\\\\\\\Vv\VSS\\\>^\\NS\N\\\\\N\V\\\^^^
UC-NRLF
v^vw^^woccw^^^\w^^^^
BERKf LEY
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA .
. rmttzif^.
f TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTm T I T I I 1 TTTTTTTTTTq
^. JVugvt^tu^ @re^i:sc.
?TTTITTTT11I1TTTTIII1TTTTTTTTYTTTTTTTTT>I
COMPANION
TO THE
jKefaisieii Wtvmn ot^tdSnQli^f) ^eU) ^Testament.
COMPANION
TO THE
3Rebi£(eti Wtv^ion of m iBnsliii) ^t\ij Cesftamtnt*
BY
ALEX. ROBERTS, D.D.,
NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY.
Cassell, Fetter, Galpin & Co.:
LONDON, PARIS <Cr NEW YORK
(all rights reserved.]
Ad
CONTENTS. l?FO
PART I.
CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TEXT.
CHAP. PAGE
I, Various Readings in the New Testament i
II. Sources of Various Readings in the New Testament i^
III, History and Character of the Greek Text on which tlie
Authorised Version was founded 34
IV. Examples of Minor Changes caused by a Change of
Text 46
V, More Important Changes due to a Change of Text...... 6©
PART II.
CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TRANSLATION.
1. Correction of Mistakes in the Meaning of Greek Words 75
II. Correction of Mistakes in Greek Grammar 89
III. Correction of Archaisms, Ambiguities, and the Rendering
of Proper Names and Technical Expressions 105
IV. Correction of the Unnecessary Confounding of one
Greek Word with another in Translation 118
V. Correction of Needless Variations in the Translation of
the same Greek words 135
JNDE3( OF Te^TS ,.,,.. 155
391
Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
littp://www.arcliive.org/details/companiontorevisOOrobericli
PREFACE.
♦
The object of this little work is to explain to the
English reader the general grounds of those many
departures from the Authorised Version which he
will find in the Revised translation. Not one of
these alterations has been made without what ap^
peared to a majority of the Revisers an adequate
reason. They are all to be traced to one or other
of two causes— either to a change of the Greek
text which it was found necessary to adopt, or to a
change of translation which stricter fidelity to the
original seemed to require. Under these two heads,
all necessary explanations (so far as space permitted),
will be found in the following pages.
For the sake of those who are acquainted with the
original, the Greek words referred to have been some-
times given at the bottom of the page, but the text
will be perfectly intelligible without these to the Eng-
lish reader.
It is scarcely needful to add that for what is here
written the author alone is responsible.
♦SA Andretps.
PART I.
CHANGES ARISING FROM AN
AMENDED TEXT.
COMPANION
TO THE
CHAPTER I.
VARIOUS READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The number of various readings in the New Testa-
ment has been differently estimated at different times.
Nor could this have been otherwise. Every new
manuscript which is discovered increases the amount,
and every more accurate examination of already
known manuscripts tends to the same result. Hence,
while the varieties of reading in the New Testament
were reckoned at about 30,000 in the last century,
they are generally referred to as amounting to no less
than 150,000 at the present day.
This is a statement which is apt at first to be
felt alarming by those unacquainted with the science of
Biblical criticism. They are naturally disposed to
ask — ^\Vhen so many differences of reading exist,
must not the sacred text be very uncertain? But,
B
2 Companion to the Revised Version of
happily, this is a question which can be very easily
and satisfactorily answered.
For, in the first place, the vast majority of the
various readings are of no practical importance.
Multitudes of them are mere errors in spelling into
which the writer has fallen, either from his ear having
deceived him if he wrote from dictation, or his eye
having mistaken one letter for another in the manu-
script which lay before him. Others consist of the
substitution of one synonymous word for another, or
of a mere change of order without any appreciable
distinction of sense. As in English the meaning
is the same, whether we say, '' He went forth," or
*' He went out," '* Let us go on," or ** Let us proceed,"
" The enemy escaped," or " The enemy made their
escape," so is it very frequently in the Greek. And,
just as it makes no difference in our language,
whether we say *^ Paul the Apostle," or " The Apostle
Paul," "The poet Milton," or " Milton the poet,'' so
too is it with a large number of those variations which
occur in the text of the New Testament.
; But, in the second place, so far from the immense
variety of readings which have been collected giving
rise to uncertainty, the very fact that we possess these
constitutes our best hope of being able to approach
to certainty with respect to the original text. This
may appear a paradoxical statement, but it admits of
The English Nao Testament. 3
easy demonstration. For, let us refer to any of those
ancient writings, in the printed text of which there
exist no various readings. Are such texts trustworthy
and pure ? Nay, the very opposite is the case ; they
are all hopelessly corrupt, and the reason is evident
There are no varieties of reading, simply because
these works have come down to us in a single
manuscript only. That manuscript is the sole
authority to which appeal can be made as to their text.
And, of course, if every printed edition is taken from
that, without conjecture venturing to make any
changes, all the. copies will be exactly alike. But
nothing could be more calamitous to an ancient
author than such a circumstance. His work having
been transcribed so often, in the course of many
centuries, has, of necessity, become disfigured with
numerous errors. And, as it survives in only one
manuscript, there is no possibility of comparison,
and no means of correction, except by the arbitrary
process of conjecture, which will always vary with
different minds. The consequence is, that all sorts
of guesses are made by editors as to the true text
of these unfortunate writings. While there are, for
the reason stated, no various readings, there is the
utmost variety of conjectures. Every one feels
that the existing text is in multitudes of passages
corrupt, and from want of documentary evidence has
B 2
4 Companion to the Revised Version of
no resource but to proceed to correct it just as his
caprice or judgment may suggest.
How different does the case stand in regard to the
New Testament ! No miracle has been wrought to
preserve its text as it came from the pens of the
inspired writers. That would have been a thing
altogether out of harmony with God*s method of
governing the world. The manuscripts containing
a record of the divine will have been left, like others,
to suffer from those causes of error which will
presently be mentioned. But a gracious providence
has, nevertheless, been exerted in connection with
the text of the New Testament. It has been so
ordered that vastly more copies of the sacred volume
have come down to us in manuscript than of any
other ancient writing. We learn from the best
authorities on the subject that no fewer than 1,760
manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in
parts, are known to scholars in our day,"^ The most
important of these will be afterwards described. But
it is enough at present simply to note the existence
of such a wealth of material, in order to feel how
abundant is the means with which it has pleased God
to furnish us for ascertaining, through careful exami-
nation and comparison, the true text of the New
Testament.
* Scrivener's Introduction^ 2nd ed., p. 269.
The English New Testament, 5
We may now proceed to a consideration of the
causes which have given rise to the vast variety of
readings that has been mentioned. These causes
may perhaps all be embraced under one or other of
the following heads.
First, there are those differences of reading which
have s^xwYig fro?n pure mistake.
As universal experience has proved, nothing is
more difficult than to get any large amount of mere
copying work done with absolute correctness. The
transcriber may be careless or incompetent, and then,
of course, his work will be badly done. No doubt
this has given rise to not a few of the mistakes which
appear in manuscripts of the New Testament. Some
of the copyists knew very little of what they were
doing, while others disliked the drudgery; and so,
from ignorance or weariness, they fell into error. But
even the most skilful and patient of them might easily
go astray in the work of transcription. One word
might be mistaken for another. This is often found
even in printed books at the present day. It is need-
less to quote examples, as all are familiar with them.*
But much more liable to this kind of error were
* A long list of mistakes which have occurred in the printing of
some editions of the Scriptures is given by Dr. Eadie — The English
Bible, II. 318. Among them are such as these — ''enticed in every-
thing," for ''enriched in everything" ''leadeth them not," for
" leadeth them out ; " " eject," for " elect," &c.
6 Compa7iion to the Revised Version of
transcribers than printers. We find, accordingly,
numerous examples of various readings due to such
mistakes. It is, for instance, owing to this that we
read in the Authorised English Version, at i Tim.
i. 4, these words, " rather than godly edifying which is
in faith," instead of "rather than a dispensation of
God which is in faith," as in the Revised Version.
There is in Greek only the difference of a single letter
between the word meaning " edification," and the
word meaning " dispensation,"* so that copyists
readily mistook the one for the other. Sometimes a
mistake of this kind has taken place without any
effect upon the sense, as at Mark v. 14, where the
change made in the Greek textf has led to no change
in the Revised Version.
Again, transcribers were frequently betrayed into
error by those words of like ending which occurred in
the manuscripts. An illustration in English may be
found at Matt. v. 8, 9. Both these verses end with
the word " God," and it is easy to imagine that the
eye of a copyist might light on that word at the end
of verse 9 instead of verse 8, and thus, after tran-
scribing the one verse, be led to omit the next
following. This has been a very fruitful cause of
omission in even the best Greek manuscripts. Thus,
♦ The two Greek words are olKoSofilav and oiKoyofiiav,
f av-fiyyeav is now read instead o^ ai^'ffYy€t\av.
The English New Testament 7
in perhaps the very oldest copy of the New Testa-
ment which we possess — Codex B, to be afterwards
described — we find that the whole of the verse, Matt,
xii. 47, has been left out. And the reason is quite
obvious. Both verse 46 and verse 47 end with the
same Greek word.* The copyist looking up at his
exemplar, after having written verse 46, had his eye
attracted by the word at the end of verse 47, and,
fancying that he had just transcribed that verse, was
led to pass it over altogether. There can be no
question that this is the reason why the second clause
in I John ii. 23, is omitted in several manuscripts, so
as to stand marked in the Authorised Version of
doubtful authority. The three last words of both the
first and second clauses are exactly the same in
Greek ; and hence the second clause had been over-
looked by some transcribers. There is now no
hesitation among Biblical scholars as to the genuine-
ness of the clause; and it consequently stands
unchallenged — a weighty doctrinal utterance — in the
Revised Version.
Further, mere glosses, doxologies, or liturgical
formularies, written on the margin of manuscripts,
were sometimes inadvertently introduced by tran-
scribers into the text. Thus, an unwarranted ex-
planation has been admitted at John v. 3, 4; the
* Both verses end with AaA^car.
8 Companion to the Revised Version of
omission of which in the Revised Version, on good
grounds of evidence, relieves the passage of an obvious
difficulty. The doxology of the Lord's prayer, Matt.
vi. 13, which seems to have been quite unknown to the
early Fathers of the Church, probably crept into the
text from the margin in like manner. And there can
hardly be a doubt that the ecclesiastical formula, Acts
viii. 37, found in many manuscripts, but certainly not
genuine, owed its place to a similar mistake. Nothing
could be more natural than that additions from the
margin — explanatory, doxological, or rubrical — should
occasionally fmd their way into the body of some of
the manuscripts, while yet the mass of authorities
remained uncorrupted, and still enable us at the
present day to discover for ourselves the original
text.
Once more, under this head, error would some-
times arise from the unconscious working of the mind
of the copyist on the passage before him. Few tran-
scribers could act the part of mere machines. Their
minds accompanied their pens : they thonght about
what they were doing ; and this sometimes proved
fatal to the perfect accuracy of their work. Supple-
mentary expressions, due to the exercise of their own
mental powers, sHpped in without their perceiving it.
Thus at Matt, xviii. 28, the true reading is simply,
" Pay Avhat thou owest," but it was most natural for a
The English New Testament, 9
copyist to insert a pronoun, so as to read as in the
text represented by the Authorised Version, " Pay me
what thou owesf Thus, again, the reading of the
Revised Version at Luke xxiv. 53 is, "were con-
tinually in the temple, blessing God,*' but in not a few
manuscripts we find, "praising and blessing God."
There is no reason, in such cases, to imagine that the
variation arose from design on the part of the tran-
scribers. They were men and not machines, and
sometimes, all unconsciously, left the impress of their
own thoughts upon their work. Judging by constant
experience, nothing is more certain than that unin-
tended supplements would, in this way, be made to
the text; and, unless he were constantly on the watch,
there was even all the more risk that a transcriber
would thus be led to deviate from correctness the
farther he rose above a mere piece of mechanism, and
executed his work with interest and intelligence.
Hitherto we have been dealing with errors due to
pure accident — errors with which the will of the
copyists had nothing to do, and from which, we may
believe, they would have gladly kept free if they
could. But we have now to notice —
Secondly, those differences of reading which have
zx\?,txifrom ifitention on the part of the transcribers.
Unusual expressions were altered. A transcriber
meeting with an uncommon word or an ungrammati-
10 Companioji to the Revised Version of
cal construction, was strongly tempted to change that
into a form with which he was familiar. It might
naturally enough occur to him that, in such a case,
his predecessor in the work of copying had made a
mistake, and that he ought to remove the blemish thus
introduced into the sacred text. This tendency to
correction has been a very fruitful source of various
readings. It operated in many ways. For instance,
seeming harshnesses were smoothed. Thus, at Matt.
XXV. 3, we read in the Revised Version, "For the
foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with
them." But the initial " for " in the Greek, not being
liked or understood, was exchanged for the reading
represented in the Authorised Version. Again, rare
forms of words were rejected in favour of the more
usual. An example occurs at Rom. xiv. 4, without
having any effect upon the sense.* Grammatical
corrections, too, were made, as at Matt. xiii. 16, Rev.
iv. i,t and in many other places. Moreover, changes
were sometimes introduced, in order to remove real or
apparent difficulties. Thus, at Mark i. 2 the true
reading is given in tne Revised Version — "As it is
written in Isaiah the prophet." But, inasmuch as the
quotation which follows is not wholly from Isaiah, but
* Suyare? is now read instead of Surar^s io-riu.
t oLKovei has been substituted for the true reading aKovouciVf
and \f.yov(ra for Aeywr,
The English Neiv Testament, ii
partly also from Malachi, the words of the Evangelist
were corrected into " As it is written in the prophets."
And yet again, additions to the text seem at times to
have been made with the mistaken view of promoting
edification. Thus, at i Cor. vi. 20, the Revised
Version simply reads, ''Glorify God, therefore, in your
body ; " but in some manuscripts we find the addition
represented by these words in English — *' and in your
spirit, which are God's." However excellent the
motive which may have prompted the appending of
these words, they are wholly out of place, and only
serve to blunt the point of the Apostle's exhortation.
This must be plain to every one who considers the
context. The same thing appears in several other
passages, and very markedly at Rom. viii. i, where
the insertion of the second clause does away with the
grand simplicity of the conclusion stated by St. Paul,
when he announces as the result of all his previous
reasonings — " There is, therefore, now no condemna-
tion to them which are in Christ Jesus."
In view of what has just been said, Biblical critics
have adopted two great principles as guides to a
decision with respect to the true text of Scripture,
irhe first is, that a difficult or obscure expression, nay,
even an almost unintelligible term, or a wholly un-
grammatical construction, is generally to be regarded
as the genuine reading, in preference to another which
12 Cotnpanion to the Revised Version of
is easy, familiar, and correct. The reason is clear,
since a transcriber was far more likely to change what
he did not like or understand into something which
he thought better, than to substitute for a common
word or a correct construction that which was unusual
or irregular. Th;i other general principle is, for the
most part to prefer a shorter to a longer reading. As
we have seen above, additions were apt in various
ways to steal into the text, so that, where there are
conflicting readings, the briefer form has, probably,
the stronger claim to be accepted. Of course, how-
ever, these principles cannot be carried out in every
case, or in any hard, mechanical way, but must always
be applied in subordination to a cautious and dis-
criminating judgment.
Next, a widely operative cause of various readings
has been the practice of conforming one parallel
passage to another. As was to be expected, from the
amount of common matter which they present, this is
found most frequently in the Gospels. In fact, the
tendency might be largely illustrated from almost
every chapter of the first three Evangelists. But the
following examples will suffice. The true reading at
Mark i. 1 1 is, " Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I
am well pleased ; " but this has been so far conformed
to the text of Matt. iii. 17, as to stand, "in whom I
am well pleased/' Again, the true reading at Matt.
The English New Testament, 13
xvii. 4 is, " If thou wilt, I will make here three taber-
nacles ; '' but it has been brought into harmony with
Mark ix. v., and Luke ix. 33, . so as to become, " Let
us make." Once more, the true reading at Luke viii.
34 is, "And when they that fed them saw what had
come to pass, they fled, and told it," &c. ; but two
words have been inserted in the Greek, that it might
be the same as in Matt. viii. 2iZ — " they fled, and
went and told," &c. Now, as was most natural — and,
indeed, without a constant miracle, inevitable — the
Synoptics,* with all the wonderful verbal agreement
which they exhibit, also differ occasionally in the
reports which they give of the words of Christ and
others. And it is most important that the charac-
teristic readings of their respective texts should in
every place be restored. This will be evident when it
is considered that these minute differences clearly
prove that the Evangelists did not copy from each
other, as has often been maintained, but were original
writers, and therefore independent witnesses to the
Gospel history. In the Epistles the same tendency
on the part of transcribers to secure a verbal har-
mony between parallel or similar passages may also
to some extent be detected. Thus we find Col. i. 14
conformed to Eph. i. 7, so as to stand, " In whom we
* By this convenient expression is meant the first three Evan»
gelists as distinguished from the fourthi
14 Companion to the Raised Version of
have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of
sins," while the true reading is, ** In whom we have
our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." Many
other examples of correction for the sake of uniformity
might be quoted from these Epistles. This was, no
doubt, deemed a gain by the copyists. But it was, on
the contrary, a loss ; for every Biblical student at the
present day will acknowledge that, though the two
Epistles are strikingly coincident both in thought and
expression, a real interest attaches to the distinctive
forms by which they are respectively distinguished.
Lastly, some various readings have probably been
due to doctrinal bias on the part of transcribers.
Considering the many and violent controversies which
have agitated the Church in the course of her history,
this could scarcely fail to be the case. A doctrine
will often hinge upon a single word. Whether, for
example, Christ is spoken of as God at Acts xx. 28,
seems to involve the chief point at issue between
the Orthodox and the Arians or Socinians. A
strong temptation was thus presented to copyists to
tamper with the text according to their own predi-
lections. But upon the whole this temptation was
very successfully resisted*. We have every reason to
believe that the ancient transcribers in general
performed their solemn task with the utmost fidelity.
It is pretty clear, indeed, that the substitution of
The English New Testament 15
** Joseph "for ^'His father," at Luke ii. '^'^^ and again
of " Joseph and Mary," for " His parents," at verse
41 of the same chapter, was made in the presumed
interests of a very vital doctrine, that of the miracu-
lous conception. And it might seem . that the
insertion in the text of i John v. 7, 8, was plainly due
to a desire to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity.
Yet this famous passage may, after all, have been at
first a mere marginal gloss, which was, at length,
admitted to the text through inadvertence. We are
unwilling to charge wilful perversion upon those men
to whom we are indebted for the many manuscripts of
the New Testament which have reached our day.
Readers of the Revised Version will be able to judge
for themselves how many or few of such alternative
readings as have been placed on the margin can be
ascribed to prejudice or unfaithfulness. For myself,
I believe that these are exceedingly rare.
And now having had before us the amount, the
nature, and the causes of the various readings,* we
proceed in the next chapter to consider their sources^
as found in manuscripts, ancient versions, and Patris-
tic quotations, of the New Testament.
* Additional illustrations of the causes of various readings
treated of in this chapter will be found in Chapters iv. and v. of this
Part.
1 6 Companio7i io the Ransed Version of
CHAPTER II.
SOURCES OF VARIOUS READINGS IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
The most immediate and important source of
various readings, in other words, of the materials for
comparative criticism, is, of course, that found in still-
existing manuscripts of the New Testament. As has
been already suggested, a very great number of these
are available for the settlement of the sacred text at
the present day. There is a striking contrast in this
respect between the New Testament and other ancient
writings. While we have no manuscript of Sophocles
and other classical authors that can be dated higher
than the tenth century of our era, there are, in our
possession, as will immediately be shown, manuscripts
of the New Testament dating from the fourth and fifth
centuries. And, while, in the case of the Greek and
Latin classics we sometimes feel reduced to only one
manuscript as the fountain-head from which all the
others have been derived, we have, in the case of the
New Testament, multitudes of independent copies,
which enable us, with far greater certainty than can
The English New Testament 17
be felt in regard to other ancient writings, to determine
the original text.
The manuscripts of the New Testament are divided
into two classes, according to the manner in which
they are written. For many centuries after the Chris-
tian era capital letters were employed throughout,
hardly any distinction being made at the beginning of
sentences, and no space being left between the words.
The following verse in English characters will give the
reader some idea of the appearance presented by these
ancient manuscripts.
THEBOOKOFTHEGENERATIONOFJESUS
CHRISTTHESONOFDAVIDTHESONOFABRA
HAM. Matt. i. i.
Manuscripts thus written have been styled Uncials^
while the others, written more in the form common
among ourselves, are called Cursives, The line be-
tween the two modes of writing may be drawn some-
where about the tenth century. When we rise beyond
that date few indeed are the manuscripts to which we
can appeal for the materials of criticism. Besides
some very precious fragments, there are only five
copies of the New Testament at all complete which
can be referred to a higher antiquity. These are to
be dated, as we shall see, between the fourth and the
sixth century.
1 8 Companion to the Rmsed Version of
Biblical scholars have adopted the practice of de-
signating the ancient manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment by the letters of the alphabet. This is a concise
and convenient mode of referring to them, and has
been generally accepted throughout the Christian
world. It is only to be regretted that the several
letters have not been assigned to the manuscripts on
any fixed principle, but simply as, in the progress of
textual criticism, they happened to be appHed. Neither
the value nor antiquity of the Codices is indicated by
the letters naming them, or by the order in which they
thus, naturally, fall to be described.
A, or the Alexandrian Mamtscript. This is a very
complete copy of the Greek Scriptures. It is bound
in four volumes, of which the first three contain the
Septuagint Version, and the fourth the New Testa-
ment. The only passages in which this manuscript
is defective are St. Matthew's Gospel up to chap.
XXV. 6, beginning with the Greek word which corre-
sponds to the English " Go ye out f St. John's Gospel,
from " that a man,*' chap. vi. 50, to " thou sayest,"
chap. viii. 52 ; and i Corinthians, from " I believe,"
chap. iv. 13, to "of me," chap. xii. 6. The Book of
Revelation, so apt to suffer in the manuscripts, has,
happily, been preserved entire in the Alexandrian
Codex, from the circumstance of its being followed
by the Epistles of the Roman Clement This was
The English New Testament, 19
the first really valuable manuscript made use of for
the purposes of criticism, and has been published in
facsimile. It was brought to this country in 1628,
having been sent in that year by Cyril Lucar, patriarch
of Constantinople, as a present to Charles L It is
preserved in the British Museum.
Scholars are now agreed that the Alexandrian
manuscript is to be dated in the fifth century. Many
have thought that its birthplace was Egypt, but the
reasons assigned for this are not conclusive. It need
not be doubted, however, that it was, at one time, at
Alexandria, whence it has derived its name. Cyril was
patriarch of that city before being transferred to
Constantinople, and probably took the manuscript
with him on his removal. We shall afterwards have
occasion to notice the testimony of this Codex with
respect to the famous passage i Tim. iii. 16.
B, or the Vatican ma^iuscript. This is a most in-
teresting and precious manuscript. Its external history
cannot be traced further back than the year 1475,
when it appears in the first published catalogue of the
Vatican Library. For a long time this manuscript,
notwithstanding its known value, was but little used
for the criticism of Scripture. In fact, it was not
accessible to scholars. Many efforts were, from time
to time, made to have it fully collated, but in vain.
The history of these attempts has imparted a romantic
c 2
20 Co7npanion to the Revised Version of
but somewhat painful interest to the manuscript.
Like many other treasures of art and literature, it was
removed from Rome to Paris by the first Napoleon.
But no fully competent critic had then an opportunity
of examining it ; and on being restored to the Papal
authorities it was very jealously guarded. At last
Cardinal Mai prepared an edition of it, and this was
issued in 1859. But it was found to have been con-
structed on the most uncritical principles, and conse-
quently to be full of errors. Biblical critics were thus
still left in doubt as to the true reading of this manu-
script in many passages. This continued till the year
1868, when the New Testament text of the Codex was
published in facsimile by two eminent scholars, under
the auspices of Pio Nono. This splendid edition was
executed with the greatest care, and seems to leave
little more to be desired in connection with the queen
of all the manuscripts of the New Testament.
There is no hesitation among scholars in dating
the Vatican manuscript at least as high as the fourth
century. Some think that it may even lay claim to a
still higher antiquity. The late eminent palaeographer,
Dr. Tregelles, remarks : — "How much older this manu-
script may be than the middle of the fourth century we
have no means of determining."* It is certain that the
letters in which it is written bear a striking resemblance
* Introduction to the New Testament, p. 161,
The English New Testament, t\
to those in some of the Greek rolls found at Hercula-
neum. And all the other features which it presents
testify to its great age. Unfortunately, it now wants
the Epistle to the Hebrews from chap. ix. 14, all the
Pastoral Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The
witness which it bears to the true text in some inter-
esting and important passages will be adverted to in a
subsequent chapter.
C, or the Ephraein manuscript. This is what is
called a palimpsest^ that is a manuscript in which two
different works are found, the one having been written
over the other. The practice originated in the scarcity
and deamess of parchment during the middle ages.
And valuable works were, in this way, often sacrificed
to others which were comparatively worthless. It
need hardly be said how ignorant were the copyists of
those times. Most of the clergy, even, knew scarcely
anything about the Scriptures. According to George
Buchanan, it was usual for the priests of his day to
affirm that Luther had been the author of a book
called the New Testament!* When we take this
profound ignorance into account, we are less surprised
than we might otherwise be at finding that the sacred
text itself was sometimes buried beneath a different
work. In the case of the Ephraem Codex, it was
some of the Greek writings of the Syrian divine
* Eadie's English Bible^ ii. 311.
22 Companion to the Revised Version of
Ephraem, which had been preferred to the New
Testament, and hence the name given to the manu-
script. It was not for a considerable period that the
sacred text was discovered, and only in 1834 was it
rendered generally legible by the application of a
chemical tincture. The manuscript was soon after-
wards published.
It is believed that this manuscript is to be dated
at least as early in the fifth century as the Alexandrian
manuscript. Little is known of its history beyond the
fact that it once belonged to a nephew of Leo X. It
is now preserved in the National Library at Paris. So
far as it has survived it is a very valuable copy of the
New Testament But gaps frequently occur in it, and
two whole epistles, second Thessalonians and second
John, have been altogether lost.
D, or the mamiscnpt of Beza. This manuscript
once belonged to the eminent reformer Beza, and
hence its name. It was presented by him in the year
1 58 1 to the University of Cambridge, and on that
account is sometimes referred to as the Cambridge
manuscript. Beza tells us that he found it in 1562
lying neglected in the monastery of St. Irenaeus at
Lyons. This manuscript seems to have been slightly
used by Stephens in the preparation of his third
edition, which came out in 1550. Nothing whatever
is known of its previous history.
The English Netu Testament 23
The Codex of Beza is generally referred by critics
to the sixth century. It contains only the Gospels
and Acts in Greek and Latin, with a few verses in
Latin (v. 11 — 15), from the Third Epistle of John.
Many strange interpolations and manifest corruptions
occur in it, but it is nevertheless of great value. The
University published a fac-nmile edition of it in 1793 ;
and a very scholarly edition was issued in common
type in 1864. This manuscript is remarkable as
being the oldest which contains the section John
vii. 53 — viii. 1 1., a passage to be afterwards considered.
K, or the Sinaitic manuscript. The late Professor
Tischendorf discovered this manuscript in the most
singular manner. Being in 1844 at the convent
of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, his attention was one
day caught by some leaves of vellum set aside with
others for lighting the stove. His quick and practised
eye detected their antiquity, and he found on
examination that they contained a portion of the
Septuagint. These leaves he easily obtained from
the monks, and soon afterwards published. But it
was not till 1859 that he first saw the great manuscript
of which they formed a part. He was that year
travelling under the patronage of the Emperor of
Russia. And being once more at the above-named
monastery, he had on the 4th of February the whole
manuscript which he had so ardently desired to find
24 Companion to the Revised Version of
put into his hands. He looked at it with almost
overwhelming joy and surprise. And the brethren
could refuse nothing to one who was so highly-
honoured by their great patron and protector the
Czar. Permission was readily accorded to him to
copy the manuscript, and the Codex itself was soon
afterwards sent as a present to Alexander II. It is
now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, and
was published in 1862 as a fitting memorial of the
thousandth anniversary of the Russian Empire.
This is an unspeakably precious manuscript. For
one thing, it has the advantage over all the others
of containing the New Testament complete. It
also comprises the Greek text of the Epistle of
Barnabas, and part of that of the writings of Hermas,
two of the Apostolic Fathers whose works had
previously been known as a whole only through a
Latin translation. Tischendorf was naturally disposed
to exaggerate somewhat both the antiquity and value
of his wonderful discovery. He even placed the
Sinaitic earlier than the Vatican manuscript, but in
this few scholars are inclined to follow him. He also
adopted some impossible readings on the sole
authority of this Codex, and, in general, allowed it
undue weight in the establishment of the New
Testament text. But avoiding these extremes, the
value of the manuscript is universally and gratefully
The English New Testament. 25
admitted by scholars. It cannot be dated very much
later than the Vatican Codex, belonging undoubtedly
to the fourth century. And though it contains many
obvious errors, it yields assistance of a kind most
precious towards the settlement of the true text of
the New Testament.
Such are by far the most important of the Uncial
manuscripts, and it is unnecessary here to describe
any of the rest. Nor shall I enter on any description
of the Cursives. As has been already stated, these
are very numerous ; and though as a rule they are
far less important than the more ancient manuscripts,
some of them are, nevertheless, exceedingly valuable.
It is, of course, quite conceivable that a Cursive
manuscript should present a text really better than
that of any existing Uncial. For, though a manuscript
may date, say from the eleventh century, it might have
been accurately copied from one belonging to the
second. This is possible, though such may not be
found actually to have been the case. And, therefore,
all the Cursives, no less than the Uncials, must be
most carefully examined and duly appreciated by the
textual critic while he pursues those arduous labours
which have it for their object to approximate as closely
as possible to the original text of Holy Scripture.
The next most important source of various readings
26 Companioji to the Revised Version of
is that furnished by ancient versions of the New Testa-
ment We have the utmost certainty that some of
these were made at a date considerably higher than
can be claimed for any manuscript at present known
to exist. They thus furnish proof with regard to the
prevailing text of the New Testament at a very early
period in the history of Christianity.
The following are the ancient versions which are
less or more available for the purposes of textual criti-
cism. Some special drawbacks which exist to their
use in this respect will be afterwards briefly noticed.
Syriac Versions. Of these the most important are
the Peshito, the Philoxenian, the Harclean, and the
Curetonian. By far the best of these is the Peshito
(/>., Simple),' which is truly an admirable translation.
There is no doubt that it was made in the second
century, and were we sure that we possessed it in its
original form it would thus be of the very highest
authority. The other Syriac versions do not rank
high as translations, and the Curetonian embraces
only fragments of the Gospels.
Latin Versions, So prevalent was the Greek
language in Rome for several generations after the
commencement of our era, that no need of a transla-
tion was felt by the inhabitants of that city. Accord-
ingly, the first Latin version appears to have been
made not in Italy but in North Africa. We know
The English New Testament, 27
nothing of its history. It was used by Tertullian and
others about the beginning of the third century.
Some excellent manuscripts- containing it still exist.
The very learned St. Jerome set himself to the re-
vision of this version about the end of the fourth
century. He improved it greatly both in regard to
style and fidelity to the original ; but it was not till
two centuries had elapsed that his work took the place
of the Old Latin^ and became the Vulgate of the
Roman Church.
Gothic Version. This version was made by Bishop
Ulphilas about the middle of the fourth century. It
is not now known to exist in its original completeness.
There is a celebrated "Silver Manuscript" of the
Gospels preserved in the University of Upsala. The
letters of this handsome manuscript are marvellously
uniform, and its name is derived from the fact that
they are written throughout in silver, except the initial
letters of sections, which are written in gold. Belong-
ing, as the version of Ulphilas does, to so high an
antiquity as the fourth century, it is possessed of great
weight in determining the text which had then become
prevalent in the Church.
Egyptian Versions, There are two Egyptian ver-
sions, which are now known respectively as the Mem-
phitic and the Thebaic. Before the fact of their inde-
pendence was established, they both went under the
28 Companion to the Revised Version of
common name of Coptic, This appellation was de-
rived from Coptos, a very ancient city of Upper
Egypt The term Memphitic points out the version
which was used in Lower Egypt, and was taken from
the capital city of the district ; while Thebaic indicates
the version used in Upper Egypt, and was, in like
manner, derived from the chief town of the country.
The Thebaic version is supposed, on good grounds,
to have been formed in the first half of the third
century, and to have been followed by the Memphitic
not much later. Both versions will be found more and
more valuable for the purposes of criticism the more
fully they are studied. Besides these, there are some
fragments of a version which has been called the Bash-
muric, and which was evidently related to the Thebaic.
The Arme7iian Version. This version cannot be
placed higher than the fifth century. It seems to have
been begun soon after the Council of Ephesus, a.d. 431.
Up to that period the Armenian Christians appear to
have used the Syriac version; but two native scholars
who had attended the Council brought home with
them the New Testament in Greek, and from that a
translation was made into theJanguage of the country.
The Armenian version cannot be deemed of very
great importance in textual criticism.
The yEthiopic Versiofi. This is a translation of the
Scriptures in the ancient language of Abyssinia. It
The English New Testament. 29
seems to have been fomied about the sixth or seventh
century. There is every reason to believe that it was
taken immediately from the Greek, though the mean-
ing of the original v/as frequently mistaken. No very
exact edition has yet been issued, and the version is
not possessed of much authority.
The other ancient versions of the New Testament
are the Georgian (sixth century), the Arabic (several
recensions, the most ancient belonging to the eighth
century), Slavonic (ninth century), Anglo-Saxon (from
the Latin, eighth to eleventh century), and Persian
versions (of varying and doubtful dates). These
versions, with all later ones, though taken from the
Greek, are too modem to have much weight in the
settlement of the true text.
The deductions which must be made from the
value of even the most ancient versions as testifying
to the true text of Scripture are many and serious.
First, their genuine readings are often doubtful. It is
obvious that they were as liable to corruption in the
process of being transcribed as the New Testament
itself, or even more so, since greater pains would
naturally be taken in copying the sacred original than
a mere translation. Again, there is reason to believe
that some of the most valuable versions, such as the
Syriac Peshito, do not now exist in their primitive
condition. They seem to have been conformed to
30 Companion to the Revised Version of
the prevalent text of the fourth century, and thus fail
us as witnesses to that which was more ancient. On
this account we cannot confidently press the authority
. of the existing Peshito in behalf, for example, of the
Doxology of the Lord's Prayer. Again, in some few
instances the authors of the versions appear from
doctrinal bias to have departed from the original text.
Thus Ulphilas, who had adopted Arian views, has
inserted in the Gothic version at Philipp. ii. 6, the
words *' likeness to God," which would never suggest
the true Greek text implying "equality with God."
Lastly, even the best versions have frequently mis-
taken the meaning of the original, and may thus tend
only to mislead as respects the genuine text. Suppose,
in illustration, that a question were to arise with
regard to the Greek expression corresponding to the
English words " in the bush," at Mark xii. 26, and
Luke XX. 37. In that case, the Authorised Version
would inevitably suggest a wrong preposition, since it
has here quite mistranslated the Greek. The mean-
ing of the original is not " i7i the bush," as if referring
to locality, but ^^ at the Bush," denoting that portion
of the Old Testament which was known among the
Jews under the tide of "the Bush." On all these
grounds, therefore, the Biblical scholar must use the
ancient versions as witnesses to the genuine text of
Scripture with great caution and discrimination.
The English New Testament, 31
The only remaining source of various readings in
the New Testament is that found in the citations of
its text by ancient writers. And here it might at first
be thought that we have access to more primitive and
therefore more valuable testimony than that which is
furnished by either manuscripts or versions. The stream
of quotations from the New Testament begins even in
the first century, and flows on with ever-increasing
volume in the succeeding generations. When we
reflect that Clement of Rome begins to quote from
the sacred writings so early as a.d. 97, when his
epistle seems to have been written, and that he is
followed by such voluminous writers as Justin Martyr
and Irenseus in the second century, as Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, in the
third century, it might well be imagined that we should
thus obtain most valuable and trustworthy guidance
as to the primitive text of the New Testament.
But here again there are very serious drawbacks.
No doubt, these early Fathers quote most copiously
from Scripture, so that the substance of the whole
New Testament could easily be collected from their
pages. But important deductions must be made from
the value of their writings as authorities in textual
criticism. For, first, the manuscripts of their works
which we possess are comparatively modern — few
indeed rising above the tenth century, and thus their
32 Companmi to the Revised Version of
genuine readings are often doublful. And, next, they
generally quote from memory, not feeling the need,
and not possessing the means, of aiming at that
verbal exactness called for at the present day. They
had none of those facilities of reference which we
possess. The turning to a passage and verifying it,
would, in their case, have implied an amount of labour,
of which, with our Bibles divided into chapters and
verses, we can hardly conceive. Besides, there can
be no doubt that many passages would come to be
loosely and popularly quoted, without any suspicion
that a departure was thus made from the true text.
This happens constantly among ourselves with respect
to the Authorised Version. How often will one see
or hear Deut xxxiiL 25, quoted thus, " As thy day is
so shall thy strength be," whereas the true reading is,
**Asthy^^>'j, &c."*
On the whole, then, there is reason for acquiescing
in the following judgment with regard to the value, as
respects textual criticism, to be attached to the quo-
tations made by ancient writers from the New Testa-
ment " Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary
and not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it
often fails where we should most wish for information;
but the Fathers were better theologians than critics ;
* See for a numerous list of such misquotations Eadie's English
Bible, ii. 328 ff.
The English New Testament 33
they frequently quoted loosely or from memory, often
no more of a passage than their immediate purpose
required ; what they actually wrote has been found
peculiarly liable to change on the part of copyists and
unskilful editors ; they can therefore be implicitly
trusted — even as to the manuscripts which lay before
them — only in the comparatively few places wherein
their own direct appeal to their codices, or the course
of their argument, or the current of their exposition,
renders it manifest what readings they approved. In
other cases the same author perpetually cites the
self-same text under two or more various forms ; in
the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to
which of the three earlier ones reference is made;
and, on the whole. Scriptural quotations from ecclesi-
astical writers are of so much less consideration than
ancient translations, that where they are single and
unsupported, they may safely be disregarded altogether.
An express citation, however, by a really careful
Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen,
for example), if supported by manuscript authority,
and countenanced by the best versions, claims our
respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the
reading which it favours.' ' *
* Scrivener's Introduction^ p. 368.
34 Companion to the Revised Version of
CHAPTER III.
HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE GREEK TEXT ON
WHICH THE AUTHORISED VERSION WAS FOUNDED.
When an English version of the New Testament is put
into our hands as furnishing a transcript in our own
language of God's revelation of Himself through Jesus
Christ, it is of the most vital importance to be assured
of the trustworthiness of the text on which that
version has been based. Without this everything
else must be comparatively worthless. What we want
to know is the exact message which has been addressed
to our race by Heaven. And the first essential to
this is purity of the original text. It matters not how
smoothly a version may read, how pleasing may be
its contents, or how venerable even may be the
antiquity which it claims. The first and gravest
question to be asked regarding it has respect to the
faithfulness with which the text on which it was based
represented the true and original word of God. How
then, we anxiously inquire, does the case stand con-
cerning this point with the Authorised English Ver-
sion?
Before being able to give a full answer to this
The English New Testament, 35
question it is necessary to trace the history of the
earliest printed editions of the Greek New Testament.
This history will gradually lead us on to the text
which was made use of in the preparation of the
Authorised Version, and we shall be enabled to form
a judgment respecting its character.
We cannot but feel it somewhat remarkable that so
long a time elapsed between the invention ot the art
of printing and the passing ot an edition of the
Greek New Testament through the press. It is well
known that the first book ever printed was the Bible,
but this was in the form of the Vulgate. A Latin
edition of the Scriptures, very handsomely got up,
issued from the press at Mentz in 1452 ; and a few
copies of this interesting and precious publication are
known to be still in existence at the present day. The
Hebrew Bible was also printed, under the auspices of
some wealthy Jews, in 1488. But the century which
had witnessed the invention of printing was allowed
to close without any attempt having been made to
prepare a printed edition of the Greek New Testament.
Some brief passages of the Gospels from the first
chapter of St. Luke — the sacred songs of the Virgin
Mary and of Zacharias — had, indeed, been added to a
Greek edition of the Psalms printed at Milan in 148 1 ;
but no one as yet seems to have conceived the idea
of issuing a printed edition of the whole New Testa*
D 2
36 Companion to the Rnnsed Version of
ment. The cause of this probably was that the Greek
language was still but very imperfectly known to
theologians. The "new learning^' was as yet only
struggling through many difficulties into acceptance,
and gradually winning to itself the admiration and
affection of those noble men who afterwards cultivated
it with so much energy and devotedness.
To the able and excellent Cardinal Ximenes,
Primate of Spain, belongs the honour of having first
projected an edition of the entire Greek New Testa-
ment. His plan was to embrace it in a Polyglot
Bible, intended to include both the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint version with
the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos and the Latin Vulgate.
The fifth volume, which is devoted to the New Testa-
ment, was first printed, and it bears on its last page
as the date of its completion, January, 10, 15 14. But
its publication was delayed, apparently, at first, with
the view of waiting for the remaining volumes. The
last of these, numbered as the fourth, is stated to have
been finished on July 10, 15 17. But the exemplary
prelate who had originated and superintended this
great undertaking died soon afterwards (Nov. 8, 15 17),
and the issue of the volume, was, in consequence, still
further delayed. It was not till March 22, 1520, that
Pope Leo X. formally sanctioned its publication.
Thus came forth at length what is known as the
The English Ne7U Testament 37
Complutensian edition of the New Testament, Com-
plutum being the Latin name for Alcala, where the
work was prepared.
Meanwhile, however, important steps had been
taken m another quarter. The ilkistrious Erasmus
comes into view, a man to whom modern thought is,
in so many ways, under such deep and lasting
obligations. That great scholar was in England in
15 1 5, and on April 17th of that year he received a
request from Froben, an eminent printer at Basle, to
prepare for publication an edition of the Greek New
Testament. Though encumbered by other literary
labours, Erasmus set about this work with characteristic
diligence, and completed it within the too short
period of a few months — by February, 15 16. The
work was immediately published, and thus the original
text of the New Testament was, for the first time,
given to the world.
No small eagerness would, naturally, be shown by
scholars to possess the sacred text. Accordingly, we
find that the demand was, for those days, great. The
first edition of Erasmus was reprinted, with corrections
amounting to about 200, by Aldus, at Venice, in 15 18.
A second edition, with more than 300 improvements,
was issued by Erasmus himself in 15 19. This was
followed by a third edition in 1522, chiefly remarkable
as containing, for the first time, the famous text
38 Co7npanion id the kevised Veisidu of
I John V. 7. Erasmus had not till now seen the Com*
plutensian edition, but he was able to avail himself of
it in the preparation of his own fourth, which came
out in 1527. He died in 1536, having issued a fifth
edition in the previous year, differing only in four
places from the preceding. The fourth edition of
Erasmus is thus the most important, and became the
basis of all subsequent texts, until what is known as
the " Received Text " was formed.
After the death ot Erasmus an edition of the
Greek New Testament was published by Colinaeus at
Paris in 1543. But, although this edition was cor-
rected in more than a hundred places from the
authority of additional manuscripts, it may be left out
of account as having exercised little subsequent
influence. The true successor of Erasmus in this
department was Robert Stephens the famous Parisian
printer. He issued two editions in 1546 and 1549,
having availed himself in these of some manuscripts in
the Royal Library, and ot the Complutensian text.
But his great edition was the third, issued in 1550.
This edition is remarkable as containing the first
collection of various readings, amounting, it has been
reckoned, to 2,194. But though these had been
collected from a considerable number of manuscripts,
no critical use was made of them. The text of
Erasmus was closely followed, and readings found in
The English New Testament, 39
it were even clung to when opposed to the authority
of all the manuscripts. The fourth edition of
Stephens was published at Geneva in 155 1. In this
edition the New Testament is, for the first time,
divided into verses — an invention of Stephens. The
text remained the same as in the previous edition.
Beza, the Reformer, next appears as an editor of
the Greek New Testament. He published five
editions, the first in 1565, the second in 1576, the
third in 1582, the fourth in 1589, and the fifth in
1598. These editions varied somewhat among them-
selves, but were based throughout upon the text of
Stephens.
And now we have reached the interesting and
important point of this sketch, as the history of the
printed text of the New Testament just given has led
us very near the date at which the Authorised Eng-
lish Version began to be made. It was commenced
about 1604, when the above-named Greek texts were,
in one form or another, generally circulated. Which
of them, we ask with eagerness, formed the original
from which our common English translation was
derived ? To this question the answer is, that Beza's
edition of 1589 was the one usually followed. It had
been based on Stephens's edition of 1550, and that
again had been derived from the fourth edition of
Erasmus, published in 1527. Such is the parentage
40 Companion to the Revised Version of
of the Authorised Version — Beza, Stephens, Erasmus.
What manuscript authority, let us ask, is thus repre-
sented ?
Beginning with Erasmus, we find that his resources
were meagre indeed, and that even the materials
which he had were not fully utilised. It has already
been noticed how hastily his first edition was pre-
pared; indeed, he himself said of it that it "was rather
tumbled headlong into the world than edited." The
manuscripts which he had in his possession are still
preserved, one having been recovered some years ago
after long being lost. Some of them bear in them-
selves the corrections which he made, and show too
obvious marks of having been used as " copy ^\ by the
printer. They consisted of the following. In the
Gospels he principally used a Cursive manuscript of
the fifteenth or sixteenth century. This may still be
seen at Basic, and is admitted by all to be of a very
inferior character. He also possessed another Cursive
manuscript of the twelfth century, or earlier, and
occasionally referred to it. But though this is an
excellent manuscript in the Gospels — one of the very
best of the Cursives — Erasmus was ignorant of its
value, and made litde use of it. In the Acts and
Epistles he chiefly followed a Cursive manuscript of
the thirteenth or fourteenth century, with occasional
reference to another of the fifteenth century. Both
The English New Testament. 41
these were of the ordinary type usually exhibited by
the later manuscripts. For the Apocalypse he had
only one mutilated manuscript. He had thus no
documentary materials for publishing a complete
edition of the Greek Testament. The consequence
would have been that some verses must have been
left wanting had not Erasmus taken the Vulgate and
conjecturally re-translated the Latin into Greek.
Hence has arisen the remarkable fact that in the text
from which our Authorised Version was formed, and
in the ordinary uncritical editions of the Greek cur-
rent at the present day, there were, and are, words in
the professed original for which no Divine authority
can be pleaded, but which are entirely due to the
learning and imagination of Erasmus.
As stated above, he availed himself of the Com-
plutensian text to some extent in his subsequent
editions. Scholars have been unable to ascertain
with exactness the manuscripts which were employed
in its formation. It was at one time thought that the
famous Codex B was one of them. But this has
been clearly disproved, and the manuscript authority
on which it was based has been shown by internal
evidence to have been not ancient, but modern.
There is also some ground for suspecting that the
editors occasionally, though rarely, allowed an undue
influence to the Latin Vulgate. In printing the Old
42 Companion to the Ransed Version of
Testament they gave the place of honour in the
centre to the Latin, surrounding it on either side by the
original Hebrew and the Septuagint translation. On
this they make the curious and somewhat suggestive
remark, that the Latin thus placed was like Christ
crucified between the two thieves ! The one thief
was the Greek Church, which they regarded as here-
tical ; and the other was the nation of the Jews, who
were charged with having corrupted the Hebrew text
wherever it differed from the Latin.
Stephens, who succeeded Erasmus in the work of
editing the Greek Testament, had, as we have seen, a
number of additional manuscripts at his command.
Among these was one at least undoubtedly ancient.
Codex D, formerly described. But he made very
little use either of it or of any of the others in his
possession. Almost the only important departure
which Stephens made from the Erasmian text was in
the Apocalypse, in which book he took advantage of
the far better readings supplied by the Complutensian
edition.
Beza received from Stephens a collection of various
readings derived from no fewer than some five-and-
twenty manuscripts, but he made little or no critical
use of them. He was totally unaware of the value of the
manuscript which bears his name, and thought that its
publication was rather to be deprecated. He left the
The English New Testament 43
text substantially as he had received it from Stephens,
who, again, for his part, rarely deserts the fifth edition
of Erasmus.
Thus, then, stood the text of the Greek New
Testament when the revisers of the Bishops' Bible set
themselves to form from it our present Authorised
English Version. Not one of the four most ancient
manuscripts was then known to be in existence. Even
Codex D, which was known, had scarcely any weight
assigned to it, and the whole Greek text had been
based upon a very few modern manuscripts. The
ancient versions had not been examined. No careful
investigation had been made into the testimony to the
primitive text borne by the Fathers. Textual criticism
was still in its infancy, the materials for it had not
been gathered, the principles of the science had not
been studied, and the labours of Mill, Bentley,
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and
other great scholars, to secure the purity of the text of
the New Testament, were as yet unheard of, and only
to be put forth in the course of many future genera
tions.
In these circumstances can it be wondered at that
vast multitudes of changes will be found in the Revised
English Version, owing to an amended text? The
wonder really is that they are so few, or, at least, that
they are, in general, of such small importance. When
44 Compaiiioji to the Revised Version of
we trace, as has been briefly done, the parentage of
our English Bible, and when we see on what a slender
basis of authority it rests, when we confront with this
the enormous wealth of materials for settling the true
Greek text which we possess at the present day, and
the amount of labour which has been expended in
applying them, we might well fear that the alterations
requiring to be made in the Bible with which we have
all our days been familiar should be of the most revo-
lutionary character. But, blessed be God, such is not
the case. No doctrine of the faith is in the slightest
degree affected. False supports of important doctrines
may be removed, and true defences of them may be
supplied, but that is all. The Bible remains, for all
practical purposes, totally unaffected. That is one
grand result of the labours of the New Testament
Revision Company, for which all English Christians
have good reason to be thankful. They now know the
utmost that Biblical science demands. No suspicion
need in future haunt them that the Scriptural truths
which they love are insecure. These have been
proved to rest on an immovable foundation, and they
will endure as long as the Divine Word that reveals
them, ** which liveth and abideth for ever,"
But more than this, every loyal Christian heart
should surely rejoice to have access, in as pure a form
as possible, to the message sent us by our Father in
The English New Testament. 45
heaven. That is the great positive work which has
been aimed at by the New Testament Company, and
the fulfilment of which is presented in the Revised
Version. English readers of the Scriptures have now
the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with
the New Testament in a form more nearly representing
the primitive text than they ever had before. Most of
the changes made hardly affect the sense, but many
even of these alterations are highly interesting. Some
few others are of great importance, and will naturally
attract more attention from readers of the Revised
Version. To these two classes of changes which have
been required by an amendment of the text we shall
advert at some length in the two following chapters.
46 Companmi to the Revised Version of
CHAPTER IV.
liXAMPLES OF MINOR CHANGES CAUSED BY A CHANGE
OF TEXT.
It may be that at first not a few of the changes or
omissions in the Revised Version, due to a change in
the original text, will be felt disagreeable by the Eng-
lish reader. The old familiar rhythm is disturbed,
and the ear longs for the words to which it has been
accustomed. It must be owned, too, that there are
some changes and omissions due to the cause referred
to which may worthily seem matter of regret. Thus,
we can hardly exchange the beautiful precept, **Be
courteous," found at i Pet. iii. 8, in the Authorised
Version, for the apparently tamer expression, "humble-
minded," in the Revised Version, without feeling that
some loss has been incurred. And we cannot read
Mark ix. 3, or Mark ix. 24, without wishing that the
words " as snow " and " with tears," which add to the
graphic style of the narrative, had been retained. In
the majority of cases, however, the changes caused
by a change of text, will, on consideration, commend
themselves as improvements. They will be found to
impart greater clearness, terseness, or force, to the
The English New Tesiafnent, 47
Version. Thus, there is a vividness at Mark i. 27,
"And they were all amazed, insomuch that they
questioned among themselves, saying. What is this ?
a new teaching ! with authority he commandeth even
the unclean spirits, and they obey him," which does
not belong to the Authorised Version. Thus, again, it
will be felt to be with the remarkable variation
which occurs at 2 Cor. i. 20, where we read in the
Revised Version, "For how many soever be the
promises of God, in him is the yea : wherefore also
through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through
us.'* As has been well observed, the ^^ yea " here
" denotes the fulfilment of the promise on the part
of God, and ' Amen ' the recognition and thanksgiving
on the part of the Church, a distinction which is
obliterated by the received reading."* So, at i John
v. 13, it is an obvious gain to get rid of the clumsy
and almost absurd repetition which occurs in the
Authorised Version, and to read simply, "These
things have I written unto you, that ye may know
ye have eternal life, unto you that believe on the
name of the Son of God." But whether the frue read-
ings be deemed improvements or not, they should
always be welcomed simply on the ground of their
genuineness. To find out what is true is the supreme
object of Biblical science ; and while, no doubt, there
* Ughtfoot, On a fresh I^eyisiQn of the New Testament, p. 52.
48 Companion to the Revised Version of
may often seem an artificial attractiveness about what
is erroneous, there should always be felt a sovereign
majesty in truth.
With these remarks, let us look at some of the
minor changes which have been made in the Revised
Version owing to a change of text. I shall first take
a few from each of the Gospels, and then some from
the other books of the New Testament
St. Afatthe7v''s Gospel. At chap. v. 22, the Revised
Version omits the words " without a cause. '^ The
evidence from manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, is
here not quite conclusive, but the internal evidence
is clear. It is obvious that a strong temptation pre-
sented itself to transcribers to insert the words, in
order to soften the apparent harshness of the precept,
whereas, had they existed in the primitive text, it is
scarcely possible to account for their having been
dropped. There is little, if any, doubt, therefore, that
they ought to disappear. At chap, xviii. 17 we read
in the Revised Version, " Why askest thou me of that
which is good ? One there is who is good : but if
thou wouldest enter into life, keep the command-
ments." The external evidence is decidedly in favour
of this reading, embracing, as it does, k, B, D, &c.,
but it is the internal evidence which is conclusive.
We formerly saw how prone copyists were to conform
parallel passages, and here St. Matthew's text, as re-
The English New Testament. 49
presented in the Authorised Version, has been harmo-
nised with those of St. Mark and St. Luke. Besides
the question of the young ruler, " What good thing
shall I do ? " is aptly answered by the words, " Why
askest thou me of that which is good?'' At chap.
XXV. 6 we read in the Revised Version, " But at mid-
night a cry is made. Behold the bridegroom : come
ye forth to meet him." The word "cometh'^is omitted
on overwhelming authority ; it had evidently slipped
in as a supplement from the working of the mind of
the transcriber on the passage before him.
^i^. Mark's Gospel, At chap. vi. 20 we read in
the Revised Version, " Herod feared John, knowing
that he was a just man and a holy, and kept him safe ;
and when he heard him, he was much perplexed^ and
heard him gladly." Here the common reading, *'And
did many things," is undoubtedly supported by many
of the best authorities ; but the case is such that we
cannot conceive of the unusual Greek word for " per-
plexed " being substituted for the very common word
for " did," while the converse supposition that a tran-
scriber here meeting with an unfamiliar expression
changed it into one with which he was well acquainted,
is easy and natural. At chap. ix. 22, 23, we read in
the Revised Version, " If thou canst do anything, have
compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus said unto
him, If thou canst ! all things are possible to him that
£
50 Covipanlon to the Revised V^ersion of
believeth." This is a beautiful emendation. Jesus
takes up the doubting words of the father, and, after
repeating them, adds that strong assertion of the
power of faith which follows. The change is abundantly
supported by ancient authority ; and it is obvious that
the enfeebling " believe " of the common text has
somehow slipped in as a supplement.
St. LtMs Gospel, At chap. xvi. 9 we find the
interesting change of " it " for " ye,'' and read in the
Revised Version^ *' Make to yourselves friends out of
the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall
fail, they (the friends whom you have thus made) may
receive you into the eternal tabernacles.'' At chap,
xxiv. 17 a somewhat different turn is given to the
narrative by the insertion of a Greek verb in the text,
and we read thus in the Revised Version, " What
communications are these that ye have one with
another as ye walk? And they stood still, looking
sad." Again, at verse 46 of the same chapter, the
proper reading is, ** Thus it is written that the Christ
should suffer," the common text having been derived
from verse 26, according to a process familiar to
transcribers.
St. John^s Gospel. At chap. vi. 1 1 we find in the
common text an obvious case of accommodation to
the parallel passage in Matt. xiv. 19, and the verse
properly runs as in the Revised Version, "Jesus there-
The English New Test anient, 51
fore took the loaves, and having given thanks, he dis-
tributed to them that were set down." At chap. xiii.
24 we have in the Revised Version a characteristic
utterance of St. Peter which is lost in the ordinary
text. He seems to have imagined that John, as
specially the confidant of Christ, would know what
the disciples wished to ascertain, and exclaimed, " Tell
us who it is of whom he speaketh." At chap. xx. 16
the amended text has restored the expression " in the
Hebrew tongue," which, by the exception which it
specially marks out, serves to indicate the language
generally made use of in public intercourse by Christ
and His disciples.
The Acts of the Apostles, At chap. xv. 23 we
find an interesting example of the alteration which
may take place in the meaning from a very slight
change in the text. The words " and the " are simply
omitted, and we then read, "The apostles and the
elder brethren," instead of "The apostles, and the
elders, and the brethren." At chap. xvi. 7 we find
an exception to the general rule that a shorter reading
is to be preferred to a longer, for the true text un-
doubtedly is, " the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not."
At chap, xviii. 5 we find a striking illustration of the
tendency to replace what was unusual or not under-
stood by what was common and familiar; for
"Paul was pressed in the spirit" has there taken
£ 2
52 Companion io the Revised Version of
the place of the true text, " Paul was constiuined by
the word."
The Epistle to the Romans. A very remarkable
change has been made at chap. iv. 19. In accordance
with all the great Uncials, the negative in the verse is
omitted, so as to read, " he considered his own body
now become dead," the point being that, though he
fully took into account his own state, yet he did not
stumble at the Divine promise. At chap. v. i, after
long hesitation, criticism has clearly decided that
instead of "we have,'' the true reading is "let us
have.'* The text of B in this passage is now certainly
known to be in favour of that which stands in the
Revised Version, and it is supported by A, C, D, k^
the most important versions, and many of the Fathers.
At chap. vii. 6 a reading was introduced by Beza into
his third edition, which was a mere conjecture of his
own, and is supported by not a single manuscript or
version. It stands, however, in the common English
Bible, which translates it, " that being dead wherein
we were held," instead of the true text as rendered in
the Revised Version, " having died to that wherein we
were holden." At chap. xvi. 5 we should certainly
read " the first fruits of Asia," instead of " the first
fruits of Achaia," the mistaken reading having probably
arisen from the transcriber having i Cor. xvi. 15 in
his mind.
The English New Testament, 53
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The most
interesting changes in this Epistle are those which
have been made in the eleventh chapter, which con-
tains an account of the institution of the Lord's
Supper. At ver. 24 the words "Take, eat," have
been omitted, as having scarcely a shadow of
authority. They were doubtless interpolated from
Matt. xxvi. 26. In the same verse the word "broken"
is also left out; it was probably a supplement intro-
duced by the copyists. In ver. 26 " this cup "
becomes "the cup" in the Revised Version; the
common text was due to a desire for uniformity
in the two clauses. In ver. 29 the word translated
" unworthily " has been omitted as certainly spurious ;
it was brought in from ver. 27, where it is as certainly
genuine. At chap. xiii. 3 a various reading occurs,
which, though very properly not placed in the text,
will be found in the margin of the Revised Version as
having very great support from excellent authorities.
It deserves notice as illustrating how one Greek word
might be mistaken for another which it closely re-
sembled. Here a difference of only a single letter
leads to the so great difference of rendering in
English, as, "that I may be burned," and "that I
may glory.''*
The Scco7id Epistle to the Coriftthia7is, There are
* The two Greek words are /((^u6^<rc«>uai and «ctvx^'''^A*«*'
54 Companion to the Revised Version of
no very noticeable alterations made in this Epistle
owing to a change of text. Perhaps the most inter-
esting is at chap. xii. 19, where quite a different turn
is given to the passage in the Revised Version, in
consequence of one word being altered in the original.
The Apostle knew well that his elaborate vindication
of himself might be misunderstood by the Corinthians,
as if he were anxious to gain their favourable judgment
on his conduct, and to meet this mistake he says : —
** Ye think all this time that we are excusing ourselves
unto you. In the sight of God speak we in Christ.
But all things, beloved, are for your edifying. ''
The Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians^
Colossians, At Gal. iv. 14 a new turn is given to the
passage by the pronoun being changed in the original.
St Paul, instead of there speaking of " viy temptation,'*
says, " that which was a temptation to you in my flesh
ye despised not nor rejected," surely far more in accord-
ance with the context. At Eph. v. 29 we get rid in
the Revised Version of the strange declaration, "of
his flesh, and of his bones," and read simply, in
accordance with the true text, " we are members of his
body." At Philipp. i. 16, 17, the two verses must, by
overwhelming authority, be transposed, and read as in
the Revised Version. At Col. ii. 18 we come upon
a passage presenting great difficulty both as to the
true text and the right interpretation. But evidence
The English New Testament 55
leads us clearly to reject the "not" found before
" seen " in the common text. The Apostle is blaming
those who dwell in the region of sense rather than
that of faith, and this is the meaning given to his
words in the Revised Version. It is evident that the
ancient copyists did not understand the passage, and
that the insertion of the negative was due to their
desire of making it, as they thought, intelligible.
The Epistles to the Thessalonians^ and the Pastoral
Epistles* Few changes worth notice have been made
in the Epistles to the Thessalonians on account of a
change of text. It may be noted-, however, that the
usual designation of our Saviour in these Epistles is
"our Lord Jesus," and not "our Lord Jesus Christ."
See I Thess. ii. 19, iii. 11, iii. 13 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 (first
clause); and compare ii. 8 in the Revised Version.
The full title occurs at i Thess. i. i, v. 28, 2 Thess.
i. 2, &c., but the shorter form seems characteristic of
these Epistles. On the other hand, " Christ Jesus,"
and not " Jesus Christ," appears as the favourite
appellation for our Lord in the Pastoral Epistles.
Compare with Authorised Version i Tim. iv. 6, v. 21,
2 Tim. i. I, ii. 3, Tit. i. 4, in the Revised Version.
It deserves in this connection to be noticed further
that the two versions are coincident in the use of the
form " Christ Jesus" in the following passages : i Tim.
i. 12, i. 14, ii. 5, iii. 13, vi. 13 ; 2 Tim. i. i (second
56 Compa7iion to the Revised Versio7i of
clause), i. 2, i. 9, i. 13, ii. i, ii. 10, iii. 12, iii.
15. The title "Christ Jesus" thus seems in its very
frequent use a marked peculiarity of the Pastoral
Epistles, and serves as a sort of nexus to bind them all
together.
The Epistle to Philemon and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Almost the only changes of any interest
in the Epistle to Philemon are at ver. 2, where we
read, "and to Apphia our sister," for "and to our
beloved Apphia," the epithet "beloved" having
apparently been substituted to correspond to ver. i ;
and "I had," for "we have," in ver. 7, in which some
critics also read "grace" instead of "joy," but with-
out sufficient authority. At Heb. iv. 2 overwhelming
critical evidence compels us to accept the somewhat
strange rendering of the Revised Version. Many
critics of high name have been tempted to abide by
the apparently far simpler and more satisfactory
reading which is represented in the Authorised Ver-
sion; but faithfulness to the laws of evidence and
grammar will not permit of such a course. At chap.
X. 34, the personal reference to the writer of the
Epistle is exchanged for the general reference to
" them that were in bonds," and this change has an
important bearing on the very difficult question of
authorship. At chap. xi. 13 the Greek words
rendered " and were persuaded of them " have no
The English New Tesfafnent 57
right whatever to a place in the text. The beautiful
and exact rendering of the original here given in the
Revised Version will be noticed afterwards, when we
come to treat of mistakes of translation in the
Authorised Version,
The Catholic Epistles. In the Epistle of James
the remarkable change which is found in the Revised
Version at chap. i. 19 is due to the change of a single
letter in the Greek.* The evidence is decisive ; and
the principle here applies that a more difficult reading
is to be preferred to one that is easy and frequent.
In the first Epistle of Peter, at chap. ii. 21, the con-
fusion of the pronouns found in the Authorised Version,
which reads, " Christ also suffered for us^ leaving us
an example, that ye should follow his steps," is, by
a change of text, escaped in the Revised Version.
The change made at 2 Pet. iii. 2, which cannot fail to
strike the reader, has the sanction of all the great
Uncials, and of the best versions. In like manner
the insertion of the words ** and we are,'' in i John iii.
I, rests on the most decisive manuscript and Patristic
authority. In 2 John ver. 8 the confusion of pro-
nouns again found in the Authorised Version is by a
change of text corrected in the Revised Version. In
3 John ver. 12 the glaring incongruity of addressing
in the plural Gaius, to whom the Epistle is addressed,
* The two Greek words are itrre and wo-re.
58 Companion to the Revised Version of
is removed by the adoption of the correct reading,
"thou knowest." In the Epistle of Jude ver. i,
through a mistake of one Greek word for another,*
there is read in the Authorised Version, *^ sanctified
by God the Father," instead of ^^ beloved in God the
Father."
The Apocalypse, As might be inferred from what
has been said in the preceding chapter the text of the
Book of Revelation on which the Authorised Version
rests was of the most unsatisfactory character.
Accordingly, numerous corrections of the original
have led to change in the Revised Version. One of
the most important of these alterations is found at
chap. xvii. 8. The Authorised Version refers at the
close of this verse to " the beast, that was, and is not,
and yet is " — truly an enigmatical declaration — ^but by
substitution of the true text we attain to the more
intelligible statement which the reader will here find
in the Revised Version. Some interesting changes
have also been made in the concluding chapter of the
Book. Thus, in the third clause of the eleventh verse
a very puzzling reading of the common text — which,
by the way, ought not to be rendered as in the
Authorised Version, but can only mean, "let him be
justified still" — has been exchanged for one which
* The two words which have been confounded are riyaTTTj/jLivois
and 7iyia.(TiJicvo',s.
The English Ne7v Testament, 59
yields a plain and satisfactory sense — " let him do
righteousness still." And in the fourteenth verse,
instead of these words of the Authorised Version,
'^ Blessed are they that do his conunandments^ that
they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter
in through the gates into the city," we must read, far
more in accordance with the analogy of Scripture,
"Blessed are they that ivash their robes ^ that they
may have the right to come to the tree of life, and
may enter in by the gates into the city/'
6o Companion to the Revised Version of
CHAPTER V.
MORE IMPORTANT CHANGES DUE TO A CHANGE
OF TEXT.
Probably the first great change which will strike the
reader of the Revised Version is the entire omission
of the doxology of the Lord's Prayer at Matt. vi. 13.
The reasons for this omission are conclusive. First,
the clause is not found in any of the great Uncials, m,
B, D, which contain the passage. Secondly, it is
not noticed by the earliest Fathers in their expositions
of the Lord's Prayer. True, Chrysostom and others
recognise it in the fourth century, but this cannot
outweigh the fact that it is wholly unnoticed by
Origen in the third. The internal evidence, too, is
somewhat against it, as an interruption of the context.
There is, indeed, one weighty argument in its favour.
It is found in most of the ancient versions, such as
the ^thiopic, the Armenian, the Gothic, and, above
all, the Syriac. Versions, it is obvious, are far more
valuable as witnesses to the existence of clauses than
they can be in regard to individual words. And
could we be sure that the doxology existed from the
first in such an ancient version as the Peshito Syriac,
The Efiglish New Testament 6i
its genuineness would perhaps no longer be disputed.
But, as was formerly remarked, we cannot insist on
the authority of the Syriac in support of the passage.
This is felt all the more from the varying form which
is presented by the doxologyin the Curetonian
version, which omits altogether the words " and the
power." Besides, it does not exist in the Latin
Vulgate, a very important witness. Upon the whole,
criticism must pronounce decidedly against the clause
as forming part of the original text; and it is,
accordingly, not admitted into the Revised Version.
Mark xvi. 9 — 20. The reader will be struck by
the appearance which this long paragraph presents in
the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked
off by a considerable space from the rest of the
Gospel. A note is also placed on the margin con-
taining a brief explanation of this, but it may be well
here to say something more respecting such an impor-
tant section of the Evangelical history. The case,
then, stands as follows. It cannot be denied that
there is something peculiar about the paragraph. We
find that it has no place in k, B, the two oldest manu-
scripts in our possession. It is true that the writer of
B has left a blank space at the end of St. Mark's
Gospel, clearly indicating that he knew of something
more that might be inserted, but the fact remains that
he did not insert it; Again, as Tregelles has remarked,
62 Companion to the Revised Version of
"Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antiocli>
Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers,
especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not
written by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies/' *
Moreover, it must, I think, be admitted that the
style of the passage is not that of the Evangelist.
Not only are there seventeen words in the compass of
only twelve verses which are nowhere else made use
of by St. Mark, but the general complexion of the
paragraph is unlike that of the gospel. This much
may be urged against the genuineness. But, on the
other hand, in support of it we are told to reflect how
improbable it is that a writer of the Gospel history
would abruptly end his narrative with the statement
contained in verse 8. That may be admitted, and
yet there may have been circumstances unknown to
us that compelled the author to make such a sudden
termination. How many works might be referred to,
such as Macaulay's " History of England," which
close abruptly, for the too-sufficient reason that death
arrested the pen of the writer ! But again it is
argued that Irenaeus quotes the passage, without the
slightest misgiving, in the second century. True, and
that is most weighty proof of the atcthority assigned to
the passage even from the earliest times, but does by
no means prove the authorship of St. Mark. Nor
* Introduction ^ p. 435,
The English Neio Testament, d^i
can the evidence of versions be deemed conclusive,
for reasons which have been ah'eady stated. On the
whole, a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems
to lead us to these conclusions : first, that the passage
is not the immediate production of St. Mark ; and
secondly, that it is, nevertheless, possessed of full
canonical authority. We cannot ascertain its author,
but we are sure he must have been one who belonged
to the circle of the Apostles. And, in accordance
with this view of the paragraph, it is marked off from
the words with which, for some unknown reason, the
Gospel of St. Mark ended ; while, at the same time,
it is inserted, without the least misgiving, as an
appendix to that gospel in the Revised Version:
John vii. 53 — viii. 11. This section of the Gospel
narrative stands on much the same footing with that
just considered. It is enclosed within brackets in the
Revised Version, and is accompanied by an ex-
planatory note on the margin; More, however, than
that note is necessary to set forth the real authority
belonging to the passage. It is not found in any one
of the first-rate Uncials, nor in the Syriac and other
ancient versions. There is no evidence that it was
known to Origen, Chrysostom, and others of the
early Fathers. It is obelised as doubtful by many of
the manuscripts which contain it; The texts in which
it has come down to us vary exceedingly among them-
64 Companion to the Revised Version of
selves. And, lastly, as against its being an integral
portion of St; John's Gospel, it has no connection
with the context, and its style is totally different from
that of the Evangelist. On the other hand, it is found
in the ancient Uncial D, though in a text which
varies much from the received. It was known to
St. Jerome in the fourth century, who expressly
testifies that it existed in his days " in many manu-
scripts both Greek and Latin." Augustine about the
same date affirms that " some of but weak faith, or
rather enemies of the true faith," had expunged it
from their copies of the New Testament, and adds
that they did so with an ethical purpose, fearing lest
the passage might seem to grant impunity to sin.
It would appear from Eusebius that even Papias, who
lived in the early part of the second century, was
famihar with the story, though that of course does not
prove that he knew it as existing in St. John's Gospel.
Finally, the narrative itself breathes the very spirit ot
Christ and Christianity. Now, in these circumstances,
what judgment can criticism pronounce regarding it ?
The right conclusion probably is that it is no part of
St John's Gospel, and yet is a perfectly true narrative
which has descended to us from the Apostolic age.
Some critics think that its proper place would be at
the end of Luke xxi., where it is really placed in some
of the best of the Cursive manuscripts. Such being
The English New Testament, 65
the facts of the case as regards this famous paragraph,
it has properly been inserted in the text, but marked
off from the context and enclosed in brackets in the
Revised Version.
Coloss, ii. 2. A very important departure has here
been made, on textual grounds, from the Autho-
rised Version. But, as the reader will observe from
the note on the margin, this has not been done with
much confidence. The fact is that, in the present
conflicting state of the evidence, it is impossible to
say, with any approach to certainty, what was here the
original text. There are many varieties of reading.
First, we find the very short form, " to the acknowledg-
ment of the mystery of God," without any reference
to Christ at all. Next, we have " to the acknowledg-
ment of the mystery of God, Christ," nothing being
interposed between the words " God " and " Christ."
Thirdly, there is the form, " to the acknowledgment
of the mystery of God, which is Christ." Fourthly,
some good manuscripts read " to the acknowledgment
of the mystery of God, the Father of Christ." And
lastly, there is the reading of the mass of the Cursives
represented in our Authorised Version, "to the
acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the
Father, ana of Chrisv.'' The three last readings are, by
the general consent of critics, set aside, as manifest
amplifications of the original text. We are, therefore, left
F
66 Companion to the Revised Version of
to choose between the first and second forms. Such
choice is by no means easy, and critics are greatly
divided on the point According to a principle often
already alluded to, the shorter form should, other
things being equal, obtain the preference. But in
this case there is scarcely equality. The curt form
" of God " is supported only by one late Uncial, and
some good Cursives. The longer form "of God,
Christ," has the weighty authority of B, and of Hilary
among the Fathers. The fourth form mentioned above
is supported by k, A, C, and thus has perhaps more
external evidence than any of the rest, but can scarcely
be accepted on account of internal considerations. In
these circumstances, we conclude with some confidence
that the true text of the passage is that represented in
the Revised Version.
I Tim, iii. i6. The English reader will probably
be startled to find that the familiar text, "And with-
out controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God
was manifest in the flesh," has been exchanged in the
Revised Version for the following, "And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness ; He
who was manifested in the flesh." A note on the
margin states that " the word God^ in place of He who,
rests on no sufficient ancient authority ;" and it may
be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the
reader should be convinced that such is the case.
The English New Testament, 67
What, then, let us inquire, is the amount of evidence
which can be produced in support of the reading ^' Godf
This is soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers
can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very
ancient versions support it. No Uncial witnesses to
it, with the doubtful exception of A. The most diverse
opinions have been expressed by critics as to the
true text of this manuscript. To let the reader under-
stand how this should be, it must be stated that the
difference between two such similar forms as O C
and 0 0 decides whether the reading shall be " who "
or " God.*' Now, it cannot be wondered at that in a
manuscript not less than fourteen hundred years old,
it is difficult to say whether the decisive lines exist
or not. But this difficulty has been greatly increased
by an unfortunate attempt to escape from it altogether.
Some very orthodox but presumptuous hand has drawn
a dark line in the middle of the O? so as to render
it certain that *' God *' is the reading of the manuscript.
But the effort must now be made to overlook that
modern touch entirely, and decide whether or not
there is any trace of an original line in the heart of 0«
Hence the diversity of opinion among critics. Bishop
Ellicott declares for 0 C " indispiUably^ after minute
personal inspection."^ Dr. Scrivener, on the other
hand says, " I have always felt convinced with
* Coftim. on I Tim.^ p. 51.
F 2
68 Companion to the Revised Version of
Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. A read
0 C*'^* The truth probably is, that in the now worn
condition of the leaf containing the passage, it is im-
possible for any one by personal inspection at the
present day to determine the original reading of the
manuscript. Much weight, however, is due to the
opinion of those who had an opportunity of examining
the Codex soon after it was brought to England, and
when it must have been far easier to decide the
question at issue. Now, these appear to be almost
unanimous that the reading was 0 C- But even
granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian
manuscript is in favour of " God," far more evidence
can be produced in support of "who." x and pro-
bably C witness to this reading, and it has also
powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers.
Moreover, the relative " who," is a far more difficult
reading than "God," and could hardly have been
substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore,
we conclude that this interesting and important
passage must stand as it has been given in the Revised
Version.
I Peter \\L 15. The importance of the departure
here made from the Authorised Version may not at
first be obvious to the reader, but will become so on a
very little consideration. It amounts to nothing less
* Introduction, p. 553.
The English New Testament. 69
than the identification of Christ with Jehovah, For,
as all admit, the Apostle here borrows his language
from Isa, viii. 13, where we read "Sanctify the Lord
of Hosts himself." Since, therefore, the language made
use of in the Old Testament with respect to Jehovah
is here applied by St. Peter to Christ, there could not
be a clearer attestation to the deity of our Redeemer
than that w^hich is furnished by this passage as read in
the Revised Version. And the necessity of the change
here made in the text admits of no question. For the
reading of the Authorised Version there are only a
few manuscripts and Fathers; while for that of the
Revised there are all the great Uncials, several of
the Fathers, and all the best versions. This instance
of clear gain by rectification of the text tends all the
more to reconcile us to the apparent loss which now
comes to be mentioned.
I Johji V. 7,8. The whole of these verses bearing
upon what is known as " the heavenly witnesses," has
been omitted in the Revised Version. This omission
is one of the most indubitable results of textual
criticism. The words left out can be proved to have
no claim whatever to a place in the text of Scripture.
None of the Uncial manuscripts contain them. None
of the ancient versions represent them. None of the
Fathers quote them, even when arguing on the subject
of the Trinity. There are, indeed, two passages in
70 Companion to the Rroised Version of
Cyprian which seem to indicate an acquaintance with
verse 7, but even though that be granted, the fact goes
for nothing against such powerful counter-evidence.
As was formerly noticed, Erasmus omitted the words
in his first two editions. But, as they had long stood
in the Vulgate, he was, of course, subjected to much
odium for so doing. To disarm his malignant assail-
ants, he promised that in future editions he would
insert the words if they were found in a single Greek
manuscript. One was discovered in Britain which did
contain them, and therefore Erasmus admitted them
into the text of his third edition. But it is now agreed
by all scholars that the ** British manuscript," on whose
authority the words were inserted, was not more
ancient than the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It
once belonged to a Dr. Montfort, of Cambridge, and
from him it has derived its name^ being still preserved
under the title of the Codex Montfortianus in Trinity
College, Dublin. Erasmus himself suspected that the
disputed words contained in this manuscript had been
translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate, and
this is now the fixed opinion of critics. The same
thing must be said respecting the only other Greek
manuscript known to contain the passage. It belongs
to the fifteenth century, and is preserved in the
Vatican library. The text it offers varies considerably
in the verses referred to from that of the manuscript
The English New Testament 71
already spoken of, but was also undoubtedly derived
from the Latin. The same seems clearly to have been
the case with the Complutensian edition of the New
Testament. That contained in Greek the disputed
words, and Stunica, its leading editor, severely
censured Erasmus for omitting them. But when the
great scholar asked him to state on what authority he had
inserted the passage in the text, Stunica appealed only
to the Vulgate. He maintained that the Latin repre-
sented the true original of Scripture, and that the
Greek copies had been corrupted, a pretty conclusive
proof that the words in question owed their place in
his text not to their having been found in any Greek
manuscripts, but simply to their having been translated
into Greek from the Vulgate.
No defender of the genuineness of i John 7, 8,
will probably arise in the future. The controversy
regarding the passage is finished, and will never be re-
newed. But the literary history to which it has given
rise will not be forgotten. A small library might be
formed of the books and pamphlets which have been
written for or against the words. Among the authors
of these works some very celebrated names appear.
That of the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton has a place in
the list. He wrote against the genuineness of the
words, and thus did good service in the cause of truth.
But by far the most memorable event in this lengthened
72 Companion to Revised Version of New TesfamenL
and often bitter controversy was the publication of the
letters of Professor Porson to Archdeacon Travis.
These letters, by their acuteness and ability, whatever
may be thought of their spirit, virtually settled the
case against the genuineness of the passage. And
although since then the voices of some zealous friends
of Scripture — Bishops, Cardinals, and others — have
been unwisely lifted up in defence of "the three
heavenly witnesses," yet so decidedly have the minds
of all scholars now been made up as to the spurious-
ness of the words, that they have been omitted in the
Revised Version without a line even on the margin to
indicate that they had ever been admitted to a place
in the sacred text.
PART II.
CHANGES ARISING FROM AN
AMENDED TRANSLATION.
CHAPTER I.
CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN THE MEANING OF
GREEK WORDS.
There are not very many instances in which the
Authorised Version has positively mistaken the import
of the original. The translators had before them the
labours of many able predecessors, and upon the
whole turned to good account the advantages which
they thus enjoyed. Still, there are cases in which
they have gone quite astray in the meaning assigned
to the Greek, and to the chief of these we now proceed
to direct our attention.
Matt. X. 4 and Mark iii. i8. In these passages
we read in the Authorised Version of "Simon the
Catjaanite.'' This naturally suggests to an English
reader the idea that one of the Apostles did not
belong to the family of Abraham, but to the race of
the Canaanites. Such a notion, however, rests upon
an utter mistake. The epithet applied to Simon is
taken from the Aramaic /^/^/^, then commonly spoken
in Palestine. It is replaced by the Greek word
76 Companion to the Revised Version of
meaning " Zealot" at Luke vi. 15 and Acts i. 13, just
as the same Evangelist gives the Greek equivalent at
Luke viii. 54 for the Aramaic words in Mark v. 41.
The meaning, therefore, is that Simon had, before he
became a follower of Christ, belonged to the Jewish
faction of the Zealots. Accordingly, this explanation
has been given on the margin of the Revised Version
at Matt. X. 4, and Mark iii. 18, while Cananaean has
taken the place of the erroneous and misleading form
" Canaanite," in the text.
Matt. xiv. 8. Here we read in the Authorised
Version, "She, being before instructed oi\\Qr mother," &c.
But it is certain that this is a mistake. The Greek
verb made use of has never any reference to time, but
can only mean "urged on," or "impelled." As
Archbishop Trench has remarked, " We may conceive
the unhappy girl, with all her vanity and levity,
yet shrinking from the petition of blood which her
mother would put into her lips, and needing to be
urged on or pushed forward before she could be
induced to make it; and this is implied in the
word."* Hence the rendering "put forward" in the
Revised Version.
Matt, XV. 27. The Greek will not here allow of
the rendering "yet," which occurs in the Authorised
Version. And it completely perverts the meaning.
* On Authorised Versioti, p. 115.
The English New Testament. 77
The argument of the woman is derived from that very
appellation which our Lord had given her. Granting
its truthfulness, she saw it opened a door of hope
before her, so that, instead of being driven by Christ's
words to despair, she ventured to rest her whole case
upon them, and exclaimed, as in the Revised Version,
" Yea, luox^y for even the dogs eat of the crumbs which
fall from their master's table."
Matt. xxvi. 15. An interesting correction has
been made in this verse. We cannot, indeed, affirm
that the translation "covenanted," here found
in the Authorised Version, is absolutely impossible.
But it entirely breaks the connection between this
passage and Zech. xi. 12. We there find the very
same Greek verb in the Septuagint as here occurs
in the Gospel. The Old Testament rendering is,
" They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.''
And so it should be here, as in the Revised
Version, "They weighed unto him thirty pieces of
silver."
Mark iv. 29. Here the expression "is brought
forth," in the Authorised Version, is a very inexact
rendering of the Greek verb. The proper translation,
" is ripe,'* will be found in the text of the Revised
Version.
Luke iii. 23. Here we find in the Authorised
Version the singular statement that "Jesus himself
78 Companion to the Revised Version of
began to be about thirty years of age." The Greek
gives no countenance to such a translation. It ought
to be rendered as in the Revised Version, "And
, Jesus himself, when he began (to teach), was about
thirty years of age."
Luke ix. 32. This verse is quite misrepresented by
the Authorised Version, "But Peter, and they that
were with him, were heavy with sleep ; and when they
were awake^ they saw his glory, and the two men that
stood with him." It ought to be rendered as in the
Revised Version, " But Peter, and they that were with
him, were heavy with sleep \ yet having remained awake ^
they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with
him."
Lukey^M\\\. 12. Here the word " possess " in the
Authorised Version is quite an impossible rendering
of the Greek. It ought to be "acquire" or "get," as
in the Revised Version. Tithes were paid not on
what was laid up or possessed^ but on what was gained
in the way of increase. Hence the Pharisee says, " I
give tithes of all that I get."
Luke xxii. 56. The exact and graphic force of
the original is here missed in the Authorised Version.
** But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire :
and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man
was also with him." The real meaning is, that she
recognised him when a flash of the smouldering fire
The English Neto Testament, 79
fell upon his countenance. This is brought out in the
Revised Version. "And a certain maid seeing him
as he sat in the light (of the fire), and earnestly
looking upon him, said, This man also was with
him."
Ltike xxiv. 25. Many readers must have been
struck by the harshness of the words, " O fools," here
found in the Authorised Version. Such an opening
of his discourse seems quite out of keeping with the
tender and affectionate way in which Christ dealt with
these two disciples. No such incongruity appears in
the original. It simply denotes want of understanding
and reflection, and the Authorised Version has been
softened in the Revised by the simple emendation,
" O foolish men."
John ix. 17. Here the Authorised Version is
scarcely intelligible. " They say unto the blind man
again. What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened
thine eyes?" The meaning is made plain in the
Revised Version merely by inserting "in," thus —
" They say therefore unto the blind man again, What
sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes?
And he said, He is a prophet."
John X. 14, 15. The connection between these
two verses is totally destroyed in the Authorised
Version, which runs thus : " I am the good Shepherd,
and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the
So Companion to the Revised Version of
Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father;
and I lay down my life for the sheep." The verses
should be read as in the Revised Version : " I
am the good Shepherd, and I know mine own, and
mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me
and I know the Father ; and I lay down my life for
the sheep."
John xi. 20. The supplementary word "still"
here inserted in the Authorised Version : " but Mary
sat still in the house," is apt to produce an erroneous
impression. By simply transposing it in the Revised
Version, the true meaning of the tense employed in
the original is brought out : " but Mary still sat in the
house."
Acts ii. 3. The Authorised Version is here quite
wrong ; " And there appeared unto them cloven tongues^
like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.'' The
symbolical meaning of the appearance is thus quite
missed. We must render, as in the Revised Version,
"And there appeared unto them tongues parting
asunder (or, partifig among them), like as of fire, and
it sat upon each of them."
Acts iii. 19, 20. An impossible translation here
occurs in the Authorised Version, in which we read :
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your
sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing
shall come from the presence of the Lord ; and he
The English New Testament. 8i
shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached
unto you." For eschatological reasons it is most
important that the true rendering of this passage
should be presented. It is thus given in the Revised
Version : *' Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that
your sins may be blotted out, that so seasons of refresh-
ing may come from the presence of the Lord ; and
that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed
for you (even), Jesus."
Acts xxvi. 28. It is with some reluctance that we
here abandon the rendering of the Authorised Version,
^^ Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."
This is a text from which many eloquent and edifying
sermons have been preached, but the Greek will not
tolerate it. Quite a different expression must have
been used for " almost ; " and the true rendering of
the original, as it stands, seems to be that of the
Revised Version : " With hict little persuasion thou
wouldest fain make me a Christian."
Rom. iii. 25. The Authorised translation of this
verse is, " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitia-
tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous-
ness for the remission of sins that are past, through
the forbearance of God." But, besides being almost
unintelligible, this is an utterly impossible version of
the Greek. The original can only be fairly represented
in some such translation as that of the Revised
G
82 Companion to the Revised Version of
Version : ** Whom God set forth to be a propitiation,
through faith, by his blood, to shew his righteousness,
because of the passing over of tJie sins done aforetime, in
the forbearance of God."
Ro7n. xi. 7, 25. It is remarkable that the Greek
words which the Authorised Version translates in
these verses, and at 2 Cor. iii. 14, Eph. iv. 18, as
" blinded " and ** blindness," are in the Gospels (Mark
iii. 5, vi. 52; John xii. 40) rendered *' hardened^'
and *' hardness." The latter is their proper meaning,
and, as such, it has been consistently maintained in
the Revised Version.
I Cor. iv. 4. This verse stands as follows in the
Authorised Version, *^ For I know nothing by myself ;
yet am I not hereby justified ; but- he that judgeth
me is the Lord." As thus translated, the passage is
constantly misunderstood. Even intelligent readers
imagine that the Apostle here means to state that he
was dependent for all the knowledge he had on the
favour of God. But this is a total misapprehension
of the meaning. The true sense is brought out in the
Revised Version, '^ For I know nothing against myself;
yet am I not hereby justified : but he that judgeth me
is the Lord." This passage might, perhaps, have been
more justly classed mth those archaisms which require
adjustment to present-day usage than with mistakes
in translation. Yet the misunderstanding of the words
The English Neiu Testament. 83
is so great, that it seemed important to notice them
here. Some have deemed the expression " by my-
self " a mere provinciaHsm, which was, through over-
sight, admitted into the Authorised Version, but the
phrase seems once to have been good EngUsh. Thus,
" Cranmer says to Henry VIII., * I am exceedingly
sorry that such faults can be proved by the queen,'
that is, against her."* The Aposde means that though
he was not conscious of having done any wrong in
reference to the Corinthians, yet, after all, it was only
God that could truly judge and thoroughly justify him.
2 Co7'. ii. 14. Here the rendering, "Now thanks
be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in
Christ," seems to rest on a mistake as to the meaning
of the Greek. Indeed, the Authorised Version con-
tradicts itself, for the same word occurs again at Col.
ii. 15, and is there translated " triumphing over them."
The correct rendering is that of the Revised Version,
" But thanks be unto God, which always leadeth us in
triumph in Christ,'' on which Bishop Lightfoot remarks,
that here ^'the image of the believer made captive
and chained to the car of Christ is most expressive,
while the paradox of the Apostle's thanksgiving over
his own spiritual defeat and thraldom is at once sig-
nificant and characteristic." t
* Eadie, The English Bible, ii. 374,
t Revision of the New Testament, p. 135,
G 2
84 Companion to the Revised Version of
Gal, V. 17. The Authorised Version here reads,
" For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh ; and these are contrary the one to
the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye
would.'' By this rendering the flesh is represented
as the master-principle, which succeeds in preventing
believers from doing the things which they would.
But the very opposite is implied in the Greek.
The Spirit who dwells in believers is represented as
enabling them successfully to resist those tendencies
to evil which naturally exist within them ; and the
correct rendering is that of the Revised Version,
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the
one to the other ; that ye may not do the things that
ye would^^
Eph, iv. 29. Here again the Authorised Version
presents the following impossible translation, " Let no
corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,
but that which is good to the use of edifying^ that it
may minister grace unto the hearers." The literal
meaning of the Greek is " to the building up of the
need," and its real import is, that hearers are to be
addressed, not in commonplace generalities, but in
special terms, as their necessities require. This is
expressed in the Revised Version, " Let no corrupt
speech proceed out of your mouth, but that which is
The English New Testament 85
good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give
grace to them that hear/'
Fhilipp. iv. 2, 3. The Authorised Version here
reads, *'I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche,
that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I
intreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women
which laboured with me in the Gospel," &c. It would
seem from this rendering that Euodias and Syntyche
are referred to only in the second verse, and that the
women afterwards spoken of are different. But the
original shows that this is not the case, and the proper
translatfcn is that of the Revised Version, " I beseech
Euodias, and I beseech Syntyche to be of the same
mind in the Lord. Yea, I intreat thee also, true yoke-
fellow, help those women for they laboured with me in
the Gospel," &c.
Col ii. 8. If it cannot be said that the Authorised
Version here is positively erroneous, it is certainly
liable to grave misconstruction. The true meaning is
clearly brought out, when instead of " Beware lest any
man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,'^ we
read as in the Revised Version, " Take heed lest there
shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his
philosophy and vain deceit."
2 Thess, ii. i. Here the Authorised Version
errs, in common with many others, in the rendering,
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming
86 Companion to the Revised Version of
of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. It should be, as
in the Revised Version, "Now we beseech you,
brethren, in regard of the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ,'' &c.
I Tim, vi. 5. Here the rendering of the Author-
ised Version, "supposing that gain is godliness," is
not only erroneous but absurd. How it could have
ever found acceptance is very difficult to understand.
As the original clearly indicates, " godliness " is the
subject, and "gain" the predicate, so that the correct
rendering is that of the Revised Version, " supposing
that godliness is a way of gain P
Heh. xi. 13. This verse is spoiled in the Author-
ised Version, which runs thus, "These all died in faith,
not having received the promises, but having seen
them afar off, and were persuaded of them and em-
braced them, and confessed that they were strangers
and pilgrims on the earth." It was formerly remarked
that the clause " and were persuaded of them " has no
right to stand in the text. We have now to notice
that the translation, "and embraced them," is incorrect.
The image, as Chrysostom long ago remarked, is that
of sailors who, catching a glimpse of the shores they
wish to reach, salute them from a distance. It will be
remembered how the poet notices this in our own
language, when, speaking of a promontory by the sea,
he says—
The English New Testament, 87
" His hoary head
Conspicuous many a league, the mariner,
Bound homeward, and in hope already there,
Greets with three cheers exulting." -
Such is the attitude assigned in this passage to the Old
Testament saints, and the verse ought to be translated
as in the Revised Version, " These all died in faith,
not having received the promises, but having seen
them, and greeted them from afar, and having confessed
that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
I Fet. iii. 21. It is certain that the Authorised
Version is here wrong in translating the original as
meaning " the answer of a good conscience towards
God." The exact meaning of the clause is difficult to
determine. It probably is the seeking after God with
an earnest heart, as the great spiritual idea in Christian
baptism implies. The Revised Version, with certainly
a far nearer approach to truth than the Authorised,
inserts somewhat doubtfully in the text, " the interro-
gation of a good conscience toward God," while
" inquiry " and " appeal " stand on the margin.
Rev. iv. 6, 7, 8, 9; V. 6, 8, 11, 14; vi. i, 3, 5, 6, 7;
vii. 1 1 ; xiv. 3 ; xv. 7 ; xix. 4. Every one must have
heard the word "beast" or "beasts," which is the
translation of the Authorised Version in these passages,
quietly corrected into "living creature" or "creatures."
* Cowper's Task, Book I.
88 Covipanion to the Revised Version of
The word in the original is totally different from that
which is found in such passages as Rev. xiii. i, xiv. 9,
&c., where the rendering ''beast" is quite proper.
The terms will be found properly discriminated in the
Revised Version.
The English New Testament, 89
CHAPTER II.
CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN GREEK GRAMMAR.
Here a very wide field opens up before us. The
Authorised Version is often most inexact in regard to
grammatical points. This comes out in many ways,
and will here be illustrated with reference to the article,
the tenses of the Greek verb, and the senses assigned
to several prepositions.
It need hardly be said how great is the difference
of meaning imparted to a clause or sentence in our
language, according as one word in it is without an
article, or has the indefinite or definite article. Thus,
if we read, " God gave life to inan^^ that is felt to have
a very distinct sense from " God gave life to a man,"
and the latter again to be very difi"erent in meaning
from, " God gave life to the man." Perhaps no better
illustration could be adduced of the difference of
signification caused in English by the use of the
indefinite or definite articles respectively than is fur-
nished in the remark said to have been made by
Charles Fox, when^ comparing his own fluency with
that of William Pitt, he said, " I never want a word,
90 Compajiio7i to iJie Radsed Version of
but Pitt never wants ike word.'* These examples will
sufficiently suggest to the reader how much may
depend on the coiTect use of the article in our
language.
But in the Authorised Version this point of accuracy
has been almost entirely neglected. The Greek
language has a definite article, and its omission or
insertion in a passage often has the weightiest effect
upon the sense. Yet our translators seem to have
been ignorant of this fact, and have treated the
article as if it were not of the slightest importance.
They have been guilty of every possible variety of
error in connection with it. As will immediately
appear, they have omitted it in their version where it
existed in the original ; they have inserted it where it
had no place in the Greek ; and they have sometimes
over-translated it by giving it the force of a demon-
strative pronoun. Let us look at some instances of
their blundering under each of these three heads.
First — The Authorised Version has frequently
omitted the article where it existed in the Greek.
There are, no doubt, cases in which the English idiom
will not tolerate the use of an article where it is found
in the original. This is especially true when it stands
before proper names and abstract nouns. But, with
these exceptions, it is generally important that the
definite article should be represented in English when
The English Nav Testament, 91
it stands in the Greek. This comes out very strikingly
in connection with the word Christ, That term is
never used in the Gospels as a proper name, but
always as an official title. Only once is it connected
with the personal appellation Jesus, namely, at John
xvii. 3, in which passage the Saviour stations himself,
as it were, in the future, when his claim to be regarded
as Messiah shall have been demonstrated by the
resurrection. After that event, the term Christ might
be used as synonymous with Jesus, but not before.
Accordingly, we find that in the Gospels the word
has, with very few exceptions, the article prefixed, and
should therefore be translated ^' the Christ." Thus, at
Matt. ii. 4, where the Authorised Version has ^*he
demanded of them where Christ should be born,"
the proper rendering is the Ch7'ist, the promised
Messiah. And so throughout. Many other examples
of the improper and hurtful omission of the article by
the Authorised Version might be quoted. I shall
notice only these two — 2 Thess. ii. 3, where, instead
of " a falling away,'' and " that man of sin," we should
read " except the falling away come first, and the man
of sin be revealed," and Heb. xi. 10, where the right
rendering is, " he looked for the city which hath the
foundations," the reference being to the Avell-known
and often-alluded-to foundations, in other words, he
looked for the New Jerusalem, of which it had been
92 Companion to the Revised Version of
already said, "Her foundations are in the holy
mountains" (Ps. Ixxxvii. i ; cf. Isa. xxviii. i6); even
as in the Apocalypse great things are spoken of these
glorious foundations of the heavenly city (Rev. xxi. 14,
19, 20)."* Proper regard to the insertion of the
definite article where it occurs in the Greek will be
found one of the marked characteristics of the Revised
Version.
Secondly, the Authorised Version has ijiserted the
definite article where it had no place in the Greek.
This is not such a frequent error as that just noticed,
but still not a few examples are to be found. Thus,
at I Tim. vi. 10, the Authorised Version makes St.
Paul declare that " the love of money is the root of all
evil," an exaggerated statement which could not be
seriously maintained, whereas the true rendering is,
" the love of money is a root of all evil," a sad truth
which universal experience has confirmed. So again,
at Luke iii. 14, we should read, " and soldiers also
asked him ; " at 2 Cor. iii. 15, " ^ veil lieth upon their
heart;" at Gal. iv. 31, "children of a handmaid ; " at
Philipp. iii. 5, "a Hebrew of Hebrews;" and thus in
several other passages which will be noticed by readers
of the Revised Version.
* Thirdly, the Authorised Version has sometimes
over-translated the article by giving it the force of a
* Abp. Trench, 0?i the Authorised Version, p. 86.
The English New Testament, 93
demonstrative pronoun. Examples of this error occur
at John i. 21, where we find, ^^Art thou that prophet ? "
instead of "Art thou the prophet?" iv. 37, ^Uhat
saying" for "///<? saying ; " vi. 32, "///^/ bread" for
*'//^<? bread;" at Acts xix. 9, ''that way" for ''the
way;" 2 Cor. iii. 17, " ^//^/ Spirit " for "the Spirit;''
vii. II, "in this matter " for " in the matter ; " Rev. i.
3, "words of this prophecy" for "words of the
prophecy;" and so in some other passages which
have been corrected in the Revised Version.
Finally, in connection with this point there are
several passages which serve to prove that the trans-
lators of the Authorised Version attached little or no
importance to the occurrence of the article either in
Greek or English. Thus, at James v. 20 they trans-
lated the Greek by " a multitude of sins," while at
I Peter iv. 8 they render the very same words '^ the
multitude of sins." Thus, too, at Matt. viii. 20 we
find the article which stands in the original given in
English, " The foxes have holes, and the birds of the
air have nests," whereas at Luke ix. 58 the very same
Greek is rendered without the article — " Foxes have
holes, and birds of the air have nests." How detri-
mental to the bringing out of the true meaning of
Scripture in many passages was this unscholarly and
inconsistent treatment of the article has already been
sufficiently evinced.
94 Companion to the Revised Version of
The next point of grammatical incorrectness
which calls for notice in the Authorised Version
respects the rendering of the tenses of the Greek verb.
Here, as in regard to the article, the translators were,
no doubt, misled by their greater familiarity with the
Latin than the Greek language. The Latin has no
article, definite or indefinite, nor does it possess the
elaborate tense system of the Greek. In particular,
Latin has no means of distinguishing between
momentary past action for ever finished and con-
tinuous past action just completed, but which may
still be carried on. The Latin perfect tense must
serve both purposes, and hence it was natural that
men who were accustomed to speak and write in that
language, with its one tense denoting both varieties of
past action, should fail to discriminate between the
two tenses employed to express the two kinds of past
action in the sister tongue.
We find, accordingly, that little attention is paid
in the Authorised Version to the difference between
the Greek aorist and the Greek perfect. They are
interchanged very much at random in the translation.
Thus, at Matt. ii. 2 an aorist is translated as a perfect
— "we have seen" for *Sve saw;" while at Lukexiii. 2
a perfect is translated as an aorist — " they suffered "
for " they have suffered." The clear principle which
ought to be observed in regard to this matter is that
The English New Testament 95
the Greek tenses should always be rendered with
strict grammatical precision in English, whenever the
genius of our language will admit of it. But there
are, undoubtedly, many occasions on which English
idiom will not tolerate a strict rendering of the aorist.
Instead of the bare and hard past tense, a perfect or
even pluperfect rendering brings out the meaning
better in our language. Thus at Matt. xix. 20 an
aorist occurs in the Greek, yet the Revised Version,
no less than the Authorised, renders it by a perfect —
"All these things have I observed^ It is quite
impossible to act upon the rule that the Greek aorist
must always be rendered by the English past tense \
and, that being so, differences of opinion will ne-
cessarily arise with respect to particular passages.
But, while this is admitted, there is at the same time
no doubt that the strict grammatical meaning of the
tense has often been departed from in the Authorised
Version, not only without necessity, but even to the
detriment of the sense. Thus, at Matt. ii. 15, instead
of ** I have called," we ought to read " I called," the
reference being to a historic fact in the distant past.
So at Acts xix. 2 the meaning is quite obscured by the
rendering — " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since
ye beheved ?" It ought to be, " Did ye receive the
Holy Ghost when ye believed ? '' Once more, at
2 Pet. i. 14 the striking reference by the Apostle to
96 Companion to the Revised Version of
the scene described in John xxi. 18, 19, is quite lost
by the substitution of a perfect tense for the aorist of
the original. The verse has only to be read as it
stands in the Authorised and Revised Versions re-
spectively to feel that such is the case. In the one
we find the following words : " Knowing that shortly
I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord
Jesus Christ hath shewed me," as if the communica-
tion had just been made. In the other we read,
** Knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle
cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ shelved
me" — the mind being thus at once transported to
the shore of the Lake of Galilee, where Christ had
so long ago forewarned his Apostle "by what
manner of death he should glorify God." These are
only a few examples of the many grammatical correc-
tions which have been made with respect to the aorist
in the Revised Version.
Again, as has been said, perfects are translated as
if they had been aorists. This also sometimes greatly
mars the sense, as at i Cor. xv. 4. In the first clause
of that verse an aorist occurs, and in the second a
perfect \ but both are translated as past tenses in the
Authorised Version, thus, " And that he was buried,
and that he rose again the third day according to the
Scriptures." The beautiful discrimination indicated in
the original between the fact of Christ's burial and that
The English New Testament, 97
of his resurrection is thus lost. The former event was
simply historical, and has passed away for ever; the
latter is more than historical, for Christ still exists as a
living Person who has risen again from the dead. The
perfect, therefore, should have its proper meaning
assigned to it, and the verse should stand thus, ^* And
that he was buried, and that he hath been raised on the
third day according to the Scriptures." There are
numerous other instances in which the use of the
perfect in the Greek has a special beauty which is lost
in our English version. Thus, the proper rendering at
John V. 33 imparts great additional vividness to the
passage — " Ye have sejit unto John, and he hath borne
witness unto the truth. ^* Of course, the perfect may
frequently be expressed by "is" as well as by "has;"
we may say either "my time is not yet come," or, "my
time has not yet come." Sometimes the one form is
to be preferred in our language and sometimes the
other; but in one way or another, the perfect, where it
occurs in the Greek, may generally be expressed in
English. Thus we read at Matt. xxv. 6, "At midnight
a cry is made," and not " was made;" at John viii. ^^,
" have never been^^^ and not " were never," and so in
other places which will be observed in reading the
Revised Version.
The imperfect tense often expresses delicate shades
of meaning in the original which cannot, always be
11
98 Companion io the Raised Version of
represented in our language. But certainly much
more may in this respect be accomplished than is
attempted in the Authorised Version. Thus at Matt,
iii. 14, the word "forbad" is a very coarse rendering
of an imperfect tense in the Greek, The meaning is
that John laboured for a time to avoid what he thought
the unseemliness of baptising his superior, and this has
been expressed in the Revised Version by the words,
"John would have hindered him." Again, at Luke
i. 59, there is a mis-statement of fact owing to the
neglect of the imperfect tense. It is stated that "they
called him Zacharias," but this is not true, since they
were prevented by the interposition of his mother from
doing so. The passage simply implies that they in-
tended to name the child Zacharias, and this is ex-
pressed by the translation, " they would have dialled
him." Once more, at Luke v. 6, we read in the
Authorised Version that " their net b7'ake^^ where the
proper rendering is ^'was breaking^' — the process had
begun. Sometimes the aorist and the imperfect stand
in the same verse, and the force of the latter is then
very obvious, yet has not unfrequently been missed.
Thus at Luke viii. 23 we read that "there came
down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled
with water, and were in jeopardy;'' but while the tense
of the first verb denotes completed past action, that of
the second implies that the threatened result was not
The English Neiv Testament 99
yet accomplished, and the translation should be "they
were filling with water/'
The manner in which the Greek tenses are rendered
in the Authorised Version does indeed exhibit strange
inconsistency and confusion. Present tenses are
represented by pasts^ as at Heb. ix. 6, " the priests
went^^ for " the priests go^^ at Rev. vii. 14, " these are
they which came^^ for "these are they which comey^
and in other places ; and by futures^ as at Matt. xxiv.
40 and 41, "the one shall be taken, and the other left,''
for "one is taken, and one is left;" John vii. 41,
''Shall Christ come out of Galilee?" for ''Doth the
Christ come out of Galilee?" and in several other
passages. Future tenses are rendered as imperatives:
thus, at Matt. v. 48, we find, '' Be ye perfect," for "Ye
shall be perfect, and at i Tim. vi. 8, we read, much to
the injury of the passage, " Having food and raiment
let us be therewith content," for " we shall be therewith
content."
While the Authorised Version is thus so very in-
exact in its rendering of the tenses, we cannot expect
to find it free from error in various other particulars
connected with the Greek verb. Some writers have,
accordingly, noted that it occasionally mis-translates
the middle or passive voice, by assigning it a meaning
which belongs only to the active. Thus, at Philipp. ii.
15, we find " among whom^^ shine^^ where the correct
H 2
loo Companion to the Revised Version of
rendering is, " among whom ye are seefiJ' Again at
2 Cor. V. lo, the force of the passive is not brought
out. The original implies far more than that "we
must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,"
its real force is that " we must all be made manifest^
When the ear has once become disenchanted of the
charm which is felt to reside in the familiar w^ords of
the Authorised Version, it will be acknowledged that
in the changes which regard for grammatical accuracy
in rendering the Greek verb has demanded, much
gain is to be derived from the more scholarly repre-
sentation of the original presented in the Revised
Version.
We have now to look at some of those instances
of mistranslation which occur in the Authorised
Version with respect to the Greek prepositions.
These errors are not so numerous as some writers
have represented. It would be an utter mistake to
demand from the writers of that Hebraised Greek in
which the New Testament is composed the same
grammatical precision that is found in the classical
authors. There should be taken into account, when
dealing especially with their use of the Greek prepo-
sitions, the fact that they w^ere influenced by the
analogous Hebrew words in the way in which they
employed them. We cannot, therefore, rigidly apply
The English Neiv Testament, loi
to their writings those canons of interpretation de-
rived from a study of the classics. Much allowance
must be made for the effect of Hebrew idiom ; but,
after that has been done, it is certain that the sacred
writers did not use the prepositions with that laxity
which might be inferred from the renderings given to
them in the Authorised Version.
We cannot, for example, imagine that they con-
founded the two very distinct meanings which a much-
used preposition* had, according as it governed the
genitive or accusative. Yet this is frequently done in
our English version. The genitive rendering "by
means oV is substituted for the accusative rendering
" by reason of," or the preposition is, in some other
way, deflected from its proper import. Thus, at John
vi. 57, we find the erroneous rendering "by" twice
in one verse, "As the living Father hath sent me and
I live hy the Father ; so he that eateth me, even he
shall live by me." The great theological truth is thus
obscured that the Father is the fountain of life, while
the Son again is the source of all life to created beings,
and specially of the highest life to His people ; and
the verse should be rendered as follows, "As the
living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father ;
so he that eateth me shall live because of me." At
Heb. vi. 7 we read " bringeth forth herbs meet for
* 5ta.
102 Companion to the Revised Version of
them by whom it is dressed," instead of the only
correct rendering ^^for whose sake it is dressed."
Numerous other examples of the way in which the
two perfectly distinct meanings of the preposition,
according to the case by which it is followed, are
confounded, might be produced, but that is not the
only error which our translators have committed in
respect to it They have rendered it ^' at " in Matt,
vii. 13, where the usual " by " would have been more
correct; "for" at i Cor. vii. 26, where "by reason
of " is the clearer translation; "for" again at Rom.
XV. 30, where, with a different case, "by" is the only
proper equivalent ; and even " to " instead of " by "
at 2 Pet. i. 3, where they must have been in despair
as to the meaning before they adopted such an im-
possible translation. They clearly show that they
had no principles to guide them in the rendering
they gave of this preposition, sometimes placing the
wrong translation in the text and the right one in the
margin, or vice versa, and being apparently induced
to choose one English term rather than another,
simply by what seemed to them best to suit the
context.
Not to dwell at any length on mis-translations of
other prepositions, the following erroneous renderings
may simply be noted as specimens. At Luke xxiii.
42 we have the very serious mistake of " Lord, re-
The English New Testament, 103
member me when thou comest into thy kingdom," for
" Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy king-
dom"— in the full possession of Thy mediatorial
sovereignty. At Matt, xxviii. 19, instead of "baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost," the true rendering is *^ baptizing
them into the name,'' just as at i Cor. x. 2 we read
"baptized into Moses," and as should be read at
Acts viii. 16, ^'into the name of the Lord Jesus," and
at I Cor. i. 13, ^^ into the name of Paul." At Matt.
xxiv. 30 the translation should be " on the clouds,"
and not "/«the clouds;" and so in other passages
where the same preposition is used. In the important
doctrinal passage, i Cor. viii. 6, instead of " iii him,"
we should read " nnto him ;" and the verse runs thus
in the Revised Version : " To us there is one God, the
Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him ;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things, and we through him."
It deserves also to be noticed that prepositions are
sometimes mis-translated when in composition with
verbs. Thus, to give only one striking example,
we read in the Authorised Version, at Heb. iv. 14,
" Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that
is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let
us hold fast our profession." But this is an im-
possible translation of the preposition here used with
104 Companion to the Revised Version of
the verb, and the only correct rendering is, " Having
then a great high priest, who hath passed through the
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our
confession." This expression, " hath passed through
the heavens," may at first appear strange to us, but it
will gain in significance the more it is pondered,
denoting, as it probably does, that "as the earthly
high priest passed through the veil into the holiest
place, so the great High Priest through the heavens
to God's throne."*
Many other examples of less or more inaccuracy
might be noticed as existing in our common English
translation, but the above must suffice as illustra-
tions ; and the rest will suggest themselves to every
careful reader of the Revised Version.
* Alford on Heb, iv. 14.
27^ English New Testament, 105
CHAPTER III.
CORRECTION OF ARCHAISMS, AMBIGUITIES, AND THE
RENDERING OF PROPER NAMES AND TECHNICAL
EXPRESSIONS.
No attempt has been made to modernise the style ot
the Authorised Version. On the contrary, "innocent
archaisms" — to use an expression which was fre-
quently on the lips of the Company — have invariably
been allowed to stand. It was felt that these tend to
give a dignity and solemnity to a translation of the
Scriptures, and that to change them into the language of
present every-day life would have been to ensure loss
instead of gain. As has been well remarked, "These
(archaisms), shedding round the sacred volume the
reverence of age, removing it from the ignoble associa-
tions which will often cleave to the language of the
day, should on no account be touched, but rather
thankfully accepted and carefully preserved. For,
indeed, it is good that the phraseology of Scripture
should not be exactly that of our common life : should
be removed from the vulgarities, and even the fami-
liarities, of this 3 just as there is a sense of fitness
io6 Companion to the Revised Version of
which dictates that the architecture of a church should
be different from that of a house."*
In accordance with these sentiments, the same
antique air which belongs to the Authorised Version
will be found also to distinguish the Revised Trans-
lation. Every archaism that still continues generally
intelligible has been left untouched. Hence, such
forms as hath^ whiles, throughly, holpen, &c., have
been retained, and the relative "which'' has been
allowed to stand, as in old English, when the antece-
dent is a person.
But it is manifest that an archaism ceases to be
innocent when it has become altogether obsolete, or
has wholly or to a considerable degree changed its
meaning. And not a few such words or phrases are
to be found in the Authorised Version. They are
now either quite unintelligible or seriously misleading;
and to substitute other expressions for them was
clearly one of the plainest duties to be kept in view
in preparing the Revised Version.
The following words may be given as examples of
those that have, of necessity, been replaced by others.
" Let '' now means to permit, but is used with exactly
the opposite meaning of hinder at Rom. i. 13 ; 2
Thess. ii. 7. " Worship " is now used only with
reference to the service of God, but occurs in the
* Abp. Trench On the Authorised Version, p. 22.
The English Nau Testament, 107
sense of respect shoivn to man at Luke xiv. 10; while
"room/' now meaning apartment^ is used in the same
verse to denote a seat, "Wealth" reads strangely
indeed at i Cor. x. 24, " Let no man seek his own,
but every man another's wealth^' where the word means
welfare, "Prevent" now means to hinder^ but at
Matt. xvii. 25 and i Thess. iv. 15 it is used in the
sense of anticipate or precede, " Quick '' is used for
livings as at Heb. iv. 1 2, and is barely intelligible to
the ordinary reader of that passage. " Ensue '' is
quite obsolete in the sense oipursice^ which it has at
I Peter iii. 1 1. " The word " conversation," as used in
the Authorised Version, is a most fruitful cause of
mistake. It always means conduct^ except at Philipp.
iii. 20, where it is translated "citizenship" in the
Revised Version, and might perhaps mean " city ^' or
"home." The dreadful word "damnation," which
stands at i Cor. xi. 29, has had the very worst con-
sequences in many cases, and means no more than
judgment, " Honest," at Philip, iv. 8, is a Latinism,
meaning honou7'able; and the same is true of Rom.
xii. 17, though the Greek is there different. "Affect,"
at Gal. iv. 17, is used for conrt^ and " allow," at Luke
xi. 48, means approve — senses of the words which
would never occur to a modern English reader. The
words " offend " and " offence " are very misleading,
but it is not easy to substitute for them others that
io8 Companion to the Revised Version of
shall be in every respect preferable. The Revised
Version has adopted cause to stumble and stumbling'
block for " offend '' and " offence " in some passages,
as Matt. V. 29, xvi. 23, but in others has not been able
to get rid of the obnoxious words. " Virtue," at Mark
V. 30 and Luke vi. 19, vii. 46, simply means /^^e/^r.
In the word "usury,'* at Matt. xxv. 27, there is no
objectionable meaning, and it has been replaced by
interest^ as our language nowjequires. ** Nephews," at
I Tim. v. 4, really means gmjidchildren ; and when
Moses is called "a proper child," at Heb. xi. 23, the
meaning is what we now express by such a word as
goodly. The singular expression " occupy," found at
Luke xix. 13 means traffic, and "by-and-by," which
occurs at Matt. xiii. 21 and several other passages
in the Gospels, means immediately. " Writing table,"
at Luke i. (i2i'i denotes writing tab let , while " devotions,'*
at Acts xvii? 23, means "objects of worship.'' To
mention only one other example of the many misleading
archaisms which exist in the Authorised Version, the
word "debate " is used at Rom. i. 29 in the sense of
strife ; and so liable is this to be misunderstood that
we are told " a worthy member of a Scottish Church
court once warned its members not to call their
deliberations a Mebate,' for debate was one of the
rank sins condemned by the inspired apostle ! "*
* Eadie's English Bible, ii. 374.
The English New Testament 109
As specimens of archaic phrases or modes of ex-
pression which are very apt at the present day to be
mistaken the following will suffice. At Matt. vi. 34
the injunction, "Take no thought for the morrow,"
occurs, and has proved very hurtful in modern times.
It was a faithful enough representation of the original
two and a half centuries ago, for " thought " was then
used in the sense of anxiety. But the word has now
no such meaning, and the consequence is that the
precept of our Lord as it stands has perplexed many a
humble believer, while it has been used by unbelievers
as a charge against Christ's teaching, which, they
affirm, encourages improvidence. But the Greek really
means, " Be not anxious for the morrow," and is so
rendered in the Revised Version. Again, to take an
instance of a different kind, what a ludicrous notion
are these words at Acts xxi. 1 5 fitted to suggest : " And
after those days we took up our carriages^ and went up
to Jerusalem." Persons of education will doubtless
run little risk of mistaking the meaning of the passage.
But it should ever be remembered that the Bible is,
above all other volumes, the peoples hook, and that, it
possible, not a single expression should be left in any
translation of it which is at all likely to stumble or
perplex the plainest reader. In the case before us, a
very slight change, " we took up our baggage,'^ makes
the meaning clear. Some strange stories have been
no Compaiiioii to the Revised Version of
told in connection with the words " we fetched a
compass," which occur at Acts xxviii. 13, and whether
these be true or not, much is gained by the rendering,
" we made a circuit," adopted in the Revised Version.
Some ambiguities which occur in the Authorised
Version also deserve to be noticed. One of the most
puzzling of these, if regard be had only to the ap-
parently grammatical import of the words, occurs at
2 Cor. V. 21, " He hath made him to be sin for tis^
who knew 710 sinj'' where it might seem that the
sinlessness of mankind was proclaimed. This possible
misconception is very simply but effectually obviated
in the Revised Version, by rendering, in exact ac-
cordance with the order of the Greek, " Him who
knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf." At
Luke iv. 20 the statement " He closed the book, and he
gave it again to the minister " might suggest the idea
of a president or preacher in the synagogue, instead
of the attendant or officer who had charge of the
sacred books. At Eph. vi. 12 the rendering, " spiritual
wickedness in high places," is clearly ambiguous, as it
might seem to refer (and has, indeed, been so taken)
to the wickedness of persons high in rank or authority,
whereas the true meaning is **in the heavenly places,"
as in other passages of the Epistle. There is an
obvious misplacement of the word " also " at Heb.
xii. I, to the obscuring of the sense: "Wherefore
The English Neiv Testament. in
seeing we also are compassed about with so great a
cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside," &c., as if the
believers named in the previous chapter were, like
us, " compassed about," while they, in fact, are them-
selves " the cloud of witnesses ; '' and the verse should
run, "Let us also," &c. Finally, James ii. i, '* My
brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,"
is rendered clearer by translating *•' hold not," &c. ; and
so at chap. iii. i, " My brethren, be not many masters,
knowing that we shall receive the greater condemna-
tion," has, with advantage, been exchanged for, " Be
not many teachers^ my brethren, knowing that we
shall receive a greater judgment," in the Revised
Version.
We now proceed to consider the rendering of
proper 7iames.
The common-sense principle to be observed in
regard to these is that one form should be preserved
throughout Scripture for the same person, so that there
may be no doubt as to identity. But, as need hardly
be said, this rule is grossly violated in the Authorised
Version. We find such varieties as Noah and Noe,
Korah and Core, Hosea and Osee, Sinai and Sina,
Midian and Madian, Miletus and Miletum, &c., made
use of in referring to the same persons or places. This
is most confusing to the reader, and may sometimes
entail serious disadvantage. "Let us just seek," it
112 Companion to the Revised Version of
has been well said, "to realise to ourselves the
difference in the amount of awakened attention
among a country congregation which Matt. xvii. lo
would create if it were read thus : 'And his disciples
asked him, saying. Why then say the scribes that Elijah
must first come ? ' as compared with what it now is
likely to create."* The procedure of our translators
in regard to this matter of proper names is truly in-
comprehensible. Not only do they vary the forms in
the Old and New Testament, but they do so in
the New Testament itself, even in the same books,
yea, in the same chapters. Thus we find " Mark " at
Acts xii. 12, 25 and 2 Tim. iv. it, but "Marcus" at
Col. iv. 10, Philem. ver. 24, i Peter v. 13 ; " Cretes " at
Acts ii. II, but "Cretians" at Tit. i. 12; "Simon,
son of Jona," at John i. 42, but " Simon, son of
Jonas," at John xxi. 15, 16, 17; "Luke" at Col. iv.
14, 2 Tim. iv. II, but "Lucas" at Philem. ver. 24;
"Jeremy" at Matt. ii. 17, but "Jeremias" at Matt,
xvi. 14, and "Jeremy" again at Matt, xxvii. 9;
" Timotheus" at Acts xvi. i, but "Timothy" at Heb.
xiii. 21, and, most strange of all, " Timothy " at 2 Cor.
i. I, but " Timotheus," at ver. 19 of the same chapter.
It is no slight gain that these and similar inconsis-
tencies have been corrected in the Revised Version.
But there is another name which here calls for
* Trench On the Authorised Version ^ p. 41.
The English New Testament, 113
special notice — even the "name that is above every
name." The Greek form of Joshua is Jesus, and for
that very insufficient reason Jesus stands in two
passages of the Authorised Version where Joshua,
the leader of Israel, is intended. These are Acts vii.
45 and Heb. iv. 8, and in both passages the introduc-
tion of the name of Jesus must have proved very
puzzling to plain English readers. When they find it
stated that " if Jesus had given them rest, then would
he (David) not afterwards have spoken of another
day," their minds are certain to form some confused
notion of the Saviour, who is the author of rest to His
people. And thus is a passage of Scripture obscured
and perverted by the use of the name Jesus, instead
of Joshua, to designate the illustrious captain of the
children of Israel.
The extraordinary inconsistency of the Authorised
Version in regard to proper names admits of still
further illustration. At Acts xvii. 19 we find the term
"Areopagus," but only three verses after the same
spot is referred to as " Mars' hill ;" the form " Judea''
occurs at Matt. ii. i, and most other places, but for
some inconceivable reason the name appears as
" Jewry " at Luke xxiii. 5 and John vii. i ; so, again,
" Judas " is the usual form in the New Testament for
the " Judah " of the Old, but the name appears as
" Juda " at Mark vi. 3, &c., and as " Jude " in the first
I
114 Companion to the Revised Version of
verse of the Epistle written by that Apostle. It is
hardly possible to say a word in defence of such
capricious variations, and, as a matter of course, they
are not to be found in the Revised Version.
With regard to all such names, the really important
points are that the form which has through circum-
stances become most familiar should be adopted, and
that then this form should be adhered to with strict,
unvarying consistency.
On now turning to the consideration of technical
expressions, we find much to object to in the
Authorised Version. Several, indeed, of the render-
ings it has given of them involve more or less of
positive error. Thus is it with the term "deputy,"
which occurs at Acts xiii. 7, 8, 12, and xix. 38; it
should always be translated " proconsul." Again, the
rendering " certain of the chief of Asia," at Acts xix. 31,
suggests quite a false impression. It is an official
title, and should have either been transferred from the
Greek, like "tetrarch," so as to read "Asiarchs," or
translated " presidents," as in the Revised Version.
At Mark vi. 27 the word rendered "executioner"
really signifies " a soldier of the guard ; " and at Rom.
xvi. 23 " treasurer of the city " is a preferable render-
ing to " chamberlain "
It is very difficult to decide what course should be
The English New Testament 115
followed in translating the names of coins, weights
and measures. As need hardly be said, there are, as
regards these, no words in our language exactly
corresponding to the original ; and it would never do
to present them in a strictly equivalent version, so as
to read "a measure of wheat for eightpence-half-
penny,'* or " six pounds five shillings would not
purchase bread sufficient." On the other hand, every
one feels that the " penny " and " pence '* which occur
so often in the Authorised Version are awkward and
misleading. Still, nothing better could be found.
The word in the original, "denarion," might indeed
have been transferred from the Greek into English,
and so with all the other terms in question. But this
would have been felt almost intolerable, and such
words could have conveyed no meaning to the
English reader. For the most part, therefore, they
have been left unaltered in the Revised Version. But
in some passages greater definiteness has been given
to the translation. Thus at Matt. xvii. 24, instead ot
the general word " tribute," there is read, " Doth not
your master pay the half-shekel V^ And at ver. 27 of
the same chapter, for the unmeaning "piece of
money," we read "the shekel,^' which, being exactly
double the amount mentioned before, throws light on
the immediately following words of our Lord to St,
Peter, "that take, and give unto \!^tm for 7ne arid thee,^^
I 2
ii6 Companion to tJie Revised Version of
It may here simply be noted that the expression
** Easter," which occurs once in the Authorised Ver-
sion, is quite indefensible. Our translators struck it
out from many other places in which it stood in the
earlier English versions, and it was probably retained
at Acts xii. 4 by mere oversight. The word ought to
be rendered there, as everywhere else, " passover. "
There is one word not occurring at all in the
Authorised Version that has simply been transplanted
from Greek into English in the Revised Translation.
This is the term "Hades," denoting the invisible
world. Immense gain has been secured in several
passages by the adoption of this word. Thus is it
very markedly at Acts ii. 27, where these words are
quoted from Ps. xvi. in reference to Christ : " Thou
wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou
give thy Holy One to see corruption." The common
rendering "hell" is here wholly unsuitable. That
word has in the Revised Version been reserved for
a totally different term (Gehenna) in the original.
Before concluding this chapter, I may notice the
correction of an error in the Authorised Version which
seems to have been due at first simply to a misprint.
It occurs at Matt, xxiii. 24 : "Ye blind guides, which
strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The correct
rendering is " strain out^^ and so, doubtless, the trans-
lators intended their text to be, but in some way or
The English N'ew Testament 117
other, at instead of out found a place in the verse.
We are told by scholars who have carefully examined
the first edition of the Authorised Version, issued in
161 1, that it is by no means correctly printed. The
errors which it contained have been gradually removed
in subsequent editions, so that the text is now very
accurate ; but strangely enough, while other mistakes
have been perceived and corrected, this " strain at "
for " strain out " has maintained its place down to the
present day.
ii8 Cojnpaiiion to the Revised Version of
CHAPTER IV.
CORRECTION OF THE UNNECESSARY CONFOUNDING OF
ONE GREEK WORD WITH ANOTHER IN TRANSLATION.
Here it must at once be admitted that not a few
distinctions which are well marked in the original
cannot be exhibited in English. Strive as we may to
the contrary, we are compelled to use the same word
for different Greek expressions. This results from
the comparative poverty of our tongue. It has been
justly said that Greek can draw a clear line where
other languages can only make a blot ; and we must,
therefore, as a matter of necessity, abandon in trans-
lation many of those fine distinctions which exist in
the original.
It is, for instance, impossible to present in English
the delicate shades of difference in meaning which
appear in the Greek between the two* verbs both
rendered " love " at John xxi. 15 — 1 7. Yet the beauty
of the passage is much impaired by the necessity
which is felt in our language of translating the two
words by one and the same in English. The word
* a^aTraio and (piX^w.
The English New Testament, 119
first employed by Christ is a very common one in the
New Testament, and specially denotes a pure, spiritual
affection. It is used of God's love to man, as at John
iii. 16 — "God so loved the world," &c. — and of man's
love to God, as at Matt. xxii. 37 — "Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God,'' &c. The other word more par-
ticularly implies that warmth of feeling which exists
between friends. Thus, it is used respecting Lazarus
at John xi. 3 : " Behold, he whom thou lovest is sick ;"
and again, at John xx. 2, of St. John himself, when he
is spoken of as "the disciple whom Jesus lovedP
Now, the use of the one word at first by Christ serves
to remind St. Peter of the claim which his Divine
Master had upon his deep, reverential love. But the
Apostle, now profoundly sensible of his own weakness,
does not venture to promise this, yet, feeling his whole
heart flowing out to Christ, he makes use of the other
word, and assures the Saviour at least of a fervent
personal affection. Christ then repeats His question,
still using the same verb, and Peter replies as before.
But on asking the question for the third time, Christ
graciously adopts the term employed by the Apostle :
He speaks to him again as a friend ; He clasps the
now happy disciple afresh to His own loving heart.
Now, all this we must, of necessity, lose through the
meagreness of our language. In like manner, we
miss the delicacy of the Greek in regard to the use of
120 Companion to the Revised Version of
the same two verbs at John xi. 3 and 5. And so is it
in many other cases. When we observe that there
are no fewer than seven Greek words which it has
been found possible to translate as "child" in the
Authorised Version, no fewer than ten which have
been rendered "appoint," no fewer than fourteen
which stand for "give," and no fewer than twenty-one
which correspond to " depart," enough has been said
to suggest how frequently subtle distinctions which
exist in the original must be lost in every English
translation.
But this should only render the desire more earnest
that where differences indicated in the Greek can be
preserved in our language the opportunity should
not be neglected. In many instances, indeed, there
may not be much, if any, practical advantage resulting
from such care in translation. Yet even then it is
interesting and proper that distinctions observed in
the original should, as far as possible, appear in the
version. And, as will immediately be shown, it is
sometimes most important, for the right understanding
of passages, that distinctions should be clearly brought
out which have been obliterated in the Authorised
Version.
Let us look, for instance, at the two words'*^ both
rendered " fold" in John x. 16, and observe how the
* oiJa^ and 'Koijxvn].
The English New Testament 121
force of the passage comes out when they are
distinguished, as they should be, in translation. The
common Version runs thus : " And other sheep I
have, which are not of this fold : them also I must
bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall
be one fold, and one shepherd." But the Revised
Version renders the last clause thus : " And they shall
become one flock, one shepherd." The Jewish
Church constituted a special fold, with its strict
enclosure, but our Lord's words tell of the time when
this exclusiveness should be done away, and when,
instead of the narrowness of a fold, there should be
the wide-spreading freedom of a flock, with one
shepherd caring for them all.
An interesting distinction of gender which exists
at John i. II should not have been suppressed under
the rendering ** his own," adopted in both clauses of
the verse. In the first clause the neuter plural is
found, and in the second the masculine,'^ a difference
which has been indicated by this rendering in the
Revised Version : " He came unto his own, and they
that were his own received him not."
Two different words \ are, in common, translated
" temple '^ in the Authorised Version, and in most
passages their confusion is not of much consequence.
But there is a clear difference of meaning between
* TO. 'idia and o'l idiot. f rh Upov and 5 va6s.
122 Companion to the Revised Version of
them, and it is sometimes important that this should
be brought out. The one is more general, embracing
house and courts — the whole, indeed, of the sacred
enclosure — and is consequently used in such passages
as John x. 23, "Jesus walked in the temple,'^ and
Acts V. 20, " Go, stand and speak in the temple to the
people." The other is more restricted, denoting the
temple proper, the building or sanctuary, once called,
at Luke xi. 51, *4he house." Now, unless these two
meanings of the word " temple " be borne in mind,
such a statement as that which occurs at Matt, xxiii.
35 will not be understood. Our Lord there speaks
to His hearers of " the blood of Zacharias, whom ye
slew between the temple and the altar r In the wide
sense of the word, the altar was within the temple,
standing, as it did, in the court of the priests. But it
is the more restricted term which is here used \ and
the reader will have no difficulty in understanding the
passage when he reads it, as in the Revised Version,
" whom ye slew between the sanctuary aiid the altar T
At I Cor. xiv. 20 the force of the Apostle's
exhortation is weakened by two different words* being
both rendered " children." The second expression is
better rendered " babes ;" and thus we learn how far
St. Paul would have Christians go in their abnegation
of all wickedness. " Be not children in mind," he
* /i)/ TratS/a yiueffOc and iffiirid^^re.
The English New Testame?it, 123
says : " howbeit in malice be ye babes ^^ guileless and
innocuous as infants.
There are three words rendered "son" in the
Authorised Version, but there is a cluster of passages
on which it is important that one"^ of these should
rather be translated " servant." This is the meaning
sometimes properly assigned it, as at Matt. viii. 6,
Luke XV. 26 ; but in the passages referred to — Acts
iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30 — it is translated "son," or
" child." But it is not to the sonship of Christ that
these passages point. It is rather to the obedience
which, as the servant of the Father, He rendered upon
earth, and by bringing this out an important connection
is established between the Old and New Testaments.
As Archbishop Trench has remarked : " Every student
of prophecy must have noticed how much there is in
Isaiah prophesying of Christ under the aspect of * the
servant of the Lord,^ * Israel my servant^ * my
servant whom I uphold' (Isa. xlii. i — 7, xlix. i— 12,
Hi. 13, liii. 12). But it is quite certain from the inner
harmonies of the Old Testament and the New that
wherever there is a large group of prophecies in the
Old there is some allusion to them in the New."t
The Authorised Version does to some extent indicate
the connection between fulfilment and prophecy in
this matter by translating the word " servant " at Matt.
* 7rar«r. t On the Authorised Version, p. 63.
124 Companion to the Revised Version of
xii. 1 8, where Isa. xlii. i is quoted; but the same
rendering should have been adopted in the Acts, and
this has been done in the Revised Version.
There are two words, both translated "repent,"* in
the Authorised Version which it is most desirable to
distinguish wherever that is possible. The one word
means simply to "rue" or "regret," a course which
has been followed; the other implies that thorough
change of mind which is implied in Christian repent-
ance. Accordingly, the first term is applied, at Matt,
xxvii. 3, to Judas, and denotes remorse rather than re-
pentance; while the second is constantly used in such
passages as Luke xv. lo : "There is joy in the presence
of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth^
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to express the
distinction in our language, but this has been done at
2 Cor. vii. 8, lo, in the Revised Version, where
"regret'' has been introduced instead of "repent,"
and the distinction has been made clear between the
sorrow which is felt for having simply made a mistake
and that which is experienced from a sense of nn-
worthiness and guilt. In accordance with the differ-
ence of meaning thus indicated, it has been remarked
that the second verb is frequently used in the impera-
tive, the first never.
While the substantive for " unbelief" and the verb
* /tera^ueAo^at and /xerauoew.
TTie English New Testament, 125
for " to believe not " are always correctly rendered in
the Authorised Version, there are two other related
words * sometimes confounded with these that should
invariably be translated "disobedience" and '^to obey
not/' This is the rendering given at Eph. ii. 2,
I Peter ii. 8, and other passages; but at Heb. iv. 6,
Rom. xi. 30, &c., we find them translated "unbeUef
and *' believe not." This inconsistency has been cor-
rected throughout the Revised Version ; and the point
is of some importance, since tmbelief 2in& disobedience
are not identical, but the one is the source of the other.
In one passage, John xiii. 10, the rendering of two
different verbs f by the same English word has led to
an almost complete obscuration of the sense. Let any
one read the Authorised Version, " He that is washed
needeth not save to wash his feet,*' and scarcely any
point will be seen in the words. But let him turn to
the Revised Version, and read, "He that is bathed
needeth not save to wash his feet," and the force of
our Lord's statement will at once be apprehended.
He will see that as, literally, the man who has been
bathed needs only to wash his feet from the defile-
ment which has been contracted since leaving the
bath, so, spiritually, the believer in Christ, who has
been cleansed from guilt by faith, needs not to have
that process repeated, but simply requires, from day to
* aTrei^eta and aTret^ew. f \e\ovfxevos and vixl/aadai.
126 Companion to the Revised Version of
day, to be freed from the pollution which is contracted
as he journeys through the world.
There are two nouns translated " knowledge,'* and
two related verbs translated " know," * which it is
sometimes important to distinguish. The one form of
the words is simple, the other is a compound with a
preposition. The compound words denote full
Christian knowledge. In one passage, 2 Cor. vi. 9,
the Authorised Version acknowledges the intensified
meaning given to the verb by the preposition: "as un-
known, and yet well kfiown ;*' but in other passages,
as I Cor. xiii. 12, this is overlooked. We ought also
to read at Eph. i. 17, as in the Revised Version, "the
full k?iowledge of him," as being the great object of the
Apostle's desire for those who already have come to a
saving knowledge of the truth. In other passages the
necessity for change is not so obvious.
Much obscurity results from the manner in which
the word "will" is used in the Authorised Version.
It is, of course, the sign of the English future, but
besides that it does service as the representative of
two different Greek verbs. t These verbs cannot
always be distinguished in our language, but at least
it may be made sure that they are not mistaken for
the mere sign of the future. Thus the important text,
* yvu)(ns and imyvoxTis ; yivaxrKco and iiriyivv-CKw,
f Q4K(o and Qo^uKouai*
The English New Testament, 127
John vii. 17, becomes much clearer to the English
reader when it is read, as in the Revised Version, " It
any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the
teaching," &c. So the meaning of i Tim. vi. 9
becomes more obvious when we read instead of "they
that tvill he rich," '^they that desire to be rich." Some
other passages, as Matt. v. 40, are made clearer by the
use of "would" instead of "will." See again Acts
xxii. 28, &c.
The word* most frequently rendered " miracle,"
or "miracles," occurs seventeen times in St. John's
Gospel, thirteen times in St. Matthew, eleven times
in St. Luke, and seven times in St. Mark. Now, it is
a curious fact that, while this word is rendered
" miracle," or " miracles," thirteen times in St. John's
Gospel, that rendering is not once given it in the
other Gospels, except at Luke xxiii. 8. In every
other passage it is translated sign^ or signs ; and such
is the rendering which should have been preserved
throughout. The wordf which properly means
"miracles," /.^., marvellous works, occurs but three
times in the Gospels — Matt. xxiv. 24, Mark xiii. 2^'^^
John iv. 48 — and never with reference to the works
which Christ performed. It is, therefore, to be re-
gretted that a word which simply suggests what is
strange or wonderful should have such prominence
123 Companion to the Revised Version of
assigned to it in connection with the works of Christ.
These were " signs " rather than " miracles " — signs of
the. Divine presence fitted to impress the hearts of
men, and not thaumaturgic acts which might excite
only marvelling or admiration. The other word* some-
times translated " miracle," as at Mark ix. 39, does
not occur in St. John's Gospel at all. It is usually
rendered "mighty work," and this translation generally
answers well, as at chap. vi. 5, &c. But it must be
observed that at Matt. xiv. 2 and Mark vi. 14 the
Authorised Version is incorrect, the proper translation
being " these powers work in him." It would have
been well also that the rendering " mighty work " had
been kept in many other places where it has been sup-
planted by "miracle." This latter word, however,
must almost of necessity be allowed to stand in such
passages as Acts xix. 11, i Cor. xii. 29.
In the Authorised Version, at John xvii. 12 we
read as follows : — " While I was with them in the
world, I kept them in thy name : those that thou
gavest me I have kept^ and none of them is lost, but
the son of perdition." The two Greek verbs f here
both rendered " kept " have clearly different shades of
meaning, and to bring out these with precision adds
to the beauty of the verse. The first one may be
allowed to stand as " kept," but the second means
* SiW/tiS. t T7)p€(a and <pv\d(r<r(i}.
The English New Testament. 129
guarded^ and should be so rendered. It is then seen
that the clauses are very closely connected : the
watchful guardianship, spoken of in the second clause
as having been exercised by Christ over His disciples,
being the cause of the safety belonging to them which
is spoken of in the first.
The very impressive utterance of our Lord at John
viii. 58 has not been altered in the text of the
Revised Version, but a highly important note has been
placed on the margin. When we read the words,
" Before Abraham was^ I ani^^ there is nothing in the
English which suggests that the word " was " means
"came into being," while the expression "I am"
denotes absolute existence. The two verbs* are
totally different in the original, and a marked contrast
is implied between Abraham, a created being, and the
uncreated Son of God.
There are four different words translated "people"
in the Authorised Version. Each of these terms has
its own special meaning, but it is impossible fully to
preserve the distinction between the words in English.
Two of them especially run together, and no attempt
has bsen made to distinguish these in the Revised
Version. The third term is generally rendered
" Gentiles," or " nations," and is only once translated
"people," at Acts viii. 9. But the fourtht has often,
* yivofiai and elfj.1, f oxAos.
J
130 Companion to the Revised Version of
without cause, been so rendered, as at John vii. 20
and many other places. It always means the " com-
mon people," as disthiguished from those possessed
of rank or authority, and should be translated
" multitude," or multitudes," as it has been through-
out the Revised Version.
We find five distinct verbs translated "teach"
in the Authorised Version. One of these occurs
with that rendering only in a single passage. Acts
xvi. 21, and is there better translated, "set forth."
Two others are found twice with the rendering
"teach," or "taught," and may be allowed so to
stand ; but the remaining two* should be carefully
distinguished. One is the word properly denoting
" teach," and occurs in multitudes of passages ; the
other is a much rarer word, being used only four
times in the New Testament. It means "to make
disciples," and is clearly distinguished from "to
teach" at Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, though the two are
confounded in the Authorised Version. The passage
should be rendered, "Go ye therefore, and 7nake
disciples of all the nations ; . . teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I commanded you;" and
in the other passages — Matt. xiii. 52, xxvii. 57 ; Acts xiv.
21 — where the word occurs the same strict rendering
will be found given to it in the Revised Version.
* SiSatr/co) and fjLaOrjTivw,
The English New Testament, 131
There are some passages in which a reader of the
Authorised Version is almost sure to imagine that
there is some connection between different words,
from the manner in which they have been translated.
This may, for instance, be the case at James i. 6,
where these words occur : " He that wavereth is Hke a
wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." There
is no connection whatever between the words wavedcti^,
wavereth ; and the passage stands thus in the Revised
Version : ** He that doubteth is like the surge of the
sea driven by the wind and tossed." So again, at
Rom. xii. 2, where these words occur in the Autho-
rised Version : "Be not conformed to this world : but
be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."
Here there is no connection in the original between the
terms* rendered " conformed " and " transformed," as
might be inferred from the sound of the words in
English. The passage is thus rendered in the Revised
Version : " Be not fashioned according to this world,
but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."
It is well known that two very different Greek
wordst are alike rendered " devil " in the Authorised
Version. There is, first, the word which occurs in such
passages as Matt. iv. i, John xiii. 2, &:c., and which
has reference to the prince of darkness. Next there
* (n;(rx>?A*aTtfeo'0ai and /JLcra/jLopcpovo-dai.
f did^oXos and hai^oviovj or Sai/xwy.
J 2
132 CompanioJi to the Revised Version of
is the word which is literally *' daemon," and which is
so often used in connection with those unhappy beings
who are described as daemonized^ or "possessed of
devils." This "possession was a disease like epi-
lepsy, for the victim was * healed,' and some kind of
insanity, for the * right mind ' was restored. But it
was something more — the intrusion of an alien force
into the nervous system, impeding sensation, so that
the patient was deaf and dumb ; with perfect organs,
but without power to use them ; his will overlorded
(Acts X. 2i^) by an alien might, which created the
confusion of an apparently dual consciousness. The
rendering of the two distinct terms by the same word
obliterates a very marked distinction to the English
reader."* It is, indeed, much to be regretted that the
word " daemon " was not introduced into the earliest
versions of the New Testament which were made
into our language. Had that been done, the ex-
pression would soon have established itself as clearly
marking a distinction between the evil spirits so named
and the great adversary — the devil. In the Revised
Version the common rendering has been retained as
now almost a matter of necessity, but wherever the
word " daemon" has been translated "devil " the fact
is indicated on the margin.
There is a simple Greek verb which is usually
* Eadie's English Bible^ ii. 433.
The English New Testame?tt 133
and properly translated " judge," but it is erroneously
rendered "condemn'' at John iii. 17, 18. In like
manner, the simple substantives connected with it are
generally represented by ^'judgment " in English, but
improperly by " damnation " at Matt, xxiii. 33, Mark
xii. 40, and other places. On the other hand, a com-
pound of the verb referred to with a preposition is
somewhat inexactly rendered by " judge " at i Cor.
iv- 3> 4j 5, although all that has there been done in
the Revised Version is to place another translation on
the margin. The reference seems to be to the pre-
liminary examination of accused persons — what is
known in Scotch law as a " precognition." We have
an example of this at Acts xxv. 26 ; but, however
useful this may be in human affairs, the Apostle pro-
tests against it in matters spiritual as an unwarrantable
anticipation of the judgment of the great day. There
is another compound of the same verb which is also
improperly rendered "judge" at i Cor. xi. 31; it
should be translated "discern," as in ver. 29. A third*
compound is correctly rendered "condemn," as at
Matt. xii. 41 and most other passages, but "damned,"
which occurs at Mark xvi. 16 and Rom. xiv. 23, is
now too strong an expression, and has been avoided
in the Revised Version.
* The several Greek terms are Kpivu, Kpi^a, Kpicris, avaKplvv
ZiaKpivw, KaraKpivQ),
134 Conipanio7i to the Revised Version of
Three words'^ are in common translated *' bright-
ness " in the Authorised Version which, nevertheless,
admit of being easily distinguished. One of the ex-
pressions occurs in that striking passage, Heb. i. 3,
in which we read of Christ, " Who being the brightness
of his glory," &c. Here the word might be mistakenly
supposed to mean a reflected splendour, but the true
meaning is a radiance which is flashed forth; and
therefore the translation ^* effulgence " has been
adopted in the Revised Version. At Acts xxvi. 13,
on the other hand, " brightness '' is the exact trans-
lation of the Greek, while at 2 Thess. ii. 8 it is totally
\vrong, and must give place to some such word as
" manifestation."
The Greek words which denote the act of dying
and the state of death respectively have not unfre-
quently been confounded in the Authorised Version,
sometimes to the great obscuration of the sense. Thus,
the constantly recurring words "are dead," in Rom.
vi. 2, &c., should be translated "died." This emen-
dation is specially important at 2 Cor. v. 14, where
the common rendering, " We thus judge, that if one
died for all, then were all dead, ^^ completely ruins the
sense. It should be, " We thus judge, that one died
for all, therefore all died^^\ — that is, all believers died
in and with Christ.
* aTravya(riJ.a, Aa^UTrporr^y, *Tri<f)dv€ia, f Cir^davov,
Tlie English New Testament, 135
CHAPTER V.
CORRECTION OF NEEDLESS VARIATIONS IN THE
TRANSLATION OF THE SAME GREEK WORDS.
This is the opposite error to that which was con-
sidered in the preceding chapter, and is not less to be
regretted. It is even more characteristic of the
Authorised Version than the former, for it was com-
mitted of set purpose by our translators. They do
not say that they wilfully confounded one Greek word
with another in their translation ; but they do tell us
that it was one of the principles of their work to vary
in the renderings which were given in different
passages to the same words in the original. In their
noble preface, entitled "The Translators to the
Reader," they say, towards the close : " Another
thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle
reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uni-
formity of phrasing or to an identity of words, as
some, peradventure, would wish that we had done,
because they observe that some learned men some-
where have been as exact as they could that way.
136 Companiofi to the Revised Version of
Truly, that 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 careful, and made a conscience accord-
ing 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 Greeh once by piirp)se^
never to call it i7ite?it ; if one v^htxQ journeying, never
travelling ; if one where think ^ never suppose; if one
where /^///, ntvtx ache ; if one where y^jj^, nQWQx ghd-
nesSy &c. — 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 commodiously ? . , .
"We might also be charged (by scoffers) 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 you hence
The English New Testament, 137
be banished for ever, we might be taxed, peradven-
ture, with St, James's words, namely, * To he partial in
ourselves^ and judges of evil thoughts.^ "
Now, it must readily be granted that, to some
extent, this variety of rendering was not only justifiable
but necessary. It is most certain that the same Greek
word has not always the same meaning in different
places ', to insist, therefore, on always rendering it by
the same word in English would be absurd. This
appears clearly enough from the variety of senses which
one word may possess in our own language. Take, e.g.,
the one expression " post," and consider how varied
is its signification in such phrases as " He held that
post," " He missed the post," " He fixed the post,'*
" He travelled post," &c. All these varying significa-
tions of the word would of necessity require the use of
different terms in translating the English phrases into
another language. And so is it with Greek when
rendered into English. Different words must be
chosen at different places to represent the original
according to the exigencies of the several passages.
Thus, the same verb which js properly rendered by
" comfort " at Matt. v. 4, &c., must be translated by
"beseech'' at Matt. viii. 5, &c., and by "exhort" at
I Peter v. i, &c. Thus, too, the noun which is
rendered "kind " at Matt. xiii. 47, &c., must be trans-
lated by such a word as "race" at Acts vii. 13, &c.,
138 Companion to the Revised Version of
and *' offspring" at Acts xvii. 28, &c. No one, there-
fore, would insist on the same English word being
used for the same Greek word in all passages. Varia-
tion is to some extent an absolute necessity, and the
only question is whether our translators have varied
their renderings unnecessarily and unreasonably, so as,
in fact, to have diminished the value of their work.
That such is in reality the case will become plain to
every one from the following illustrations.
We may begin by looking at some passages in
which an interesting or important truth is obscured
by the needless changes of rendering which are
adopted.
Thus, at I Cor. iii. 17 we read in the Authorised
Version, " If any man defile the temple of God, him
shall God destroy P But the Greek verb is the same in
both clauses, and thus the solemn'thought is suggested
that, as is the sin] so will be the punishment : God
will treat the man as the man has treated the sacred
temple of his own soul. This correspondence between
the guilt contracted and the penalty inflicted is entirely
veiled from the English reader by the capricious variety
of rendering adopted, and the same word should
manifestly be preserved in both clauses : " If any man
destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy.''
Again, what reader of Mark xv. '^'},, ^^ There was dark-
ness over the whole /and until the ninth hour," and of
The English New Testament. 139
Luke xxiii. 44, " There was darkness over all the earth
until the ninth hour," would imagine that the original
of both passages is exactly . the same ? The one
Evangelist is made to differ from the other in a most
important particular by the totally uncalled for and
unwarrantable variety of rendering which is adopted.
Either "land "or "earth" (doubtless, I think, the
former) ought manifestly to be chosen in both passages,
as well as at Matt, xxvii. 45. One other example of the
darkening effect of a needless variation of rendering is
found at Rev. iv. 4. The Authorised Version there
reads, "And round about the throne were four and
twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and
twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment ; and
they had on their heads crowns of gold." Under the
influence of a timidity which shrank from appearing to
make creatures equal in dignity to the great Creator,
our translators have here failed to do justice to the
original. The word rendered " throne " and " seats "
is the same in Greek, so that we ought to read, " And
round about the throne were four and twenty thrones^^
the great Scriptural truth being thus illustrated that
Christ's redeemed not only see His glory, but share in
it — they "reign together with him" (2 Tim. ii. 12).
A like mistaken scrupulousness has prevented the
proper rendering "throne" being given at Rev. ii. 13
and xvi. 10. Instead of " Satan's seat " and " the seat
I40 Companion to the Revised Ve?'sio7i of
of the beast," we ought to read, " Satan's throne'' and
"the throne of the beast," for this rendering is in
keeping with the fact that in the Apocalypse, "as
nowhere else in Scripture, is set forth the hellish
parody of the heavenly kingdom : the conflict between
the true King of the earth and the usurping king ; ''* the
mimicking by Satan, in his presumptuous vain-glory of
that real and eternal majesty which is possessed by
Christ.
Let us now turn to some passages in which a
needless variety of rendering is apt to suggest a
baseless idea to the English reader, or at least to
blunt for him the force of the original.
When these words are read at Matt. xxv. 46, " And
these shall go away into everiasti?ig '^\\m.sh.mQrit -, but
the righteous into life eternal,'' the English reader
can hardly fail to suppose that some diversity exists in
the original, and thus, perhaps, is led to perplex himself
as to the difference of meaning between " everlasting "
and "eternal." But since the Greek word is the same
in both clauses the translation evidently ought to be
consistent, as in the Revised Version. Again, it has
frequently been noticed how capricious and hurtful
are the varieties of rendering given in the fourth
chapter of Romans to the one Greek word translated,
first of all, " counted " in verse 3. The word occurs
* Trench, On Authorised Version ^ p. 54,
The English New Testament, 141
no fewer than eleven times in the course of the
chapter, and is variously translated " count" (ver. 3, 5),
"reckon " (ver. 4, 9, 10), "impute" (ver. 6, 8, 11, 22,
23, 24), the version turning from one expression to
another in the most arbitrary and unaccountable
manner. It is needless to say how the English reader
is apt to be confused by such changes, and how much
is gained in point of clearness by the retention of the
same rendering throughout. In the seventh chapter
of the same Epistle the force of the argument in
ver. 7, 8 is greatly weakened through want of
uniformity in the rendering. Words radically the
same in the original are variously rendered "lust,'*
"covet," " concupiscence, '' in the Authorised Version :
thus, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin?
God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the
law : for I had not known liist^ except the law had
said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion
by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead."
How much more clear and satisfactory does the
argument appear when we read, " What shall we say
then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid. Howbeit, I had
not known sin, except through the law : for I had not
known coveting^ except the law had said. Thou shalt
not covet. But sin, finding an occasion, wrought in me
through the commandment all manner of coveting. For
142 Companion to the Revised Vei'sioji of
apart from the law sin is dead." The same injurious
effect of what was, no doubt, intended as an agreeable
variety of rendering is noticeable in the second Epistle
to the Corinthians. That Epistle is remarkable for
the use of key-words (if we may so call them) occurring
one after the other. In the first chapter the two
antithetic expressions " comfort " and " affliction " are
repeated again and again (ver. 4, 6, &c.) by the Apostle ;
but the impression thus made on a reader of the
original is weakened to an English reader by the
capricious substitution of " tribulation " for ** affliction,"
and " consolation " for " comfort." So, again, where
the Apostle introduces the word "veil" or its
derivatives, at chap. iii. 15, 18, iv. 3, the connection
between the verses is obliterated by the renderings
" with open face " instead of "with unveiled face," and
"if our gospel be hid^^ for "if our gospel is veiled,^''
So at several other passages of the Epistle.
With regard to quotations from the Old Testament,
it is obvious that where these are made in the same
words in the Greek they ought to be similarly given
in English. But this is far from being the case in the
Authorised Version. Thus, the great text. Gen. xv. 6,
is quoted four times by St. Paul in the very same
manner (Rom. iv. 3, 9, 22 ; Gal. iii. 6), and each time
is somewhat varied in the translation: (i) "was
counted unto him for righteousness," (2) "was reckoned
The English New Testament, 143
to Abraham for righteousness," (3) *'was imputea to
him for righteousness/' (4) " was accounted to him for
righteousness." Again, Deut;. xxxii. 35 is twice quoted
(Rom. xii. 19 ; Heb. x. 30) in the very same words,
yet it is thus variously rendered in the two passages :
(i) "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the
Lord," (2) "Vengeance (belongeth) unto me, I will
recompense, saith the Lord." Once more, the same
arbitrary variation of texts quoted from the Old
Testament in exactly the same words occurs in
passages so near each other as Heb. iii. 11 and Heb.
iv. 3. The words are rendered, (i) "So I sware in
my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest," and
(2) " As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter
into my rest \ " while the last clause is repeated in the
same form at ver. 5, "If they shall enter into my
rest." It is well known that this latter form of
expression, unintelligible in English, is, according to
Hebrew idiom, equivalent to a strong negative, so that
the clause should always be rendered, "They shall
not enter into my rest."
Not a word need be said in support of the position
that parallel passages in the Gospels and other parts
of Scripture, which are expressed in the same words in
Greek, ought to be similarly given in English. Any
other course almost amounts to unfaidifulness to the
original and cannot fail to mislead the reader. Yet
144 Companion to the Rrciscd Version of
the Authorised Version is a very great offender in this
respect. The following examples out of many may
be quoted. At Matt. iv. 6 we find ^Uoncernmg thee,"
while at Luke iv. lo the very same words are rendered
" ovfr thee j " and, in like manner, exactly coincident
expressions are translated at Matt. iv. 19, ^^ Follow
me," at Marki. 17, ^^ Come ye aftervaQ]'^ at Matt. x.
14, "the dust," at Luke ix. 5, " the z/^ry ^^st ; " at
Matt. x. 22, "but he that endureth to the end shall be
saved," at Mark xiii. 13, "but he that shall endure the
same shall be saved;" at Matt. xi. 19, "behold a
man gluttonous," at Luke vii. 34, "behold a gluttonous
man;" at Matt. xvii. 19, "apart," at Mark ix. 28,
"privately;" at Matt. xix. 7, "a writing," at Mark x. 4,
"a bill;" at Matt. xxvi. 41, "Watch and pray, that ye
enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak," at Mark xiv. 38, " Watch ye
and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly
is ready, but the flesh is weak." And so in a mul-
titude of other places, there not being a single chapter
in the first three Gospels treating of the same subjects
in which this needless and hurtful tendency to varia-
tion is not perceptible. So is it, to some extent, with
parallel passages in the Epistles. Ephesians and
Colossians, 2 Peter and Jude, have many points of
connection between themselves, but these are con-
siderably obscured to the English reader by varieties
Tlie English New Testament 145
of rendering which are adopted for the same words in
the several Epistles. Thus, the word which is trans-
lated '•'' working^' at Eph. i. 9 is given as " operation "
at Col. ii. 12; "lowliness'' at Eph. iv. 2 is "humble-
ness of mind " at Col. iii. 12;" compacted " at Eph.
iv. 6 is '' knit together '' at Col. ii. 19 ; "be obedient"
at Eph. vi. 5 is *'obey" at Col. iii. 22; "govern-
ment" at 2 Pet. ii. 10 is "dominion" at Jude,
ver. 8 ; and '^mist" at 2 Pet. ii. 17 is "blackness" at
Jude, ver. 13. It is evident to how great disadvantage
the English reader is thus subjected in seeking to
compare Scripture with Scripture, and to derive light
from one passage for the full understanding of
another.
If not practically very important, it is at least
interesting and desirable that uniformity of rendering
should be preserved in regard to expressions which
are fitted to suggest the individuality of the sacred
writers to an English reader. They have all a more
or less marked style of their own. St. Matthew's
Gospel is distinguished by a strong Hebrew colouring,
St. Mark's by a somewhat rude yet graphic character,
St. Luke's by a comparatively close approach to
classical models of composition, and St. John's by
the softness and fulness of its diction. Each of the
Evangelists also displays a predilection for certain
forms of expression. St. Matthew generally uses the
146 Companion to the Revised Version of
phrase, "kingdom oi heaveti^^ where the other Evange-
lists have "kingdom of God ;'^ the formula "gospel of
the kingdom " is also peculiar to him, and he is very
partial to the use of the Greek particle, for "then,'' which
occurs no less than ninety times in his Gospel — oftener,
that is, than in all the other Gospels taken together.
St. Mark's favourite expression is "straightway," which
is found more than forty times in his Gospel — that is,
again, oftener than in all the oth^r Gospels put to-
gether. Now, it is obvious that such marked features
in the first two Gospels should be preserved, as they
easily may be, in translation. But the Authorised
Version has, to a considerable extent, failed to do this
in the case of St. Mark, by giving the one word which
he so constantly uses such varying translations as
" straightway," " immediately,'' " forthwith," " anon,"
" as soon as," while the first of these renderings might
have been preserved throughout. St. Luke evinces no
very striking fondness for any particular term or form
of expression : his vocabulary is far wider than that of
the other Evangelists ; but it may be remarked that
while he is no such mannerist as St. Matthew or St.
Mark, the Greek preposition for "with" appears in
his Gospel oftener than in all the others. St. John,
again, is at once seen to delight in the repetition of
certain words, such as to abide, and to hear witness.
The former verb occurs ow^x forty times in his Gospel,
The English New Testament, 147
and the latter over thirty times, while its cognate sub-
stantive is iom\di fourteen times. But this is, to a great
extent, hidden from an English reader through the
variety of renderings admitted in the Authorised Ver-
sion. For "abide'' we have "remain," "taiTy,"
"endure,'^ "dwell," "continue,'' "being present," while
in almost every passage "abide" is quite a satisfactory
translation. For " witness," again, we find the need-
less variations, " bear witness," " testify," " bear
record," '^gave " (in the first Epistle of St. John), and
"hath good report'' (in third Epistle), while the con-
nected substantive, " witness," is every now and then
replaced by "record" or " testimony." With respect
to St. Paul, it has been observed how readily he
catches up and uses for his own purpose an expres-
sion which has fallen from the lips of an opponent.
This may be illustrated by a reference to Acts
xxvi. 24, 25, though the point is lost in our common
English version. The same word is used in both
verses ; and if instead of, " Paul, thou art beside thy-
self," we read, " Paul, thou art mad,'' we then feel the
force of the Apostle's reply : "I am not mad, most
excellent Festus ; but speak forth words of truth and
soberness." All such minute accuracies, though they
may be deemed trifling, should be carefully attended to
in translation.
It is strange to notice what different degrees of
K 2
148 ComJ>anton to the Revised Version of
force are given to the same word in different passages
of the Authorised Version. Thus, what is " beloved "
in Matt. xvii. 5 and Mark ix. 7 becomes "dear'' in
Eph. V. 1, while it ascends into " well-beloved " at
Mark xii. 6, and " dearly beloved " at Rom. xii. 19.
No English reader would imagine that it is the same
word in the original which is thus rendered with such
varying degrees of intensity. So the term which
means "palsied" (Luke v. 18, &c.) sinks into "feeble'*
at Heb. xii. 12. This sort of caprice may sometimes
be found in two successive verses. The word, for
instance, which is translated simply at Gal. iv. 8 "did
service '' rises in the following verse to this rendering,
" to be in bondage." In parallel passages, again, we
find a varying force given to the very same words.
Thus, what is "much displeased" at Mark x. 41 is
represented by " moved with indignation " at Matt.
XX. 24, and what is simply "chief" at Matt. xx. 27
becomes "chiefest" at Mark x. 44. A reflecting
English reader cannot fail to be puzzled by such
groundless variations.
Much inconsistency exists in the Authorised Ver-
sion with respect to the translation given of the terms
Rahbi and Rabboni, Sometimes the original word is
retained, as at Matt, xxiii. 7, John i. ^Z^ &c. ; at other
times it is rendered "Master," as at Matt. xxvi. 25 .
John iv. 31, &c. j while Rabboiii is preserved at John
The Erigtish New Testament. 149
XX. 16, but translated "Lord" at Mark x. 51. Being
a well-kno\vn title of respect among the Jews, the term
"Rabbi " should have been preserved throughout; and
this seems specially important at Matt. xxvi. 49, Mark
XV. 45, as suggesting the profound dissimulation of
Judas, who spoke to Christ in this style of compli-
mentary address while in the very act of betraying
Him.
There are two closely related words, which occur
at Acts xix. 37 and Rom. ii. 22, which are so
differently rendered in the Authorised Version that no
English reader would ever suspect any connection
between them. In the first passage we find " robbers
of churches^^ and in the second " dost thou commit
sacrilege V Heathen temples are in both cases
referred to, so that the respective renderings should
be " robbers of temples " and " dost thou rob
temples ? "
Another passage may be referred to, in the second
Epistle to the Corinthians, in which variation of
rendering has broken the unity and connection of the
Apostle's train of thought. Having spoken of the
solemn issues which hung on the acceptance or rejec-
tion of the Gospel by those who heard it, he exclaims,
at chap. ii. 16, "And who is sufficient for these things ? "
After some intervening remarks, introduced in his
own characteristic way, the Apostle returns, at chap.
t^o Companion to the Revised Vers ion of
m. 5, to the consideration of the " sufficiency" referred
to, and gives an answer to his own solemn question
in these words : — " Not that we are sufficient of our-
selves to account any thing as from ourselves ; but our
sufficiency is of God, who also made us sufficient as
ministers of a new "covenant," &c. The translation
in the Authorised Version of the last clause as
"who also hath made us able ministers of the New
Testament," completely mars the harmony of the
passage.
The above examples are sufficient to show how
capricious, and often hurtful, are the different
renderings often given to the same Greek word or
phrase in the ordinary English version. Many of the
variations are harmless so far as the meaning is con-
cerned, but are, nevertheless, to be regretted as
misleading to a reader who cannot consult the
original. When such a reader finds at James ii. 2 the
expression "goodly apparel," and in the very next
verse "gay clothing," would he ever imagine that
these different terms are a translation of the very
same Greek words ? Again, would the thought ever
occur to him that the word rendered "rule" and
"line of things" represented the same original in the
following enigmatical passage as it stands in the
Authorised Version ? — " Not boasting of things with-
out our measure, that is, of other men's labours ; but
The English Neiv Testament. 151
having hope, when your faith is increased, that
we shall be enlarged by you, according to our
rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel in the
regions beyond you, and not to boast in another
man's line of things made ready to our hand" (2 Cor.
X. IS, 16).
After all that has been said, no sufficient idea will
have been conveyed to readers unacquainted with the
subject of the vast amount of unnecessary variation in
the translation of the same Greek words which exists
in the Authorised Version. Pages might be filled
with additional examples. The most arbitrary and
uncalled-for changes will frequently be found in the
compass of a few verses, or even of the same verse.
Thus, the word rendered "profession" in i Tim.
vi. 12 is changed into "confession" in ver. 13;
"jailor," in Acts xvi. 23, gives place to "keeper of
the prison" in ver. 27. "God, even the Father," at
Rom. XV. 6, &c., becomes "God and the Father" at
Col. iii. 17, and "the God and Father" at i Pet. i. 3,
&c. The word rendered " truth " in the parenthetical
clause of i Tim. ii. 7 appears as " verity '' at the close
of the verse \ and so on, in almost innumerable cases,
the variations generally having no ground of advan-
tage or necessity, and serving only to bewilder and
mislead the English reader.
The great object to be kept in view in every
152 Companion to the Revised Version of
translation is to place the reader of it as nearly as
possible on a footing of equality with one who has
access to the original. This is especially desirable in
regard to a version of the Holy Scriptures. Those
who have the privilege of reading God's Word in the
form in which it came from Himself ought to recog-
nise it as their bounden duty to do their utmost that
their less favoured brethren may have as exact and
accurate a transcript of the original in their own
language as can be furnished. To secure this object,
scholarship may worthily put forth all its powers and
diligence strain its efforts to the uttermost. The
plain man's Bible— though it cannot be all to him that
the original is to the scholar — should, at least, contain
no obscurities or errors which erudition and pains-
taking are able to remove. It should be such, for
example, as that he shall have it in his power, through
consistency of translation, to form an opinion re-
specting the questions discussed in connection with
the verbal agreements and differences found in the
first three Evangelists. It should be such that he will
be able, by means of a Concordance, to compare
passages in which the same word occurs, and thus to
make them mutually explanatory of each other. For
the reasons that have been stated this cannot be done
with any certainty while using the ordinary English
translation, since in it there iS; on the one hand, an
The English New Testament. 153
unnecessary confounding of one Greek word with
another in the rendering which is given ; while, on the
other hand, there is a vast amount of needless varia-
tion in the translation of the same Greek words \ but
both these causes of possible, or certain, mistake
have been guarded against in the Revised Version.
INDEX OF TEXTS.
Matthew.
Matthew (contintud).
PAGE
PAGE
i. I
17
X. 22
... 144
ii. I
"3
xi. 19
.. 144
2
94
xii. 41
... 133
4
91
47 -
... 7
IS
95
xiii. 16
10
17
112
21
... 108
iii. 14
98
47 ...
... 137
17
12
52 ...
... 130
iv. I
131
xiv. 2 ...
... 128
6
144
8 ...
... 76
19
144
19 ...
... 50
V. 4
137
XV. 27
... 76
8,
9 6
xvi. 14
... 112
22
48
23 ...
... 108
29
108
xvii. 4 ...
... 13
40
127
5 ...
... 148
48
99
10
... 112
vi. 13
8, 60
19 ...
... 144
34
109
24 ...
... 115
vii. 13
102
25 ...
... 107
viii. 5
137
27 ...
... IIS
6
123
xviii. 17
... 48
20
93
28 ...
... 8
33
13
xix. 7
... 144
X. 4
75
20 ...
... 95
14
144
XX. 24 ...
... 148
Index of Texts,
Matthew
{coniinurd)
Mark {conibmei
i\
PAGE
PAGE
XX. 27
... 148
vi. 20
49
xxii. 37 ...
... 119
27
114
xxiii. 7
... 148
52
82
24 ...
... 1x6
ix. 3
46
33 ...
... 133
5
13
35 ...
... 122
7
148
xxiv. 24
... 127
22, 23
49
30 ...
... 103
24
46
40.41
... 99
28
144
XXV, 3
10
39
128
6 ...
... 18, 49. 97
X. 4
144
27 ...
... 108
41
148
46 ...
... 140
44
148
xxvi. 15
... 77
51
149
25 ...
... 148
xii. 6
148
26 ...
... 53
26
30
41 ...
... 144
40
133
49 ...
... 149
xiii. 13
144
xxvii. 3 ...
... 124
32
127
9 ...
... 112
xiv. 38
144
45 ...
.. 139
XV. 33
138
57 ...
... 130
45
149
xxviii. 19
... 103
xvi. 16
133
9—20
... 130
9—20
61
Mark.
Luke.
i. 3 ...
... 10
i. 59
98
II
... 12
63
108
17 ...
... 144
"■ 33
15
27 ...
... 47
4^
15
iii. 5 ...
... 82
iii. 14
92
18 ...
... 75
23
77
iv. 29
... 77
iv. 10
144
V. 30 ...
... 108
20
110
41 ...
... 76
V. 6
98
vi. 3 ...
... 113
18
148
5 ...
... 127
vi. IS
76
14 ...
... 127
19
108
Index of Texts.
IS7
Luke {continued).
PAGE
PAGE
vii. 34 ... ..
144
iv.
37 ...
... 93
viii. 23
98
48 ...
... 127
34
13
V.
3, 4 ...
7
46
108
33 ...
... 97
54
76
vi.
II
... 50
i-^. 5
. 144
32 ...
... 93
32
78
SO ...
... 18
33
13
57 ...
... lOI
53
93
vii.
I ...
... 113
xi. 48
107
17 ...
... 127
SI
122
20
... 130
xiii. 2
94
41 ...
... 99
xiv. 10
107
53— viii. II
... 63
XV. 10
124
- viii.
33 ..
... 97
26
123
52 ...
... 18
xvi. 9
50
58 ...
... 129
xviii. 12
78
ix.
17 ...
... 79
xix. 13
108
X.
14, IS
... 79
XX. 37
30
16 ...
... 120
xxii. 56
78
23 ...
... 122
xxiii. 5 ...
113
xi.
3. 5...
... 119
8
127
20
... 80
42
102
xii.
40 ...
... 82
44
139
xiii.
2
... 131
xxiv. 17
50
10
... 125
25
79
24 ...
... 51
46
SO
xvii.
3 ...
... 91
53
9
12
... 123
XX.
2
16 ...
... 119
51, 149
John.
xxi.
15. 16, 17
... 112, 118
i. 11
117
18, 19
... 95
21
93
38
148
42
112
Acts
iii. 16
119
i.
13 ...
... 76
17, 18
133
ii.
3 ...
... 80
iv. 31
148
II
... 112
John {continued).
iS8
Index of Texts,
Acts [continued).
Romans,
PAGE
PAGB
ii. 27
.. 116
i.
13
...
106
iii. 13,
26
.. 123
29
108
19.
20
.. 80
ii.
22
149
iv. 27,
30
.. 123
iii.
25
81
V. 20
.. 122
iv.
3.
&c.' Z,
140, 142
vii. 13
...
.. 137
19
52
45
...
.. 113
V.
I
52
viii. 9
...
... 129
vi.
2
134
16
.. 103
vii.
6
52
?n
8
7,
8
141
X. 38
...
.. 132
viii.
1
II
xii. 4
...
.. 116
xi.
7,
25
82
12,
25
.. 112
30
125
xiii. 7,
8,12
.. 114
xii.
2
131
xiv. 21
.. 130
17
107
XV. 23
...
.. 51
19
143, 148
xvi. I
...
.. 112
xiv.
4
10
7
...
.. SI
23
133
21
.. 130
XV.
6
151
23.
27
.. 151
30
...
102
xvii. 19
...
... 113
xvi.
5
52
23
...
.. 108
23
114
28
.. 138
xviii. 5
...
.. 51
I
Corinthians.
xix. 2
...
..« 95
i.
13
103
9
...
.. 93
iii.
17
138
11
.. 128
iv.
3,
4,5
133
31
...
.. 114
4
82
37
...
.. 149
13
18
38
...
.. 114
vi.
20
II
XX. 28
...
.. 14
vii.
26
...
102
xxi. 15
...
.. 109
viii.
6
103
xxii. 28
.. 127
X.
2
103
XXV. 26
.. 133
24
107
xxvi. 13
...
.. 134
xi.
24
53
24.
25
.. 147
26
53
28
...
.. 81
29
53, 107
jcxviii. 13
...
.. no
31
133
bidex of Texts.
IS9
1 Corinthians {continued),
PAGE
xii. 6 i8
29 128
xiii. 3 53
12 126
xiv. 20 ... ... 122
XV. 4 96
xvi. 15 52
2 Corinthians.
i. I
112
4,6
142
19
112
20
47
ii. 14
83
16
149
iii. S
149
14
82
15
92
15, 18
142
17
93
iv. 3
142
V. 10
100
14
134
21
no
vi. 9
126
vii. 8, 10
124
II
93
X. IS, 16
ISO
xii. 19
54
Galatians.
iii. 6
142
iv. 8
148
14
54
17
107
31
92
V. 17
84
Ephesians.
PAGE
i. 7
13
9
14s
17
126
ii. 2
125
iv. 2
14s
6
I4S
18
82
29
84
V. I
148
29
54
vi. 5
145
12
no
Philippians.
i. 16,
17 ... 54
ii. 6
30
IS
99
iii. 5
92
20
107
iv. 2,
3 8s
8
107
Colossians.
i. 14
13
ii. 2
6s
8
85
12
14s
18
54
19
14s
iii. 12
145
17
151
22
145
iv. 10
112
14
112
I Thessalonians.
i. I
55
ii. 19
55
i6o
Index of Texts,
Thessalonians
{continued).
2 Timothy {continued).
PAGE
PAGE
iii. II
.. 55
ii. 3
55
13 ...
.. 55
10
56
iv. 15 ...
.. 107
12
139
V. 28 ...
.. 55
iii. 12
56
15
56
2 Thessalonians. |
V. II
112
i. 2 ...
.. 55
Titus.
12
.. 55
4
55
ii. I
.. 85
12
112
3 ...
... 91
7 ...
... 106
Philemon.
8 ...
-. 55, 134
2
56
7
56
I Timothy.
24
112
I 4 ...
... 6
Hebrews.
12 ...
... 55
14 ...
... 55
i. 3
134
ii. 5 ...
... 55
iii. II
143
7 ...
... 151
iv. 2
5^
iii. 13 ...
... 55
3,
5 143
16 ...
... 19, 66
6
125
iv. 6 ...
... 55
8
"3
V. 4 ...
... 108
I?
107
21
... 55
14
103
vi S ...
... 86
vi. 7
lOI
8 ...
... 99
ix. 6
99
9 ...
... 127
X. 30
143
10
... 92
34
5^
12, 13
13 .••
... 151
... 55
xi. 10
13
23
91
56. 85
108
xii. I
no
2 Timothy.
12
148
L I ...
... 55
xiii. 21
112
2
... 56
9 ...
... 56
James.
13 ...
... 56
i. 6
131
Index of Texts,
i6i
James [continued).
PACK
2
John.
PAGE
19
57
8
57
ii. I
III
2
150
3 John.
iii. I
V. 20
I Peter.
III
93
12
JUDE.
57
i- 3
ii. 8
21
151
125
57
I
8
13
58, 114
145
145
iii. II
15
107
68
Revelation.
21
87
i.
3
93
iv. 8
93
ii.
13
139
V. I
137
iv
I
10
13
112
4
6 &c.
139
87
2 Peter.
V.
6 &c.
87
i. 3
14
ii. 10
17
iii. 2
102
95
145
145
57
vi.
vii.
xiii.
xiv.
I&C.
II
T4 ..
I
3 ••
9 ..
87
87
99
88
87
88
I John.
XV.
xvi.
7 ..
10
87
139
ii. 23
151
xvii.
8 ..
58
iii. I
57
xix.
4 ..
87
V. 7.
8
15,69
xxii.
II
58
13
47
14 ..
59
CASSELL, FETTER, GALPIN & CO., BELLE SAUVAGE WORKS, LONDON, E-C.
SELECTIONS FROM
Messrs. Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co.'s Publications.
The Life and Work of St. Paul.
By the Rev. F. W.FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S. ; Canon of Westminster ;
and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen Seventeenth Thoitsand.
Two Volumes, demy 8vo, cloth, 24J. ; or handsomely bound in
morocco, £2 2s.
*'The real excellences of the book are such as to warrant our recommending its
careful study to those who desire to obtain an adequate view of the moral grandeur and
complex variety of the Apostle's character, and of the extent and fruitfulness of his
labours. " — Guardian.
" Dr. Farrar will for ever take his place among * the masters in English theology,'
and * the classic preachers of the English Church.' " — IVatc/tmau.
" Not only the author's literary chef-d'cBuvre^ but is also out of sight the best
English work of its class." — British Quarterly Review,
The Life of Christ.
By the Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S., Canon of Westminster,
and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen.
Library Editio7t. Tiventy- eighth Edition. Two Vols., demy 8vo,
cloth, 24J-. ; or morocco, £2 2s.
Illustrated Edition. With about 300 Illustrations. 4to, cloth, gilt
edges, 2\s. ; calf or morocco, £2 2s.
" No thoughtful mind will rise from the perusal of this book without feeling that it
reveals a beautiful and an harmonious conception. It will serve to raise the mind from
mere objections in detail to a comprehensive view of the whole subject, and it will at
least assist candid objectors to do justice to the Christian tradition." — Times. ^
" Many of the illustrations are extremely beautiful ; all of them serve a distinct pur
pose.." — Pall Mall Gazette,
THE NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY.
A New Testament Commentary for English
Readers. Edited by C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Lord Bishop oi
Gloucester and Bristol.
Volume I.J price 21s., contains —
St.Matthew. ByRev.E. H.Plumptre, I St. Luke. ByRev.E. H. Plumptre,D.D.
D.D. St. John. By Ven. Archdeacon Watk ins,
St.Mark. ByRev.E. H.Plumptre, D.D. | M.A.
Volume II. f price 21s. , contains —
The Acts of the Apostles. By Rev.
E. H. Plumptre, D.D.
Romans. ByRev.W.SANDAV,M.A.,D.D.
Corinthians I. By Rev. T. T. Shore,
M.A.
Corinthians II. By Rev. E. H.
Plumptre, D.D.
Galatians. By Rev. W. Sanday, M.A ,
D.D.
Volume Ill.f price 21s. , contains—
Ephesians. By Rev. Canon Barry, D.D.
Philippians. ByRev. Canon Barry, D.D.
CoLOSSiANS. ByRev. Canon Barry, D.D.
Thessalonians I. & II. By Rev. Canon
Mason, M.A.
Timothy I.&II. ByRev. Canon Spence,
M.A.
Titus. By Rev. Canon Spence, M.A.
Philemon. ByRev. Canon Barry, D.D.
Hebrews. ByRev.W. F. Moulton, D.D,
St.James. ByRev. E.G. Punchard,M.A.
St. Peter I . By Rev. Canon Mason, M.A.
St. Peter II. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A.
St. John I., II., and III. ByRev.W.M.
Sinclair, M.A.
St. Jude. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A.
The Revelation. By Rev. W. B.
Carpenter, M.A.
Cassell, Petter, Galpin 6^ Co. : Ludgate Hill, London ; Paris ; and New York.
5 B— 581
Selections from Messrs > Cassell^ Petier, Gcdpin 6^ Co,U Publications {continued).
The Bible Educator.
Edited by the Rev. E. H. PlumpTre, D.D., assisted by some of our
most eminent Scholars and Divines. Containing about 400 lUustra-
. tions and Maps. Complete in Four Vols. , cloth, 6j. each ; or Two
Double Vols., cloth, 2.\s.\ half-calf, 31^. 6d,
The Family Bible.
With 900 Illustrations, References, Concordance, Critical and
Explanatory Notes, &c. Printed on Fine Toned Paper, leather, gilt
^^g^s, ;^2 loj. ; morocco, £'}, \os.\ best morocco, ,7^3 15J.
The Guinea Bible.
With 900 Illustrations. Royal 4to, 1,476 pages. Cloth gilt, gilt
edges, 2IJ. ; or 25J. strongly bound in leather.
The Half-Guinea Illustrated Bible.
With 900 Original Illustrations, executed specially for this Edition.
Printed in clear type, with References, &c. Crown 4to, cloth, loj. dd.
Can be also' had in Leather Bindings in great variety.
The Dore Bible.
Royal 4to Edition. Complete in Two Vols., with 220 Illustrations
by GuSTAVE Dor£. Plain morocco, £\ 45-.; best morocco, £(^ ds.
The Bible Dictionary.
With nearly 600 Illustrations. 1,100 pages, imperial 8 vo. One
Volume, cloth, 21^.; morocco, 40J. ; cr Two Volumes, cloth, 25 j".
The Church at Home.
A Series of Short Sermons, with Collect and Scripture for Sundays,
Saints' Days, and Special Occasions. By the Right Rev. Rowley
Hill, D.D., Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. Price 5^.
The Child's Bible."^ "
With 200 Original Illustrations, Being a Selection from the
Holy Bible, in the Words of the Authorised Version. Cloth, gilt
edges, £\ \s,
Christ our Redeemer :
Thoughts and Meditations on our Lord's Life. Selected by Henry
SouTHGATE. Price y. 6d.
The Christian in his Relations to the Church,
the World, and the Family. By the Rev. Daniel Moore,
M.A. IS. 6d.
Cassellf Peiter^ Galpin &= Co. : Ludgate Hill^ London ; Paris ; and New York,
Selections from Messrs. Cassell, Fetter, Galpin 6^ Co.'' s Publications (contimted).
Companion to the Revised Version of the New
Testament. By Alexander Roberts, D.D., Professor of
Humanity, St. Andrews, and Member of the New Testament Com-
pany. Price 2s. 6d. ,
The Quiver.
An Illustrated Religious Magazine. Yearly Volumes, 7^-. 6cl.; also
Monthly Parts, 6d.
The History of Protestantism.
By the Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL.D. Complete in Three Vols., con-
taining upwards of 600 Illustrations. Extra crown 4to, cloth, 2'js,
Keble's Christian Year.
With Illustrations on nearly every page. Reprinted from the
Original Edition. Cloth, "js. 6d. ; cloth, gilt edges, los. 6d.
The History of the EngHsh Bible.
By the Rev. F. W. Moulton, M.A., D.D. Reprinted, with
Additions and Corrections, from " The Bible Educator." 3^. 6d.
Christ Bearing Witness to Himself.
Being the Donnellan Lectures for 1878-9. By the Rev. G. A.
Chadwick, B.D. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5^-.
Daily Devotion for the Household.
Containing a Prayer, with Hymn and Portion of Scripture, for Every
Morning and Evening in the Year. Illustrated. Royal 4to, £1 i^s.
The Family Prayer Book.
Edited by the Rev. Canon Garbett, M.A., and the Rev. Samuel
Martin. Demy 4to, 398 pages, cloth, ^s. 6d. ; cloth, gilt edges, gs.
The Dore Scripture Gallery of Illustrations.
Containing 250 Drawings of Scripture Subjects, by Gustave Dor£.
Complete in Two Vols.,;^5 loj.; or Four Vols., ;^6 6s.
Some Difficulties of Belief.
By the Rev. T. Teignmouth Shore, M.A., Incumbent of Berkeley
Chapel, Mayfair, Hon. Chaplain to the Queen. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s.
The Life of the World to Come, and other
Subjects. By the Rev. T. Teignmouth Shore, M. A. Cloth, ^s.
Sunday.
Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation, considered in the Bampton
Lectures (i860). By Archdeacon Hessey, D.C.L. 6s.
Cassell, Fetter, Galpin ^ Co. : Ludgate Bill, London ; Faris ; and New York.
Selectio7ts froffi Messrs, Cassell, Petter^ Galpin (Sr* Co.h Publications (continued).
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Holy War.
With 200 Wood Engravings and Twelve Chromo Plates. Demy 4to,
cloth, gilt edges, ;i^i 5^.
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
With 100 Illustrations by Selous and Priolo. Cloth, 7^-. dd,
Bunyan's Holy War.
With 100 Illustrations by Selous and Priolo. Cloth, *is. 6d.
Young Man in the Battle of Life.
By the Rev. Dr. Land els. Cloth, 3J. 6d.
The True Glory of Woman.
By the Rev. Dr. Landels. Cloth gilt, gilt edges, 3s. 6d.
The Patriarchs.
By the Rev. W. Hanna, D.D., and the Rev. Canon NoRRis, B.D.
With Coloured Map. Reprinted, with Revisions, from the "Bible
Educator." Cloth, 3J-. 6d.
The Music of the Bible.
With an Account of the Development of Modern Musical Instruments
from Ancient Types. By John Stainer, M.A., Mus.Doc. Cloth,
3J. Reprinted, with Revisions, from the **'Bible Educator."
Flowers from the Garden of God.
A Book for Children. By the Rev. Gordon Calthrop, M.A.
Cloth gilt, 2s. 6d.
History of the Waldenses.
Reprinted from the ** History of Protestantism." By the Rev. J. A.
Wylie, LL.D. With Illustrations. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Voice of Time.
By John Stroud. New Edition. Cloth gilt, is.
Shall We Know One Another }
By the Right Rev. J. C. Ryle, M.A., Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
New Edition. Cloth gilt, is.
Complete Catalogues of messrs. cassell, petter,
galpin & Co.'s PUBLICATIONS, containing a List 0/ Several Hundred Volunies.
ittchiding Bibles a7id Religious H'orks, Fine-Art Volumes, Children's Books, Dictiofiaries
Ediccaiional Works, History, Natural History, Hotisehold and Domestic Treatises, Hand-
Boo ks and Guides, Science. Serials. Travels, <S'j. &-c.. together with a Synopsis of their
numerous ILLUSTRATED SERIAL PUBLICATIONS, sent post free on application to CASSELL,
Petter, Galpin & Co., Ludgate Hill, London.
<
' hJ / 4-.V^O /
. ,^x\\ v^A\s\,\\v\v^v .^vv,, V, ^^■^sv^^^^^^^\^v^^^>^\^N^<^^v^\\^^K^.^>^^^>^';^^^\^^
^«
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11