“have been a priest” : “be a priest ”’ 


. “serve an example” : “serve that which is a copy” 
. “was established” : pro. “hath been established” : ad. 


“hath been enacted ”’ 


. “Even the first covenant then” : “Now even the first 


covenant ”’ 
a are ΕΣ] : “anere”? 
stag” : “was” 


. “unto the time” : “ for the time” 


“perfect ... him that doeth the service” : “make the 
worshipper perfect ”’ 


. “(which rest only on meats and drinks and divers wash- 


ings)’’ : “being only (with meats, etc.)”’ 


. In margin, “have come” : “are come” 

. “gained” : “‘ obtained” 

. “blood is” : “ blood there is” 

. “to be manifested ” : “to appear” (A. V.). 

. “without sin’? : “apart from sin” 

. Arrangement changed : “ upon their mind also will I write” 
- “manner” : “custom” 

. “ye have yourselves for a better possession” (E. I.) : “ye 


yourselves have a better” etc. Exch. marg. and text. 


. “and he that had received” : pro. “yea, he that had ac- 


cepted” : ad. “yea, he that had gladly received” 


. “many be defiled” : “the many”? etc. 
. “innumerable hosts” ; add in marg., “Gr., myriads” 
. “by the blood” : “ with the blood” 


J AMES. 


. “among”: “into” 

. “superfluity”” : pro. “excess’’ : ad. “ overflowing ” 

. “any be”: “any one is”’ 

. “in honour” : “in a good place” (A. V.) : pro. for marg, 


Il. 


II. 


gy 
. “entirely” : “ perfectly ” 

. “verily was foreknown”’ : “was foreknown indeed ” 

. “with a clean heart”: “from the heart’? Exchange marg. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 601 


. “Yet if ”: pro. “If however” : ad. “ Howbeit if” 

. “work sin” : “commit sin” (A. V.). 

. “glorieth over” : “glorieth against” (A. V.). 

. “his faith wrought” : dele “his” 

. “This wisdom is not one that” : pro. “ Thisis not a wisdom 


that” : ad. “ This wisdom is not a wisdom that”’ 


. “doubtfulness” : pro. “ partiality ’’ (in marg.) : ad. “ vari- 


ance’’ 


. “desireth to be”: pro. “ chooseth to be” : ad. “ would be” 
. “planted” : “ made to dwell’’ ; both in text and margin. 
. “The lawgiver and judge is one, even he”’ : “One only is 


the lawgiver and judge, he” 


. “psalms” : pro. “ praises” ; ad. “ praise” 


1 ῬΕΤΕΒ. 
“ἐ reported ’’ : pro. “ declared” : ad. “‘ announced” 


and text. 


. “born again” : “begotten again” . 

. “For” put at end of line preceding : “all’’ : “ All” 

. “sincere” : pro. “ pure” : ad. ‘‘ which is without guile” 
. “whereas” : “ wherein’’ : and so iii. 16. 

. “be buffeted” : “are buffeted” 


“overseer” : “ Bishop” (A. V.). 


. “that outward” : “the outward” 
. £ feed”’: “tend” 
. “exercising lordship” : “lording it” ; from margin. 


2 PETER. 


1. “Symeon”: “Simon” Exchange margin and text. 


. “being yours and abounding unto you” : pro. “ belonging 


unto you and abounding” : ad. “are yours and abound” 
“were”? ; “arose” 


. “into dungeons” : pro. “into the abyss” : ad. “to hell” 
. “oppressed ” : pro. “ wearied out” : ad. “sore distressed”’ 
. “dignities ’”’ ; add marg., “ Gr., glories’’ ; and so Jude 8. 


“ Beor” ; add marg. note of the reading Bosor, 


Vil. 


<7 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. “hastening” : pro. “ eagerly desiring’ : ad. “ earnestly de- 


siring ’”’ ; margin, “ Or, hastening” 


1 Joun. 


. “sin not”; “may not sin” 
. “perceive we”: “know we” ; and 50 vs. 5, 18, etc. 
. “sin a sin”: “sinning a sin” 


“of” : “concerning ἢ 


2 JouN. 


. goeth “before”: pro. “forward” : ad. “onward” 


3 JOHN. 


. “TI rejoice greatly, when brethren come and bear witness ” : 


“T rejoiced greatly, when brethren came and bare wit- 
ness ”’ 


. “support” : pro. “sustain’’ : ad. ‘* welcome”’ 


JUDE. 


. “sentence” : pro. “judgement”’ : ad. “ condemnation ” 
. “as an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment ”: “as 


an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire” 
Text and margin exchanged. 

“ dreamers also” : pro. “also, dreaming ”’ : ad. “ also in their 
dreamings ”’ 


. “shepherds to themselves’’ : “shepherds that feed them- 


selves ”’ 
REVELATION. 


. “of the witness”’ : “of the testimony” ; and ver. 9, vi. 9. 


“went” : pro. ‘went forth” : ad. “ proceeded” 


. “after them’’: “hereafter’’ ; and so iv. 1. 

. “faith and love” : “love and faith” 

. “perfect” : pro. “ perfected” : ad. “‘ fulfilled ”’ 

. “open”; “opened” 

. “sitteth” : “sat” ; and v. 7. 

. “out of every tribe’”’ : “men of every tribe” 

. “sat thereon” : ‘sat upon him” 

. “beneath the altar”: “ underneath the altar” 

. “all blessing” : pro. “the blessing” from margin : ad. 


blessing ”’ 
“unto our God”: “de 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” : 
“standing before the Lord of the earth” 


fl. SUGGESTIONS OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE PUT 
IN MARGIN. 


MatTTHEW. 
I. 1. ‘The book of the generation” : ‘ The genealogy ” 
11, 12,17. “carrying away” : “ removal” 
V. 35. “by” Jerusalem : add marg. “ Or, toward ” 
VI. 19. “break through” : Gr., “dig through” ; and xxiv. 48, 
ΥΙἼΠ. 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. 19,51. “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”’ 


18. 
16. 


21, 


20. 


...18, 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


“stranger” : “alien” 
“God forbid’”’ : Gr., “ Be it not so” 


JOHN. 


. 19, 20,21. “temple” : add marg. “ Or, sanctuary” ; and so 


in other places where ναός occurs, 
22. “marvel. For this cause hath Moses given” : “ mar: 
vel because of this. Moses hath given” 


. “Abraham was” : “was born” : ad. marg. “Gr., was 


born ” 


A “against it’? : add marg. “Or, upon it” 
. “that which” : Many ancient authorities read “ the 


things which ”’ 


. “hour” : add marg, “Or, hour ?” 
. “chief captain” : add marg. “ Or, military tribune ; Gr., 


chiliarch ’’ ; and so elsewhere. 


. “coat” : add marg. “ Or, tunic” 
. “Touch me ποὺ ᾽ἢ ; add marg. “ Or, Take not hold on me’”’ 


Acts. 


. “lawless men” : add marg. “ Or, men without the law” 
. “Servant” : add marg. “Or, Child,” ete. 

. “like — me”: “as he raised up me”; text in marg. 

. “young”: “ younger ”, 

. “fit”: “pleasing” : marg. “Gr., pleasing * 

. “deliverer’’ : “redeemer”’ : marg. “ Gr., redeemer” 

. “passions”? : “nature’’ ; and so James v. 17. 

. “the man”: “a man” 

. “persuaded” : pro. “exhorted” : with marg. “Or, strove 


to persuade” : ad. marg. “Gr., sought to persuade ” 


. “put up our baggage”’: “made ready ”’ ete. 

. “many’’: “some” 

. “amidst which” : add marg. “Or, in presenting which” 

. “temperance” : add marg. “Or, self-control” ; and so 


Gal. v. 23; 2 Pet. i. 6. 


RoMAns. 
“that they may be” : add marg. “Or, so that they are” 
“just” : add marg. “Or, righteous ”” 
“justified” ; add marg. “ Or, accounted righteous” 


LIST OF CHANGES. 605 


1 CoRINTHIANS. 


IX. 26. “fight”: Gr., “ box” 


. XV. 


XII. 


IV. 


Ill. 


2. “in vain” : add marg. “ Or, without cause” 


2 CoRINTHIANS. 


. 1%. “he is ἃ new creature” : add marg. “Or, there is a new 


creation ” 
1. Some ancient authorities read, ‘‘ Now to glory is not expe- 
dient, but I will come’’ 


GALATIANS. 


. 18. “visit” : “become acquainted with” 


EPHESIANS. 


4,5. add marg. “Or, him : having in love foreordained us” 
10. * in the heavens’’: Gr., “upon” etc. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


. 15. “lights”: Gr., “luminaries ”” 
IV. 


20. “for ever and ever” : Gr., “unto the ages of the ages” 


1 THESSALONIANS, 
14. add. marg. “ Or, will God through Jesus ”’ 


1 ΤΊΜΟΤΗΥ. 
16. “he who” : Some ancient authorities read “ which” 


PHILEMON. | 
5, “thy love, and of the faith” : “thy love and faith” 


HEBREWS. 
7,9. add marg. “ Or, for a little while lower” 
18. Or, “ For having been himself tempted in that wherein he 
hath suffered ” 


. 11, “of whom” : add marg. “Or, of which” 
. 11. “full assurance” : “‘ fulness” ; and so x. 22. 
. 15, 17. The Greek word here used signifies both covenant and 


testament, 


606 


XIII. 


III. 


. 26. 
. 24, 


17. 


. 20. 


LIST OF CHANGES. 


. “by the sacrifice of himself” : “ by his sacrifice” 

. “priest” : Some ancient authorities read, “high priest” 

. Or, “sins, for ever sat down ”’ 

. “my righteous one” : Some ancient authorities read, “ the 


righteous one” 


. “life” : Gr., “manner of life’’ 


J AMES. 


. “of God”: “from God” : ad. marg. “Gr., from” 


“are ye not divided in your own mind” : “do ye not make 
distinctions among yourselves ”’ 


. add to margin, “Or, animal” ; and Jude 19. 
. “it receive” : add marg. “Or, he receive” 


1 ῬΕΤΕΚ. 
Or, ‘God who liveth” 
“bare our sins ... upon the tree” : “carried up our 
sins . . . to the tree” : pro. “upon the tree” 


2 PETER. 


. “the divine nature”: “a divine nature” 


“excellent glory ” : ‘ majestic glory ” 
Many ancient authorities read, “ our Lord” 


1 JOHN. 


. Or, “it shall be manifested ” 


2 JouN. 


. Many ancient authorities read, “ye have wrought”’ 


JUDE. 


. add marg. “Or, the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ ” 
. “who are in doubt’: “ while they dispute with you” 


REVELATION. 


. Some ancient authorities read, ‘Come and see.’ So ver. 


8, δ, 7. 


. “death” ; add marg. “ Or, pestilence ” 


APPENDIX V. 


ADOPTION OF THE REVISION BY THE 
- BAPTISTS. 


A Frew 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 be 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 : 

“ἐς 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 now 
circulate the commonly received version, Zhe New Revised Version, 
with the corrections of the American Revisers incorporated in the text, 
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: Tuomas J. Moraan, Secretary.” 


‘ 


ADDENDA TO PAGE 80. 


Summary or Precutiar Worps or THE New ΤΈΒΤΑ- 
MENT AND 118 SEVERAL Writers, ACCORDING TO 


Dr. Toayer. (Gr. Engl. Lex. of the NV. T., 
Appendix, pp. 691-710.) 


Post-Aristotelian words (used after 322 B.C.) in the New Test., 318 
(16 doubtful). 
Borrowed words, which make their first appearance in the New Test.: 
From the Hebrew, 57. 
« Latin, 30. 
“ other foreign tongues (βαΐον and péda), 2. 


Biblical, i. 6. New Testament, Greek words, 767 (89 ὃ). 


Greek words peculiar to 
Matthew, 137 (2 from Sept., 21 ?). 
Mark, 102 (1 from Sept., 32 ?). 
Luke, 312 (11 from Sept., 52 ?). 
All three Synoptists, 78 (1 from Sept., 10 Ὁ). 
John (Gospel), 114 (12 ὃ). 
John (including Epistles), 133 (13 ?). 
Acts, 478 (15 from Sept., 49 ?). 
Luke and Acts, 61, total in both, 851. 
(a.) Paul (excluding Pastoral Epistles), 627 (21 from Sept., 34 ?). 
(b.) Pastoral Epistles of Paul, 168 (10 ὃ). 
(1 Tim. 82; 2 Tim. 53; Tit. 33.) 
(c.) Both to Pastoral and the other Pauline Epistles, 53 (6 Ὁ). 
Hebrews, 168 (11 from Sept., 10 ?). 
James, 73 (1 from Sept., 9 ?). 
Peter, 121. 
Jude, 20 (1 ?). : 
Apocalypse, 156 (7 from Sept., 33 ?). 
Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 9 (1 ὃ). 


aay Ἢ TARE want itt te, pining δ 
2 ee 5 a tee AE TA lk ED hha ni 
(ἢ ΝΜ ΩΣ sate ail ets ai Jong pangs fe ! 


. 


ἐν ἐμ a cig pe Vi riy 


“-: 


ake I ἘΠῚ ἵ at ΔΤ Lae Keedbnedg να -yaih 


+ as ἐδ Foals. ie t eh aah hanes na iados., (δ ae ne 
ἀξ νὰ ἀγα ον ou ti “any ΩΝ (εν esate) δὴ i 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


A. 

Abbot, Dr. Ezra, 84, 101 sq., 105n., 
138, 178 sq., 191 n., 195, 198, 
241 n., 252, 260, 366, 576. 

Abbott, T. K., 102, 136. 

Adler, 252. 

ABthiopic Version, 159 sq. 

Aiken, Dr., 575. 

Aleph, 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, 8171. 

American Episcopal Church, en- 
dorsed King James’s Version, 
833; invited to co-operate with 
Revision, 394. 

Anderson, Christopher, 299. 

Andrewes, Bishop, 320, 332. 


Angus, Dr., 884, 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, 325; 
merits, 337; English style, 345; 
defects, 847. 


Bagster’s Hexapla, 299. 

Bancroft, Bishop, 313 sq., 317, 319, 

Barker, printer of Authorized Ver. 
sion, 319, 329. 

Bashmuric Version, 159. 

Batiffol, Pierre, 133. 

Beckett, Sir Edmund, 378, 474. 

Bengel, 246 sq., 263. 

Bensly, Robert L., 572. 

Bentley, Richard, 244 sqq. 

Beza, 237 sqq. 

Beze, Codex (D), 122 sq. 

Bible and Christianity, 305. 

Bibliographical Works on the 
English Bible, 800. 

Bickersteth, Dr. Εἰ. H., 383, 5'73. 

Birch, 252. 

Birrell, Prof., 572. 


612 


Blackie, on the Greek article, 470, 
472. 

Blakesley, Dean, 573. 

Blayney’s Revision, 325. 

British Committee, organization 
and rules of, 382 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, 108, 119 sq., 
191, 298 sq., 378, 425, 491. 

Burr, Dr., 576. 

Buttmann, Alexander, 2. 


C. 
Cambridge Paragraph Bible, 304. 
Canterbury Convocation, action 
of, 380 sqq. 
Chambers, Dr.; 575. 
Chance, Frank, 572. 
Chase, Prof., 576. 
Chenery, Thomas, 384, 572. 
Cheyne, Thomas Kelly, 572. 
Christ and the Greek Language, 
12 sqq. 


Christian Element in New Testa-. 


ment Greek, 39 sqq. 

Christian Opinion and Revision- 
ist, 379. 

Chrysostom, 165, 168. 


Codex Alexandrinus (A), 111,, 


Bezae (D), 122; Claromonta- 


nus (D,), 124; Ephremi (Ὁ), 
120; Sinaiticus (&), 103; Vati- | 
canus (B), 118, See Manuscripts. | 


Coins, rendering of, 487 sqq. 
Colinzeus, 236. 


Complutensian Polyglot, 282 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. 


INDEX. 


Cook, Canon, 191, 3656, 378, 384, 
419, 425 sqq., 491. 

Coverdale, 303, 338, 339. 

Cremer’s Lexicon, 2. 

Critical Rules, 202 sqq. 

Crooks, Dr., 576. 

Crosby, Dr.,; 348, 576. 

Curetonian Syriac; 156: 

Cursive Manuscripts, 133 sqq. 


D. 
Davies, Benjamin, 366, 384, 572. 
Davidson, Andrew Bruce, 572. 
‘Davidson, Randall T., 882. 
Davidson, Samuel, 83, 366, 384. 
Day, Dr., 398, 5'75. 
Delitzsch, 4, 13. 
De Witt, Dr., 575. 
Diodati, 3. 
Douglas, Principal, 572. 
Doxology of the Lord’s: Prayer, 
' 186. 
Driver, Samuel R., 572. 
Dwight, Dr. Timothy, 483, 576. 


E. 

Eadie, Dr., 300, 324, 325, 829, 346, 
384, 574: 

Egyptian Versions, 157 sqq. 

Ellicott, Bishop, 85, 297, 874, 3'76, 
388, 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: 

Ephreemi, Codex, 120 sq. 

Erasmus, 229 sqq. 

Eusebius, 165, 168. 

Evidential Value of’ the Language 
of the Greek Testament, 80. 

Ewald, 297, 312: 


ἘΣ 


Faber, F. William, on the Autho 
ized Version, 846. ι 


INDEX. 


Fairbairn, Dr., 384; 572. 
Farrar, Canon, 65, 85. 
Field, Dr., 375, 384, 572. 

Five Anglican Clergymen, 367. 
Foreign Words in New Testament, 
number and value of, 38 sq. 

Forshall, 302. 
Fry, 301, 302, 303. 
Fuller, Thomas, 315,316, 328, 330. 


G. 
Gardiner, F., 84. 
Gebhardt, Oscar von, 1, 84, 2:35. 
Geden, Prof., 572. 
Gell, Robert, 327. 
Genealogical Method, 208 sqq. 
Geneva Bible, 328, 332. 
Ginsburg, Dr., 384, 572. 


“God” manifested in the flesh, | 


199. 

Godet, Dr., 68. 

Goethe, 45, 312. , 

Gospel, meaning of, 40. 

Gotch, Dr., 366, 384, 572. 

Gothic Version, 160 sqq. 

Greek and English compared, 
17 sqq. 

Greek Fathers, quotations of, 
167 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, 398, 
480, 575. 

Green, Samuel G., 2. 

Green, Thomas Sheldon, 2, 84. 

Gregory, Dr. C. R., 44, 82, 260, 

Griesbach, 82, 250 sqq. 

Grimm, C. L. W., 2. 

Grimm, Jacob, 18. 

Guillemard, 4. 


Hackett, Dr., 576. 
Hadley, Prof., 4, 576. 
Hall, Dr. I. H., 189 sqq., 497-524. 


613 


Hallam, on the Authorized Ver- 
sion, 345. 

Hammond, 84. 

Hampton Court Conf., 312 sqq. 

Hare, Dr., 575. 

Harris, J. Rendel, 136, 138. 

Harrison, Archdeacon, 571. 

Hebraisms in the New Testament, 
27 sqq. 

Hellenistic Dialect, 22 sq. 

Hervey, Bishop, 383, 571. 

Hitchcock, Dr., Editor of Revised 
Version, 372. 

Hobart, on the Medical Language 
of Luke, 54. 

Hodge, Dr. Charles, 576. 


‘Holtzmann, 44. 


‘Hort, 120, 128, 185, 194, 268, 
280, 384, 574. See Westcott 
and Hort. ἢ 
Hudson’s Concordance, 3. 
Hug, 3, 11, 251, 253. 
Humphry, 377, 384, 491, 574. 


1. 
Itala, 144 sqq. 


J. 

James, King, 312 sqq. 

James’s Version. See Authorized 
Version. 

Jebb, Canon, 572. 

Jerome, 1, 148 sq., 170 and passim, 

Jerusalem Chamber, 388 sq. 

Jerusalem Syriac, 157, 

Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judzorum, 
4 sqq. 

Jews and the Greek Language, 
8 sqq. 

John, style of, 66 sqq. 

Josephus, 11. 


Κ. 
Kay, Dr., 578. 
Keim, 67. 
Kendrick, Dr., 577. 
Kennedy, Dr., 870, 384, 574. 


614 


Krauth, Dr., 575. 
Kuenen, 83. 
Kiister, 244. 

L. 


Lachmann, 1, 82, 254 sqq. 
Lange’s Commentary, 365 (note). 
Latin Fathers, quotations of, 169 


sq. 

Latinisms, 35 sqq. 

Latin Versions, 144 sqq. 

Law and the law, 472. 

Leary, 378. 

Leathes, 384, 572. 

Lee, Archdeacon, 384, 574. 

Lee, Bishop,376,479,577,579-606. 

Leo Juda, 323. 

Lewis, Dr. Tayler, 575. 

Lightfoot, Bishop, 331, 375, 384, 
481, 573, 

Lightfoot, John, 326. 

Lincoln, Bishop of. See Words- 

worth. 

Loftie, 301. 

London Times, 367. 

Luke, style of, 54 sqq. 

Lumby, Dr., 572. 

Liinemann, 1. 

Luther, 323. 


M. 
Macedonian Dialect, 19 sqq. 
McClellan, John Brown, 366. 
McGill, Prof., 5'72. 
Madden, 302. 
Malan, S. C., 379. 
Manuscripts, Uncial, 82 sqq.; 
specimens of, 91 sq.; descrip- 
tion of, 98 sqq.; Cursive, 133 


sqq. 

Mark, style of, 51 sqq.; last 
verses of, 189 sq. 

Marsh, Dr. G. P., 345. 

Martin, Abbé, xiii, 84,102, 108,138. 

Matthei, 252. 

Matthew, style of, 46 sqq. 

Matthew’s Bible, 308. 


INDEX. 


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, 5738. 

Moldenhawer, 252. 

Mombert, Dr., 300. 

Montfortianus, Codex, 136. 

Moon, G. Washington, 378. 

Moulton, Dr. W. F., 1, 300, 339, 
384, 470, 574. 


N. 
Nautical Vocabulary of Luke, 60 


sq. 

Neutral Text, 275 sqq. 
Newman, Cardinal, 384. 
Newth, Dr., 375, 384, 574. 
Nicholson, Edward Byron, 376. 
Nicolson, W. Millar, 375. 
Norton, Andrews, 366. 

Noyes, G. R., 366. 


0. 
O'Callaghan, 301, 329 (note). 
Ollivant, 383, 571. 
Origen, 164, 165, 168 and passim, 
Osborne, 377. 
Osgood, Dr., 575. 
Overall, 320. 
Oxford and Cambridge University 
Editions of Revised New Testa- 
ment, 371. 


i F, 

Packard, Dr., 575. 

Palmer, ‘Archdeacon, 85, 285, 297, 
376, B74. 

Papias, 51. 

Patristic Quotations, 164 sqq. 


INDEX. 


Paul, style of, 62 sqq. 

Peculiarities of style of New Tes- 
tament writers, 43 sqq. 

Penny, 487 sqq. 

Peshito Version, 152 sqq. 

Perowne, 384, 571. 

Pfannkuche, 3. 

Philoxenian or Harclean Version: 
154. 

Plumptre, 384, 571. 

Porter, J. Scott, 83. 

Pressensé, 66. 

Public Opinion, 379. 

Pusey, 384. 

Printed Text of the Greek Testa- 
ment, history of, 225 sqq. 


R. 

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. 


8. 

Saint, in the titles, 484. 
Samson, 379. 
Sanday, 85. 
Saravia, 320. 
Sayce, Prof., 572. 
Schaff, Dr., 375, 393, 577. 
Schirlitz, 2. 
Scholz, 82, 253 sq. 
Scott, Dean, 384, 573, 

1 


615 


Scrivener, Dr., 83, 96, 104, 120, 
192, 282 sqq., 304, 321, 324, 
325, 884, 390, 419, 423, 574. 

Scrivener and Palmer, 282 sqq. 

Selden, John, on the Authorized 
Version, 322. 

Selwyn, W., 369, 572. 

Semler, 249. 

Selborne, Lord, 337; letter on 
Authorized Version, 336. 

Septuagint, 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, 
571. 

Smith, W. Robertson, Prof., 573. 

Stanley, Dean, 388, 389, 573. 

Stephanus (Stephens), 236 sq. 

Stoughton, John, 300, 347. 

Stowe, Dr., 576. 

Strong, Dr., 576. 

Stunica, 233. 

Syriac Versions, 152 sqq. 

Syrian and Antiochian Text, 271 
sqq. 


7. 

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. 

Thirlwall, Bishop, 382, 571. 

Thoms, Concordance of the Re- 
vised Version, 373 sq. 

Thorpe, 301. 

Tischendorf, 1, 82, 84, 103 sqq., 
108 sqq., 257 sqq., 265. 


616 


Tregelles, 1, 82, 88, 122, 256, 262 
sqq., 265, 574. 

Trench, Archbishop, 39, 42, 327, 
345, 874 sq., 573. 

Troutbeck, Canon, 574. 

Tyler, W. S., 470, 472, 492. 

Tyndale, 290, 802, 308, 338. 


U. 

Ulphilas, 160. 

Uncial MSS., 98 sqq.; list of, 
139 sq.; primary, 102; second- 
ary, 124. 

University Presses, agreement 
with, 398. 


Wi 

Van Dyck, Dr., 576. 

Variations, Classes of, 188 sqq. ; 
origin of, 173 sqq. ; in the R. V., 
473 sqq. 

Vatican MS., 118 sqq., 425 sqq. 

Vaughan, Dr., 376, 384, 574. 

Vercellone, 117, 151. 

Versions, value of, 142 sqq.; 
Aithiopic, 159 sqq. ; Armenian, 
163; Gothic, 160 sqq.; Latin, 
144 sqq.; Old Egyptian or 
Coptic, 157 sqq.; Syriac, 152 566. 

Vulgate, Latin, 148 sqq. 


W. 
Walton’s Polyglot, 241 sqq. 
Warfield, Benjamin B., 84, 85, 208 
_ $qq., 280. 
Warren, Dr. W. F., 577. 
Washburn, Dr., 577. 
Wayland, 311. 


INDEX. 


Weir, Prof., 573. 

Weiss, Bernhard, on the style of 
John, 68. 

Wendell, Rufus, 372. 

Wetstein, 82, 247 sqq. 
Westcott, 4, 44, 71, 84, 291, 384, 
574. See Westcott and Hort. 
Westcott and Hort, 1, 83, 118, 268 
sqq., 279 sq. 

Western Text, 274 sqq. 

Wiclif, 289. 

Wigram, 3. 

Wilberforce, 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. 


Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, 
310, 884, 475, 476, 571. 

Wordsworth, Bishop of St. An- 
drews, 384, 573. 

Wordsworth, Prof. John, 147. 

Wright, William, Prof., 573. 

Wright, W. Aldis, 384, 573. 

Woman Taken in Adultery, sec- 
tion of, 188 sq. 


X. 
Ximenes, Cardinal, 232. 


Υ. 
Young, Robert, 378. 


Z 


Zahn, Prof., 102, 278. 
Zezschwitz, G. von, 4. 


SCRIPTURE PASSAGES EXPLAINED. 


Matt. i. 18, 
“ Η 


PAGE 

434 
i. 20, 435 
1,22, 357, 435 
i. 23, 435 
i, 25, 428 
ii, 2, 355, 435 
ii. 4, 351 


ii-5, 17,23, 357 


ii. 6, 435 
11. 48 
ii, 10,17, 486 
ii. 18, 428 
iii. 8, 357, 486 
iii. 4, 436 
iii. 6, 436 
iii. 7, 436 
iii. 11, 436 
iii, 12, 4347 
iii. 13, 437 
iii. 15, 437 
iii. 17, 437 
iv. 14, 357 
iv. 21,22, 437 
v. 10, 355. 
v. 18, 342 
v. 15, 437 
v. 21, 438 
v. 35, 467 
v. 44, 428 
vi. 2, 5, 438 
vi. 9-13, 488 
vi. 12, 473 
vi. 13,184 sq.,464 
vi. 25, 442 
vi. 26, 474 
vii. 6, 471 


Matt. 
{ 


“ 


Mark 
ς 


( 


PAGE 
viii. 20, 471 
ὁ aa be 8 241 
x. 4, 432 
xi. 23, 442 
xiii. 37-39, 468 
xiv. 8, 442 
xv. 24, 355 
xv. 27, 442 
xvi. 13, 442 
xvi. 15, 342 
xvi. 26, 442 
xix. 17, 431 
xx. 16, 428 
xxi. 41, 47, 443 


xxii. 1-14, 363 
xxii. 37, 
xxiii. 24, 448 
xxv. 8, 355,443 
xxv.46, 361, 443 


xxvi.28, 448 
xxvi. 73, 13 
xxvii. 8, 364 
xxvii. 46, 14 


xxviii. 19, 357, 


432 
i.2, 202, 432 
iii. 17, 13 
iii. 18, 431 
iii, 29, 432 
v. 41, 14 
vii. 34, 14 
viii. 27,29, 342 
ix. 50, 849 
x. 51, 13 
xiv. 70, 13 


49. 


Mark xv. 34, 


“ 


Luke i. 6, 59, 


“ 


PAGE 
14 

xvi. 9-20, 
189 sq., 481 
356 
i, 28, 430 
ii. 2, 444 
ii. 14, 195 sq., 
357, 432 
ii. 49, 444 
iii. 23, 444 
vii. 2, 444 
vii. 5, 356 
Vili. 23, 356 
xiv. 34, 342 
xvi. 8, 357 
xviii. 3,13, 356 
xx. 16, 342 
xxii. 59, 13 
xxiii. 6, 13 
xxiii. 15, 444 
xxiii. 38, 428 
xxiii.42, 357 
i. 16, 856 
1.18, 193 sqq., 
432 
iii. 33,34, 356 
iv. 9, 13 
v. 3,4, 187 sq., 
430 
v. 35, 444 
v. 39, 444 
vi. 17, 356 
vi. 57, 357 
vi. 65, 355 


618 


John 
“ 


({ 


SCRIPTURE PASSAGES EXPLAINED. 


PAGE 
vii. 49, 842 
vii. 52, 13 
vii. 53-viii. 11, 
188 sq., 431 
viii. 52, 856 
viii. 58, 445 
x. 16, 445 
xiii. 2, 446 


xiv. 16, 26, 362, 


446 

ει ποθ, 362 
«| ae 362 
“xvii. 24, 467 
+ 001 351 
Acts ii. 3, 446 
ae 446 
eS i ae ee 446 
“ iii, 19, 20, 447 
* Tames 447 
«iv. 27, 433 
“ viii,10, 4388 
“ viii. 37, 191 sq., 
431 

“ ix,5,6, 4928 
© αλλ ἐς 862 
“xvi. 14, 15 
we ee 433 
“xvii, 22, 447 
mee ὧν Ὁ 488 
“xx. 28, 197, 361, 
447 

“ xxvi.28, 341 
Rom. i. 1, 8, 351 
«ἢ 12, 356 


iii. 4, 6, 81, 342 


iii, 23, 356 
iii, 25, 449 
v.1, 197,433 
v.11, 362 
v. 12, 449 
v. 15-18, 449, 

450 
yi, 2,7, 8, 855, 

451 


Rom. 
“ 


Ὄ OF THE 


PAGE 
vi. 2,15, 342 
vill, 357 
vi. 17, 451 
vii. 6, 356 
vii. 7, 18, 342 


viii. 1,2, 357, 


429 
1:3, 357 
ix. 1,11, 342 
xi2, 357 
xi.15, 862 


xii. 2, 341,451 


xiii. 2, 451 
xiv. 14, 357 
xv.17, 357 
iv. 4, 452 
iv. 8, 842 
vi.15, 842 
᾿ vii. 5, 357 
xi24, 429 
xi.29, 452 
xii.3,9, 13,357 
xii. 13, 80 


xii. 8-10, 468 
xiii, 1-18, 452 


iv. 3, 355, 452 
v. 14, 356 
v. 18, 19, 362 
v. 20, 858 
Lik 351 
i, 13,23, 356 
ii. 17, 342 
ii. 19, δῦ 
1.20, 3565, 

358, 453 
iv. 13,357,453 
vi.ll, 468 
i. 1, 361 
ii. 6,7, 408 
ii. 10, 454 
iii. 20, 454 
iii, 21, 454 


δ ὃ δὶ ὅ ἃ ἃ 2 Gah ae ὦ eee “ὦ 


Col. 
“ 
« 


1 Thess. 
(4 


1 Tim. 


PAGE 

i. 6, 433 
ii.20, 355 
iii. 1,3, 355 
iv. 1, 488 
ἵν. 15, 467 
iii. 16, 199, 
298, 433 

v. 4, 454 
vi. 5, 454 
vi. 10, 352,454 
. 11. 16,355,454 
ix.27, 454 
xi. 18, 454 
xi.19, 467 
xii. 13, 467 
iv.12, 484 
ii. 2, 434 
ii.12, 857 
iii. 16, 3857 
iii. 21, 454 
i.5-7, 357 
7, 467 
ii. 1, 362 
ii. 23, 433 
iii. 1, 434 
v.7,8, 192 .sq., 
429 

25, 434 


i. 8, 480, 484 


ΘΠ τὶ 480 
iii, 2, 434 
v. 8, 474 
vi. 6-9, 455 
viii. 7, 484 
xii. 2, - 355 
xiv.1, 484 
xvii. 8, 202,433 
xx.14, 484 


The New Testament in the Original Greek. 


The New Testament in the Original Greek. The Text Re. 
vised by Brooke Foss Wesstrcort, D,D., Regius Professor 
of Divinity, Canon of Peterborough; and F. J. A. Hort, 
D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. American Edition. With an Introduc- 
tion by Purire Scuarr, D.D., LL.D. Two Volumes. Vol. 
I. Text. Vol. 11. Introduction and Appendix. Post 8vo, 
Cloth, $2 00 each. 


It is the result of the best scholarship of a day which has reached a meas- 
ure of exact knowledge of the Greek, and of the New Testament dialect 
and times, never reached before. * * * Every preacher of the Gospel owes it 
to his Master, even much more than to himself, to master this latest contri- 
bution to an exact and thoronghly defensible knowledge of what the Word 
of God actually teaches.—Congregationalist, Boston. 

A text over whose formation learning and impartial candor have pre- 
sided, and to which the Biblical student may give implicit trust.—Church- 
man, N. Y. 

We say to all ministers and students who wish to search the New Testa- 
ment oracles of God in their original language, get Westcott and Hort.— 
Christian Advocate, N. Y. 

We regard this edition of the Greek Testament as superseding all others 
hitherto published.—Episcopal Register, Philadelphia. 

The best and finest text of the Greek Testament. * * * Dr. Schaff’s intro- 
. duction condenses into seventy or eighty pages, with astonishing clearness, 
all the latest results of Biblical investigation and criticism.—N. Y. World. 

A trustworthy edition of the Greek Testament, which could be accepted 
by ministers generally as practically final, has been a great desideratum, 
and this need seems to us to be well supplied by the edition before us. 
*** The present is by far the purest and best edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment in existence.—Christian Union, N. Y. 

Should be in the hands of all who criticise the present English transla- 
tion of the New Testament.—Christian Observer, Louisville. 


Revised Greek-English New Testament. 


Revised Greek-English New Testament. Being Westcott & 
Hort’s ReviseD Text OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE 
ORIGINAL GREEK, and the REvisED ENGLISH VERSION OF 
THE NEw TESTAMENT, printed on opposite pages. Crown 
8vo, Half Leather, $3 50. 


PUBLISHED BY HARPER ἃ BROTHERS, New York. 


war Sent by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on 
receipt of the price. 


THE REVISED VERSION 


THE NEW TESTAMENT 


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. 


HARPER’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. 
Υ. Pica, 8vo, Divinity Circuit, Full Morocco, Flexible, with 
Flaps, $9 00, 
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. 
Parurp ScuaFrF, D.D., LL.D. 618 pages, Crown 8vo, Cloth, 
$3 00. i 

This work embraces in one volume: 


1. ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTA- 
' MENT. By J.B. Lieutroor, 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 Rionarp Cuenevix Trenou, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. 

3. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE REVISION OF THE ENGLISH 
VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By J.C. Exxiocort, D.D. 


PUBLISHED BY HARPER ἃ BROTHERS, New York. 


Ba Sent by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on 
receipt of the price. 


THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM. 


Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesie Universalis. The Creeds of 
Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes. By the 
Rev. Pamir Scuarr, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblical 
Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y. Three 
Volumes. Vol. I. The History of Creeds. Vol. Il. 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. Cuar.ies Hover, 
D.D., LL.D., Princeton, N. 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. 
Swanson, 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. Gror@s F. Srymoor, D.D., 
Bishop of Springfield. 

No work has appeared for years of more importance than this. It i 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 ia making this collection. Here, at last, are gathered the mate 
rials for a true comparative theology.—Christian Advocate, N. Y 


The Creeds of Christendom. 


After a careful reading of these volumes, we have come to the conclusion 
that no work of greater interest and importance for the study of theology 
has issued from the press in our generation. Dr. Schaff has, by his thor- 
ough, careful, and discriminating ‘‘ History of the Creeds of Christendom,” 
filled a blank in our theological literature, and conferred a priceless boon 
on all students of theology.—Daily Review, Edinburgh. 

A better apparatus for studying the ‘‘ symbols” of Christendom no reader 
can desire. * * * Never was there so complete a collection. The work is 
unique, and everything has been done by skilful arrangement, by schol- 
arship, by notes and indexes, to make it available and helpful both for 
scholars and for ordinary readers.—British and Foreign Quarterly Review 
London. 

We cordially commend the compiler’s workmanship. His notices of the 
times and authors of the creeds, as well as of the circumstances in which they 
originated, are accurate and good. * * * The work before us fills a blank 
in ecclesiastical literature.—A theneum, London. 

This is the most elaborate and complete work of its kind in the En- 
glish language, and as such deserves careful attention at the hands of all 
who call themselves Christians. * * * Dr. Schaff has given not only the full- 
est and most complete account of the various confessions of faith, but also 
one of the most reliable as well as the most readable. * * * His tone is 
manly, and his words of praise are freely and happily expressed.—Church- 
man, N. Y. 

The first volume is really a doctrinal history of the Church, so far as doc- 
trine has taken shape in dogma, and will be found not only extremely help- 
ful in regard to past centuries, but especially valuable for the minuteness 
and exactness of its later chapters. We should not know where else to go 
to find many of the details, for example, which are given here with regard 
to the Old Catholic and Reformed Episcopal movements, and those later 
Romanist developments connected with the Vatican Council of 1870. It is 
an important feature of this work that it is so full and so late in its details 
in these respects—extending even to the pointing out of articles in magazines 
and reviews, shedding light upon questions at issue.—Dr. Dexter, in The 
Congregationalist, Boston. 

The book is a most complete work of reference to a vast and various lit- 
erature. We know not whether to admire most the great erudition and 
wide theological learning, the sound judgment, or the faculty of compressed 
exposition which has reduced that heap of material into an orderly whole. 
Nothing of importance is left out, the narrative flows on clear and lucid, 
moving with swift precision to its destined end.—Scotsman, Edinburgh. 


PUBLISHED BY HARPER ἃ BROTHERS, NEw York. 


ΕΞ Sent by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on 
receipt of the price. 


THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 


AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 


WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN | 
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 

DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
OVERDUE. 


= 
= 
: 


I 9Apr62T 


REC’D LD 


LD 21-100m-7,'33 


YB 30051 
"GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 


Nan 


BOO083bb70 © 


. 
o* 
- 

ye 
- , * 
4 ty + ΟἹ ¥ Sy 

Fire if a ΤΙΣ 

»( ἐν 


Νς 
τ 
ΔᾺΝ 
ΝΝ 
ἣν 
Ν ὙΝΝ 
δ ἊΝ 
es 
. 
be 
a 
ΝᾺ 
Υ 
τὰ 
ie 
Yi 
5 
δι: 


SAA ApAARMMAMM AAA A AALS “ἴω, iA Ζ 
CLM MAV EER CAI EN ao LO ΡΣ ee 
Z 


LILIES 


LIP AL APA I SAP AB