v.l
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
L I BRARY
The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz
Book Endowment for the Humanities
Class of 1924
3 1924 091 301 113
Cornell University
Library
The original of tiiis bool< is in
tine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924091301113
THE REVISERS' GREEK TEXT
Vol. 1
THE
REVISERS' GREEK TEXT
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN READINGS, TEXTUAI
AND MARGINAL, IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT ADOPTED BY THE LATE
ANGLO-AMERICAN REVISERS
Volume I
By rev. S. W. WHITNEY, A.M.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good
BOSTON
SILVER, BURDETT & COMPANY
1892
PREFACE.
Copyright, 1892,
By silver, BURDETT & CO.
Typography by J. S. Cushing & Co., Boston.
Presswork by Bkrwick & Smith, Boston.
In the minds of some, if not of most, of the careful readers
of the R. V.' of the New Testament, the question invol-
untarily arises here and there whether the variations from
the Received Text, which the Revisers have introduced into
their Greek Text are altogether .proper and really trustworthy ;
in other words, whether the new readings adopted by them, as
far as can now be determined, are all genuine readings, and
consequently worthy of universal and hearty acceptance. To
this question the author addresses himself in the • following
pages ; and the aim of the work here presented to the reader
is to give as clear a conception as is possible of the true nature
of the changes that have been introduced. To do this, the
author has found it necessary to adduce the so-called ancient
authorities for many of the changes that the Revisers have
made, together with the authorities that support the rejected
readings ; so that those who may not have the means of other-
wise getting at the facts in the case may be able to judge for
themselves respecting the genuineness and value of the new
readings.
Most of the examples considered are necessarily such as
appear to the author to be readings of questionable genuine-
1 It is hardly necessary to say that the abbreviations A. V. and R. V. in
the following pages denote respectively the Authorized Version and the
Revised Version.
3
PREFACE.
ness. While his readers may not accept every conclusion at
which he has arrived, there can be but little question that most
of them will agree with him that the Revisers' Greek Text is
far from being perfect. They may even find good reason for
believing that, as a whole, it is less trustworthy than the best
editions of the commonly accepted Text ; and that, as a neces-
sary consequence, a well-tested and more generally accepted
Greek Text of the New Testament must be agreed' upon before
we can really look for any further satisfactory revision of the
English Version of the New Testament.
The reader must not suppose, however, that every apparently
false reading in the Revisers' Greek Text has been brought
under review. Numerous instances remain unnoticed, which
are just as truly false readings as any that have been examined,
though generally less important or noteworthy than the most
of these. At almost every turn, one or more spurious readings
appear in the Revisers' Greek, which need to be corrected or
eliminated before a proper English text can be obtained from
it. These must be left for other hands to bring to light, if the
work is to be done at all. It is by no means an enviable task ;
but it needs to be performed. It should be undertaken and
carried on, however, with extreme care, great wisdom, a large
acquaintance with Biblical facts, a thorough experimental
knowledge of divine truth, and, if possible, with perfect
freedom from bias.
These pages have been prepared with special reference to
readers of English, or such as are not altogether at home in
Greek. Hence, where Greek words have been introduced, the
corresponding English will generally be found accompanying
them. In many instances, as far as could well be done, English
representatives alone have been given. This placing of the
English in connection with the Greek word, while enhancing
the value of the work to readers generally, whose acquaintance
PREFACE.
5
with the original might not be such as to enable them read.^
to grasp the meaning without the aid of a lexicon, of course has
added to the bulk of the volumes. But most readers will not
"^cldour'that the work is but imperfectly performed, the
author nevertheless ventures upon its publication, and does it
with the earnest hope and prayer that °'l^-f ^^ . .. .h
and blest in the perusal of it. If any shall be led, through
what they may herein find, to a more intell.gent and just
estimate of the true character and value of our English Version
and especially to desire and labor for a sdU more correct
version, the author will be richly rewarded for his toils.
In dosing this Preface, the writer desires thus pubhcly to
acknowledge his indebtedness to the Rev. Henry C. Graves
D D of New Bedford, for many valuable suggestions, and
especially for suggesting and preparing the General Index at
the dose of these volumes. For that portion of the work, the
reader is indebted to him ; and no one who knows how to
appreciate a well-made Index can fail to unite with the au hor
in hearty thanks to him for the genume service he has thus
rendered in making the volumes more complete and acceptable
than they could otherwise have been. ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^_
Taunton, Mass., March, 1891.
CONTENTS.
PACS
Preface 3
The Uncial Manuscriits 9
Patristic Writers and Writings referred to . . 12
Introduction 15
Readings Examined :
From Matthew '55
From Mark 171
From Luke 261
Appendices :
I. At what hour was Jesus crucified? . . . 353
II. When did Mary come to the sepulchre? . . 359
" If we be incompetent to devise theories on a grand or imposing scale,
a more modest and safer course is open. Men of the present genera-
tion may be disqualified for taking a general survey of the whole domain
of th,s branch of divine learning, who may yet be employed, serviceably
and with honor, in cultivating each for himself some limited and humble
field of special research to which his taste, his abilities, or opportunities
have attached him: those persons may usefully improve a farm, who can-
not hope to conquer a kingdom." -F. H. A. Scrivener, LL.D.
(i
• *
THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIFIS.
The following is a list, with brief descriptions, of the Uncial (or Square-letter) Manu-
scripts to which references are made in the following pages. The accounts given of
them have been condensed from Tischcndorf and Scrivener.
K {i.e. Aleph, first letter of the Hebrew
alphatHit). Codex Sinaiticus, now at St.
Petersburg; discovered by lischendorf in
1844 in tlie Convent of St. Catherine on
Mount Sinai, but not secured by him till
early in 1859, and publisncd in iHoi. Con-
tains a large pun of the Scpiuagint and the
whole Ne* Testament. Wniien, m lisch-
endorf's judgment, about the middle of the
4th century a.d., probably at Alexandria.
" From the number of its homoioteleuta"
or omissions made in conseciuence of like-
ness of endings in successive words or
clauses, " and other errors, one cannot
affirm that it is very carefully written." —
Scrivener.
A Codex Alexandrinus, in the British
Museum; presented to Charles I. in 1628
by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch first of Alexan-
dria, then of Constantinople. Contains the
Septuagint almost complete, the whole new
Testament, except Matthew i.-xxv. 6, and
John vi. 50-viii. 52. Dated from the mid-
dle of the 5th century or earlier ; is corrected
in a few places by later hands. May have
been written at Alexandria. " Tl exhibits,
especially in the GospeU, a text more nearly
approaching that found in later copies than
is found in most of its high antiquity." —
Scrivener.
T5 Codex Vaticanus, in thr Vatican T,i-
brnry at Rnme. Puhlishpd in i8')8. " Hug
and others h.Tve referred the oripin of Codex
B to Egypt." — ScriTefier. Contains nearly
all the Septuagint and all the New 1"cstament
except Hebrews ix. 14 to end, i and •> Tim-
othy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation; these
are found in it indeed, but supplied by a
Inte hand, probably of the 15th century.
First hand, of the 4th century, probably
Alexandrine, Tischendorf thinks that the
copyist who wrote out this MS. was one of
the two scribes who produced the original
Sinaitic MS. of the New Testament. Cor-
rected in some places by later hands of the
4th or 5th century, and of the xoth or nth
century.
li (Revelation). Also in the Vatican.
Contains Revelation. About 800 \.u,
C Codex Ephraemi Syri Kescriptus. So
called because certain tracts by St. Ephraem
the Syrian had been copied upon it above
the old writing. Now in the National Li-
brary at Pans. Mutilated, containing about
half the New Testament, no single book
being entire. First hand, of the 5th cen-
tury, Alexandrine, or at least Egyptian,
Tischendorf thinks; later hands, of the 6th
century, apparently Syrian or Egyptian,
and of 9th century, Consiantinopolitan.
1> (Gospels and Acts), Codex Bezx.
In the University Library at Cambridge;
presented to the University in 1581 by
Theodore Beza. Contains the Gospels and
Acts in Greek and Latin, except a few
chapters. The first hand, of the 6th cen-
tury. Some of the missing portions are sup-
plied, " perhaps from the original leaves,"
by a hand of about the roth century. Has
many words and some passages not found
in other >f SR.
T> (F.pistles). Codex Claromontanus.
Tn the National T.ibrary at Paris- Contains
the Epistles of Paid in Greek and Latin.
Written in the 6ih century in North Africa
hv a Greek of Alexandria, Tischendorf
thinks; meant for the use of a T.,atin church.
Corrected by later hands, both Greek, of
the 7ih century, and eirlv in the gth.
K (Gospels). Codex Basileensis, in the
Public Library at Basle, apparently brought
thither from Constantinople. Contains the
Go!^pels, except a few verses of Luke. 8th
century.
9
10
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS.
II
K (Acts). Codex Laudianus, now at
Oxford; presented to the University by
Archbishop Laud in 1636. Contains the
Acts in Greek and Latin, except about
two chapters. Date, about 600 a.d. Ap-
parently written in Sardinia, for use in a
Latin church.
K (Epistles). Codex Sangermanensis,
now at bt. Petersburg. An inexact copy
of D Claromontanus, 9th century.
F (Gospels). Codex Boreeli, in the
Public Library at Utrecht. Contains the
Gospels with many defects. Some of these
have been made since the collation published
by Welstein. Hence this Codex is some-
times cited on his authority as F*. Re-
ferred by dilTereut ones to the 8th, 9th, and
lotli century.
i" (Episilcs). Codex Augiensis; in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Contains the Pauline Epistles, in Greek
and Lalin, except a few passages; the
Greek text of the Epistle to the Hebrews
is also missing. 9th century.
G (Gospels). Codex Harleian 5684, in
the British Museum. Much mutilated.
Assigned to the loth century.
G (Epistles). Codex Boernerianus; in
the Royal Library at Dresden. Contains
the Pauline Epistles, except the Hebrews,
with some omissions. It has much resem-
blance to Codex Augiensis, F., and Scriv-
ener believes that both were copied from
one M.S. some centuries older than either.
Date, late in the 9th century.
H (Gospels). Codex Andr. Seidelii,
now at Hamburg. Contains the Gospels,
with many omissions, glh century.
If (Acts). Codex Mutinensis; in the
Grand Ducal Library at Modena. Con-
tains part of the Acts. 9th century.
H (Epistles). Codex Coislinianus Pa-
risiensis. Part now at Paris, part at St.
Petersburg. Contains fragments of five of
the Pauline Epistles. 6th century.
T Codex Tischendorfi:>nus ii. Fragments
of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles from seven
difTcrent MS.S. The first two, of the 5th;
the next three, of the 6th: and the remain-
ing two, of the 7th century. *' The first
five fragments must be placed in the highest
rank as critical authorities.** — ScrtTfner.
K (Gospels). Codex Cyprius Parisien-
sis. Tn the National Library at Paris.
Contains the Gospels complete. 9th cen-
tury.
K (Epistles). Codex Mosquensis. At
Moscow. Contains the Epistles, except
about II chapters. 9th century.
I> (Gospels). Codex Parisiensis Regius
In the National Library at Paris. Contains
the Gospels, except a few passages. 8th
century Has "a strong resemblance to
Codex B; but is carelessly written, and
abounds with errors of the ignorant scribe,
and in what are termed Alexandrian forms
beyond any other copy of its date." —
Scrivener.
I- (Acts and Epistles). Codex Angelicus
Romani.s, belonging to the Augustinian
monks at Rome. Contains Acts from viii.
10, and Epistles, except a few verses. Of
9th century.
M (Gospels). Codex Campianus; in
the National Library at Paris, Contains
the four Gospels complete. Latter part
of the 9th century. "Its readings are
very tftoA." — Scri-vener.
N (Gospels) . Codex Purpureus. Frag-
ments; four leaves in the British Museum;
six in the Vatican; two at Vienna; and
others at the Monastery of St. John in
Patmos. Of the 6th century.
P (Gospels). Codex Guelpherbytanus
A. Only fragments of the four Gospels.
Of the 6th century.
P (Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse).
Codex Porphyrianus, at St. Petersburg.
A 9th century MS.
Q (Fragments of Luke and John).
Codex Guelpherbytanus B. Of the sih
century. These two codices (P and Q)
are in the Ducal Library of Wolfenbiit-
tel.
K Codex Nitriensis Rescriptus. An im-
portant palimpsest, containing fragments of
Luke. In the British Museum. Of the 6th
century. Out of the 908 readings cited from
it by Tischendorf (8th edition), R sides with
A 356 times, and with B 157 times, where A
and B differ.
S (Gospels). Codex Vaticanus 354, in
the Vatican Library at Rome. Contains
the four Gospels complete. Belongs to the
middle of the loth century.
T Codex Borgianus. In the Propaganda
at Rome. Fragments of Luke and John,
with a Thebaic Version. Of the 6th or 7th
century.
Twoi A few leaves of Luke and John
in Greek and Thebaic, once belonging to
Woide.
ii.
T**, 1* Fragments of John and Mat-
thew; at St, Petersburg. 6th century.
T'' Among the Borgian MSS. at Rome,
A fragment of a Greek and Thebaic Lec-
ttonary of the 7th century. Contains small
portions of Matthew, Mark, and John*
T* A fragment, in the University Li-
brary at Cambridge, Eng. Contains only
Matthew iii. 13-36. Of the 6th century.
From Upper Egypt.
U (Gospels). Codex Nanianus. Con-
tains the four Gospels entire. Now in the
Library of St. Mark's, Venice. Of the 9th
or loth century.
V (Gospels). Codex Mosquensis. Of
the 8th century.
W This letter, with the additional small
letters from a to f, embraces a number of
small fragments of the Gospels, belonging
to the 8th and 9th centuries.
X Codex Monacensis, in the University
Library at Munich. Contains the four
Gospels, with many defects. Of the 9th
or loth century.
Y Codex Uarberini, at Rome. A frag-
ment, of the 8th century, containing John
xvi. 3-xix. 41.
Z Codex Palimpsestus Dublinensis. In
the Library of Trinity College, Dublin.
Passages of Chrysostom and Epiphanius
written over the old writing, in a hand of
the loth century or later. Contains part
of Matthew. 6th century.
r (/".<■. Gamma). Pari at Oxford, part at
St. Petersburg. Contains the Gospels nearly
entire, glh century.
A i^i.e. Delta). Codex Sangallensis. In
the Monastery of St. Gall in N.E. Switzer-
land. Contains the Gospels, except part of
John. •' Written by Latin (most probably
by Irish) monks in the west of Europe dur-
ing the 9th century." — Scrivener,
e (I'.r. Theta). This letter includes
eight small fragments of the Gospels, ex-
tending from the 6th to the 9th or loth
century. At St. Petersburg.
A {i.e. Lambda). Codex Oxontensis, ia
the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Contains
Luke and John complete. Of the 9th century.
H (r'.f. Xi). Codex Zacynthius. In the
Library of the British and Foreign Bible
Society, London. Contains considerable
portions of Luke. Like Z, a palimpsest,
the original hand being probably of the 8ih
century.
n {i.e. Pi). Codex Petropolitanus. Con-
tains the Gospels, except about forty-five
verses in Matthew, and thirty-four in John,
Of the gth century.
2 {i.e. Sigma). Codex Rossanensis, in
the Archbishop's Library at Rossano, in
Calabria. Of the 6th century, if not earlier.
A LIST
Ecclesiastical Writers and Patristic Writings referred to or
cited in the following pages.
The italicized names denote Latin in distinction from Greek writers-
annexed indicate generally the death of the writers referred to.
The dates
A.D.
Ambrose, Rp. of Milan . . . 397
Ajnhrosiaster {i.e. Hilary the
Deacon) 31I century.
Ammonius of Alexandria . fl. 220
Anastasius 401
Andreas of Ca^area in Cappa-
tlocia 5th century.
Andreas of Crete 635
Antiochus .... 7th century.
Aphraatesthe Persian, a Syrian
Up • • • • 345
Apostolic Constitution",
3d and 4th century.
Arethas, Bp. of Ca:sarea in Cap-
padocia .... loth century.
Arius 2>^(>
Arnobius 306
Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 373
Augustine, Bp. of Hippo . . 430
Basil the Great, of Csesarea in
Cappadocia 379
Basil of Seleucia 460
Bede, the Venerable .... 735
Caesarius of Constantinople . 368
Cassiodorus, a monk of Italy,
about 565
Chrysostom, Bp. of Constanti-
nople 407
12
A.D.
102
Clement of Rome . . .
Clement of Alexandria .
Cosmas Indicopleustes of Alex
andria
Cyprian, Bp. of Carthage
Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem .
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria
De Promissionibus, etc., 4th century.
De Vocatione Gentium, 4th century.
Didymus of Alexandria . . . 395
Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth, 170-180
Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 265
Ephraem Syrus ....
Epiphanius, Bp. of Cyprus .
Eulogius of Alexandria . .
Eusebius, Bp. of Qesarea .
Eusebius of Emisa . . .
Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch
Euthalius, Bp. of Sulca . .
Eutherius of Tyana . . .
Euthymius Zigabenus . .
Fulgentius, Bp. of Ruspe .
Germanus, Abp. of Constanti-
nople
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bp. of
Neocaesarea ....
Gregory, Bp. of Nazianzus
Gregory, Bp. of Nyssa .
194
53S
258
386
444
378
403
581
340
360
337
458
419
1119
533
71S
270
389
396
WRITERS AND WRITINGS REFERRED TO.
13
0, Bp. of Halberstadt
107
192
432
420
750
llcgcsippus . . . • •
y/,W,Bp.ofPo.ct.er3. . •
y/,>/./y«.,Bp.ofPortus(Ro- ^^^
manus) ■•■',■''
Iptmlius, Bp. of Antioch
Iremcus, Bp. of Lyons ,
Isidore of Pelusium .
'Jerome ■ ■ ■ • '
John Damascene '^^
Justin Martyr - - • • -^
Lactnnlius . ■ ■ ■
Lucifer, Bp. of CagUari
Macarius Magnes . .
Methodius Patarcnsis
Naassenus . . • •
Nonnus
Novation of Rome
(Kcumenius, Bp. of Tricca^
_, ^„ . loth century.
Thrace . • • _
Origc" . • • •_ ■ ■ .
of Hierapohs in
233-305
S ?;;S;.B,;rAaru™etum,fl.550
367 Proclus, Patriarch of Constan- ^^^
1 tinople . . . • • — ^^j^j
Psraoiesariu; ". • 7* century.
Solem^us, the Gnostic, 2d century.
Quesliones ex utroque Testa-
mento
Kufinus of Aquileia
. . 37'
. . 391
. . 3"
2d century.
about 275
in
370
. 410
. eth century.
Severianus, a Syrian Bp. • • 409
Severus of Antioch . • • ;
Syrian " Acts of the Apostles,
520
4th century.
. . • '72
Tatian of Antioch
TertuUian '
Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia
in Cilicia •••■■■.'
Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrrhus m
Syria
1 Theodotus of Ancyra
220
428
458
430
1108
Papias, Bp. of Hierapohs in .63Theophylact, Abp of Bulgaria
'^'-■" 'The Teaching of the T.elve^^^^^
Phrygia
Paschal Chronicle of Alexan-
lascnai v. 6th century
dria
Paulinus Nolanus ■
Paulus, Bp. of Emisa . • • -"- j ^.^^^^ ^j Antioch
Apostles
43, lTichonius,theDonalist,
280 Titus, Bp. of Bostra .
raulu Oros^us . ,„out 425 Victor, Bp. of Tunis .■ •
Pelagms • • • • ■..^ ggi Victorinus, Bp. of Petau in
Photius, Bp. of Constantinople. »9
Polybarp,Bp. of Smyrna, about ibb 1
. fl. 390
about 375
. . 430
. . 565
304
II
All those rules which have for their basis a practicable and actual
classification of manuscripts, and which assign peculiar weight to some in
consequence of belonging to a particular class. I must regard as little
better than a /,/,ri<, j,ri„cij>ii in the whole matter of New-Testament
Crifcsm. Lis sub judice : and. while it is so. and is confessedly and
plamly so m the judgment of so many impartial and enlightened critics
why should we speak, and argue, and lay down rules, as if it were noi
so ? " — Moses Stuakt.
»4
INTRODUCTION.
The Greek text from which the so-called Authorized Version
of the English New Testament was made is commonly called
the Texfus Receptus, or Received Text. This text, in the
main, is supported by the Greek manuscripts, as a whole, and
by the versions and Fathers generally. With here and there a
variation, it has been the generally accepted Greek text of the
New Testament for the last eight or ten centuries at least
That from which the Revised English Version of 1881 was
made is called, by way of distinction, the Revisers' Text. This,
as far as its peculiarities are concerned, is founded, in the main,
upon certain readings of less than half a dozen, and sometimes
of only one or two, of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts in
connection with such later ones and such versions and patristic
writings as may correspond with them and support or seem to
support their readings. A few moments' comparison of these
two Greek texts with each other reveals many differences of
greater or less importance between them. The plea in behalf
of the alterations found in the Revisers' Text is, that between
the first and the tenth or twelfth century changes were grad-
ually introduced until the text became so largely corrupted as
to need to be corrected by returning to the readings found in
the oldest manuscripts, versions, and Fathers. These changes
are of two kinds : (i) such as are supposed to be due to pure
accident, and (2) such as seem to have been intentionally made
by copyists and others.
In regard to the first of these classes, it is said that universal
i6
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
experience has proved that nothing is more difficult than to get
any large amount of copying done with absolute correctness.
Transcribers will, through incompetence or carelessness, make
mistakes. This is true in reference to the copyists of all
ancient manuscripts ; and it has given rise to many differences
between the earlier and the later manuscripts of the New
Testament. In other words, repeated transcription involves
multiplication of errors ; and the inference is that a relatively
late text is a relatively corrupt text.
This reasoning is plausible, and to a certain extent, no doubt,
true. But it is true only in reference to mere transcription.
While much of the copying of New-Testament manuscripts was
unquestionably performed blindly and mechanically, there is
abundant evidence that much, especially after the fourth cen-
tury, was carefully and critically done, — the transcribers acting
the part of editors as well as of copyists, comparing the various
manuscripts in their possession, and following those readings
which, according to their best judgment, embodied the true
text. Some manuscripts, in fact, like Codices 20 and 300, con-
tain the record that they have been collated with ancient and
approved copies. This well-known endeavor among copyists
after the fourth and especially after the fifth century resulted in
what was really a purer, more uniform, and far more correct
text than many earlier manuscripts presented. It produced
what Dr. Hort is pleased to call " an eclectic fusion of the texts
of different exemplars." But it is only what Westcott and Hort
themselves did in their " attempt to present exactly the original
words of the New Testament "; for, while these modern editors
adhered, as far as they could, to the text of a single ancient
Greek manuscript, they found themselves compelled to depart
therefrom in multitudes of instances, and might well have done
it in very many more. In other words, many if not most later
ancient copyists were governed by the same motives as modern
editors are in their endeavors to present the best available text.
In this way very many errors introduced both accidentally and
INTRODUCTION.
17
i„„,i„na»y by e„«e, cHUcs and »PV;- J™ ^f' ' ''
„„i, successors, a„d a,. ""^"^ 'et.;r<lcp.r.n«s from the
Acain ; it is well k-"'" ">" '''^^ 'TL Ne»-Te»tat,.ent
o„,Ll te,t, .He S-«. deprava.,0™ ot th.Je^^^^^ ^^^
writings, were made m the secona ^^^^^
„an, or them, P'-fj- l'^^ patristic wHtings,
manuscripts, or in the oiaesi ^^^^_
which date even farther ^ack than the ead>et ^^ ^^^
scripts. Within less than ha^f a cetura^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^..^^^
New-Testament Scnptu es had been introducing
heretics began their work of corruptmg tl^e xt y ^^ ^^^.^^
additions, omitting P-^^^ ^V^, ,' BUides (a.b. 134).
various other alteraUons^T^^^^^^^^^ .50). during the
Valentmus (a.d. ^4o).^"^J^ \^ j^^.e been especially
middle of the second century are kno. ^_^^ ^^ ^^^^
fruitful in depravations o ^hete^t. |^ ^^^hop of Cor-
eomplaint ^;:^^^^ ^tl^^^^^^^^ " apostles of the devil,"
inth, A.D. 168-176, in speaking 01 1 ^^
as he calls them, tampering with his oj ^^dS J
with weedsby taking away -'-^''^'^S; ^'^^.^^"/sLlar frauds
..NO wonder, see.ng jl.t they ha. e petr ted ^^^_^^^^ ^^^
upon the -"^^7:7^^^;,„_fX of the existence of corrupt
Sff;;;j.;:So::ipering.tiit.N^^^
scriptures which Prevailed^^^^^^^^
f : Dr H t s USned'to 'say : " During the earlie^
rVfihf reverence paid to the apostolic writings even to
centuries, the reverenp ^^^^^^ .^^ng them, ^^a^
the 7^t ^'g; y ;;^j;;; :L^„/...,W.«. as to^har U.t
not of a kind that exacrea f ^ ^^ expected,
as distinguished from_theirsub^
confine UseU. as D. HoH's ^^^^^^Z L thoughts o.
i8
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
the language of the historical books was treated with more free-
dom than the rest; but even the Epistles, and still more the
Apocalypse, bear abundant traces of a similar type of transcrip-
tion. After a while, changed feelings and changed circum-
stances put an end to the early textual laxity, and thencefor-
ward Its occurrence is altogether exceptional; so that the later
corruptions are almost wholly those incident to transcription in
the proper sense,— errors arising from careless performance of
a scribe's work, not from an imperfect conception of it." > To
the same effect is the testimony of Weiss. He says: "The
purity of the original text was vitiated from the first by copies
which could easily be disfigured by every kind of careless and
arbitrary procedure, in the absence of all oflScial control, since
careful adherence to the letter was completely unknown at that
time. ... It was not until a much later period . . . that
doctrinal alterations were really attempted ; and they could be
removed easily enough from the original text, because the latter
was preserved in so many manuscripts. But, along with this,
complaints were made about the differences in the copies^
already noticed by Irenaeus (in his work Against Heresies, v!
30, i), which Origen refers partly to the carelessness of tran-
scribers, partly to the audacity of improvers. . . . That
Origen himself undertook a formal critical recension of the
New Testament, he expressly denies. Something of this
nature, however, certainly appears to have been done by the
Egyptian Bishop Hesychius and the Alexandrian Presbyter
Lucian in the third century, respecting which Jerome complains
in his Epistle to Damasus; but we know nothing of the
method and results of their endeavors, which were entirely
rejected in the West. On the other hand, the traces of various
by omissions, verbal modifications, additions, and other changes, the sub-
stance, the very statements and forms of thought presented by the sacred
writers, were grossly tampered with, rejected, or otherwise materially
changed.
' hitroduction to Greek Testament, p. 7.
i^
■r
INTRODUCTION.
19
;
correcting hands in our manuscripts show that the latter were
often compared with others and corrected by them, so that
many errors caused by carelessness were removed. How many
of our manuscripts rest upon such corrected copies is shown by
the mixed readings and half alterations which they contain. It
was not until the seventh and eighth centuries, when Constan-
tinople became the chief seat of transcribers, that a more
equable and correct but much emended text was restored to
the younger manuscripts.'" Scrivener, too, after referring to
the complaints of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen
respecting the discordant readings already prevalent in their
days — A.D. 150 to 250 — through the tamperings of those
" who desired to be more knowing than the apostles," adds :
" It cannot easily be denied that the various readings of the
New Testament current from the middle of the second to the
middle of the third century were neither fewer nor less con-
siderable than such language would lead us to anticipate.
Though no [one of the] surviving manuscripts of the Old Latin
Version dates before the fourth century, and most of them
belong to a still later age, yet the general correspondence of
their text with that used by the first Latin Fathers is a sufficient
voucher for its high antiquity. The connection subsisting
between this Latin version, the Curetonian Syriac and Codex
Bezse [or D] proves that the text of these documents is con-
siderably older than the vellum on which they are written ; the
Pesliito Syriac also, most probably the very earliest of all trans-
lations, though approaching far nearer to the received text than
they, sufficiently resembles these authorities in many peculiar
readings to exhibit the general tone and character of one class
of manuscripts extant in the second century two hundred years
anterior to Codices J^, B [i.e. to the two oldest extant Greek
manuscripts]. Now it may be said without extravagance that
no set of Scriptural records affords a text less probable in itself
1 Introduction to the New Testament, American edition, Vol. ii., pp. 405, 406.
20
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
INTRODUCTION.
21
or less sustained by any rational principles of external evidence
than that of Codex D, of the Latin codices, and (so far as it
accords with them) of Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations, as
insipid in themselves as unsupported by other evidence, abound
in them all. ... It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in
sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament
has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after
it was composed ; that Irenseus and the African Fathers and
the whole Western with a portion of the Syrian church used far
inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus,
or Stephen thirteen centuries later when moulding the Textus
Receptus." '
The views thus presented by some of the ablest living textual
critics of the New Testament not only accord with facts, but are
very far from sustaining the widely received notion that our
oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are necessarily the
purest and most trustworthy, and that the later ones are
scarcely deserving of notice because of blunders and oversights
supposed to be consequent upon repeated transcriptions. On
the contrary, one is prepared to believe as a necessary conse-
quence that a manuscript written, it may be, a hundred or even
several hundred years later than another may contain a purer
and more trustworthy text than the older copy. In fact, it by
no means follows that a New-Testament manuscript of the
fourth century, for example, simply because it is a fourth-
century manuscript, presents a more correct text than one of
the fifth or even of the tenth century. It may even be said
that the probabilities are that the later manuscript, as a whole,
is quite as likely to present the genuine text as the older, if not
more so.'
' Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Third edition,
pp. 510,511.
^ To this statement, of course, Codex D, as compared with older manu-
scripts, must be considered an exception, as it clearly presents more of the
early corruptions of the text than any of its older companions.
1 >
\i
J
;
What then? Shall we follow the younger manuscripts, and
pay no attention to the testimony of the older ones? By no
means. The older manuscripts, while more likely on account
of their antiquity to present many eariy corruptions, especially
false readings of the second class or such as were knowingly
introduced, are also on account of their age likely to present,
now and then, a genuine reading, which may not be found in
the great majority, if in any, of the more recent ones. They
should not therefore be discarded. Neither should they, on
the other hand, be treated as if all truth were lodged in them, or
in one or more of them. It is a false and altogether unsafe
principle of action to accept unquestioningly the bare testimony
of a handful of documents as affording the genuine text of the
New Testament, simply because of their antiquity, and to
exclude all other and opposing documentary evidence as
worthless. Especially is this the case when we find, as we do,
that these documents from beginning to end are more or less at
variance with each other, and even when in agreement are
often united in palpable and gross error. When thus united,
they should be treated as witnesses unworthy of confidence, and
passed by. The New-Testament writings, like all other books,
were written to be understood, and as such we have a right to
expect to find them free from unnatural, absurd, and impossi-
ble readings ; so that when such readings present themselves
in any of the documents that claim to give the text of the New
Testament or any part of it, they may safely be regarded as
erroneous. If ancient manuscripts stand alone or almost alone,
it is safe to heed their voice only when they call for a reading
which the facts in the case or the requirements of the passage
clearly demand. In other words, their testimony may be
safely accepted and followed when the weight of internal evi-
dence preponderates so strongly against the testimony of the
great body of witnesses as to leave scarcely a doubt that
the reading of the few is the true reading. On this ground, the
reading 6 po.TnCi,m iv rrj tp^/io) KijpuWojv, adopted by Westcott
22
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
INTRODUCTION.
23
and Hort in Mark i. 4, in place of the common reading ^aTrri-
^wv iv Trj iprjiLw koI Krjpvavuiv, must be accepted as the true
reading, although the presence of the article is favored by only
five uncials (the two oldest being among the number), and by
two cursives and one version, while the omission of KaC is sup-
ported by only one uncial and three cursives, — the uncial in
this case being the oldest extant Greek manuscript. Another
similar case, supported by only one uncial (the Sinaitic Codex),
five cursives, and the Peshito Syriac Version, appears in Mark
vii. 19. Instances of this kind, however, are exceedingly
rare.
As to the nature of the errors introduced in those early days,
the reader will bear with us if we quote still further from Weiss,
and give his comprehensive summary of them : " The com-
monest mistakes are in the omission of letters, syllables, words,
and clauses in cases where the like or same followed, and the
eye of the copyist wandered from one to the other by homoio-
teleuion \i.e. in consequence of a sameness of endings]. The
instances in which letters or syllables were doubled are
much less frequent. Many letters in the square character like
one another were readily interchanged [as the last four of
" Magdala," for example, in Matt. xv. 39, transforming the word
into " Magadan "]. In dictating, consonants of like sound were
very often exchanged [hence, in all probability, the reading
KavyrffTiofuxt. for KavOi^aiDfuu in I Cor. xiii. 3] ; while vowels and
diphthongs similarly pronounced, chiefly in consequence of ita-
cism [or the mistaking of one for the other] were also con-
founded. The expression was often involuntarily conformed in
words to the context, even to senselessness in the endings of
words. [An example of this appears in the transformation of
airrov, "his," in connection with "kinsmen," in Acts x. 24,
into avTov^, " them," a reading given only by the scribe of the
Vatican, the oldest extant Greek, manuscript; — the s having
been involuntarily added through the influence of the preceding
words (one of which is avTou's) ending in the same letter.]
Many transpositions arose merely from the fact that a word was
omitted by mistake [as Svi'd/i.as, "powers," for example, in
Rom. viii. 38] ; and, since the omission was soon observed, it
was rectified by the first transcriber putting the word in a later
place ; or, after the corrector had marked the error, the word
was introduced into a wrong place by a later copyist. Abbrevia-
tions also were sometimes read incorrectly [as in Rom. xii.
11], original glosses erroneously put into the text [as in i
Pet. V. 2], a word altered or supplied after New-Testament
parallels or (in citation) after the Septuagint either uncon-
sciously or on the presupposition of the text's being necessarily
wrong, because it does not agree with the parallels passing
through the mind of the copyist. . . . The text has suffered
much greater injury from intentional emendations. In this
respect, there is naturally a superabundance of additions con-
sisting of subject and object, copula and verb, genitives (espe-
cially pronouns) and adjectives or pronouns, of articles and
appositions, of conjunctions, adverbs, and prepositional addi-
tions, even amounting to glosses of all kinds which serve the
purpose of elucidation. Synonyms and pronouns, simple and
compound words (especially verbs), conjunctions and preposi-
tions, moods and conjugations, cases and persons, word-forms
and flexions are here exchanged one with another ; sometimes
to make the expression more correct or to beautify it, some-
times to make it more emphatic or more conformable to the
context. To this head belong the majority of word-transposi-
tions serving the purpose of emphasis or elucidation. Occa-
sionally, real difficulties are removed ; at other times, there is
an intentional conforming to parallels. Many emendations are
meant to facilitate the sense, or to obviate the misunderstand-
ing of it ; they also express the exegetical mind of the tran-
scribers. But no consistency should be looked for in these
emendations, especially as they have passed over into later
24
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
copies but partially, or have been partially corrected again by
means of an older text."'
The documents on which most modern editors rely as pre-
senting the original and true text of the New Testament are the
Sinaitic (X) and Vaticarf (B) Codices of the fourth century.
Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi (C) of the fifth.
Codex Bezae (D) of the sixth, and, in the Gospels, Codex
Regius (L) of the eighth century, and the Curetonian Syriac
Version. The old Latin and the two Egyptian (Thebaic and
Memphitic) Versions are also much relied on, especially where
they correspond with the two oldest Greek manuscripts, which
are, no doubt, of Egyptian origin also. To give the general
reader some idea of the character of these ancient documents,
we subjoin some of their peculiar readings. We shall do nothing
more, however, than to instance a few from the , second Gos-
pel.^ Ab uno disce omnes. From these few specimens, the
reader can form his own judgment as to the trustworthiness of
these documents in their entirety, and the propriety of rever-
ently, not to say superstitiously and blindly, following them,
oftentimes to the exclusion of all other evidence. We will
simply add that some of the errors about to be presented have
been corrected in these manuscripts by later hands. Most of
them, however, remain as originally written.
1 Introduction, etc., Vol. ii., pp. 406, 407.
2 We take Mark rather than one of the other Gospels, not because a
proportionally greater number of errors, or errors of a more flagrant kind,
are to be found in it than in any of the others (of which, if such is the
case, we are not aware), but simply because it is shorter than any of the
others, and because the texts of the five oldest Greek manuscripts are as
perfectly preserved to us in this as in any other portion of the New Testa-
ment, if not more so.
INTRODUCTION.
25
A Few Readings Peculiar to the Sinaitic Codex, '^,
AS ORIUINALLY WRITTEN.'
Additions.
Mark vi. 36. " Buy themselves victuals, something to eat."
viii. 4. "Answered him and said. Whence " etc.
xii. 15. "Bring me ii^-r; a penny."
xii. 42. " A poor widow woman."
Omissions.
'■32-34- "They brought unto him all that were sick [and them that
were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the
door. And he healed many that were sick] with divers diseases."
vi. 34. " Because they were [as sheep] not having a shepherd."
ix. 9. "lie charged them that they should tell no one what they had
seen, [unless] after the Son of man had risen from the dead."
A. 19. "Thou knowest the commandments, [Do not commit adultery 1
Do not kill. Do not steal," etc.
xi. 2. "Go your way into the village [that is over against you:] and"
etc. -'
xiv. 16. "And the disciples went forth [and came] into the city."
XV.47, xvi. I. "And Mary the Magdalene [and Mary the mother of
Joses beheld where he was laid. And when the Sabbath was past Mary
the Magdalene] and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought
spices."
Modifications.
ii. 13. Plural for the singular: "And they ^txA forth again ... and
all the multitude came to them."
iv. 14. Future for the present : "The sower shall smv the word "
xii.43. Imperfect for the aorist: "This poor widow was casting in
more than all " etc.
Sometimes a passage exhibits both an omission and a modification- as
vn. 18. " Whatsoever from without entereth [into the man] defileth not
the man," mstead of "cannot defile him."
1 Additions and modifications are given in italics; omissions, in brackets.
26
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
Substitutions.
i. 28. "Of Judea" for " Of Galilee."
ii. 12. " It never before appeared thus in Israel" for "We never before
saw it thus."
vi. 38. " When they came " for " When they knewr."
vii. 24. " He could not speak " for " He could not be hid." A blunder,
the scribe having mistaken one of the letters.
viii. 7. "He set them [«.^. the fishes] before them" for "He com-
manded these also to be set before them." This erroneous reading is
adopted by Tischendorf on the sole authority of the copyist of the Sinaitic
Codex, even though set aside by the "proof-reader" of that manuscript.
xiv. 58. " He said" for " We heard him say." Two old Latin manu-
scripts also have this reading.
A Few Readings Peculiar to the Alexandrine Codex, A,
AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.
There are no additions or modifications in Mark peculiar to
this manuscript that are worthy of note. Before we close our
citations, however, we shall present instances of both, in which
A is joined by other documents.
Omissions.
ii. 18. "Why do John's disciples [and the disciples of the Pharisees]
fast?" etc.
xiv. 10. "And Judas Iscariot, [one of the twelve,] went " etc.
xiv. 37. " And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, [and] saith unto
Peter," etc.
Substitutions.
iv. 36. " And leaving him " for " And leaving the multitude." — A sheer
blunder.
ix. 22. " But yet thou canst " for " But if thou canst do anything."
— The result of omitting one letter.
XV. 21. "Coming from a height " for " Coming from the country." —
The consequence of mistaking one consonant for another of similar sound.
XV. 41. " The many other -women " [aiTepot = (?) al Irepai} for " Many
other women" [4XXo(].
INTRODUCTION.
27
A Few Readings Peculiar to the Vatican Codex, B,
AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.
The only really noteworthy addition in Mark peculiar to this
manuscript is in 1- « uus
i. 40. Where K^/„e is inserted before Sr. (not after it), as if the mean-
er::'; '"^^'T r " '° '"" ^"'""^^ ^ '''"' "'""^ -■' "^'^ "P" -
on], and saymg to h,m, J^rJ, [I come to thee] because, if thou wilt
thou canst make me clean.^' '
We will also add
IV. 5.
earth."
• And other fell on the rocky ground, anJ where it had not much
Omissions.
1. 9- ["And] it came to pass in those days "
f, "'u':^, ■■/^"V°"'^<='' God, [saying,] We never" etc._B U joined in
this by the Old Latin manuscript i.
r rf'u"^^."" ■ • • "^ "'"y "^^' ""= ^°*" "P°" the rocky ledees.
[wo,] when they have heard the word, straightway receive it " etc . -fhe
or, who. havmg been mistaken for the ending of the preceding word
wh.ch consists of the same letters, and so was overlooked '
mar'-'Thi*,"''' "'"' ^'''^ --."—king instead, "that defile a
21 ■ Vr ' T"""" ""°' °^ ^''- ^" ""• 3°. 'his manuscript stands
alone in omitting the article three times.
X- 46. [" And they come to Jericho."]
xiv. 24. " And he said [unto them], This is " etc
xiv. 32. "Sit ye [here], while I pray "
tJv-"' r ^''r "'" ^""' '' ''^'^ ' ^''^" ^^ --'h Chim whom] ye call
he King of the Jews?"_making the question read. " What thin do ye
ay I shal do with the King of the Jews ? " or " What then, tell m. shall
do with the King of the Jews ? "
XV. 34. "My God, [my God,] why hast thou forsaken me?"-Omitted
perhaps as unnecessary; or perhaps by iomoiote^euton.
Modifications.
ii 2,. -A^- ia.roO " tM/rom itselfr for d.- a0.o5. " taketh/r.« it,
111. 9- Plural for the singular : " little boats," for " a little boat "
vui. 2. Dative for the nominative, i« order to ease the construction-
28
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
" They have been with me for t/tree days already " for " It is already Ihree
days that they have been with me."
A. 30. Aicixioc for aliiviov, — carelessly or ignorantly changed as if
necessary to make the word correspond in gender with fiiijc. The scribe
of B commits the same error elsewhere, as in Acts xiii. 48 and i John ii. 25.
xiii. 7. 'AitouijTt, a blunder in spelling aKoiarfrt, "ye shall hear"; or
possibly meant for i.KoieT€, " ye hear," which is an unwarranted reading.
xiii. 32. The singular \^ithout the definite article, " an angel," for the
plural with the article, " the angels."
xiii. 34. 'EauToC for airrov twice, — reading, " his own house " and " his
own servants " instead of " his house " and " his servants."
xiv. 49. The imperfect, third person singular, iKpirei, " he took me,"
instead of the aorist, second person plural, iKpan^trart, " ye took me "; or
possibly meant for the imperfect second person plural, {KpareiTt, a false
reading, and left unfinished. At best, a " hard " reading.
Substitutions.
iv. 15. "Who" for "and," — "wAo when they had heard" etc. — A
sufficiently " hard " reading to suit any one who sees in such readings
proofs of genuineness.
vi. 39. 'Ek for ^7r(, — "by companies in the green grass" instead of
" by companies u/ton the green grass."
vii. 15. T4 KoiyoSy airrov, "which defileth him" for t Sifarat airriv
KotvuMTat, " that can defile him."
XV. 45. 'luern, "Joses," for 'I(<Kn)0, "Joseph." The two names are
altogether distinct. The ignorant or careless scribe succeeded in giving
Joseph his right name in verse 43, though he failed here.
A Few Readings Peculiar to Codex Ephraemi, C,
AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.
In this manuscript, chapter vii. is wanting, as well as portions
of five other chapters of Mark's Gospel, amounting in all to
115 verses. It contains chapter xvi. in full.
Among the comp.iratively few additions peculiar to C's text
of Mark, we note only
ii. 5. " Be of good cheer, son; thy sins " etc.
Y. 20. " In all the Decapolis."
INTRODUCTION.
29
As specimens of substitutions, we give
V. 11. "And worshipped him " for "And fell down before him."
IX. 29. " This kind cannot come forth but " etc. for " This kind can
come forth by nothing but " etc.
A Few Readings Peculiar to Codex Bez^, D.
Additions.
i. 34- With additions and transpositions, this verse is made to read:
"And he healed them, and those having devils; from these he cast them
out, and suffered them not to speak, because they knew him ; and he
healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils."
Omissions.
ii. 7. " Who can forgive sins but [one, even] God? "
iv. 3. " Behold a sower went forth [to sow]."
xiv. 48. " Have ye come out [as] against a robber," etc.
XV. 20. "And when [they had mocked him,] they took off" etc.
Modifications.
iv. 2. Dative for the accusative : " He taught them in many parables."
VI. 48. A conjunction and participle in place of a preposition and an
mfinitive employed as a noun : " He saw them toiling and rowing, for the
wind " etc.
ix. 29. The accusative ohUv erroneously written for the dative oiiM
after iv, — making an impossible construction.
xvi. 3. The masculine ia.vTox,<^ for the feminine ^ourdj, " themselves,"—
as if the reference were to men instead of to women.
Substitutions.
v. 23. " My little daughter is at the point of death. Come, touch her
with thy hands, that she may " etc.
vi. 6. " Because of their /»/// " for " Because of their unbelief."
viii. 10. "Melegada" for "Dalmanutha."
viii. 26. " And saith unto him," in place of " saying."
xiii. 26. " Upon the clouds " for " in clouds."
XV. 43. " And asked for the corpse of Jesus."
30
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
A Few Readings Pecuuar to Codex Regius, L.
Additions.
I. 14- " Jesus came into Galilee, teaching anrf preaching the gospel " etc.
Omissions.
i. 34. " He healed many that were sick [with divers diseases]."
ii. 21. ["And a worse rent is made."]
vi. 23. "And he sware [unto her]. Whatsoever thou shalt ask " etc.
Modifications.
XV. 22. " Gotha " for " Golgotha."
Substitutions.
vi. 25. BoW7fo>Tos, as in verse 24, and in i. 4, for pairrKTroO, the
Baptizer or Baptist.
vii. 12. 'On, "that," in place of icaf, employed Hebraistically for on
before omiTi, and improperly omitted by the Revisers.
vii. 30. " She found the child laid (uW) under the bed " instead of
" upon {itrl) the bed."
XV. 40. " The bUssed Magdalene " for " Mary the Magdalene."
The Curetonian Syriac Version, which some consider one of
the most important witnesses to the original text of the New
Testament, is almost wholly defective in Mark. The surviving
fragments contain only the last four verses (xvi. 17-20) of
this Gospel. To show something of the character of the ver-
sion, however, we give from Matthew
A Few Readings Peculiar to the Curetonian Syruc
Version.
Additions.
iii. 15. "Then he suffereth him, thai he should be baptized; and he
baptized him."
V. 12. " For so Aid. your fathers persecute the prophets " etc.
INTRODUCTION.
31
vii. 22. " Lord, Lord, did we not eat and drink in thy name, and
prophesy in thy name," etc.
xii. I. " Began to pluck the ears of corn, and to rub them in their
hands, and to cat."
xiii. 16. " Blessed are your eyes, for they see ; and again your ears, for
they hear."
xiii. 33. " Which a wise woman took, and hid " etc.
xviii. 30. "And he, his fellow servant, would not."
xix. 14. " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not
to come unto me."
xix. 21. " Thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and take up thy cross ^vid.
come, follow me."
xix. 29. " And in the world to come shall inherit eternal life."
XX. 12. "The burden and the heat of the xvhole day."
XX. 33. " Lord, that our eyes may be opened, and we may see thee.''
xxi. 9. "Hosanna in the highest. And many went forth to meet him,
and rejoiced and praised God for all that they had seen."
xxi. 31. " Which of the two, as it seems to you, did the will of his
father?"
xxii. 36. " Master, which is the great and first commandment in the
law?"
Omissions.
vi. 5. [" Verily] I say unto you," etc.
vi. 16. " When ye fast, be not as the hypocrites, [of a sad countenance;]
for " etc.
vi. 20. "Where no moth [nor rust] destroyeth."
vi. 32. " Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of [all]
these things."
XX. 30. " And [behold,] two blind men " etc.
xxi. 28. ["And coming] to the first he said," etc.
xxiii. 8. "And [all] ye are brethren."
xxiii. 18. "Whosoever shall swear [by the altar, it is nothing; but
whosoever shall swear] by the gift that is upon the altar, he is a debtor."
Substitutions.
i. 21. " He shall save the world (instead of "his people") from their
sins."
i. 24. " He took unto him Mary" instead of " his wife."
X. 34. This verse is made to read, " I came not to send peace on earth,
but a division of purposes and a sword."
32 THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
xii. 2. " Why do thy disciples " etc. in place of " Behold thy disciples "
etc.
xvii. 5. " And a voice was heard out of the cloud, saying," for " And,
behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying."
xix. 7. " Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement,
so that whosoever wished to put away his wife might give her a bill of
divorcement ? "
xxiii. II. " And he who may wish to be great among you " for " But he
that is the greatest among you."
To these we add the rendering which this Version gives of the Saviour's
reply to the penitent thief, found in "Luke xxiii. 43 : " Verily I say unto thee
to-day, that thou shalt be with me in the garden of Eden," instead of
"Verily I say unto thee. To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise."
The foregoing readings, and multitudes of others which might
easily have been added, it will be remembered, are readings
peculiar to the documents to which they are here attributed.
Whatever value one may be inclined to attach to them, they
can scarcely be regarded otherwise than as mere curiosities ;
though, in some instances, they serve as important indirect
helps to the attainment of the true text. Very rarely, if ever,
is a genuine reading found lurking among readings peculiar to
a single document ; and only occasionally is such a reading
confined to but two documents. On the other hand, altera-
tions of the original text were not always confined to the single
document in which they first appeared. Hundreds upon hun-
dreds of them were copied into others, and more or less widely
circulated. Hence the manifold false or perverted readings
that are found among extant ancient manuscripts, versions, and
patristic writings ; and, in many instances, these readings are
very largely and, as is generally said, strongly supported,
because very widely adopted among these documents.
We will here add a brief list of such readings from the Gos-
pel of Mark, in connection with the " authorities " by which
they are supported, simply adding that our limits forbid the
giving of anything more than a few examples from the long list
that might be given.
INTRODUCTION.
33
Additions.
i. 10. " Descending and remaining upon him." Found in )^, 33, 262,
and ten or twelve other cursives, six copies of the Old Latin Version, the
Vulgate, one copy of the Meniphitic, and the Ethiopic.
i. 13. " Forty days and forty nights." L, M, six or seven cursives, four
codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Ethiopic, and
the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac.
iii. II. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of God." C, M, P, 16, 121, and
the Philoxenian Syriac.
iii. 12. "That they should not make him known, because they knew him
to be the Christ:' C, two cursives, and a of the Old Latin Version.
iii. 32. " Behold, thy mother, and thy brethren, and thy sisters, without
seek for thee." A, D, E, F, 11, M, S, U, V, P, more than a hundred
cursives, eight or nine copies of the Old Latin, the Gothic, and the
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. Adopted, however, by Tischendorf as
genuine because not found in Matthew's (xii. 47) and Luke's (viii. 20)
records !
iv. I. T6, "the," before TrXofoi', "boat." A, B second hand, D, E, F,
G, H, S, U, V, A, most of the cursives, and the Memphitic Version. It is
hardly credible that the Evangelist should have inserted the article here.
The whole context forbids it.
V. 33. "Trembling because she had done it secretly:' D, four cursives,
four copies of the Old Latin, and the Armenian.
V. 42. "About twelve years old." «, C, A, half a dozen cursives, and
the Armenian Version.
vii. 35. " And straighhvay the bond of his tongue was loosed." ><, L,
A, — in which manuscripts the same word is omitted at the beginning of
the verse. The Ethiopic Version, however, has the word in both places :
"And straightway his ears were opened, and straightway the bond of his
tongue " etc. The error arose from the omission of the word at the open-
ing of the verse, but on being subsequently restored to the text was put in
the wrong place. Yet Tischendorf gives it here as the true reading, omit-
ting it earlier in the verse.
vii. 37. " He doeth all things well, inasmuch as he maketh both the
deaf to hear," etc. B, and the Memphitic Version. Inserted by Westcott
and Hort in the margin.
viii. 17. " Why reason ye in your hearts, because " etc. D, U, seven
or eight cursives, seven or eight copies of the Old Latin, the Philoxenian
Syriac, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic.
viii. 29. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of God:' ^, L, the lost uncial
34
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
represented by Ferrar's group of cursives (13, 69, 124, 346), 157, b, of the
Old Latin, and the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac Versions.
ix. II. " Saying, the Pharisees and the Scribes say.'' )H, L, four copies
of the Old Latin, and the Vulgate. Added also by Tischendorf.
ix. 22. " And help us. Lord." D, G, 473, sue copies of the Old Latin,
and the Armenian Version.
X. 28. " And have followed thee. What then shall we have f " ^, two
cursives, one copy of the Old Latin, and one of the Vulgate.
X. 35. " The two sons of Zebedee." B, C, and the Memphitic Version.
Adopted by Westcott and Hort, but bracketed.
xii. 14. " 'J'ell us therefore whether it is lawful." C first hand, D, M, N,
and several copies of the Old Latin Version.
xii. 40. " Who devour widows' and orphans' houses." D, the lost
uncial just referred to, 28, 473, seven copies of the Old Latin Version, and
the Jerusalem Syriac.
xiv. 20. " He that dippeth the hand ■vi'x'Ca me." Codex A, five copies of
the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the two Egyptian Versions.
xiv. 31. " But Peter spake." A, C, G, M, N, S, U, about thirty-five
cursives, the Thebaic, Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions.
XV. 13. "They cried out again, saying. Crucify him." A, D, K, M, P,
about twenty-five cursives, four or five copies of the Old Latin, one edition
of the Thebaic, and the Ethiopic Version.
xvi. 16. By the addition of the article, "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved " becomes " He that believeth and he that is
baptized shall be saved." L, A, only.
xvi. 18. " And in their hands they shall take up serpents." C, L, the
margin of M, X, A, six cursives, the Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac,
Memphitic, and Armenian Versions.
Omissions.
i. II. "Came." tt first hand, D, and two codices of the Old Latin
Version. Omitted also by Tischendorf.
i. 16. 'AijL<j>ip\ri<TTpov, " a net." X> B, L, and 33. This word, which
is needed here to give expression to the meaning in Greek as well as in
English, was probably omitted through the resemblance of its first six
letters to the corresponding number in the first half of the next word, —
an error of frequent occurrence. (Compare omission in xiii. 22.) With-
out this word, the text is left to mean that the two brothers were " thrash-
ing " about in the water, as if they were bathing. Instead of throwing a
net around, they are represented as throwing themselves around, in the sea.
INTRODUCTION.
35
Some early scribe, seeing this, yet not knowing just what word was lost,
supplied t4 SUrva, " their nets." Hence the reading of D, our lost uncial,
28, and other documents. Other and later transcribers, finding this plural,
SiKTva, in some of their copies, changed the singular of the evangelist's
word to &iiipip\T)<TTpa, " nets," supposing that to be the proper form of the
word.
i. 19. "Thence." B, D, L, a few cursives, four copies of the Old Latin,
the Peshito Syriac, Memphitic, and two or three later versions. The word
seems to have been omitted because implied in "having gone forward,"
especially in connection with " a little.'' The scribe of the Sinaitic Codex,
instead of omitting " thence," omitted " a httle."
i. 21. " Having entered." ^{, C, L, A, less than ten cursives, the
Peshito Syriac, some editions of the Memphitic Version, and Origen twice.
At the same time, iSlSaaiav, " he taught," was transferred to take the place
of the omitted word. But the preposition ds, " into," was left unchanged
to bear witness against this false reading.
i. 25. " Saying." S first hand, A first hand, and John Damascene. It
is omitted also by Tischendorf because found in Luke iv. 35 !
i. 26. "The spirit." Omitted only by B, and 102, a manuscript whose
readings Westcott thinks were derived from Codex B.
i. 27. " What is this? " D, three lectionaries, and seven or eight copies
of the Old Latin Version.
i. 35. " And departed." B, five cursives, two copies of the Old Latin,
and two editions of the Memphitic. — Doubtless omitted as superfluous.
i. 44. " Nothing," — leaving the clause to read, " that thou speak to no
one." Si A, D, L, A, our lost uncial, 33, etc.
i. 45. 'Uv, " was." B, 102, and 6 and e of the Old Latin. These copies
of the Old Latin Version also omit the " and " that follows immediately
after, — making the last half of the verse read, "So that he [».;. Jesus]
could no more openly come into town, but they came out to him in desert
places from every quarter." On the restoration of the conjunction, the
copula was still omitted in some transcripts as unnecessary. Hence its
absence from B and 102.
ii. 4. " When they had broken it up." D, most copies of the Old I.atin,
the Peshito Syriac, and the Ethiopic. It was omitted as redundant.
ii. 8. " Immediately." D, three cursives, six or seven copies of the Old
Latin, the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions. It was
omitted apparently because it is wanting in Matthew's and Luke's accounts.
ii. 8. " So." Omitted only by B and its copy 102, and from the Old
Latin codices a and g'^. Probably dropped as unnecessary.
ii. 16. " And drinketh." X) B, D, 102, 235, 271, and four or five copies
36
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
of the Old Latin. Evidently an early omission, preserved only in a few
copies taken from second-century manuscripts.
fj'' ' n 't't"^' '""^ ^' """^ *'^'" '^' bridegroom with them, they cannot
last. u, u, I, 3i, and hve other cursives, six or seven copies of the Old
Latm, the Peshito Syriac, Ethiopic, and some later versions
11.26. "How." Omitted by B, D, and 102 only.
rn "■ 'M''^,'!"r '''^' ^^ '^^'""'" '^" ^'^^ P"=^'-" ^' ^7', and five
cop.es of the Old Latm. A second-century omission, due probably to the
fact that the reading M 'ApMap ipx'^p^o,,. "when Abiathar was high-
priest, ' which was so common then, is historically incorrect. The restora-
tion of the article after 'APideap removes the whole difficulty.
iii. I. "The" before "synagogue." K. B, and 102. This omission is
an obvious emendation, due to the fact that no previous mention is made of
any synagogue after i. 39. The article is plainly called for by "again "■
which points back to i. 21, while ii. i shows where Jesus was at the
time, and that the synagogue referred to must have been that mentioned
in 1. 21. Tischendorf, however, omits the article because it appears in
Matthew (xii. 9) and Luke (vi. 6); and Westcott and Ilort do the same,
though for a very different reason.
iii. 6. " Straightway." D, L, five cursives, eight or nine copies of the
Old Latin Version, and the Ethiopic.
iii. 29. "During eternity" or "for ever," - reading simply "hath «<,
forgiveness." D, five cursives, seven copies of the Old Latin, Cyprian of
course, and Athanasius.
iii. 35. " For." B, i, e, of the Old Latin, and the Memphitic Version.
Omitted also by Tischendorf, because found in Matt. xii. 50, in all the
manuscripts.
iv. 4. " It came to pass." D, F, a few cursives, nearly all copies of the
Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, and the Peshito Syriac. Probably omitted
as unnecessary.
V. 2. " Immediately." B, five copies of the Old Latin, the Peshito
Syriac, and the Armenian Version. Apparently omitted as redundant,—
" As he came out " etc. being equivalent to saying, " Immediately upon
coming out " etc.
V. 22. " Jairus by name." D and a, d, e,jp, i of the Old Latin, while
D, d, e omit also the following words, " seeing him."
vi. 27, 28. "And he went, and beheaded him in the prison, and brought
his head." >^, 33. Omitted by homoioteleuton.
vii. 25. The aiSr^t, " her," after evyirptov, " little daughter." ^, D, A,
our lost uncial, i, 28, and nine or ten other cursives. Omitted as needless,
viii. 4. " Here." D, H, 69, six copies of the Old Latin, and the
Gothic Version. Dropped as redundant.
INTRODUCTION.
37
viii. 12. "Unto you." B, L, only. Yet Westcott and Hort omit it
from the text.
viii. 20. " And " at the beginning of the verse. B, L, 473. Rele-
gated by Westcott and Hort to the margin.
ix. 18. "Him" after " tearcth " or " dasheth." X. D, and the Old
Latin manuscript k. Omitted also by Tischendorf.
ix. 34. " In the way." A, D, A, six copies of the Old Latin, and the
Gothic Version. Probably omitted as unnecessary, because of its use in
the preceding verse.
X. 2. "The Pharisees came unto him and." D and a, b, k of the Old
Latin Version.
A. 19. " Do not bear false witness." B first hand, K, A, II, twenty
cursives, and the Armenian Version.
A. 47. "Jesus" before "thou son of David." L, fifteen cursives, two
or three copies of the Latin Version, and Origen.
xi. 4. The article before Bvpav, " door." B, L, A, 473, the Memphitic,
Theljaic, Gothic, and Armenian Versions, and Origen. Omitted also by
Westcott and Hort.
xi. 17. " Unto them." B, 28, 124, four codices of the Old Latin, and
the Armenian Version. Omitted also from the text by Westcott and Hort.
xii. 9. "Therefore." B, L, one copy of the Old Latin, and the Mem-
phitic. Westcott and Hort, of course, omit the word. Tischendorf does
the same, but for a very different reason; namely, because Luke's report
of this parable (xx. 15) contains the word! Lachmann and the Revisers
retain it, as it undoubtedly should be retained.
xii. 17. "Unto them." Though this is a frequent omission with B, it
is enough to satisfy Westcott and Hort that it is no part of the text because
B and D, and no others, omit it here.
xii. 26, 27. The article before GcAs, " God " ; twice in verse 26, and
once in verse 27. B, D, and Origen omit it in verse 26 ; and B, D, K, L,
the margin of M, X, A, IT, more than twenty cursives, and Origen, in verse
27. It is omitted in none of these places by Tischendorf, but in all of
them by Lachmann and Westcott and Hort; and by the Revisers, too, in
their Greek text, though their English Version indicates the contrary.
xii. 30. "And with all thy mind." D, H, two cursives, four copies of
the Old Latin, the Jerusalem Syriac, Justin Martyr (who also omits " and
with all thy soul "), and Cyprian several times. Tertullian, in his "Answer
to the Jews," omits this expression, as well as that following it, "and with
all thy strength." But these Fathers apparently quoted from memory.
xii. 34. KvTbv, "him," after Uiiv, "seeing." X. D, L, A, fifteen cur-
sives, and Chrysnstom. Omitted in order to blend the two clauses into
one, as in our English versions.
38
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
xii. 34. "Thou art." X. L, only.
xii. 34. " After that." D, 433, and six other cursives, a few Latin
codices, and the two Egyptian Versions.
xiii. 6, 7, 9. " For." In verse 6, omitted by X. B, L, the Ethiopia, and
the Persic of Walton's Polyglot; in verse 7, by J< first hand, B, and the
two Egyptian Versions; and in verse 9, by B, L, the Memphitic, Armenian,
and Ethiopia Versions. The word is rejected by Tischendorf and Westcott
and Hort in each instance, but by the Revisers in the first two only.
Lachmann very properly retains it in each of the three verses, with the
weight of documentary evidence strongly preponderating in his favor.
xiii. 22. "False Christs and." D, 124, and two Old Latin codices.
Overlooked and omitted in consequence of sameness of beginnings in the
two words rendered "false Christs" and "false prophets."
xiii. 23. " Behold." B, L, 28, the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions.
Omitted also by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort.
xiv. 5. " For." D, k of the Old Latin, and the Armenian and Ethiopic
Versions. The conjunction is a part of the original text here as truly as
in Matt. xxvi. 9.
xiv. 25. Ovk4ti, " no more," — reading " I will not drink " etc. X, C,
D, L, one cursive, four copies of the Old Latin, and two of the Vulgate,
and the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions.
xiv. 30. " Twice." H, C first hand, D, two cursives, t and five other
Old Latin codices, two copies of the Vulgate, the Armenian, and Ethiopic
Versions. This is obviously a deliberate critical emendation, with a view
to make Mark's account correspond with that of the other evangelists.
The omission (by Ji{, B, L, one lectionary, c of the Old Latin, and the
Memphitic Version) of " and a cock crew,'.' verse 68; and of " the second
time," and "twice," in verse 72 (the former by H, L, r, and another copy
of the Old Latin, and the latter by J^, C first hand, A, 251, c and four
other copies of the Old Latin, and the Ethiopic Version) are but parts of
the same emendation, consistently preserved only in J< and c.
xiv. 31. A^, "and " or "also," near the end of the verse. B, I, 209,
a few other cursives, and a, c,ff'^, k. Bracketed by Westcott and Hort, as
if the omission might be genuine !
xiv. 39. "Saying the same words." D, a, c,ff'^, k. Again bracketed
by Westcott and Hort.
xiv. 47. " A certain." J^, A, L, M, ten or twelve cursives, c and four
other codices of the Old Latin, the two Egyptian, and the Philoxenian
Syriac and Ethiopic Versions.
xiv. 47. " Of them that stood by." Omitted only by D, and a of the
Old Latin Version.
INTRODUCTION.
39
xiv. 55. " And to cover his face." D, and a,/
xiv. 69. "Again." B, M, one cursive, / of the Old Latin, the two
Egyptian, and Ethiopic Versions.
XV. 4. "Saying." K first hand, I, ,209, 473, a of the Old Latin, and
the Thebaic Version. An omission, apparently for the sake of conciseness,
in accordance with Mark's general, but by no means invariable, manner in
connection with iirepuyray, " to ask."
XV. 10. " The chief priests." B, I, two lectionaries, and the Memphitic
Version.
XV. 20. "Him" after "crucify." Omitted by X. D, I, 122 second
hand, two copies of the Old Latin, — apparently as unnecessary. Fol-
lowed by Tischendorf.
XV. 36. Kai, "and," connecting the two participles "having run" and
" having filled." B, L, <r, and the Memphitic Version. It is impossible on
such evidence to believe that Mark should have written, " But one run-
niiig, filling a sponge with vinegar, having put it on a reed, gave him to
drink." He must have connected the first two participles with a conjunc-
tion, if not the second and third. And so the more trustworthy witnesses,
in fact nearly all the witnesses, represent him as having done. But the
four documents just mentioned give the sentence without anything to con-
nect the participles, and Westcott and Hort accept this as the true read-
XV. 41. •' And ministered unto him.'' C, D, A, nme cursives, and n ot
the Old Latin omit.
xvi. 6. " Of Nazareth." K fifst hand, and D, only.
xvi. 9-20. These twelve verses are omitted by ^{ and B alone of all the
Greek manuscripts, k only of the Old Latin, an Arabic lectionary of the
ninth century in the Vatican Library, and some codices of the Armenian
Version; while L, and 'I', the recently discovered Codex Athous Laurse,
an eighth-century manuscript, after verse 8 give a brief apocryphal ending,
then the usual form of verses 9-20.
Modifications.
i. 2. Future, " I shall send," for the present, " I send." X. a few cur-
sives, the Memphitic Version, and Origen in one place.
i. 7. Singular, "shoe," for the plural, "shoes." L, a few cursives, the
Philoxenian Syriac, Clement of Alexandria, and Basil, each freely quoting
the passage, while elsewhere they give the plural.
i. 8. Present, " baptize," for the aorist, " baptized." D, a few cursives,
and six copies of the Old Latin.
40
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
i. 24. 2.'. "thou." for aol, "to thee." A. B. V, A, and other ancient
manuscripts. A not uncommon clerical error among the older manu-
i. 24. Plural, "we know," for the singular, "I know." ». L A the
Memphitic. Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, and several of the Fathers
Changed, to correspond with what precedes.
iii. 2. Present, "he heals." for the future, "he will heal." K A and
271. Adopted by Tischendorf as genuine.
iii. 8. Present, "is doing," for the imperfect, "was doing." B, L, only
Adopted by Westcott and Hort, who relegate the true reading to the
margm. ^
iii. 13. Singular, "he went," for the plural, "they went." A first
hand, and L only.
iii. 29. Future, " shall be," for the present, " is." (A difference of only
one letter.) K, D, L, A, less than ten cursives, ten copies of the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, the Armenian, the Ethiopic. Cyprian in his Treatises
reads "shall be," but in his A'pSi/es, "is." The future is adopted by
Tischendorf.
V. I. Singular, "he came," for the plural, "they came." C, G, L, M
A, more than thirty cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian, two editions of
the Memphitic, and the Armenian. Changed because of what follows and
what immediately precedes.
vi. 14. Plural, "they said," for the singular, "he said." B, D, two
cursives, and five copies of the Old Latin. The preceding " and," as' well
as verses 15, 16, calls for the singular. Westcott and Hort, however, adopt
the plural, and consign the singular to the margin.
vi. 35. Present, "is spent." for the aorist. "was spent"; a common
itacism, — an early scribe having written an iota instead of an epsilon.
K. D, only; yet adopted by Tischendorf.
vii. 14. Present, "he saith." for the imperfect, "he said." B, 59, only,
vii. 17. Plural, " they had entered," for the singular, " he had entered."
K> U, about a dozen cursives, and one edition of the Memphitic Version.
ix. 14. Plural. " when they came," and " they saw," for the singular,
" when he came," and " he saw." X, B, L, A, i of the Old Latin, and the
Armenian Version. An impertinent change, early introduced so as to
include Peter, James, and John, lest they might be regarded by some as
among the disciples spoken of in the verse. There is no temptation to
change the reading from the plural to the singular, especially as Matthew
(xvii. 14) and Luke (ix. 37) both give the account of the descent in the
plural. The plural is adopted, however, as might be expected, by Tischen-
do.f, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.
INTRODUCTION.
41.
X. 36. Future indicative, first person singular, ne ron^ffw, " What do ye
wish me I shall Jo for you?" instead of the aorist infinitive, Troi^aal fie,
" What do ye wish »ie lo Jo for you?" So X ^s amended in the seventh
century, B. and the Armenian Version. And so Tischendorf reads. Codex
C, and ten or twelve cursives omit "me," and read. "What do ye wish
(that) / shall Jo for you?" All of these, except two cursives, are without
fra. "that." And so Westcott and Hort read. But D. and its Latin Ver-
sion, read simply. " What shall I do for you?" — a reading which, as far
as we know, no one defends or accepts. The first of the above readings,
di\eTi lu roi^ffo!, is the result of a transcriber's stupidly and mechanically
following the structure of the clause he had just written, alriiawiUv ae
iroujo-js, without observing either the meaning of his words or the wording
of his exemplar.
X. 43. Present imperative, "let him be," for the future indicative, "he
shall be." Found in Xt C, X, A. ten cursives, and the Gothic Version.
xiv. 18. Plural. " one of you who are ealing with me," for the singular,
" one of you. who is eating with me." B. and the two Egyptian Versions.
An obvious change to ease the construction.
XV. 27. The aorist, "they crucified," for the present, "they crucify."
B, five copies of the Old Latin, the Peshito .Syriac. and Gothic Versions.
xvi. 13. Nominative for the dative: "Neither did these believe," for
" Neither did they believe these." l^,ff^, and Zohrab's Armenian Version.
Substitutions.
i. 16. " Simon's brother" for "his brother." >t. A, B, E second hand,
L. M, A, twenty-five or thirty cursives, one copy of the Old Latin, and the
Memphitic and Armenian Versions; while E first hand, F, II, K, S, U, V,
II, most of the cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac and Gothic Versions, try
to combine the two, and read " his, Simon's brother." The noun was
evidently substituted in place of the pronoun for the sake of definiteness,
as some, no doubt, insisted that " his brother " meant Jesus' brother, not
Simon's.
i. 45. 'E7r', "upon." for Iv, "in." Xt B, L. A. and half-a-dozen cur-
sives. An obvious transcriptional error, perpetuated by Tischendorf and
Westcott and Hort in their editions.
ii. 4. 'Ottou. "where." for (<)> v. "on which." Xi B, D. L, and two
copies of the Old Latin Version. It was evidently introduced because of
the &TOU just before, which an early copyist, retaining in mind, and not
closely observing his exemplar, naturally wrote as suitable to the connec-
tion, and passed on. Such errors are of frequent occurrence, as in iv. 21,
42
THE REVISERS' GREEK TEXT.
for example, noticed just below. Though early introduced here, it was
soon detected, and well-nigh universally rejected. It is accepted, how-
ever, by Tischendorf and by Westcott and Hort.
ii. 14. "James" for "Levi." D, Ferrar's group, and six copies of the
Old Latin.
iii. 21. "When the scribes and the rest heard concerning him" for
" When his friends heard it." D, most copies of the Old Latin, and the
Gothic Version. An obvious gloss, designed to prevent ol nap airroO from
being taken to mean " his friends."
iii. 26. " Casteth out Satan " for " hath risen against himself." D, and
most copies of the Old Latin Version.
iv. 21. "Under" for "upon." if, B first hand, 2, Ferrar's group of
cursives, and 33. An obvious blunder, made by mechanically repeating
the preceding preposition a second time : " under a bushel, . . . unJer a
bed, . . . uni/fr [instead of upon'] a lamp-stand." It is similar to the
error of L in vii. 30, noticed on page 30.
vi. 3. " Joseph " for " Joses." ^, 121, six copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, and the Ethiopic.
vi. 29. " Him " for " it " : " They came, and took up his corpse, and laid
Aim in a tomb." JJ, 346, only; yet adopted by Tischendorf as genuine.
vi. 36. "Nearest" for "round about." D, and the Latin Version.
An early gloss. Inserted in Westcott and Hort's margin.
vi. 56. "In the streets" for "in the market-places." D, 473, the Old
Latin, Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and Gothic Versions.
Changed because the original reading, " market-places," was apparently
not in keeping with " fields" or " country-places."
vii. 6. " Lovelh me " for " honoreth me." D, and a, b, c, of the Old
Latin Version; while the Ethiopic Version has " honor me and love me."
viii. 3. " Are " for " have come." B, L, A, and the Memphitic Version.
Adopted, of course, by Westcott and Hort. If tlalv, "are," had been the
original reading, it is incredible that any one would ever have substituted
T]Ka.<iiv, " have come," in its place. This anomalous form, which appears
nowhere else in the New Testament, not only gave rise to the early read-
ing eltrlv, but also to the later and more widely adopted T]Kov<riii, "are
present." Compare Buttmann, Gram, of N. T. Greek, p. 59, Amer.
edition.
viii. 22. " Bethany " for " Bethsaida." D, 262 first hand, six copies of
the Old Latin, and the Gothic Version. It would seem sometimes as if a
mere glimpse of the first syllable of a word, without seeing any more of it,
especially if that word is a proper name, were enough to warrant some
of those ancient copyists in going forward and writing the whole word.
INTRODUCTION,
43
Multitudes of instances occur among the various manuscripts in which the
first syllable, or first two syllables, of proper names are right, and the rest
more or less misspelled, making as here a very different word from that
originally written. Westcott and Hort honor this false reading with a
place in their margin. Others as false as this, but somewhat " better "
attested, are advanced by them to a place in the text itself.
X. 26. " Unto him " for " among themselves." Ji{, B, C, A, the Mem-
phitic Version, and the Arabic of the Polyglot. Mark's expression for
denoting speaking lo any one is not \httiv irpds airrov, but 'Kiyeiv airrif.
But to express the idea of petsons speaking one with another, or among
themselves, he uses the form \4yen' rrpis eavrov!, or \i-yeiv wpbt dXXijXovs.
See iv. 41; viii. 16; ix. 33, 34; xi. 31; xii. 7; xv. 31; xvi. 3. Vet West-
cott and Hort adopt the form with the simple personal pronoun in the
accusative preceded by irpo's as the genuine reading here simply because a
few of their favorite documents, not all of them, so read, though not another
instance can be found where Mark expresses in this way the idea of speak-
ing to a person, while the form \^yeiv airrif appears in every chapter of his
Gospel, and in some chapters at least ten times.
A. 41. " The two brethren " for " James and John.'' Codex A, and 91.
*. 46. " Thence " for " from Jericho." D, 473, seven copies of the Old
Latin, the Gothic Version, and Origen twice. An attempt at verbal
improvement.
xi. 22, 23. " If ye have faith in God, verily I say " etc. for " Have faith
in God; for verily I say" etc. X. I^i 28, 124, three copies of the Old
Latin, and the Armenian Version. An early alteration of the text. On
the restoration of the first clause of this quotation to its original imperative
form, the " for," introducing the next clause, failed to be restored in some
copies. Hence the reading adopted by the Revisers.
xii. 19. "And have" for the second "and leave." D, 28, and seven
copies of the Old Latin Version.
xii. 36. " Underneath " for " a footstool." B, the Greek text of D (not
its accompanying Latin Version), T**, 28, and the two Egyptian Versions.
Adopted by Westcott and Hort, as if genuine.
xiii. 22. " But " for " for." }<, C, only.
xiv. 2. " For" for "but."' Xi 1^. C first hand, D, L, eight copies of
the Old Latin, and ten of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, and the margin of
the Philoxenian Syriac. Matthew (xxvi. 5) reports the other five words
among which this stands, precisely as Mark does; and here he gives
" but," which the context calls for, and not " for." Nor is there any reason
why Mark should report the circumstance in such a manner as to give a
different turn and force to the thought. The true reading, plainly enough,
44
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
IS "but." With a certain class of editors, however, the very fact that
Matthew has "but" is enough, in view of the so-called "authorities" in
support of a different reading, to condemn " but " as the true reading here 1
It is far more rational, and just to the evangelist, to attribute the unmean-
ing " for" to the carelessness or ignorance of an early transcriber of his
words than to suppose that he himself inserted it with a view to introduce
a reason for a desire, for which no reason is expressed in the words that
follow, or can be put into them without distorting their obvious import,
and setting him at variance with Matthew.
xiv. 55. "False witness" for "witness." A, S first hand, six cursives,
k, and the Thebaic Version.
XV. I. "Having prepared a tribunal," or council, instead of "having
held a consultation." X. Q L, only. Adopted, however, by Tischendorf.
XV. 6. "Ov vapriTovvTo, "whom they asked from him," for oviref,
TjToxJvTo, "whomsoever they demanded." Found only in J< first hand. A,
and B first hand. (K and B were afterwards corrected. ) Codex A, which
is full of errors, without any change of letter from the genuine, falsely
divides the words, and gives ov vfpjrroOvTo, — an unmeaning combina-
tion of letters. Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort adopt the foregoing
false reading of the scribes of their favorite manuscripts, though corrected
by later hands; and from them the Revisers accepted it, and set aside the
true reading.
XV. 25. "They guarded" for "they crucified." D and three copies of
the Old Latin. See Westcott and Hort's A'otes on Select Readings, p. 27.
XV. 47. "Joseph " for " Joses." Codex A, one cursive, one copy of the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Ethiopic Version. Also "James" for
" Joses." D, and several of the Old Latin codices, with variations.
xvi. I. "And they, when they had gone away," in place of " And when
the Sabbath was past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James,
and .Salome." Codex D, and several copies of the Old Latin Version,
with variations.
xvi. 7. "There ye shall see me" for "There ye shall see hivi" D and
k of the Old Latin.
The foregoing are but specimens of what might be adduced
to show the character of the ancient documents, on which many
modern editors rely almost wholly for the original text of the
New Testament. Their number could easily be more than
doubled and even trebled. But we have given enough for our
purpose. Most of them, it will be noticed, are innocent and
INTRODUCTION.
45
harmless, as far as the meaning is concerned ; but they clearly
show that, while mere transcriptional errors crept into the texts
of our earliest extant manuscripts, those manuscripts are also
more or less vitiated by additions, omissions, substitutions, and
other alterations, made deliberately and for a purpose. It may
occur to some of our readers as they examine the following
pages, that possibly our oldest extant manuscripts and other
documents are not, after all, among " the best," but are really
copies that are more or less largely depraved, and that this
very fact may account for their surviving to our day. This is
by no means improbable. Having long since been found to
be corrupt, they may have been laid aside as worthless, and so
escaped the destructive use to which their better contempo-
rary copies were necessarily subjected. And when it is con-
sidered that, in the early centuries, the New-Testament writings
were viewed as writings that might justifiably be modified more
or less, according to the reader's judgment or notions, we need
not wonder at the corruptions existing in them. We should
rather wonder that any one, especially any textual critic, should
look upon such documents with superstitious reverence, as if
they were all but infallible, when at every turn they display so
many marks of error not only in themselves, but in contradict-
ing each other. For it is a well-known fact that where there
are variations in the text, it is a difficult thing to find the five,
or even the three, oldest extant Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament in accord, especially in the four Gospels. There,
in every ten consecutive cases in which various readings occur,
the five oldest manuscripts will be found oftener more or less
divided nine times than in agreement once. Even the two
oldest (J^ and B), though very frequently united in such cases,
are repeatedly at variance, as the foregoing examples from
Mark abundantly show.
In these circumstances, it is neither reasonable nor just,
where two or more rival readings present themselves, to accept
implicitly the reading of the two, or three, or four, or even five
46
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
oldest manuscripts, if they should chance to be thus agreed,
and disregard all other considerations that may present them-
selves. If the earliest extant copies of our English Version
were similiarly disfigured and depraved, no publisher of the
present day would accept any text made up from half a dozen
of them without reference to later copies as a text of superior
correctness and excellence. Nor would any editor's work, con-
sistently carried out on this principle in regard to the Greek
text, be tolerated for a day as a fair representation of the text
of the New Testament as it came from the hands of its writers.
Such readings as " his daughter Herodias " (X, B, D, L, etc.),
in Mark vi. 22 ; " of Judea " (X, B, C, L, etc.), in Luke iv. 44 ;
the omission of Jesus' petition, " Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they are doing " {^, B, D, etc.), in Luke xxiii.
34 ; "having saluted Festus " (X, A, B, L, etc.), in Acts xxv.
13 ; " Let us also bear the image of the heavenly " (^, A, C,
D, L, etc.), in i Cor. xv. 49 ; and all the other readings of a
similar character, peculiar to three or more of the five oldest
manuscripts and their allies, would hopelessly and justly con-
demn it as an impossibly genuine text. And yet some of our
modern editors of the Greek New Testament have proceeded
in part on this principle. None have ventured to carry it out
consistently. If any one were to do it, the result of his labors
would at once show the absurdity of the scheme.
The only place that can stand in need of the textual critic's
notice or touch, is where obvious error of some kind exists in
the text, and where rival readings are presented, concerning
which he needs to pass judgment, and decide, if possible,
what the true reading may be. Otherwise his work as an edi-
tor would be simply that of a transcriber. As Dr. Hort says,
" The office of textual criticism is always secondary, and always
negative. It comes into play only where the text transmitted
by the existing documents appears to be in error, either be-
cause they differ from each other in what they read, or for
some other sufficient reason. . . . Where there is variation,
INTRODUCTION.
47
there must be error, in at least all variants but one ; and the
primary work of textual criticism is merely to discriminate the
erroneous variants from the true."' In doing this, one is not
to be governed necessarily by the testimony of the oldest docu-
ments, much less by that of a few of them only. Through the
mistakes of copyists, or the changes introduced by others, such
testimony may be, and often is, clearly false. Nor is the united
testimony of a majority of the witnesses, of necessity, a sure
and safe criterion to follow. In cases of this kind, agreement
may be due to the echoing, one after another, of errors per-
petuated through similar channels, possibly for centuries, each
transcription simply repeating and continuing those errors. In
multitudes of instances, the textual critic must be governed
more or less by the demands of the context, by the usus lo-
quendi of the author, and by other forms of internal evidence.
Indeed, the force of such evidence may be so strong as to
require him to set aside what might otherwise be regarded an
overwhelming array of external evidence. It will not do to
make nonsense of the text, or to introduce a palpably false
reading of any kind, simply because such a reading is supported
by certain documents generally regarded as of more than ordi-
nary weight or value, as if they were infallible. " The books
of Scripture," says Archdeacon Farrar, "were written with the
object of being understood." Nonsensical, impossible, and
otherwise false readings are no part of their real texts. This,
we believe, is virtually admitted on all hands. If it is not, it
certainly ought to be, at least by all reverent and impartial
students of the Word.
In order to enable one to arrive at just and safe conclusions
where variations exist, certain obvious general principles have
been agreed upon among textual critics ; but, in the application
of these principles, editors, from one cause or another, are often
led to very different conclusions. Hence, of the comparatively
1 Introduction to Greek Testament, pp. I, 2, 3.
48
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
recent critical editions that have been put forth by different
editors of the Greek New Testament, no two present substan-
tially the same text. The Revised and that of Westcott and
Hort perhaps come as near to being identical as any two
that may be named. This, however, is but the natural, not
to say necessary, result of Westcott and Hort's being members,
and in all questions pertaining to the Greek text influential
members, of the English Committee of New-Testament Revisers.
And yet the two texts — the Revisers' and Westcott and Hort's
are by no means one and the same. In the Gospel of
Luke alone, to say nothing of the other books, they differ,
more or less, more than four hundred times. Each individual
editor (or company of editors) has acted to a certain extent
on a theory, principle, or hypothesis of his own, which others
have been compelled to ignore, modify, or reject.
But the principles or rules of internal evidence, to which
reference has just been made, being, in the main, founded in
the nature of things, are more or less self-evident. Hence
their general acceptance. And yet they need to be frequently
qualified, and always to be judiciously and wisely applied, in
order to be of any real service as helps to the true text. Take,
for example, Bengel's prime canon : Proclivi scriptioni prcesiat
ardua, a difficult reading is to be preferred to an easy one.
This may be pressed, as it has been again and again, to mean
that the more difficult a reading is, the more likely it is to be
genuine, — which is simply absurd. But in its true intent, and
wisely applied, it is a sound and safe rule to go by. In exem-
plification of this, we will give one or two illustrations, which
no reader can fail to understand. In most of our hymn books
is the hymn beginning
" Guide me, O thou great Jehovah."
In some of them, the third line of stanza 3 reads,
" Bear me through the swelling current."
INTRODUCTION, 49
In others, we read instead,
" Death of death, and hell's destruction."
If we were called upon to say which of these is, in all proba-
bility, the original reading, without really knowing the truth in
the case, but simply judging by the foregoing rule, we should
unhesitatingly pronounce in favor of the latter. The other has
every appearance of having been substituted in order to avoid
what probably seemed a harsh, offensive, or possibly meaning-
less reading ; whereas, it is obvious that no " hymn-tinker "
would ever have been tempted to substitute " Death of death,
and hell's destruction " for the inoffensive words
" Bear me through the swelling current."
As another example, take the familiar lines
" Why to yon mountain turns the musing eye,
Whose sun-bright summit mingles with the sky?"
And compare them with the following :
" Why to yon mountain, mingling with the sky
Its sun-bright summit, turns the musing eye?"
No one, capable of judging, would pronounce the latter the
original reading. It may be smoother, more linguistically cor-
rect, and possibly even more poetical than the other. But it is
evidently an attempt to improve upon the author's words, which
gave offence to some sensitive soul because of the close contact
of the relative " whose " to the word " eye." Had it been the
original reading, the other would probably never have appeared.
In cases like these, the application of the rule, leading to the
adoption of the harsher reading as the original one, is but just
and legitimate.
Let us, however, look at some other examples. Take the
familiar words
" Vaulting ambition, which o'erlcaps itself,
And falls on the other side."
50
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
Tins may be truly said to be a hard reading. The statement
tliat ambition, or, for that matter, anything else, overleaps itself
IS not merely difficult of comprehension ; it is really without
meaning. Now to insist on perpetuating such a reading as the
language of Shakespeare, because it is a hard reading and per-
haps overwhelmingly supported against the simpler and sensible
reading " o'erleaps its selle," Le.xX.^ saddle, and lands on the
other side of it, is simply criticism gone mad. The true read?
ing shows that "its selfe" — the old spelling of "itself"— is
only a misprint, or taken from a false copy.
Again ; we find, in a volume of select songs published within
the last ten years, the lines
" Hither come ! for here is found
Balm and flowers for every wound."
The reading " balm and flowers is found " is sufficiently hard
for most cultivated ears; but "flowers for every wound"
is something that is absolutely beyond our comprehension,
owing perhaps to our ignorance of the medicinal properties of
flowers. We turn, however, in our perplexity, to another
volume containing the same hymn; and we there find the
lucid statement,
" here is found
Balm thatfiows for every wound."
The difference between the two readings is so great that we
cannot account for it ; but there it is. And, as we prefer light
to darkness, whether old or new, we accept the latter as the
true reading, though it exists in only one copy within our
reach, while the former appears in twenty-five copies.
We give but one more example for the consideration of such
as believe that the more difficult a reading is, the more likely it
is to be genuine. Early in. 1887, in one of our religious jour-
nals, we encountered the following sentence, purporting to be
taken from a sermon preached only a few days before : " The
church's crucifixions never end; and there are not wanting
INTRODUCTION.
51
Pharisees to plot them, San Pedroans to endorse them, and
bigots to shout them." As we stumbled over " San Pedroans,"
we wondered what they could be. The next day, however,
light came. The morning mail brought another religious
weekly to hand, which we opened for perusal. Judge of our
feelings when, on glancing over this journal, we encountered
the same sentence. But instead of " San Pedroans " was that
wonderfully simple and familiar term " Sanhedrins I " We
thought, at once, of some of the strangely hard names of per-
sons and places that we had so often encountered among the
strange and hard readings of " the old and best manuscripts."
Is it possible that, away back in those early centuries, tran-
scribers committed just such blunders as type-setters are
known to commit in the nineteenth century? Yet here we are
taking those blunders as the ipsissima verba, the very words
written by the apostles themselves, or by their amanuenses.
Such were our thoughts, and such was the conclusion to which
we came, from which we cannot yet escape.
Another rule of textual criticism is Griesbach's Brevior lectio
preferanda est verhosiori. In other words, a shorter reading is
to be preferred to one that is more wordy. But this really
needs more or less qualification. Griesbach thought it suffi-
cient to add, " unless the shorter reading altogether lacks the
authority of the old and weighty documents." But this implies
that the support of the oldest manuscripts is necessary to estab-
lish the genuineness of a shorter reading ; while it virtually
assumes the converse, namely, that a longer reading cannot be
genuine without the support of the older documents. But
both of these positions are untenable. In proof of the falsity
of the first, we refer to Mark iii. 14, and Acts iv. 25. Luke ix.
10 might also be adduced, where the oldest extant manuscripts
are more or less at variance. The oldest of all known manu-
scripts (B) and its allies D and L, as well as the early seventh-
century emendator of Ji^, have scarcely a vestige left of the
original reading, two of the three original words having been
52
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
superseded by three others. The genuine reading, the short-
est of all the variants, is found, it is true, in old documents ;
namely, in ^ as originally written, and as corrected again later
in the seventh century, and virtually in 4> and the Curetonian
Syriac Version) as well as in later documents ; but not in the
oldest. In proof of the unsoundness of the second of the above
assumptions, it is enough just now to refer to Mark i. i6, where
a " net " is omitted by i<, B, L ; to Mark ix. 38, where the
clause, " who would not follow us," is omitted from Ji^, B, C,
L, A, the Peshito Syriac Version, the Memphitic, and other
ancient documents ; and to Luke vi. i, where the important
epithet " second first," or " second chief," is omitted by ^, B, L,
some copies of the Old Latin Version, the Peshito Syriac, the
Memphitic, and other ancient " authorities." Other examples,
showing the untenableness of both positions, will present them-
selves over and over again to the reader as he advances. A
shorter reading, in multitudes of instances, ts no doubt to be ac-
cepted as the true reading, in preference to a longer one. But
such a reading is not, of necessity, evidence of genuineness any
more than of spuriousness. It may be due to the omission of
a word, expression, or clause, through oversight, or because it
seemed to somebody to be unnecessary, obscure, unmeaning,
inapposite, repetitious, or offensive. So that one needs to
exercise great judgment and care in the application of the
rule. Indeed, the same may be said concerning every principle
of textual criticism. A liberal use of common sense, of critical
knowledge and acumen, of candor and wisdom in the adjust-
ment of conflicting evidence, and above all else, the exercise, if
possible, of downright freedom from bias in favor of this or
that document, or set of documents, or in favor of one or an-
other reading, except as it may appear after due consideration
to be the true reading, is essential to anything like a sound,
successful, and satisfactory application of these principles.
Here, in fact, is where the textual critic needs to be most
guarded. By misapplying a rule, or pressing it to an unwar-
INTRODUCTION.
S3
ranted extreme, he is not only failing of the true end in view,
but introducing false readings, and misleading others. His
position and work are thus seen to be fraught with the weight-
iest of responsibilities.
In short, as Davidson says, " It must be admitted that the
choice of readings on internal evidence is liable to abuse.
Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may degenerate into
simple subjectivity. But, though the temptation to misapply it
be great, it must not be laid aside. Readings must be judged
[more or less] on internal grounds." ^ It is impossible in mul-
titudes of cases to do otherwise. While allowing due weight
to external evidence, we must not forget that oftentimes evi-
dence of another kind needs to be weighed. If the two classes
of evidence agree, let the reading they jointly sustain and call "
for be cheerfully accepted. If one overpower the other, let
the voice of the stronger be heeded, and its decisions be con-
clusive. The two should not be divorced, nor should either, in
its obvious inferiority and weakness, be made to override the
other to the injury or the suppression of the truth.
1 Biblical Criticism, Vol. ii., p. 374.
MATTHEW.
i. 7, 8, lo.
Against the names of " Asa " and " Amon " in these verses,
the Revisers have the notes, " Gr. Asaph " and " Gr. Amos" ;
that is, their Greek so reads. The Received Text has 'Acra and
'Ajxwv. The Revisers, however, set these aside for the corrupt
readings of ^, B, C, a few cursives, six copies of the Old Latin
Version, and the Memphitic, Thebaic, Armenian, and Ethiopia
Versions, but in translating return to the Greek of the Received
Text, which is attested by E, K, L, M, S, U, V, 11, most of the
cursives, the Syriac Versions, the Latin Vulgate, and others.
(A and D are defective here.) We say "corrupt readings,"
for it should be remembered that 'Acra and 'Ao-a(^ are not in-
terchangeable forms of one and the same name, like " Ashdod "
and "Azotus," or "Joshua" and "Jesus," or "Zarephath" and
"Sarepta." Nor are 'A/;ta)v and 'A/itis. These are all different
names, having different significations. The four are employed
a number of times each in the Old Testament ; but nowhere
are either two of them applied to the same individual, or is
one confounded with another. It is impossible, therefore, that
Matthew should have written 'A<Ta<^ for 'Arrd, or 'A/iw? for
'Afi-wv. Moreover, if 'Aa-dtj) and 'A/aios are the true readings,
they should not be abandoned in translating. This is not an
instance of the ordinary changes, — one of the thousand and
more which the Revisers have made in the Greek Text, —
which in no way affect the translation, or are necessary or help-
ful to a correct version. If the Revisers' Greek says anything,
it is that in their judgment 'Ao-a<^ and 'A/xols are the names
55
56
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
written by Matthew ; but if their English text says anything, it
is that " Asa " and " Amon " are those names. It looks as if
the Revisers had indeed been misled ; for the truth is, that the
genuine readings, testified to by versions from one to two hun-
dred years older than the oldest of known Greek manuscripts,
are " Asa " and " Amon " ; and though " Asaph " and " Amos "
are adopted in the editions of Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischen-
dorf, and Westcott and Hort, as well as by the Revisers, they
are palpable errors —" clerical errors," as Grimm calls them.
These names may have been more familiar to some old copyist
than " Asa " and " Amon," and thus crept into the text ; or,
'A/iU)s may have been so written under the false impression that
the Amon of Matthew was the same person as the Amos of ^
Luke iii. 25, and consequently that Matthew's spelling should
be altered to make the name correspond in form with Luke's.
But, whatever may have led to the change in either or both
of these names, 'Acrd.<f> and 'A/itus are obviously false readings.
1. 18.
The marginal note, stating that some " ancient authorities "
read 0/ the Christ in place of " of Jesus Christ," seems hardly
called for, inasmuch as '\-t)<jov, " Jesus," appears in every
known Greek manuscript. In the Vatican codex, it follows
Xpio-Tov, so as to read " of Christ Jesus." But every other
Greek manuscript, whether uncial or cursive, reads " of Jesus
Christ." * The only ancient testimony in favor of the omission
of " Jesus " consists of the Old Latin and Vulgate Versions, the
Curetonian Syriac, and Wheelocke's Persic Version, together
with the doubtful testimony of Irenaeus. We say " doubtful,"
though his testimony as given by his Latin interpreter is ob-
viously in support of the marginal reading. Irenseus' utterance,
as written by himself in Greek, is lost. He is represented by
^ Tischendorf is in error in citing cursive 71 as omitting 'Iijeroi/. See
Scrivener's Introduction, note I, p. 568.
MATTHEW.
57
his interpreter to have written, "Matthew might have said,
' Now the birth 0/ Jesus was on this wise.' But the Holy Spirit,
foreseeing that there would be corrupters of the truth, in order
to guard against their trickery, says by Matthew, ' But the birth
of the C/im/ was on this wise.' " In weighing this testimony,
we need to bear in mind that the Latin versions all read " the
birth of the Christ," not " of Jesus Christ"; and that this in-
terpretation is given by a Latin writer, who may unwittingly
have followed his Latin version instead of Irenaeus' exact words.
On the other hand, Irenaeus' Greek, as given by Germanus of
Constantinople, himself a writer of Greek, is 'Ijjaov Xpitrrou,
" of Jesus Christ." This makes Irenaeus say, " Matthew might
have said, Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise [leaving
it an open question as to what Jesus might be meant]. But
the Holy Spirit, foreseeing that there would arise corrupters of
the truth, etc., says by Matthew, But the birth oi Jesus Christ
was " etc., — making a definite reference to Jesus of Nazareth,
the Messiah. If this presents the truth in regard to Irenaeus'
statement, then his testimony, instead of being against the
reading of the text, affords additional and exceedingly strong
evidence in its support; while the reading of B — "Christ
Jesus" — may be very easily accounted for by its being the
favorite form in which this name is given by that manuscript.
The fact that the Latin version d, of Codex D, omits the word
"Jesus" is not in itself positive proof that D (which is defec-
tive here) omitted it, as d frequently forsakes the readings of
D for those of other Latin versions. Yet, as the Latin versions
all read " of the Christ," and D is closely related to them, in
all probability this was the reading of Codex D. The omission
of 'lijo-oC seems to have proceeded, not from supposing the
article to, be inadmissible before it, but from the idea that in
the evangelist's day Xpiaro's was not used as a surname for
Jesus, but simply to denote his character as the anointed of
God. And yet the phrase o Ttjo-qvs Xpio-Tos, though found no-
where else in any known uncial of the New Testament, might
58
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
be expected from the preceding words (in verse i6), "Jesus,
who is called (or the so-called) Christ." The purpose of the
article in the original here seems to be to particularize the
Jesus of whom the evangelist had just spoken, and makes the
expression equivalent to "this Jesus who is called Christ."
The name 6 'Ijjo-oSs Xptoro's, with the article, is also found in the
Revisers' Text in Acts viii. 12 and Phil. ii. 21, though unsup-
ported in either instance by any uncial manuscript.
i. 25.
Received Text, tat oi !tckiv tAv vlAv oiTfJs t4v irpcoTOTOKOv— till
she had brought forth her firstborn son.
Revised Text, f «s o J Itck€v wio'v — till she had brought forth a son.
Against the former of these readings it is commonly urged
that it is taken from Luke ii. 7, where no rival reading exists.
This, however, is pure conjecture. There is no />roo/ that it
was adopted from Luke; nor can any valid reason be given
why it should have been. It certainly could not have been
done to afford an argument against the perpetual virginity of
Mary, for that was not needed. Besides, the statement that
Mary had brought forth her firstborn son was in the text long
before the doctrine of her perpetual virginity was originated.
If Matthew had written only the words given in the Revisers'
Text, we cannot see what possible motive there could be for
changing it to the longer reading of the Received Text. On
the contrary, if Matthew wrote the words commonly ascribed
to him, it is easy to see that a believer in the perpetual virginity
of Mary might have been tempted to strike out the word irpot-
TOTOKov. We find Jerome, who contended for the doctrine,
though he preserves the reading "her firstborn son" in his
Latin Version, saying in his Commentary on Matthew, in allu-
sion to Helvidius and others who denied the doctrine, that
" from this passage some very perversely infer that Mary had
other sons also, saying that none but a person who had
brothers would be called a firstborn son." The presence of
MATTHEW.
59
irpoiTOTOKov would very naturally lead a person who believed in
the doctrine, but who was less scrupulous than Jerome, to
remove the objectionable phrase ; for, explain the word as you
will, the evangelist could not, as a historian, have used it if he
had regarded Jesus as the only son born to Mary. Matthew
afterwards speaks in language in which no one would write who
knew that Mary had no other children ; for, if the meaning of
words can be depended upon at all, aBtX<j>OL and aBtX<l>a(, in
Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 55, 56, mean brothers and sisters in the
commonly accepted sense of the words as truly as /iiyri;/) means
mother. By thus speaking, the evangelist shows most clearly
that, as a historian familiar with the facts in the case, he not
only would naturally have written " her firstborn son," but
could hardly have written otherwise. In fact, the very pres-
ence of v'lov, unaccompanied by the article and accepted as a
part of the text, is proof conclusive that the longer reading is
genuine. After having recorded, in verse 21, the words of the
angel to Joseph, " she shall bring forth a son," and again, after
quoting, in verse 23, the prophecy concerning Mary, that she
should " bring forth a son," Matthew could hardly have gone
on in his narrative, and written immediately after, " he knew
her not till she had brought forth a son." The article would
of necessity have appeared (if avr^s, "her," did not), in con-
nection with vlov, denoting a reference to the son already men-
tioned as promised and predicted. This difficulty seems to
have been long ago seen and felt ; hence the Memphitic Ver-
sion inserts the article, while the Thebaic inserts both the
article and " her," and reads, " till she had brought forth her
son." Again, the presence of "firstborn" is necessary, in
order to bring out the evangelist's idea that Joseph knew not
Mary till a//er the birth of Jesus. The word " till " of itself
does hot show this ; it merely indicates that he had no inter-
course with her ?// /o that time. But the insertion of " first-
born " clearly implies what is indirectly declared in Matt. xii.
46, xiii. 55, 56, Mark vi. 3, and elsewhere, that Mary had other
6o
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
children, of whom Joseph was the father. It is just what might
be expected to have been written by this evangelist. And that
it was, the documentary testimony before us leaves no room for
doubting. The shorter reading is attested only by the Sinaitic
and Vatican manuscripts and one other uncial (Z, of the sixth
century), two cursives, five copies of the Old Latin Version,
and the Curetonian Syriac. The common reading, on the
other hand, is sustained by C, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, r, A, n,
nearly all the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, four
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Ethiopic, Slavonian,
Armenian, Georgian, and even the two Egyptian Versions ; for,
though "firstborn" is not expressed in these, their reading
indicates that the word is a part of the genuine text. Then, as
to patristic testimony, that is overwhelmingly conclusive, — not
less than nineteen or twenty of the Fathers, from the second
century downward, testifying in support of the common read-
ing. Yet Prebendary Humphry says, "There is but little
manuscript authority for the reading which the A. V. here
follows." ' If by " authority " he means evidence, we know
not what more evidence one could reasonably ask for, whether
from manuscripts or from other sources, than we have in proof
of the genuineness of this reading. The advocates of the
brevior lectio appear to consider Griesbach's canon, the testi-
mony of three uncials, and a surmise as evidence outweighing
everything else.
But just here it may be well, in passing, to reply to a query
which may have arisen in the minds of some. And that is.
Why should any one have omitted these words when they were
known to exist in Luke ? In other words. How is it that passages
like this and xi. 19, for example, could have been changed in
Matthew, while corresponding passages in one or more of the
other Gospels were left unchanged, and their readings con-
tinued unquestioned, or all but unquestioned ? The query is a
* Commentary on the Revised Version.
MATTHEW.
61
fair one. But it is based upon a false assumption. And it is
to this that the whole trouble with the querist is due. We
cannot assume that those who are supposed to have made
the alteration really knew that similar language existed else-
where. The presumption is rather that they were not aware of
it. These alterations were made at a very early date, — very
soon after the apostles' days. As Dr. Hort says, a transcrip-
tion including a " tolerably free modification of language and
even rearrangement of material ... was carried on during the
earliest centuries:' * At that time, however, the Gospels were
not bound up in one volume, but were written each on a sep-
arate parchment or collection of parchments. These were,
moreover, expensive, and not easy of attainment. So that,
during the first two or two and a half centuries after Christ's
death, comparatively few persons, at the most, owned copies
of any portion of the New Testament, and fewer still, copies
of the whole. One might be able to become the possessor of
one of the Gospels, or at most, though rarely, of two of
them, and possibly of one or more of the other books of the
New Testament, without knowing what the rest of the books
really contained ; for the making up of the canon of the New
Testament was a slow and progressive work. So that it is not
to be wondered at in the least that alterations should have
crept into one and not into the other of two passages in
different Gospels, which were originally precisely or almost
precisely alike. Compare Matt. vii. 25 and Luke vi. 48.
iv. 24.
Rec. T. Kal 8ai|iovito|i^vo«s — and those which were possessed with
devils.
Rev. T. 8aiiiovi.Jo(i<vovs — possessed with devils.
The omission of Kal here is hardly warranted. It is attested
only by B, C first hand, two cursives, and the Memphitic Ver-
1 Introduction to Greek JV. T., p. 7.
62
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
sion. It is true, Eusebius also omits the conjunction in quot-
ing the passage ; but this he might easily have done without
being sustained by his copy of the Gospel. The presence of
" and " is demanded by X, C second hand, D, E, K, S, U, V,
r, n, the great majority of the cursives, and all the old versions
except the Memphitic, the generally faithful ally of the Vatican
Codex in its peculiar readings, — a weight of evidence too
great to be set aside by the scanty testimony favoring the
omission of the conjunction. The word is by no means super-
fluous, as some early copyist seems to have regarded it. It
properly means " even " here, emphasizing dertioniacs, epilep-
tics, and paralytics, as among those previously mentioned as
" sick, afflicted with various diseases and torments."
V. 4.
Against this verse stands a marginal note informing the
reader that " some ancient authorities transpose verses 4 and
5." These "authorities" are D, 33, the Curetonian Syriac,
the Latin Vulgate, and most of the Old Latin Versions, to-
gether with the more or less doubtful testimony of Clement
of Alexandria, Ammonius of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius,
Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Hilary, Jerome, and possibly other
Latin Fathers, — witnesses many of them noted for certain
corruptions and variations peculiar to the Codex Bezae and its
allies. The change, thus insufficiently supported, is evidently
due to the notion that the " meek " would more naturally be
spoken of than those " that mourn " after the " poor in spirit."
It is hard to conceive why a marginal note of this kind should
be deemed necessary, unless it was because certain modern
editors have adopted, and attempted to defend, this reversed
order.
MATTHEW.
63
V. 13.
Rec. T. ft tii| pXT,eVivai f|«> Kal KarairaTCia-eai — but to be cast out
and to be trodden under foot.
Rev.T. it n^i pXneiv J|oi KaTa7raT.icreoi — but to be cast out and
trodden under foot.
The Revisers' text, which, literally rendered, would read,
"except, when cast out, to be trodden under foot," is attested
by S. B, C, I, 33, a single manuscript of the Philoxenian Synac
Version,' and 'a quotation from Origen. It has every appear-
ance of being an attempted improvement upon the simple,
unaffected statement of Jesus as recorded by the evangelist.
All the other uncials, cursives, versions, and Fathers are united
in supporting the common reading. Any one can easily see,
therefore, which form of the Greek has the preponderance of
testimony in its favor. In meaning, there is substantially no
difference between the two ; it is only a difference in the mode
of expressing the thought. As the Revisers themselves admit
by adhering to the old rendering, there was no need of their
changing the original. Their task was not the revision of the
Greek Testament. Still, they have done nothing more here
than in hundreds of other places. And yet we are assured in
their Preface that in cases in which " the English rendering
[in the A. V.] was considered to represent correctly either
of two competing readings in the Greek," "the question of
the text was usually not raised." We find by an examination
of Luke's Gospel that in that book alone it was thus unneces-
sarily "raised," and decided against the Received Text, not
less than 375 times, or more than forty-seven per cent of the
whole number of times that changes from that Text were intro-
duced. If this book is a fair criterion by which to judge of
the number of the changes that have been made throughout
the volume which in no way have affected the English Version,
and we know no reason why it should not be, one is tempted
to suspect that there is an error of some kind, either typo-
64
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
graphical or other, in the statement that "then the question
of the text was usually not raised."
V. 22.
Here the Revisers read, « Every one who is angry with his
brother shall be in danger of the judgement." Against the
word "brother " they have the marginal note, "Many ancient
authorities insert without cause." If h 6py^6,xevo<:, "he that
is angry," were equivalent in meaning to " he that hateth,"
there would of course be no need of the word ukJj, " without
cause." But opyit^iaOM is a word of very different meaning.
So far from denoting the cherishing of enmity, it expresses,
like its root 6pyri, " anger," a feeling perfectly compatible with
a holy, sinless frame of mind. Thus Jesus himself is said
(Mark iii. 5) to have looked around on the Pharisees p-tr
opy^s, "with anger," being grieved at their hardness of heart.
Again, the Apostle Paul, in Eph. iv. 26, says, Spyl^eade, "be
angry," though he immediately adds "yet sin not." There is,
therefore, a holy anger as well as one that is sinful ; the former
awakened by a just provocation, being a righteous indignation,
while the latter is without just ground, and is to be condemned.
'Opyi^tirOai in the passive means to be provoked or aroused to
anger, to be angered or offended. Here, in the middle voice,
it is to be angry in the sense of suffering one's self to be pro-
voked or excited to wrath. This may be either justifiably or
unjustifiably, for good reasons or without cause.. Then we
need to note the connection : " Ye have heard that it was said
to the ancients. Thou shalt not commit murder ; and, whoso-
ever committeth murder shall be liable to punishment (that
is, from men). Now / say unto you, whosoever is angry, or
suffers himself to be offended or become incensed, with his
brother [without cause, without just provocation] shall be
liable to punishment" (that is, from God). He looks at the
heart and judges accordingly. Now if we give to opyt^ofitvos
the stronger sense of cherishing angrj' feelings or harboring a
MATTHEW.
6s
wrathful, malicious purpose, of course the bracketed words are
not only superfluous, but altogether inappropriate. But this is
a sense which the word hardly admits. Taking it in its proper
signification of being provoked to anger, or of suffering one's
self to be offended, the bracketed phrase is both appropriate
and necessary. EJk^ seems to have been stricken out of the
text under a misapprehension of the true meaning of opyi^o-
/itvo9. Its absence from the text is supported only by X> ^>
two cursives, the Ethiopic, Latin Vulgate, and of course Frank-
ish and Anglo-Saxon Versions, and Origen twice. Neither
Justin Martyr, nor Ptolemoeus, nor Irenajus, nor Tertullian,
admits the correctness of this reading, though they have all
been adduced in support of it. Its presence as a necessary
part of the text is attested by all the other extant witnesses,
namely, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, T, A, n, i, ^3, and all, but
two other cursives, all the Syriac and Old Latin copies, the
Memphitic, Armenian, Gothic, and other Versions ; not only
by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Cyprian, but by Pseudo-Justin,
Origen himself, the Apostolic Constitutions, Basil again and
again, Gregory of Nyssa very explicitly, Epiphanius, Ephraem
Syrus, Isidore, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom repeatedly,
Cyril, Theodoret, Hilary, Lucifer, Salvian, Philastrius, Augus-
tine, Jerome, John of Damascus, Euthymius, Theophylact, and
others, — " the later authorities uniting with Codex D and its
associates against the two oldest manuscripts extant." With
such a cloud of witnesses testifying to the acknowledged gen-
uineness of ciKrj, it is hard to believe that the Sinaitic and
Vatican manuscripts, which are often united in the wrong, are
to be depended upon and followed here, when we see that the
connection does not call for the omission of the word without
putting a strained and unjustifiable interpretation upon opyt^o-
/xivoi. The false reading of these manuscripts was evidently
confined within comparatively narrow limits, and soon disap-
peared, the' offensive word being everywhere recognized as
genuine.
66
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
V. 2S.
Against this verse appears the note, "Some ancient authori-
ties omit deliver ihee " ; that is, the second time the words
occur. The same might be said of hundreds of expressions in
other places not thus noted, but as worthy of note as this. The
words appear to have been omitted with a view to freeing the
sentence from a seemingly unnecessary repetition, — a common
occurrence in B, which is distinguished for its " dignified con-
ciseness," as Bishop Ellicott calls it. The omission is attested
only by the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, four cursives
(one of these second hand), one copy of the Old Latin, the
Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions, Chrysostom, and the ' two
Latin Fathers, Arnobius and Hilary. It was hardly worth the
while to notice the circumstance in such a way; and the only
apparent reason for so doing is the fact that Lachmann, Tisch-
endorf, and VVestcott and Hort omit the words.
V. 30.
Rec. T. 6'Xov rh o-wjid o-ou ^\-i\i-^ «ts -y^tvav — thy whole body should
be cast into hell.
Rev. T. oXov to trS>^a. o-ov tts 7^€vav airtXet) — thy whole body go
into hell.
If the revised reading oMikOr^ appeared only here among the
manuscripts, it might be safe to infer that it was merely the
result of an attempt to introduce variety of expression. But,
as the same reading is given by a smaller number of docu-
ments, without any change in the order of the words, in the
preceding verse, it is safer to regard it as originally an endeavor
to avoid the harsher word ^XrjOr}. In verse 29, Codex D, the
Curetonian Syriac and Memphitic Versions, and six copies of
the Old Latin read "should go" in place of "should be cast."
This is not considered by modern editors evidence sufficient
for setting aside the latter reading in tiiat verse. But, when
those witnesses are re-enforced, as they are in this verse, by
X, B, a few cursives, the Vulgate, Origen, Lucifer, and others,
MATTHEW.
67
with an altered arrangement of the words, .apparently with a
view to breaking up the sameness of Jesus' language, the evi-
dence seems to be too strong to be withstood 1 And yet it is
the same false reading here as there, — adopted, too, in the
face of one of the most obvious facts in reference to New-
Testament readings ; namely, that Jesus was not in the habit
of varying his language for the mere sake of variety. On the
contrary, his discourses, parables, and conversations generally
are distinguished for the sameness of the phraseology in which
identical thoughts are expressed. (Compare Note on xxiii.
19.) In a word, dwiXOrj is no more deserving of a place here
than in verse 29. BX-qOfj is sufficiently attested as the true
reading by E, G, K, L, M, S, U, V, r. A, II, the great majority
of the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, one copy
of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and Chrysostom ; to which we
should probably be able to add A and C if their testimony
were not lost.
V- 37-
Another needless note is appended here, namely : " Some
ancient authorities read Bui your speech shall be," instead of
" But let your speech be." In other words, B and a single
cursive, bearing the date of 1199, read eo-rai in place of l<Trii>,
— a reading that is doubtless due to a clerical blunder in
writing ai for <o. The reading is also found in Eusebius'
Demonstratio Evangelica. This is all the "authority" there
is for it. It is, plainly enough, a false reading ; though, on
account of its appearance in the Vatican manuscript, Westcott
and Hort give it a place in their margin.
VI. 8.
In the place of "your Father knoweth," another marginal
note says, " Some ancient authorities read God your Father
kiioweth." This, however, is a transparent gloss, designed
to prevent the ignorant reader from making a wrong applica-
68
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
tion of the term "your Father," and found only in the
Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and in the Thebaic Version,
the ally of B in several of its peculiar and evidently false read-
ings, such as Acts xxvii. 37, "about seventy-six" for "two
hundred and seventy-six"; Rom. xiii. 13, "strifes and jeal-
ousies " for " strife and jealousy " ; Heb. iii. 2, " in his house "
for " all in his house " ; i John. ii. 14, " the word abideth in you "
for "the word of God abideth in you." It seems really un-
wise to place such notes before the reader, who generally has
no knowledge, or means of obtaining a knowledge, of the facts
in the case, and who is naturally led by them to suppose that
these readings may be genuine, though the evidence of their
genuineness was not sufficient to induce the Revisers to insert
them in the text. If the reader only understood that most
of these readings are rejected readings, and deliberately re-
jected because considered false, they might not do any harm.
But then the question might very naturally arise, If they are
false readings, why place them in the margin at all ? or, Why
not fill the margin with other rejected and false readings as
well?
vi. 13-
In regard to the doxology, which the Revisers have thrown
out of the Text, we prefer quoting the language of Dr. Scrivener
to giving any comments of our own, beyond a few introductory
words. The oldest known copy of the Greek Testament in
which the doxology appears is 2, a sixth-century manuscript,
of the same date as D, or possibly a little earlier. It is a man-
uscript that agrees with A, C, A, IT, i, 33, etc. more fully than
with Ji^ or B. The recently discovered Teaching of the Twehie
Apnstles, which some consider as dating back to the beginning
of the second century, has this partial presentation of the
doxology : " For thine is the power, and the glory for ever."
But the omission of the words " the kingrlom. and " is not to
be wondered at ; for, in its other quotations of Scripture, The
MATTHEW.
69
Teaching is far from being verbally correct. Even in giving
the Lord's Prayer it has Iv tw ovpavw for iv to?? oipavoii, and
Trjv 6<f>u\-)jv for TO. oipeiXijfuiTa, and the a^Ufxtv of the Received
Text in place of the Revisers' aijuqKaixiv. Its quotations seem
to have been largely, if not wholly, made from memory ; and,
if so made, the difference should not be a matter of surprise at
all. The presence, however, of as much of the doxology as
there is in a document like this, dating back to the beginning
or even to the middle of the second century, is a strong testi-
mony in its favor. But we turn to Dr. Scrivener, who is known
to be one of the most learned, candid, and trustworthy of text-
ual critics. He says : " It is right to say that I can no longer
regard this doxology as certainly an integral part of S. Mat-
thew's Gospel ; but (notwithstanding its rejection by Lach-
mann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort) I am not
yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness. It is wanting in
the oldest uncials extant, ^, B, D, Z; and, since A, C, P,
(whose general character would lead us to look for support to
the Received Text in such a case) are unfortunately deficient
here, the burden of the defence is thrown on 2 and the later
uncials, E, G, K, L, M, S, U, V, A, n (/«"«/ T), whereof L is
conspicuous for usually siding with B. Of the cursives, only
five are known to omit the clause, i, 17 (has d/x7;v), 118, 130,
209 ; but 566 or h'" (and as it would seem some others) has
it obelized in the margin, while the scholia in certain other
copies indicate that it is doubtful ; even 33 contains it, 69
being defective, while 157, 225, 418 add to Zo^a, toC ■wa.xpo'i koX
Tov viov KoX Tov ayiov Trveu/xaros, but 422 tov irps only. Versions
have much influence on such a question. It is therefore
important to notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cure-
ton's omitting kol r] SuVa/xis, and some editions of the Peshito
ap-riv, which is in at least one manuscript), the Thebaic (omit-
ting Ktti ^ 8d^a), the Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Slavonic,
Georgian, Erpenius' Arabic, the Persic of the Polyglot from
Pococke's manuscript, the margin of some Memphitic codices,
70
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
the Old Latin k (quoniam est tibi virtus in ssecula ssculorum)
/,g (omitting cnen), q. The doxology is not found in most
Memphifc (but in the margin of Hunt. 17 or Bp. Lightfoot's
Cod. I) and Arabic manuscripts or editions, in Wheelocke's
Persic m the Old Latin a, b, c,ff\g^, h, I, in the Vulgate or
Its satellites the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish. (The Clementine
Vulgate and Saxon add Amen.) Its absence from the Latin
avowedly caused the editors of the Complutensian N. T to
pass It over, though it was found in their Greek copies. The
earliest Latin Fathers naturally did not cite what the Latin
Codices for the most part do not contain. Among the Greeks
It IS met with in Isidore of Pelusium (a.d. 412), and in the
Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, probably of the fourth century.
Soon afterwards Chrysostom comments upon it without show-
ing the least consciousness that its authenticity was disputed.
The silence of earlier writers, as Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem
especially when expounding the Lord's Prayer, may be partly
accounted for on the supposition that the doxology was regarded
not so much a portion of the Prayer itself, as a hymn of praise
annexed to it; yet this fact is somewhat unfavorable to its
genuineness, and would be fatal unless we knew the precarious-
ness of any argument derived from such silence. The Fathers
are constantly overlooking .the most obvious citations from
Scripture, even where we should expect them most, although,
as we learn from other passages in their writings, they were
perfectly familiar with them. Internal evidence is not unevenly
balanced : it is probable that the doxology was interpolated
from the Liturgies, and the variation of reading renders this
all the more likely ; it is just as likely that it was cast out of
S. Matthew's Gospel to bring it into harmony with S. Luke
XI. 4. I cannot concede to Scholz that it is in interruption of
the context; for then the whole of verse 13 would have to be
cancelled (a remedy which no one proposes), and not merely
this concluding part of it.
" It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case,
MATTHEW.
71
though it ought not to be looked upon as conclusive. The
Syriac and Tliebaic Versions bring up the existence of the dox-
ology to the second century ; Isidore, Chrysostom, and per-
haps others, attest for it in the fourth ; then come the Latin
codices /, ^', k, q, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and,
lastly, Codex 2 of the sixth century, and the whole flood-tide of
Greek manuscripts from the eighth century downwards, includ-
ing even L, 33. Perhaps it is not very wise to complain about
what we cannot have ; yet those who are persuaded from the
well ascertained affinities subsisting between them, that A, C,
P, or, at least, two out of the three, would have preserved a
reading sanctioned by the Peshito, by codices / k, by Chrysos-
tom, and by nearly all the later documents, may be excused
for regarding the indictment brought against the last clause of
the Lord's Prayer as hitherto unproven." '
One word more. A more appropriate or Christlike conclu-
sion for this prayer seems hardly possible. It embraces in
brief the reasons or grounds on which the preceding petitions
are based. " For thine is the kingdom " on behalf of which
and in reference to which these requests are made ; " thine is
the power" to answer and make efficient these requests; "and
thine the glory " in their being answered. This very fact of
itself is, to us, strong internal evidence of its genuineness ;
while it is by no means improbable that some early transcriber,
fliiling to see its appropriateness, or possibly even regarding it
a cumbersome addition, and not finding it appended to Luke
xi. 4, omitted it from the text. He may possibly, too, have
placed it in the margin, as a reading, in his view, more or less
if not altogether questionable. This would readily explain its
absence from some, if not its partial preservation in other,
manuscripts.
1 Introduction, pp. 569-571.
72
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
vil. 13.
Against this verse stands the note, " Some ancient authorities
omit is the gate." The same note might also have been placed
opposite the next verse. The " authorities " for the omission
here are J^ first hand, six copies of the Old Latin Version, one
of the Vulgate, Origen, who supports the accepted reading also,
Clement of Alexandria, Naassenus, Eusebius, Cyprian, Lucifer,
and possibly one or two others ; and for the omission in verse
14, are three cursives, 113, 182 first hand, 570, four copies of
the Old Latin Version, and about the same list of patristic
writers as just cited. To show how little attention should be
given to this testimony, and how utterly undeserving of note
the rejected reading is, we give the language of one of these
witnesses — Naassenus: "The Saviour explicitly says. Because
narrow and straightened is the way that leadeth unto life, and
few are they £tcr£p;(6/xcvot tis that enter into it; but wide and
broad is the way that leadeth unto destruction, and many are
they hifpxoit-woi that go through by it," misquoting as well as
reversing the order of the clauses. The quotation seems to
have been given from memory.
viii. 9.
The marginal note here says, " Some ancient authorities
insert set; as in Luke vii. 8," — reading "I am a man set
under authority." This addition is attested by X> B, the cur-
sives 4, 238, 421, 543, most copies of the Old Latin, the Vul-
gate, Chrysostom, Hilary, and other Fathers of later date. In
passing judgment on the genuineness or want of genuineness
of this word, we need to bear in mind that the verse is a part,
not of the writer's own language, but of a report he is giving
of what some one else has said. And just here the language
of Dr. Roberts, penned with reference to " the si?nilarities and
the diversities which exist between the first three evangelists,"
is exceedingly pertinent, and embodies what seems to be the
MATTHEW.
73
truth on this point. He says : " It is to be observed that it
is in their statements of what was said [by others] that the
authors of the Gospels mostly agree, while they vary in their
descriptions of the attending circumstances. This is exactly
what happens on every like occasion. The reporters who give
an account of a public meeting will harmonize, word for word,
throughout many consecutive sentences, as to the matter which
was spoken, while they will inevitably differ as to the descrip-
tions which they give of the scene, or of the individuals present.
Here, then, we seem to have found a sufficiently simple and
satisfactory explanation of those features, alike of harmony and
diversity, presented by the first three Gospels. They agree so
strikingly, because they are faithful reports of what was said ;
they differ so naturally, because they are the productions of
three different men, who wrote independently of one another.
. . . [The centurion, like] Christ, spoke in the same language
in which the evangelists have reported his words. As a matter
of course, therefore, they could not but verbally agree in the
reports which they furnished." ' These words of the centurion,
like many of the sayings of Jesus, were doubtless familiar to
the evangelists and the apostles generally, having been in all
probability repeated again and again among themselves, and
treasured in their memories in the same form. So that we
ought to be prepared to find his utterances, like the language
attributed to Jesus and others, agreeing word for word as
reported by different evangelists. And, where the agreement
continues through a considerable number of words as here, the
omission or the variation in form or position of a single word
should be regarded as the work of the copyist rather than of
the original writer, when such omission or variation changes in
any manner the meaning or the construction, and documentary
testimony is not overwhelmingly against it. Now B is not
often found erring by adding to the text ; its habit is rather to
1 Old Tesianuni Revision, p. 1 98.
74
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
abbreviate. And, inasmuch as the rest of this verse of more
than average length — consisting of thirty words — corresponds
in every other respect with Luke's report of the centurion's
reply, we cannot but conclude that Tacraoju-cvos, " set," is a part
of the genuine text. Documentary evidence is by no means
decisively against it, as it is, for example, against laOiJTm, " let
— be healed," for laOya-tro, " will be healed," in Luke vii. 7 —
a reading attested by only B and L, though adopted by West-
cott and Hort through their partiality for B. The meaning,
however, is the same whether we read " a man under authority "
or " a man set under authority." The question is one that
relates merely to textual correctness.
Here we find the marginal note, " Many ancient authorities
read IVit/t no man in Israel have I found so great faith,"
That is, this reading is found in the Vatican manuscript, the
two cursives 4 and 22, three or four copies of the Old Latin
Version, one of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, Thebaic, Ethiopic,
Curetonian Syriac, and in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac,
as well as in Augustine and other Latin Fathers; while the
three cursives i, 118 first hand, and 209, omitting "in Israel,"
read simply, " with no one have I found so great faith." The
change — for it is an obvious change, of the nature of a gloss
— was introduced to obviate what was thought to be an ambi-
guity in the expression " in Israel," — some impertinent scho-
liast or scribe fearing the Saviour might be understood to mean
" Not even in Israel (/.<?. in Jacob) tvpov did I find so great
faith." The same gloss may be found at Luke vii. 9, in more
than half a dozen copies of the Old Latin Version and in the
Ethiopic Version. But neither there nor here does it deserve
any notice whatever, though it is adopted in this verse by
Lachmann and, as a matter of course, by Westcott and Hort.
MATTHEW.
75
viii. 23.
Rec. T. <I$ TO irXoiov — in a ship. (Literally, " in the boat.")
Rev. T. clj irXotov — in a boat.
The rejection of to by the Revisers, though called for by the
sixth-century corrector of the Sinaitic Codex, B, C, and a num-
ber of cursives, is not supported by the weightier documentary
evidence of X first hand, and again of the earlier seventh-cen-
tury corrector amending the work of the sixth-century correc-
tor, R, O, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, the majority of the
cursives, and Chrysostom's quotation ; substantiated as it is by
internal evidence. Jesus had just given orders — verse 18 —
about going to the other side of the lake. The evangelist,
referring to the boat that the Saviour had called for, as a
matter of course inserted the article. This, however, appears
to have been dropped (from B, C, etc.), either because its force
was not perceived, or to make the reading correspond with
that in Luke viii. 22, where no article is needed, as no boat had
previously been alluded to.
viii. 28.
Rec. T. Tuv FcpYccrifvuv — of the Gergesenes.
Rev. T. Twv raSapT)vuv — of the Gadarenes.
There is nothing in the whole range of New-Testament text-
ual criticism in which there is more confusion and liability to
error than in the spelling of proper names. If a name is in
the least degree unusual or unfamiliar, it is almost sure to be
presented in two or more forms. Nor need we wonder at it
wlien we consider that the copyists were frequendy ignorant
persons, giving in their work many indications of both igno-
rance and want of care. We have already seen how it is with
" Asa " and " Amon " in the first chapter of this Gospel.
There are other names in that same chapter in a similar
condition of cacography among the manuscripts, even the best
of them.
76
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
We have here three different words or forms of words given
as the name of the people to whose country Jesus had come,
— " Gergesenes," A. V. ; " Gadarenes," R. V. ; and " Geras-
enes," Lat. Versions. In addition to these, the Sinaitic man-
uscript, first hand, reads " Gazarenes " ; while the Codex
Sangallensis (A) has " Garadenes." Some of these variations
are simply clerical blunders, or possibly preferences ; as " Gara-
denes " or " Gazarenes " for " Gadarenes." But others can
hardly be so considered ; and it is difficult oftentimes, in fact
impossible sometimes, to decide from mere documentary evi-
dence which is the correct form. Nor can we in this matter
always tnist our oldest known manuscripts. These are by no
means always in agreement ; and sometimes they are widely
astray, as the reader will have abundant occasion to see before
he reaches the close of these volumes.
But let us look at the testimony of the manuscripts in regard
to the name in the verse before us. In support of the reading
" Gergesenes," we have the Sinaitic Codex as amended by its
earlier seventh-century corrector, C amended by its second
corrector, E, K, L, S, U, V, X, 11, nearly all the cursives, the
Memphitic, Gothic, Armenian, and» Ethiopic Versions, and
Origen, — the oldest of these witnesses being the Memphitic
Version, of the second century. The margin of the Philoxenian
Syriac Version testifies to both " Gergesenes " and " Gerasenes."
— In attestation of " Gadarenes," we have B, C first hand, M,
also J^ first hand, and A (if we consider their modes of spelling
as the consequence of preference or mere clerical error), about
sixteen cursives, the Peshito Syriac, the text of the Philoxenian
Syriac, the Persic Versions, Epiphanius, one catena, and " a
few " copies in the hands of Origen. The oldest testimony in
favor of this reading reaches back also to the second century.
It is the reading adopted by Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, and
Westcott and Hort. — " Gerasenes " is the reading attested by
the Thebaic Version, all copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
Prankish, and Anglo-Saxon Versions, and by the Latin Fathers
MATTHEW.
17
generally. It is adopted by Lachmann as the true reading,
and preferred by Griesbach. Yet it is not supported by a sin-
gle known Greek manuscript. We may therefore safely set it
aside as not being the genuine reading here. This name, —
" Gerasenes," — for which the attestation is so strong in Mark
v. I and Luke viii. 26, 37, instead of denoting the people of
Gerasa in Persea opposite Samaria, as Origen and others sup-
pose, is only another form for " Gergesenes." The name Ger-
gesa, among the Arabs of the present day, is pronounced Kersa,
Geresa, or Gerasa.' It was probably so called by many in the
time of Christ, while others, like the Galilean Jews, who spoke
a slightly different dialect, gave utterance to the guttural sound
represented by " g " in the middle of the word. Both Mark
and Luke may have given the preference to the shorter and
smoother form of the word. At any rate, " Gerasenes " must
be considered as only a clipping down of the harsher and prob-
ably less familiar "Gergesenes," while it is really the same
name, and denotes the same people. This will readily account
for what is only a seeming discrepancy between these two
names among the various manuscripts and versions. But here,
in Matthew, the question lies between "Gergesenes" and
" Gadarenes." — In the time of Christ, Gadara was the capital
of Percea, situated near the south bank of the Hieromax, the
present Jermuk (or Yarmouk), and several miles southeast of
the outlet of the sea of Galilee. In order that Christ, by cross-
ing over to the east side of the sea, should " come into the
country of the Gadarenes," we must suppose that the territory
that in some way belonged to them lay in part north of the
Hieromax, and extended several miles to the northwest of the
city, reaching some little distance along the southeastern and
eastern shore of the sea, " over against Galilee," as Luke ex-
presses it. Otherwise Jesus, in crossing over from Capernaum,
would not have found himself in their country. But we have
1 See The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thomson, D.D., Vol. ii., p. 37-
78
THE revisers' greek text.
no reason to believe that the country of the Gadarenes extended
beyond the immediate vicinity of the city itself. It seems, how-
ever, that there was a city very near where Jesus and his disci-
ples landed ; for we read (verse 34) that " the whole city came
out to meet Jesus." Luke says (viii. 27) that, on his arrival,
when he stepped forth upon the land, " there met him out of
the city a certain man," etc. These statements indicate that the
city, whatever its name may have been, was near by. This
could not therefore have been Gadara ; for that was several
miles away. And, if it was not Gadara, it is not at all probable
that the people would have been called Gadarenes. The place
of Jesus' landing would naturally be spoken of as the country
of the people who lived there, — especially as they turned out
en masse in their wonderment to see him. And the people who
lived there would naturally be designated by the name of their
own place of residence, not by the name of some other city.
It is not to be supposed that Matthew, who was with Jesus for
two years, more or less, to say nothing of his previous life, and
who was probably with him on this occasion, and was well
acquainted with all this region, did not know what the name of
the city or the people was, or where Gadara was. Theophylact,
commenting on Mark v. i, says : " the most correct copies have
the country 0/ the Gergesenes." It is true, he says this of Mark's
text. But, if this is the correct reading in Mark, we cannot
suppose that Matthew made a mistake, \nd wrote another
name instead ; for both are speaking of the same occurrence,
and both well knew where and in whose country it occurred.
It is far more probable that some early scribe, who knew of no
such place as Gergesa, but to whom Gadara as a city of Peraea
was well known, should have erred in supposing that Matthew's
word was "Gadarenes " instead of " Gergesenes," and so wrote
it, — especially as there is some resemblance between the two
words, and the location of Gadara might easily have led to such
a conclusion. Origen, commenting on this name, speaks as if
most of the copies in his possession read " Gerasenes," a read-
MATTHEW.
79
ing found in Matthew in no extant Greek manuscript. In a few
copies he finds " Gadarenes " ; while it is implied that other
copies in his possession read " Gergesenes." He says : " The
incident concerning the swine that were precipitated by the
demons is recortled to have happened in the country of the
Gerasenes. But Gerasa is a city of Arabia, situated near no
sea or lake ; and the evangelists, men possessed of a painstak-
ing knowledge of localities about Judaea, would not have stated
so obvious and easily disproved a falsehood. But then we find
in a few copies, ' into the country of the Gadarenes.' As to
this, it must be said that Gadara is indeed a city of Judaea,
about which are famous warm baths ; but there is nothing like
a lake or a sea bordered with precipitous banks there. But
Gergesa, whence the word ' Gergesenes,' is an ancient city
near the lake of Tiberias, as it is now called, near which is a
precipitous steep bordering on the lake, from which they say
the swine were cast down by the demons." — On John i. 28.
Amidst the conflicting testimonies of the old manuscripts,
we turn to Dr. Thomson's work, 77/1? Land and the Book ;
and, as we read, we cannot but feel that the facts thus laid
before us ought to be allowed to decide the question. He
says (the italics are his) : "Our first point is that the miracle
could not have occurred at Gadara. It is certain, from all the
accounts we have of it, that the place was near the shore of
the lake. Mark says that when he came out of the ship imme-
diately there met him a man, etc. With this precise statement
the tenor of all the narratives coincides, and therefore we must
find a locality directly on the shore, and every place must be
rejected that is not consistent with this ascertained fact. Again,
the city itself, as well as the country of the Gergesenes, was at
the shore of the lake. All the accounts imply this fact. Lastly,
there was a steep mountain so near at hand that the herd of
swine, rushing down it, were precipitated into the lake. Now
Gadara does not meet any one of these necessary conditions.
I take for granted, what I believe to be true, that Um Keis
8o
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
marks the site of Gadara; and it was, therefore, about three
hours to the south of the extreme shore of the lake in that
direction. There is first a broad plain from Khurbet Samra to
the Jermuk, then the vast gorge of this river, and after it an
ascent for an hour and a half to Um Keis. No one, I think
will maintain that this meets the requirements of the sacred
narratives, but is in irreconcilable contradiction to them It
IS true that a celebrated traveller, from his lofty standpoint at
Um Keis, overlooks all intervening obstacles, and makes the
swine rush headlong into the lake from beneath his very feet.
But to do this in fact (and the evangelists deal only in plain
facts), they must have run down the mountain for an hour and
a half, forded the deep Jermuk, quite as formidable as the
Jordan itself, ascended its northern bank, and raced across
a level plain several miles before they could reach the nearest
margin of the lake, a feat which no herd of swine would be
likely to achieve, even though they were 'possessed.' The
site of the miracle, therefore, was not at Gadara. This is an
important result. Nor was it in the country of the Gadarenes,
because that country lay south of the great river Jermuk; and
besides, if the territory of that city did at any time reach to the
south end of the lake, there is no mountain there above it
adapted to the conditions of the miracle ; and, further, the city
itself where it was wrought was evidently on the shore. There
we must find it, whatever be its name. And in this Gersa or
Kersa we have a position which fulfils every requirement of
the narratives, and with a name so near to that in Matthew, as
to be in itself a strong corroboration of the truth of this identi-
fication. It is within a few rods of the shore, and an immense
mountain rises directly above it, in which are ancient tombs,
out of some of which the two men possessed of the devils may
have issued to meet Jesus. The lake is so near the base of the
mountain that the swine, rushing madly down it, could not
stop, but would be hurried on into the water and drowned.
The place is one which our Lord would be likely to visit,
MATTHEW.
8l
having Capernaum in full view to the north, and Galilee ' over
against it,' as Luke s.ays it was. The name, however, pro-
nounced by Bedawin Arabs is so similar to Gergesa, that, to
my inquiries for this place, they invariably said that it was at
Kersa ; and they insisted that they were identical. I have an
abiding conviction that Matthew wrote the name correctly ;
i.e. Gergesenes. He was from this region, and personally
knew the localities. . . . Gergesa, or Gerasa, or Kersa, how-
ever pronounced, was small and unknown, while Gadara was
a Greek city, celebrated for its temples and theatres, and for
the warm baths on the Hieromax just below it. . . . If the
light shed upon this question by careful topographical exami-
nations cannot settle it, then must it remain forever unsetded.
Let any one examine the various readings of these passages,
and he will despair of ever arriving at a safe probability from
mere manuscript authority." '
viii. 29.
Rec. T. T£ t|(iiv Kal o-oC, *It]o-oO wit toO 0eov J — What have we to
do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God?
Rev. T. Tt t]|jitv Kal o-oC, vU toO 0€ov ; — What have we to do with
thee, thou Son of God?
The omission of " Jesus," though attested by X, B, C first-
hand, L, more than twenty cursives, several copies of the Old
Latin and Vulgate Versions, and the Memphitic Version, and
seemingly supported by Origen, Eusebius, Cyprian, and Vic-
torinus, can hardly be accepted as the true reading, inasmuch
as the report of this outcry, as given by Mark (v. 7) and Luke
(viii. 28), has 'Iryo-oii, and this reading is strongly vouched for
by C's second corrector, E, K, M, S, U, V, X, A, IT, most of
the cursives, the best and greatest number of copies of the Old
Latin and Vulgate Versions, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac,
and Thebaic Versions, as well as the Gothic, Armenian, and
1 Vol. ii., pp. 34-37.
82
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
and others, -affordmg testimony running back nearly to the
fir t century. The omission affords a reading which would
naturally be g,ven, in preference to the longer one, by B and
Mark also while i, and several others, omit it in Luke as well.
should"! ,7'. "t""' "''""' """ ^"^^^ '^' d<^--i-^
should have called Jesus by name, as the other evangelists
represent them to have done; and Matthew, who probab^
heard the outcry, would scarcely have omitted so prominent
and important a word as this. Moreover, Vo5 could hardly
h ve been taken from Mark or Luke without the transfer also
ll7 T""' i "°'' ^'^^'" '"^'^'"S ^he whole form of
address here as there, " Jesus, thou Son of the most high God "
We have no doubt that 'I^aoC is genuine in Matthew just as
truly as m the other Gospels.
iz. 4.
Against the word "knowing "-in the clause "And Tesus
knowmg their thoughts "- stands the marginal note, "Many
ancient authorities read seeing," i.e. 18^^, "seeing" or "per
ce.ving," mstead of dS,L,, " knowing." This use of 'M,, as
refernng to mental vision, is not foreign to Matthew, as a ref-
erence to xxvii. 3 and 24 will show; though the more usual
word m such a connection is dS^^. The former certainly has
the preponderance of documentary evidence in its support,
unless the Vatican manuscript outweighs nearly everything else'
For it is attested by X (A is defective here), C, D, E first
hand, F, K, L (which generally sides with B where it can),
M, S, U, V, X, A, n second hand, the majority of the cursives,'
;he Old Latin, Vulgate, and Memphitic, and possibly some
)ther versions. EIS^, is the reading of only B, E second hand,
H, n first hand, fifty odd cursives, and Chrysostom. The ver-
lons cannot be relied upon here, for they might give " per-
:eiving " or « knowing" as the rendering of I8^y as well as of
MATTHEW.
83
tl8(l)i. If the latter were the original word, it is difficult to
believe that any scribe would have changed it to iSoii/; whereas
if I8mv was really Matthew's word, a copyist might easily have
considered it an error, or simply preferred eiSols, and substi-
tuted it instead, especially if he observed it to be the word
used in xii. 25. The meaning, of course, is the same, which-
ever word is used. But external, as well as internal, evidence
calls for the marginal reading as the true one. It is that of the
Received Text, and is retained, very properly, by Tischendorf,
Alford, and others.
ix. 14.
The " ancient authorities " that are referred to here as omit-
ting "oft " are only J^ first hand, B, and the two cursives, 27,
71, — testimony hardly sufficient to condemn a reading sup-
ported by Ji^ as amended by the earlier seventh-century cor-
rector, every other uncial (B only excepted), all the cursives
but two, and all the ancient versions. The omission of the
word from the four manuscripts from which it is missing, was
plainly enough due to the belief that its presenee was not nec-
essary, as it is not found in Mark ii. 18. If the aim had been
to make Matthew correspond with Luke (v. 33), the word
employed would not have been iroWd, " many times," but
■irvKvd, " oft," — the word that was actually inserted by the
sixth-century corrector of the Sinaitic Codex from Luke v. 33.
ix. 18.
Rec. T. apxuv IXOciv — there came a certain ruler and.
Rev. T. apxuv tls 4\6iiv — there came a ruler and. [Margin: " Gr.
one ruler."']
The manuscripts and versions present much confusion and
variation just here. The Sinaitic (second corrector) and Vati-
can manuscripts read aj-xu>v th Trpo(Te\d<I>v, " one (or a) ruler
came up and." This reading is adopted by Lachinann and
preferred by Wcstcott and Hort. It is supported by four
copies of the Old Latin {a, b, c, ff^) and the Vulgate Version.
84
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
^ first hand, 13, 157, and some other cursives together with
the Thebaic Version read apx<ov -TrpocreXOwv, " a ruler came up
and." C's second corrector, G, L, U, and a large number of
cursives read apx<^v tU npoatXOiLv, " a certain ruler came up
and." r and a number of cursives have apxoiv tis i\6u>v, " a
certain ruler came and " ; while other copies read apx<^v eh
il<TtX6u>v, " one (or a) ruler came in and," or apx'"" ■"■'« daikOuiv,
" a certain ruler came in and." The text adopted by the Re-
visers is that of K, S, V, A, n, about forty cursives, two copies
of the Old Latin {d,f), the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac,
the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic Versions. But the reading
that seems to be most clearly the true reading is that adopted
by Tischendorf and Alford, the reading of J5 as amended by
the earlier seventh-century corrector, C, D, E, M, X, more
than thirty cursives, and given by Basil and Chrysostom, — •
namely, a.px<ov d(TtXOu>v, " a ruler came in and " ; i.e. into the
house of Matthew (verses 9, 10, and Luke v. 29), where the
circumstances of the preceding verses took place. While " at
meat " there, the Pharisees queried why Jesus should eat with
publicans and sinners. (Verses 10-13.) But "then," — i.e.
while they were yet in the house, — John's disciples came up
to him and started a question which called for a reply. (The
record of this occupies the next four verses.) And while he
was answering them, " behold, a ruler came in and worshipped
him," etc. " And Jesus arose " from the table, etc. (Verse
19.) The order here given must be accepted as the true order
of the events recorded ; for Matthew was an eye-witness of what
he speaks of, and could not but state the facts as they occurred.
But copyists and correctors of manuscripts, failing to see the
force of the prepositional prefix efo--, from time to time made
confusion with Matthew's words. Some, taking GICGA0UJN
as two words instead of one, considered the prefix as the
numeral tIs, "one," — giving the reading adopted by the Re-
visers. Others, taking a similar view, thought it necessary to
insert irpoo- between the two, as a prefix for the participle. (So
MATTHEW.
85
Bete) This would remove all doubt as to the meaning. But,
this not being satisfactory to all, others retained the npoa-, but
rejected ek. (S, etc.) This, however, did not suit every one ;
hence some, while retaining vrpoa-, changed u, to rc9. (^ ,
etc ) Others, rejecting ^rpocr- but retaining tk-, prefixed rt,,
and still others made other changes. The reading of the
Received Text cannot be maintained; it has no unaals to
support it, and but a few cursives besides the Memphitic Ver-
sion and one copy of the Old Latin Version.
ix. 32.
Rec.T. ,rpoo-f,«7Kav avr^ avepcouov k^+Jv 8at^ovtt6^€VOV-they
brought to him a clunib man possessed «ith a devil.
Rev. T. ^poT^^^K- air.- kc+^v 8a.^ov.to>evov - there was brought
to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
The omission of au6pu>7rov of course makes no difference in
the meaning; but it makes less verbose Greek The same
difference appears between the two corresponding English
expressions "a dumb demoniac" and " a dumb demoniacal
„an " in choosing between which no elegant writer would
hesitate a moment. Hence the appearance of the more con-
cise form in J<, B- ^our cursives, the Peshito Synac, the two
Egyptian, and Ethiopic Versions. If this had been the orig-
inal wording, no scribe would ever have been tempted to insert
a.^pa..ov, any more than an English copyist would be to change
"a dumb demoniac" to "a dumb demoniac man Thi= is
one of those instances in which "the shorter reading is a
transparent attempt at improvement on the origmal, and to be
rejected as a false reading. And so it is by Tischendorf and
others But Lachmann and, of course, Westcott and Hort
adopt 'the reading of the Vatican Codex. The change m the
Revisers' Text is purely a work of supererogation, the revised
English text corresponding to these words rema.nmg the same,
letter for letter, as that of the A. V.
86
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Rec. T. ir<|i\}(as 8vo tuv (loOiiTav auroO — he sent two of his disciples,
and.
Rev. T. x<|n|/as 8id twv (ia9t|T«v avToO — he sent by his disciples, and.
"By his disciples." This reading is strongly vouched for
by manuscripts and versions. At the same time, we are far
from being assured that it is the true reading. It has the
appearance of having been introduced through an error on the
part of the translator of the Peshito Syriac Version. In the first
place, it implies too much. It implies that John sent the great
body of his disciples, if not all of them. This is the meaning of
the words "his disciples," just as we understand the words
when used of Christ's disciples in xii. i, 2, and elsewhere;
and as we understand "his brethren," in xii. 46, and else-
where : i.e. his disciples as a body ; his brethren, all of them.
If the reading were " by some of his disciples," or if the article
were omitted, so that it read "by disciples of his," it would be
a plausible reading, indicating a portion only, perhaps not more
than two or three. But the reading " by his disciples " is
unnatural and scarcely possible, to denote only two of them.
Another thing that militates against this reading is the fact
that it destroys the force of the phrase ; it renders the words
altogether tiscless. For by whom could John, imprisoned as
he was, send to Jesus but by some of his own disciples? No
others would be sufficiently interested in his doubts and per-
plexities, or care enough about him, to go to Jesus on such an
errand. Besides, he could find no others to whom he could
entrust such a message with any expectation of receiving a
faithful answer. Now to say that John sent on this occasion
" by his disciples " is to say what is not needed. If he sent at
all, it must have been by some of them, not by Herodians, or
Jews who were not in sympathy with him, or by anybody else.
The phrase is therefore useless, uncalled for. But if we are told
that John, when he heard in prison of the works of Christ,
" sent two of his disciples," we have language that is not only
MATTflEW.
87
natural, but forcibly significant. The phrase "two of h.s
disciples " is no useless appendage. It is commonly objected
that this reading is taken from Luke. This, however, is pure
conjecture, and of no weight whatever. Matthew was one of
the immediate followers of Christ. By his place among the
twelve disciples, he would be likely to know just how many of
John's disciples came to Jesus with this inquiry. And if only
two came, as Luke declares was the case (and no witness but
one untrustworthy copy of the Old Latin Version leaves his
language indefinite as to the number), then certainly Matthew
ought to have known it. and beyond all question did know it
And knowing it, there is not the least probability that he would
h?ve told us that John sent " by his disciples," and not that he
sent " two of his disciples." It is far more credible that some
careless early translator or transcriber mistook Su'o for liL, as the
first printer of King James's Version mistook "out" for " at
in Matt, xxiii. 24, -to which blunder we are indebted for the
false reading that appears to this day in all our copies of the
Authorized New Testament.
In short, while the manuscript testimony in favor of by his
disciples" is strong, it is by no means over^vhelmmg or con-
clusive It consists of seven uncials K, B, C first hand, D, 1 ,
Z A the two cursives 33. "4, one copy of the Old Latm, the
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, as well as the Arme-
nian and Gothic. On the other hand, the common reading is
attested by the thirteen uncials, C third hand, E, F, G, K, L,
M S U V X r, n, nearly all the cursives, two copies of the
Old 'Latin,'the Vulgate, Memphitic, Ethiopic, and margin of
the Philoxenian Syriac Version; also Origen, Chrysostom, and
others of the Fathers. The Curetonian Syriac and several
copies of the Old Latin Version, as well as Justin Martyr in h.s
Dialogue with Trypho, read "sent his disciples," -omitting
both "two of" and "by." In the face of external testimony
thus contradictory, we are constrained to yield to the over-
whelming internal evidence in support of the old reading, he
sent two of his disciples."
88
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
XI. 9.
Rec. T. tC 4£yj\6cTC IBtiv ; irpo<|>^TT)v ; — what went ye out to see? A
prophet?
Rev. T. t( {^^X0crc ; I8«iv xpo<|>T|rTf v ,' — wherefore went ye out? to
see a prophet?
To obtain this rendering, it will be seen that the Revisers
have simply altered the punctuation. But this form of the
Greek text, while favored by the Memphitic Version and the
two copies/and k of the Old Latin Version, is without the sup-
port of a single known Greek manuscript. The reading pre-
sented by only J.^ first hand, B, and Z, is tL liriXOaTe ; ■irpo<f>-QTriv
I8uv ; But this is a different reading from the Revisers', though
its meaning is the same. It is an arrangement made by some
early corrector of the text, who, conceiving either that this
gave the true meaning, or that it would afford variety to the
discourse if it did not make the words more impressive to take
them in this sense, transposed them to make sure of having
them so understood by others. It certainly has every appear-
ance of being an attempt at emendation. Our only surprise is
that any candid, thoughtful scholar should consider the reading
genuine. The preponderance of external, to say nothing of
internal, evidence is greatly against it. All the other uncials
(X amended by the earlier seventh-century corrector, C, D, E,
F, G, K, L, M, P, S, U, V, X, T, A, IT), every known cursive,
all the versions except the three just mentioned, and Origen
and Chrysostom unite in support of the common reading.
And very properly. It must be remembered that the language
is not Matthew's own. He is simply giving a report of the
words of another. Now, while it is easy to say that the com-
mon reading found here was taken from Luke vii. 26, it is
impossible to prove it. The report of Christ's words as given
by Luke is universally accepted as genuine.' That is, Jesus is
' Only Origen, in once quoting apparently from Luke, gives the
Saviour's words thus: <iXX4 ri ^{eXijXi/ffare ; Tpo<p-/irrir ISeiv ; fat, X^w
K. T. X. IVoris, Vol. iii., p. 472.
MATTHEW.
89
represented as three times asking the same question, the only
XLce being in the use of ....a... and the add, Uona
words "into the wilderness" the first t.me he asks it, and of
J8.Iv afterwards both times. Now, with the exception of th »
changed reading of the two oldest manuscripts, the two reports
given by Matthew and Luke of this thrice-asked ^luestion are.
as we should expect them to be when given by true and faith-
ful reporters, almost precisely alike. In meaning they are qmte
Nor ha; either taken from the other, as the slight vanat^n
of wording between them shows. Where Matthew says Th y
that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses," Luke says They
tha Ire gorgeously apparelled and live delicately are in kings
courts." But the thought is the same in both and the mou^
Lto which it is cast is the same. Not -> J-^'jf ^
c,ueries,"Whatwentyeouttosee?aprophet? and Why
went y out? to see a prophet? " Now what we insist upon is
that if Luke has given a faithful report of Jesus' words. _ and no
one questions this, - then the report of Matthew, who was prob
ably present and heard them, as that report is F^^^^^f J^;^^
Sinai ic and Vatican Codices and the Dublm palimpsest Z, is an
•probable and incredible one : - irnprobable, for iMs by no
means likely that Jesus, after having twice asked IVha^ wen
ye out /. see ? " should have changed the question and given it
another meaning,-" JF/,j went ye out? " when there is nothing
in the connection to indicate any such intention, or any reason
or such a change ; and incredible, because it passes beli f that
two faithful reporters, in recording the same "f — .' J"^^
agree twice, and the third time differ, yet employ precisely the
Le words'; that is, that both should give Christ's words co.
rectlv twice and yet, when they came to give them the third
tm ' h u,d havl understood them differently. Especially so
i when we consider that the one whose report is received
ithJ a question was not present to hear the words, wh.^
L one who was present is the one whose -PO^^ ^ b-;f;^
nto doubt by his copyists. It amounts, m fine, to this, that
90
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
if the reading of B is the true reading, one of the evangelists
has certainly made a mistake. For, if Christ said " What went
ye out to see? a prophet?" as Luke says he did, he certainly
did not say " Why went ye out? to see a prophet? " Or if, on
the other hand, he said " Why went ye out? to see a prophet? "
Luke misreports him in making him say something else, though
he attributes to him the same words. Besides all this, Jesus'
immediate answer to his own question shows the impropriety
of the Revisers' punctuation and interpretation. The very
brevity of that answer implies that the inquiry is "What?"
not " Why ? " We cannot therefore escape the conclusion
either that one of the evangelists is in error here, or that the
three old manuscripts that would make him out to be so are,
in this respect, false witnesses. And is the latter conclusion
too hard to accept? We have but to look only seven verses
farther along (xi. i6) to find that J<, B, C, D, Z, nine other
uncials, and more than fifty cursives, are united in one of the
most palpably false readings in this Gospel ; namely, " who call
unto the others^' tois irtpoK;, in place of " who call unto //leir
fellojvs" Tois fTaipoi's. This reading, though adopted by Tisch-
endorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, and perhaps plaus-
ibly explained by certain commentators, is simply a blunder in
writing t for ai — not an uncommon itacism among ancient
copyists — admitted into the text so early as to have affected a
large number of manuscripts and versions.
xi. 15.
A marginal note informs the reader that "some ancient
authorities omit fo hear." The only evidence we have that
aK.ovf.iv is 7iot a part of the genuine text is the testimony of the
two uncials B and D, one twelfth-century cursive, and one
copy (k) of the Old Latin Version. For those who are aware
of the untrustworthiness of the testimony of D in readings more
or less peculiar to itself, and of the almost invariable habit of
B to adopt the more concise rather than the seemingly verbose
MATTHEW.
91
reading, it is not difficult to decide what weight should be
attached to this testimony, espec.ally when all the other unc.als.
cursives, versions, and the only Fathers that give the passage
are arrayed without a dissenting voice agamst it, and reaa,
.. He that hath ears /. hear, let him hear." There can scarcely
be a reasonable doubt that some early scribe or self-consti-
tuted corrector omitted the word, because he could not see its
emphatic character, and very possibly regarded it a positive
blemish But, however that may be, the testimony greatly
preponderates in favor of retaining it, some of which testimony
as that of the Peshito Syriac, the Old Latin, the two Egyptian
Versions, and Justin Martyr, runs back to the second cen-
tury, and from different quarters of Christendom LacWnn,
Tregelles, and Alford very properly retain the word, but T.sch-
endorf and, as might be expected, Westcott and Hort reject it.
(Compare Note on xiii. 9.)
xi. 19.
Rec. T. i8.Kat.ien ^ ao+Ca 4*6 xiv t^kv-ov air^, - wisdom is justi-
'^'r^;^ 1^e, ^ .o4,Ca a.6 ..V .P..V a..,S-..isdom is justified
^The translator of the Gospel of Matthew into what is now
known as the Peshito Syriac Version, the earliest of all the ver-
sions of the New Testament, on coming to the word r.Kvo.. here,
misread it as r^x-^ and consequently translated ,t works^
Some early transcriber or possessor of the Greek Gospel of
Matthew, having this Syriac Version at his side and seeing the
rendering " works " given in that Version instead of children,
wrote .>yw, " works," in the margin of his copy as a reading
that might possibly be the true one. From that margin, the
word soon got into the text of a few early manuscripts ; and
thence into other versions as well as into the Revisers Text.
It is obviously, in the language of Dr. Hort, " a fundamental y
and distinctively Syrian reading," attested by >5, B, the single
twelfth-century cursive 124 (one of Ferrar's group, and the
92
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
only one of them that here reads "works"), some copies
known to Jerome, as well as the Peshito and Phi oxen an
^'nac, Memphitic, Ethiopia, Armeman. and Persic VersTons
Jerome m commenting on this verse, says, "In some Go pds'
i:n,:uiusdarn evangeUis, which can only mean in some copi
o Matthew's Gospel, possibly Latin copies], the passage reaT
VV.sdom ,s jusufied by her works.' And i'n fact wisdom doe^
not seek the testimony of words, but of works." Yet in hi
own Latm version he reads "children," -in attestation of
which we have the margin of B (where r«... is inserted by
the ongmal scnbe himself or by his trusted "proof-reader"
wh.ch anjounts to the same thing), C, D, E, F, G, K, L, M,
of Uie on T 'k ' v' '" ''^^ °"^ °' ^'^ ^"^^'^^^' --^ -pies
of the OH Latm Version, the Vulgate, the Curetonian and the
rnargm of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic and Armenian
Versions, and the Persic of the Polyglot, which is made from
the Peshito Synac, and implies that the copy or copies of that
version from which this Persic Version was obtained had
children, not "works." One manuscript of the Ethiopic
Version contains both readings. Tischendorf and Westcott
and Hort read "works," as does Tregelles also in his text •
but in his margin he has "children," the reading adopted by
Lachmann, Alford, Scrivener, and others. It is true Luke
(vii. 35) has the same reading. Hence those who' adopt
"works" as the true reading say that the other reading is
"from Luke," without a particle of evidence to support the
statement, and apparently overlooking entirely the fact that
the word is a part, not of the evangelist's own language, but
of his record of one of the utterances of another, of which the
evangelist himself is simply a reporter. On the contrary, the
very fact that Luke wrote "is justified by her children," and
that this reading is accepted as the genuine reading with him
(it being attested by every known witness except the Sinaitic
Codex), \i prima facie evidence that it is also the true reading
in Matthew. And when we lay by the side of this fact the
MATTHEW.
93
other fact that the external evidence in support of this reading
is extremely strong, we cannot but conclude with Dr. Scrivener
that " TtKvuyv is undoubtedly the only true reading."
xi. 23.
Rec. T. t| ?ci)s ToO ovpavov uil>(i>6ct<ra, — which art exalted unto heaven.
Rev. T. (IT] {(OS ToO ovpavov \ii/uAi\T^ ; — shall thou be exalted unto
heaven?
It seems incredible that any devout reader of the New Tes-
tament should ever bring himself to believe that Jesus really
expressed himself in the manner thus represented by the Re-
vised Version. It is not like Christ to ask such a question as
this in regard to the future condition of Capernaum, when he
knew perfectly well that there was no possibility that Caper-
naum would ever attain to that condition, and immediately
answer it in the negative by saying that, on the contrary, the
opposite will be the case. Besides, he had no occasion for
asking such a question. Capernaum had already been exalted
to heaven in privileges by having been blest with his presence,
his miracles, his teaching. It would be impossible for it to
be raised to any higher position at any future time. Aside
from this passage and the corresponding one in Luke (x. 15),
as given in the Revised Version, there is not another instance
in all the Gospels in which Jesus thus expressed himself. But
the reading is an obviously false one. If the Greek New Tes-
tament had been written from the first in cursives, with the
words separated one from another as we write, this reading
would never have originated. But the manuscripts for the
first nine centuries were written in uncials or capitals, and the
earlier ones with no spaces between the words. These were
run together in an unbroken succession of letters ; and, not to
mention other evils resulting from this mode of writing, a letter
was frequently repeated where it should not have been, or
omitted where it should have been doubled. This is a common
occurrence in the old manuscripts of the New Testament.
We have an instance of the former here. Jesus' words, <ru
94
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
Ka.ep.aovM, , ■ . . ^o,6.2aa " thou Capernaum, which hast
been exalted," by the doubling of the final lette; of " Cape -
naum, were ,.ade to read Ka..p.ao^^, ^^, etc. The next
cnbe or cnt.cal reader that got hold of this manuscript, no
seemg any propriety in the utterance, "Thou, Capernaum «./
ha n.g been exalted to heaven, shalt be brought down to hell,"
and not detecting the blunder that had been made, but co;.
SKlermg/x^ to be the sign of a question, and the fault to lie in
the part>c.p,al form that follows, altered this into a very similar
personal form, l^.e^^, "shalt be exalted," and so changed
the Savours solemn, pertinent, truthful declaration, "Thou
Capernaum, which hast been exalted to heaven," into the
fl.ppant question, "Thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted to
heaven? -a reading which was afterwards taken up by V
1? first hand, C, three cursives, half a dozen copies of the Old
Latm, the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, the Memphitic, the
Armenian, the Ethiopic, and one Persic Version. This reading
must have been known also to Irensus, unless his words were
changed by Rufinus, his Latin translator. D first hand, and L
rctam the article as a relative (v') with the verbal form (slightly
changed in L), and read, "Thou, Capernaum, which shalt be
exalted to heaven," — a reading followed in only one copy of
the Old Latin Version. Eight other uncials (E, F G S U V
r, II second hand), about fifty cursives, and some codices
known to Jerome, take the article as a relative, and, changing
the false reading i^a,^^cr„ into i^oi^, read "Thou, Capernaum
winch hast been exalted to heaven," which, though really a
false reading, is equivalent in meaning and force to the genuine
one. All the other uncials (B amended by the sixth or
seventh-century corrector, K, M, X, A, n first hand), most of
the cursives, four copies of the Old Latin, the Peshito and Phil-
oxenian Syriac, the Gothic, all copies but one of the Persic
Cfesarius of Constantinople, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theodoret'
the only Fathers that quote the passage, sustain the genuine read-
ing, - that of the Received Text. The same change has been
MATTHEW.
95
effected in Luke x. 15. and adopted by the Revisers as genuine.
It is, however, the same transparently false reading there as here.
Against the words "go down," — "Thou shalt go down unto
Hades," — stands the marginal note, " Many ancient authori-
ties read ie brought doivn." This is misleading. The true
statement of the case would be, "Nearly all the ancient au-
thorities read be brought down" ; for the truth is that B and
I) are the only Cireek manuscripts that read anything else.'
It is true that the Old Latin, Vulgate, Ethiopic, and Gothic
Versions support the reading " shall go down," as well as
Cffisarius and Eusebius. But the same class of witnesses (B,
D, the Curetonian Syriac and Ethiopic Versions) vouch for the
same as the genuine reading in Luke x. 15, which the Revisers
reject there, and very properly. Both there and here the word
seems to be an importation from Isa. xiv. 15, as rendered in the
Septuagint. Tischendorf and Alford reject this reading in both
places ; while Lachmann, as well as the Revisers, adopts it
here, but rejects it in Luke ; and Westcott and Hort adopt it in
' This marginal note, in its misleading character, reminds one of the
note in Westcott and Ilort's Greek New Testament opposite the word iitX
in Mark iv. 21; namely, " MSS. \nrh Ap." Although the Appendix, here
referred to, which is in another volume and may not be accessible to the
reader of Westcott and Ilort's text, explains that viri is virtually the read-
ing of onlyyw«r manuscripts, — to which 2 should now be added as a fifth,
• — the expression "MSS. iitrh'" naturally, if not necessarily, implies that
the manuscripts generally, or to a large extent at least, read virh. But,
when one comes to learn that, in the eyes of Westcott and Hort, J^ and B
are about the only manuscripts worth regarding, and are so vastly superior
to all other documents that may be arrayed against them " that no read-
ings of X. 1^1 can safely be rejected absolutely'' {liiirodiiction, p. 225), he
understands how there should be so much apparent assumption couched
in that little marginal expression " MSS. virh," which means simply S antl
B read i/ni; for these two uncials and two cursive witnesses were the only
documents then known to Westcott and Ilort as being guilty of the gross
blunder of saying that a candle is brought to "be put under a candle-
stick." The note, " Manv ancient authorities read he hroiit^ht doivn"
seems to have emanated from a very similar source. Both notes are
evasive, misleading, and of like untrustworthy character.
96
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
both, setting the true reading in the margin in Luke. West-
cott and Hort are consistent in their readings, — clinging to
the false text of B in both places. But Lachmann and the
Revisers are not ; for, if Luke is correct in reporting Christ as
saying, " Thou shalt be brought down," there is no probability
that Matthew gave a different report, — "Thou shalt ^i? down."
The passive would indeed be the natural form for Christ to
make use of after having used the passive just before, — " having
been exalted." The weight of evidence certainly greatly pre-
ponderates in favor of the passive in both Gospels.
zii. 4.
The plural reading, " they did eat," presented in the margin,
is supported only by Ji^, B, and 569, and seems to be an altera-
tion, perhaps inadvertently made from e to o because of the
context. And yet the preceding ti<r^\^£v, "he entered," as
well as avTw (^ayttv, " for hivi to eat," shows David to be the
leading object of thought, and consequently the singular form
of the verb to be the true form. This is confirmed by a refer-
ence to Mark ii. 26 and Luke vi. 4, where Jesus is reported as
having used the singular. — The following o, "what," which is
adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and
Lachmann in his text, though not by the Revisers, instead of
ovi, " which loaves," is an equally questionable reading, intro-
duced apparently on account of the supposed indefiniteness of
the plural as referring to loaves of bread, which in themselves
considered are not unlawful food. And, to obviate any such
misconception, ovs was changed to o, meaning "something
which " it was not lawful for him to eat. Mark and Luke show
the true reading to be ous, referring directly to aprovi, "loaves."
XII. 31.
The only " ancient authorities " that support the marginal
reading " unto you men " are B, i, and Athanasius, who may
have been acquainted with, if not in possession of, Codex B
MATTHEW.
97
itself The presence of V-. " y^< ^ere seems to be a mere
repetition of that word from the hne above through some copy-
sX nadvertence, and is plainly an impossibly genume readmg
unworthy of notice. -The omission, by the Revisers, of ro.
^0,^.1, ".nto men," at the end of ^^^^erse ^^J^
Uonably a mistake. The word ^^^^^^^^e^^^^^^^^^^^^
cursives, two copies of the Old Latin mc i, ' '
Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, and four or Ave Father, but
simply as an intended improvement upon the original wording
Other manuscripts and Fathers for the same reason changd
the reading to airoT,, "unto them." The Te.f^.sJieceptu.
hi er, iLserves the true text, which is somewhat repet.
Uous an 1 less elegant, and for this reason must be considered
genuine, attested as it is by the preponderating testimony o
C D K G K, L, M, S, U, V. X, T, A, n, the great body of
'he cuniive's, ^ou; copies of the Old Latin the Pesh.to and
I'hiloxenian Syriac Versions, and several of the Fathers.
xii. 46-
Rec. T. ^ H.^T„P Kal ol aUX^oX airov .l,rT^KU<rav J^o, - his mother
and his brethren stood -i'*^-'; .,^„,,av au.-his mother and
Rev. T. T) (i^lTtlp Kal 01 a5t\<)>ol tio-rUKtio-ov tj
his brethren stood without. _
The omission of airoC, " his," from the Greek text is a wholly
unnecessary alteration, affecting the English version m no way
Tat er, not even with italics. Why it should have been
lade is more than we can understand; for it is favored only
by the sixth-century emendator of the S.naitic Codex, by Z
three cursives, seven copies of the Old Latin Version, and a
ingle passage in Origen and Chrysostom each ; wh-eas, its
resence is called for by the original scribe as well as the
ZL seventh-century corrector of the Sinait.c Codex, by B,
C D E F G K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, and all the other
c;^;es; ve'rsi;ns, and Fathers. It is bracketed by Lachmann
as a possible interpolation, but is accepted as genuine by
Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and other editors.
98
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Xli. 47.
A marginal note says that "some ancient authorities " omit
this verse. These authorities are J< first hand, B, L, T four
cursives, two copies of the Old Latin, and the Curetonian
Syriac Version. Those who regard these manuscripts and ver-
sions as presenting the original text, conclude, without any
other reason for so doing, that the verse is an interpolation
from Mark 111. 32, or Luke viii. 20. Westcott and Hort omit it
from the text, though they have it in the margin. But nearly
all other editors accept it as genuine, or probably genuine.
1 he testimony against it is by no means sufficient to call for
Its rejection. In fact, the hand that tampered with the longer
reading in Matt. i. 25 seems very plainly to have been at work
here and on the airoS of the preceding verse, trying to elimi-
nate from this Gospel all traces of the fact that Mary had more
than one son. The emendator, having stricken out airov from
verse 46, and omitted verse 47, could very well afford to con-
tinue, in verse 48, the presence of /aoC in connection with
aStXc^ot (though B first hand omits it), because, in verses 49,
50, Christ makes the expression mean others than brothers by
birth. But to have a by-stander say to Jesus, " Thy mother
and f/iy brothers stand without " etc. was too much for our
ancient critic ; and so he rejected the whole verse. Yet the
airoKpiOu';, "answered," and rm ttVoWt aurw, "him that told
him," of verse 48, make an uncomfortably suspicious and unac-
countable reading if this verse is omitted.
ziii. g.
Rec. T. i Ix**" "'''' 4kov€iv dKoufrw — Who hath ears to hear, let him
hear.
Rev. T. i ixav ura cLkoWto) — He that hath ears, let him hear.
This omission is called for by only Ji^, B, L, and four copies
of the Old Latin Version, — evidence only a little stronger than
that which calls for the omission oi Akovuv in xi. 15, and alto-
MATTHEW.
99
^-
gether insufficient, of itself, to condemn a rival reading. Yet,
in xi. 15, the Revisers retain the word. The reports of Mark
(iv. 9) and Luke (viii. 8) show conclusively that it was a part
of Jesus' utterance on this occasion, and it is an important
word. " He that hath ears to hear " is tantamount to saying.
He that hath hearing ears, — ears that are not closed against
the truth, but are capable of hearing and conveying to the
mind the true import of what is heard. It calls for special
emphasis, and adds greatly to the significance of the phrase.
But remove it, and it reduces the language to a comparatively
unmeaning form of words ; for hearing ears are generally the
possession of a select few, while every one has ears. The close
connection in which the verse stands to verses 13-16, and espe-
cially to verse 16, — " Blessed are your ears, for they hear," —
shows the importance and necessity of the word in this con-
nection. We find no reason for thinking that it is borrowed
from Mark or Luke. It is far easier to believe that some con-
ceited reader or scribe, having an undue regard for brevity,
and not seeing the force of the word, omitted it as unneces-
sary ; and that his copy, falling into other hands, led to the.
omission in B and its associates, while the genuine text has
come down to us supported by the strong testimony of all the
other witnesses, including C, D, E, ¥\ G, K, M, S, U, V, X,
r. A, n, all the cursives, and all the versions except the four
copies {a, e,ff^, and k") of the Old Latin Version just referred
to. The same may be said concerning the omission of aKovav,
in verse 43, which is supported, as here, by not a single cursive,
but only by Ji^ first hand, B, four copies of the Old Latin
Version, three of the Vulgate, and some copies in the hands
of Hilary. It is noteworthy that B and k alone insist on
the omission in both xi. 15 and these two verses, while their
co-witnesses are more or less divided against them. Of all
unfounded probabilities, there is none more groundless than
the supposition that the presence of aKovuv in these places in
all the other documents is an interpolationv It is Christ's own
lOO
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
language faithfully recorded by one who probably heard it and
knew its importance, as well as by Mark and Luke, who only
received it from others. (See Note on xi. 15.)
xiii. 35-
The omission of koV/xov, " of the world," noted in the mar-
gin, is supported by the sixth-century corrector of the Sinaitic
Codex, by B, two cursives (i, 22), two copies {e, k), of the
Old Latin Version, and the Curetonian Syriac, and is noted
by Clement, Origen, and Eusebius. But it seems to be due
to some copyists' having in mind Psa. Ixxviii. 2, whence the
quotation is made, and where, in the Septuagint, air dpx^«,
" from the beginning," takes the place of the phrase " from
the foundation of the world." Having written ano Kara^oX^s,
and taking it in the sense of " from the beginning," it is but
natural that the scribe should have passed on without adding
KoV/iou, or noticing that he had omitted it. It is a common
error, and very easily and unconsciously made. The fact of
its being so feebly attested in this instance is proof sufficient
of its true character; whereas, the common reading is sup-
ported by the original scribe and afterwards by the earlier
seventh-century corrector of the Sinaitic Codex, by C, D, E, F,
G, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, almost the whole body of the
cursives, most copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito
and Philoxenian Syriac, the two Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and
other versions, as well as by Clement (Homilies) and Chrys-
ostom.
xiii. 36.
Rec. T. ^pAo-ov T|[iiv — - Declare to us.
Rev. T. Aia<rd<}>'H<rov t||iiv — Explain to us.
The latter reading is attested only by ^ ^''^t hand, B, and
Origen in one passage, — with whom, in fact, the reading may
have originated, for it has every appearance of being a gloss.
The fornaer, a word less likely to be employed in such a con-
nection, though apparently used both on this and on a subse-
MATTHEW.
lOl
quent occasion and by the same person in both instances, is
the word that is presented to us by every other known uncial
as well as by the earlier seventh-century corrector of the
Sinaitic Codex, by the entire body of the cursives, and by
Origen himself in four different places. Yet, because tf>pd<Tov,
"declare," appears in xv. 15, it is inferred that it cannot be the
true reading here. As if Peter could not have uttered the same
word twice under the same conditions, it must give place to
8uia-a<j>r](Tov, even if this is a most insufficiently attested reading 1
xiii. 43.
On the omission of olkovciv, " to hear," see note on verse 9.
xiii. 55.
Rec. T. 'I<i«rf|s — Joses.
Rev. T. 'ItDcrf|<j> — Joseph.
"Joses" and "Joseph " are not different forms of the same
name. They are distinct, unrelated names, from different
sources, and of different significations. In chapter xxvii. 56,
the person here spoken of is called Joses. So, too, in Mark
vi. 3, XV. 40, as well as seven verses farther on (verse 47), he
is called Joses. Not that all the manuscripts, or even editors,
by any means, are agreed on "Joses" in all these places.
But the preponderance of evidence in each of these instances
favors the common reading " Joses." This is the only place
where the name " Joses " of the Received Text has been set
aside by the Revisers for "Joseph." They seem to have been
made to believe that the genuine reading is that given by the
Sinaitic Codex as amended by its " proof-reader," by B, C,
three cursives, the Curetonian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, and two or three other versions, while the
other two readings, "Joses" and "John," are set aside as
equally unworthy of notice. This, it would seem, could scarcely
have been done except on the supposition that " Joses " and
" Joseph " are but different forms of the same name. As the
other passages clearly show, the true name is Joses, — written
I02
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
in uncials lUJCHC. This, some ignorant reader either mis-
took for, or considered an erroneous or imperfectly written
form of, the more familiar name HJLlCH<t>. He merely changed
the final C into *.
Xiv. 12.
Rec. T. Vipav tA iru|ia, Kal I6ai|niv auri' — took up the body, and
buried it.
Rev. T. iipav ri irru(i.a, Kal c9a>|>av avr6v — took up the corpse,
and buried him.
Utw/jm, " corpse," is probably the true reading. It is strongly
attested. But this is more than can be said of avrdv, which is
supported only by ^ first hand, B, 0, and two copies («,#")
of the Old Latin Version. According to the above texts, " him "
is certainly a harder reading than "it"; and in that respect,
if there is no other consideration, it is favored by internal evi-
dence of readings. But ^ first hand and ^' have the reading
TO TTTCtfrn avTov, " Ms corpse " ; and this might very readily have
led to the introduction of the unemphatic " him " in place of
" it." Codex © and the Old Latin Version a support the read-
ing o-uiyita. Codex B only, then, is left of the witnesses that
support TTTiofjui to read " took up //le corpse, and buried /tir/i."
This can hardly be considered enough to sustain this reading,
especially when it is seen how easily airov might have been intro-
duced by one whose mind was still dwelling on the previous
avTov, — "And /lis disciples came, and took up Ais corpse, and
buried Aim." On the whole, the evidence is decidedly in favor
of the common reading, which is attested by Ji^'s sixth-century
emendator, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, the
entire body of the cursives, and all the versions but the two
copies just mentioned of the Old Latin Version.
xiv. 24.
In place of the words " was now in the midst of the sea,"
the marginal note says that some ancient authorities read
" was many furlongs distant from the land." This is the read-
MATTHEW.
103
ing of the Vatican manuscript, of three of Professor Ferrar's
group (13, 124, 346, carelessly written manuscripts with some
very unusual readings), which practically constitute but one wit-
ness, the Peshito and Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and Persic
Versions, — a reading rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf,
though adopted by Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, while the
other reading is placed in their margins. The Philoxenian
Syriac combines the two, and reads " was many furlongs dis-
tant from the land in the midst of the sea" ; while one cursive
(23.S) has simply " was many furlongs distant " ; and the Mem-
pliitic and Arabic Versions read " was aioui twenty-five furlongs
distant from the land," apparently from John vi. 19. The ex-
pression bears the evident stamp of a false reading, — a gloss,
to prevent the words from being misundeistood by some stupid,
matter-of-fact reader as meaning, not midway across the sea,
but in the midst of the waters with which they were contending.
There need not be a moment's question as to what is the
true reading.
xiv. 29.
In support of the marginal reading "and came," which
"some ancient authorities read" in pbce of "to come" or
" to go " to Jesus, there are but two uncials, B and apparently
C first hand, two versions, the Curetonian Syriac and Armenian,
and a single patristic writer, Chrysostom ; while the writer of
the Sinaitic manuscript, to make sure of having the right word,
wrote iXBC>.v 7,\ecv oZv ; i.e. Peter walked upon the waters " to
come — therefore he came" — to Jesus 1 This, the earlier
seventh-century corrector of that manuscript amended by strik-
ing out " therefore he came " and the sixth-century corrector
of C makes this manuscript also have the verb in the infinitive,
— the form presented in all the other uncials, in every cursive,
and called for by all but two versions. Yet Tischendorf and of
course Westcott and Hort read "and came." Immediately
after the words " to go to Jesus," Matthew adds, " But when he
[Peter, apparently on his way to Jesus] saw the wind bolster-
I04
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
ous, he was afraid, and beginning to sink cried out" — not
" said " as if he was already beside Jesus, but cKpa^t, " shouted "
to him. From this, it is obvious that the object of the evange-
list, in the word IkOCw, was to state the purpose for which Peter
undertook to walk on the water, not the fact of his having gone
to Jesus. To do this, of course, the infinitive was necessary.
A critical reader, intent on making corrections, as some of
those old readers seem to have been, not observing the force
of the infinitive, would very naturally change it so as to make
the construction correspond with what precedes : " Peter went
down . . . and walked . . . and came to Jesus," — especially
as such a statement would find apparent corroboration in verse
31. But the only really admissible reading is iKdCw, "to go."
xiv. 30.
Rec. T. pX^iruv 8c rdv avcfiov Urx«p4v — But when he saw the wind
boisterous.
Rev. T. pX^'iruv Sc t4v avcjiov — But when he saw the wind.
The latter is the reading of J^, B first hand, 33, and the
Memphitic Version only. It may seem very proper to conclude
that, because io-;^upov, " boisterous," is not found in the two
oldest known Greek manuscripts, it is not a part of the original
text. This conclusion would be sound if those manuscripts
were infallible. But we find omissions in them as well as in
other manuscripts. In this very chapter, the Sinaitic Codex
first hand omits (inverse 16) "Jesus," and (verse 23) "hav-
ing sent the multitudes away." B first hand in like manner
(verse 2) omits " therefore." Nor are these errors indulged in
singly by any means. At verse 22, Ji^ first hand unites with C
first hand and two versions in omitting " straightway " (verse
27) ; with D, T'^, one cursive and four versions in omitting
"Jesus"; and (verse 35) with T° in omitting "that." In like
manner B unites (verse 22) with 33 and other cursives in omit-
ting the article before ttAoiov, "boat," by which reference is
made to verse 13 ; while, in verse 36, B first hand agrees with
MATTHEW.
105
Origen in omitting "him." In fact, this omittmg of one or
more words, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally,
is a very common thing among the oldest as well as the later
manuscripts, not singly always, but often two or more of them
conjointly. The omission therefore of "boisterous, in itself
considered, is not to be wondered at, even if the omission does
appear in the two oldest known manuscripts. And when we
consider, what is now generally conceded, that ^ and B are, in
part at least, the work of one and the same hand, that they are
transcripts of the same or nearly the same prototype and that
they were both written in Egypt, the country of the Memphitic
Version and of 33, '-^'^d other like cursives, it is not hard to see
how they should agree in an omission like this. It is very easy
to say " We can see no good reason for the omission unless th_e
word 4as absent from the original." But there need be no dif-
ficuUy concerning the matter. The case is a plain one: the
manuscripts agree because they are of a more or less common
parentage. These very witnesses and a large number of others
Lee in other omissions an.l transparently false readings. But
these omissions and false readings must not be adopted simply
because old but clearly vitiated manuscripts contain them.
" To see the wind " is a phrase we may reasonably conclude no
sane writer, at least no plain, ordinary speaker like Matthew,
would employ unless for some evidently special reason, --
which is not the case here. The word " boisterous is found
in B as corrected soon after it was written, as well as attested
by C, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, P, S, U, V, X, T, A, H, all the cur-
sives but one, and all the versions but the Memphitic It is
therefore but justice to the writer, when the overwhelming
testimony of witnesses favors such a conclusion, to infer that
some copyist has either inadvertently failed, or intentionally
declined, to reproduce his language. In this instance, we
believe the former to be the true reason and explanation of
the omission.
I06 THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
XIV. 34.
Rec. T. ijXeov tts TT)v yi\v rcvvT)<rap^T. — they came into the land of
Gennesaret.
Rev. T. riXBov iirl ti]V ytfv (ts rcvvi)o-ap^T. — they came to the land,
unto Gennesaret.
The latter reading as a whole is supported by X, B, D, T",
\ 33y and the Curetonian Syriac Version ; the former, by C,
E, F, G, K, L, M, P, S, U, V, X, r, n, nearly every cursive,
the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the Ethiopia
Version, and Origen again and again. A is defective here, but
supports the corresponding reading in Mark vi. 53. But what
are we to understand by the revised reading — "When they
had crossed over, they came to the land " ? Where else should
they come? Had they not "come to the land" by crossing
over ? And would the evangelist be likely to assume that his
readers would not know this, and that he must needs inform
them of the fact? Perhaps, however, the meaning is that, when
they had crossed over the lake, they went ashore, they landed.
But why should one need to be told this, unless they were not
in the habit of landing when they crossed the lake, or unless it
was to say that they went ashore at some particular spot ? But
the R. V. mentions no place in particular, no town or village.
" They came to the land, unto Gennesaret." The pertinence
of this last phrase is not altogether clear, unless we supply
" having come " from the foregoing verb. The propriety of
doing this, however, is more than questionable. The supplying
of such a supposed ellipsis cannot be justified unless the con-
text clearly calls for it. It is not in accordance with the evan-
gelist's usual plain and simple way of stating things. If he had
meant that when they crossed over they landed, having come
unto Gennesaret, he would undoubtedly have said so. Even
then, why should he have said they " landed," they " went
ashore " ? The reader would naturally infer that they did this.
But the evangelist neither says " they went ashore," nor adds
MATTHEW.
107
"having come unto Gennesaret." The Revisers' Greek, if
Anglicized, is simply "They came upon (or to) 'he land - o
Gennesaret," -an unmeaning --^mat-on of words plamjy
indicating an error in the -^^-S^"^^"'^;". /°;,':j;
need to go very far, or to waste much time, to find that error
"Gennesaret "'is a' word that appears - the New Testamen
only three times. Twice, that is, here and - Mf- 53^^ '
given as the name of a district; and once (Luke v. i), as the
name of a lake. In th.s last instance, there are no vanous
reTd ngs in connection with it, aside from (i) the omission
which X, a ninth or tenth century uncial, makes in leaving ou
The words "Of Gennesaret, and saw two boats standing by the
ake" and (2) the omission in the Sinaitic Codex, by its
original scribe, of the word X.>,., " lake,'' -a word not sup-
plied till the seventh century, - making the clause read. He
Ls standing near Gennesaret," as ' f" ^^^ "t"' b e in^ts
some village or place. Now this explains the trouble in this
verse, and in Mark vi. S3 as well, where the Revisers have sub-
stantially the same reading as here. The meaning of the criti-
cal reader or scribe who made this reading was not They
came to the land, unto Gennesaret," whatever that may be
thought to be, but "They came to the land at Gennesaret.
Any copyist or critic who, like the depraver of >< m Luke v i,
considered Gennesaret as the name of a village instead of a
district, on coming to the words J,X6o. .U r^ n^ ^"l^ZZ
would very naturally conclude that a preposition had been
omitted from his exemplar after y^v ; and so, in order to cor-
rect what he considered the error, insert «., " at," and change
the preposition preceding r^ y^v into ini, so as to make he
evangelist say " They came to the land at Gennesaret A few
succeeding scribes perpetuated the error, not knowing that there
was no such village or hamlet as Gennesaret by the lake-side,
1 This is the sense in which this preposition is employed in iv. 13;
xii. 41; Luke ix. 61; xi. 32; Acts viii. 40; xx. 14, 15. '6; etc.
io8
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
and that the word denoted a district, three or four miles in
length, bordering on the lake. This is all there is of it. The
genuine reading is given us in the Received Text, and the
proper rendering in the A. V. It speaks for itself, besides
being ably and sufficiently attested.
XT. 4.
Rec. T. 6 •ydp 0«6s ivtrcCXaro \iyav — For God commanded saying.
Rev. T. 6 y&p 0(is «tir€ — For God said.
The former of these readings is vouched for by X first hand,
and afterwards by the later seventh-century corrector, C, E,
F, G, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r, A, ®, n, nearly all the cursives,
one copy of the Old Latin and the Philoxenian Syriac Version ;
while the latter is attested by J^ as amended by the earlier sev-
enth-century corrector, B, D, T% i, 124, most copies of the Old
Latin Version, the Vulgate, Curetonian and Peshito Syriac, the
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Memphitic, Armenian, Ethi-
opic, and some later versions. The former certainly has more
of the appearance of being the genuine reading, — " God gave
commandment (i.e. by Moses), saying " ; while the latter looks
like an attempt at conformity to Mark vii. 10, Mmo-^s yap Cart.,
" For Moses said." Moreover, it makes the reports of the two
evangelists correspond more fully in thought than the revised
reading does ; which, by introducing a sameness in the verbs,
creates a discrepancy respecting the speakers. If any believe
fiTre to be the true reading, and to have been changed into
lvtT(.i\a.To \iyti>v because of the r^v ivroXriv, " the command-
ment," of the preceding verse, they should remember that, as
far as that is concerned, the same reason exists for a like
change in Mark. The former, which seems to be the true
reading, is followed by Tischendorf, while the latter is adopted
by Lachmann, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort as well as the
Revisers.
MATTHEW.
109
XV. 6.
Rec. T. Ka\ oi h-T Ti|i^<ni tov iraWpo airoO — and honor not his
father. , , ,, . t v
Rev.T. o4 |iii Ti(iVi(r€i riv irar^pa airoO — he shall not honor his
father.
The conjunction Kai is here improperly translated " and " in
the A. V. Its omission, however, is not called for, nor can it
be justified ; for though it is omitted by X. B, C, D, T", five
cursives, most copies of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac,
Memphitic, and ]':thiopic Versions, the omission is a false read-
ing. This conjunction would never have been inserted if not
genuine. It was omitted only for the purpose of freeing the
sentence from what seemed to be a superfluous word. So that
if we ask wka( the true text is, km must be retained. Its pres-
ence affects the meaning in no manner whatever. It is a Hebra-
ism, equivalent to our English conjunction " that." Sometimes
it should be translated ; at other times it need not be. An
example of its use occurs in chapter ix. 10, "And it came to
pass as he sat at meat in the house, t/iat, behold, many pubh-
cans' and sinners came " etc. (Here neither of the two versions
translates the word.) In the passage before us, as also m Mark
vii 12 it was evidently omitted because it was not understood.
It points back to the word X^V^re, " ye say." The verse may
be translated, in accordance with English idiom, as follows:
"But when any one saith to his father or his mother, 'That
with which thou mightest have been profited by me is devoted
to God; ye sav that he shall not honor his father" ; i.e. he is
under no obligation to do it. In Mark it is, "But if a man
saith to his father or his mother, ■ That wherewith thou m.ght-
est have been profited by me is Corban,' that is. Given to God,
ye sav that ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or
his mother." By the transposition which we have thus made
of "ye say" in the rendering, it will be seen that this expres-
sion together with Ka.' and the words following it constitutes the
apodosis of the sentence, while the words between Acy^" ^n^
no
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
Kai express the protasis or condition on which the " saying " is
based. The true reading, as found in the Received Text, is
sufficiently attested by E, F, G, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r, A, ®,
n, nearly all the cursives, at least three copies of the Old Latin
Version, the Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and Arme-
nian Versions ; while its omission in many other versions may
be the natural result of a correct though not slavish translation
from a Greek copy containing the conjunction.
The omission of this word in Mark vii. 12, which is supported
by substantially the same witnesses, having been originally made
for the same reason as here, is an equally false reading.
XV. 6.
If the marginal note, "Some ancient authorities add or his
mother," had read " Most ancient authorities " etc., it would
have stated the truth ; for these words are found in every
known document except X> B, D, and the Curetonian Syriac
Version. And their omission in these documents is obviously
due to their having been overlooked by some early copyist in
consequence of the similarity of ending {-rtpa airov) existing
between this and the preceding expression, " his father." The
previous words give e^ery reason to believe that Jesus included
the mother along with the father here as before. Having quoted
the command to honor father and mother, then having men-
tioned both father and mother twice after that, there is no
apparent reason why he should have omitted mentioning the
mother on this fourth and final reference to the command ; or
why Matthew should not have reported him as having included
the mother. The preponderance of evidence is in attestation
of the fact that he did include her. Moreover, Mark, in his
report of the Saviour's words (vii. 10-12), gives the full
expression in each of the four instances in which either word
is used. The probabilities thus presented in favor of the
genuineness of the phrase ought certainly to outweigh the
testimony of four witnesses that are far from being infallible,
MATTHEW.
Ill
especially when the omission is so easily accounted for, and
is one of a species of errors that abound throughout these
manuscripts.
XV. 14.
Rec. T. oSn-yoC elo-i -nM^Xol Ti»j>Xav — they be blind leaders of the
blind.
Rev. T. oSti^oC €l<ri rv^Xol. — they are blind guides.
The evidence in support of the omission here made, —
namely, S S^st hand and the later seventh-century correc-
tor, B, U, 209, the Curetonian Syriac, and two copies of the
Me'mphitic Version, — is insufficient to set aside the testimony
in favor of ru./.Xi.', " of the blind," which includes J< as amended
by the earlier seventh-century corrector, and all the other (six-
teen) uncials, all but one of the cursives (including, of course,
L, Z, I, and 33, which usually side with B in the Gospels), the
Old 'Latin, Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian,
and Ethiopic Versions, and all copies but two of the Memphitic,
together with Origen, Basil, Cyril, Cyprian, and other Fathers.
The word was probably omitted in consequence of the prox-
imity of TvM(k following immediately after, just as K omits
Tix^Aoi because of the presence of tv<I>\.^v, which took the
scribe's attention instead,— a circumstance by no means unu-
sual in copying. And as the sense was not perceptibly injured
by the omission, the absence of tv</.XSv passed for a while un-
noticed. The expression " a guide of the blind " seems, from
Rom. ii. 19, to have been a common form of speech among
the Jews. Hence Jesus would very naturally have used it.
But the double use of the word " blind " appears to have been
designed, so as to include not only the Pharisees themselves,
but the multitude (verse 10) who followed them. These were
blind also, though they claimed that they were not blmd.
(Compare John ix. t8, 34, 40, xii. 37-40.) This meamng
needs to be preserved by retaining tix^XSv.
112
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
XV. 15.
Rec. T. 4>pd<rov T||itv tiiv irapaPoXijv ravrtiv — Declare unto us this
parable.
Rev. T. 4>pdcrov r\[ilv i^v 'irapaPoX.^v — Declare unto us the parable.
The mere fact that the latter is the reading of X, B, Z, i, and
the Memphitic Version is by no means sufficient proof that
ravrriv, " this," is not a part of the original text. On the con-
trary, its omission seems to be owing to the fact that the
request sounds rather better without the word than with it,
while its absence is sanctioned by the reading in Mark vii. 1 7.
Peter's request for an explanation of the parable was not made
so soon after the parable was uttered as to demand the presence
of the word " this " ; hence there would be no temptation to a
copyist to introduce it. We must therefore consider it a part
of the true text. And we need have no misgivings in reference
to this, when we find it attested by C, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, S,
U, V, X, r, ®, n (A has avTrjv instead), nearly every cursive,
all the Syriac Versions, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Arme-
nian, and the Ethiopic, — manuscripts and versions from all
quarters of ancient Christendom.
XV. 39.
Rec. T. MaYSctXd — of Magdala.
Rev. T. Ma-yaSAv — of Magadan.
Another proper name about which the old manuscripts are
divided. ^, B, D, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, and
Persic Versions, most copies of the Old Latin Version, and the
Vulgate support the reading " Magadan " or " Magedan." C,
M, ^$, and eight or ten other cursives, one copy (^) of the Old
Latin, and the Memphitic Version read " Magdalan " ; while
E, F, G, H, K, L, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, most of the cursives,
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic
Versions read "Magdala." Mark (viii. 10), in his account of
this crossing of the lake, speaks of Jesus and his disciples as
coming " into the parts of Dalmanutha." Magdala was a place
MATTHEW.
113
on the western shore of the sea of Galilee, the modem El-
Mejdel, about three miles north of Tiberias ; and Dalmanutha
adjoined Magdala. But where Magadan was seems to be a
mystery It is obvious that MAHAAAA by a slight change
in the last four letters might very easily be converted m^p
MATAAAN, — a careless scribe mistaking the former for the
latter But, inasmuch as the latter form is found m some of
the older documents, it is concluded that the change was the
other way,- from Magadan to Magdala, from an unfamihar to
a familiar name. The conclusion is certainly natural, but not
necessarily just. The oldest extant manuscripts may preserve
a false text, while later codices, as already shown, hand down
to us the reading of a still older and more correct text from
manuscripts no longer in existence. It certainly does not of
necessity follow, because "Magadan" appears in the two old-
est extant Greek manuscripts instead of " Magdala," that it
must be accepted as the true reading. Such a principle would
make it necessary always to accept the readings of these doc-
uments when in agreement, however unreasonable, absurd, or
palpably false they might be.' A scribe who would tni^ntion-
1 To give the general reader some idea of the untrustworthiness of
many of the readings of proper names in our oldest codices, we append a
few illustrations taken at random. We have already noticed Matt. 1. 7, 8.
,0 where certain manuscripts read " Asaph " and " Amos " for " Asa and
" Amon," as well as viii. 28, where the impossible readmg " Gadarenes is
found in some of the oldest codices. See Notes on i. 7. 8, lO, and vm 28.
Matt i 5 presents another instance, where «, B, C firit hand, A, half a
dozen cursives, and the Memphitic, The1>aic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Ver-
sions, supported by Epiphanius, Jerome, and the Septuagint of the Alex-
andrine Codex, read ' l.fi^S, " Jobed," for " Obed." (The writer of cursive
33 mistaking the final A for A, gives -la-^^X. "Jobel.") And, since this
rca.ling is found in these old documents, it is adopted by Lachmann, Tre-
cellos Tischendorf, Westcott and Ilort, and others who seem to believe m
the impeccal,ility of the older manuscripts. While the Revisers did not
follow them in this, we see no reason why they should not have done so,
and read ' lu>MS here as well as ' A<ri<p in verses 7, 8. and A,x<is in verse 10.
114
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
ally change a name would, as a matter of course, change an
unfamihar if not unknown name to one that was more or less
familiar, and so might change "Magadan" to " Magdala."
But, if the change was made accidentally and unconsciously, as
greater changes than this often are made in transcribing, we see
no reason why the last four letters of "Magdala" in uncial
characters might not have been mistaken for "-adan." This we
believe to have been the case ; hence the new reading. There
is also this additional consideration : We know that Magdala
was a place on the western shore of the sea of Galilee. But no
one knows of any such place as Magadan. In view therefore
of the uncertainty and even questionableness concerning " Mag-
adan " as the true reading, and the ease with which it might
have unwittingly grown out of the other, we cannot possibly see
Luke iv. 44 affords another instance. Here a respectable number of old
codices read " of Judea " for " of Galilee," though the whole context shows
it to be a false reading. See Note on Luke iv. 44.
In John i. 42, as well as xxi. 15, 16, 17, a number of old witnesses tes-
tify to " Simon son of John " as the true reading instead of Simon son of
Jonas or Jonah. One of these precious witnesses, the Old Latin copy^-^,
calls Baral)bas in John xviii. 40, " Rabbi Barabas." See Note on John i. 42.
In Acts xviii. 7, two or three old witnesses say that " Titius Justus "
ought to be read instead of simply "Justus"; others, that "Titus Justus"
is the true name; while others still, that it is "Titus " only. See Note on
Acts xviii. 7.
In Acts xviii. 24, J^ first hand, 15, 1 80, and the Memphitic and Arme-
nian Versions read " Apelles " instead of " ApoUos " ; while D reads " Apol-
lonius." X first hand, and 180, have " Apelles " also in xix. i.
In Acts xxviii. I, the Vatican manuscript first hand is supported by other
false witnesses in reading " Melitene " in place of " Melite." See Note on
Acts xxviii. I.
The old codices give too frequent evidence that their scribes or some
of their predecessors were no more exempt from the application of the
general principle Errare humanum est than were those of later docu-
ments. We must therefore be excused if, in view of such evidences of the
want of their entire trustworthiness, we do not accept certain readings
simply because they appear in two or three or even half a dozen or more
of these old manuscripts and versions.
MATTHEW.
"5
what is to be gained by abandoning the old reading for this.
There is really nothing to assure us that " Magadan " is the
genuine reading.
xvi. 2, 3.
Most of the second and the whole of the third verse, says the
marginal note, " are omitted by some of the most ancient and
other important authorities." They are omitted by X- B' '^>
X, r, fifteen cursives, the Curetonian Syriac and Armenian Ver-
sions, and certain codices that were in the possession of Origen
and Jerome. In the notes of X and 39, the passage is referred
to and explained. Codices E and 606 have it marked with
asterisks, indicating that its authenticity was in dispute ; while
482 has it only at the foot of the page and not by the original
scribe. In Egypt, where the omission was probably made, the
phenomena here mentioned are unknown ; so that the words
might very easily have seemed incomprehensible to an ignorant
scribe, and altogether at variance with facts. To save the text,
therefore, from stating an apparent untruth, the passage was
omitted, and the omission continued by others. This false
reading, which may have been favored by the absence of the
words from Mark viii. 12, was evidently current in the second
century, which sufficiently accounts for its being in so many
documents of later date and different regions ; while the pres-
ence of the passage in C, D, the Peshito Syriac and Old Latin
Versions shows that it was accepted by others as genuine at
that" early date. A passage of thirty-one words like this, if not
genuine, would hardly have got into all the uncials but five, into
all but a dozen or fifteen cursives, and into all the versions but
two.
xvi. 8.
Rec. T. apTOvs ovk aiip<Te — ye have brought no bread.
Rev. T. opTOus OVK lx"« — ye have no bread.
The latter reading is found in X, B, D, three cursives (13,
124, 346) of Ferrar's group, most copies of the Old Latin
Ii6
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
Version, the Vulgate, the Armenian, the Ethiopia, and appar-
ently the Memphitic Version. The former is attested by C, E,
F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, all but three cursives,
one copy (/) of the Old Latin Version, all the Syriac Versions,
and by Origan, Eusebius, and Chrysostom among the Fathers.
It is true "ye have" corresponds with Mark's report (viii. 17)
of Jesus' language. But Mark also says "we have" no bread,
in the preceding verse ; so that, after that, he would naturally
represent Jesus as saying " ye have." But Matthew in verse 7,
instead of putting " we have " in the mouth of the disciples,
represents them as saying " we have taken " ; after which he
would naturally report Jesus as having said "ye took," rather
than " ye have." A careless copyist, without any intention of
making the language correspond with that in Mark, yet, at the
moment carrying in mind Mark's word rather than Matthew's,
would unconsciously write the former's instead of the latter's
word. The true reading here, beyond any reasonable doubt,
is "ye took," — A. V., "ye have brought," — which Tregelles,
Tischendorf, and Alford retain, while the Revisers side with
Lachmann and VVestcott and Hort.
xvi. 13.
Rec. T. TCva )ic XfYOwo-i ol avOpuiroi ctvai t6v viov tov avBpairov', —
Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am ?
Rev. T. T(va Xiyovo'i. ol av6pci>iroi clvai t6v viiv tov dv6puirou ', —
Who do men say that the Son of man is ?
The omission of the emphatic personal pronoun here is sup-
ported by J^, B, one copy (c) of the Old Latin Version, most
copies of the Vulgate, and of course the Anglo-Saxon and
Frankish Versions, the Memphitic, Jerusalem Syriac, Ethiopic,
Arabic, and Persic Versions, and Irenaeus, Origen, and Ambrose.
Its presence is strongly vouched for by C, D, E, F, G, H, K, 1-,
M, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, the entire body of the cursives, all but
one copy of the Old Latin Version, two copies of the Vulgate,
the Curetonian, Peshito, and Philoxenian Syriac, and Armenian
MATTHEW.
117
versions. Internal evidence also calls for it. Je-' q-f^'-
was not "Who do men say that the Son of man is? but
' u ^ T or«?" This is evident from both
"Who do men say that I am? I Ins ^^ ev'^^ , ,
Mark's and Luke's report of his words. (Mark vm. 27 , Luke
r 8 ) It is evident also from the question as ^eated m
ve"rse 5. If the omission of "me" presented Jesus real
^suol we should expect to find, and would "nquestionab
Ld, in verse 15. " Who say ye that heis?"no VVho say ye
that I am? " with the " ye " as emphatic as it is. The change
fLm a king a question concerning the Son of man as such to
sk"g one concerning himself as represented by the pronoun
«m •' is unnatural, and under the circumstances altogethe
improbable. Besides, the phrasing of the fifteenth verse shows
ZL expression "the Son of man " in verse r 3,. only a
subordinate term, as does its position h";.^*?" "-;;^^ J*^:!, ^
subiect of the infinitive, the word upon which the stress falls as
he ubject of inquiry, needs to occupy a more emphatic posi-
Ln and that is where ,i stands, near the begmmng of the
nues ion The presence of the pronoun where it is, evidently
creat d a difficulty in the mind of some early scribe or reader.
The:ordsappearednaturallytomean,"Whomdomen
L to be? the Son of man?" Inasmuch, however, as no such
modifying words follow in the reply of the disc.ples as N..
T/ ome say " etc., so as to indicate this to be the true mean-
i " and as "me "seemed misplaced, and too far removed
"om the phrase "the Son of man" for the latter to be in
pposition with it, to obviate all difficulty and fix the meaning
f possible the pronoun was omitted. It is one of those
LTgTot's not'uncommon in the Vatican and a few other
manuscripts. ^. ^^
The reading "Jesus Christ," which the note says some ancient
autho n s read instead of " Jesus," - " From that time began
;L C/../to shew unto his ^^-P^" '' f <^7- 1^^.^^,',
only a mechanical insertion of Xp^.ros after lr,.ov. from the
ii8
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
line above. It is found only in J< first hand, B first hand, and
the Memphitic Version. In both these Greek Codices it was
early detected and corrected as an erroneous reading.
zvii. 4.
Rec. T. ft 6^(1$, iroi^o-ufuv — If thou wilt, let us make.
Rev. T. (I e^Xfif, iroiy)(r<i> — if thou wilt, I will make.
The only witnesses in support of the latter reading are X. B,
C first hand, and two copies {b,ff^) of the Old Latin Version.
It is accepted as the true reading by certain textual critics be-
cause it differs from the reading in Mark (ix. 5) and Luke (ix.
33). But, if Mark and Luke have reported Peter correctly, —
and there is no room for questioning this, — then we have good
ground to believe that these five ancient witnesses misrepresent
Matthew ; for they make him give a different statement from
that presented by the other two evangelists. These represent
Peter as speaking for his companions as well as himself. But
the Revisers' reading makes Matthew represent him as ignoring
them altogether, and proposing to make the tabernacles him-
self. It is easy to see the source of this reading. Mark and
Luke do not use the expression " If thou wilt." But some
fastidious reader of Matthew, away back in the early centuries,
not relishing the phraseology " If thou wilt, we would make,"
i.e. let us make, etc., evidently thought to improve it by chang-
ing it to " If thou wilt, I will make." This was effected by omit-
ting the last three letters of TrotrJo-M/iev, which may have been
taken for the particle /tcV, " indeed," and dropped as superfluous
or improperly inserted. If the clause originally read " If thou
wilt, I will make " etc., there would have been no temptation
to change it to " If thou wilt, let us make," — even though Mark
and Luke have the subjunctive ; for the clause " If thou wilt "
would naturally deter one from making the change.
MATTHEW,
119
xvii. II-
Rec T. •HXC«.lv!px.Tav.p.TOv_EUastru,yshaUfirstcome.
Rev T. -HXtas ^^v ipx.rac - Elijah indeed cometh.
The omission of "first" is supported by ><. B'^,^v^
, <.^r.ip« nf the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate,
b, C, E, r, G, H, K L M U V Z, r A D,^^^ ,^^^ ^^^
nuestion ust asked by the disciples yy>y ■'
*!"" ■' fi„t?" the word is emphatic. What-
U to be the word in which the point of their inquiry lay. Now,
it no at a probable that, in replying to such a question
^es should hav'e overlooked or ignored the very sub.an^^^^^^^
K„t a statement made by another, in tne giving ^
r;°^iu'3srrerirx^^
oversight.
120
THE REVISJERS' GREEK TEXT.
XTll. 20.
Rec. T. AioL Tt)v Ltna-rlav vjiuv — Because of your unbelief.
Rev. T. Aid Ttiv oXi'yoirio-Ttav vfi&v — Because of your little faith.
The former reading is supported by C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L,
M, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Old Latin,
the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, and
one manuscript of the Armenian. The latter is the reading of
Ji^, B, I, 22, 33, and three representatives (13, 124, 346) of 4>,
the fourth (69) being defective here, and the Curetonian Syriac,
Memphitic, Thebaic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions. Both
readings were evidently current during the second century.
But it does not seem difficult to decide between them. The
latter is a word Jesus is nowhere else recorded as having used.
On one occasion, he applied the adjective oA.iyo7rto-ros, " of little
faith," to Peter, and on three other occasions to the disciples
collectively. On this occasion, however, he went further ; he
pronounced them (verse 17) a faithless generation, an unbe-
lieving company; not that he charged them absolutely with
having no faith in him, but with not having the faith necessary
to effect the cure of the lunatic. To this, the three synoptic
Gospels testify. After having charged his disciples in verse 1 7
with being faithless or unbelieving, it was but natural that Jesus
should give unbelief, want of faith, incredulity, as the reason of
their not being able to effect the cure. But this expression
probably disturbed the tender sensibilities of some early
Christian, who misunderstood the word, and took it to mean
absolute want of faith in God ; and he naturally desired to
soften it down by substituting the milder word oXtyoirio-Tta,
" little faith." This he could very easily do, as Jesus had already
three or four times called his disciples persons of little faith.
Jesus, however, did not hesitate after his resurrection to upbraid
his disciples with unbelief or want of faith (Mark xvi. 14) as
well as hardness of heart ; and we see no reason why he should
not have done the same on this occasion, especially after having
MATTHEW.
I2X
associated them with "an unbelieving and perverse generation."
He was evidently deeply moved by their perversity and want of
faith ; hence his use of this word. Under the circumstances,
the other word is tame, and altogether unsuitable.
This verse is omitted on the testimony of X first hand, B,
33, two copies ((f, ff') of the Old Latin Version, the Curetonian
and Jerusalem Syriac, the Thebaic, one copy of the Memphi-
tic Version, and the Roman Ethiopic. It is found in J^ as
amended by the sixth-century corrector, C, D, E, F, G, H, K,
L, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, the whole body of the cursives with
but one exception, all but two copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian,
and most copies of the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions, as
well as vouched for by more than a dozen of the Fathers from
Clement of Rome down, including Tertullian and Origen.
Some of this testimony shows the verse to have been consid-
ered genuine in several quarters as early as the second cen-
tury. The words were undoubtedly spoken by Christ on this
occasion, as Mark ix. 29 clearly proves; and certainly the
preponderance of testimony goes to show that Matthew also
reported him as having spoken them. The only variation in
the manuscripts that give the verse, is in the Sinaitic Codex as
corrected, which has cV^oAAtTat, "is cast out," and several
cursives that have i^epxtrai, " goes out," in place of iK-jroptverai,
" goes out." These, however, afford no argument against the
genuineness of the passage, for such variations are everywhere
to be found in connection with readings of unquestionable
genuineness. If, as some suppose, the verse was introduced
from Mark, there would hardly be so much difference in the
phraseology as there is between the two. Each passage,
while expressing the thought of the other, is stated in terms
that indicate an independence and want of collusion on the
part of the reporters. How then did the verse come to be
122
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
omitted, if genuine? There is, in the statement itself, room
for question and perplexity to readers of a certain class ; and
this might easily have led to its rejection, just as other readings
have been rejected on account of their obscurity or offensive-
ness. A person holding that, in order to a cure, faith was
necessary only on the part of the healer, would be likely to
reason thus : " The verb goeih out seems to imply that prayer
and fasting are required of the sick ; but it is incredible that
Jesus should have taught such a doctrine respecting persons
in this condition." Consequently, as the simplest mode of
overcoming the difficulty, the passage is dropped ; while others,
like the sixth-century corrector of the Sinaitic Codex, substitute
" is cast out " for " goes out," as if called for by verse 19, while
seeming to clear up the passage and determine its meaning.
The omission, however, having once been made and at a very
early day, retained its hold for a while, but only within a com-
paratively limited territory.
Against the word " abode " — " While they abode in Galilee,"
— stands the marginal note, " Some ancient authorities read were
gathering themselves together." This, or rather a-v<TTp(.^ofi.ivii>v,
is the peculiar reading of Ji^, B, and the cursive i, — a reading
which is absolutely nonsensical, unless we look at it through the
Latin conversantibus, — the word by which avaar p((f>oiJLivwv is
properly represented in the Vulgate and several copies of the
Old Latin Version, — meaning "turning about "in a place;
that is, being present, dweUing, or abiding. This rather indi-
cates that (Tva-Tpt<f>ofiiv<ov was substituted for ava<TTf<}>ofi.€vo'v
by some old scribe, who, knowing more of Latin than he did
of Greek, supposed that the latter meant simply " returned,"
or rather, could not mean " abode," and that the former was
the proper word to represent this idea. The reading is palpably
false, and unworthy of notice ; yet Lachmann, Tregelles in his
MATTHEW.
123
text, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, in their reverence
for the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices, adopt it !
XVIU. II.
This verse is omitted by only three uncials, — X, B, L first
hand, — three cursives, two copies {e, f) of the Old Latin,
the Thebaic, most copies of the Memphitic, the Jerusalem
Syriac, and one copy of the Ethiopic Version, apparently on
account of its supposed want of appropriateness. This is the
more a])parent when we consider that, of those versions that
retain the verse, two copies of the Old Latin (a, n) change
"for" into "and," while one {b) omits the connective alto-
gether, and the Curetonian Syriac, with its customary freedom
of manner in translating, in order to connect the verse with the
clause " I say unto you," in verse 10, reads "And that the Son
of man came " etc. No good reason can be assigned for the
insertion of the passage if it is not genuine ; for it is incredible
that any reader or copyist would think of assigning it as a
second reason why Christians should not be despised. The
omission is evidently a part of the work of that critical hand
which displays itself here and there in certain manuscripts,
pruning and lopping off what appeared unsuitable, superfluous,
unmeaning, or of questionable propriety.
xviii. 14.
The marginal reading "my Father" in place of "your
Father " has the support of B, F, H, I, V, about twenty-five
cursives, the Egyptian versions, the Philoxenian Syriac, Arme-
nian, and Ethiopic Versions. But it is evidently an alteration,
intended to make the reading correspond with that in verse 10.
If " my " were the original reading, there would be no apparent
reason for changing it.
124
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
xvui. 15.
" Some ancient authorities omit against thee" says the mar-
ginal note ; that is, in the clause, " If thy brother sin against
thee." These "authorities" are ^, B, three cursives, the
Thebaic Version, and Origen, Cyril, and Basil. This omis-
sion, however, is not because the words are not genuine or
were introduced from verse 21, as might be supposed; but
because some early critical reader, perhaps even before Origen's
day, thought it better to generalize the statement, so as to
obviate the objection that may have been raised against a per-
son's employing this text in justification of his pursuing the
course here prescribed, when the offence was not, strictly speak-
ing, against himself. It may be a duty incumbent on Christians
generally to take an erring brother, whatever may be his offence,
and seek to reclaim him. But it is not the duty that Christ is
recorded as having taught his disciples on this occasion. The
very language of the context seems conclusive on this point.
In the first place, if the reference of Jesus had been to sinful
conduct in general, he would hardly have used the unmodified
word d/uipTri<Tr], " should sin," but rather irXavrjOrj, " should err,"
especially after having used this word just before. Nothing
would have been more natural than to have turned from the
primary use of this word in verses 12, 13, to an employment of
it in its secondary sense in this verse. The fact that Jesus did
not do this, goes far to show that he was not here speaking with
reference to sins generally. Again, the expressions " go, shew
him his fault," " if he hear thee, tAott hast gained" " let him be
unto thee as a heathen," etc., indicate that they relate to a
personal offence. And finally, the conclusion seems unavoida-
ble that it was simply because Jesus had been speaking of
unlirotherly treatment from others, that, as soon as he had
finislied sjieaking, I'eter was led to ask, " Lord, how oft shall
my brother" — not merely sin, but — "sin against me, and I
forgive him?" The words "against me," of course, are not
MATTHEW.
125
emphatic ; but they show that Peter, and unquestionably the
other disciples too, understood Jesus as speaking of offences
against themselves personally and individually. This view is
also confirmed by external evidence, which greatly prepon-
derates in support of this reading, — consisting of sixteen
uncials, all but three cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, and
Memphitic Versions, the Peshito, Curetonian, and Philoxenian
Syriac Versions, and the Ethiopic, Armenian, and other ver-
sions, as well as Basil again and again, Chrysostom, Lucifer,
and Hilary.
xviii. 28.
Rec. T. 'Airo'8os (loi 8 xi o<|>cCX(i$ — Pay me that thou owest.
Rev. T. 'Airo'Sos et ti o<|>cCXcis — Pay what thou owest.
The readings o rt and « ti both have the appearance of
being the results of an early clerical error for /iot n, which by
the accidental omission of /x became OITI, and afterwards
GUI in the unconditional sense of o,Tt, "whatever," for which
there is apparent but doubtful precedent among classic authors,
but none in the New Testament, unless it be in i Tim. i. 10,
where, however, the Revisers do not consider it as thus used.
This reading seems to have been converted still later into o,ti,
while ju,oi was retained and transmitted from earlier manuscripts.
As Meyer says, " where ei n, like siquid, is used in the sense
of quicquid (or whatever), tl always has a conditional force."
This is its New-Testament use, being always in a conditional
clause, as in Luke xix. 8, John xiv. 14, Acts xix. 39, xxv. 5, and
elsewhere. But this use of the expression would, of course,
be out of place here. Notwithstanding the preponderance
of manuscript evidence in support of the Revisers' reading,
which, properly translated into English, is, " Pay, if thou owest
anything," we should retain the other, which commends itself
by its naturalness as the genuine reading, " Pay me what thou
owest."
126
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
XIX. 3.
Rec. T. El S|e(mv &v6p(&ir({> airoXvcrai tt|v 'yvvatKa airov — Is it
lawful for a man to put away his wife?
Uev. T. El EJfOTiv diroXv<rat ttiv 'yvvaiKa avrofi — Is it lawful for
a vian to put away his wife?
The presence of dv9pd>Ti(f, "for a man," omitted by the
Revisers from their Text, is called for by the article and pro-
noun in connection with yvmiKa, " wife," and is strongly attested
as genuine by X ^s amended by its earlier seventh-century
corrector, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, A, n, all but three
or four cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all the Syriac, both
Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions, as well as
Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Damascene, Hilary,
and others ; — testimony which covers all the centuries as far
back as the middle or early part of the second century. Its
presence is also favored by Mark's report (x. 2), in which
dvSpi, " for a man," appears instead ; though this, by some,
would be most unjustly taken as a reason why its presence
should not be considered genuine. The only ground for omit-
ting the word is the fact that it is wanting in four uncials (X
first hand, B, L, F), three cursives, and two copies of the
Slavonic Version, and that its absence in these documents is
unaccountable unless it is considered as the result of a careless
omission on the part of some early transcriber, — a thing which
is hardly supposable of the copyists of our oldest known manu-
scripts, though the most careful transcribers of the nineteenth
century will do such things sometimes ! It may not be imper-
tinent to ask why its English equivalent should after all have
been forced into the R. V., if it was necessary to omit the
word from the corrected Greek Text in order to prepare the
way for a proper revision of the A. V.
MATTHEW.
127
six. g.
Here, as the marginal note prepares the reader for believing,
a few ancient documents, namely, B, N, two cursives, one or
two copies of the Old Latin, and the Memphitic Version read.
Whosoever shall put away his wife, " saving for the cause of
fornication, 7naketh her afi adultress" instead of " except for
fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery."
This reading is also supported by Origen and one or two
Latin Fathers. Though an ancient reading, it seems to have
been introduced from chapter v. 32. In the latter part of the
verse, a 7na?i is pronounced to be guilty of adultery in marry-
ing a woman who may have been put away without cause.
And this change seems to have been made in order to show
when a woman is guilty of the same offence. But the reading
has no claim to acceptance. The last clause of the verse, as
the second marginal note states, is omitted by some copies.
But this was undoubtedly due to its being overlooked in copy-
ing because of its being a short clause ending with the same
word as the clause just preceding. It is strongly attested as
a genuine reading, and should be retained, as it is by Lach-
mann and Tregelles, though rejected by Tischendorf, and
relegated to the margin as a questionable reading by Westcott
and Hort.
Rec. T. 01 |i,a6T]Tal avrofi — His disciples.
Rev. T. 01 )ta6i^Tal — The disciples.
The omission of " his," which occurs so often in the R. V.
in connection with "disciples," is here made on what seems
to be rather slight evidence, — the testimony of ^, B, two
cursives, three copies of the Old Latin Version, and one copy
of the Thebaic, the usual ally of the Sinaitic and Vatican manu-
scripts in their peculiar readings. Some may consider this to
be preponderating evidence in favor of the omission ; but to
others it looks like placing undue confidence in the simple
128
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
attestation of two witnesses whose united testimony in many
other places is itnown to be false. In this instance, it is
opposed to the unbroken testimony of almost all the other
witnesses in the case, some of whom are quite as trustworthy,
and the voice of whose testimony reaches us from a much
more remote antiquity. The omission, however, makes no
difference whatever in the meaning; and the simple fact of
its affording a shorter reading without altering the sense is
enough to account for the preference given to it by these
more concise oracles.
xix. i6, 17.
Against these verses are two marginal notes, each beginning
with " Some ancient authorities read," and ending with " See
Mark x. 17, 18; Luke xviii. 18, 19." The readings included
in these notes are the familiar words " Good Master," in the
first; and, in the other, "Why callest thou me good? None
is good save one, even God," — which have been set aside in
favor of the readings, " Master," and " Why askest thou me
concerning what is good ? One there is who is good." But
why not state facts? Instead of saying "Some," why do not
the notes say " Mos/ ancient authorities read," etc. ? for it is
the new readings that are supported respectively by "seme
ancient authorities," while the readings of the Received Text
are attested by witnesses outnumbering those "authorities"
many times over. The presence of " Good " in connection
with " Master " is certified to by C, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U,
V, r. A, nearly all the cursives, even 2^, and 69, which usually
side with B, several copies of the Old Latin Version, the
Vulgate, all the Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, Thebaic,
Armenian, and Arabic Versions, and Justin Martyr, Basil, Chrys-
ostom, Cyril, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others among the
Fathers, — some of which testimony reaches back nearly to the
first century. The only witnesses that omit the word " Good "
here are the four uncials X> ^> D, L, three cursives, one lec-
MATTHEW.
129
tionary, three copies of the Old Latin, the Ethiopic Version,
Origen, and Hilary. — In the other verse, the common reading
is supported by C, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r (this last,
however, together with the Old Latin copies g^, h, m, omits the
words, "Why callest thou me good?"). A, nearly all the cur-
sives including 33, 69, five copies (/, g^, h, m, q,) of the Old
Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, Ethio-
pic, and Arabic Versions, and Justin Martyr. Irenaeus, Chrys-
ostom, Hilary, and others support the reading, " Why callest
thou me good?" and Eusebius vouches for the words, "There
is none good but one, that is, God." The witnesses that sup-
port the Revisers' reading in this verse are Ji^, B, D (this last
omitting the article before both ayaOoiv and dya^os, while the
cursive i omits it before the latter only) , L, only three cursives
(i, 22, 604,), nine copies {a, b, c, e, ff^-^-, g^, h, /,) of the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, and
Armenian Versions, and Origen. The Memphitic Version has
only the first part of this reading ; while the Old Latin copies
b, c, ff^- ''■, /, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac Version add
o ©£os, "God," to the last part. The cursive 251 reads verse
17 just as the Received Text does, then goes on in verse 18
thus : " He saith unto him, Which ? But Jesus said unto him,
Why askest thou me concerning a good thing? There is none
good except one, that is, God ; " etc. All this shows that, while
a large majority of the documents support the common read-
ing, there is much confusion especially among those that favor
the Revisers' reading in part. Thus, the Old Latin Version ff^,
the Curetonian Syriac, and one copy of the Memphitic Version
very inconsistently support the reading, " Why askest thou me
concerning what is good ? " after representing the young man
as having said, "Good Master, what shall I do?" etc. Other
documents also are similarly more or less inconsistent. — The
references at the end of the marginal notes imply that the
words set aside in those notes were introduced here from one
of the other Gospels. But the implication is unjust, and with-
130
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
out a shade of truth to support it. Mark and Luke report this
interview between the young ruler and Jesus in language substan-
tially the same. But, because they agree, no one who is at all
competent to express an opinion on the subject considers that
one of their accounts must have been copied from the other, or
at least been made to conform to that of the other. Such' an
insinuation would be as base as it would be groundless. Each is
considered an independent and faithful reporter of what was
actually said by the two parties ; and the reports agree simply
because they are those of faithful historians. Now Matthew's
report, as given in the Received Text, agrees substantially with
those of Mark and Luke, the slight differences between them
being only such verbal variations as we should expect to find in
reports given by different persons. These go to establish, rather
than undermine, the genuineness of the reading. Now the
readings introduced into these verses by the Revisers give a
meaning that differs strikingly, not to say essentially, from that
of the old readings attributed to Matthew. But this is not all ;
they set Matthew at once at variance with Mark and Luke. It
is not such a difference as that, for example, between Matt. iii.
17 and Mark i. 11, both of which state the same truth in a
slightly different form. All three of these evangelists are re-
porting what took place and was said during a certain inter-
view. Two of them represent the young man as addressing
Jesus and saying, " Good Master, what shall I do? " etc. And
so does the third, as most of the documents assure us, with the
slight addition of a single word — "Good Master, what good
(thing) shall I do?" — which is generally attested as genuine,
and which does not really alter the meaning. But a few wit-
nesses insist that the evangelist wrote, " Master, what good shall
I do ? " etc. This difference, in itself considered, is perhaps
nothing more than might be expected. It makes no essential
difference, so far, between this and the other evangelists. Mark
and Luke, however, continuing the record, make Jesus say,
'' Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that
MATTHEW.
I3JI
is, God." So, too, does Matthew, according to the testimony of
most witnesses in the case. But a few tell us that Jesus replied,
" Why askest thou me concerning that which is good ? One there
is who is good," — giving a meaning entirely different from that
presented by the other evangelists. Now the only conclusion
to which we can reasonably come in view of this is, that, if this
reading is genuine, either Matthew's words misrepresent Christ's
language, or Mark and Luke have falsely reported him ; for
Augustine's idea that Jesus may have used both expressions in
this connection is utterly inadmissible ; it is simply the dernier
ressort of a believer in a false reading. The truth in the case
is simply this : Matthew reported the language and circum-
stances of the interview substantially as the other evangelists
did. But some early reader of his Gospel, being offended with
Jesus' apparent disavowal of goodness in saying, " Why callest
thou me good? No one is good but God," wilfully set himself
to work to remove the objectionable language. And a stepping-
stone to this he found in the expression, " What good thing."
To make his way secure to verse 1 7, he strikes out the word
" good " in connection with " Master." This being removed,
there is no pertinence in such a reply from Jesus as " Why call-
est thou nie good ? " Then the next thing was to change this
question and the following clause as best he could, to eliminate
the offensive idea of the Son's inferiority. And the result was,
" Why askest thou me concerning the good ? The Good is one ; "
or, as D and codex i read, " One is good." This was after-
wards accepted by " some " who sympathized with the over-
sensitive critic, and so gained a limited currency as a genuine
reading. But it speaks for itself It shows that " Good Master"
was originally a part of Matthew's record. If it were not, how
should this reference to a good being, "one who is good," have
got into his text ? According to the Revisers' reading, nothing
but a good tliijig had been referred to before. The utter
inappositeness and incoherence of tJiis reading are enough to
condemn it, to say nothing of its irreconcilability with Jesus'
language as reported by Mark and Luke.
132
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Xiz. 20.
Rec. T. U vc6tt]t6s ju>u — from my youth up.
Rev. T. Omits.
The omission of these words is made on the authority of X
first hand, B, L, i, 22, four copies of the Old Latin, five of
the Vulgate, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Jerome, and other Latin Fathers.
Yet the preponderance of evidence is clearly against it. First,
there are the documents that vouch for the genuineness of the
readmg ; namely, X as amended by the later seventh-century
corrector, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, all but two
cursives mcluding of course 33, 69, eight copies of the Old
Latm, the Vulgate generally, all the Syriac Versions, the Mem-
phitic. Thebaic, Ethiopic, Origen, Hilary, and others. Then,
there is no doubt that the ruler used the expression since he is
reported as having done so by both Mark and Luke. And if
he used such a phrase in such a connection, it is not at all
probable that Matthew failed to give it, any more than they.
In fact, if any one of the three evangelists can be supposed
to have given his exact words rather than either of the other
two, that one would be Matthew, because of his having been
one of the twelve, and probably present on the occasion.
And finally, it is easy to see why a critical copyist should have
omitted the phrase. Matthew says, "The young man saith
unto him, All these things have I observed from my youth."
The idea that a young man -— vravto-Ko?, a you fA — should
speak of doing something /r^w his youth, seemed to this cen-
sorious scribe incongruous and perhaps ridiculous ; hence the
omission of the words from his transcript, and their probable
erasure from his exemplar. It is the work of the same prun-
ing hand that we have met elsewhere.
ziz. 29.
The words " or wife," which are placed in the margin with
a reference to Luke xviii. 29, are omitted by B, D, the single
MATTHEW.
133
cursive i, seven copies of the Old Latin, and the Jerusalem
Syriac Version, Origen, Irenaeus, Hilary, and Paulinus. They
are strongly attested, however, by X> C, E, F, G, H, K, L, M,
U, V, X, r, A, every cursive but one, seven copies of the Old
Latin, all the Syriac Versions except the Jerusalem, both
Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions, Clement of
Alexandria, Chrysostom, Cyril, Basil, and John Damascene.
Of course, the supposition is that they were introduced from
Luke ; but it is quite as easy, and possibly a little nearer to
the truth, to suppose that they were omitted either by over-
sight in the transcription of so long a list, or more probably
from similar motives as led to the omission of " or father,"
both here and in Mark x. 29, in D and kindred documents,
like the Curetonian Syriac, copies of the Old Latin Version,
Hilary, and Paulinus. The words should undoubtedly be
retained as part of the original text. — The other marginal
reading, " manifold " in place of " a hundredfold," is simply
a toning down of the apparent hyperbole contained in the
latter, the true reading. It is supported only by B, L, the
Thebaic, and Jerusalem Syriac Version, and given by Origen
several times, and Cyril once ; but it is a transparent gloss,
possibly from Luke, and deserves no serious consideration.
XX. 15.
Rec. T. TJ ovK eJto-Ti — Is it not lawful?
Rev. T. ouK fJto-Ti — Is it not lawful ?
The omission of rj, "eh?" the sign of a question, equiva-
lent to the Latin an, does not affect the meaning ; nor is the
omission demanded by the evidence. The particle is wanting
only in B, D, L, Z, the Curetonian Syriac and Armenian Ver-
sions. Its presence, however, is called for by J^, C, E, F, G,
H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, all the cursives, the Peshito
and Philoxenian Syriac, Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic, The-
baic, and Ethiopic Versions, and by a passage of Chrysostom.
134
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
With an intelligent reader of Greek there would have been no
motive for omitting it; but some ignorant transcriber, not
understanding the force of the particle, and seeing no pro-
priety in its use as a disjunctive conjunction (equivalent to
"or"), probably omitted it on this account. If originally
wanting, there is no good reason why it should have been
inserted and be found in so great a variety of documents.
zz. i6.
Rcc. T. iroWol •ydp ito-i kXijtoV, oXCyoi Si {k\(Kto( — for many be
called, hut few chosen.
Rev. T. Omits.
This clause is set aside as spurious because it is wanting in
S. 15, L, Z, 36, the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions, and one
copy of the Ethiopic, probably corrupted through contact with
the Thebaic. If there were strong internal evidence to support
this testimony it might be considered valid. But there is
nothing of the kind. The documentary evidence testifying to
the genuineness of these words is all but overwhelming, — that
of C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, all the
cursives but one (even i, ^;^, 69, and 157 forsaking B here),
the Old Latin, Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic, and all the Syriac
Versions, and Origen himself expressly and in two different
places. If it were not genuine, no one would have thought of
inserting it here. It certainly was not introduced from xxii.
14. There is nothing in the connection demanding its inser-
tion. On the contrary, to readers generally, its pertinence is
not as obvious as it might be ; it has rather the appearance of
being out of place. This is probably what led to its omission,
and why a few copies are without it ; at the same time it may
have been considered an interpolation from xxii. 14. But, when
considered closely, it is found to be exceedingly pertinent. Its
application and significance, however, which differ somewhat
from those of the same words in xxii. 14, are not such as would
naturally occur to a casual reader of the latter verse. It is
MATTHEW.
13s
truly sad to see the Saviour's teachings thus tampered with by
those who centuries ago failed to understand him, and then to
find their perversions adopted and placed before a confiding
public as genuine readings, under the supposition that a few
old documents cannot be united in error, while all others dif-
fering from them must be, no matter how ancient any of them
may be, or from how many widely separated regions their
united testimony may come. "By their //7//A," said the Sav-
iour, " shall ye know them " ; not by their ripening first, or by
their ripening last, necessarily.
xxi. 4.
Rec. T. TovTo 5t o\ov 7<-yov«v — All this was done.
Rev. T. toCto Sc -y^Yovev — Now this is come to pass.
The omission of oKov, " all," though it does not affect the
sense, is hardly justified. The word does not appear in ^, C
first hand, D, L, Z, most copies of the Old Latin, a few of the
Vulgate, the Prankish, the Curetonian Syriac, the Memphitic,
the Ethiopic, and Wheelocke's Persic Version, or in Origen,
Chrysostom, Hilary and other Latin Fathers. Elsewhere in
this connection Matthew employs this word. It was his usual
way of expressing himself, as aj^pears from i. 22, and xxvi. 56,
the only other places in which the expression tovto yc'yovei'
occurs. Still," just because the word appears in these two
places as genuine, and a few documents that are regarded
as trustworthy deny its genuineness here, most modem edi-
tors conclude that it is an interpolation, and reject it. This
may be just ; but it seems to us more like denying to the
evangelist the right to express himself in his own way, because
one of his early copyists appears to have considered the word
unnecessary, and a confessedly respectable number of others
h.ive been found who have given currency and continuance to
his emasculated reading. The same thing, no doubt, would
have occurred at i. 22 if the witnesses against oKov there had
been a litde more respectable, or a litde more numerous. But,
136
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
as the objectors to the use of the word there are only the
Curetonian Syriac (one of the most prominent false witnesses
in the verse before us), Irenaeus, and Epiphanius, of course no
attention is paid to them. But the same spirit and motive —
a desire and intention to cut down and improve the text
show themselves there as here. The reading of the Received
Text is certainly well supported, being attested by B, C third
hand, E, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, A, n, the whole body
of the cursives, two copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Pesh-
ito and Philoxenian Syriac, Thebaic, Armenian, and (Polyglot)
Persic Version, and Appian. In view of all the evidence,
external and internal, we cannot but consider the word a part
of the original text.
zzi. 6.
Rec. T. KaSus irpoo-^To^cv airol% o 'It)o-ovs — as Jesus commanded
them.
Rev. T. Ka6i>i a-uvlra^v airois 6 "Itio-oBs — even as Jesus appointed
them.
The reading of the Received Text is attested as the genuine
reading.by K, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, X, Z, T, A, n,
all but one cursive, Origen three times, and Eusebius twice ;
that of the Revised Text by B, C, D, one cursive {^s), and
one lectionary or service-book of the Greek church, written by
one Peter, a monk, a.d. 1056. The two words mean substan-
tially the same. Each is used elsewhere by Matthew twice ;
the former in i. 24, viii. 4 ; and the latter in xxvi. 19 and
xxvii. 10. The reader can judge for himself in favor of which
the documentary evidence preponderates, and how important
it was to make the change so as to prepare the way for a
proper revision of the English text. Some will wonder why
the first (irdvio, " on," in verse 7, was not also changed to cV,
"upon," which is much more strongly attested there than
avviTo^ev is here. The change seems to be quite as necessary.
MATTHEW.
137
" Many ancient authorities," says the marginal note, " omit
of God." The exact phrasing to 'upov rms 0£ou, "the temple
of God" is something unusual, nowhere else to be found in
the New Testament, though 6 vo.o<i rov Otov, " the sanctuary
of God," occurs several times. It is simply on this account,
and because the phrase " of God " was considered an imper-
tinence in connection with to upoV, that it was dropped, and
is wanting in ^, B, L, three cursives, one copy of the Old
Latin Version, the two Egyptian, the Armenian, Ethiopic, and
Anglo-Saxon Versions. That the phrase does not appear in
certain quotations by Origen, Methodius, Chrysostom, and
Hilary, is not to be wondered at. They would be Hable to
omit it, unless quoting very carefully. Yet Origen elsewhere
gives the whole expression, " the temple of God." If this
were not the tnie reading, it would hardly be possible for him
to have given it even once, or for it to have got into the text,
much less to have been so widely accepted as to be found in
C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, P, A, n, nearly all the
cursives, every copy but one of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the
Peshito, Curetonian, and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, Basil,
and Origen not less than four times.
XXI. 13.
Rec. T. v|utt 8c ourov iiroi^iorart irirfjXaiov XDo-rfiv — but ye have
matte it a den of thieves.
Rev. T. ii|icis 8i ovrov iroitiTt (ririiXaiov Xtqo-tcSv — but ye make
it a Jen of robbers.
This change from the past to the present is supported by ^,
B, L, 124, the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions, two passages
in Origen and one in Eusebius, — a body of witnesses largely
the same as that supporting the false reading in the preceding
verse, yet on the whole of less weight. This reading — " ye
are making " — is simply an attempted improvement on the
138
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
original. In charging the Jews with making the house of God
a resort for plunderers, Jesus meant to cover not merely their
present but their past profanation of the temple. Hence his
use of the aorist, " ye have made and are still making." And
so Mark (xi. 17) and Luke (xix. 46) represent him; though
critical hands have been at work on both these passages also,
trying to alter them. It is far less probable that Matthew
should have understood Jesus as speaking merely with refer-
ence to a present misappropriation of the temple, when the
other evangelists record him as having spoken with reference
to the past also, than that some one should have thought of
enlivening his language by throwing it into the present. That
the aorist should appear in all three of these evangelists is not
therefore to be accounted for on the supposition that it was
introduced into Matthew from one of the other two, but rather
because all three have reported Jesus' words as he uttered
them. If rav ©eol should be retained in the preceding verse,
much more should the aorist of the Received Text be retained
here ; for the testimony against this is even weaker than
against that.
xxi. 15.
Rec. T. Tols iraiSas Kpijowras — the children crying.
Rev. T. Toiis iratSas tous Kpojovras — the children that were crying.
The revised Greek implies that there were other children in
sight -or in the vicinity, but that only those that were crying
" Hosanna " etc. attracted the attention of the chief priests and
the scribes. It implies, moreover, that it was the children rather
than what they were doing that moved the chief priests and
scribes to indignation : " When the chief priests, and the scribes
saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children that were
crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the son of David,
they were moved with indignation." The employment of the
article here particularizes a certain number of children, — those
shouting in the temple, — and thus throws the emphasis upon
MATTHEW.
139
the word " children " as the word embodying the particular
idea referred to. This is the necessary result of the use of the
article to introduce a limiting participial clause. Thus, in i. 16,
we read, — " of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ ; "
that is, the one so called, — that particular Jesus. So again in
iv. 16, — "the people, those sitting in darkness" etc. And so
in every other instance. The article introducing the restrictive
clause of necessity brings into prominence, not the clause itself,
but the word to which that clause is attached. Or, applying
the principle to the case before us, the use of the article to
introduce the participial clause makes the presence of these
children, and not their crying " Hosanna," the cause of the
indignation of the chief priests and the scribes. If we hold to
the meaning of the words, this exegesis is unavoidable. But
we are informed in the very next verse that these priests and
scribes, in their indignation, said to Jesus, " Hearest thou
what these are saying ?" — showing clearly that not the pres-
ence of the children, but what they were saying was what
awakened indignation. In other words, the presence of the
article here makes Matthew's statements inconsistent with each
other. Either therefore the evangelist did not know how
to express himself, or else some careless or ignorant copyist
has misrepresented him by inserting tiie article. But nowhere
else in all his Gospel has Matthew given us false Greek like
this. The conclusion therefore is inevitable that the insertion
of the article is the work of some later hand. Its presence is
enoiigh to show that any manuscript that contains it is carelessly
written or has followed a carelessly written exemplar, and is
unworthy of implicit confidence. It is attested, however, by
J^, B, D, L, N, — these five uncials only. The reading of the
Received Text, the only genuine reading possible, is that of
C, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, V, ^, U, the entire body of the
cursives, Origen, and Methodius.
I40
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
xxi. 44.
" Some ancient authorities," says the marginal note, " omit
verse 44." That is, it is omitted in D, 33, and five copies of
the Old Latin Version. Tischendorf rejects the verse appar-
ently because Origen, in commenting on the passage, makes
no mention of it, and Eusebius and Irenseus quote the pre-
ceding verses without quoting this ; but it does not necessarily
follow on this account that it was not in their copies of this
Gospel. That it was omitted at an early date is obvious.
And the omission being found only in these documents, the
natural conclusion is that it was generally and justly regarded
as improperly omitted, and should be so regarded still. It
could not have been introduced from Luke xx. 18. If it had
been, it would undoubtedly have been inserted where it natu-
rally belongs, — after the words, " is become the head of the
corner," in verse 42, — where it also appears in Luke. It is
evident enough that the omission is due to its having been
considered out of place, and forming an unsuitable ending of
the parable ; and the omitter, not having Luke's Gospel to be
governed by, instead of inserting it in verse 42, dropped it
altogether. That Jesus uttered the words in this connection,
or that Matthew reported him as having done so, there is no
reasonable ground for doubting.
zzi. 46.
Rec. T. 09 irpo<|)'^Tijv ovTov ctxov — they took him for a prophet.
Rev. T. «ls ■irpo<J)'f|TT]v avT&v «lx<»' — they took him for a prophet.
A slight difference in the reading without any difference in
the meaning. Each reading is fairly well attested : — the
former by C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, A, n, nearly
all the cursives, as also by the rendering of the Old Latin and
Vulgate Versions, and Origen twice ; the latter by X. B, L,
two cursives, and Origen in four other places. But, as Matthew
elsewhere (verse 26, and xiv. 5) writes w, "as," in connection
MATTHEW.
141
with this verb used in this sense, it is less likely that he should
have adopted the Hebraism ex"'' "i^toi' th irpo<f>-qTrjv here than
that some early copyist familiar with the language of the
Septuagint should have mistaken UJC for GIC. It is as if a
person, accustomed to saying, " They held {i.e. regarded) him
as a prophet," should so far depart from his usual mode of
speaking as to say, " They held him /or a prophet." The
question, however, is one of no importance as far as the evan-
gelist's meaning or the revision of the A. V. is concerned.
Rec. T. ilmv avrots iv irapapoXaCs — he spake unto them by para-
bles.
Rev. T. flircv iv irapaPoXats avrots — he spake in parables unto
them.
Another uncalled-for change appears in the text without any
change of meaning. The former reading is supported by
C, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, A, n, all but five cursives, all
but one copy of the Old Latin Version, and by the Curetonian
and Philoxenian Syriac, and Armenian Versions ; the latter by
^, B, D, L, I, 33, 69, 124, 209, one copy of the Old Latin,
the Vulgate, and Origen. Origen, however, though comment-
ing on the verse, may not have quoted the words carefully in
their order, any more than Chrysostom quoted them correctly
from his copy in giving them without avToi?, " unto them," as
the Peshito Syriac and Ethiopic Versions also read. After all,
are we any surer that the order adopted in the Revised Text is
genuine than we are that no one of the readings to which these
same witnesses bear testimony in verse 5 is the true reading
there? In verse i their testimony is accepted, and the
common reading set aside ; in verse 5 none of them are
beheved, and the old reading stands. That is to say, instead
of 6 jxev, " one," and 6 Se, " another," B, L, i, 22, 69, 124, 238,
346, and one or two other cursives, and Origen twice, read os
(tcV and oj Sc ; while ^ and C first hand read 6 /xo' and os 8e' ;
142
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
and D, followed by several copies of the Old Latin Version;
reads ol ,xiv, "some," and oi 8e, "others." The cursive 33,
which is partly defective here, reads /icV and Ss St. Why these
" authorities," which are so greatly divided among themselves
in verse 5, should be any more trustworthy in verse i, is not
altogether clear. One thing, however, is perfectly clear : the
supporters of the reading of the Received Text in verse 5 are
as a whole the supporters of the reading of that same Text in
verse i. If their testimony is trustworthy in verse 5, why
should it not be in the other?
xxii. 13.
Rec. T. A^iravTcs airoC irdSas Ka\. x<^pas> apart avr&v Kal {K^dXcrc
«U — Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast hitn into.
Rev. T. A^o-avTCS auroS iroSas Kal x<^pas iKpdXtre aurov els — Bind
him hand and foot, and cast him out into.
In D, seven copies of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac
Version, Irenaeus, Lucifer, and other Fathers, Sijo-arrcs avrov
TToSa? Ktti ^eipas is changed to apart avrov noBCiv Kal )(tipmv Kal,
" Take him up by his feet and hands and " cast him out. This
is evidently a very early modification of the text. But, on
restoring the reading Sjjo-avrcs avrov TrdSas Kal x^lpai;, the words
apart avrov Kal were dropped, probably from being considered
unnecessary, and hence are wanting in J^, B, L, four cursives,
the Peshito Syriac, three copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
the two Egyptian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, Origan,
Eusebius, Chrysostom, Augustine, and others. These are the
three words that the Revisers have set aside ; while, to make
the omission good, avrov is inserted after fKJiaXtrt. If the
reading thus presented had been the original reading, there
would have been no temptation to insert apart avrov koI here
any more than in viii. 12, or xxv. 30. The very fact, however,
that the first part of this passage was tampered with by chang-
ing it to apart, etc., shows that this word is genuine as it appears
in the Received Text, — a reading which, besides being strongly
MATTHEW.
M3
supported by internal evidence, is well attested by C, E, F, G,
H, K, M, S, U, V, X, A, n, most of the cursives, two copies of
the Old Latin, the Philoxenian Syriac Version, Ambrosiaster,
Victor of Tunis, and others.
xxu. 23.
Rec. T. 2a88ovKaioi 01 M-yovrts — the Sadducees, which say.
Rev. T. SaSSouKaioi X^^ovres — Sadducees, which say.
The American Revisers recognized the fact that the omis-
sion of the article introduces a false reading, — a reading that
cannot be followed without misrepresenting the evangelist.
The only rendering for the participle unaccompanied by the
article, as the marginal note says, is " saying," as it is rendered
at the beginning of the next verse. But, because J^, B, D, M,
S, Z, 11 first hand, about fifty cursives, the Ethiopic Version,
Origen, Methodius, and Epiphanius have the passage without
the article, the Canterbury Revisers considered this the genuine
reading. Yet they virtually rejected it when they came to
translate. It shows for itself that it is a false reading, and will
not bear a faithful rendering. The Peshito and Curetonian
Syriac Versions, however, follow it, and render it faithfully :
" Sadducees came ami said . . . and questioned him," etc.
It it easy to say with some that the article was introduced
from Luke xx. 27, or with others that it was inserted to remove
a textual difficulty. This is virtually saying that Matthew did
not know how to express himself in Greek quite as well as
some of his copyists. But such conjectures are simply the
subterfuges of critics who seem to believe in the unimpeach-
able character of certain old manuscripts. The absence of
the article is readily accounted for as other similar omissions
are. In the original text it was preceded, as it now is in the
Received Text, by another m, — the last syllable of the Greek
for " Sadducees," — and some very eady but careless transcriber
evidently mistook this 0101 for a doubling of the article, and
144
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
omitted the latter half. Such errors are not uncommon in the
okl manuscripts. Thus, in Luke xxiii. 29, X omits oJ after
fiaKdpiai; the scribe of B omits, in Mark iv. 16, ol after aTreip6-
lx.tvoi, and in Mark xii. 36, cV after Cwtv ; D, M first hand, in
Matt. xiii. 16, omit oi after imKapioi; and D, K, M, S, U, V,
r, n, and a majority of the cursives, in Mark iii. 28, omit ai
after Kai, as may be seen in the Received Text. Such omis-
sions ought to convince an impartial critic that the error in the
reading here is not Matthew's, but an error of a scribe, even
though it was largely followed by others. The correct reading
is supported by ^ as amended by the earlier seventh-century
corrector, E, F, G, H, K, L, U, V, n second hand, most cur-
sives, the Old Latin and Vulgate, the two Egyptian, the Philox-
enian Syriac, and Armenian Versions.
zzii.
27.
Rec. T. air^Oavc xaV t| yvv^j — the woman died also.
Rev. T. dir{6av(v t| ywff — the woman died.
This language of the Sadducees is reported also by Mark
(xii. 22) and Luke (xx. 32), and both have Kai, "also." It is
hardly possible that a little word so significant and important
as to be given by two reporters should have been omitted by
the third. Its presence here is not only demanded by internal
evidence, but attested as genuine by D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S,
V, r, n second hand, nearly all the cursives, all but one copy
of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac, Memphitic, Thebaic, Armenian, Georgian, and other
versions, and by Chrysostom ; while the omission has the
support of only J^, B, L, U, A, II first hand, six cursives, one
copy of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, and Ethiopic
Versions. C is defective.
MATTHEW.
145
xxii. 30.
Rec. T. us &YYc\oi toO 0€oO Iv ovpavi^ — as the angels of God in
heaven.
Rev. T. <i$ a^YcXoi iv ovpavi^ — as angels in heaven.
The omitted words " of God," which the marginal note says
"many ancient authorities add," have every appearance of
being genuine. The phrase " angels in heaven " is not one
that could be misunderstood, or that would naturally tempt a
person to change it to " angels of God in heaven." It it nowhere
else treated in this way. On the contrary, the latter expression
might very readily seem to some to be overburdened ; and
this, together with the fact that the expression is nowhere else
to be found, is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the
apparently needless words " of God " were omitted in some
copies, rather than, for no apparent reason, added in others.
The omission is supported by B, D, two cursives, eight copies
of the Old Latin, one of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac,
Thebaic, and Armenian ^Versions, Origen, Ambrosiaster, and
others. The presence of ©eoi; (either with or without the
article) is vouched for by i<, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, r,
A, G**, n, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac, four copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Memphitic,
and Ethiopic Versions, as well as by Origen, and Methodius,
Epiphanius, and Chrysostom. Its rejection, in view of all
these considerations, seems unwarranted.
zzu. 32.
Rec. T. ovK EoTiv 6 ©tis Oeos vcKpflv — God is not the God of the
dead.
Rev. T. OVK fO-Tiv 6 0e6s vjKpfiv — God is not *4« God of the dead.
A literal rendering of the Revisers' Greek would be, " He
is not the God of the dead," just as in Mark xii. 27 ; though
in the latter verse the Revisers have rejected the Greek article.
The presence of the article before ©tds here does not make
146
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
it necessary to take this word as the subject instead of the
predicate after having dropped the other ©tds, any more than
in the former part of the verse, where it appears in the predi-
cate in similar circumstances three times, accompanied by the
article each time. Nor does the fact that neither Mark nor
Luke reports Jesus as having said, "God is not the God " etc.,
but that both have, " (He) is not the God," indicate that Mat-
thew must have reported Christ's words in the same way ; i.e.
without using ©tds twice. After giving Jesus' statement of
God's words to Moses, " I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," there is substantially
no difference among the three reporters, two of whom go on
to tell us that Christ added, " (He) is not the God of the
dead," while the third represents him as having said, " God is
not the God of the dead," — any more than there is any real
difference between Mark's saying ovk Icttiv o ©cos vtKpu>v and
Luke's ©EOS SI OVK €crTi vtKpmv because they do not follow the
same order. Christ may have used the word ©eds in this con-
nection only once, as Mark and Luke represent him to have
done ; or he may have used it twice, as Matthew (according
to the Received Text) reports him : in either case, his utter-
ance is correctly reported, with a meaningless verbal differ-
ence. Now the presence of the second ©tds in Matthew is
not easily accounted for if not genuine ; while its omission
has the appearance of being an attempt to conform the lan-
guage to that given by Mark. There certainly is no necessity
for its presence ; nor can any one be supposed to have intro-
duced it under the idea that it was necessary. The omission
is attested by ^, B, D, L, A, about ten cursives, the Old Latin,
Vulgate, two Egyptian, Peshito and Curetonian Syriac, Arabic
(in the Paris Polyglot), and Persic Versions, Origen, Eusebius,
Chrysostom, Irenseus, and Hilary. (The testimony of the
Fathers in a case like this is generally of but little weight. Li
quoting from memory, as they often did, they would be as
likely in such a connection as this to say " He is not " etc., as
MATTHEW.
147
to say " God is not.") The genuineness of the second ©ids
is sufficiently attested by E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, T, ©•>,
n, most of the cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac and Armenian
Versions, Origen, Chrysostom, the Apostolic Constitutions, and ■
a catena. C is still defective.
zxiii. 4.
The words " and grievous to be borne," as the marginal note
states, are omitted by a number of ancient documents. These
are J< (which also reads /xeyoAa 0apia, "great, heavy," as an
apparent substitute for "heavy and burdensome"), L, two
cursives, five copies of the Old Latin, the Peshito and Cureto-
nian Syriac, Memphitic, Arabic, and Persic (Polyglot) Versions,
and Irenc-eus, — witnesses that led Westcott and Hort to place
the words in the margin as doubtful, and Tischendorf to reject
them as spurious. The testimony in support of their genuineness
consists of B, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, T, A, ©^ n,
nearly all the cursives, seven copies of the Old Latin, the Vul-
gate, Thebaic, Armenian, Philoxenian Syriac, and Ethiopic
Versions, and Chrysostom and John Damascene. The fact
that Luke (xi. 46) reports Christ as employing the very
unusual word Sutr/Jaora/cra, "grievous to be borne" (though
he omits fiapm, " heavy "), is as good evidence as we could
well have that Christ really used it in this connection. It is but
just, therefore, to conclude that Matthew must have reported
him as having used it. But, from the very fact that Luke has
the word, some infer that since the manuscripts are divided, it
must have been introduced here from Luke. But the testimony
ill favor of its presence is too weighty to be set aside in this way.
The case is very different from that in Luke xi. 46, where the
testimony in favor of /Sapia, "heavy," (namely, C, X, a dozen
cursives, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac Version, and
Basil), is altogether insufficient to sustain the reading. The
true solution of the question is rather, that, since there is an
apparent identity of meaning between the two adjectives ^apca,
148
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
"heavy," and Sw^do-TaKTa, "burdensome," the latter with its
conjunction was dropped by some early critical reader or scribe
as superfluous ; hence its omission in so many documents.
The words, though similar in meaning, are by no means identi-
cal ; for an object may be heavy without being hard to carry.
The latter, rather than the former, contains the idea to which
Christ seems more especially to have referred, — the irksome-
ness and intolerable nature of the requirements of the Pharisees
and scribes. The word should be retained.
zxiii. 14.
This verse is omitted on the assumption that it was transferred
hither from Mark xii. 40 or Luke xx. 47, and accommodated
to this place. The fact that this language appears in those
Gospels, though in a slightly altered form, is proof that it was
actually spoken by Christ on this occasion. But the oldest
extant manuscripts are without them ; namely, X» B, D, L, Z,
six cursives, as well as several copies of the Old Latin, nine or
ten copies of the Vulgate, the Thebaic (according to Munter),
the Armenian, and certain codices of the Memphitic Version,
and Origen. The verse appears in E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V,
r. A, 0\ n, the great majority of the cursives, one copy of the
Old Latin, some codices of the Memphitic, the Peshito and
Philoxenian Syriac, Ethiopic, and other versions, and was also
known to Chrysostom and John Damascene. It may indeed
be a genuine part of Matthew's text, and yet have been over-
looked by a copyist on account of its beginning with the same
words as the verses following, — the writer's eye, after he had
copied the first five or six or seven words, on returning to his
exemplar, resting unconsciously on the next verse instead of
this. If it was thus omitted in the early centuries, the passage
would very naturally come down to us mutilated in a variety
of old documents, while the true text would be found only
in the more numerous and generally later transcripts of exem-
plars long since lost.
MATTHEW.
149
xxiii. 17.
Rec. T. o vais o d-yid^uv tov xpuao'v — the temple that sanctifieth
the gold.
Rev. T. 6 va6s 6 d-yido-as tov xp»«»"dv — the temple that hath sancti-
fied the gold.
The common reading is that of C, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S,
U, V, r, A, n, and all the cursives, supported by the Peshito
Syriac, Old Latin, Vulgate, and other versions ; while the Revis-
ers' is found only in ^, 15, I), Z, and if, the Latin version of D.
The former may seem at first view to be adopted from verse
19, where there is no rival reading. But, assuming that the
latter is the correct reading, it may be asked why Jesus should
have said, in the one instance, " the temple that sartctified the
gold," and in the other, " the altar that sanctifieth the gift " or
offering. The only apparent reason is, that he referred to the
time when the gold was placed in the temple, and that his
meaning is that the temple then sanctified the gold once for all,
while the altar sanctifies the offering that is laid upon it from
time to time. But it seems hardly possible that Jesus should
have made such a strange distinction. The gold of the temple
did not become sanctified in the act of being devoted to tem-
ple adornment and use as such, as the aorist participle implies.
It was sanctified simply by and during its connection with the
temple as something given up and dedicated to its use and
adorning. This fact would naturally lead Jesus to speak of the
temple as sanctifying, not as having sanctified, the gold ; just as
he aftenvard speaks of the altar as sanctifying, not as having
sanctified, the gift lying on it. The introduction of the aorist
here appears like the work of one who looked upon the gold of
the temple as sanctified for all time to come because of its hav-
ing once been brought into connection with the temple, — a
view that savors of superstition rather than reverence for what
is truly sacred. In view of this fact in connection with the
very limited external testimony in its favor, we cannot but
regard the Revisers' reading as a false one.
ISO THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
zxiii. 19.
Rec. T. ^«pol Kal rv^Ul _ Ye fools and blind.
Rev. T. rv^Xoi. — Ye blind.
There is one peculiarity in Jesus' use of words which may
enable us sometimes to distinguish the true from the false in
the documents that profess to give his language. He did not
study variety of expression. When he had occasion to repro-
duce a thought, it was almost invariably in the same words as
first given. Thus, if he had occasion more than once to say
"Ye have heard that it was said," he reiterated the thought in
the same words and form of words in the same order. Matt.
V- 21, 27, 23, 38, 43- "He that receiveth," in x. 40, 41, is
expressed four times in the same form, where another might
have said once or twice, " Whosoever " or " Every one that "
instead of " He that." So, too, " What went ye out to see ? "
in xi. 7, 8, 9 ; " And others fell " in xiii. 5, 7, 8 ; " And he that
was sown " in xiii. 19, 20, 22, 23. Again, in this very chapter,
no less than six times do we find him using the expression
" Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! " In verse
16, for an obvious reason he varies his words, and says, "Woe
unto you, ye blind guides," where he addresses the scribes and
Pharisees with reference to their teaching; while in all the
other instances he refers to their acts. Unless there is some
such obvious reason for it, he observes as a rule an unvarying
form in speaking in the same connection of the same thing or
to the same persons. — Now, in the verse before us, Christ is
made by the Revisers' reading, for no apparent reason, to
change the expression, " Ye fools and blind : for whether is
greater," which he had just used in verse 17, to "Ye blind:
for whether is greater." The evidence on which this is done is
the testimony of ^, D, L, Z, i, 209, nine copies of the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, and Ethiopic Versions ;
while the familiar reading of the Received Text, which is more
in accordance with Jesus' style of speaking, is testified to by
MATTHEW.
151
B, C, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, n, all but two cursives,
two or three copies of the Old Latin, the Peshito and Philoxe-
nian Syriac, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Armenian Versions, and
Origen. External as well as internal evidence sustains the
reading of the Received Text. The omission is probably due
to some unscrupulous copyist's disrelish for the word, leading
him to employ it no oftener than he felt it really necessary.
xxiii. 38.
The marginal note calls attention to the fact that in some
manuscripts, in the clause " Your house is left unto you deso-
late," the last word is omitted. The omission seems to have
arisen from a desire to save Jesus from the appearance of hav-
ing made a mistake. It appears only in B, L, one copy of
the Old Latin, one manuscript of the Memphitic Version, and
in Origen in a single instance. Westcott and Hort, from their
confidence in the Vatican Codex, adopt this reading, and rele-
gate £,07/^05, "desolate," to the margin as a possible interpola-
tion. Lachmann also omits the word on the authority of B.
But the true reading seems to be, beyond question, that of the
Received Text, adopted by Tregelles and Tischendorf. It is
overwhelmingly attested, and followed by the Revisers. (Com-
pare Note on Luke xiii. 35.)
XXIV. 31.
Another marginal note informs the reader of another omis-
sion made by " many ancient authorities," whom Tischendorf
and Westcott and Hort have been induced to follow. But the
question arises, If the omitted word, <^o)v^9, " sound," is spuri-
ous, how did it get into the text? This is by no means appar-
ent. It is true that D, a dozen or so cursives, most copies of
the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, John Damascene, Hilary,
and others read " with a trumpet and a great sound," as given
in the margin of the A. V. ; and the Jerusalem and Philoxenian
152
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Syriac and Ethiopic Versions read " with the sound of a great
trumpet " ; while J^, L, A, eight or nine cursives, one copy of
the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, Memphitic, and Armenian
Versions, and Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
and Cyprian omit <^<<jv^s, and read " with a great trumpet," —
the reading of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort's text, and the
Revisers' margin. But these variations are all due to the per-
plexity of scholars and scribes in regard to the meaning of the
true text, — a thing by no means uncommon among ancient
manuscripts.* The genuine reading is that of the text, which
is adopted also by Lachmann and Tregelles, and is well at-
tested. If understood, it affords the reader no embarrassment
whatever.
xxiv. 36.
Rec. T. ovScls oIScv, o\iS« ol aYYC^oi '^v ovpavuv, cl fir) o irarfip (lov
|jl6vo$ — knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Rev. T. o^Scls oIScv, ovSc ol o.'yycXoi r&v ovpavuv, ov8< i vi6$, ct p,T|
o iraTiip (uSvos — knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither
the Son, but the Father only.
That Jesus uttered in this connection the added words
" neither the Son," there can be no question ; for Mark (xiii.
32), with scarcely a dissenting witness, reports him as having
spoken them. The only question is whether Matthew really so
reported him. The evidence, both external and internal, is
divided ; yet we do not consider it impossible to arrive at the
truth. The documentary evidence in favor of the added words
consists of ^ first hand, as well as the later seventh-century
corrector, B, D, three cursives, eleven copies of the Old Latin
' Thus, vim 'Bapaxiov, in Matt, xxiii. 35, being considered a mistake
for vloO Tov 'luSai, " the son of Jehoiada," is omitted by i<, in which the
scribe is supported by Eusebius and four lectionaries. In a similar manner,
from sheer perplexity, ScvrepoirpijiTif, in Luke vi. i , is omitted by ^, B, L,
and a number of cursives and versions, while other manuscripts vary the
expression. See Note on Luke vi. i.
MATTHEW.
153
Version, several copies of the Vulgate, the Jerusalem Syriac,
Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions, Irenseus, Origen, Chrysos-
tom, Cyril, Hilary, and others. Against them are the earlier
seventh-century corrector of J<, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V,
r, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac Versions, two copies of the Old Latin, six of the Vulgate,
the Memphitic, Thebaic, and other later versions, and Basil,
Didymus of Alexandria, John Damascene, Euthymius Zigabe-
nus, and others. Viewed with reference to the internal evi-
dence, all that can be said against the words is that they might
have been introduced from Mark, — a mere supposition. In
favor of them is the fact that they were undoubtedly uttered
by Christ, and are of such a character that a writer like Mat-
thew, in reporting his language, would not be at all likely to
have omitted so important and memorable a statement, while
some of his early readers, on doctrinal grounds, would be
tempted to have the words removed. This reading is also
favored by the absence of " my," in connection with " Father,"
— a reading even more strongly attested than are the three
added words, " neither the Son." If " my " were a part of the
text, the other three words would seem more like an interpola-
tion'; but as it is, they come in very naturally. Compare
Matt. xi. 27, " the Son . . . the Father; the Father . . . the
Son " ; not the Son . . . fny Father." On the question why
these three words should have been removed in some copies
from Matthew and not from Mark, the reader is referred to the
Note on i. 25.
xxiv. 38.
Rec. T. Iv rais ii|i<pais rots — in the days that.
Rev. T. iv Tots in^pais ^KtCvais rats — in those days which.
That is, " which were before the flood." The only authority
for the Revisers' reading is B and one cursive (511). D and
three cursives have a similar reading ; namely, Iv raTs i7,i<pais
€K£iVat9 Trpi K.T.X., that is, " in those days before the flood," which
154
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
is followed by six copies of the Old Latin and by the Philoxe-
nian Syriac Version ; while L (the usual ally of B), one lection-
ary, three copies of the Old Latin and the Thebaic Version,
and Origen read " in the days of the flood." Others, as the
Peshito Syriac Version, omitting " the days which," read simply
" For as, before the flood," etc. The reading of B, as well as
that of D, is a stupid gloss. As if Matthew's readers might
suppose that " the days that were before the flood " meant the
whole period of time previous to the flood, and not simply " the
days of Noah," some ignorant would-be critic inserted tKttVais.
In order to bring out his idea, the rendering should be punctu-
ated thus : " For as in those days (i.e. the days of Noah, just
spoken of), which were before the flood, or, which preceded
the flood, they were eating and drinking," etc. The reading
virtually makes the relative clause following the word " days "
parenthetical, if not really superfluous. The reading of D is
but an attempted improvement on this ; while that of L, which
has the same end in view, of limiting the days to the time
of Noah, is an attempt to simplify the expression still farther.
The gloss was too palpable to be adopted except as far as is yet
known, by a single cursive of the twelfth century, and is too
feebly supported to deserve serious consideration. Of course
Westcott and Hort adopt it ; for, according to Dr. Hort, " B
is found to hold a' unique position." It "very far exceeds all
other documents." ' The reading of the Received Text, how-
ever, commends itself as genuine. It is adopted by Tischendorf,
and well attested by J^, E, F, G, H, I, K, M, S, U, V, T, A, n,
and almost the entire body of the cursives. Didymus of Alexan-
dria among the Fathers also supports it.
^ Introduction, etc., pp. 150, 171.
MATTHEW.
155
xxiv. 42.
Rcc. T. o«K otSoTt iroCq. <!!p<j. 4 Ktiptos vjimv cpxtrav — ye know not
what hour your Lord doth come.
Rev. T. ovK ot8oT« -noitf. Ti(i<pif 6 Kvlpios i(i<»v €px«Tai — ye know not
on what day your Lord cometh.
By referring to the parallel passage in Mark (xiii. 33, 35),
we find that the time denoted by Christ on this occasion is,
not a day as a current portion of time, but a subdivision of the
day, an hour or watch ; — " Watch therefore ; " he said, as
Mark reports him ; " for ye know not when the Lord of the
house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cock-
crowing, or in the morning." This gives us Jesus' thought.
Now it is not to be supposed for a moment that Matthew would
attempt to express this thought by saying, " Watch therefore ;
for ye know not on what day your Lord cometh." He would
rather say " in what hour." It is easy to say that " day " was
changed to " hour," to correspond with verse 44, or to make
the time more definite. But there is no proof of this. It is
just as easy to say that " hour " was changed to " day " on
account of the foregoing remarks concerning "the days of
Noah," or in conformity with verse 50, where the lord of the
servant is spoken of as coming " in a day when he expecteth
not." And, in view of Christ's utterance as recorded by Mark,
this seems to have really been the case. Matthew could not
very well have written ^/xepo, " day." There is nothing in the
facts of the case to warrant the supposition that he wrote any
difl'erent word here from what he wrote in verse 44. The
testimony in support of this is certainly not easily set aside.
Besides the internal evidence, we have that of E, F, G, H, K,
L, M, S, U, V, r, n, most of the cursives, most copies of the
Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, Peshito Syriac, Memphitic, and
Armenian Versions, and Origen, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and
Theodoret. On the other hand, the Revisers' reading has the
support of i^, B, D, I, A, five cursives {i.e. four, besides three
156
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
of Ferrar's group, which are virtually but one), two copies
of the Old Latin, and the Philoxenian and Jerusalem Syriac
Versions, Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Hilary.
In addition to this, one copy of the Old Latin Version and
two of the Vulgate have " in what hour or what day " ; while
Eusebius and the Ethiopic Version have "on what day and
hour," — a conflation apparently deduced from verse 50.
zziv. 48.
Rec. T. XpovCJei i Kvpio's (io« tK9tiv — My Lord delayeth his coming.
Rev. T. XpovtSti 6 Kvpio's |io« — My Lord tarrieth.
The omission here made in the Revisers' Text is one of
those abbreviations occurring from time to time in X and B,
where a seemingly unnecessary or superfluous word or expres-
sion is dropped. In many instances, these codices are sup-
ported in these omissions by other documents. In this
instance, they are seconded by two cursives, the Memphitic,
Thebaic, and Arabic Versions, and by Irenaeus and Ephraem
the Syrian. In place of the omitted ikOclv, " to come," Luke
(xii. 45) has tp;(£<T^ai. This shows that the omitted word was
not taken from Luke. It also shows that Jesus in all proba-
bility supplemented the verb )(povii,ii, "delayeth," with an
infinitive. If he did not, Luke would hardly have done it in
reporting his words. And if Jesus did employ an infinitive,
as Luke's record leads us to believe he did, Matthew, as a
faithful reporter, would naturally have so represented him also.
And most witnesses testify to his having done so, though that
infinitive is a different form from Luke's, but a form of the
same verb, — a fact which makes the testimony all the more
credible. Had all the witnesses done as the three cursives
I, 157, 209, and Basil, and Origen in one instance, have, —
that is, had they handed down to us Luke's form ■)(povii,ii
ipX^vOai, — it might be said, in view of the abbreviated read-
ing of Ji^, B, that the latter reading was taken from Luke ;
MATTHEW.
157
whereas the genuineness of the reading of the Received Text
is confirmed by the fact that the infinitive which Matthew
employs is not epx(^<TOai.. This reading is attested by C, D, E,
F, G, H, I, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, n, all but two cursives, the
Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Ethiopic,
Armenian, and other versions, and Origen, Chrysostom, and
John Damascene.
Rec. T. ir^vTf 8« rjo-av i^ airSv <t>po'vi)i.oi, Kal at ir^vri (lupaC. — And
five of them were wise, and live were foulish.
Rev. T. irlvTt 8« TJo-av i^ airoiv (lupat, Kal rrivri <|>poVi)ioi. — And
five of them were foolish, and live were wise.
In the arrangement of these words, the Received Text
follows the later uncials E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, A, U,
nearly all the cursives, one copy of the Old Latin, the Peshito
and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, Chrysostom, and Basil in
three different places. The order adopted by the Revisers is
that of X. B, C, U, L, Z, six cursives, the Old Latin Version
with the exception of a single copy, the Vulgate, Memphitic,
Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Arabic Versions,
and Origen. In speaking of two different objects or classes
of objects, the natural order is to introduce first the more
worthy or that which is so regarded, unless there is some
obvious reason for adopting a different order. On this prin-
ciple, we say " the rich and the poor," " husband and wife,"
" right and wrong," " sun, moon, and stars." On this prin-
ciple, Jesus said, " Swear not at all : neither by heaven, . . .
nor by the earth, . . . neither by Jerusalem" (Matt. v. 34,
35). "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a cor-
rupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (vii. 17). "They gath-
ered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away" (xiii. 48).
The doer of the word, he likened to a wise man ; then the
non-doer to a foolish man (vii. 24-27)- And so elsewhere.
In like manner, Paul wrote " I am debtor both to Greeks and
158
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish " (Rom. i.
14). Now tiiere seems to be nothing in the nature of the
parable or in the context that requires Jesus in uttering these
words, or the evangelist in recording them, to forsake the
natural order, and introduce the foolish before the wise. It
looks like the work of another who arranged the words thus,
so as to have them stand in the order in which " the foolish "
and " the wise " are spoken of in verses 3 and 4. But, admit-
ting that, with all its seeming improbability, this may be the
order in which the evangelist penned the words, what shall we
say of the reading with which verse 3 begins? The witnesses
that give the revised as the true order of Jesus' words, on pro-
ceeding to the next verse, seem to be puzzled to know what
reading to give. Codices Z, 157, the Vulgate and Ethiopic
Versions, and most copies of the Old Latin give ai Se. The
two cursives i, 209, read Xa^oCo-ai 81 at instead. D and one
copy of the Old Latin give us at ovv. But six of them —
J^, B, C, L, 33, and the Memphitic Version — adopt ai ydp as
the most satisfactory, — making the verse appear to be intro-
duced as a reason for something, rather than with D as the
consequence. This, the Revisers and some other editors
accept as the original reading. But nothing has yet been said
of the foolish virgins beyond the bare statement that there
were five of them. If verses 2 and 3 read simply, " But five
of them were foolish ; for, though they had taken their lamps,
they took no oil along with themselves," the last clause would
evidently be designed to show why they were called foolish.
But to say that five of the virgins " were foolish and five were
v/ise, /or the foolish, though they took their lamps, took along
with themselves no oil," is not very conclusive reasoning. It
has the ring of false coin. What Jesus said in verse 3 con-
cerning the foolish virgins, he evidently did not offer as a proof
of their folly, any more than he said what he did in verse 4
concerning the wise as an evidence of their wisdom. He
simply stated the facts in the case, leaving the hearer to draw
MATTHEW.
159
his own conclusions : " Five of them were wise, and the other
five were foolish. Those that were foolish, though they took
their lamps, took with themselves no oil ; but the wise took
oil in their vessels along with their lamps." The documents
that attest the natural and commonly received order in verse 2
are in the main agreed upon aiTn/ts as the true reading in the
beginning of verse 3, — a fact which, in itself considered, goes
far toward establishing the genuineness of the text upon which
they are agreed. It is simply possible, however, that the
Revisers' reading at yap is an early transcriptional error for
aiTTip, " as many as were," by a simple change of TIE to TA, —
somewhat as the seemingly true reading ovirep rJTovvTo, " whom-
soever they desired," in Mark xv. 6, became early changed in
a few copies to Sv iraprjTovvTo, " whom they asked for." If
this is so, then the two readings, aiTiva and at ydp, though
neither of them the true reading, substantially represent a
common lost reading atTrtp, whose meaning is properly pre-
served in the former.
xxvi. 26.
Rec. T. KaX iSCSov rots (i.a9i)Tais Kal ilirt, — and gave it to the dis-
ciples, and said.
Rev. T. Kat 8ois rots [laBiiTats tlirc, — and he gave to the disciples,
and said.
The difference in the texts is an unwarranted difference.
The latter reading is obviously a change from the former to
make the construction correspond with what precedes as well
as with what follows. It is attested by X. B, D, L, Z, five cur-
sives (reckoning 13, 69, the two of Ferrar's group that have this
reading, as one), and the Memphitic Version, — testimony none
too strong at the best. Had the aorist participle been the origi-
nal reading, it is hafd to conceive of any reason why it should
have been changed to the imperfect. It would naturally, and
beyond question, have been changed to the aorist, ISwKt, as the
reading is in Mark xiv. 22, and Luke xxii. 19, as well as in verse
27, and as a few cursives have it here, and not to the imperfect,
i6o
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
iBSov. This latter, the true reading, is found in A, C, E, F, G,
H, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, 11, most of the cursives, and Basil, as
well as supported by the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Old
Latin, Vulgate, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions ; while Origen
and the Thebaic Version read " and gave to the disciples, say-
ing." The aorist implies that Jesus spake to the disciples a//er
he had given them the bread; the imperfect, that he said
" Take, eat," as he proceeded to give it to them ; which seems
to be just what the evangelist meant. It is certainly the more
probable reading.
xxvi. 53.
Rec. T. oi 8vva|xai, apri irapaKoX^crai . , Kal xapcurr^a-H (loi
ir\cCo«s — [Thinkest thou that] I cannot now pray to [my Father,] and he
shall presently give me more [than twelve legions of angels?]
Rev. T. oi 8uva)iai irapaKoX^o-ai . . Kal irapa(rT<i<rci )i.oi apTi
irXitous — [Or thinkest thou that] I cannot beseech [my Father,] and he
shall even now send me more [than twelve legions of angels?]
The Revisers' reading, which transfers apn, " now," from its
usually acknowledged place as the sixth word in the verse to
the sixth from the end of the verse, is that of ^ as amended by
the earlier seventh-century corrector, B, L, one cursive, two
copies of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, Peshito Syriac,
Thebaic, and Armenian Versions, Cyril, Chrysostom, and
Jerome. The Sinaitic Codex first hand, and the Memphitic
Version read (S8=- apTi, " here now," while Origen in commenting
on the passage, Basil, and two cursives read JlSe, instead of apn
after /xot, " me," — readings that are plainly false. That apri
belongs only where the Received Text has it, is the preponder-
ating testimony of A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r, A, n,
nearly all the cursives, most copies of the Old Latin Version,
the Philoxenian Syriac Version, Origen three times, and Paulus
Orosius. The Revisers' reading evidently originated with some
early reader, who, failing to see the force of SipTi. in connection
with TrapaKoXfo-ai, thought to improve the reading by transfer-
MATTHEW.
161
ring it towards the close of the verse. Others, to make it still
more emphatic, introduced JlSt along with it, making the ex-
pression equivalent to our " here and now." If the latter had
been its original position, there is no apparent reason why it
should have been disturbed and given the place it occupies
in the great majority of the documents. Rightly viewed, its
force, as well as that of the negative ov, extends over the rest
of the verse ; as if Jesus had said, " Dost thou suppose I can-
not even now pray to my Father and be provided by him with
more than twelve legions of angels?"
xxvii. 4.
The marginal reading " righteous " blood, which is found in
L, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic, Jerusalem
Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, as well as in Origen,
Cyprian, Lucifer, and others, is simply a gloss, suggested prob-
ably by the "righteous" blood mentioned in xxiii. 35. It
appeared at first as a marginal reading in some old manuscript,
as it does in B, whence it was afterwards introduced into the
text in place of the unusual word aOwov, " innocent." The
latter, which appears in the New Testament only here and in
verse 24, is unquestionably the true reading. The Revisers'
note is hardly called for.
XXTll. 5.
Rec. T. Iv Tip vau — in the temple.
Rev. T. €ls tAv vcu>v — into the sanctuary.
The preponderance of evidence is against this reading of the
Revisers. The common reading is attested by A, C, E, F, G,
H, K, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Syriac,
Old Latin, and Vulgate Versions, and Cyril ; — that of the
Revisers, by X, B, L, 33, 69, 124 (the last two, however, being
virtually the testimony of but one witness), the Gothic and
Ethiopic Versions, Eusebius and Chrysostom. Origen, in
I(J2
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
different places, has both readings. The change would be a
very natural one for a person to make who regarded iv with the
dative as unsuitable after a word meaning " having cast," and
who held that only ih with the accusative was admissible, as in
Luke iv. 35 and xvii. 2. But Matthew everywhere (ix. 36,
XV. 30, and here) uses piirriD in the sense of " cast down," and
would therefore naturally follow it with iv rm va<£, " in the
sanctuary."
zxvii. 24.
The " ancient authorities " referred to in the marginal note
as reading, " I am innocent of this blood ; see ye to it," are B,
]>, an unknown cursive (102) containing extracts from Matthew
and Mark, which Westcott believes to have been taken from B
itself, two copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Vulgate Ver-
sion, Origen, Chrysostom, and Pseudo-Athanasius. It is a read-
ing from which tov SiKaCov was omitted under the belief that
Pilate could not have spoken of Jesus as a " righteous " man.
It really deserves no such notice as the Revisers have thus give;i
it ; for the reading " the blood of this righteous man " is over-
whelmingly attested by documentary evidence. In addition to
this, the reply of the multitude, " //is blood be upon us," shows
conclusively that Pilate spoke to them of some person. If this
marginal reading were genuine, Matthew would have represented
the multitude as answering Pilate by saying, not "His blood,"
but " This (or That, or simply The) blood be upon us," etc.
rxvii. 28.
The common reading, "they stripped him," is plainly required
by the context. They stripped him to put on him a scarlet
robe, as Matthew goes on to say; or as John has it (xix. 2) to
array him in a purple garment, the attire of royalty, preparatory
to ridiculing his claim to being king of Israel. After they had
completed their work of mockery, they removed the scarlet
robe, and replaced his own clothing, as the evangelist states in
MATTHEW.
163
verse 31. Yet certain ancient documents, which the margi-
nal note calls " authorities," read " clothed " him instead of
" stripped " him. The only ground on which it can be supposed
that this is the genuine reading is the assumption that Pilate,
after having scourged Jesus (verse 26), delivered him naked to
the Jews, — a pure assumption unwarranted by the language of
the evangelist, and one which no scholar would for a moment en-
tertain except to defend a false reading. It assumes that ivBv-
o-avres, instead of meaning " having clothed," means " having put
on his luuier garment" only, leaving his upper garments to be
put on afterward (verse 31), the same word {iv&vdav) being
used for the putting on of these as is used in the other case, —
supposing ivivaavTVi to be the genuine reading. It assumes
also tliat the plural form to. t/xai-ta (verse 31) of necessity
means upper garments, whereas it denotes any and, as in verse
35, all garments sometimes. But, because evSuVavrts, which
ought in all seriousness to be considered as nothing more than
" a mere error of the pen " ' unconsciously admitted through
carelessness, but carefully duplicated through ignorance, appears
in two or three of the oldest known Greek manuscripts and a
few other documents, it must be viewed by some as a possibly
correct reading ! It is found in J^ as changed by the earlier
seventh-century corrector, B, D, the twelfth-century cursive 157,
five copies of the Old Latin Version, and Origen. On the other
hand, the reading of the Received Text is ovenvhelmingly
attested by Ji^ first hand and afterward by its later seventh-
century corrector amending the error of his predecessor. A, E,
F, G, H, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, r, A, 11, every cursive but one,
six copies of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, Memphitic,
Thebaic, Peshito, Philoxenian and Jerusalem Syriac, and Arme-
nian Versions, Origen in his comment on the passage, Eusebius,
Chrysostom, and Augustine. — There are really too many of these
needlessly distracting notes cumbering the margin of the R. V.
' Scrivener, IntroJuclion, p. 480.
164
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
zrvii. 49.
To this verse, the marginal note says, " many ancient authori-
ties add And another took a spear, and pierced his side, and
there came out water and blood. See John xix. 34." Those
" authorities "are X. B, C, L, U, r, the cursives 5, 48, 67, 115,
127 first hand, the text of five good manuscripts of the Vulgate
and the margin of another, the Jerusalem Syriac in its lectionary,
the Ethiopic Version, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria.
On the other hand, the omission is called for by A, D, E, F, G,
H, K, M, S, V, A, n, all the cursives except the five just men-
tioned, the Old Latin, most copies of the Vulgate, the Peshito
and Philoxenian Syriac, and the Jerusalem Syriac in its text
proper, the Memphitic, Armenian, and Gothic Versions, Origen,
Eusebius, Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine. The clause is
generally regarded as an interpolation from John xix. 34, as
the marginal note indicates, and as having crept into the text
from Tatian's Diatessaron} This, however, is but conjecture,
and not the most reasonable at that ; for, if it came from the
Diatessaron, Tatian must have represented Christ as having
been pierced both before and after his death ; for, in following
John's narrative, it is hardly credible that he should not have
represented the Saviour as pierced after his death. So that,
in order that the account of the piercing contained in these
omitted words could be taken from Tatian, he must have inter-
* The note that appears on the margin of Codex 72 against Matt, xxvii.
48, to the effect that this passage " was inserted into the historical Gospel
of Diodorus, and Tatian, and various other holy Fathers," must not be
allowed more weight than really belongs to it. The manuscript itself was
written during the eleventh century. How long after that time this note
was placed in its margin no one knows. It may have been during the
same century, and may not have been for two or more centuries later. Even
at the earliest date, testimony given so recently can hardly be called
ancient, or said to be from one properly qualified to say that the words
were indeed in Tatian's Diatessaron, a work that probably perished cen-
turies before the author of the note was born, except as partially preserved
in Ephraem's commentary upon it.
MATTHEW.
165
polated it. But Tatian was not given to adding to the text. He
" habitually abridged the language of the passages which he
combined.'" The omission rather than the insertion of these
words would be more likely to have crept into the text through
Tatian. For, supposing the passage to be genuine with Matthew,
Tatian on combining the two accounts — Matthew's and John's
— in one continuous narrative would almost of necessity have
omitted one of them as superfluous, or seemingly inconsistent
with the other, — both statements being referred to one and the
same act. In that case, the omitted account was Matthew's,
while John's was retained. This omission having once been
made, its continuance was favored by the seeming inconsistency
between the omitted words and the universally accepted record
of John, till finally Pope Clement V. attempted to settle the
matter at the Council of Vienna, a.d. 131 i, by condemning the
idea that Jesus' side had been pierced while he was yet alive.
In addition to this, it should be noted that there is not such a
oneness in the language of this passage and that of John xix. 34
as to warrant us in concluding that the former was necessarily
taken from the latter. The Greek of this passage is oXAos Sk
\apoiv XoTYXV" ^^^i^" avTov Trjv nkivpav, Kal ii^X6ev vSmp Kal atfia,
while John's words are oAA tls tu>v o-TpaTKOToiv koyxg avTov rrjv
irXcvpav iwie, Kal i^\6(v ivOvi alpa Kal vSwp, — " Howbeit one
of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway
there came out blood and water" (R. V.). If the former pas-
sage had been introduced from John, it would be but reasonable
to conclude that it would more nearly have resembled the latter.
As the sentence stands, however, there is nothing to indicate
that it is not as truly original with Matthew as the other is with
John. Nor should the documentary evidence in attestation of
this reading be overlooked. It is true, the combination J^, B,
C, L, is by no means inspiring or decisive of the genuineness
of a reading. But when it is considered that B is character-
ized, not by admitting interpolations into the text, but by its
* Hort's IntroJuciion, p. 283.
1 66
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
numerous omissions, a seeming interpolation like this, when
supported by a number of other documents, ought to suggest
that perhaps, after all, the passage is really genuine, though at
first sight it may seem to be spurious. And the more we con-
sider the matter the more are we convinced that this is the
case, though every modern editor has rejected the passage
except Westcott and Hort ; and even they have admitted it, as
it were, under protest, by double-bracketing it as if it might
possibly be an interpolation. Its presence here, to say nothing
else, is exceedingly apposite ; for it explains why Jesus died so
soon ; and this may have been the evangelist's design in intro-
ducing the words. This will be apparent by reading verses
48-5 1 connectedly, with this clause included : " And straight-
way one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with
vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. And
the rest said. Let us see * whether Elijah is coming to save him.
But another took a spear, and pierced his side, and water and
blood flowed forth. Then Jesus, having cried again with a
loud voice [saying. It is finished ; Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit], gave up the ghost." Nor is there any-
thing in this that is really inconsistent with John's statement.
We give the entire passage, — John xix. 31-34, — that we may
the better arrive at his real meaning : " The Jews therefore,
since it was a preparation day, in order that the bodies might
not remain upon the cross over the Sabbath, for that Sabbath
was a prominent day, asked Pilate that their legs might be
broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the
soldiers and broke the legs of the first and of the other that
had been crucified with him. But on coming to Jesus, as they
saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs."
This finishes the narrative as far as it relates to the matter
of seeing that those who had been crucified were dead. And
here the narrative of the evangelist on this point would also
have closed, but that he desired to show, in addition to this,
• See Note on the rendering of this verse in The Revisers' English Text.
MATTHEW.
167
that Christ's death was in accordance with prophecy. Hence
he goes on to say, "Nevertheless («>. Though they did not
break his legs, yet), one of the soldiers [not one of those who
had been breaking the legs of the others ; for if that had been
the case, the evangelist, after what he had already written,
would have said ' one of them,' but he says, ' one of the sol-
diejs,' i.e. one of the four that crucified him and were there
on guard, some time previous to this] with a spear had pierced
his side, when forthwith there came out blood and water. And
one who saw these things beareth witness, and his witness is
true, and he knoweth that he speaketh what is true that ye also
may believe. Tor these things came to pass that the Scripture
might be fulfilled, Not a bone of him shall be broken. And
again, another Scripture saith. They shall look on him whom
they pierced." The evangelist mentions the piercing of Christ's
side as an afterthought in connection with the breaking of the
legs, in order to prepare the way for the quotations from Scrip-
ture which he immediately introduces. It is true he uses the
aorist ; but he uses it as a pluperfect, just as he uses aorists for
pluperfects elsewhere; as in vi. 22, 23, "his disciples had gone
aivay alone ; nevertheless there had come boats," etc. ; also
xviii. 24,," AnnviS had sent \nra." That this is the evangelist's
meaning in verse 34 instead of the one that is commonly given
to his words, is evident from his quotation, " They shall look
on him whom they pierced," — which, to have any significance,
must mean whom they slew or put to death by piercing, the
meaning which the passage evidently has in Zech. xii. 10.
They could not, however, have put him to death with a spear-
thrust if he was already dead. Again, the statement that blood
and water at once flowed forth from Jesus' side implies that he
was still alive. For it is a well-known fact that when a person
dies the blood at once ceases to flow and begins to coagulate ;
so that an incision made into a body a few hours after becom-
ing lifeless fails to draw blood. And if Jesus died " about the
ninth hour," from two to three hours must have passed before
1 68
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
his side was pierced, if it was not pierced till the leg-breaking
took place, a period sufficiently long to enable the blood to
become more or less coagulated. This manner of closely con-
necting in writing circumstances that were separated in time
or place is, to a great extent, characteristic of all the evange-
lists, but especially so of John. To take a single illustration,
turn to chapter vi. If we connect the circumstance related in
the beginning of this chapter immediately with those of the
preceding chapter, the verb dnijWtv, " went away," is made to
refer to departing from Jerusalem. But from the account of
Mark (vi. 31-33), to say nothing of anything else, we are con-
strained to believe that the word has no reference to Jerusalem,
but rather to Capernaum or some neighboring locality, — there
being no real connection in point of time or place between
the incidents thus closely brought together in these chapters.
Jolin's aim was not, like Luke's, to give an orderly narrative of
the life and ministry of Jesus, but to present various evidences
of his being the divinely fore-announced Messiah, the Son of
God. Hence his Gospel is largely made up of locally or
temporally disconnected facts. All things considered, we cannot
resist the conclusion that the marginal reading is genuine, and
should have an unquestioned place in Matthew's Gospel.
xxvii. 58.
Rec. T. 6 IliXdros {k^cvo-cv diroSo6f|vai t4 o-ufia — Pilate com-
manded the body to be delivered.
Rev. T. 6 IliXaros iK&Awtv diroSo6{)vcu — Pilate commanded it to
be given up.
There seems to be no good reason for the rejection here of
TO (T^fta, " the body." Its omission is found only in ^, B, L,
about fifteen cursives, and the Jerusalem Syriac Version ; and
it has every appearance of being an attempt at improving the
language, — crai/xa being used just before, as well as immediately
after. A critical reader would scarcely have inserted it in such
a connection. He would have been far more likely to drop
the word, or to insert avro instead as some did.
MATTHEW.
zzvni. 2.
169
Rec. T. dr-iKuXio-c tov Xt6ov airi Tf)s Ovpas, Kal lK6Si\ro — rolled
back the stone from the door, and sat.
Rev. T. d7rcKvXt(rc tov XC6ov, Kal {Ka6i]To — rolled away the stone,
and sat.
The omission of " from the door " appears only in Ji^, B, D,
three cursives, nine or ten copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate
and Ethiopic Versions, Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria.
Its presence is called for by A, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, M,
S, U, V, r, A, n, nearly all the cursives, two copies of the Old
Latin Version, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Memphitic,
and Armenian Versions, Eusebius and Chrysostom. It is no
argument against the genuineness of this expression that some
of these witnesses have supplemented it by adding " of the
tomb," any more than the addition, for example, of wktk,
" by night," in certain manuscripts proves the spuriousness of
IXOovTf;, in xxvii. 64, with which it is connected, and which
those very manuscripts attest to be genuine. The phrase " of
the door " is one which the evangelist would very naturally add
after having mentioned " the sepulchre " just before ; and one,
too, which a critical reader would as naturally strike out, con-
sidering it not only unnecessary, but obstructing the flow of
the discourse by standing between the words " rolled away the
stone " and the statement " and was sitting upon it." The
omission, of course, was an early one ; but the evidence in
support of the genuineness of the phrase dates back quite as
early as that against it, while the fact that C, L, the Memphitic
Version, and the cursives that usually side with B are here
arrayed against it, and the additional fact that the phrase in
itself considered has every appearance of being genuine, afford
strong ground for believing that it is a part of the original text.
In the unstudied simplicity of the evangelist's narrative, nothing
is more natural. But if the words are not his, there is no con-
ceivable motive for their being inserted by another hand ; for
I70
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
it is impossible for the dullest reader, on the supposition that
the phrase is wanting, to misunderstand the meaning, or to
imagine from the context that any other stone can be referred
to than the one that closed the sepulchre.
xxviii. 6.
The " many ancient authorities " of the marginal note that
omit " the Lord " are X, B, 33, 102, one copy of the Old Latin,
the Memphitic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and one Arabic Version,
Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and a catena. Its
presence is attested, however, by A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L,
M, S, U, V, r, A, n, nearly all the cursives, every copy but one
of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac Versions, and Chrysostom five times. The fact that the
appellation is omitted by some of the Fathers is no proof of
its want of genuineness ; for, quoting as they often did from
memory, it would not be at all strange if it were omitted,
as indeed we find it is twice by Chrysostom, who elsewhere
employs it five times. Its presence is by no means essential
to complete the construction; and this fact is sufficient to
account for its absence from the two oldest codices, which are
given to omitting unnecessary, strange, and obscure expres-
sions. Westcott and Hort, repeating Meyer's objection, that
the designation is foreign to Matthew, say, it is " never applied
to Christ in Matthew except in reported sayings," > of which this
happens to be one, and one in which it would very naturally
appear, — the saying being that of an angel. If not originally
given by Matthew, there is no apparent reason why it should
have been inserted and become so widely current.
1 Select Readings, p. 23.
MARK,
The marginal note here informs the reader that " some
ancient authorities omit the Son of God," making the verse
read simply, " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
This, however, is supported by but one unical {'^), and that
corrected by a contemporary of the copyist, two cursives, and
not a single version. The note is uncalled for, as the reading
of the text is above suspicion.
L 2.
The reading " the prophets," of the Received Text, is placed
by the Revisers in the margin, in deference to the testimony of
J^, B, D, L, A, 33, and twenty-five other cursives, the Old Latin
Version, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac Versions,
the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac as well as the text of some
copies of that version, the Memphitic, some codices of the
Armenian, Erpenius' Arabic, the Persic and Gothic Versions,
Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry (a.d. 233-305), Titus of Bostra,
Basil the Great, Epiphanius, Severianus, and others. The com-
mon reading, " the prophets," is attested by A, E, F, G, H, K,
M, P, S, U, V, r, n, most of the cursives, one manuscript of
the Memphitic (which has the conflate reading, " in the prophets,
in Isaiah the prophet "), the text of the Philoxenian Syriac,
Zohrab's Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Roman Arabic as well as
that of the Polyglot, the Slavonic, Irenaeus according to
his Latin interpreter, Photius, and Theophylact. In view of
the testimony of the older manuscripts and versions, it is gener-
171
172
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
ally considered that the received reading is an early emendation
to avoid the ascribing to Isaiah of words that are taken only in
part from Isaiah. This is plausible ; and yet there is another
view to be taken. The author of this Gospel was born a Jew.
He had, beyond a doubt, like Timothy, known the Old Testa-
ment writings from his childhood. His mother was evidently a
devout, conscientious Jewess, a fit subject to become one of the
early followers of Jesus, as we find that she was. (Acts xii. 12.)
So that Mark would, at least, be quite as well able to say from
which of the Old Testament writings he was quoting, as, for
example, any well-read student of the Old Testament to-day
would be to say in what book this or that passage might be
found. In view of this, it seems hardly just to conclude that
Mark, in giving two passages from different prophecies, like
these from Malachi and Isaiah, would speak of them both as
taken from Isaiah, especially when the first of them was one that
he must have known was not in Isaiah. This, however, is
the conclusion to which we are forced if our oldest documents
are really trustworthy, and the reading presented by eight or
ten of them here is to be accepted as the genuine reading. But
these documents are not altogether trustworthy. They are
continually in conflict one with another. They contain many
of the erroneous readings that were early and inconsiderately
introduced into the New-Testament Scriptures. We are there-
fore warned not to be hasty in accepting their testimony. We
should inquire whether the reading they present may not after
all be a spurious one. The expression, " in the prophets," is
somewhat indefinite. It may have seemed unsatisfactory to
some early scribe. So, in order to give it definiteness, or
perhaps simply to make Mark correspond with Matthew, he
would naturally change " in the prophets" to "in Isaiah the
prophet," as Matthew has it in iii. 3. This was the conclusion
to which Jerome came nearly one thousand five hundred years
ago. For, though in deference to the evidence which he
had before him when he revised the Old Latin Version, he
MARK.
^73
retained the reading in Esaia propheta in the Vulgate, he says,
m commenting on Matthew iii. 3, in reference to Mark i. 2,
that he thinks the name of Isaiah is a vitiation of the text by
scribes like similar readings in other places. And when it is
borne in mind that this reading appears in the margin of one
and m the text of the other of the Syriac Versions, — the
versions of the country of Tatian's Diatessaro„,^t need not be
at a loss to see whence or how or when it got into the text.
It evidently came from Matthew iii. 3, through Tatian in the
latter part of the second century. It is what Dr. Hort would
call a Syrian, a distinctively Syrian reading, though .preserved in
X. B, L, 2,1, Origen, etc. The genuine reading, as found in
the Received Text, comes down to us in later uncials and other
documents.
1. 4.
The Revisers have failed fully to correct the obviously false
reading of this verse, and have given a rendering which, like
that of the A. V., represents anything but the evangelist's state-
ment. They have correctly inserted the article before /?a7rri^w,
"baptizing," in accordance with K, B, L, T^ A, 2,1, S70, and
the Memphitic Version. To complete the correction of the
text, they should have omitted, with Westcott and Hort, the
Kal, " and," preceding Krjpv^aoyv, " preaching." This reading,
it is true, has but feeble documentary support, being attested'
only by B, 33, 73, and 102, against all other witnesses. But
the internal evidence is overwhelming in its favor, and against
the ordinary reading which retains W. In other words, it is
incredible that Mark should speak of John as one " who blptized
in the wilderness," then in the very next breath say that all they
of Judea and Jerusalem went out to him and " were baptized
by him in the river Jordan." Nor does he, if his language is
properly understood. With the text corrected as Westcott and
Hort have it, Mark says that, in accordance with what is written
in prophecy, "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness.
«74
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
preaching the baptism of repentance " etc. "O j3amLt,<av, instead
of being equivalent to Ss i^airTiae, "who baptized," as the
Revisers make it, or even to 5s i^inTi^e, " who was baptizing,"
represents the idea of the verb substantively, " the baptizing
one " or " the baptizer," as Mark uses the expression in vi. 14,
and in the Revisers' text in vi. 24. If the connection required
it, it might be equivalent to the relative and the imperfect, os
ifiaTTTi^t, " who was baptizing." But there is nothing to call for
this interpretation. It would make the evangelist's language
imply that John was one who was known to have been baptizing
in the wilderness, but that he now came preaching the baptism
of repentance. This construction and interpretation, however,
because of its irrelevancy, is untenable. The only correct view
to take of the phrase is to consider it as a substantive, as the
evangelist elsewhere uses it ; and, in doing this, the conjunction
before Krjpvtrawv must be rejected. This removes all difficulties,
makes the language consistent, and Mark's record correspond
with the statements of Matthew. See Matthew iii. i, 5, 6.
1. 8.
Rec. T. lya yHv i^iimtra vjuis — I indeed have baptized yon.
Rev. T. lyii ipwirria-a. v(ids — I baptized you.
The particle /xcv, " indeed," is rejected here by some editors,
if not by the Revisers, not so much because three or four
uncials and three cursives happen to be without it, but because
Matthew (iii. 11) and Luke (iii. 16) have it. The evangelist
is not giving his own words, but recording the words of the
Baptist ; but because his report herein corresponds with that
of the other reporters, as might be expected, and a few manu-
scripts are found to have omitted this word, it is concluded
that it was foisted into the text from Matthew or Luke. The
word was doubtless lost sight of by an early copyist because
his mind at the time unconsciously reached forward from the
emphatic subject iyui to its verb tfiairTiaa, and his pen followed
his thought. This overlooking of an intermediate word or
MARK.
175
expression is a very common occurrence in transcribing, and
is no doubt the cause of many omissions in the ancient manu-
scripts of the New Testament. The presence of /xev, the genu-
ineness of which ought not to be questioned, is sufficiently
vouched for by A, D, E, F, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, T, A, n, and
all but three cursives, — 69 and 124, which omit the word,
being but transcripts of the lost uncial 4>. C is defective
here.
1. 13.
Rec. T. Tiv 4k«i Iv tj) ^prjiicp — he was there in the wilderness.
Rev. T. T|v iv rg {p'^|i<>> — he was in the wilderness.
The received reading here is rejected on the assumption
that it is a " conflate " reading, or made up from two other
readings. ^, A, B, D, L, ^;}, 102, two (13, 346) of Ferrar's
group and a few other cursives, together with the Old Latin,
Vulgate, Memphitic, Ethiopic, and Gothic Versions sustain
the revised reading. Origen and Eusebius also quote the pas-
sage in a similar manner ; but their quotations can hardly be
relied on as furnishing the real text even of their own manu-
scripts. K, n first hand, about a dozen and a half cursives
besitles 69 and 124 (the other two of Ferrar's group), and one
copy of the Armenian Version omit " in the wilderness,'' and
read " there " instead, referring to the words " the wilderness "
just before. Now, each of these readings is evidently a clip-
ping down of the original reading, — the one rejecting the
word " there " as superfluous, and the other discarding the
phrase " in the wilderness " for the same reason. If either of
these alone had been the original reading, it is incredible that
the common reading would ever have been adopted. But the
acce])ted reading is the reading not only of the Peshito Syriac
Version dating back at least two centuries earlier than the
oldest known Greek manuscript, but of E, F, H, M, S, U, V,
r, A, n second hand, most of the cursives, the Philoxenian
Syriac, and Zohrab's Armenian Version. The phraseology.
176
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
" He was there in the wilderness," is perfectly in accordance
with Mark's mode of speaking. Compare v. 11, " Now there
was there nigh unto the mountains" (A. V.), or " Now there
was there on the mountain side" (R. V.). The mountains
had been spoken of just before in verse 5. There can hardly
be a reasonable doubt that early scholars or scribes considered
the expression " there in the wilderness " as verbose or redun-
dant ; hence, one sought to amend it in one way, and another
in another. The omission of the single word eVa, "there,"
being the simpler of the two ways, was more generally adopted
than the other. But the weight of internal evidence is against
both readings, as alike mutilations of the original text.
1.14.
Rec. T. t4 cua-fycXiov rf^s Pa<riXf (as toO 0€oO — the gospel of the
kingdom of God.
Rev. T. ri cua^-y^iov tov 0toO — the gospel of God.
The evidence seems hardly sufficient to justify the conclu-
sion that the phrase " of the kingdom " is spurious, and must
be banished from the text. Both its presence and its absence
are attested by versions running back to the middle and latter
part of the second century, showing that both readings are of
a very early date. The passage is quoted by Origen in two
different places without this phrase ; but this does not neces-
sarily imply that such was the reading of his manuscripts, as
his quotations were often given from memory and imperfect.
The phrase does not appear in Ji^, B, L, about ten cursives,
three copies of the Old Latin, one of the Vulgate, the Mem-
phitic, the Armenian, and the Philoxenian Syriac in its printed
form. On the contrary, it is given as genuine in A, D, E, F,
H, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, n, most of the cursives, the oldest
copies of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, Peshito and Phi-
loxenian Syriac (the latter in its manuscript form), Ethiopic,
and Gothic Versions. The use of the expression, " the glad
tidings of the kingdom of God," i.e. concerning the kingdom of
MARK.
177
God, though not demanded by the context, is certainly favored
by it ; while the omission of the phrase " of the kingdom "
may have been due to a failure to see its force and a desire for
greater conciseness, as is tlie omission of Koi Xt'yoji/, "and say-
ing," immediately afterwards in some of the very documents
that omit t^? /Sao-iXtia?, and in no others. We believe the
phrase to be genuine, and rightfully entitled to a place in the
text.
i. 23-
Rec. T. Tiv iv T^ cruvo^cii-yg avruv — there was in their synagogue.
Rev. T. cuOiis tJv iv t^ <rvvo7ai-yg avruv — straightway there was in
their synagogue.
The insertion here of " straightway '' is in deference to the
testimony of three uncials, four cursives, the Memphitic Version,
and a single passage in Origen. But it looks more like a
mechanical repetition from verses 18, 20, 21, than like a genu-
"■"llie reading. In each of these verses, the foregoing witnesses
with singular uniformity give kox. nl^u's in preference to the
common reading kuX eiOtun;, — B, of the three uncials, giving
the latter form in verses 18 and 21 only. But the expression
Koi liOvi rjv, " and straightway there was " a man etc., is not in
accordance with Mark's way of speaking. When he uses this
adverb, it is in a connection in which action of some kind, not
a mere state of being, is denoted or implied : it is either
straightway " they forsook" or " he called" or " the leprosy
departed" or '' there met him," or " they were amazed" or
something similar. He might have said that a man " straight-
way appeared in " or " came into " the synagogue, — and the
word would not be misplaced. But the verb is not iyivtro ;
it is the substantive verb r]v without any participial adjunct.
The very fact that this verb, standing thus without a comple-
ment, is found modified by (.vOv^ even in ^, B, L, i, 33, and
Origen indicates that a clerical error has been committed rather
than that Mark so far failed in the proper use of words. But
178
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
documentary evidence, as well as intrinsic probability, prepon-
derates against the reading. A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U,
V, r. A, n, all but four cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic
Versions, without a dissenting voice, attest the spuriousness of
" straightway " in this connection.
1. 39-
Rec. T. tiv KT)pva-o-«>v — he preached.
Rev. T. ffiXBt KT)pv(r(r<i>v — he went . . . preaching.
The Revisers' reading is supported only by X, B, L, the
Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions. That of the Received Text
on the other hand is strongly attested by A, C, D, E, F, G, K,
M, S, U, V, r, A, 0f, n, the entire body of the cursives, the
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Old Latin, Vulgate, Armenian,
and Gothic Versions. *HA^£ was probably introduced on account
of its being considered a more appropriate word than rjv to
follow ayatfiiv, " let US go," — the change being also favored by
the tU coming immediately after. It is preferred by Tischen-
dorf, not because it has the support of preponderating documen-
tary evidence, but because Luke (iv. 44,) has iji/, — as if two
different writers, in expressing the same thought, could hardly
have used the same word or words ! Westcott and Hort of
course adopt it, inasmuch as it is a reading of the Sinaitic and
Vatican manuscripts. (See Note on the rendering of the pas-
sage in The Revisers' English Text.)
i. 40.
The omission of the words and kneeling down to him by
" some ancient authorities," as the marginal note has it, is plainly
the result of a copyist's oversight. The phrase in the original
ends in the same letters (-&)v avrov) as the clause preceding,
and the one was mistaken for the other ; hence the omission,
under the impression that the words had already been copied.
The omission appears in B, D, G, F, and less than ten cursives ;
MARK.
179
also in half a dozen copies of the Old Latin, and in these only.
It hardly deserves a marginal note, and would not have received
it but for the fact that Westcott and Hort omit " to him " al-
together, and bracket the rest of the expression as of doubtful
genuineness, though attested by Ji{, L, and a large number of
other documents. The Peshito Syriac, with the freedom which
that version occasionally exercises, places the expression before
" beseeching him," so as to present the events in their appar-
ently natural order, making the verse read, " And a leper came
to him, and fell at his feet, and entreated him, and said," etc.
This, however, does not detract from the genuineness of the
phrase. It only shows the liberty exercised by an early trans-
lator in adapting his rendering to what he deemed the exi-
gences of the case or the proprieties of Syriac speech.
Rec. T. ircIXiv ctirfjXStv cl$ Kaircpvaov)i — again he entered into
Cap(S;Oaiim.
Kcv. T. «ltrt\8<!)v xoXiv cts Kaircpvaov|i — when he entered again
into Capernaum.
The Revisers' reading is attested by X. B, D, L, half-a-dozen
cursives, one or two copies of the Old Latin, the Memphitic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions. But it is an evident attempt
at improving the style, by varying the simple, unstudied lan-
guage of the evangelist. The true position of itaXw, " again," is
undoubtedly just before tU KairepvaoJ/i,, as is attested by all
the uncials and most of the cursives. But the substitution of
il(Ti\6u>v for tl(rr]X6iv and the following xai, " and," is simply
an attempt to relieve the first verse or two of one of their
personal verbal forms, and at least one of their " ands." Had
this reading of the Revisers been the original reading, it seems
hardly possible that any scholar or coypist could have been
tempted to change it into the less elegant reading of the
Received Text, which is attested as the genuine reading by
A, C, E, F, G, K, M, S, U, V, T, A, 0', n, the greater part of
i8o
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Vulgate, and
Gothic Versions, and most copies of the Old Latin, including
d, the Latin Version of D.
11. 2.
Rec. T. «4e^«s <r«vVjxeii<rav iroUo( — straightway many were gath-
ered together.
Rev. T. <ruvif)x6i]<rav iroXXoC — many were gathered together.
The vividness of Mark's descriptions is strikingly illustrated
by the use of «i(9£(os here. It shows the immediateness with
which the crowd gathered together after hearing that Jesus was
in the house, so that there was no farther room even about the
door for some little time before a sick man was brought to be
healed by him. This enlivening of a sentence by the use of
a single word is one of the characteristics of this evangelist,
and it gives good ground for believing in the genuineness of
£u^e'(D? in this connection. But X. B, L, two cursives, three
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Peshito Syriac, Memphitic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, by omitting the seemingly
unnecessary word, at once rob the narrative of this peculiar
feature of Mark's style. Notwithstanding the evidence of
the early date of the omission, there is hardly room to doubt
that the true reading is that preserved in A, C, D, E, G, K, M,
S, U, V, r. A, ©*■, n, nearly all the cursives, the Philoxenian
Syriac, and Gothic Versions, and in most copies of the Old
Latin.
11.3.
Rec. T. cp\ovTai irpis avr&v, irapaXvTiK&v <{i^povTC$ — they come
unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy.
Rev. T. Ipxovrai (|>^povT(s wpos avTov irapaXvTiK6v — they come,
bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy.
The reading of the Revisers is attested only by X, B, L, two
cursives, two copies of the Old Latin Version, and five of the
Vulgate. It has the appearance of being a reading made to
MARK.
J
181
escape a seeming difficulty. As if the words "They come to
him, bringing " etc., implied that they came, not to the house
where Jesus was, but to his very feet, some pious hand changed
the position of " bringing," and placed it before " to him," so
as to make the words read " They come, bringing to him " etc.
This makes them mean that, while Jesus is speaking, persons
are on their way bringing to him a paralytic. This was obvi-
ously done to save the evangelist from the supposed contradic-
tion of saying that they came to Jesus, bringing a paralytic,
when he himself says in the next verse that they could not get
to him. But the transposition destroys the straightforward
simplicity of the evangelist's record : " They come to him,
bringing" etc. This order, which is that of the Received Text,
is fully attested as genuine by A, C, D, E, G, K, M, S, U, V,
r, A, 0'', n, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac Versions, most copies of the Old Latin and of the Vul-
gate, and the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic Versions. Some
of these, however, place TrapttXvTiKoV after instead of before
^ipovTt'i, — a change which in no way affects the sense.
11. 4.
The marginal wording " bring him unto him," or rather
"bring [him] up to him," which "many ancient authorities
read " in place of " come nigh unto him," has more of the
appearance of a gloss than of an original reading. In the
preceding verse the idea had been introduced of bringing to
Jesus the paralytic. After that change, it was thought neces-
sary to make a more explicit statement here than is conveyed
by -the wording could not " come nigh unto him," by changing
it to could not " bring [him] up to him " (TrpocreveyKai auru,
not tVeyxat Trpos avTov). Though the reading is not admitted
into the text by the Revisers, it is but the sequel of the false
reading they have adopted in the preceding verse, and is
vouched for by substantially the same witnesses ; namely, )j^.
l82
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
B, L, less than half a dozen cursives, two copies of the Old
Latin Version, the Vulgate, Memphitic, Philoxenian Syriac,
Ethiopic, Arabic, and Persic Versions. On the other hand,
the reading of the Revisers' (as well as of the Received)
Text has the support of A, C, D, E, G, K, M, S, U, V, T, A,
©•■, n, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito Syriac, Armenian,
and Gothic Versions, and most copies of the Old Latin.
Besides, like more than seventy other words in this Gospel, the
word Trpoo-EyyiVai, " to come nigh to," appears in no other por-
tion of the New Testament, thus affording strong presumptive
evidence that its use here originated with Mark himself, not
with any of his copyists. If " to bring up to " had been
Mark's word, it is hard to conceive how " come nigh to "
should have crept into the Text, for it explains nothing, and
is not as definite in expressing the real desire and purpose of
the persons spoken of as the other term. All this clearly indi-
cates that TrpofTfviyKai is a false reading, a gloss, though adopted
by Tischendorf in his partiality for the Sinaitic, and by West-
cott and Hort in their apparent reverence for the Vatican
Codex.
ii. 12.
Rec. T. TJ^^pflt) cvS^ws, KaX apas tov Kpdpparov — immediately he
arose, took up the bed, and.
Rev. T. T|7<p9t), Kal «v6us apas t6v KpoPParov — he arose, and
straightway took up the bed, and.
The Revisers' reading is that of J<, B, C first hand, L, 33,
the Armenian Version, and one manuscript of the Memphitic
Version. But it lacks the support of intrinsic probability as
well as of convincing external testimony. It may have arisen
unconsciously through the careless transposition of tWc'ws and
Kat by some early scribe ; but more probably through the
intermeddling of some critical reader, who, not seeing the sig-
nificance of " immediately " as connected with " arose," con-
sidered it more pertinent to say that the man took up his bed
immediately on rising ; or rather, that the man arose, and
MARK.
183
straightway, having taken up his bed, went forth before them
all. That is to say, according to the Revisers' Greek, what tire
man immediately did was to go forth, after having risen to his
feet and taken up his pallet. This leaves it to be inferred that
no inconsiderable length of time might have elapsed after he
was healed, before he arose ; but that, as soon as he was fairly
on his feet, he went forth from the midst of the multitude.
But this reading overlooks the very purpose for which eidiwi
was introduced ; namely, to show the immediateness as well as
the thoroughness of the cure, not the immediateness with which
the man started for his home after he had risen to his feet. Luke
(v. 25) notices the same fact in somewhat different terms:
"Having immediately {napaxprif^a) fisen up before them, he
took up that whereon he lay, and departed " etc. But, because
Luke writes thus, some are ready to say that the common
reading is an attempt to make Mark's statement conform to
Luke's. This, however, is simply a subterfuge without a shadow
of support. The truth is, both Mark and Luke are recording
the same circumstance. While they vary in their language,
they have the same facts to record ; hence the correspondence
of their statements. There is no call for either of them to say
that the man at once proceeded homeward ; nor can there be
any question as to the true reading in either case. It is next to
a moral impossibility that Mark or any other historian should
have given such a statement as the Revisers' Text gives. After
being cured, and having risen to his feet, the man took up his
bed ; but whether he went out of the crowd at once or not is a
question of no moment whatever. The common reading, con-
necting " straightway " with " arose " instead of " went forth,"
cannot be set aside on the ground of a preponderance of evi-
dence against it ; for this is not the case. Besides being
strongly supported by internal evidence, it is attested as genu-
ine by A, C third hand, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, W'', T,
A, ©^ IT, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac Versions, as well as the Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, Gothic,
1 84
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
most manuscripts of the Memphitic as well as its printed form,
and most copies of the Old Latin. Five copies of this last
Version omit " straightway " altogether.
ii. 15-
Rec. T. {y^v(to iv Tu KaraKtio-Bai avTo'v — it came to pass that as
Jesus sat at meat.'
Rev. T. iyivfro KaTaKtio-Boi avTo'v — it came to pass that he was
sitting at meat.
The omission of iv t<S, " as " or " while," is supported by
X, B, L, half a dozen cursives, and two editions of the Mem-
phitic Version. Its presence is called for by A, C, E, F, G, H,
K, M, S, U, V, W, r, A, n, most of the cursives, and nearly
all the versions. D and half a dozen copies of the Old Latin
Versions have a reading of their own. The omission seems to
be due to the presence of the Kai, " that," immediately after ;
the Hebraistic use of which by Mark was not perceived or
understood. To obviate the seeming difficulty, the scribe
dropped the expression ; just as at Matt. xv. 6, and Mark vii.
12, the scribe, being in a similar dilemma, omitted the Kai. It
seems hardly possible that any scribe could have been tempted
to insert the omitted words if they had not been a part of the
original text ; for without them the reading, Uke that at verse
23 and elsewhere, is too plain to present any difficulty or sug-
gest any need of an addition of this kind. (See Note on Matt.
XV. 6.)
ii. 16.
Rec. T. T( on (icrcL tuv tcXuvuv Kal ii)iapT<i>Xaiv iirBia Kal trlvci; —
How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
Rev. T. 8ti Mcrd tuv tcXwvwv Kal ofiapruXuv IcrO&i Kal irlvu. — He
eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners.
In connection with this reading, the R. V. has the marginal
note, "Or, How is it //laf he eateth . . . sinners f" The
1 The A. V. has "Jesus" instead of " he " to represent airiv here,
simply to prevent any misapprehension that might arise in the mind of an
MARK.
185
revised reading is attested only by B, L, and four cursives ; and
one of these is changed to rt on by a subsequent corrector.
The Sinaitic Codex and D alone read Sia ri; while ri on is
attested by A, C, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, n, and
nearly all the cursives. But neither of these last two forms is
to be found elsewhere in Mark. Notwithstanding the feeble
attestation of the Revisers' reading, it must be considered the
genuine one. It accords with Mark's use of the word, — not,
as the Revisers have taken it in the text of their version,
pleonastically as the sign of a quotation or of something said
by others than the writer ; nor even as in their marginal note, in
its common and most general sense of " that " ; but interroga-
tively, — commonly written o,rt — in the sense of 8ta ri (or
, Mark's occasional £19 Tt), "wherefore " or "why." Mark uses
the word thus in ix. 11 and 28. B and a single cursive (570)
also read o,Tt instead of tl in ii. 7, — which Westcott and Hort
place in their margin as a secondary reading, and which may
possibly be the true one. It is certainly more forcible and
more in keeping with the character of the Scribes and Pharisees
for them to have said, " Why eateth and drinketh he with
publicans and sinners?" than to have said, with the R. V.,
" He eateth and drinketh " etc. The latter, in view of the
circumstances, is tame, not to say flat, and altogether inappro-
priate. Besides, both Matthew (ix. 11) and Luke (v. 30)
represent the Scribes as uttering their objection in the form of
^ question. , This seems to afford conclusive evidence that
Mark's words here should be taken as a question, as Westcott
and Hort very properly punctuate them, for he is reporting the
samp utterance. — The other readings — Sia n' and ri on — are
only glosses upon Mark's expression, with a view to save him
from being misunderstood.
unlettered person on reading the words " as hf sat at meat in his house,"
where one might suppose " he " and " his " referred to the same individual,
whereas the former stands for "Jesus," and the latter for "Levi's."
1 86
THE REVISERS* GREEK TEXT.
11. 22.
Rec. T. 6 otvos ^KX.trai, Kal oi do-Kol a,roXo«vTai - the wine is
spilled, and the bottles will be marred.
Rev. T. 6 otvos iWXXvTai Kal ol do-KoC-the wine perisheth, and
the skins.
The rendering of the Memphitic Version — "the wine per-
ishes wi//i the leathern bottles " -may be considered by some
as supporting the revised reading here. But this is a version
without a known text from which it can be legitimately obtained.
The only known Greek manuscript that has the reading of the
Revisers is B. But this ought not to be considered sufficient
for displacing the common text, which is attested by X, A, C,
E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r, A, n, nearly every cursive, 'six
copies of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, Philoxenian Syriac,
Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic Versions. The Peshito Syriac
also contains the reading, but with the clauses reversed,—
" lest the wine burst the sacks, and the sacks be spoiled, and
the wine spilled." The reading of D, followed by half a dozen
copies of the Old Latin Version, is, " the wine and the leathern
bottles will perish " ; that is, it corresponds with the Received
Text, except that it omits " is spilled " after " wine." On the
other hand, L and a single cursive (102) read "the wine is
spilled and the leathern bottles " ; which is the Received Text
without "will perish," — presenting an incomplete and non-
sensical reading. B's reading (adopted by the Revisers) cor-
responds with L's only in being unfinished ; but it rejects after
"wine" its proper verb "is spilled," and not only inserts
instead the word " perish," which in X, A, C, D, and the great
body of witnesses stands after " leathern bottles," but changes
it from the third person p/ura/ of the /ufure to the third person
singular o{ the present. With B's known tendency to abbrevi-
ate, and without a scrap of documentary or other support from
any quarter, we do not understand how this can be regarded
as the true reading. Tischendorf adopts it because it differs,
in the omission of " will perish," from the reading in Luke v.
MARK.
187
37 ; it being a principle with him that, of two rival readings in
the Gospels, the one which differs from that found in another
Gospel is generally the true one, without any regard to whether
it is a part of the writer's own language or merely his report of
the words of another. On this principle, and on altogether
insufficient evidence as far as we can see, he rejects the last
clause of this verse as an interpolation from Luke, overlooking
the fact that Mark and Luke are reporting Jesus' words, and
might be expected to agree in so doing.
The omission of " must be put," at the end of the verse, is
supported by J^ first hand, B, and the single cursive 102, which
unites with L in the nonsensical reading referred to on the last
page. D and five copies of the Old Latin Version, and only
these as far as is known, omit the whole clause, " But new wine
must be put into new bottles." On this slender evidence
Tischendorf strangely enough concluded that the clause is
not genuine, that it has crept in from Luke v. 38, and infected
all the other manuscripts ! Hence its omission from his Text.
Other editors, on the same principle, omit " must be put," as
if the scribe of J^, B, could not have given a false copy as well
as that of D. But the presence of this word in the text is
demanded (i) by the fact that the sentence is incomplete
(/. e. the sense cannot be expressed) without it; (2) by the
fact that Christ actually employed the word, so that Mark could
not have reported his language without using it ; and (3) by
the documentary evidence that attests its genuineness ; namely,
Ji^ as amended, if not by the original scribe, by his contempo-
rary reviser, A, C, E, F, G, H, K, L (which here refuses to follow
B), M, S, U, V, r, A, n, every cursive but one, seven copies
of the Old Latin (a house divided against itself!), the Vulgate,
Memphitic, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic,
and Gothic Versions, — an array of witnesses whose testimony
certainly ought to outweigh that of the three that are opposed
to them under circumstances so strongly indicative of error on
their part.
i88
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
iii. 14, 16.
The readings referred to in the marginal notes here are at
best but " conflations," — the former apparently taken from
Luke vi. 13, and the latter being simply a repetition of the first
clause of verse 14. Both are found in X. B, C first hand, and
A, and are of course adopted by Westcott and Hort. Tischen-
dorf, however, adopts only the latter, though it is a less strongly
attested reading than the other, having only the support of an
Ethiopic manuscript in addition to that of the foregoing four
uncials, while the other is additionally attested by two cursives
besides the four that compose Ferrar's group, the Memphitic
Version, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Ethiopic,
and the Arabic of the Polyglot. Lachmann and Tregelles
reject both readings.
iii. 15.
Rec. T. i\nv {{ovo-Cav Ocpaircvciv tAs voVous koI IkPoXXciv rd
8ai)iovia — to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.
Rev. T. fx'^" *|ov<rtav {kPoXXciv rd Sai|io'via — to have authority to
cast out devils.
The words "to heal sicknesses and" are rejected by the
Revisers and some modem editors because they are not found
in X> B, C first hand, L, A, 102, and the Memphitic Version,
being regarded as introduced from Matt. x. i, or Luke ix. i.
But they are attested by A, C second hand, D, E, F, G, H, K,
M, P, S, U, V, r, n, almost the whole body of the cursives, the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the
Memphitic of later date, the Armenian, and the Gothic. Though
omitted by the two oldest known Greek codices, they were
evidently accepted as part of the original text' at least two cen-
turies before those codices came into existence. If, as some
suppose, they were interpolated, they would hardly stand where
they do. Both Matthew and Luke represent Christ as empower-
ing his disciples first to cast out demons, then to heal diseases ;
whereas Mark reverses this order. If the words " to heal sick-
MARK.
189
nesses " were not genuine in Mark, they would unquestionably
follow the words " to cast out demons," just as they do in the
other evangelists. But their standing in the order in which
they do, is an indication of their genuineness. Some early
possessor of this Gospel, on coming to them, seems to have
considered the power to heal sicknesses as something by no
means likely to have been conferred, since physicians generally
in a certain sense possess this power, and so he erased the words
from his text. Hence the abbreviated statement found in a
few documents. That Christ gave his disciples authority to
heal diseases as well as to cast out demons, there can be no
question ; but why Mark should have omitted to record this
fact in connection with the other passes comprehension. In
view of all the evidence presented, it is incredible that he really
did omit it.
iii. 25.
Rec. T. ov Svvarai o-raOfivai — cannot stand.
Rev. T. ou Svyfjo-crai or-TaBfjvat — will not be able to stand.
There is no apparent reason why Christ, in this verse, should
not have said, "is able" or "can," as in each of the two preced-
ing verses and in the two following. It was not his custom to
vary his language for the mere sake of variety.' Nor is the
testimony in support of " shall be able " by any means over-
whelming. The documentary evidence in its favor consists
of the testimony of ^, B, C, L, A, three copies of the Old
Latin, and a few of the Vulgate ; while those that read " is able "
are A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, T, n, all the cursives,
most copies of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, including
Codex Amiatinus, the best of all the manuscripts of the
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the
Ethiopic, and others. Awj^trtrat seems to be the work of some
critical reader, who, offended at finding, SuVarai used five times
in immediate succession, sought to vary the phraseology by
* See Notes on Matt. v. 30, and xxiii. 19.
190
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Changing the form of the word in this instance. There is no
reason why the word should have a different form here from
that m the preceding verse. The structure of the sentences
IS the same, and the grammatical construction and force of the
words precisely the same, in both verses. And when we con-
sider the simplicity and even sameness of phraseology peculiar
to Jesus language, we cannot but be satisfied that the revised
reading is an attempt at improvement by some early hand.
iii. 26.
Rec. T. KttV (If (i^pwrrai, — and be divided.
Rev. T. Kal i^upla■9l], — and is divided.
The propriety of this change is doubtful. It makes no dif-
ference in the meaning. The reading is attested only by X, B,
C first hand, L, and A ; but that of the Received Text has the
support of A, C second hand, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V,
r, n, and the entire body of the cursives, while it is favored by
all the versions. It seems hardly possible that it should be a
false reading. If (fiep^aOr] is the original reading, it is difficult
to see why it should have been changed to the perfect without
a corresponding change in the preceding dveVr,, "hath risen."
It looks rather as if the perfect /^t/^fyoio-Tai had been mistaken
for the aorist, and been unconsciously made to correspond in
tense with dyta-rrj, with which it is so closely connected, just as
in John X. 25, in a London edition of 1613 of the A. V. we find
" I told you and ye Mieved not," — a printer's very natural mis-
take in reading the past for the present after the word " told."
iii. 2g.
Rec. T. dW Ivoxo's iirriv olwvtou Kp£o-««s.— but is in danger of eter-
nal damnation.
Rev. T. dXX" cvoxo's 4o-tiv atuv(ov afLaprVjiiaTos.— but is guilty of an
eternal sin.
The reading of the Received Text is attested by A, C second
hand, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r, n, nearly all the cursives,
MARK.
191
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and one copy each of the
Old Latin and the Vulgate. The revised reading, adopted also
by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort,
is that of X, K, L, A, and three cursives ; while C first hand,
D, three of the four cursives of Ferrar's group, and Athanasius
read a/xaprtas instead of d/xapT7;/xaTos. The Latin Versions gen-
erally, together with some others, support one or the other of
the latter readings ; but which of the two, it is hard to deter-
mine. Generally a variation like a/uiapTi^/iaTos and dynapTtas in
connection with an invariable reading like KpiVtios is considered
a ground of suspicion against such variants. But in this instance
it does not seein to be the case, probably on account of the
supposed high character of the manuscripts containing one of
these forms. When we consider the meaning of the words, we
may find the suspicion growing upon us, if not becoming a set-
tled conviction. Let us take the revised rendering of the whole
sentence : " Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit
hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." If we
mistake not, almost any thoughtful, intelligent person, on read-
ing or hearing these words for the first time, must be more or
less impressed with a sense of the want of appositeness in the
concluding clause. It is more or less of a non-sequHur. This,
however, is not the case with the common reading ; nor would
it be with this, if it only read " unpardonable " in place of
" eternal." The impossibility of an offender's obtaining for-
giveness does not imply that his offence is an endless act.
There is, indeed, no such thing within the range of human
deeds as an endless act. Hence the absurdity of calling any
form of sin, especially an act of blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, which is the sin here under consideration, and
which may be committed in a moment, an eternal sin, —
that is, a sin that would require all eternity for its perform-
ance. Forgiveness involves an exoneration and deliverance
from condemnation of some sort ; and a forgiveness that can
never be had implies that there is something in the nature
192
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
of the sentence under which the offender lies that stands
in the way of its being removed by an exercise of pardoning
power. It imphes that the offender's crime is so heinous and
his guilt so great that his sentence, which is assumed to be just
and proportioned to his crime, cannot be removed ; it must be
endured to the bitter end. If the offence, as is the case with
the sin against the Holy Ghost, is a deliberate maligning of the
intervening Power through whom pardon is offered and a
spuming of the only means by which forgiveness can be ob-
tained, there is, of necessity, no forgiveness to be had. Noth-
ing remains for the offender but to continue under bonds. He
is in the grasp of an unending sentence of condemnation.
Hence the appositeness of the reading, " Hath never forgive-
ness, but is deserving of and subject to, or rather in the grasp
of, an eternal sentetice." The word Ivo-xp'i, literally " held in "
or " held in the power of," denotes exposure, liability, subjec-
tion, to condemnation or punishment. In Christ's use of the
word elsewhere, this is its only meaning. The fact that the
word is followed in this verse by a genitive instead of a dative
does not militate against this idea, or require the word to be
taken in the sense of" guilty." ' But some early reader of Mark,
not being able to take lvoxo% in any other than this sense before
a genitive, seems to have thought it necessary to place ofuipTTJ-
fuxTcx; in the margin from verse 28, as a gloss, or a presumably
more suitable word to be employed than Kpiaim, so as to read
" guilty of an eternal sin " ; and from the margin the word crept
into the text in some copies, while into others d/iapTtas, as a
preferable form, found its way. The reading seems clearly
false. The other is certainly far more strongly attested. The
expression " guilty of an eternal sin " can be true in no legiti-
mate sense of the words. Taken literally, it can mean only that
the blasphemer is guilty of a sin of eternal duration. But the
1 The distinction which Schaefer (on Demosthenes, V. p. 323) lays
down between these two constructions [i.e. with the genitive and with
the dative] does not appear in the N. T." — iVincr, § 28, 2, note.
MARK.
193
sin of blasphemy, considered as a deed, as it is here, is the act
of a moment. The guilt is what endures or may endure, as
well as the punishment to which the transgressor is exposed.
The notion of eternity therefore belongs to the guilt and the
doom rather than to the act of the sinner. And yet " an eter-
nal sin " cannot mean eternal guilt or eternal punishment ; for
the words " guilty of eternal guilt " or " guilty of eternal pun-
ishment " have no significance. Indeed, the expression, "guilty
of an eternal sin," and the manner of its employment are alto-
gether unlike anything of Christ's elsewhere on record, and
speak their own condemnation.
Rcc. T. tjpMTTio-av avTov . . . t7|v irapaPoX'^v. — asked of him the
parable.
Rev. T. TJpuTuv ouTov . . . rds xapa^\a$. — asked of him the
parables.
This plural form, "the parables," is attested by Ji?, B, C, L,
A, one copy {g') of the Old Latin, five of the Vulgate, and
the Memphitic Version ; that of the Received Text, by A, E,
F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, n, the great majority of the cursives,
the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, Petraeus' transcript of the
Memphitic of Mark, the Ethiopic, the Armenian, and the
Gothic ; while D, two cursives, in addition to Ferrar's group,
ten copies of the Old Latin, and Origen give a reading that is
similar to that found in Luke viii. 9, but which is evidently a
gloss, pointing, however, to the singular form as the original
from which it was derived, and so sustaining the common read-
ing. This is regarded by some as a correction of the plural
form to make the reading tally with Jesus' answer in verse 13.
But the emphasis there laid upon the word " this " forbids any
such view. Jesus' inquiry, " Know ye not this parable ? "
shows clearly that the question asked by his hearers had refer-
ence, not to all the parables that he may have spoken on this
occasion, but to the one parable recorded in the preceding
194
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
verses. The plural — "asked of him the parables ^^ or "asked
him concerning the parables" — looks like a reading originally
placed in the margin by some reader who observed that the
plural was employed in the following verse as well as in verses
2 and 13 (and possibly, too, that Matt. xiii. 10, reports the
disciples as asking, " Why speakest thou unto them m parables ? "
— an entirely different question, however, from that recorded
here — ), but afterward incorporated into the text, and pre-
served in a few manuscripts and versions. That it is not the
original reading seems clear from the following considerations.
In the first place, the reply of the Saviour in verse 13 to this
inquiry is not, " Know ye not these parables ? " but " Know ye
not this parable ? " after which he goes on to say, " How then
will ye know all the parables?" As if he had said, If ye
understand not this parable, but need to have me explain it to
you, how are ye going to understand the rest of my parables?
The whole answer points to an inquiry concerning one particu-
lar parable. As an answer to an inquiry respecting more than
one, it has no fitness or significance. Then a reference to
Luke viii. 9, where the same question is recorded as here with-
out that given by Matthew, shows that the question had refer-
ence to this particular parable, and could not therefore have
been worded in the plural as if referring to more than one.
V. 27.
Rec. T. dKovo-oo-a irtpV tov 'Iho-ov, — When she had heard of Jesus.
Rev. T. aKO«<ro<ra to irtpl tov "Iiio-ov, — having heard the things
concerning Jesus.
The revised text is supported only by J< first hand, B, C
first hand, A, and a single lectionary of the eleventh century.
Of the two readings, it is, of course, the more difficult. But
it is a manifest error, committed by an early scribe. After he
had written the preceding word, his eye, on returning to the
exemplar before him, probably rested on the aao-a to. nap' m
the preceding verse, and mistaking this for the cra<ra ntpl he
MARK.
195
was copying, he naturally enough was led to insert the article.
Yet some insist that the article was considered superfluous, and
so was omitted in all the other Greek manuscripts, and in every
version throughout ancient Christendom ! The error of insert-
ing TO. was confined almost wholly to three manuscripts of
Egyptian origin, and in two of these it was afterwards cor-
rected as an obvious blunder. The ninth-century codex A may
have received the error from one of these very manuscripts.
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort adopt it on account of its
being the harder reading, and found in J^ and B. But the
common reading is overwhelmingly attested by X ^^ amended
by the earlier seventh-century corrector, A, C as amended by
its sixth-century corrector, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, n,
all the cursives, and all the versions.
V. 36.
Rec. T. dKov<ra$ t6v \6yov XaXov)Uvov — heard the word that was
spoken.
Rev. T. irapaKouiras tov Xo'^ov XolXov|jkvov — not heeding the word
spoken.
The rendering " overhearing," given by the Revisers in the
margin to the compound irapaxowas is hardly allowable, as it
was not a meaning commonly attached to the word as late as
the Saviour's day. The word at that time had come te
denote an unwillingness or refusal to hear, — a disregard of
what was said. This is the sense in which it is used here,
as the Revisers correctly give it in the text, — "not heed-
ing," " paying no attention to." The only question is
whether it is the word really used by Mark. On this point,
the witnesses are divided. The Sinaitic Codex by its original
scribe and afterward by its later seventh-century corrector,
B, L, A, and one copy (e) of the' Old Latin are the only
ones that have it, while they also omit lidio)^, " as soon as."
In this omission, they are strongly supported by D, eight cur-
sives, most copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphitic,
J 96
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, and
the Persic Versions. In attestation of the uncompounded form
dKovo-a9, " having heard," we have the Sinaitic Codex as amended
by its earher seventh-century corrector, A, C, D, E, F, G, H,
K, M, S, U, V, n, all the cursives, every copy but one of the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, and every other
known version. In the face of all this testimony, especially of
the united testimony of the various versions, it is hard to con-
clude that the common reading is not genuine. But let us look
at the words themselves. Take the reading 5 Se 'IrycroCs aVowas
Tov Xdyoi/ XaXovfjLfvov. The only legitimate meaning of these
words is, " But Jesus having heard the word spoken " ; that is,
having heard it as or when it was uttered. A critical person
might easily be dissatisfied with this reading, ending as it does
with an apparent pleonasm, which he would gladly see removed.
On this account, no doubt, D and several copies of the Old
Latin read " having heard this word." But B, to obviate the
difficulty altogether if possible, inserts the article after \6yov (as
well as before), and changes aVouo-as to irapaKouVas (which
last only appears also in a few other copies), making the clause
mean, " not having heeded the word //la/ was spoken." The
true reading, rendered more certainly true by its apparently
pleonastic character is, " But Jesus, on hearing the word as it
was spoken," — that is, as it fell from the lips of the messengers
themselves, and not waiting to be told it by the ruler. If
TrapaKouVa? were genuine, it would never have been set aside on
the ground that its meaning was not understood. It was a
familiar word, with the well-known meaning of " paying no
attention to " ; and for this very reason it found a place here,
under the hope of improving the phraseology. Instead of
improving it however, it makes Xakovixtvov without the article
an unmeaning addition ; for why should Jesus be said not to
have heeded the word w/ien (or as) it was spoken? Such a
statement implies what we have no reason for believing, — that
the word was uttered in his hearing afterward. Besides, if
MARK.
197
TrapaKovVas were Mark's word, we may be assured that his state-
ment would have been simply, " As Jesus did not heed the
word," or else, as B has it, " the word //w/ 7ejas spoken, he
saith" etc. But neither of these has a respectable support
from external sources. Hence we take axouo-as to be the
true reading.
vi. 2.
The only " ancient authorities " that " insert ^he," and read
oi TToXXoi', " the many," are B, L, 28, and three of the four cur-
sives of Ferrar's group, — virtually only four witnesses. All the
other " ancient authorities " testify against the reading. The
marginal note seems to be inserted in deference to VVestcott
and Hort, who unite with Tischendorf and a few other modem
editors in adopting the reading. It matters but little whether
we read " many " or " the many," — that is, the generality, the
most of those that were present. The latter is verbally more
inclusive, expressly denoting neady all ; while the former, which
is really more in accordance with the New Testament use of
the word, especially that of the evangelists, does not forbid this
meaning, though it does not necessarily convey it. It is the
safer rcailing. The other looks like a gloss, an aiming after
classical precision, not called for by the context.
VI. 14.
A marginal note here intimates that the verb, which in the
text assigns the saying, "John the Baptist is risen from the
dead," etc., to Herod, appears in the plural in a few ancient
documents, and makes Mark say, " And ^/ley said [this word
" they " being unexpressed in the Greek, and without any ante-
cedent], John the Baptist is risen," etc. These documents are
B, D (the latter reading eXcyoaav instead of tXiyov), two cur-
sives, four copies of the Old Latin Version, and Augustine of
course. But the plural verb, especially without any subject,
ig8
THE revisers' greek text.
comes in very awkwardly after the evangelist's reference to
Herod. Evidently the verb was changed to the plural on
account of verse i6, to save Mark from attributing the same
statement to Herod a second time. But, if the plural were a
genuine reading, we should expect to find koI JA\oi c'Xtyov, or
01 8t eXfyov, " And some said," instead of the simple verb. The
absence of a nominative in connection with a plural verb fol-
lowing so closely after an other^vise almost unmeaning reference
to Herod, repeated as that verb afterwards is, indicates that
the plural is a false reading. At the same time, the statement
of verse i6 comes in quite naturally after verse 15. In addi-
tion to all this, the reading of the text is very strongly attested,
and must be considered the true reading.
VI. ao.
Rec. T. iroXXd itroCci, — he did many things.
Rev. T. iroXXd T|iro'pci, — he was much perplexed.
The Revisers place the received reading in the margin, and
translate it " did many things," in accordance with the A. V.
Their own reading is supported by J<, B, L, and the Memphitic
Version only, — all Egyptian documents. But it is evidently
a false reading introduced by some pious soul away back in the
early centuries. Not comprehending Mark's meaning, and
considering tVot'et a clerical error, he undertook to rectify the
supposed mistake by substituting ^n-dpti for it, taking his cue
from Luke ix. 7, where StTjTroptt, "was much perplexed," is
used by the evangelist in speaking of Herod. But the refer-
ences of the evangelists in the two passages are to very differ-
ent things. Mark is speaking of what Herod did after having
heard John ; and Luke records Herod's feelings on a subse-
quent occasion on hearing of the fame and deeds of Jesus.
The plain meaning of the verse according to the common text,
which Lachmann follows, and which is supported by all the
uncials and versions except the few above mentioned and the
MARK.
199
entire body of the cursives, is that Herod reverenced John,
knowing him to be an upright and holy man, and at the same
time took good care of him ; and having heard him once, ke
i/i't/ it Jrequently (iroXXa inoUi), and heard him with pleasure.
This use of iiroki, " he did it," in place of rJKovtv airov, " he
heard him," is as legitimate in Greek as the corresponding
form of words is in English.' The use of the imperfect, indi-
cating repetition of the action, confirms this view of the
evangelist's meaning. The revised reading introduces a con-
fusion of ideas not at all in accordance with Mark's manner.
Nothing but a misunderstanding of his meaning would ever
have led to the change.
"Some ancient authorities," says the marginal note here,
" read /lis daughter Herodias" in place of " the daughter of
Herodias herself" Verses 24 and 28 speak of the girl as the
daughter of Herodias; and Josephus {Antiquities, Bk. xviii.,
chap, v., sect. 4) says not only that she was the daughter of
Herodias by Philip, whom her mother deserted for Herod
Antipas after she was born, but that her name was Salome, and
not Herodias, as this false reading would make it. And yet
J5, B, D, L, A, 238, 473, and 558, by reading "his daughter
Herodias," would make Mark contradict himself and the truth
of history. The reading, of course, is spurious ; and yet VVest-
cott and Hort adopt it as the only reading worth noticing, —
the true reading !
vi- 33-
Rec. T. 4irf7v(i)<rav avxAv iroXXol, — many knew him.
Rev. T. i-iri-yviDcrav iroXXol, — many knew them.
The former of these readings is that of E, F, G, H, S, V, T,
and a large proportion of the cursives. The latter is attested
1 See Matt. xxi. 6; xxv. 40, 45; xxvi. 12; Mark xi. 3; xv. 8; Luke vl
10; ix. 54; Acts xix. 14, etc.
200
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT,
by B, D, ten or twelve cursives, three copies of the Old Latin,
and the Vulgate. There is a third reading, — i-iriyvwirav avrovs
TToWoi, " many knew them," — which is vouched for by X. A,
K, L, M, U, A, n, about seventy cursives, two copies of the
Old Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic,
and the Ethiopic. The first of these is not attested by a single
version or early uncial, and seems to be a later reading. Still,
it may be as early as the others, and even earlier. The last of
the three, being apparently the most strongly attested, is
adopted by Tischendorf as the true reading. But the second
is accepted by the Revisers in consequence, we suppose, of its
adoption by Westcott and Hort, as well as by Lachmann. The
true reading, we are inclined to think, is lost ; for no one of
these gives a pertinent sense, whether we read " many knew
him," or " many knew them," or " many perceived it." There
is no apparent propriety in the evangelist's saying, in this con-
nection, that many knew Jesus, or knew him and his disciples,
or perceived his departure. The multitudes, as a matter of
course, knew them, and saw them go, as the evangelist had
just said. The statement is therefore without significance, and
seems utterly uncalled for. But, if we suppose that the evan-
gelist wrote th ov [towov being undrestood], as John (vi. 21)
wrote lU ijv, meaning " whither," and referring back to " the
desert place " mentioned in the previous verse, we have a per-
tinent reading. Of course tov rairov, " the place," would be a
somewhat simpler reading; but, if the evangelist had written
this, the transcribers, in all probability, would never have stum-
bled over it. But with the other reading, an early scribe might
easily have been puzzled, and in his haste or carelessness
have written avrov. Another, considering this improper, since
more than one are supposed to be spoken of, changed it to
aurou's. And still another, sensible of the impropriety of both
avTov and avTov^, omitted the word altogether. Taking th ov
as the original reading, there seems to be no difficulty ; the
remark of the evangelist becomes perfectly natural. Jesus and
MAKK.
201
his disciples " went away by boat to a desert place apart. And
they [/.<?. the people generally] saw them going, and many
[though not all of them perhaps] knew wliither, and on foot
from all the cities they ran together thither, and outwent them."
This, besides giving coherence to the verse, makes the word
" thither '' refer back easily and naturally to the word " whither,"
instead of, in a somewhat unnatural manner, to the phrase " a
desert place " in the previous verse.
vi- 53-
Rec. T. TJXeov iirt tt)v -yiiv Ttvuo-ap^, — they came into the land of
Gennesaret.
Rev. r. l-irl Tiiv -yiiv ^\eov tW revntrap^T,— they came to the land
unto Gennesaret.
The revised reading here, which is supported by Ji^, B, L, A,
and three cursives only, like that at Matt. xiv. 34, originated in
the misconception that Gennesaret was a town or village instead
of a district or territory. The proper rendering is not that of
the R. v., nor yet that of the margin, — " to the land, they
came unto Gennesaret " ; but rather, " they came to the land
[or landed] at Gennesaret." (See Note on Matt. xiv. 34.)
The received reading is well attested by A, D, E, F, G, H, K,
M, N, S, U, V, X, r, n, neariy all the cursives, and the versions
generally. C is defective here ; but in Matt. xiv. 34 it supports
the reading of the Received Text.
vii. 4.
The "ancient authorities," which, the marginal note says,
"read sfrinkU themselves" in place of "wash themselves" or
" bathe themselves," are X, B, and nine or ten cursives. The
reading, though adopted by Westcott and Hort in their devo-
tion to B, especially when supported by the Sinaitic Codex, is
opposed to facts as well as to documentary testimony gener-
ally. It is an attempt on the part of some ignorant reader to
set aside a word appropriately descriptive of an outward per-
202
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
sonal cleansing common among Jews, for one descriptive not
of a real cleansing, but of a symbolic cleansing. It is a reading
suggested by Heb. ix. 13, Num. viii. 7, and similar passages in
the Old Testament, in place of what may have seemed to be
an exaggerated statement, and it is justly rejected by editors
generally. It is on a par with that false reading in Matt, xxviii.
19, "Go, disciple all nations after having baptized them," etc.,
which is found only in B and D, and which Westcott and Hort
place in their margin as a possibly genuine reading !
vii. 4.
Rec. T. Paim<r|iov$ . . . x<^<<(wv Kal kXivuv. — The washing of
. . . brazen vessels, and of tables.
Rev. T. PairTL(r|iou$ . . . xo^kCuv. — washings of . . . brazen ves-
sels.
The omission of " and of tables " or couches, is probably the
work of the same hand that changed " bathe " to " sprinkle "
in the beginning of the verse. It is supported by X. B, L, A,
a single cursive (102), two lectionaries (of the middle of the
eleventh century), and the Memphitic Version; while the
genuineness of these words is attested by A (C is defective),
D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, r, n, nearly all the cursives
(including all those that usually side with B), the Old Latin
Version, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the
Gothic, the Armenian, and Origen. The omission is due to
the difficulty which some early reader, not familiar with Jewish
customs, found in admitting the fact of the ceremonial washing
or bathing of tables or couches. If the omitted reading were
not genuine, it certainly never would have found a place in the
text. The very fact that the omission appears in only a lim-
ited number of Egyptian manuscripts, some of them of early
date, is prima facie evidence of early deletion. The words
ought without any doubt to be restored to the text. They
are retained by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Meyer, and
others.
MARK.
203
The omission of xat (= Ini, "that") at the beginning of this
verse is supported by X. B, D, A, eight cursives, half a dozen
copies of the Old Latin, the Memphitic, and the Ethiopic Ver-
sion. The absence of its equivalent from the versions, however,
does not necessarily indicate its absence from the original Greek
from which the version was made. The presence of the word,
which is scarcely to be accounted for if not genuine, is supported
by A (C is defective), E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, H,
most of the cursives, two copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, and the Arme-
nian. L has its proper Greek equivalent on, which of course
is an interpretation, but it points to kixL as the original reading.
Instead of there being an aposiopesis or suppression of the
conclusion after <ij(^£A.»;6^s, as the rendering of the A. V. implies,
and as some still suppose, the conjunction really connects
XiytTi, "ye say," in the beginning of verse 11, with a<j>kTt, "ye
suffer," in the beginning of this verse, and introduces the clause
to which the former refers as that which is said, — " Ve say, if
etc., t/iat ye no longer suffer," etc. As the R. V. reads how-
ever, the words " ye say " seem to be left without an object.
(See Note on Matt. xv. 6.)
vii. 16.
This verse is omitted ; but the margin says, " Many ancient
authorities insert verse 16, If any man hath ears to hear, let
him hear." The propriety of this omission is exceedingly
questionable. The verse is wanting only in X, B, L, A first
hand, two cursives (28, " most carelessly written by an ignorant
scribe," — Scrivener; and 102, already referred to as a partial
copy of Codex B), and the Memphitic Version, — mainly if not
wholly Egyptian witnesses. It is attested as genuine by A
(C is defective), D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, V, A as
corrected, IT, nearly all the cursives, the Old Latin Version, the
204
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the
Armenian, and the Ethiopia. The verse has by no means the
appearance of an unquestionable interpolation as similar lan-
guage has in some copies of Luke xii. 21 and xxi. 4. It comes
in, not only appropriately, but most naturally and in perfect
keeping with the context, following as it does one of those
somewhat enigmatical declarations of Christ's, to which he was
wont to attach this saying for the purpose of arresting attention
or enforcing the truth presented.' The omission looks like the
work of an abbreviator, who might naturally have considered it
unnecessary to repeat an utterance appearing so frequently
elsewhere, especially on finding it wanting after Matt. xv. 11.
If the words were not genuine, they would doubtless have been
introduced, like the interpolations at Luke xii. 21, and xxi. 4,
by some such phrase as " Saying this, he cried." The evidence
in favor of retaining the verse is too strong to warrant its
rejection.
vii. ig.
The Revisers are unquestionably right here in setting aside
the accusative KaOapi^ov (which makes the word refer to a<f>t-
ip!ava), for the nominative, KaOapi^wv, which they render " mak-
ing clean." But this is leaving their work only half done.
Hence the necessity, under which they were, of referring
KaOapi^mv to Jesus, or "he" at the beginning of verse 18, as
Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Chrysostom, and others have
erroneously done, and trying to make the evangelist say that
the Saviour meant by the preceding teaching to show that no
meats were unclean. To do this, they found it necessary to
supply three words not found in the original, and to render the
evangelist's words KaOapi^mv iravra TO. Ppuifiara by " This he said,
making all meats clean." But, in the first place, ^pZipa does
not mean what Americans, at least, generally call meat ; it
1 Compare Matt. xi. 15; xiii. 9, 43; Mark iv. 9, 23; Luke xiv. 35.
MARK.
205
denotes simply food — any solid food as distinguished from
milk and drinks generally. I'hen again, Christ's aim was not
to teach that all kinds of food are clean or suitable for eatmg.
His words have no reference to clean or to unclean meat, so
called. They were directed solely against the idea that it was
defiling to a person to eat without first washing his hands j
because, as he goes on to say, it is not what one eats that
defiles him, but it is the impure thoughts, the base purposes,
the unhallowed feelings that proceed from his heart. Things
that are eaten, Jesus says in so many words, " cannot defile "
a person. They pass into the stomach, whence they are ex-
pelled into the drain or sewer. This false rendering of the
Revisers, plainly perverting the Saviour's teaching, ought to
have led them to suspect the correctness of the text. And yet
the " authorities " are overwhelmingly in support of the rcadmg
as otherwise presented in this verse, by both the Received and
the Revised Text. Hy turning to Matt. xv. 17, we find that
in place of the word, .V,rop€.'er«, ^' goeth out," Matthew has
t-KiSciXAtTat, "is ^a^/ out," — the former word denoting activity,
the latter passivity, on the part of the subject of the predication.
This difference in the manner of expressing the action points
to the error that seems to have crept into Mark's text just here.
The Sinaitic Codex, one of the two oldest extant manuscripts
of the New Testament, together with a few cursive manuscripts,
reads here just as all the manuscripts do in Matt. xv. 17,—
^Kfi<{XXeTai, " is cast out." It may also be said, in passing, that
the oldest known version of the New Testament, the Peshito
Syriac was evidently translated from a manuscript or manu-
scripts that read cKi3aAX.rm, not i.^opci^ra. ; for its rendering
of the word is not " goeth " but " is thrown " or " is cast._ To
Tischendorf and all others who act on the principle of rejecting
the one of two rival readings that corresponds with an appar-
ently genuine reading found in a parallel passage, this corre-
spondence is enough to condemn this reading. It is proof to
them that it was taken from the parallel passage, where there
200
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
IS no doubt about its being the true reading. But it should be
borne in mind that the two evangeHsts here are simply record-
ing Christ's language. So that they would naturally employ the
same words ; at least, one of them would not give an unwar-
ranted turn to the thought by employing an unsuitable word or
form of expression. On this point there need be no doubt.
Then, on looking at the verse itself, it will be seen that it begins
with "goeth into," and is made to end with "goeth out."
These words also occur in the immediate context both preced-
ing and following. In such a connection, and especially as in
the very next verse the word iKwoptvo^^vov occurs, expressive of
an apparently similar act, it would be by no means strange if a
transcriber's mind should become somewhat confused, and of
two words expressing the same idea, the one actively, and the
other passively, he should write the former instead of the latter.
It is one of the most likely mistakes that a transcriber may be
supposed to be capable of making. Now, on the supposition
that just this thing occurred here in one of the early manu-
scripts, and that J<, and the few cursives that agree with it,
and the Peshito Syriac Version have preserved to us Mark's
word, let us see how the passage reads : " Perceive ye not that
anything that goeth into a man from without cannot defile him,
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his stomach, and
is cast out [by him] into the drain, he (thereby) purging away
all kinds of food ? " i.e. whatever he has eaten. The word
"he " naturally refers back to "him " in the phrase " by him "
which is implied in the passive form " is cast out," and which
we have inserted in brackets simply to show the real connection
of the words. The only apparent objection to this reading, as
far as we can see, is that it lacks the strong support of manu-
script evidence which might be desired. And yet, in view of
the internal evidence in its favor, the antiquity of the two prin-
:ipal witnesses in support of it, and the ease with which the
Dther reading can be satisfactorily accounted for, this fact ought
lot to have much if any weight. The reading is a more than
MARK.
207
probable one, and calls for no harsh and self-condemning con-
struction, like that of the Revised Version. The meaning it
demands for xaftipi'^oji' is that which the word obviously has in
Matt. viii. 3, — " his leprosy was cleansed," i.e. was purged
away. As to the construction, it differs essentially from that
in iii. 30, where the evangelist adds the remark, " because they
said, he hath an unclean spirit," — which he plainly enough
adds to explain why Christ uttered the words recorded in the
two preceding verses. The word " because " not only sends,
but was meant to send, the reader back to those verses for that
which the clause following it gives the reason for, and which is
obvious to every intelligent reader. The remark comes in
naturally, and, without a word added for explanation, presents
no tinge of obscurity or harshness of construction. But here
the closing words of the verse are a part of what Jesus himself
uttered. If taken otherwise, they misrepresent him. The con-
struction corresponds precisely with that in Luke xxiv. 47 :
" that repentance and remission of sins should be preached \i.e.
by you] in his name unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem " ;
— i.e. "ye beginning," — this being implied in the passive
" should be preached," — the only possible subject to which
the word " beginning " can be referred. If eVTroptv'tTai could
be rendered " is made to go " or " is caused to go," meaning
" is sent forth," there would be no difficulty. But this is an
unwarrantable rendering, though the active t/cTroptuttv means
" to cause to go forth."
vii. 24.
We have here the marginal note, " Some ancient authorities
omit and Sidon." That is, they read " He arose and went
away into the borders of Tyre." This reading is supported by
I), I,, A, two cursives (one of them being that " most carelessly
written" cursive 28), six copies of the Old Latin, and Origen
twice. (And he might very easily have omitted "and Sidon"
more than twice if his purpose had been served thereby.) On the
208
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Other hand, the reading of the text, -" Tyre and Sidon " _ is
al^undantly attested by S, A, B, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S,' U, V
A, 1, n, nearly all the cursives, six copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac
the Armenian, the Gothic, and the Ethiopic. Now let us pass
on to verse 31, where the Revisers adopt the reading "And
agam he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through
S.don unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders
of Decapolis." This is attested by K, B, D, L, A, two cur-
sives, all the copies of the Old Latin but one, the Vulgate the
Memphitic, the Jerusalem Syriac, and the, Ethiopic. Of the
two readings, — the marginal reading at verse 24 and that
introduced into the text at verse 31, — while both date back
to a very early day, the latter is evidently the older ; for there
is an obvious difference in their ages. And yet it is a strange
reading. There is an unnaturalness about the phrasing. Why
should Mark say that Jesus " came through Sidon to the Sea of
Galilee," and then go back and say " through the midst of the
borders of Decapolis," rather than " He came through Sidon
and through the midst of the borders of Decapolis to the sea
of Galilee " ? The construction looks suspicious. Besides,
" Sidon " can mean only the city of that name. It cannot be
taken as equivalent to " Sidonia " or " the borders of Sidon,"
any more than " Tyre " can be taken to denote the country
round about Tyre or belonging to that city. The word is
always used to denote the city itself. Now it is incredible that
Mark really wrote that Jesus "came through [the city of]
Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders
of Decapolis." This is not Mark's way of speaking. More-
over, Mark, of course, knew where Sidon was. Yet, if this
strange reading is correct, we must believe that Jesus, on leav-
ing the borders of Tyre for the Sea of Galilee, took the city of
Sidon on his way, thereby going a number of miles in almost
the opposite direction from Galilee, before turning his steps
southward. The reading, viewed from more points than one,
MARK.
209
certainly looks suspicious. This, however, is simply because
it is a false reading. An early careless copyist, who had no
knowledge of the geography of Phenicia, evidently mistook the
conjunction KAI connecting the names "Tyre" and "Sidon "
for the preposition A I A, — a mistake by no means unnatural.
A subsequent copyist, thinking it more suitable to have the
verb rJX^ev precede rather than follow the phrase " through
Sidon," made the transposition; hence the reading "came
through Sidon." After a while some other copyist or reader,
finding Jesus spoken of in verse 31 as having gone forth " from
the borders of Tyre," and not from the borders " of Tyre and
Sidon," felt it necessary to correct what he considered an error
in verse 24, by omitting or erasing the words " and Sidon."
But this error, not being found in the older copies from which
J^, B, the Memphitic, and a few other versions were taken,
does not appear in these documents, though it does in their
later allies, D, L, A, etc. This is the obvious genesis of these
readings, and it satisfactorily accounts for the testimony of
the manuscripts in which they appear. The reading of the
Received Text in verse 31 — " .And again departing from the
borders of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Gahlee
through the midst of the borders of Decapolis," — is attested
by A (C is defective), E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, W, X,
r, n, nearly all the cursives, one copy {q) of the Old Latin,
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, Armenian,
Persic (of the Polyglot), and Slavonic. (The Peshito Syriac,
however, reads " to the border of Decapolis " instead of
" through " etc.) This reading is as much superior to the
other as can well be conceived ; and its simplicity, naturalness,
perspicuity, and apparent correspondence to facts bear ample
corroborative testimony to its genuineness. When we consider
that much of the copying of the early manuscripts was done in
Egypt by persons ignorant of the geography and other pecu-
liarities of Palestine and Phenicia, we need not wonder at the
frequent erroneous readings that occur in them.
2IO
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
vii. 28.
Rec. T. Kal -yop tA Kuvapia — yet the dogs.
Rev. T. Kal Td Kvvapia — even the dogs.
The omission ofydp is according to X, B, H, A, ten cursives
besides two of Ferrar's group, the Memphitic, Peshito Syriac,
Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions. The received reading is
that of A, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r, n, the great ma-
jority of the cursives, seven copies of the Old Latin, the Vul-
gate, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the Gothic. D and five
copies of the Old Latin Version read " but even." Tischendorf
and others reject the common reading because it corresponds
with Matthew's text ; and Westcott and Hort even go so far as
to place D's manifestly false reading, Kvpu a'AAi Kai, " Lord, but
even," in the margin, omitting the preceding Nai', " Yea."
The common reading, however, is the true reading. Both
evangelists are reporting the same utterance, and on this very
account ought to be expected to agree, especially in the use
of a word on which the argument turns. (See Note on the
rendering of Matt. xv. 27.) The reading of the Revised Text
is no better than that of D, — the resort of some ignorant
scribe to escape the supposed difficulty presented in the use
of the combination Kal yap. Several of the documents that
support this reading, — notably J<, A, 13, 28, 69, — for a simi-
lar reason omit avTrj<; after Ovyarpiov in verse 25, — an obvi-
ously false reading ; and they are no more worthy of confidence
here than there. Even in Matt. xv. 27, B, the Peshito Syriac
Version, and e of the Old Latin omit ydp, " for," and attempt
to change the meaning and intent of the clause following.
vii. 30.
Rec. T. cvpt t4 8ai|to'viov 4^Xt|Xv06s, Kal ttjv Sv-yaWpa PcpXi]|i^in]v
«irl T'fjs kXIvtjs. — she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid
upon the bed.
Rev. T. e«p« to iraiStov P<PXt||i{vov f irl tt|v KX(it)v, koI to Saipioviov
f{cXT)Xu6os. — found the child laid upon the bed, and the devil gone out.
MARK.
211
The revised reading is supported by J^, B, L, W, A, i, 28,
33, 209, 473, and ten other cursives (except that i, 33, and
a few others have t^? kXiVt;! instead of ttjv kKlvt/jv, and L gives
the preposition erroneously as vtto, "under," instead of eVt,
" upon "), and by the Vulgate, seven copies of the Old Latin,
the Memphitic, the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac, the Ethiopic,
the Persic, and the Arabic Versions. D, and two other copies
of the Old Latin, have the same order, but read " the daughter "
instead of " the child," — in which they are also joined by i,
209, and 473. The common reading is attested by A, E, F,
G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, T, U, the great majority of the
cursives, two copies of the Old Latin, the Philoxenian Syriac,
the Armenian, and the Gothic. As the presence of the demon
ai)pears to have been the uppermost idea in the mother's
mind, rather than the thought that her daughter was the object
of the demon's power, slie besought Jesus " that he would cast
foith the demon out of her daughter " (verse 26), not that he
would deliver her daughter from the power of the demon. In
accordance with which, Jesus' final reply to the woman was,
" Go thy way ; the demon is gone out of thy daughter " (verse
29), not thy daughter is delivered from the demon. In like
manner, the evangelist would almost necessarily give the events
in the natural order of their occurrence, and say, — especially
after having just recorded the statement, " The demon is gone
out of thy daughter," — that " on returning home, she found
the demon gone fortli, and her daughter lying composedly
upon the bed," as the Received Text has it, rather than
that " on returning home, she found the child lying upon the
bed, and the demon gone forth," as the Revised Text gives
it, — leaving the principal thing to be mentioned last. One,
however, who did not observe the prominence given to the
thought concerning the demon by both the mother and Jesus,
might suppose the writer would naturally mention first the fact
of the mother's finding her child prostrated on the bed, and
then that of the departure of the demon, as a conclusion to
212
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
which she afterwards but immediately came. This, however,
is too cool and calculating a mode of writing to be attributed to
Mark. His sympathies and modes of expression are perfectly
natural. And as the mother's first anxiety was in reference to
the presence or the departure of the evil spirit, Mark would
naturally state the result on this point first. The fact that the
departure of the demon preceded the exhausted condition of
the child, which necessitated her resorting to the bed, would
also have led him naturally to state the facts in this order.
The variations among the documents in the details of the
order adopted by the Revisers are not in favor of the gen-
uineness of their reading as a whole.
See Note on verse 24.
vn. 31.
vu. 35.
Rec. T. cvS^us SiT]vo(x6iia-av avrov al cucoal, — straightway his ears
were opened.
Rev. T. SiT)vo(xOil<rav avroS al OKoal, — his ears were opened.
The omission of " straightway " is supported by J^, B, D, L,
W* first hand. A, 33, 102 (of course), six copies of the Old
Latin, and the Memphitic Version. But ^, L, A, place the
word farther along in the sentence, " and straightway the bond
of his tongue" etc. This shows that in their exemplars it had
become misplaced ; and this early misplacement in some man-
uscripts seems to have led to its entire omission from others.
Hence its absence altogether from B, D, one or two cursives, the
Memphitic, and certain copies of the Old Latin Version. Its
presence is loudly called for by A, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U,
V, W second hand, X, T, n, all but two cursives, at least three
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philox-
enian Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and the Gothic Ver-
MARK.
213
sion, as well as by Mark's well-known peculiarity of inserting
'• straightway " in recording any sudden and naturally unex-
pected occurrence.
vii. 37.
Rec. T. Tois aXctXous \aXttv. — the dumb to speak.
Rev. T. dXoXovs \a\<iv. — the dumb to speak.
The omission of the article is an obvious error, though
attested by J^, B, L, A, and 33. If Mark had omitted the
article before kox^ous, " deaf," immediately preceding, of course
its omission here would necessarily follow, as it does m Matt. xv.
30, 31. But its uncalled-for rejection, after having been used
in a similar clause just before, is not natural. Not another such
instance is to be found throughout this Gospel. The Revisers
themselves, while setting aside the Greek article, found it would
not d<rtD make a corresponding distinction in English, and say,
" He maketh the deaf to hear, and dumb ones to speak." The
presence of the article is not only called for because of its
insertion before Kiot^ous, but sufficiently attested by A, D, E, F,
G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, W, X, r, D, and the whole body of
the cursives, with the single exception of 2,Z-
viii. 16.
Instead of the words, " saying. We have no bread," the mar-
ginal note says that some ancient authorities read, " because
they had no bread." That is, D alone of all the Greek manu-
scripts reads Ci^v, " they had " ; while only B, i, 28 (after B),
209, and 473 read €;(ovo-i, " they have"; — a variation which
is not only feebly attested, but rendered still less probably gen-
uine by its appearing in two rival forms. The only versions
that favor the third person are the Old Latin (and not all the
copies of this) and the Memphitic. The first person, as given
in the text, is attested by all the other uncials and cursives ; it
is also the reading of the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the
214
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Vulgate, the Gothic, tlie Armenian, and the Ethiopic Version.
Its genuineness, therefore, can hardly be called in question.
Lachmann, Tregelles, and VVestcott and Hort, however, follow
B and the three or four cursives that read j^owi. Hence, ap-
parently, the marginal note. But the reading, " They reasoned
one with another because they had no bread," seems to be
taken from verse 1 7, in which Jesus is represented, as in Matt,
xvi. 8, as asking his disciples, " Why reason ye [and come to
the conclusion that ye do] because ye have no bread ? " And
this is accepted the more readily by Tischendorf as the true
reading in preference to the other, because it differs from
Matthew's way of stating the case. But, on looking at the pre-
ceding verse, one will find that the cause of their " reasoning "
together was not the fact that they had no bread, but the fact
that Jesus had charged them to beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees. This led them not only to reasoning among them-
selves, but to conclude their reasoning by "saying, It is be-
cause we have no bread." It is merely to this conclusion that
Jesus refers in the next verse. Mark, viewing the facts just as
Matthew didj would almost necessarily express himself in the
same way. But a person changing Mark's words to make them
conform to the statement in the next verse would unwittingly
give the non-sequitur of this marginal reading.
vui. 17.
Rec. T. €Ti ircirup(i>^{vT)v €X«t« tt|v KapSCav v|iuv ; — Have ye your
heart yet hardened?
Rev. T. ircirupuii^vTiv £\«Te tt]V KapSCav u|iuv J — have ye your heart
hardened?
The omission of " yet " is supported by )j^, B, C, D, L, N, A,
eight cursives, one copy of the Old Latin, the Memphitic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions. But the word might very
easily have been lost in copying by having been carelessly
dropped after the preceding letters -trt, as similar omissions
MARK.
215
frequently occurred. Its presence is called for by A, E, F, G,
H, K, M, S, U, V, X, r, n, most of the cursives, most copies
of tiic Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac. It is certainly in keeping with the preceding owio,
" not yet." The reference in both outto) and m seems to be to
the occasion recorded in chapter vi. 51, 52, where the disciples
are spoken of as " not understanding," and their hearts as being
" hardened " ; and the presence of both owoj and In here
seems most naturally to be accounted for by considering them
as having been uttered in succession by Christ, and accordingly
as having been so recorded by the evangelist. This is far more
probable than that tn should have originated with some later
hand.
viii. 20.
Rec. T. 01 S( tlirov, 'Eirro. — And they said, Seven.
Rev. T. Kal \<-y°v<rtv avru, 'Eirro. — And they say unto him, Seven.
There may be good ground for changing 01 St Cikov to koX
\iyov<jw ; but the addition of airaJ is not so well attested. It
is found only in B, C, L, A, 115, three copies of the Old J^tin,
the Vulgate, the Memphitic, and the Ethiopic, and might very
easily have crept in from the Xiyovmv avrw of the preceding
verse. It does not appear here in X, A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M,
N, S, U, V, X, r, n, or in any of the cursives. Eight copies
of the Old Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic,
and Armenian Versions are also without " unto him."
viii. 23.
Rec, T. ^inipclTa airiv it ti pX^irci. — he asked him if he saw aught.
Rev. T. linjpiiTa ovt6v, Et ti pX^ircis ; — he asked him, Seest thou
aught?
The latter reading is attested by B, C, D first hand, A, 473,
and the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions. But Mark nowhere
else certainly uses « to introduce a direct question as Matthew
2l6
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
the wo"dt "" '" " '' '''''' '' "°'^>"g *° '"dicate that
G ek and in T . -^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^°™' ^ '" ^1---'
Greek and m Luke xx.„. 6, a question indirectly stated, "The
Phansees asked him whether it is lawful for a man to put away
ohinT d~r-''"' '^"•" '" ^^^"- ^'^- 3. the question I
pk.nly direct ; u cannot be taken otherwise. But not so here.
Mark s ordinary if not invariable use of the interrogative d is
to mtroduce an indirect question, and is equivalent to our
vilw o Th ^"^'"'"^ "■ ' ' ""' '' ■' '^^^ ''' 44-) Hence, in
view of the comparatively feeble attestation of /?A.W., we take
this reading to be an attempt to enliven the discourse by intro-
ducing an Alexandrian usage, not uncommon to the Septuagint
but in no wise characteristic of Mark. The reading of the
Received Text is attested by X, A, D second hand, E, F, G
H, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, n, almost the entire body of
the cursives, every copy of the Old Latin, including the Latin
Version of D, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac
the Gothic, and the Armenian. It is also adopted by Lach-
mann, Tregelles in his text, Tischendorf, and Westcott and
Hort m their margin.
viii. 26.
Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.
nllf ? ^' '^''^ ''* ^'' ''"'"''' ''°"^^T1«- -D° ""t «ven enter into the
The former of these readings is that of A, C, E, F, G, H, K,
M, N, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito
ind Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, and the
\rmenian. The latter is the reading of S, B, L, codex i first
land, 209, and the Memphitic Version, except that J< first
land has ^rj instead of ^r,SL Tischendorf, who also omits the
atter clause, consistently reads ^rj and not ixr,Si, which last
cally belongs to the other reading. The revised Greek, it
MARK.
217
is true, is " the shorter reading." But it obviously presents a
garbled and false text. It originated in the apparent superflu-
ousness of the last clause, especially in the supposed inconsis-
tency of saying, " Neither go into the village, nor tell it to any
one in the village " ; as if the man could not tell it to any one
in the village without going thither. Properly understood,
however, the Saviour's words, " any one in the village," mean
any one connected with the village, whom the man might meet
at his home or on his way thither. To obviate the seeming
inconsistency of Jesus' words, some early copyist or critical
reader omitted or struck out the last clause ; and, lest the first
word of the remaining clause might appear unsuitable, as
already seen, changed it to jur), " not." Codex D, in its own
peculiar way, makes Jesus say, " Go to thy home, and speak
to no one in the village." In this it is followed by the Old
Latin manuscript q. The Old Latin manuscript a varies this
somewhat, and reads, " Go to thy home, and enter not into
the village, nor speak to any one." Others, like the lost uncial
represented by Ferrar's group, read, "Go to thy house (or
home) ; and if thou shouldst enter into the village, speak not
(or say nothing) to any one, not even in the village " ; or simply
" speak not to any one." This is the reading of most copies
of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. Every one must see
that all these readings are due to the seemingly offensive
expression contained in the genuine reading as found in the
Received Text, which, in one way or another, they all elimi-
nate. It is impossible that this expression should have found
its way into the text and into so many manuscripts and ver-
sions if it were not genuine. Besides, the Revisers' reading
speaks for itself. It represents Jesus as sending the man away
to his home, simply adding, " Do not even enter into the vil-
lage." If one were to ask, "And why not?" echo would
answer, " Aye, why not ? " For without reading into the pas-
sage what the passage does not contain, no reason is apparent.
The poor man certainly could not have inferred the reason of
2l8
THE REVISERS' GREEK TEXT.
his being thus strongly forbidden to go there. To say nothing
of the unmeaning emphatic " even " here, the statement lacks
point. It has the appearance of unnecessary harshness, of
arbitrariness, if not of cruelty, utterly unlike Christ. It needs
the additional words, " Neither tell it to any one (whom thou
mightest meet) in any way connected with the village." Of
course, Jesus might have said, and Mark might have written,
" any one frotn the village." But neither of them did this.
" From " would not have expressed Jesus' real meaning. By
saying " in the village," he gave expression to the idea of fixed
and close relation with it. His words may perhaps be best
anglicized by saying, " any one intimately connected with the
village," — any one in close contact with it, whether inhabi-
tant or not, by whom news might be carried to and fro. This
is not an uncommon meaning of iv, " in." Thus, for example,
in Matt. xxii. 40, " On these two commands the whole law
depends." Jn them, i.e. in intimate connection and union
with them, its whole observance centres. So, too, i John iii.
24, " He that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him " ;
i.e. abides in close connection and constant intercourse and
fellowship with him. And so elsewhere. To spread the news
of this man's cure through Bethsaida would give the affair a
publicity which Jesus was not prepared for, and which he
desired as yet to avoid. Hence he uttered the additional
clause, as Mark reports him to have done. But the Revisers,
by following the two oldest manuscripts and three or four of
their usual allies in error, here present an abbreviated text of
Mark.
viii. 37.
Rec. T. t) t£ Sido-ci av6p<i>iro9 — Or what shall a man give?
Rev. T. tC "ydp 801 avBpwxos — For what should a man give?
The latter reading is that of J^, B, and L, though Codex L
and the earlier seventh-century corrector of the Sinaitic Codex
have the common form S<o instead of 801. But though this
MARK.
219
reading is supported by the two oldest known Greek manu-
ipts'it conveys a different form of thought from that em-
bodkd in the Saviour's words as reported ^X Matthew (xv.. 6)
where there is no question as to the reading. There it is
"What shall a man give? " That is, What object of sufficien
value can a person possibly find to give? But the thought
presented by the reading, "What should a man give? is
What ..,/./ a person to give? -implying that it is the dutyoi
no one to give anything, however valuable it may seen. We
sav nothing against this truth, considered in itself. Only it is
not the tru'th'embodied in Jesus' words as given by Matthew.
But we cannot suppose that Mark would record so different a
truth in giving what purports to be a report of the same state-
ment. Faithful reports of speeches as commonly given do no
differ in this manner. Viewed in this light, it would seem ha
the attestation of the three above-mentioned witnesses ought
to go for nothing, especially when °PP°-<i ^° ^';5^ f ?? V"u
decisive testimony as that of A, C, D, E, F «• «. K M S U
V X r n all the cursives, the Old Latm, the Vulgate, the
Peshi'to Syriac, all the rest of the Versions, and Ongen.
ix. I.
Rec. T. .ta T.vU T»v .fe. J<rTnK6To.v. -there be some of them that
''"Rev.T." a<rl nv« ^. .«v l.t,K6T.v, ^There be some here of them
that stand by.
The witnesses in support of this revised reading are B, D
first hand, and the Old Latin copies ., and k first hand ; while the
'ladings iven in d and /^ may -an -ther "There a.^^^^^^^^^^
of those standing around hete *ith -^' °^' J^^^. J/^
some here of those standing aroond me." ^ff>^'^^^,
is their intended meaning. A literal ^^"^^enng of the Reviser^^
reading is not, "There be some here of them that stand ty
for the word "by," it will be observed, is m ^tabcs It is
supplied to make good the loss felt by connecting here
220
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
With "be." Uapt(rTriK6T(ov is the word that means "standing
by," and which Mark would probably have used if he had
intended to say what the Revisers have made him say. (See
XIV. 47, 69, 70, etc.) The h'teral rendering of this new reading
IS, "There are some here of them that are standing" ; — which
implies the presence of others who are not standing. But
there is nothing in the context to warrant such a reading; and
Mark nowhere uses '.arrjKa in the sense of wapeaTr,Ka. The
readmg is an obviously corrupt and impossible one, due to
the unconscious misplacement, by some inattentive copyist, of
one little word, — a circumstance of no uncommon occurrence
among copyists even in these days. Matt. xvi. 28, and Luke
ix. 27, as well as the Received Text here, show what the true
order of the words is. Lachmann recognizes this as the true
order. But because B, and D first hand, present a different
reading, though plainly false and easily accounted for, Tre-
gelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, the Revisers, and others
accept the false reading as a genuine part of Mark's Gospel !
But the truth is, if Matthew and Luke give a correct report of
Jesus' words, either Mark in this reading misrepresents Jesus,
or some one else has altered his report. The case, it will be
seen, is very different from what it would be if the words were
a part of Mark's own narrative and not of language uttered by
another, of which Mark is merely giving an account. Two
other reporters agree in testifying what those words were.
Their testimony comes down to us unquestioned as far as the
order of the words is concerned. Mark, a third reporter,
agrees with them except (according to four witnesses) in
reference to the relative position of two little words, which,
taken in the order in which these four witnesses say they
should be taken, make an irreconcilable difference between
the meaning of his report and that of the other two. But
all the other witnesses, numbering several hundred, and many
of them fast friends of the four witnesses just referred to,
testify that the third reporter's words have been tampered
MARK.
221
wkh, — that, as originally given, they correspond in number,
form, and arrangement with the words given by the other two
reporters. These witnesses are Xi ^t C, D second hand, E,
F, G, H, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, X, T, A, n, all the cursives except
one (which places o>St after instead of before ia-TrjKOTnyv, and
writes it 08c), several copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic,
the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and, virtually, Origen, who gives the
words, probably from memory, tZv itrT-qKOTuiv <ISe. — Now, it
may be interesting to some to know that the scribe of D, one
of the two uncials that attest the revised reading djSe tu>v, felt
the same necessity that the Revisers felt, of having some
modifying word after "stand," and so added /ict' i[i.ov, "with
me " ; that is, D has the doubly false reading, " There are
some here of them that are standing with ftie." This addition,
one cursive (473) and six copies of the Old Latin also have.
It must be said, however, that, as an addition, it is better than
the Revisers' "by " ; for the rendering, "There be some here
of them that stand by," is simply tautological. It is equivalent
to saying, " There be some here of them that stand here." It
is impossible that a reading which requires such bolstering to
make such an unnatural statement should have emanated from
Mark.
The reading, Xtyoi/rts on At'youcriv, which the Revisers give
instead of the commonly edited reading, Ac'yovTes, "On kiyovaw,
as Westcott and Hort have it, should rather be Xiyovra' '0,n
Xiyovaiv, i.e. "saying. Why say," as Dr. Bloomfield edits it
both here and in verse 28. Dr. Bloomfield adduces several
instances from classic authors in support of the position that
the true word is o, n, equivalent to the interrogative Sio'n or
8ia Ti, "wherefore?" or "why?" and sufficiently justifies his
departure from the common mode of writing the word. (See
Note on ii. 16.)
222
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Ix. 12, 13.
There are not many passages that have given greater per-
plexity to critical readers than this. It is hard to believe that
Jesus ever uttered, or that Mark ever committed to writing,
such an incoherent statement as the following : " Elijah indeed
cometh first, and restoreth all things : and how is it written of
the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set
at nought?* But I say unto you that Elijah is indeed come,
and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is
written of him." Indeed, to attach a satisfactory meaning to
the words from first to last is a task that New-Testament exe-
getes have as yet failed to accomplish. The following, from
one of the Revisers, is a fair illustration of the manner in which
commentators labor to give coherence to the passage : " The
disciples desire an explanation of the saying of the scribes that
' Elijah must first come.' Our Lord answered, ' He is coming,
and is to restore all things ; and now I ask you how it is that
it is written of the Son of man, that he is to suffer?' The
answer to that question," this Reviser goes on to say, "is, that
as Elijah, though he came and suffered in fulfilment of proph-
ecy, is to come again and restore all things, so the Son, though
he is to suffer, shall come again in his kingdom, and fulfil that
which is written of him. The latter part of the comparison,
however, is not expressed, but left to be inferred from the for-
mer part, or made clear by future events,'" This, however,
fails to show the pertinence of the question, " How is it that it
is written of the Son of man?" in the connection in which
it stands. The comment may be said to be simply an attempt
at explanation, which nothing but devotion to a false reading
seems to call forth ; for there can be but little if any doubt
' Or, to give the punctuation of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, and
others, — " and how is it written of the Son of man ? That he should suffer
many things and be set at nought."
' Humphry, Commentary on the Kevised Version of the New Testament.
MARK.
223
that the passage does not read just as Mark wrote it. This
n,ay account in part, if not wholly, for the various readings
given in the ancient documents. Apparently, the difficulty he
in the words Kal .i., "and how." Yet this reading is attested
by S, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, L, N, S, U, V, X, T, by far he
Z^.r ;ar; of the cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic,
Ethiopic, Gothic, and Armenian Versions. Instead of th^
A K M A n, between twenty and thirty cursives, and the
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac Version read Ka^<i., "as.
But this reading, even if it were overwhelmingly attested and
accepted as genuine, would not give a cleady satisfactory read-
ing The only apparent clue we have to guide us through this
labninth is the reading of the Peshito Syriac Version, --a ver-
sion at least two hundred years older than the oldest known
Greek manuscript : " Elijah [truly] first cometh, to prepare al
thin-s ; and, as it is written of the Son of man, hew.U suffer
m S'and be rejected. But I say un.o you that Elyah hath
come ; and they have done unto him all that they desired as
it was written of him." This is a distinct and coherent utter-
ance. Nor can it be said to be taken from Matt. xvn. 12
But while it may not be accepted as giving a literally exact
translation of the original reading of the two verses, it shows
conclusively that the Greek text from which it was taken must
have read Kal KaOJ.. (or kuI ok), "and as," instead of .a. u.,,
"and how." The attestation of Codex A and its associates
indicates that it was Kal Ka6^., not Kal ^. Now, if this was
the original reading, it is easy enough to see that it might have
become corrupted at an early day into Kal .'.., as we now have
,t Ka^.i, was first changed to ok, just as it was m Luke xxii.
.4, and in Acts vii. 48, in Codex D ; in Acts vii. 17, m Codex
A; and by others in other places; after which, some copyist
changed ^ to :ri,, as was done in Luke vi. 4 (S, ^'^'^
and a number of cursives and versions) ; xx.v. 3S (E first
hand); I Thess. ii. m (F, G), and elsewhere. Hence the
phras g Kal .'.., making the passage read, "And how is it
224
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
wntten concem.ng the Son of man, that he must suffer?"
St as A r!T' 7r ''"" ^""' °'"'"^'^ -' before .aO^. ;
just as A first hand. E, and two copies of the Old Latin Ver-
sion omu the word under the same conditions in John xiv. 31 ;
B, K, and three cursives, in Rom. iii. 8 ; A first hand, and eigh
or ten cursives, ,n i Cor. xi. .; A, the Thebaic Version, and
Angus ,ne, m x John ii. 37; and as Origen does, and Cyprian
several umes, m quoting x Cor. xv. 49, and that too in connec-
t on w,th the preceding verse. There can be but little doubt,
U would seem, that the present reading arose in this way, and
that Kac Ka6u„ should be considered the true reading in place
rr«- '^.^^ '"'"'' '"'™d"<:ed by r.a is to be connected,
not with "xt xs written," as if T.a were equivalent to 5.., but
with ae<.v to be supplied after W from the i\e.i. of the first
r^\'\ '^^f P^^^^g^ 'hus corrected and construed will read,
Elijah xndeed cometh first, and restoreth all things; and
Lcometlx], as it is written concerning the Son of man, to suffer
many things and be set at nought. But I say unto you, that
not only hath Elijah come, but they have also done unto him
whatsoever they desired, even as it is written concerning him ■ "
xal . . . Kai, in this last sentence, being best translated per-
haps by " not only ... but also."
ix. 23.
Rec. T. TA ft 86vo<rai mo-r.Co-oi • — If thou canst believe.
Rev. T. TA ct Sivoo-oi • — If thou canst !
The revised reading is that of K, B, C first hand, L, A, t,
118, 209, -244, the Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Ver-
sions. The fuller reading of the Received Text is attested by
A, C third hand, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, n,
the great body of the cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the
Peshito and the Philoxenian Syriac, and Chrysostom. The
readmg may perhaps properly be said to be "left dubious by
the manuscripts." There certainly is not that preponderance
MARK.
225
of documentary evidence in favor of the shorter reading as to
compel its acceptance. And when we look at it from other
points, we may see that it has really no claims to regard, but is
merely the work of one who, not understanding the Saviour's
words, thought to enliven the discourse by the change. Dr.
Roberts thinks it " is a beautiful emendation." * And so the
ancient author of it probably thought. Dr. Schaff considers it
an " interesting reading" as compared with the "flatter cor-
ruption," as he is pleased to call it, " of D " and other docu-
ments which come down to us from all parts of Christendom.'
This " interesting reading," in the first place, does not sound
like Christ. It was not his manner of dealing with a pleading
sufferer to catch up his language and fling it back into his face
in the form of an abrupt, questioning exclamation, as if he was
surprised at the poor man's speaking as he did, and wanted to
rebuke him for doing it. There is not another such instance
on record. But, in order to setde the question, we need to
look at the force of the little word to which both the A. V. and
the R. V. leave untranslated, and which one of the Revisers,
speaking only for himself however, says, " cannot, without being
cumbrously over-translated, be given in English."' It is used
here to introduce an indirect interrogative clause, whether we
take the longer form of the Received Text or the shorter one
of the Revisers. As Meyer very justly says, it is not to be
taken " as a sign of quotation of the direct discourse," as De
Wette, the Revisers, and others take it. In every other in-
stance of its use in the New Testament to introduce an indirect
interrogative clause, it is equivalent to the English " as to." *
* Companion to the Revised Version of the Ne7v Testament, p. 32.
^ Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, p. 220.
* Humphry, Commentary on the Revised I'ersion, p. 80.
^ Compare Luke i. 62, " They made signs to liis father, as to what he
would have him called;" ix. 46; xxii. 23, 24, "as to which of them;"
xix. 48, " could not decide as to what they should do;" xxii. 2, " they were
questioning [or debating] as to how they might " etc. ; xxii 4, " as to how
226
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
So here : " Jesus said unto him, It is (or, The question is) as
to whether thou canst believe [not as to whether I can do W] ;
all things can be to him that believeth." In other words, " Jesus
said unto him, Canst thou believe ? " This is natural ; it is Christ-
like ; it commends itself to the devout reader. But, to express
this meaning, the omitted word is necessary ; it is an emphatic
as well as essential word, as the next clause shows. The
" beautiful emendation," as Dr. Roberts calls it, arose from an
entire misconception of Jesus' meaning, coupled with a vain
wish to improve the language. If- that meaning were what the
Revised Version seems to indicate, the words should be, without
the article, Ei iyus n SuVa/ioi ; " If /can do anything ! " as much
as to say, How canst thou speak so doubtingly as to ask me
whether I can do it? Jesus does not reprove the poor man's
doubtful manner o/ expressing himseU ; he simply calls his atten-
tion to the state of mind necessary to secure the desired bless-
ing. Besides, to put what seems to be the Revisers' meaning
upon the words ignores entirely the New-Testament use of to in
introducing an indirect interrogative clause. Taking that clause
as the Revisers present it to us, and giving to ro the obvious
meaning it has in e.very other similar condition in the New
Testament, the only rendering for it is, "The question is
whether thou canst," — without any emphasis on "thou," which
is unexpressed in the original. But this gives an unmeaning
combination of words. In view of all these considerations, we
find it impossible to conclude with Dr. Roberts " that the en-
feebling [ ?] believe of the common text has somehow slipped
in as a supplement." Its omission is rather the obvious work
of an early sciolist.
he might " etc. ; Acts iv. 21, " finding no way as to how they might punish
them;" xxii. 30, " wishing to know the certainty as to what he was accused
of;" Rom. viii. 26, " For, as to what we should pray for as we ought, we
know not;" I Thess. iv. i, " As ye received [instructions] from us as to
how ye ought to walk " etc.
MARK.
227
ix. 24.
Rec. T. Kpa|as 6 iraTT)p tov irai8£ov |«toI SaKpvuv iX*^!, — the
father of the child cried out, and said with tears.
Rev. T. Kpojas 4 iraTT]p tov iraiBCou iXeY«, — the father of the child
cried out, and said.
Having omitted from the text the words //.tra Saxpuuv, the
Revisers say in the margin, " many ancient authorities add with
tears." Whether this was designed as a sort of compensation for
the loss of the phrase from the text or not, is not for us to say.
The " authorities " referred to are A second hand, C third hand,
D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, n, nearly all the cur-
sives, every copy but one of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate,
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, and a compara-
tively recendy corrected copy of the Memphitic Version. The
documents that support the omission are i<, A first hand, B,
C first hand, L, A, a single cursive (28), and a single copy (_k)
of the Old Latin, together with the Memphitic, Armenian, and
Ethiopia Versions. It is easier to account for the omission of
the expression than for its presence if not genuine. It might
very easily have dropped out through inattention on the scribe's
part. Nothing easier, nothing more common. And as its
omission does not affect the construction, it would not readily
be missed except on comparison with other manuscripts. This
accounts for its after-insertion in A, C, and the Memphitic Ver-
sion. It is a touch of nature which Mark alone of all the evan-
gelists would be the one to give. The circumstances of the
case are such as to add strongly to the probability that the
father was brought to tears on the occasion ; and, if so, Mark
assuredly would not have failed to note it. If the phrase is not
a part of Mark's language, it is difficult to conceive why any
one else should have inserted it here, and not, for example,
in X. 51, or in other places. The entire evidence in favor
of the genuineness of the words is too strong to warrant their
omission.
228
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
iz. 26.
Rec. T. Kpojav Kal woUd o-n-apojav airo'v, .'HXe*. - Ihi spirit cried,
and rent Imn sore, and came out of him.
Rev. T. Kpa£as Kal iroXXA (riropo£os, cJ^Xe,. - having cried out, and
torn him much, he came out.
Aside from the improper omission of avroV (see verse 20),
the difference here is simply that the Received Text gives the
participles in the neuter as agreeing with itv(.v,ux, "spirit,"
while the Revised Text gives them in the masculine. The
former reading is supported by A, C third hand, E, F, G, H,
K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, n, and nearly every cursive. The
latter is the reading of X, B, C first hand, D, L ; while A sup-
ports both in part, — reading a-rapaiav with the Received Text,
but Kpi^as with the Revisers. The latter is regarded by some
as the original form, and the former as a correction. But it
is incredible that Mark, who was particular to distinguish the
demon from the child elsewhere throughout the passage by the
use of avTo, "it," and other neuter forms (verses 18, 20, 25,
28), should here have forgotten himself, and applied masculine
forms instead. The truth is, these two masculine forms were
brought into the text through the influence, on the copyist's
mind, of the masculine pronouns just preceding, — a very
common source of error among copyists. The change, how-
ever, does not affect the sense in the least. It is only a ques-
tion of correctness of text.
iz. 29.
Rec. T. ft \f.\\ iv irpoo-cvxfi koI vii<rTc(f . — but by prayer and fasting.
Rev. T. ct |iT| kv irpoo-cuxi]. — save by prayer.
After having rejected koX vqardn. from the text, the Revisers
appended' to the verse the marginal note, " Many ancient
authorities add and fasting." A more just statement, how-
ever, would have been " Most of the ancient authorities add
and fasting:' The omitted words are overwhelmingly attested
MARK.
229
as a part of the text by J>5 as amended by a seventh-century
corrector. A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, A,
n, the entire body of the cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic,
the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Persic, and other versions, as
well as Clement of Rome, Cyprian, and others of the Fathers,
though a few of these last invert the order of the two words
" prayer" and " fasting." The omission is attested only by ^
first hand, B, and one copy {k) of the Old Latin Version, —
a reading evidently of very limited and short-lived acceptance,
as a generally acknowledged error. That the words are genu-
ine, there can hardly be a question. Christ believed in fast-
ing as well as in praying, as his teaching and example
abundantly show. Believing in it as a means of strengthening
one's faith and of growth in grace generally, he naturally
coupled it with prayer in his teaching. And those who know
by experience the effect of fasting in keeping the mind clear,
and in preserving a spiritually minded condition of soul, are
prepared to see the propriety and appositeness of coupling the
two duties. The apostles and early disciples both fasted and
prayed, and were enjoined to do so. (See Matt. vi. 16, 17;
Acts X. 30 ; xiii. 3 ; xiv. 23 ; i Cor. vii. 5.) Nothing was
more natural than for Jesus, in addressing his disciples on this
occasion, to couple fasting with prayer, or for Mark to have
reported him as having done so. But some early scribe, not
relishing the words " and fasting," considered that he might
discharge his duty as a transcriber even if he omitted them,
and acted accordingly. His omission, however, was not ac-
cepted as presenting the language of the evangelist or the
teaching of Christ ; nor should it now be.
LX. 40.
This verse and Luke ix. 50 are evidently reports, by differ-
ent writers, of one and the same remark. Here we read.
230
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
" For he that is not against us is for us " ; while in Luke the
Revised Version has " For he that is not against you is for
you " ; and the preponderance of testimony is certainly in
favor of this reading. In other words in Luke, the later sev-
enth-century corrector of J5> B, C, D, K, L, M, H, n, more
than twenty-five cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Curetonian,
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Memphitic, Gothic, Armenian,
and Ethiopic, all read " against you is for you." The original
scribe of J^, A, X, A, and some cursives read " against you is
for Kj"; while a few other cursives have "against us is for
you"; — both of which may be unhesitatingly set aside as
erroneous readings. The common reading, " against us is for
us," is supported by the earlier seventh-century corrector of
Ji;, E, F, G, H, S, U, V, r. A, and most of the cursives. It is
a strong argument against this reading that no ancient version
supports it. So that the Revisers are apparently justified in
changing Luke ix. 50 to " He that is not against you is for
you." But the question arises. Why should not the same
reading have been adopted here ? The documentary evidence
in its favor may not be quite so strong ; but it is by no means
to be despised. It consists of A, D, E, F, G, H, M, N, S, U,
V, r, n, about seventy cursives, nearly all copies of the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the
Gothic, and the Ethiopic. In attestation of " against us is for
us," we have J^, B, C, the majority of the cursives, one copy
(/J) of the Old Latin, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and the
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac ; while L reads " against us
is for you " ; and U, X, and ten or twelve cursives read
" against yo» is for us." Thus, it will be seen that even here
the testimony of the versions preponderates in favor of the
reading, " He that is not against you is for you." If Jesus
really said " He that is not against you is for you," it is un-
reasonable to suppose that any one who heard him utter the
words, as Mark may have done, should report him as having
said " He that is not against us is for us." Hence, we may
MARK.
231
conclude that the true reading here is " you " instead of "us."
And this, not only because the two reports would naturally be
expected to correspond in an utterance like this, but because
Jesus was addressing his disciples, and reproving them for the
course they had taken. To make his words more effective as
a reason why they should not forbid another from doing good
works similar to their own, even though that person did not
follow them, he would naturally say, " He that is not agamst
you is on your side." The erroneous readings are due simply
to the mistaking of V^v for ^/xi,/, — one of the most common
errors that occur among the old manuscripts. And, as there
is nothing in the context that absolutely and plainly forbids the
erroneous reading, or in that reading itself tending to awaken
suspicion on the part of scribes, it passed the more readily from
one copy to another.
The " ancient authorities " to which the marginal note refers
as omitting the clause, " and shall cleave to his wife," are only
X, B, one lectionary (48), and the Gothic Version. But this
testimony, in itself considered, affords no good ground for
calling in question the genuineness of these words, much less
for rejecting them. According to the testimony of all other
witnesses, Mark represents Jesus as quoting word for word the
Septuagint rendering of Gen. ii. 24- He is also represented
in Matt. xix. 5, as doing the same thing ; but the manuscripts
• there are agreed that the clause, " and shall cleave to his wife,"
is a part of what Matthew says Jesus quoted. Here, however,
three or four witnesses, for some unknown reason, are not
willing that Mark should testify to the same fact. Tischendorf
and Westcott and Hort, as might be expected, omit the clause,
but for different reasons : Tischendorf, because the clause ap-
pears in Matthew's report, just as if Matthew and Mark would
not naturally give the same report of another's words ; and
Westcott and Hort, because they believe that with two or three
232
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
exceptions all readings of J<, B, should be accepted as tnie
readings until strong internal evidence is adduced to the con-
trary.
X. 24.
Here another marginal note says, " Some ancient authorities
om\\. for them that trust in riches." These "authorities" are
X, B, A, k of the Old Latin Version, and PetrjEus' transcript
of the Gospel of Mark in Memphitic. Tischendorf, who like
Westcott and Hort omits this clause, admits that something of
the kind may seem to be required by the context; but he
thinks that it is hardly safe, as he expresses it, to desert those
very ancient authorities that are usually followed. Hence he
persuades himself that the clause is from some later hand than
Mark's. But no one need wonder at this ; for it accords with
TischendorFs principle respecting parallel passages, when various
readings appear among the documents. In Matt. xix. 23, as
in the preceding verse here, Jesus is reported as having taught
that it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God. This is the very point of his teaching on the occasion ;
and to rob this twenty-fourth verse of the clause under con-
sideration is to take the heart and life out of it. Jesus had just
said, "With what difficulty shall they that have riches enter
into the kingdom of God ! " The disciples being amazed at
this remark, he repeated it, let us suppose, by saying simply,
" Children, how hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God ! "
Every one must see that this presents a complete evacuation
of the point and purpose of the utterance, making it wholly
inapplicable to the particular case and circumstances con-
nected therewith. The discourse may flow on evenly enough ;
but that is not the main point to be considered. It does not
teach the tnith that Jesus was here teaching. Indeed, the
Saviour nowhere advances the unqualified statement that it is
hard to enter the kingdom of God. Nor is it hard for the
childlike, the humble, the willing; but only for such as are
MARK.
233
wedded to another god than the true God. The truth is,
this omission appears in these manuscripts, not because they
present an older and purer text than other documents do. It
is rather because that they have the misfortune of presenting
a text that has been tampered with by some one who would
tone down, if possible, the declaration of Jesus, and make it
of universal application. And because this emasculated state-
ment has come down to us in our two oldest known Greek
manuscripts, it must forsooth be revived and placed in our
improved Greek and English New Testaments as a genuine
or a possibly genuine utterance of our Lord ! The received
reading, adopted by Lachmann and followed by Tregelles and
the Revisers in their texts, is placed by external as well as
internal evidence beyond the reach of permanent rejection.
It is attested by A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, T,
II, nearly every cursive, six copies of the Old Latin, the Vul-
gate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the
Gothic, the Armenian Version, and by TertuUian, Clement of
Alexandria, and other Fathers.
X. 43.
Rec. T. ovx ovta 81 to-rai tv {iy.lv • — But so shall it not be among
you.
Rev. T. oix ovTu H t'o-Tiv ev «|iiv • — But it is not so among you.
' The change from " shall be " to " is " is a mistake. It is
supported by X> B, C first hand, D, L, A, most copies of the
Old Latin, of course, and the Vulgate. But three of these
documents, namely, X, C, A, also read co-tuj, "let (him) be,"
instead of to-xat, " shall be," in the latter part of the verse.
And, if they are in error there, we see not why they may not
be here. Jesus is not speaking of what is mi the case of his
disciples, but of what is to be. Accordingly Matthew (xx. 26)
reports Jesus as using the future, although B, D, Z, one copy
(/«) of the Old Latin, the Thebaic Version, and Chrysostom
234
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
(according to some codices) represent him as employing the
present. These witnesses, it will be observed, as far as their
testimony can be had, are the principal ones that call for the
present here. Tischendorf rejects their testimony in Matthew
because it corresponds with their testimony here, but accepts
their testimony here because it differs from that of most wit-
nesses in Matthew ! It is safer to reject it in both cases, and
accept that reading which agrees best with the demands of the
context and is best supported, all things considered, by docu-
mentary evidence. The external evidence in attestation of the
future as the true reading consists of A, C third hand, E, F, G,
H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, n, the whole body of the cursives,
one copy {q) of the Old Latin, the Peshito, the Philoxenian
Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and the Gothic Version.
(The Ethiopic Version does not express the verb at all.)
Both la-Tiv and 1<jtu>, in Matthew as well as in Mark, are to be
attributed to some early would-be corrector of the text.
X. 49.
Rec. T. 'Itio-ovs etw«v avriv <j>(i)VT)6{)vai. — Jesus . . . commanded
him to be called.
Rev. T. o 'Ii](rovs tlirt, 4>MWi<raT« avTov — Jesus . . . said, Call ye
him.
The Revisers' reading here is supported only by J<, B, C, L,
A, eleven or twelve cursives, k of the Old Latin Version, the
Memphitic, and the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. The
Received is attested by all the other witnesses, including Ori-
gen, who expressly says that Jesus here " does not, as according
to Matthew [xx. 32J, call him, but commands him to be called."
It is true, as Dr. Dwight says,' that " the text which the R. V.
follows in these verses (49, 50) is noticeable in two points, as
giving greater life and vividness to the scene. . . . The words
which Jesus used are introduced, and the reader is, as it were,
1 Sunday School Times, March 9, 1889, p. 1 50.
MARK.
23s
carried back to the time of the event, and made to hear what
was said. ... In the fiftieth verse, instead of the word ' rose,'
which the A. V. has, the better text followed by the Revisers
has the verb ' to spring up.' The blind man sprang to his
feet immediately on hearing the invitation." No doubt, the
expressions " Call him," and " sprang to his feet," are more
lively than the historical record, " commanded him to be
called," and the less energetic word "arose," — but there is
no reason to suppose that the man did not act " immediately
on hearing the invitation," because he is said to have " arisen."
We wish we could see that these readings of what some sup-
pose to be the better text were the genuine readings. But a
candid and correct application of Bengel's canon, that the more
difficult reading is to be preferred to the easier one, forbids it.
The very beauty and vividness of these readings is what con-
demns them ; not because vividness is not a characteristic of
Mark's writings, but because the common and less taking
reading would never have found a place here and become so
widely adopted if the other had been genuine.
We are reminded just here of the following lines of Cow-
per's : —
" E'er since by faith I saw the stream
Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme,
And shall be till I die.
" Then in a nobler, sweeter song
' I'll sing thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue
Lies silent in the grave.''
The last of these stanzas some one has changed, and made to
read, —
" And when this lisping, stammering tongue
Lies silent in the grave,
Then, in a nobler, sweeter song,
I'll sing thy power to save."
Considering the hymn as ending here, the latter arrangement
236
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT,
of these lines, following the expression " till I die," with which
the preceding stanza closes, is apparently more appropriate,
certainly more pleasing, and better fitted, perhaps, to leave a
proper impression upon a devout reader by lifting his "thoughts
upward and onward, instead of carrying them downward, and
leaving them in the grave. But when we come to ask which
of these is the order in which Cowper wrote the lines, there
can be but one answer. The very beauty and apparent supe-
riority of the latter arrangement, as compared with the other,
stamps it at once as an evident improvement on the original.
The other would probably never have been thought of if this
had been Cowper's arrangement. The same principle applies
here in deciding between a more animated and picturesque
reading, and one less vivid and perhaps less pleasing ; or else
there is no truth in the laws of textual criticism, or reliance to
be placed on their proper application.
This is, by no means, the only instance that appears among
the old manuscripts of an endeavor to enliven the discourse by
adopting the form of direct address in place of the indirect,
employed by the writer himself. Thus, in Matt. x. ii, where
nearly all the witnesses represent the evangelist as having writ-
ten, " Inquire who in it is worthy," J^, K, and Codex 570 place
" in it " before instead of after " who." The sole object of this
transposition seems to be to make the sentence read, " Inquire
therein. Who is worthy?" — But we need not go beyond the
Gospel of Mark for examples of unquestionable attempts of
this kind. Thus, in iv. 10, where the witnesses are pretty gen-
erally agreed upon the indirect form of address, " They asked
of him the parable," D, two cursives beside Ferrar's group,
nine copies of the Old Latin, and Origen, according to his Latin
interpreter, give the direct, " They asked him. What does this
parable mean?" In viii. 23 a few witnesses give the direct
address, which the Revisers have adopted, though the original
form is the indirect as given in the Received Text. (See Note
on that verse.) In xv. 44, where the indirect form of inquiry,
MARK.
237
"Whether he had been any while dead," is overwhelmingly
attested, A alone reads instead, "and said, Is he dead?" In
Luke viii. 9 the direct address of the Received Text, " His dis-
ciples asked him, saying. What might this parable be?" is only
another attempt at improving the original reading, " His dis-
ciples asked him what this parable might be " ; which the
Revisers have very properly adopted. Codex D gives this
reading ; but, to prevent its readers from mistaking the con-
struction, inserts t6 before the interrogative, making the evan-
gelist say, " His disciples asked him as to what this parable
might be." In John ix. 15, too, the indirect form, " The Phari-
sees asked him how he had received his sight," is changed in
several copies of the Old Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac, the Thebaic, and the Armenian Version, to " The Phari-
sees asked him. How was thy sight restored?" or "By what
means dost thou now see? " The change in John xx. 18 seems
to be merely the result of an itacism, in writing iu>paKa for
kutpaKt. Acts xxiii. 34, however, presents still another instance
in which the indirect form of address is intentionally changed,
in two documents at least, to the direct : " He asked Paul,
From what province art thou ? He said, Cilicia." These
changes generally make the discourse more life-like. But this
life-likeness is no evidence of genuineness. It is simply the
result of the work of some early critic or copyist. Hence we
may safely conclude that, as a rule, where the external' evidence
in support of the less animated indirect style of address is
reasonably strong, the appearance of the direct form affords un-
mistakable evidence of the presence and work of the emendator.
xi. 3.
Rec. T. Kal cvO^us avxAv diroo-TtXei uS<. — and straightway he will
send him hither.
Rev. T. Kal cvS^us avTov airoirT^XXf i xoCXtv uSc. — and straightway
he will send him back hither.
The literal rendering of the revised reading is, as the margin
indicates, " and straightway he sendeth him hither again." The
238
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
present here cannot consistently be considered as having the
force of the future. The verb "sendeth" does not in itself
imply a future. The context does not make it necessarily
denote futurity ; nor can the word be taken in the sense of
"intends to send" or "will send." This calls for the future.
So that we are constrained to believe that the present, ino^rriX-
X«, though found in S, B, C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, S, V, X,
r, A, and more than a hundred cursives, is a clerical error for
the future, dTroartAtr, which differs from the present in having
but one A instead of two, and which has a comparatively feeble
manuscript support. In the parallel passage in Matthew (xxi. 3)
the same error appears in C, E, G, K, L, N, S, U, V, X, Z, T,
A, 11, and about a hundred and fifty cursives; yet the future,
dTToaTtXtr, is the form adopted there by most editors ; it is the
form required by the connection in both Matthew and Mark.
If it were not, the Revisers would not have rendered their
Greek present by " will send." Few errors are more common
or more strongly supported by manuscript readings than this
improper doubling of a letter ; so that, in not a few instances,
as here, the demands of the context or the obvious meaning
of the writer must decide which is the true form.' The adverb
' Compare Matt. xii. 18, where D reads d)ra77AXfi, and several cur-
sives di-a^AXei instead of ivayykXd; xiii. 42 and 50, where X first hand,
D, X, and a few cursives read piWovaiv for PaKovaiv; xiii. 48, where X
first hand, V, A, and several cursives read f/SoXXoi- instead of IfiaXoi/;
XXV. 38, where D and a few cursives read TrepitfidWo/iev for TrtpiefidXatuv;
Mark x. 50, where A reads iiropdWuv in place of iiroPaXwii; xiii. 27,
where H, L, A, and a few cursives read i-TrocrT^Wei instead of diroartXci ;
Luke ix. 62, where A, D, L, 513, and Clement of Alexandria read 4irtpd\-
Xoif for iirtPaXui/; xi. 49, where D, followed by two copies of the Old
Latin and Lucifer, reads diroa-TiWu for dTroareXw; xii. 5, where >< reads
.?M^dXX«i' in place of itiPoKeXv; John iv. 25, where J< first hand, D, read
dvayyfWa instead of di'o77eXet; xii. 6, where E, F, G, H, K, S, U, X, T,
and a large number of cursives read iiuWev, " was about to," for e/ieXec,
"it concerned," — a very frequent error, as Matt. xxii. 16, Mark iv. 38,
xii. 14, Luke x. 40, John x. 13, etc., testify; John xvi. 25, where i< reads
MARK.
239
■rraXiv, "back" or "again," is less strongly supported. It is
attested by X, B, C first hand, D, L, A, about a dozen cursives,
and Origen twice ; while its omission is called for by A, C
second hand, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, V, U, the great
body of the cursives, all but three copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Peshito and Philox-
enian Syriac, the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, and
Origen in two other places. Thus we find Origen's testimony
in favor of the word is rendered nugatory by his own omissions ;
while it is a strong point against the genuineness of the word
that among all the versions only three copies of the Old Latin
recognize it in any manner, — one of these (<:) reading remittit,
"sendeth back," and two (a, q) retnitkt, "will send back."
Besides, the supporters of -naXiv are not agreed as to where it
belongs. J^, D, L, most of the cursives, and Origen, on both
occasions on which he uses it, read avrov a.-tTO(iT(X\(x -noXxv dSt ;
B reads a.i!0<jTi.\Xx.i tvoXw avrov (uSt ; C, auToi' iraXw OLTroartWa
u>8i ; A, anoa-TfXXii irdXiv wSe, without avrov ; while the lectionary
257 reads avrbv airoa-TiXXti irdXiv, without iLSi. All this gives
the reading a very suspicious look. In fact, it could hardly be
iirayyiWii) for d7ra77€XuJ; Acts xix. 16, where ^ as changed by its seventh-
century corrector, E, H, L, P, nearly all the cursives, and Chrysostom, in
common with the Received Text, read i(paW&iJifvos, while D has ^i'oXX6-
/lexor instead of i<f>a\6nevos; xix. 33, where D, L, a large number of cur-
sives, and Theophylact read irpoj3oXXAi'Ta»' instead of irpo^dKbvTuv; xviii. 27,
where A, D, two or three cursives, and Theophylact read (ruw^dXXcTo in
place of avvtpdXcTo; xxii. 21, where D, 513, and Athanasius read i^airo-
ariWui for i^airoaTtKCi; xxviii. 6, where S. H, L, a large number of cur-
sives, and Chrysostom read, as do the Received Text and some modern
editors, nera^aWhufvoi, while the true reading is ji«Taj9aX6/ierot; Rev. iii. 5,
where C has Trepi/SdXXfrai instead of irepi^aXeirai ; iii. 1 8, where B and
half a. dozen cursives read wepi^iWij (present subjunctive passive) instead
of iTfpijSdXj (aorist subjunctive middle). On the other hand, the omission
of one of the two double letters is an error of not uncommon occurrence;
an example of which appears in 2 Thess. iii. 10, where B and 509 read
vapTiyyi\op^v for rapTjyyiWo/uy.
240
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
othenvise. The word was evidently inserted by some early
reader, wlio, referring the two verbs fx^i and aTroareXtt back to
the same subject o Kvptoi, understood the passage to mean,
" The Lord hath need of him, and will send him hither " —
again. And, in order to free the clause from what he deemed
an ambiguity, he inserted naXiv in the margin to show the
meaning according to his false interpretation. For no one can
really suppose that Jesus, in order to obtain the colt, promised
to return it immediately to its owner, or that Mark reported
him as having so said. That this is not what Jesus said is
evident from Matthew's account, which gives the words, " and
immediately he will send them," as a part of what he said to
his disciples, not as something that they were to say to the
owner of the colt as an inducement to let the animal go. It
is plainly a false reading, inconsistent with Christ's character, a
perversion of his charge to his disciples, and at variance with
Matthew's report of the same circumstances.
zi. 8.
Rec. T. aXXoi 8t o-roipdSas Ikotttov ^k t«v S^vSpuv, KaV Irrp&vwov
its TT)v oSdv. — and others cut down branches of the trees, and strewed
them in the way.
Rev. T. aWoi Sc o-TipASos, Ki+avrcs (k twv d^puv. — and others
branches, which they had cut from the fields.
A marginal note states that the Greek word corresponding
to the Revisers' English word " branches " means " layers of
leaves." The participle Koij/avrfs, " having cut," is attested by
only X. B, L, A. The change from the personal form iKmrov,
" they cut," to this participial form became necessary in con-
sequence of making the preceding word ori/^aSas dependent
on the foregoing iarpoxrav, " strewed," by the excision of the
closing clause of the verse, " and strewed them along the way,"
which was considered an unnecessary repetition. Then the
introduction of " fields," — attested by J<. B, C, L, A, the
Thebaic Version, Origen, and some copies of the Memphitic, —
MARK.
241
was thought to be necessary in consequence of the giving up
of Mark's unfamiliar word aroi^dSas, " branches " or " twigs,"
for the more familiar ori/SaSas, " beddings," made of leaves,
straw, rushes, or other similar materials, — these materials being
obtainable from fields rather than from trees. Mark's orot/SaSas
is a word equivalent in meaning to Matthew's (xxi. 8) /c\aSous,
"branches," and John's (xii. 13) (Saia, "palm-branches."
This was evidently confounded with the more familiar word for
" bedding " ; as we see was done by Origen, who in one place
wrote o-Tt)8aSas, though only a few pages before he had written
oToi^aSas. Matthew says that " others cut branches from the
trees," i.e. along the road side ; while John says, they " took
branches of palm-trees " ; both of which statements are incon-
sistent with the idea of their "cutting" bedding "from the
fields." Mark's use of the word " cut " clearly indicates, if
nothing else did, that what they spread were not " layers of
leaves," but twigs or branches, and that these were cut not
from " fields," but from trees. The received reading is com-
monly supposed by modern editors to be an assimilation of
the text to Matthew. But this is a mistake, as the difference
in the prepositions and in the relative position of tKowTov and
its object in the two Gospels shows. The final clause, which is
rejected by the Revisers, is abundantly attested as genuine by
A, C, D, E, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, r, n, the whole body
of the cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and the
Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Gothic,
and the Armenian Version, and Origen. It is wanting only in
four uncials. There can be no question that the revised read-
ing is an emendation, and a very poor one at best.
xu. 4.
Ret. T. KOKcivov XiSopoXfjo-avrcs cK«)>aXa(co(rav, Kal dir^o-rciXav
T|Ti|i(ii)i^vov. — and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head,
and sent him away shamefully handled.
Rev. T. KOKCIVOV cKc4>aX((i>(rav, Kal q[T(|ia(rav. — and him they
wounded in the head, and handled shamefully.
242
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
The Revisers say in their Preface that where " the English
rendering was considered to represent correctly either of two
competing readings in the Greek, . . . the question of the text
was usually not raised." But here they have given us two words,
tVe<^aA.iu)crav and riTiftacrav, whose English renderings are the
same precisely as those of tKec^KjAatWav and ^Ti/^w/xcVoy, which
they have set aside. It is one of the hundreds of instances in
which they were betrayed into undertaking to revise the Greek
Testament instead of the English. The changes in this instance,
as in many others, are not merely uncalled for, but positively
injurious, introducing depraved and spurious forms of text.
'EKa<^aXiWav is the reading of three uncials only, — X, B, L.
One of the Revisers says that " the discovery of Ji^ has relieved
us of a lexical difficulty ; for its testimony has decided the
matter."' That is, he supposes it has decided the true form of
the word. What if it should prove true, as Tischendorf believed,
that one of the scribes of Ji^ was the scribe of B ? Dr. Hort
admits that at least six leaves of J^, the opening verses of the
Apocalypse, besides corrections, etc., " are from the hand of
the same scribe that wrote the New Testament in B."^ And
Dr. Scrivener says, " The internal evidence ... is cumulative
and irresistible, . . . and leaves scarcely a doubt that Tischen-
dorfs judgment was correct."' Now, if the two manuscripts
were here the work of one hand, is it any wonder that they
should agree in their spelling of this word? And if L, in the
Gospels, should prove to be largely a transcript of B, then the
three witnesses would after all be but one, and that a false one.
For the truth is that Ki<i>aXi6u> is a word nowhere else found in
all Greek writings. It was probably coined by the scribe of B
or some critical reader just preceding his day, and on this wise :
Not knowing of eVti^oAatfocrav being used elsewhere in the sense
of " wounding in the head," and supposing that the word was
1 Dr. Riddle, Notes on Meyer's Mark, Amer. ed., p. 158.
* Introduction, p. 213.
' Introduction, pp. 92, n., and 1 13.
MARK.
243
derived from K(.^aKa.wv, meaning the chief point or head of a
discourse, not the head of an animal, he regarded it as simply
a false spelling for cVtc^aXtWav, which, though an unknown
word to him, might naturally enough, as he conjectured, have
been coined by Mark from Kf.<^aX\.ov, "a. little head." Hence
the form that appears in these manuscripts. And yet, if the
adjective »c£<^aAaios, " pertaining to the head," can be derived
from Kc<f>oL\T^, " a head," why should not Ktc^aXaiou also not only
be derived from Ki<j>a\ri, but be used by Mark to denote wound-
ing in the head ? ' The word is attested as Mark's by all the
other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, — an unac-
countable fact if the form is a false one. 'HTtjaoj/AeVov, too,
which is almost as strongly attested, was, on account of its being
an unfamiliar word and nowhere else employed in the New
Testament, set aside, probably by the same individual, for the
familiar aVi/ta^ttv, and the phraseology at the same time
abridged to suit the critic's notions, while he retained on the
whole the evangelist's ideas. If this revised reading had come
from Mark's hand, we may rest assured it would never have
been altered into the form found in the Received Text.
Rec. T. KaX o48e airJs &4>^Ke (rir^p)ia • — neither left he any seed.
Rev. T. (IT) KaraXiiruv cir^ppia • — leaving no seed behind him.
The latter reading is supported by J^, B, C, L, A, 33, c, of
the Old Latin, the two Egyptian Versions, and the Ethiopic.
But it has every appearance of being an emendation and sim-
plification of the other, owing to what was doubtless considered
an undue emphasis given by the phrasing koX oiSe avros a^r/Kt,
" and not even he left any." A corrector of the text would
not write like this. Yet there is no reason why Mark should
not have so expressed himself. If fj.rj KaToXiiriov had been
Mark's words, there would have been no temptation to change
1 See Kf<pa\ai6u, in Thayer's Lexicon of the New Testament.
244
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
them, unless to conform them to what goes before and what
follows. In that case, they would have been changed simply
to Koi ovK a<i>rjKi. The common reading is sufficiently attested
by A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, r, n, nearly every
cursive and copy of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito
and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, and the Armenian. X and
two or three cursives, however, have outos in place of avrds.
xiii. 8.
Rec. T. co-ovrai Xifiol xaX rapaxaC ■ — there shall be famines, and
troubles.
Rev. T. €<rovTai XipioC • — there shall be famines.
The omission of " and troubles " is supported by X. B, D, L,
most copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Memphitic, Ethiopic,
and Erpenius' Arabic Version, which is considered to have
been revised upon the Memphitic. The presence of the words
is vouched for by A, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, A, n,
all the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic,
and Armenian Versions. Origen also, who wrote a hundred
years or more before the date of our oldest known Greek
manuscript of the New Testament, says expressly (iii. 855),
" Mark adds, ' and troubles.' " There is no conceivable reason
why the words should have been added by any of his readers
or copyists. Tapax<u is a word used elsewhere in the New
Testament only in John v. 4, — a passage whose authenticity is
questioned, — and there in a very different connection. But it
might very easily have dropped out in copying, through the
disturbing influence of the dpxa-C or apxv following.
xiii. II.
Rec. T. [IT) irpo|icpi|ivaTC rl \aX-f\n\rt (Hi8c (MXtraTC • — take no
thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate.
Rev. T. |iT| irpO|icpi|ivdTC tC XoX^io-riTC • — be not anxious beforehand
what ye shall speak.
MARK.
245
The omission of " neither do ye premeditate " is called for
by Ji^, B, D, L, half a dozen cursives, eight or nine copies of
the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the two Egyptian Versions, the
Ethiopic, and the Polyglot and Erpenius' Arabic Versions.
The clause, however, is attested by A, E, F, G, H, K, M, S,
U, V, X, r. A, n, nearly all the cursives, two copies {a, n) of
the Old Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Versions,
and Origen. That the words are genuine is evident from
Luke's report (xxi. 14), which represents Christ as having
uttered the thought. That they are not taken from Luke, is
equally evident from the fact that they differ from Luke's
wording. The clause was probably unconsciously overlooked
by an early copyist, in consequence of the similarity between
it and the preceding clause in their endings ; or possibly
omitted from having been considered superfluous.
zni. 22.
Rec. T. irp4s tA diroTrXaviJv, ct 8vvaT<Sv, Kal tous ^KXtKTOus. — to
seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Rev. T. irpos to diroTrXav^v, cl Svvardv, tovs iicXtKTOvs. — that they
may lead astray, if possible, the elect.
The genuineness of the omitted Kai here is attested by A, C,
E, F, G, H,- K, L, M, S, U, V, \V^ X, T, A, n, the entire body
of the cursives, all the versions, and Origen. The only author-
ity for its omission is the testimony of J^, B, D. Tischendorf
and others omit it on the supposition that it is introduced from
Matt. xxiv. 24, where its genuineness is unquestioned. But the
testimony in support of its genuineness here is too strong to
be set aside ; for, in addition to the documentary evidence,
Matthew's report shows that the word is a part of Christ's
utterance, and there is no reason why Mark should not have
reported it as well as Matthew, especially as it is an important
and emphatic word, wonderfully strengthening the force of the
entire declaration. It was omitted apparently because it was
considered either inappropriate or unessential.
246
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
ziii. 27.
Rec. T. Tois a^-y^Xovs avroO, — his angels.
Rev. T. Tovs dYY^Xous, — the angels.
The omission of " his " is according to B, D, L, six copies
of the Old Latin Version, and Petraeus' transcript of Mark from
a Memphitic manuscript, which. Scrivener says, "judging from
the readings, does not appear to have had any high value."
The presence of the word is called for by ^, A, C, E, F, G, H,
K, M, S, U, V, W", X, r. A, n, all the cursives, four copies of
the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac,
the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Armenian, the Gothic, the
Ethiopic, and Origen, who says expressly, iii. 870, that Mark
reads"///.? angels." But "his "is rejected because it is sup-
posed to be taken from Matt. xxiv. 31. Its presence there,
however, shows that the word was employed by the Saviour ;
and to reject it from Mark because a few documents omit it,
when Origen and several versions more than a hundred years
older than the oldest of these documents expressly attest its
genuineness seems like giving too easy credence to testimony
of questionable character.
xiii. 33.
The marginal note informs the reader that "some ancient
authorities omit and pray." These authorities are B, D, 122,
three copies {a, c, k) of the Old Latin Version, and one of the
Vulgate, which is corrected by a subsequent hand. All other
witnesses, including ^, L, A, the Syriac Versions, both Egyp-
tian, and most Latin, support the text. Lachmann, Tischen-
dorf, Westcott and Hort, and others reject the words. They
appear in xiv. 38, but in a very different connection, and
without the preceding words, " take heed, be wakeful " ; so
that they can hardly be considered as having been brought in
from that passage. Besides, if Mark had not added "and
pray," he would naturally have written, " Take heed and be
MARK.
247
wakeful ; for " etc. The words " and pray " are not to be
found in the parallel passage in Matthew (xxiv. 42). But this
does not militate against their genuineness here, but rather
favors it ; for the language throughout the two passages is by
no means identical, though the thought is virtually the same.
The omission seems to be the result of a feeling on the part
of some critical reader that the injunction to pray was uncalled
for, especially as it is not added to the command to watch as
given in verses 35 and 37.
xiv. 3.
Rec. T. KoX <ruvTpJ\|/acra to oXdPao-Tpov — and she brake the box.
Rev. T. <rvvTpC\|/a<ra to dXtipairTpov — and she brake the cruse.
The omission of Kai, " and," is found only in ^, B, L, and
the Memphitic Version. Every other uncial and version, and
every known cursive has the word ; which would hardly be the
case if it had not been placed in the text by the evangelist
himself. Its absence from only these four documents gives
strong ground for believing that it was overlooked through
inattention or want of due care on the part of a copyist. The
preponderance of evidence is certainly in favor of retaining it.
The Revisers have the corresponding English, notwithstanding
they omit the Greek word, — one of the many instances in
which a revision of the Greek text was not the necessary
foundation of their work, as revisers of the A. V.
XIV. 51.
Rec. T. cts Tis veavCo-Kos TJKoXouBei avTco — -there followed him a cer-
tain young man.
Rev. T. vcav((rKOs tis o-uvtikoXouOci avTu — a certain young man
followed with him.
The first of these readings is attested by A, E, F, G, H, K,
M, N, P, S, U, V, W, X, r. A, n, the cursives generally, and
possibly some of the versions, though the testimony of these
cannot be relied on with certainty in support of either reading
248
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
as distinguished from the other. The Revisers' text presents
three changes, — the omission of eU, the transposition of tU,
and the substitution of crvvr]Ko\ov9(.i for the simple i7koXou'^£i ;
no one of which, unless it be the last, in any way affects the
meaning. Each of these changes is attested by X> B, C, L ;
while D, in omitting tU, reads veavto-Kos Se ns instead of Kai
veavto-Kos Tts. AH of them, however, are plainly alterations of
Mark's language. The omission of tts is due to its having
been considered superfluous, just as in verse 47 tis is omitted
for the same reason in Ji^, A, L, M, etc. On rejecting els, the
emendator transposed tU, and presented the words in the usual
order, vtavicricos tis. The compound form of the verb seems to
have been taken from v. 37, the only place in which it appears
in Mark, and there it is accompanied not by avT<S, but by ixtr'
aiiTov, where the evangelist speaks of Jesus' following the ruler
of the synagogue into the house, and suffering no one to follow
along with him but Peter, James, and John. In this instance,
however, a young man is spoken of, not as accompanying him
to trial, but as following him in the ordinary way as others
were. In other words, Mark's use of avTcp indicates ^KoXou'^ti
to be the word he employed in accordance with his usual mode
of expressing himself, and not avvrfKoKovOii. His invariable
method is to employ the dative to denote the object followed
in connection with aKoKovQiiv ; while in the only instance in
which he employs ovvaKoKovOdv, it is to denote an accompany-
ing by others of the one following some other person.
xiv. 52.
Rec. T. -yuiivos s4>«Ytv dir' avruv. — he fled from them naked.
Rev. T. ^viivis l<)ivy€. — he fled naked.
The omission of " from them " is according to X, B, C, L,
two copies (<r, k) of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, the two
F.gyptian Versions, and the Ethiopic. But the phrase, which
seems more likely to have been omitted as superfluous than to
have been added, is supported by A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N,
MARK.
249
P, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, all the cursives, seven copies of the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Philoxenian Syriac, the
Armenian. The meaning, however, is the same whether the
words are omitted or retained.
xiv. 68.
The last marginal note appended to this verse says that
" many ancient authorities omit and the cock crew." These
are J^, B, L, one lectionary, one copy (<r) of the Old Latin,
and the Memphitic Version. But the omission is manifestly
due to an attempt to conform the record of Mark to Matthew's
statement, xxvi. 71. This is evident from the fact that, of
these six witnesses, J^, L, and c omit the phrase " the second
time " in verse 72 ; and J«5 and c the word " twice " in verse
30 as well as verse 72. B and the Memphitic Version, how-
ever, retain both these expressions as they occur in these
verses ; while L retains only the latter — 8ts, " twice " — in
verses 30 and 72. In so doing, they show that their texts in
these respects have been corrected by other texts than those
followed by Ji^ and c, which consistently maintain the error
throughout, making Mark, like Matthew, Luke, and John,
speak of but one cock-crowing ; whereas the genuine text of
Mark calls for two cock-crowings. Notwithstanding that the
omission of these words is an obvious error, it appears in
Westcott and Hort's text as the true reading.
XIV. 72.
Rec. T. »K ScvT^pou dX^KTup <()>uvT)<rc. — the second time the cock
crew.
Rev. T. <v6us «K ScuT^pou aX^KTcdp (<{>uvT|<rf. — straightway the second
time the cock crew.
The insertion of " straightway " is supported by Ji^, B, D, G,
L, twelve cursives (counting the four of Ferrar's group one),
the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic
Versions, and Eusebius. It is omitted in A, C, E, H, K, M, N, S,
250
THE revisers' greek text.
U, V, X, r, A, n, most of the cursives, the Memphitic, The-
baic, Philoxenian Syriac, and Gothic Versions. The evidence
in favor of its insertion is, no doubt, strong. But a word of so
frequent use by Mark and so appropriate could hardly be
wanting in such documents as A, C, and the Egyptian Versions
if it were a part of the original text. It is easier to regard its
presence as due to a desire to bring the text into agreement
with Matt. xxvi. 74, especially when the leading witnesses in
attestation of this reading are clearly involved in testifying to
the genuineness of other similarly fabricated readings in this
immediate connection. It may safely be set aside as a false
reading.
XV. 8.
Rec. T. KaOus oA f rroCci avrois. — as he had ever done unto them.
Rev. T. Ka6uf <iro(ci avTois, — as he was wont to do unto them.
The revised reading is that of Ji^, B, A, the Memphitic, The-
baic, Peshito Syriac, and Ethiopic Versions. The other has
the attestation of A, C, D, E, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, T, n,
all the cursives, most copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the
Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, and the Gothic. (F and L
are defective here.) The word dei, " ever " or " always," gave
some early critics trouble, inasmuch as Pilate had been gov-
ernor but a comparatively short time. He became procurator
and governor of Judea a.d. 27, and gave Jesus up to be cruci-
fied apparently a.d. 30. But to speak of one who had been
in office only about three years as having a/ways done a cer-
tain official act appeared to some early reader a misuse of
language. This is evident from the so-called renderings of the
two Old Latin Versions £ and k. The former glosses the word
thus: "just as he had been wont to do u/ion a feast day" ;
the latter, " as he did on every festal occasion." But it should
be remembered that att does not necessarily imply a long
period. It is used here as the words "ever" and "never"
often are in common parlance with us : " Have you ever called
MARK.
251
on Mrs. Jay?" "No," says B., "I never have." And yet
Mr. B. had not been in the place eighteen months. The Jews
desired Pilate to do simply as he had previously done. They
are represented as saying only what Matthew says, in xxvii. 15,
in a little different form. A critical reader or copyist could
have no temptation to insert ad here. The Sinaitic and Vatican
manuscripts, as was usual with them when they came to such a
place, dropped the offensive word, as it could be dropped
without materially affecting the sense. This accounts for its
absence not only from S- K. ^n^ their allies, the Egyptian
Versions, but from the other three documents also. The word
could not have found its way into the text if not genuine.
XV. 12.
Rec. T. Tl ouv eeX«T« iroi^cru — What will ye then that I shall do.
Rev. T. Tt ouv iroi^ff-w — What then shall 1 do.
The received reading is that of A, D, E, G, H, K, M, N, S,
U, V, X, r, IT, most of the cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate,
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and
Gothic Versions. The other is that of S, B, C, A, half a dozen
cursives, and the two Egyptian Versions. It is evidently an
abbreviation made to correspond with the beginning of Pilate's
question as given in Matt, xxvii. 22, — several of its supporters
also omitting the words Sv Xtycre, " whom ye call," which follow
immediately after, while B, by omitting only the ov, gives a
fiighly improbable reading, — Tt o5v iroi.?(TM Xi-^^Tt rov ^a<n-
\La rCv TovSatW; "What then shall I do, say ye, with the
King of the Jews?" — a reading which Westcott and Hort
correct, by placing w in brackets 1
XV. 39.
Rec. T. 8ti oOt« Kpo|tts tgeirviucrfv, — that he so cried out, and gave
up the ghost.
Rev. T. iSri oCtus l^'irv€u<r€v, —that he so gave up the ghost.
A marginal note says that " many ancient authorities read so
cried out and gave up the ghost." It would perhaps have been
252
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
more satisfactory to the reader to have been informed that the
only ancient documents that seem to deny the genuineness of
Kpo^a? by omitting it are X, B, L, and the Memphitic Version,
which also omits " so." That Kptl^a? is a part of Mark's text
is well attested by A, C, D, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, r, A,
n, all the cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito and Philox-
enian Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, and
Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine. Its omission presents
one of those cases of inadvertence that so often occur among
copyists. Some early scribe, on having written ovrm, probably
unwittingly lost sight of xpci^as, and passing on immediately to
the next word, made the evangelist's statement read, " When
the centurion, who stood by, over against him, saw that he so
breathed his last, he said. Truly this was the Son of God."
And, as the construction was not affected thereby, the omission
passed unnoticed, and obtained a limited currency. It changes,
however, very perceptibly the evangelist's record, which is,
that Jesus uttered a loud voice, — he cried. It is finished, —
and expired. And when the centurion, who stood by and
directly in front of the cross, saw that Jesus after having cried
out in this manner had breathed his last, he said. Truly, this
was the Son of God. It is incredible that Kpaias should have
been inserted by any second hand, there being nothing to
tempt any one to separate outu)? from e^tVvtvcj-ev and form the
additional clause of the Received Text. But it is perfectly in
accordance with Mark's mode of writing to note by a single
stroke of his pen what less graphic writers would pass over
altogether. And the employment of Kpafas here is one of
those master strokes of this evangelist which speaks for itself.
The point with Mark was not that, when the centurion saw
that Jesus breathed his last as he did, he said. Truly, etc.,
but that, when he saw that Jesus was dead after having cried
out in this way, he exclaimed, etc. It is sad that a record so
full of power and pathos should, by the carelessness of an
unknown hand, be so misrepresented, and that this misrepre-
MARK.
253
sentation, through devotion to the manuscripts in which it is
found, should be thrust upon the public as a genuine utterance
of the evangelist.
XV. 45.
Rec. T. {Sup-^o-aTo rh <ri>y.a. tu 'laa-(\^. — he gave the body to Joseph.
Rev. T. 48<»p^<roTO tA irTuiia ti3 '\ii>a-i\^. — he granted the corpse to
Joseph.
"The corpse " is the reading of ^, B, D, L, 473, and the
Ethiopic Version. But D and the Ethiopic Version also read
" the corpse " in verse 43, where all other documents have
" the body." And B says the body was given to 'Icocn;, Jose,
instead of to Joseph, though in verse 43 it says, in common
with all other Greek manuscripts, that it was Joseph who came
to Pilate for the body. This shows that the readings of these
manuscripts are not to be taken with unlimited confidence, but
need to be carefully scrutinized. The common reading — " the
body"— is supported by A, C, E, G, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, H,
almost every cursive, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic,
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, and Gothic Versions,
and Theodoret. This testimony is confirmed by the fact that
Mark says in verse 43 that Joseph came to ask for the body of
Jesus ; and it is not natural that he should have closed his
account by saying that the corpse, not the body, was granted
him. A careless copyist, however, might very easily mistake
the latter for the former, and unconsciously write the one for
the .other, as the scribe of D, or a predecessor of his, actually
did in verse 43.
XVI. 9-20.
The genuineness of this passage is questioned by some.
Hence the Revisers set it apart from what precedes, with the
marginal note, " The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some
other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other
254
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
authorities have a different ending to the Gospel." Yes ; and
there are other passages which " the two oldest Greek manu-
scripts and some other authorities omit " ; as Matt. xii. 47, xvi. 23,
Luke xxiii. 34, John iii. 13, v. 4, vii. 53, etc. But this does
not of necessity prove them to be spurious. They are simply
not found in Ji^. Bi and a few other witnessing documents. If
this is to decide the question of genuineness, it does it as effec-
tually in these and all other instances of omissions in " the two
oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities " as in
Mark xvi. 9-20. We cannot, however, go into any extended
argument to prove the genuineness of these verses. It would
require more space than our limits allow. Besides, it is unnec-
essary. Those who desire to see the subject thoroughly and
ably, not to say laboriously and exhaustively, treated, are
referred to The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according
to S. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established,
by John W. Burgon, B.D., pp. 334 ; Parker & Co., Oxford and
London, 1871. Dr. Broadus' Examination of the Exceptions
to Mark xvi. 9-20, in the Baptist Quarterly for July, 1869, is
sufficiently conclusive as far as the objections to the diction
are concerned, though not so thoroughly overwhelming as Dean
Burgon's, who in chapter ix. pp. 136-190 of his book treats the
subject in a way entirely different from that pursued by Dr.
Broadus. The reader is also referred to Scrivener's Introduc-
tion to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d edition),
pp. 583-590, and memorandum v. on p. xiii. of that volume ;
as well as to Hammond's Textual Criticism applied to the New
Testament (5th edition), Oxford, 1890, pp. 120-128. The first
of these treatises ought to satisfy any and every candid reader
as to the genuineness of the passage, and the injustice to both
Mark and his readers in setting these verses apart from the rest
of his Gospel. We quote a few sentences from Dean Burgon's
book to show his manner of handling the subject. But one
needs to read his book in order to realize the strength and
force of his argument.
MARK.
255
After stating that it is admitted on all hands that these verses
constituted the conclusion of Mark's Gospel as early as the sec-
ond century, and that in default of proof that previous to that
time this Gospel ended abruptly at verse 8, he adds : " Nothing
short of the utter unfitness of these verses to be regarded as the
work of the Evangelist would warrant us in assuming that they
are the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic age ; and as
such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately re-
jected. We must absolutely be furnished with internal evidence
of the most unequivocal character, or else with external testi-
mony of a direct and definite kind, if we are to admit that the
actual conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel is an unauthorized sub-
stitute for something quite different that has been lost. I can
only imagine one other thing which could induce us to enter-
tain such an opinion ; and that would be the general consent
of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in leaving these verses out.
Else it is evident that we are logically /i?;r^// to adopt the far
easier supposition that not Mark, but some copyist of the third
century, left a copy of S. Mark's Gospel unfinished ; which un-
finished copy became the fontal source of the mutilated copies
which have come down to our own times. . . . The course which
has been adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9-20 by the latest editors
of the New Testament is simply illogical. Either they regard
these verses as possibly genuine, or else as certainly spurious.
If they entertain, as they say they do, a decided opinion that
they are not genuine, they ought, if they would be consistent,
to banish them from the text. Conversely, since they do not
banish them from the text, they have no right to pass a fatal
sentence upon them ; to designate their author as ' pseudo-
Marcus ' ; to handle them in contemptuous fashion. The plain
truth is, these learned men are better than their theory, the
worthlessness of which they are made to feel in the present
most conspicuous instance. It reduces them to perplexity.
It has landed them in inconsistency and error." '
1 Last Twelve Verses, pp. 17, 18.
2S6
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
We will also add, for the satisfaction of the general reader,
the following extract from an article of Dean Burgon's (the ital-
ics here as well as in the foregoing quotation being his), in the
Lojidoji Quarterly Review of October, 1881, p. 172: "Dr.
Roberts assures us that ' Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of
Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers,
especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by
S. Mark, or not found in the best copies.' Will the learned
writer permit us to assure him in return that he is entirely mis-
taken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says
nothing of the sort — says nothing at all concerning these
verses ; that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for their
genuineness; that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does
but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebius, and that
Eusebius himself nowhere ' testifies that these verses were not
written by S. Mark.' So far from it, Eusebius actually quotes
the verses, quotes them as genuine. Dr. Roberts is further
assured that there are no ' other writers,' whether Greek or
Latm, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the
contrary, besides l>oth the Latin, and all the Syriac — besides
the Gothic and the two Egyptian Versions — there exist four
authorities of the second century ; as many of the third ; five
of the fifth ; four of the sixth ; as many of the seventh ; — to-
gether with at least ten of the iowrth — contemporaries therefore
of codices B afid*^ — viz., Eusebius, Macarius Magnes (a.d. 300-
350, whose disputation with a heathen philosopher, which has
recently come to light, contains an elaborate discussion of
S. Mark xvi. 17, 18), Aphraates, Didymus, the Syriac 'Acts
of the Apostles,' Epiphanius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome,
Augustine ; — which actually recognize the verses in question.
Now, when to every known manuscript but two — besides every
ancient Version — some one-and-thirty Fathers are added, eigh-
teen of whom must have used copies at least as old as either
B or X, Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of external
authority has been accumulated which is simply impregnable
MARK.
257
in discussions of this nature." Hammond, in introducing his
remarks on the subject, well says : " It is impossible in a short
space to do justice to the many considerations which arise at
every turn in this case. Dean Burgon has written a volume
on these ' Last Twelve Verses,' wherein he proves that much
of t!<ie evidence commonly arrayed against the verses is simply
non-existent ; statements having been incautiously copied by
one great critic after another, which, incredible as it may seem,
when examined carefully turn out to have no foundation at all,
or even in some cases to have an exactly opposite bearing to
that alleged. He will find that much of the adverse Patristic
evidence consists, not, as is represented, of the independent
opinions of certain Fathers, but of so many almost verbal tran-
scriptions of a passage in Eusebius, in which moreover Euse-
bius is not giving his own judgment ; while several of the
Fathers cited as hostile, give in other parts of their works clear
evidence in favor of the verses. And he will find it shown that
the so-called proofs from style and phraseology (proofs which
for the most part proceed upon the extraordinary assumption
that if a writer does not use a word or phrase at least twice in
the course of his writings — however short the writings may be,
and however inappropriate the word or phrase might be in
other parts of the writings — it is abhorrent to his style, and a
sign that the passage in which it occurs is not authentic !) are
either false, or that they prove a great deal too much." '
In addition to this, we will give only the following words of
the German Hug, which contain two or three thoughts worthy
of note in this connection, not presented in the preceding
pages : " Mark's mode of narration is never so irregular and
disorderly as to lead us to expect such an awkward termination
of his work as i4>opovvTo yap, ' for they were afraid,' would be.
It is plain that this, instead of being a conclusion, is but a
preparation for something to follow.
I Ttx/ual Cri/icism, p. 120.
258
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
" Let US consider the tenor given to his account of the resur-
rection by this termination : The women came to the sepulchre,
found the stone rolled away, were addressed by a young man
clothed in a white garment, who told them that Jesus had
risen, and commanded them to communicate this information
to the disciples, with the injunction that they should go into
Galilee, where they should see our Lord. They, however, said
nothing to any man, for they were afraid. Here the Gospel
would end. But, if Mark terminated it in this way, he closed
his account of an occurrence which was the most important
evidence in favor of Christianity with assuring us that nothing
was known of the resurrection at the time ; that nothing could
have been known about it, inasmuch as those on whose testi-
mony the fact rests told no one of it. He himself might then
be asked how he knew and was able to relate what happened
to the women, if they told no one of it. An inconceivable
want of consideration is so important a matter ! Eveh if he
had no intention of attesting the occurrence by further evidence,
he was at any rate bound to inform the reader how the inci-
dent in respect to the women was divulged and became noto-
rious. He would thus present clearly at least one argument
drawn from the declarations of witnesses, though that be the
weakest of all that are exhibited in the Gospels.
" Now this very portion of the history which is denied to
have been written by Mark relates how the women came to
tell of what had happened to them, how little credit was given
to their narrative, and from what other subsequent occurrences
satisfactory assurance of the fact was obtained.
" The preposterous nature of such a termination, both in a
grammatical and a historical point of view, was perceived even
by those Greek critics and copyists who did not receive the
passage ; for some of them added a conclusion of their own,
which satisfied at least the principal requisitions that could be
made of the author. It was as follows : But all things that
have been declared were briefly made knoivn to Peter's com-
MARK.
259
pany. And afterwards Jesus himself sent forth by them, from
the east even unto the west, the sacred and imperishable mes-
sage of everlasting salvation. This is the ending found in
Codex L, and it appears in the margin of the Philoxenian
Syriac Version.' Let us hear what that great master in matters
of New-Testament criticism, Griesbach, has to say on this
subject. He calls the conclusion, ' for they were afraid,' a
most abrupt little clause ; and further declares that it ought to
be manifestly incredible to any one that Mark should have
ended his brief commentary in this manner.'"'
Nothing short of absolute servile deference to the negative
testimony of X ^nd B can lead any candid inquirer after the
truth to set aside the all but unanimous testimony of antiquity,
and regard these twelve verses as spurious.'
' This is also the ending found in the recently discovered Codex 4' ;
and it is introduced by Westcott and Ilort into their Greek Testament on
the same footing with, and immediately after, the preceding twelve verses,
which have been and still are commonly regarded the original and only
ending. These editors seem to have no faith in either as the genuine con-
clusion of the Gospel, but are willing the reader should take his choice.
^ Hug's Introduction, Part ii., sect. 75.
' Some of our readers may be desirous of obtaining a clearer idea than
can be had from the foregoing, concerning the scope of the late Dean
Hurgon's work, The Last Twelve Verses, from which we have quoted a
few sentences. We add therefore the headings of the chapters contained
in the volume : —
i. The case stated.
ii. The hostile verdict of Biblical critics shown to be of recent date.
iii. The early Fathers appealed to, and observed to bear favorable
witness to these Verses.
iv. The early Versions examined, and found to yield unfaltering testi-
mony to the genuineness of these Verses.
V. The alleged hostile witness of certain of the early Fathers proved to
be an imagin.ition of the Critics.
vi., vii. Manuscript testimony shown to be overwhelmingly in favor of
these Verses.
viii. The purport of ancient Scholia and notes in M.SS. on the subject
of these Verses shown to be the reverse uf what is commonly supposed.
26o
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
abirJttl" Vefsif "" '^<=-°-'"'«='^ »° be the ve^ reverse of unfavor-
X. The testimony of the Lectionaries shown to be absolutely decisive
as to the genuineness of these Verses.
xi. The omission of these twelve Verses in certain Ancient Copies of
the Gospels explained and accounted for.
xii. General review of the question: summary of the evidence; and
conclusion of the whole subject.
LUKE.
i. 78.
Rec. T. iirco-KCil/aTo ti|ias AvaToXt) Ig Ct|/ovSi — the dayspring from on
high hath visited us.
Rev. T. {iri.(rKJ<]/CTai T|)ia$ dvaroXTj i^ Ci|)Ovs, — the dayspring from
on high shall visit us.
Appended to the closing words is the note, " Many ancient
authorities read /la/A visited us." That is, the common read-
ing is supported by Ji^ as amended by the earher seventh-
century corrector, A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, R, S, U, V, W",
r, A, A, H, all the cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Philoxenian
Syriac, and Ethiopic Versions, the Armenian Version edited by
Bishop Uscan, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Paschal
Chronicle of Alexandria. The future, which the Revisers have
adopted, is the reading of Ji^ first hand, B, the Memphitic, the
Peshito Syriac, and the Armenian Version edited by Zohrab.
The Gothic has the present, " is visiting " ; while L reads,
iirta-Kiij/aiTai, which is neither future nor aorist indicative, but a
hodgepodge of aorist indicative, optative, and subjunctive, and
is supposed (from the termination, and from the fact that L
generally agrees with B) to be intended for the future. The
only positive testimony in attestation of the future is that of
the two oldest uncials and two of the oldest versions, that
of the Armenian Version being questionable. The evidence
in favor of the aorist, on the other hand, is strong ; and it is
strongly supported by the context. The aged Zacharias opens
his prophecy with saying in verses 68, 69, " Blessed be the
Lord, the God of Israel ; for he tVto-Kci/^aTo /la/h visited . . .
261
262
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
his people; ... He hath raised up a horn of salvation for
us Not that the Lord had already done this; for the visiting
of the people and the raising up of the horn refer not to the
infant John, but to the unborn Saviour, whom the aged priest
in anticipation, because of the birth of his forerunner, viewed
as already come. It was under the prophetic inspiration of
the moment that he, in those verses, spoke in a past tense
of the Messiah, who was yet to come ; and it was under the
influence of the same divinely inspired faith and forereaching
vision that he referred in this verse to the Saviour as " the day-
spring from on high that hath visited us." But some matter-
of-fact critical scribe, seeing that the words referred to Christ,
who had not yet come, and not perceiving that Zacharias was'
viewing the future as already present, thought it necessary to
change the aorist of the evangelist into the future. That is all.
The true reading is obviously, " whereby the dayspring from on
high hath visited us " ; as Lachmann, Tischendorf, the Received
Text, and others read.
II. 14.
Rec. T. Kal lirl -yfls «lp<)VTi, Iv AvOptiirois tiSoKteu — and on earth,
peace, good will towards men.
Rev. T. Kal lirl -yfis etp^vr) h dvOpciirois «v8ok(os. — and on earth
peace among men in whom he is well pleased.
To this, the Revisers affix two marginal notes. The first is,
" Many ancient authorities read, peace, good pleasure among
men" ; the other, "Gr., men 0/ good pleasure " ; i.e. the Greek
to which they have given the so-called rendering, "men in
whom he is well pleased." The only rendering that the Greek
words avOpwTToii eiSoKtas will bear is "men of good will," or, as
the note has it, " men of good pleasure " ; which, if it means any-
thing, means, " men who are well disposed towards each other,"
not, " men in whom God is well pleased." The latter cannot
by any possibility be fairly regarded as the meaning of the Greek.
It is a rendering which, as one of the Revisers has well said.
LUKE.
263
" can be arrived at only through some process which would make
any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like
to put upon it." — Scrivener, Introduction, etc., p. 592.
The Revisers' Text here, which differs from the other only in
the addition of a single letter to the last word of the verse, is
that of X first hand, A, B first hand, D, the Old Latin, the Vul-
gate, and Gothic Versions, and, of course, Augustine and the
Latin Fathers generally. The received reading is supported
by Ji{ as amended by its early seventh-century corrector, A in
its reading of this passage as it occurs in the Morning Hymn
appended to the Psalms, B as amended by its sixth-century
corrector (C and F are defective), E, G, H, K, L (which
deserts B's original reading here), M, the great Zurich Psalter
O" of the seventh century, P, S, U, V, V, A, A, H, all the cur-
sives, the Memphitic, the Peshito, the Philoxenian Syriac in
both text and Greek margin, the Armenian, and the Ethiopia
Version ; and by overwhelming patristic testimony. That of
Iren?eus is lost. But Origen testifies in support of cvSokux three
times, Gregory Thaumaturgus six times, Methodius once, the
Apostolic Constitutions twice, Eusebius twice, Aphraates the
Persian twice, Titus of Bostra twice, Didymus three times,
Gregory Nazianzen once, Gregory Nyssen four times, Cyril of
Jerusalem once (though wrongly quoted by Tischendorf in
favor of the other reading), Epiphanius twice, Ephraem Syrus
and Philo bishop of Carpasus each once, Chrysostom nine times,
who also interprets eiSoKia by KaToAXay?;, " reconciliation," Cyril
of Alexandria at least fourteen times, Theodoret four times,
Theodotus of Ancyra five times, the Patriarch Proclus of Con-
stantinople, Paulus bishop of Emesa, Basil of Seleucia, the
Eastern bishops in council at Ephesus, a.d. 431, Cosmas
five times, Anastasius, Eulogius of Alexandria, Andreas of
Crete, John Damascene, Germanus archbishop of Constan-
tinople, and others, — all of whom are really equivalent to
codices of the respective periods and countries to which they
belong.
264
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
The whole trouble in connection with this passage arose from
r t lI v"' °' '"' "^"^°"^'" - '^^ -P' f-™ which th"
first Latin Version was made, -the preposition having been
absorbed m the first syllable of d.^.ci.o.. The preposit on
before It could be translated. The only feasible way to do
th.s wa. to consider it an error for .i&.'a. In proof of this
we find that the Latin Versions all read pa. Holini.us ton.
voluntat,s^^nd make the whole verse read "Glory in the high-
est to God, and on earth peace of good-will to men," as Jerome
would have It that Origen understood it, -or. "peace to men
of good-w.lI, as others understood it.' Origen's testimony,
however, as given in. his own words, is in support of the common
reading.
This absorption of eV before S^vOp^no,, appears also at Acts
IV. 12 m D, 117, 163, the Vulgate, Irensus as represented by
his Latin interpreter, Cyprian and the Latin Fathers generally
-all which read S.So^.Vo. ivOp^^o,,, datum hominibus, "given
to men," instead of " given among men." Like absorptions of
other words occur not unfrequently among the old manuscripts
1 hough no Greek manuscript is known to survive to our day
with kv absorbed by ^vOp^^o.^ in Luke ii. 14. the various copies
of the Old Latin Version leave no room to doubt that it was
thus lost in the exemplar from which that version was made •
and that the change from the nominative to the genitive in the
word .iSoKui, as found in its Latin rendering, was only a last
resort by which to obtain some kind of sense, if possible Had
the well-meaning "editor," as we may call him, supposed that
the trouble was due to the loss of h, "among," he would
undoubtedly have restored the preposition, and left ^hhoKlo.
unchanged. But. poor soul ! his depraved exemplar was the
only copy he had ; and in his perplexity and ignorance he did
'It is. in fact, to this false reading of the Latin Vulgate that we are
indebted for the rendering of the A. V., "good-will toward, (to) men."
LUKE.
265
the best he could ; and a certain class of modern editors think
they must accept his false reading as the veritable language of
an inspired evangelist !
ii. 15-
Rec. T. Kal ol avSpuiroi ol iroifi^vcs ttirov — the shepherds said.
Rev. T. 01 iroi)u' v€s ilirov — the shepherds said.
The omitted words are not found in Ji^, B, L, H, and a few
cursives. Neither are their equivalents found in most copies
of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the
Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Armenian, or in Eusebius, the
Latin of Origen, and Augustine. But the fact that the Latin
texts and the versions generally have nothing corresponding to
these words is no necessary proof that they were not in the
Greek copies from which those versions were taken, any more
than that their lack of representatives in our A. V. (as above)
is a proof that they were not in the text from which this ver-
sion was made. They are attested by A, D, E, G, H, K, M, P,
S, U, V, r. A, A, most of the cursives, the Gothic, the Philox-
enian Syriac, the Ethiopic Version, and q of the Old Latin ;
while c reads et illi pastorcs, which indicates that this rendering
is from a Greek archetype corresponding to the received text.
The truth is, 01 avdpiD-Koi is superfluous, and was dropped on that
account ; and with the omission of these words, the Hebraistic
Kai, not being understood, went too. If not genuine, no second
hand would ever have inserted them. Not only should they
be retained as a part of the original text, but Kai, which is
equivalent here to on, and is by no means superfluous, should
be represented in English by " that " in order to complete the
rendering.
ii. 51-
-Rec. T. SifHjpei irdvTO to. pruiara ravTo — kept all these sayings.
Rev. T. 8i«TTJp€i irdvra rd pT|)iaTa — kept all ^Aese sayings.
The omission of raZra, " these," is attested only by ^ first
hand, B, D, M, two copies {a, e) of the Old Latin, and the
266
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
Armenian Version. Its presence, as a part of the text, is called
for by X's earlier seventh-century corrector, A, C, E, G, H, K,
L, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, all the cursives, most copies of the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Curetonian, the Peshito, and the
Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic, the Ethiopic,
Origen and Eusebius, as well as by the very thought to be
expressed. The Old Latin copy a attempts to supply the
deficiency by reading verba ejus omnia, " all his words." But
this, to say nothing of its pointlessness, which shows its failure
to express the evangelist's meaning, can hardly be obtained
from the three Greek words iravTo. to. pjJ/Aara even in this con-
nection. It would require the addition of avroD. TaSra was
evidently overlooked by an early copyist, possibly in conse-
quence of similarity of termination with the preceding word ;
and the omission was confined to a very limited number of
copies.
iii. 17.
Rec. T. Kal SiaKaSaput tijv fiXuva airov, KaV truvd^ci t6v (titov —
and he will throuphly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat.
Rev. T. SiaKaOdpai ri)v &X<i)va avrov, Kal cruva'yaYCiv t&v citov —
throughly to cleanse his threshing-floor, and to gather the wheat.
These infinitives of the Revised Text are supported, the former
by Ji^ first hand, B, two copies (a, <r) of the Old Latin Version,
the Memphitic, the Armenian, and Irenseus as represented by
his translator's Latin version ; and the latter by ^'s original
scribe, B, e, and the Armenian Version only. But these are
transparent attempts to improve the simplicity of the Baptist's
language. His words as given by Matthew (iii. 12), without
any variation among the manuscripts, are as here in the Received
Text. And this reading is amply attested as the true reading
by J5's contemporary reviser and seventh-century corrector. A,
C, U, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, all the
cursives, Irenzeus' own Greek, Origen, most copies of the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, all the Syriac Versions, as well as the Gothic,
LUKE.
267
the Ethiopic, etc. As a report of one of John's well-known
utterances, it should agree in form with Matthew's rather than
differ from it.
Rec. T. Kal KaT^KX(i(r< t4v 'ludvKiiv — that he shut up John.
Rev. T. Kar^KXcKTi riv 'IwdvvT)v — that he shut up John.
The Revisers omit Ka.1, yet give its English equivalent " that,"
just as the A. V. does, without italicizing it. This is hardly fair.
It is the Hebraistic Ka.1 for oti, found everywhere throughout
the Septuagint. (See i Sam. iv. 3, 5, 15, xvii. 10, etc.) It is
omitted, apparently from having been misunderstood and
deemed out of place, by Ji^ first hand, B, D, H, and two copies
(^, <f) of the Old Latin Version. But it is given by ^'s earlier
seventh-century corrector, A, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V,
X, r. A, A, n, all the cursives, the remaining copies of the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian and Jerusalem
Syriac, Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions. It should be retained.
IV. I.
Rec. T. Kal i\-^VTa ... its ttjv (pi])iov — and was led . . . into the
wilderness.
Rev. T. Kal t]y<to . . . {v t'q {p^|iu — and was led ... in the wil-
derness.
The latter reading implies that Jesus was not led into the
wilderness, but was conducted about in it. The only Greek
manuscripts that support this reading are J^, B, D, L. In this,
they are followed by the Thebaic Version and a few copies of
the Old Latin and Vulgate Versions. The common reading,
on the other hand, has the support of A, E, G, H, K, M, S, U,
V, W'', r. A, A, H, n, all the cursives, most copies of the Old
Latin and Vulgate, the Memphitic, Peshito and Philoxenian
Syriac, and Armenian Versions, Eusebius, Basil, and Theodoret.
This is set aside for the other on the authority of the four first-
268
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
mentioned manuscripts, because it corresponds with the reading
of Matthew (iv. i) and Mark (i. 12), who say respectively
"was led into the wilderness," and " //«W//' him into the
wilderness." We see no reason why Luke should not have
written e[? t^ ^P'?/^"" »" this connection as well as the other
evangelists ; nor have we any idea that he did not. It is far
easier to believe that some old copyist, having just written Iv to,
Trv^v^aTc, carried this construction along in his mind as he pro-
ceeded to write the next three words ; and under this impres-
sion, without referring back to his exemplar, wrote Iv rrj ip^^j
instead of .« r^v ipvi^ov, and passed on. Elsewhere in the
New Testament the verb 5yccreai is used in speaking of one s
being led, not in, but into, a place ; i.e. not with .V, but with
d, followed by an accusative denoting the place, -and by
Luke at that. (Acts xxi. 34 5 xxii. 24.) This verb is also
used actively in the same manner in more than a dozen other
places with .U, but nowhere with iv. If L"l^^'« "^^^"^
here were that given by the Revisers, he would undoubtedly
have said " returned from the Jordan /. tAe ^f^'"^^^' °^
something to that effect, then, as a writer of good Greek have
written i «p.^y.ro - - - -«, " and was led atou there etc.
But to speak of Jesus as "led in the wilderness," without giv-
ing the reader any previous intimation of his being there, is
not like Luke. Even in textual criticism, it is well to exercise
a little common sense, and not to assume that a few old m nu-
scripts, because they are old, are necessarily infallible, or all
but infallible.
iv. 4-
Rec. T. dXX- W iravTl Ml^-- 0""- " *>"' ^^ ^"'^ "'°'''^ °^ ^""^^
Rev. T. Omits.
The only evidence in support of this omission is the tesri-
mony of S- B, L, and the two Egypt-" Versions. Ihe^uller
reading of the Received Text is attested by A. D , E G H K,
M S U, V, W^ X, r, A, A, n, all the cursives, the Old Latm,
LUKE.
269
Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Wilkins' Memphitic,
the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Arabic Versions. The
clause omitted by the Revisers is supposed to be from Matt.
iv. 4. But if taken thence it would be more in accordance
with Matthew. Its omission seems to be due to the apparent
oflensiveness of the idea of living on every word of God, and
possibly to a desire to obtain a divine warrant for not living on
bread only. It is impossible to sound every motive that influ-
enced those second- and third-century corrupters of the New-
Testament writings in their alterations of these writings. But it
is by no means improbable that some such motive was at work
here. The omitted clause is certainly a part of what Jesus said
on the occasion ; and there is no reason why Luke should not
have reported it as well as Matthew. The fact that five closely
related documents should be the only ones to omit the phrase,
while several that might be expected to be found with them if
they were not in error should be against them, to say the
least, is not altogether assuring ; in addition to which, the fact
that the words are present in nearly every ancient version is
well-nigh conclusive of their genuineness. It forms a more
than ordinarily strong argument in favor of their retention.
IV. 17.
Rec. T. dvaiTTvJas to PipXCov — when he had opened the book.
Rev. T. &vo(^a$ to PipXCov — he opened the book, and.
The latter reading is supported by A, B, L, H, two cursives,
and apparently, just as in our A. V., by the Peshito and Phi-
loxenian Syriac, Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions.
The former, which properly means " having unrolled," is attested
by S. D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, W^ Y, A, A, n, nearly
all the cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Gothic, Jerusalem Syriac,
Origen, and-Eusebius. It is a word nowhere else used in the
New Testament ; but it is the very word that Luke would be
likely to use in speaking of one's unfolding or unrolling a
scroll, the ancient form of books. The more common amfas
270
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
is simply a gloss or explanation. It is the general word
for opening, and is used by Luke half a dozen or more
times in speaking of opening a door, opening the mouth,
etc. In the Apocalypse it is used in speaking of books or
scrolls as well as other things ; but it is in reference to
breaking the seal, or obtaining admission to the contents, and
not to unrolling them for the purpose of finding a particular
passage. Tischendorf can hardly be said to have been influ-
enced by his partiality for ^ in retaining dvairTv^as, " having
unrolled," as Westcott and Hort probably were by their rev-
erence for B in adopting dvoija? instead. He must have been
convinced that it is the true reading from verse 20, where
iTTi'^as is attested as genuine by all the manuscripts. In the
verse before us, Jesus is said to have unrolled or unfolded the
scroll ; and in verse 20, to have rolled it up, or folded it
together, — not to have " closed " it, as the A. V. and R. V.
make it. This word, "closed," applied to ancient scrolls,
properly denotes sealing or otherwise fastening them after
being rolled up or folded.
VI. 44.
The marginal note says, "Very many ancient authorities read
Jiidca" ; that is, instead of "Galilee." This reading is sup-
ported by S. B, C, L, Q, R, nearly twenty-five cursives, the
Memphitic Version, and the text of the Philoxenian Syriac.
Tregelles gives it a place in the margin as a secondary reading.
But Westcott and Hort introduce it into their text, while they
place roAiXata? in the margin as one of their so-called " Western "
readings. raAiXata?, however, is adopted by Lachmann, Tisch-
endorf, and Tregelles in his text, it being attested as the true
reading by A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, A, A, n,
most of the cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito Syriac,
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, one manuscript of
the Memphitic, the Armenian, and Ethiopic. It is also called
for by the very verse in which it stands, as well as by the pre-
LUKE.
271
ceding and succeeding context. In addition to this, the passage
is plainly parallel to Mark i. 39, which speaks' of Christ as
preaching among the synagogues of Galilee. All this seems
to indicate that "Judea," though strongly attested, is a false
reading. But it may be said that Luke uses the term here, as
in i. 5, and vii. 17, in the broader sense oi all Palestine. Even
granting that the manuscripts use the word in this sense, the
reading is plainly false ; for what would be the evangelist's
object in saying that Jesus continued preaching in the syna-
gogues of Palestine, when his whole ministry was confined to
Palestine, and especially when the subsequent context shows
that he remained preaching in that portion of it which Luke
elsewhere calls Galilee? The reading shows for itself that
Luke could not have written "Judea," meaning Palestine
thereby. Yet Alford, commenting on the word, and admitting
that " our narrative is thus brought into the more startling dis-
crepancy with that of S. Mark, in which unquestionably the
same portion of the sacred history is related," with wonderful
simplicity adds, " Still, these are considerations which must not
weigh in the least degree with the critic. It is his province
simply to track out what is the sacred text, not what, in his
own feeble and partial judgment, it ought to have been." Is
a textual critic, then, to exercise no common sense? In what
does his right to be called a critic consist? Is he not to
employ his own judgment, " feeble and partial " though it may
be, in determining as far as he can between the false and the
true among rival readings ? If not, how is he " to track out
what is the sacred text? " He certainly cannot do it by blindly
adopting the readings of any one or more ancient manuscripts
which, in the exercise of his feeble and partial judgment, he
may think ought to contain the true text. Bible students and
readers generally have already had quite as many choice mor-
sels of such textual criticism as are healthful. Perhaps it is
not to be wondered at that 1-uke's " Galilee " should have
been converted into "Judea." It was not an uncommon thing
2/2
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
for copyists centuries ago to write one name for another, any
more than it is nowadays. Thus, the original scribe of J^, in
Mark i. 28, and Luke i. 26, commits the same error as here,
giving 'louSaias, "Judea," when the genuine reading as given
by all but one or two other manuscripts is FoAiWas, "Galilee."
In John vii. 3, D, on the other hand, has TaXiXaiav, " Galilee,"
for 'louSatai', " Judea." In Matt. xxvi. 69, C, two cursives, the
Peshito Syriac, and Persic of Walton's Polyglot have Na^wpatou,
" Nazarene," for ra\i\aiou, " Galilean " j while in John iv. 47,
the Curetonian Syriac Version reads, "Jesus was come out
of Galilee into Judea" instead of "out of Judea into Galilee."
The only wonder, if there is any, is how such an error should
become multiplied. Yet, perhaps, if we knew the character
of the copyists generally, and with what lack of care they
often performed their tasks, we should rather wonder that their
work was not more erroneous. However that may be, we
have here the undeniable fact that not less than six of the old
uncials, and four of them, those that are commonly regarded
the most trustworthy, are guilty of an egregious error; and
the reader will yet find that other errors, some of them even
worse, because not inadvertently but deliberately made, are
attested as genuine readings by our so-called " best " manu-
scripts.
V. i.
Rec. T. Iv T<3 riv SxXov liriKcicrSai avTip toB dKOvciv t4v X6yov —
as the people pressed upon him to hear the word.
Rev. T. €v Tip Tov i^Xov <iriKfi<r0ai avrw Kal dKovciv t4v Xo'yov —
while the multitude pressed upon him and heard the word.
The latter reading is that of X. A, B, L, X, i, 131, ^ of the
Old Latin, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, one edition and two
manuscripts of the Memphitic. The former is that of C, D, E,
F, G, H, K, M, Q, R, S, U, V, r, A, A, n, nearly all the
cursives, every copy but one of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, and Wilkins' Mem-
LUKE.
273
phitic. In the words " to hear the word of God," the evange-
list seems more naturally to have given the reason why the
multitude pressed upon Jesus than to have added another
circumstance of what " came to pass." He does not say that
Jesus had yet begun to teach the people ; but he says simply
that he was standing by the lake, — not even speaking. In
verse 3 we find that, after he had entered into one of the
boats, put out a little into the sea, and seated himself, he
then taught the multitudes. The legitimate inference from
this is, that he had not yet begun to teach them while he was
on the shore. In that case, the common reading must be the
true one.
▼• 5-
Rec. T. d.iroKpi9{ls 6 SCfiuv clircv avru, — Simon answering, said
unto him.
Rev. T. aTTOKpiScls 6 SC)i,(i>v elirev, — Simon answered and said.
The omission of aiVo) here is attested by Ji^, B, e of the Old
Latin, and the Memphitic Version only. It is not in accord-
ance with Luke's general manner. His habit is, where one is
mentioned as addressing others, unless a noun is used as in i. 18,
v. 24, etc., to use a pronoun in connection with uve., — aura),
o.\nrj, aiTois, or Trpos avTcf, Trpos a.vTov%, etc. If one is not espe-
cially addressed, as in i. 38, or where efire is introduced as
continuing the discourse, in the sense of " he added," as in iv.
24, the pronoun is omitted. But the omission here is an abbre-
viation by some one else on account of its apparent needless-
ness, — the next word showing instantly to whom the words
are addressed. There seems to be nothing to tempt any one
to insert auVo) here ; and yet, if spurious, aside from intrinsic
probability, it has in favor of its genuineness, a strong array of
witnesses, — A, C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, T, A, A,
n, all the cursives, every copy but one of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, and
Ethiopic Versions.
274
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
V. 9.
Rec. T. T^ aypi^ tmv tx^'^"*' "S <rvv€XaPov, — the draft of the fishes
which they had taken.
Rev. T. Tg ayfx^ t<3v Ixflvwv «5v (mv^aPov, — the draft of the fishes
which they had taken.
The change of text makes no manner of difference in the
rendering, or in the essential meaning ; but simply in the refer-
ence of the relative. This, according to the Received Text, re-
fers to " draft " ; but according to the Revised Text, to " fishes."
The testimony in support of the former consists of X» A, C, E,
F, H, K, L, M, S-, U, V, r, A, A, n, all the cursives, the Old
Latin, Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Memphitic,
Armenian, and Ethiopia The latter is the reading of only B,
D, H, and the Gothic Version. If dv had been the original
reading, there is no probability that it would ever have been
changed to 17, and made to refer to a more remote and less
obvious antecedent. But, under the idea that o-weXajSov must
mean "brought together" or "collected," it is easy to see
that one might be led, as no doubt was the case, to change g
to wv so as to make the word refer to " fishes " rather than to
the catch or haul on which the evangelist had his eye when he
wrote. And the comparatively feeble support given to this
reading lends additional weight to this supposition.
V. 17.
Rec. T. Svvanis KvpCov tJv cts to la<7-0ai avTOvs. — the power of the
Lord was present to heal them.
Rev. T. Sufajiis K«ptou tJv els rh loo-flai ovto'v.— the power of the
Lord was with him to heal.
A marginal note says "Many ancient authorities " — it
would have been more correct to have said Most ancient
authorities — " read that he should heal them." This reading
is attested by A, C, D, E, H, M, S, U, V, X, T, A, A, II,
nearly every cursive, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito, Philoxe-
nian and Jerusalem Syriac, Memphitic, Armenian, and Gothic j
LUKE.
2/5
while the Revisers' avrw is vouched for by only six witnesses ;
namely, ^, B, L, E, the Etliiopic Version, and Cyril, whose
testimony is somewhat conflicting, — he giving in one place,
" and the power of God was present for him to heal " ; and in
another, "and the power of the Lord was upon him to heal
all." It is a strong point in proof of the genuineness of the
received reading, that all the oldest versions (some of which
are centuries older than the oldest of extant Greek codices)
have it. But we are told that airov was changed to auVou's
under the idea that lauOax needed an object. If any change
had been made for this purpose, ttoWou's, " many," or o;^A.ous,
" multitudes," would have been the more probable word, —
certainly not outou's. The change, on the contrary, was the
other way, in order to obviate the seeming reference of airou's
to the Pharisees and doctors spoken of just before, — a refer-
ence which some readers insisted on as the true one. In con-
firmation of this, we find that the texts of D and X omit the
words "and the power of the Lord was present," , and read,
" There were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, who
had come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jeru-
salem [D also omits and Jerusalem'], for him to heal them."
On account of this misunderstanding of ovtou's, some well-
intentioned early reader changed it to avrcV ; and because his
work is preserved in the two oldest known Greek manuscripts,
as well as in four other documents, some suppose that it is
impossible for it to be other than genuine. Its spuriousness,
however, is quite obvious.'
V- 33-
Rec. T. Aiarl 01 (LaSi^ral 'Iwavvov vi](rTcvov(ri — Why do the dis-
ciples of John fast?
Rev. T. 01 |ia6i)Tal 'luavvou vTj(rT€vo«<ri — The disciples of John fast.
The received reading here, it is true, corresponds with that
of Matt. ix. 14 and Mark ii. 18. And why should it not? Is
1 K and lectionary II, instead of following }<, B, etc., explain avroii
by respectively substituting for it irdi'Tai and do-SevoOcTas.
276
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
there any reason why Luke's words, any more than Mark's,
should not correspond with Matthew's? or why, any more
than Matthew's, they should not correspond with Mark's ? Are
not the three evangelists reporting one and the same utterance
made by others ? Two of them report it as a question ; and
no objection is raised. Why should not the third do the same
rather than give it as a flat, spiritless declaration ? Must we
believe that he did not, simply because one of ^'s correctors,
B, L, H, two cursives, and the Memphitic Version give it as a
cold asseveration ? Are these seven witnesses infallible, and all
others false? In view of the errors of which the foremost
among these documents are again and again guilty hereabouts,
we have reason to question their testimony very seriously, not
only on internal grounds, but in the face of the opposing testi-
mony of the original scribe of ^, A, C, D, E, F, H, K, M,
R, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Old
Latin, Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, Arme-
nian, Ethiopic, and a tenth-century manuscript of the Mem-
phitic Version, — an array of evidence scarcely less than
overwhelming. In short, there is every reason to believe that
the revised reading is either an accidental or a deliberate falsifi-
cation of Luke's text.
Rec. T. 'E7«'veT0 8* Iv a-aPParat ScvTcpcnrptaTu — And it came to pass
on the second Sabbath after the first.
Rev. T. 'E7€'v«T0 Sc e v o-aP^arw — Now it came to pass on a sabbath.
To this, the Revisers annex the note, " Many ancient authori-
ties insert second-firstP These authorities, or at least some of
them, are A, C, D, E, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, A, A, n, most of
the cursives, not less than six copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, Gothic, Armenian, the text of the Philoxenian Syriac,
Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, Ambrose twice, Pseudo-Csesarius,
Epiphanius twice, the Paschal Chronicle, Chrysostom, Isidore
of Pelusium, Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus ; while
LUKE.
277
R. r, 117, 235, and two (13, 124 first hand) of Ferrar's group
read Stvrc'po) TrpiLrw, which is probably the true reading. The
unusual word is omitted from the text in X, B, L, i, 22, ^2>
69 (another of Ferrar's group), 118, 157, 209, and certain
lectionaries, as 150, 222, 234, 257, 259. Its omission from
these last is in accordance with the usual custom of omitting
the designations of time from the beginning of church lessons.
A number of versions, as Jerome confesses, oi translationis
difficultatem^ "on account of the difficulty of translating" the
word, have also omitted it ; among which are several copies of
the Old Latin, the Memphitic, Peshito Syriac, Ethiopic, Persic,
and the Polyglot Arabic, though the Roman and Erpenius'
Arabic both have Seurt'po), as well as the Ethiopic according to
Scholz. Tischendorf retains the word ; Tregelles rejects it ;
Lachmann includes it in his text within brackets as a doubtful
reading ; while VVestcott and Hort relegate it to the margin as
a " Western and Syrian " interpolation, having no real claim to
a place in the text ! The margin of the Philoxenian Syriac
says the word " does not appear in all the exemplars," as we
find to be the case with *^, B, L, and a few others. But its
non-appearance is due to the simple fact that its meaning was
not understood, as is evident from the various interpretations
that have been put upon it almost from the first. Its presence
is utterly unaccountable except on the hypothesis of its being
a part of the original text. It is not found elsewhere in the
New Testament, or anywhere in classical Greek, and may
have been introduced by the evangelist (if Sturtpo) irpuiTif is
not the proper spelling) from the colloquial Greek of his day.
Notwithstanding the various false interpretations that have
been put upon it, its meaning seems to us clear and unques-
tionable. Among the Jews there were three principal yearly
feast-days or sabbaths ; namely, at the passover or feast of
unleavened bread, wliich lasted seven days ; then, seven weeks
after, the feast of weeks or d.iy of pentecost ; and thirdly, at
1 Vallarsi, ii. 261.
278
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
the close of the vintage, the feast of tabernacles, continuing
eight days (Deut. xvi. 1-16). The last day of the feast of
unleavened bread (Deut. xvi. 8; John xix. 31), and of the
feast of tabernacles (Neh. viii. 18; John vii. 37), and the day
of pentecost were the three /xe-yoAa or npwTa aaji^ara, notable
or principal sabbaths, their three chief national feast-days.
The SeuTtpov vpiiiTov (or SevTeporrrptoTov) (rififiaTov was therefore
" a second chief sabbath," the day of pentecost, which occurred
about the end of May, at the close of their wheat-harvest. On
this day, as Jesus and his disciples were passing through a
wheat-field, his disciples picked a few heads of the grain that
had been left standing by the reapers, rubbed them out, and
ate the kernels. The evangelist's word hf.vrtpoirpu)Tw or Seurtpo)
TrptoTm fixes the time of the occurrence of the event, and
shows that the disciples were no trespassers, but were simply
taking what the law entitled them to. (See Lev. xxiii. 22.)
It is a very informing and important word, and would never
have been dropped from the text but through ignorance.
vi. 6.
Rec. T. 'Ey^vcto 81 Kal Iv Mpif a-aL^P&rif — And it came to pass also
on another Sabbath.
Rev. T. 'E-y^vtTO Si Iv ir^ptp cra^pdrii) — And it came to pass on
another sabbath.
Kai' is set aside here probably by the same hand whose work
we have just been exposing. The omission is found in very
nearly the same documents as contained the last ; namely,
Ji{, B, L, X, about fifteen cursives, counting the three (13, 69,
124) of Ferrar's group as one, eight copies of the Old Latin,
the Memphitic, Peshito Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Cyril.
Kai is attested, however, by A, E, H, K, M, R, S, U, V, r, A,
A, n, most of the cursives, two copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, Philoxenian Syriac, and possibly the Gothic. It refers,
in connection with iyii'iro, to what is said in verse i, and is
introduced to give emphasis to the statement respecting a sec-
LUKE.
279
ond circumstance as happening a/so upon a sabbath, — " And
it came to pass also on another sabbath that " etc. If the word
is not genuine, it is hard to see why it should have been added.
It is far more likely that, in connection with 8e and iripm, some
early critical reader rejected it as superfluous or inconsistent
with due conciseness.
vi. 23.
Rec. T. KarA ravra ^olp 47ro£ovv . . . ot traripti avTuv. — for in the
like manner did their fathers.
Rev. T. Kard rd aird -ydp 4iro(o«v
the same manner did their fathers.
01 iraT^pcs auTwv. — for in
The revised reading ra avrd is attested by B, D, Q, X, H, 33,
and Marcion as cited by Epiphanius twice. But then D and
Marcion omit the following yap. The received reading is up-
held by K, A, E, H, K, L, M, P, R, S, U, V, r, A, A, n, nearly
every cursive, Origen, and TertuUian. In the Received Text,
ydp occupies the third place in the clause ; while, in the other,
it holds the fourth. This last, as every Greek scholar knows, is
a very unusual, not to say unnatural, position for it in prose.
As a general rule, it stands second unless preceded by two
closely connected words, like iv p-icrw or iv oI8a, or by such
particles as jxiv and rt, that cannot stand first. In that case, it
stands third in the clause. If, however, jutV or re. is preceded
by two closely connected words, then even in prose yap occu-
pies the fourth place. (See Xen. Anab. VII. iii. 37.) But
there is no such necessity in the verse before us. Hence we
are led to suspect the reading. (The same is true of the
revised reading in verse 26, and in 2 Cor. i. 19, — the only
instances, we believe, in the New Testament besides the pres-
ent, in which ydp is made to occupy the fourth place in the
clause.) The form Kara ravra ydp, — giving ydp the third
place, — is not uncommon; though, beyond this and verse 26,
there is not another instance of it in the Gospel of Luke ; and
in the Acts it occurs only at xvii. 28 and xxvi. 16, where the
28o
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
writer is reporting as here the words of another. The fact
therefore that the revised reading is a grammatically unneces-
sary and improbable reading for Kara ravra yap, and is altogether
unlike Luke, compels us to believe that the true reading is that
of the Received Text properly accentuated, — TatVd, not ravra..
This is substantially the same reading as that of the Revisers,
only the two words are brought into one. And the documen-
tary evidence in favor of this form is certainly weightier than
that supporting the revised reading, especially when we con-
sider that D and Marcion omit -yap, so that their testimony on
this point goes for nothing. The reading of B and its allies
originated in some early reader's or scribe's desire that Luke's
TAYTA might not be mistaken for ravra; to make sure of
which, he expanded it into ra avVa, without realizing that yap
was witnessing and protesting against his work. The same
thing is true of the same false reading in verse 26, as also in
xvii. 30.
vi. 34.
Rec. T. irap' uv {XirC^cri AiroXap^iv, — of whom ye hope to receive.
Rev. T. irap' <Jv iXwCJcxc XaPctv, — of whom ye hope to receive.
The former reading is attested by A, D, E, H, K, M, P, S,
U, V, X, r. A, A, and nearly every cursive ; the latter by ^, B,
L, H, 237, and Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15. But Justin evidently
quotes from memory, as follows : li yap Savti^tTe Trap' wv lXirCi,iTf.
kaPiiv, TL Kaivov iroitiTt ; tovto kox 01 TtXmvat. iroimaiv. In doing
SO, he differs from the text in at least nine words out of the fif-
teen, without counting Xa^iiv. So that whatever weight may
be accorded to the testimony of the other five witnesses that
support the Revisers' reading, that of Justin is of little worth.
While the simple verb may fulfil the demands of the context,
the compound form more fully meets it by more fully express-
ing the idea involved, — that oi receiving in return from another.
By so doing, it commends itself as the original word, while the
other has the appearance of being an abridgment. This read-
LUKE.
28r
ing is also favored by the fact that the same word is employed
in a similar connection, in accordance with Jesus' customary
manner of speech, before the verse closes, — " for sinners lend
to sinners to receive as much in return." Besides this, the
attestation in its support is not to be overlooked. It is too
strong, taken with the internal evidence, to allow a change of text.
▼i- 35-
The reading ixrjSiva, " no one," referred to in the marginal
note, — "Some ancient authorities read despairing of no man"
— though found in Ji^, H, n first hand, and in the Syriac,
Arabic, and Persic Versions, is hardly worthy of notice. It
originated in an obvious misapprehension of the evangelist's
meaning in the participle a-nfXTritfivrv;. If this had not been
taken to mean disappointing one's expectations, )x.-i)%ar would
never have received the additional letter, by which the Saviour
is represented as saying, " Do good, and lend, disappointing
no one," instead of " Do good and lend, hoping for nothing in
return." The aVo in composition with (\Trit,ti.v, as the words
Trap* oV ikni^iTe, " from whom ye hope," in verse 34 clearly
indicate, has the same force here as in connection with \ap./3dvii.v
in that verse, making the word mean diro nvos iXvi^etv, " to hope
for from some one." But this being an unusual use and meaning,
the word was misunderstood and misinterpreted. Hence the
/xrjBfva. Compare d-n-ea-duiv for aTrd Tivo's iaBiav, " tO eat of
something " ; and dTroycucracr^ai for dTro tivos yevVacr^cu, " to
taste of something." '
vi. 48.
Rec. T. TiBincXCwTO ■yap tirl tt]v -ir^rpav. — for it was founded upon
a rock.
Rev. T. Sid TO KoXus olKo8op.fi<rBai. ovt^v. — because it had been
well buiUled.
The common reading here is attested by A, C, D, E, H, K,
M, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Old
1 See I.iddell and Sccitt, Robinson, and Thayer on these compounds, —
iiroXanpiMiv, etc., as well as Pickering's Lexicon under airi, viii. (17) (18).
282
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Latin, Vulgate, Peshito Syriac, Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, and
Armenian. The revised is vouched for by J<. B, L, H, two
cursives, the Memphitic Version, the margin of the Philoxenian
Syriac, and Cyril of Alexandria. The Ethiopic Version com-
bines the two, and reads, " because it had been built upon a
rock, and had been well built." Those who accept the revised
reading consider the other as a gloss from Matt. vii. 25. But
it is plainly the true reading. Matthew reports Jesus to have
given, as the reason why the house fell not, that "it was
founded upon rock," and not on sand ; and this reading has
come down to us without having its genuineness questioned.
We cannot doubt therefore that the reason which Jesus really
gave why the house did not fall was, that " it was founded on
rock," and not because it had been well built. In fact, if Mat-
thew's report of Christ's words is correct, we should expect
that Luke's would correspond with it ; not that the latter
would represent Jesus as assigning a different reason for the
stability of the structure from that which Matthew ascribes to
him. And this conviction grows, the more the passage is
considered. The beginning of the verse represents Jesus as
speaking of a house in process of erection; one that a man
"was building," not "had built," as the Revisers' perfect
olKoSofj.rj(T6ai, at the end of the verse, says. " He is like a man
building a house, who had digged, and gone deep, and laid
the foundation on rock ; but (apparently while he was in the
process of building) a freshet came, and the river dashed
against that house, and could not shake it," not because it
had been well builded, but " because it had been founded on
(solid) rock." The point of the Saviour's comparison lay in
the nature of the foundation given to the house. The house
might have been well built, yet if it had not been on a solid
foundation, it could not have withstood the flood. And this
accords with the teaching of the context. Jesus is speaking
with reference to the groundwork, the foundation of character.
The man that accepts his teachings and obeys them, whose life,
LUKE.
283
in other words, is based upon the truth, is one who is able to
withstand and survive the storms and tests to which his char-
acter is subjected, not because it is a symmetrical, well-built
character, but because it is " rooted and grounded " in firm
and enduring principles. The trouble with the Revisers' text
is that it is the work of one who was not satisfied to leave the
house in the unfinished condition in which Jesus' statement
concerning it seems to leave it by referring to the foundation
only. The house spoken of in the next verse is a completed
house ; hence our ancient reviser concluded that this should
be. And inasmuch as it was well begun by having a good
foundation, he inferred that it was "well builded" throughout.
Hence his reason why the house did not fall, which implies
not so much that the house had a solid foundation as that it
had been strongly and substantially built. This reason, how-
ever, not only contradicts, but robs of its force and point, the
reason that Jesus gave, which represents the house in an unfin-
ished state, and therefore the more liable to have been carried
away if it had not had a deeply laid and solid foundation.
Rec. T. 4irop«ueTo els iriXiv — he went into a city.
Rev. T. {iroptvOt] ets ir6X.iv — he went to a city.
The aorist of the Revised Text is supported only by ^, B, R,
and the lost uncial represented by Ferrar's group ; while the
imperfect of the Received Text is attested by A, C, D, E, F, G,
H, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, all the cursives except 13,
69, 346, and by the Old Latin and Vulgate Versions. The
imperfect is what the context demands. The aorist takes us
in thought to Nain, — "he went to a city called Nain." But
in the next verse we read, " as he drew near to the gate of the
city," and find that Jesus had not yet arrived there. The
imperfect, however, which is by far the best attested form,
gives a reading in accordance with fact, and with what Luke
284
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
would naturally say, — "he was going to a city called Nain,
and many of his disciples were accompanying him ; and as he
drew near to the gate of the city, behold," etc.
vii. 32.
Rec. T. Kal X^-yovo-iv, — and saying.
Rev. T. a X^-yti, — which say.
The Revisers' reading, which is found only in X ^s left by
its original scribe, B, and the cursive i, is far too feebly at-
tested to be allowed to supersede the common reading, which
is supported by A, E, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, X, T, A, n,
nearly all the cursives, five copies of the old Latin, the Vulgate,
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and Gothic Versions. D, L,
the four cursives of Ferrar's group, and half a dozen copies of
the Old Latin, — as the result of some old scribe's regarding
Xe'youtriv as the third person plural of the present indicative
instead of the dative of the present participle, and of his desire
to remove all ambiguity in regard to it, — have Xt'yovTts instead
of Kai Xt'youcnv ; and Tischendorf adopts this as the true read-
ing ! But, "because TraiSia is neuter, Ji^ as amended by its
earlier seventh-century corrector, H, and 157 read Xtyoira
instead. The Revisers' reading may be an apparently hard
reading ; and on this account, as it is the reading of ^, B, it
was the more readily adopted by Westcott and Hort, from
whom it passed into the Revised Text. But it is simply
another attempt to solve the difficulty that presented itself to
the critic whose reading D, L, etc., adopted ; only, instead of
adopting a participial construction, these manuscripts adopt a
relative clause with the verb in the singular. The ninth-century
manuscript A and the cursive 262 prefer the plural form 01 At-
youo-iv, which differs from the original only in taking Xkyovuiv
as a third person plural instead of a participle, and substituting
oi for Kat. The original construction, which is followed by
Lachmann, is obviously the simple, natural reading of the
Received Text, — Xt'youo-ii' being, of course, a present parti-
LUKE.
285
ciple like the preceding ones, with which it is connected by
Kat. If this word had invariably been taken as a participial
form, there would have been no rival readings.
vii. 33.
Rec. T. (i^Tt apTOv {<r6Cuv |i^Tt olvov irCvuv, — neither eating bread,
nor drinking wine.
Rev. T. (11) oprov i<r6£wv ^'i^i otvov irtvwv, — eating no bread nor
drinking wine.
This singular reading, — which literally translated makes
Jesus say, John the Baptist has come, " not eating bread, nor
drinking wine," — is supported only by Ji{, B, H, 157, and /of
the Old Latin, which Orosius partially quotes as follows : Venit
Johannes non manducans neque bibans, without the additional
words panem and vinum. The common reading is overwhelm-
ingly attested by A (C is defective), D, E, G, H, K, L, M, P,
S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, every cursive and copy of the Old
Latin but one, the Vulgate, and all other versions. With this
testimony before us, it is incredible that Luke wrote /xt;, "not"
. . . ft.riT(, " nor," when his usual manner of negatively coupling
two similar phrases or expressions is /xtjte, " neither "... /i-qre,
" nor." In reporting a familiar saying of Christ's like this,
given without variation in Matthew (xi. 18), and in perfect ac-
cordance with his own manner of speaking, it would have been
hardly possible for Luke to depart from his customary style.
So obvious a departure under such circumstances, especially
when so feebly attested, is far more justly to be attributed to
some inadvertent scribe than to so correct a writer as Luke.
viii. 3.
Rec. T. aiTivjs 8n)K6vouv o«t«u — which ministered unto him.
Rev. T. otrives 8iiikovouv aurots — which ministered unto them.
The " many ancient authorities " to which the marginal note
refers as supporting the received reading are ^, A, L, M, X, 11,
I, 33, and a multitude of other cursives, four copies of the Old
Latin, the Clementine and several manuscripts of Jerome's
286
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Vulgate, the Memphitic, Armenian, Ethiopic, the text of the
Philoxenian Syriac, and Tertullian. The revised reading is
attested by B, D, E, F, G, H, K, S, U, V, r, A, A, about ninety
cursives, six copies of the Old Latin and as many of the Vulgate,
the Curetonian and Peshito Syriac, the margin of the Philox-
enian, the Gothic, and Anglo-Saxon Versions, and Augustine.
So that the external evidence is about equally divided. Con-
sidered with reference to textual probabilities, it may seem at
first view as if auVcu was the result of transcriptional error,
though not very probable, arising from lingering impressions
received from Matt, xxvii. 55 and Mark xv. 41 ; while avroU
could not have crept into the text in any such way, but must
be there because placed there by the evangelist. But it will be
seen that not only the twelve are spoken of (verse 1 ) as being
with Jesus, but certain women who ministered to him. Now,
for Luie to have said that the twelve and certain women who
ministered to them were with Jesus, is morally impossible. Nor
can he be supposed to have written auVots, intending thereby
to include both Jesus and his disciples. The whole context
forbids such a supposition. The women followed Jesus, and
ministered, not to his disciples' wants, but to his. And so
Mark (xv. 41) gives us to understand in speaking of the Mag-
dalene and others as women who, " when he was in Galilee,
followed him and ministered unto him." They " had been
healed of evil spirits and infirmities " by him ; and, in their
gratitude and love, they followed him and ministered to him.
Their hearts were centred on him ; it was he whom they desired
to serve and did serve. Avrois is plainly the work of a stupid
" reviser," a " Western " reading, but is found in some of the
so-called " best " documents, as B, D, and the Curetonian Syriac.
viii. 6.
Rec. T. f Tcpov eir«ir€v — some fell.
Rev. T. €T€pov icaWirco-cv — other fell.
On seeing this new reading, one instinctively asks why Luke,
within the compass of four successive verses (5-8), in express-
LUKE.
287
ing one and the same idea, should three times have written
(.TTtcrcv, " fell," and once KareVto-tv, " fell down." There is abso-
lutely no apparent reason for it. The latter word is used but
twice elsewhere in the New Testament, and there by Luke
(Acts xxvi. 14, xxviii. 6), where there is an obvious reason for
its use. On consulting the manuscripts, however, for the testi-
mony .in support of this reading, and finding that it consists
of only B, L, R, H, the enigma is solved. It is that group
of false witnesses, headed by the Vatican Codex, with which
we have been contending and must still contend through this
Gospel on account of the almost constant depravations which
they present as genuine readings. The word is an emendation
introduced by a second- or third-century corrupter of the text
to give variety to the phrasing. And because it appears in B,
L, H; and r/iffers from Mailhew's and Mark's language, each
of whom uses liriuiv every time, most of our modern editors
conclude that it is the true reading ! I^chmann, however, very
properly holds to the received reading, which is attested by
% A (C is defective), D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, A,
A, n, and every known cursive.
Rec. T. ol dKovoyjts" — they that hear.
Rev. T. 01 oKovriravTCS* — they that have heard.
This is another false reading, supported by ^, B, L, U, H,
and half a dozen cursives only. It is an early alteration of the
genuine text to make the reading correspond with that in
verses 14, 15. If aVouVavTts had been the original word, there
would have been no temptation to change it. The received
reading is attested by A (C is defective, and D has aKoXovdovv-
Tcs, — a blunder), E, G, H, K, M, R, S, V, X, r, A, A, n,
nearly all the cursives, Origen, and every ancient version, — a
circumstance utterly inexplicable if we deny that this is the
genuine reading.
288
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Viii. 26, 37.
On the various readings, "Gerasenes," " Gergesenes," and
" Gadarenes," appearing here in the ancient manuscripts, and
referred to in the marginal note, see Note on Matt. viii. 28.
The received reading " Gadarenes " is, no doubt, spurious.
Which of the two forms " Gerasenes " and " Gergesenes " is
the true one here may be a question. Lachmann, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort adopt the former ; while Tischendorf, with
the preponderance of Greek manuscripts in his favor, adopts
the latter.
vin. 27.
Rec. T. E^cXOovTi 8c avrw iir\ tijv ^-flv vtr^vrqcrtv avTu dvVjp tis —
And when he went forth to land, there met him a certain man.
Rev. T. tj'^^o'*^' 8t auTm lirX Tt|v ^i^v \i'ir/\vni<r£v aWjp tis — And
when he was come forth upon the land, there met him a certain man.
The omission of the second avrw here is called for by only
^, B, E, H, about a dozen cursives, and Pseudo-Athanasius.
The word was considered superfluous because of the preceding
i^ikOovTi avTw. But Luke, in accordance with oriental usage,
repeated the pronoun for the sake of perspicuity after the pre-
ceding words which separate from the verb its true object.
The phraseology is common to Luke and the other synoptic
writers. In this case it is attested as genuine by A (C defec-
tive), D, F, G, H, K, L, M, R, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, and aU
but a dozen cursives. If this redundant word were not genu-
ine, it would hardly have found its way into the text, and been
so generally accepted.'
' Compare Winer's Gram. § xxii. 4, a. Also Buttmann's Gram, of
N. T. Greek, § 130, marg. 2, p. 143 of Amer. edition; and Note 2, same
page.
LUKE.
289
viii. 35.
Rec. T. a4' ov tA 8ai|iovio (Jc\t)\u9«, — out of whom the devils were
departed.
Rev. T. i(|.' ov TO 8ai|iovia iffjXetv, — from whom the devils were
gone out.
The Revisers have here adopted a reading found in no Greek
manuscript except ^ and B. Nor is this all. They have
changed the tense of the Greek verb, but not that of the cor-
responding English. If there is anything in their plea of
necessity for a revision of the Greek in order to get at a cor-
rect revision of the English, they should have given us " went
out " instead of " were gone out," which is equivalent to " had
gone out," the English for the Greek pluperfect which they
have set aside. It seems hardly worth while that a reading
which, three verses farther on, is used to express the same
thought under the same conditions, and which every one
admits is genuine there, should be branded as spurious here
on the sole testimony of two manuscripts which are given to
just such alterations, and which we have shown to be repeatedly
united in error; then, after the adoption of a questionable
reading, that this reading should be rendered, not by a tense-
form which properly belongs to it, and for which it might be
supposed it was adopted, but by one that belongs to the dis-
carded reading.
viii. 43,
" Some ancient authorities," says the marginal note, " omit
/lad spent all her livivg upon physicians, and." That is, B and
Zohrab's Armenian Version simply omit these words, while D
and the Thebaic Version omit them, then change the rest of
the verse so as to make it read " whom no one could heal."
If it were a mere omission it might be attributed to oversight.
But the tampering by some with the last clause plainly shows
it to be a deliberate abtidgnrent of the text. Instead of the
290
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
words omitted from B, Origen (Wks. iii. 239) reads, iBanivr,<T€
ra Trap avr^, Trdvra d, roi, Ixrpov,, "had used up all that she
possessed upon her physicians"; and it is not unlikely that
the scribe of B, as was his wont, in his inability to decide
whether this reading or the commonly accepted one is the true
one cut the Gordian knot by simply ignoring both. And this
he could the more readily do, because the omission does not
materiallv vitiate the narrative ; it only weakens the statement.
That the words omitted by B are genuine, there can be no doubt.
They are ovenvhelmingly attested by K. A, C, E, F", G, H,
K L, M, P, R, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, B, n, all the cursives, and
all the early versions except the Thebaic, and the Armenian
as it appears in one edition. Yet Westcott and Hort, in their
devotion to B, D, omit them, without intimating, m either text
or appendix, the fact or the ground of the omission. Hort s
"Introduction" intimates (p. 17?) that the common reading
here is "a distinctively Alexandrian reading, indubitably such
,> to the writer of that Introduction, because not found in B,
and therefore it does not " approve itself [to him] as genuine
against Western and neutral texts combined " ; or, in plain
English, against D and B combined ! A fair specimen of the
reasoning with which that Introduction abounds.
viii. 45-
The "ancient authorities" that "omit and they that were
vjith him" are B, n, less than ten cursives, the Thebaic, and
the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac Versions, -a company
of witnesses by no means the most assuring or trustworthy
At first glance, it is true, the words may appear to have been
added so as t'o make the statement agree m -bstance w^th
Mark's (V. 31) " and his disciples said unto h.m." But, in hat
c "Peter said" would probably have been changed to "his
d^sci'ple; said." It is much more likely that the words were
omitted because of their seeming indefiniteness,-as possibly
referring to the other disciples, and possibly to the crowd,-
LUKE.
291
possibly to those with Jesus, possibly to those with Peter. To
obviate all this uncertainty, they were dropped as unnecessary.
Westcott and Hort accept the omission as representing Luke's
text, though the words are attested as genuine by J^, A, C, D,
E, G, H, K, L, M, P, R, S, U, V, X, T, A, A, H, all the cur-
sives, and every version except the three above mentioned.
Some of the Greek manuscripts, however, represent "with
him " by /xet' avTov, others by avv avT<u.
viii. 45.
Rec. T. Kal X<-y<is, T(s 4 di{/d)uv6s jiov; — and sayest thou, Who
touched me?
Rev. T. Omits.
The omission is supported by ^, B, L, i, 22, 131, 157, the
two Egyptian and the Armenian Versions. But the words are
attested as a part of Luke's text by A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K,
M, P,,R, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, all but four cursives, the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, all four of the Syriac Versions, and the
Gothic and Ethiopic. Because the words are wanting in ten
documents, it is inferred by some that they were imported into
the text from Mark (v. 31), though several hundred other doc-
uments, by having them, testify to the contrary. But it is said,
two of the ten are the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament that we have, and two others are among the oldest of
the versions. Very true ; but it does not follow from this that
their testimony is infallible, and should set aside that of all the
other witnesses. Codex A, among the latter, is but a few years
younger than ^ and B, which date no farther back than the
middle of the fourth century, while A is generally assigned to
the beginning or middle of the fifth century, " though it may
be referred even to the end of the fourth century, and is cer-
tainly not much later." ' Codex C is assigned to the middle
of the fifth century, — being perhaps a hundred years or so
later than ^ and B. But there are no older New-Testament
* Scrivener, Introduction, p. 97.
292
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
documents extant than the Old Latin and two of the Syriac
Versions, which reach back nearly to the first century. So
that, if age of documents is to decide the question, it is decided
in favor of the received reading. But a few years' difference
in age has less to do with the question than the general charac-
ter of the documents. Tried by this standard, the testimony
of A and C will lose nothing whatever by a comparison with
their somewhat older rivals. And when, as in this instance,
the testimony of the former is so generally and strongly sup-
ported, we cannot but believe that the reason of this is that it
is testimony in support of the truth. This will become more
apparent perhaps from the following considerations. The fact
that Mark represents the disciples as having uttered these words
in this connection is evidence sufficient that they did do it, but
no evidence whatever that Luke did not insert the same words
in his text. The testimony of the oldest witnesses that we have,
and, in fact, of all but ten of the witnesses that we have, is to
the effect that Luke did embody these words in his record.
And we see no reason why he should not have done it just as
well as Mark. Indeed, the position of the word rjipaTo, which
follows immediately after in Jesus' reply, or rather the emphasis
which that position demands for the word, implies that Luke
did insert the omitted words. His iji/zaTo is correctly trans-
lated " did touch" ; and the fact that Jesus is recorded by Luke
to have said, " Some one ifitf touch me," necessarily implies
that Luke also recorded the disciples' words, " And sayest thou,
Who touched me ? " If he had given Jesus' reply as in the
Revised Text, as if it referred to the more general declaration,
" The multitudes throng thee and press thee," he would natu-
rally have written, " But Jesus said, rls jji/'aro fiov, Some one
touched xa^ ; for" etc., — without the special emphasis of "did
touch," implied in the position given by him to iJi/'aTo. The
words are wanting in the few documents that are without them,
probably as many others are wanting, from the abbreviating
propensity of some early copyist, who lessened his task by
LUKE.
293
omitting here and there a word or a clause, and at the same
time satisfied himself that he was doing his duty because that
word or clause seemed to him unnecessary or obscure. And
the fact that the omission is confined to a few copies, and those
mostly if not altogether of Egyptian or Alexandrian origin, is
prinia-facie evidence that it is a false reading.
"Some ancient authorities," says the marginal note, "omit
the sick," — making the verse read, " And he sent them forth
to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal." The only known
Greek manuscript that does this is B ; and the only version,
the Curetonian Syriac ; — on the strength of which, Tischen-
dorf and Westcott and Hort omit "the sick." It would not
have been strange if Luke had left both verbs in this sentence
without an object, and written simply " And he sent them forth
to preach and to heal." But, with no better evidence of the
fact, it is incredible that so careful and elegant a writer as Luke
should have written so unbalanced a sentence as " And he sent
them forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal." The
omission is probably due to there having arisen at an early day
a difference of reading in what follows, — some having tous
arrBtvovvTa^, and Others tous axTOtviit. In some scribe's indif-
ference, or inability to decide, as to the true object of the
latter verb, that object was omitted altogether, and the reader
left to infer what it might be. The omission is a palpable one,
and hence its very limited acceptance.
IX. 10.
Rec. T. iirex<ipi<»'t Kar I8lav els T6irov cpi]|iov irdXcus KaXov)t^vT]S
BrjStra'iSd. — he went aside privately into a desert place, belonging to the
city called Bethsaida.
Rev. T. vir€x<5pT)<r€ Kar' ISCav «ts ir6\iv KaXou|i€'vi]v BT]6<ra'iS(i.. — he
withdrew apart to a city called liethsaida.
The revised reading is that given by the earlier seventh-
century corrector of J^, B, L, X, H, 33, the Memphitic, The-
•294
THE revisers' greek text.
baic, and Erpenius' Arabic Version. D alone reads Kuifirjv, " a
village," instead of ttoXw, " a city." The received reading is
attested by A, C, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r, A, A, n, most of
the cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, Gothic, and
Ethiopic Versions, except that A and five or six cursives read
iprjixov roTTov instead of roTTov (p-qfjiov, which latter, from the fact
of its being an unusual order yet almost universally adopted,
may be considered the true one ; while the original scribe and
the later seventh-century corrector of J^, two cursives (count-
ing 13, 69, and 346 of Ferrar's group as one), and the Cure-
tonian Syriac read simply " to a desert place " ; three copies
of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Peshito Syriac, " to a
desert portion of Bethsaida " ; and three other copies of the
Old Latin, " to a desert place called Bethsaida." Thus, it will
be seen, the original text has been greatly disturbed. If we
can find the cause of this disturbance, we may be able to
decide upon the genuine text. The first three evangelists are
united in pronouncing the place where the five thousand men,
and perhaps as many more women and children, were fed " a
desert place " (Matt. xiv. 13, 15 ; Mark vi. 31, 32, 35 ; Luke ix.
12). All the above readings except that adopted by the Re-
visers, that is, all the witnesses in the present instance except
ten, also represent Jesus as retiring with his disciples to a
desert place. Of these ten, nine say that Jesus withdrew " to
a city," and one that he withdrew " to a village." A city, it
must be confessed, is a less likely place than a village for one
to withdraw himself to, "apart" from a crowd. This may
account for the reading of D, " to a village." Generally, when
Jesus withdrew from the multitudes, and sought to be " apart "
or by himself, he went to some solitary place, a wilderness, or
a mountain. This is the only passage in which we read of his
wi/hdraiaing apart to a city ; and even this reading is attested
by only nine or at most ten witnesses, two of them dating from
the second or third century, one from the fourth, and the rest
being of later idate, while the great majority of the witnesses
LUKE.
29s
testify against it. And these include not only A and C of the
fifth century, and hundreds of witnesses in after centuries, but
even the Syriac and Latin Versions of the second century, and
Ji^, the Vulgate, Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions of the fourth
century. All this testimony goes to show that the reading, " He
withdrew apart to a desert place" is not only the natural but
the true reading. So far then we are justified by the documen-
tary evidence before us in considering this reading genuine.
How is it as to the additional expressions, " of Bethsaida,"
" called Bethsaida," and " belonging to a city called Beth-
saida"? At first view, one might think that, if Luke had
neither given one of these forms, nor used the phrase " to a
city called Bethsaida," no scribe would ever have devised such
an adjunct in this connection. But the fact that this qualifica-
tion of the term " desert " appears under three different forms
naturally awakens suspicion respecting its genuineness. And
when we consider the indefiniteness of the unqualified expres-
sion "a desert place," it is not difficult to see that some early
reader, — wishing to locate the desert, and knowing from
Matt. xiv. 22, 34 that the place was on the east side of the
lake, and knowing also that there was such a place near the
head of the lake easily accessible by land from the northwest-
ern shore, adjacent to what was formerly called Bethsaida, and
is even so called in Mark viii. 22, — probably placed in the
margin the word Bjy^o-aVSa, " of Bethsaida," " belonging to
Bethsaida," or " which was Bethsaida," simply to note his
idea as to its locality. This word soon afterwards naturally
enough found its way into the text. Hence its appearance
in the Peshito Syriac Version, in a few manuscripts of the Old
Latin, and in the Vulgate. Others, to define it more accu-
rately, inserted the word KoXovjXivov, making it read, " to a des-
ert place called Bethsaida." But some one, not satisfied with
either of tliese readings, changed the expression to irdXetDs
KaXovfievri^ B-qdcraiia, "belonging to a city called Bethsaida,"
as the Received Text has it, while another, having no knowledge
296
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
of any Bethsaida but that in Galilee, or of any desert place
worthy of mention near that city, boldly struck out tottov tpr/-
fiov, and instead wrote iroXiv (which still another changed to
KiifiTjv) Ka\ovfj.fvT]v BrjOaaiSd, " a city called Bethsaida," as the
Revisers have it, or " a village called Bethsaida," as Codex D
has it. The location of the desert is no doubt correctly given
by those documents that attempt to locate it ; but each of the
forms in which it appears must be considered simply a gloss.
We may be assured also that Luke could not have said that
Jesus withdrew apart to " a city," when Matthew (xiv. 13) and
Mark (vi. 31, 32), as well as Luke himself indirectly in verse
1 2, state that the place to which Jesus and his disciples retired
was a desert.
ix.35-
Rec. T. OvTos Imv o «ios |iov 6 oYoin]T<s* — This is my beloved Son.
Rev. T. OvT<s io-Tiv o vWs |«)v 6 <k\(Xc7|Uvos* — This is my Son,
my chosen.
The ancient authorities, referred to in the marginal note as
sustaining the received reading here, are A, C, D, E, G, H, K,
M, P, R, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, five
manuscripts of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, the Cure-
tonian, Peshito, and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, Epiphanius
twice, and TertuUian. The revised reading is attested by Ji^,
B, L, 3, the margin of one cursive, three copies of the Old
Latin, one of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the
Armenian, one manuscript of the Ethiopic, and the margin of
the Philoxenian Syriac Version. The other, though the more
strongly attested, is rejected because it corresponds with the
reading in Matt. xvii. 5, and Mark ix. 7 ; while this is adopted
mainly because it differs from that reading. It is not, however,
in the middle voice, as the word is everywhere else in the New
Testament. Nor is it the word that Luke elsewhere employs
to express this meaning. (See xviii. 7 ; xxiii. 35.) It has the
appearance of being the work of another hand. The fact that
LUKE.
297
the received reading corresponds with that given in Matthew
and Mark, instead of militating against its genuineness, is rather
in its favor ; for these evangelists are giving a report of the
utterance of another, — a brief, sententious, well-known, and
easily remembered form of words, that like a proverb had
passed from one to another in precisely the same language
probably till long after it had been committed to writing. It
is a significant fact that the Apostle Peter gives this utterance
in the language in which it is recorded by Matthew and Mark :
"This is my Moved Son." (2 Pet. i. 17.) It indicates that
this was the only wording known in the apostles' days, and
consequently must be the mould into which Luke cast the
thought. Besides all this, the abundant testimony from nearly
every part of ancient Christendom in support of the common
reading ought to satisfy any candid, thoughtful person that it
is the true reading.
IX. 54-
A marginal note informs the reader that some ancient docu-
ments omit the final clause of this verse, — "as Elijah also
did." These documents are J>5, B, L, H, two cursives, four
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac,
one manuscript of the Memphitic, the Armenian, Wheelocke's
Persic Version, and Cyril of Alexandria ; in view of which
testimony the words have been omitted by the Revisers also.
But they are attested as genuine by A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K,
M, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, most of the cursives, the best copies
of the Old Latin, Schwartze's and ^Vilkins' editions of the
Memphitic, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic and
Ethiopic Versions, Basil, Chrysostom, and others. It was but
natural that the words should have been uttered in this connec-
tion by persons familiar with the history of Elijah, as James
and John of course were, to justify themselves in making the
request they did. And unless one has made up his mind that
the testimony of X» ^7 L, and the Curetonian Syriac Version is
298
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
necessarily conclusive, and all other evidence must be set
aside, there is no good reason why this reading should not be
considered genuine. It seems to have been omitted to save
Elijah from the apparent rebuke implied in Jesus' censuring
the two disciples for expressing themselves as they did ; just as
if his case was really similar to theirs.
IX. 55.
The closing part of this verse, — "and said, Ye know not
what manner of spirit ye are of," — which is omitted from the
text by the Revisers, is wanting in J^, A, B, C, E, F, G, H, L,
S, V, X, A, H, 28, 33, 36, 71, 157, and about sixty other cur-
sives, two copies of the Old Latin, and two of the Vulgate,
some editions and manuscripts of the Memphitic and Ethiopia
Versions, Basil, and Jerome, — a strong array of witnesses, it
must be confessed ; while it appears in D, F", K, M, U, F, A, n,
the majority of the cursives, most copies of the Old Latin and
Vulgate V-Tsions, some copies of the Memphitic, the Curetonian,
Peshito, and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, the Armenian, the
Gothic, and one copy of the Ethiopia, Chrysostom, Ambrose,
and others. If the words could be found in any of the other
Gospels, it would be said at once that they were imported
thence ; but this cannot be done. This short, pointed utter-
ance does not seem at all like a transcriber's addition. It is
every way worthy of Jesus himself. Nor does it seem as if
Luke could have written the verse without adding the very
language of the rebuke to which he refers in the preceding
words, and without which his narrative appears tame and
unfinished. It may have appeared to some early scribe to be
too harsh and severe an utterance to be attributed to Jesus,
and, on this account, dropped from the text. This would
readily account for its non-appearance in so many ancient
documents. It is so apposite, and has so strong marks of
genuineness, it ought to be retained as a part of Luke's text.
LUKE.
299
The clause that follows, however, in verse 56, is so destitute of
the support of the earliest extant Greek manuscripts that pos-
sibly it will need to be abandoned as a later and yet a very
early addition ; for, though wanting in the oldest known Greek
manuscripts, which date only from the fourth and fifth cen-
turies, it is found in our earliest extant documents, the Old
Latin, Syriac, and Memphitic Versions, which reach back to
the second and third centuries. It is also attested by Cyprian,
A.D. 253, and by Ambrose, of the fourth century.
The addition of Si'o here and in verse 17, referred to in
the marginal note, making the number seventy-two instead of
seventy that the Lord appointe<l and sent out, is found only in
B, D, M, R, I, 42, a, c, e, g\ I of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
the Curetonian Syriac, the Armenian, Clement of Alexandria,
Hilary, Epiphanius, and Augustine. It is simply giving "in
round numbers " — six dozen — what is more exactly stated as
seventy by S, A, C, E, G, H, K, L, S. U, V, X, T, A, A, H, n,
all but two cursives, b,f, q of the Old Latin, the Peshito, Phi-
loxenian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic,
the Ethiopia, and the earlier Fathers Irenaeus and TertuUian,
as well as Eusebius, — in at least five different places, — Basil,
Ambrose, and Cyril of Alexandria.
X. 15.
Rec. T. <r«, Kairtpvaovp., t| Jus toO oupavov {ii|'(»8Et(ra, — thou,
Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven.
Rev. T. <rv, Kair«pvaov(i, (ii^ ifus toB ovpavov i<|«i>6Ti(ri] ; — thou,
Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven?
The former is the reading of A, C, E, G, K, M, R, S, U, V,
W, X, r, A, A, n, all the cursives, c,f, g\ q of the Old Latin,
the Vulgate, the Pesliito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic,
the Armenian, and Augustine ; the latter, that of X» B, D, L,
300
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
H, a, />, e, i, I of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, the
Memphitic, and the Ethiopia Version. This reading, however,
is not genuine. It originated, as did the same false reading in
Matt. xi. 23, by a careless doubling of the last letter of " Caper-
naum," making ixr) out of ij, which subsequently required the
changing of v^mOdva into the personal form v\fiu>Ori<rri. (See
Note on Matt. xi. 23.)
X. 21.
Rec. T. T)-yaXXiouraTO rtji irvcvpiaTt, — he rejoiced in spirit.
Rev. T. Ti'yoXXtao-aro tio IIvcviiaTi rii 'AyCu, — he rejoiced in the
Holy Spirit.
The words tu 'Ayiw, " the Holy," though attested by J<, B,
C, D, K, L, X, E, n, I, 33, and five other cursives, seven
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all the Syriac Versions,
the Memphitic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, must be
viewed as " a pious addition," a gloss early introduced to
prevent irvivfuciTi from being taken by ignorant readers in the
same sense as the Trvtviiara, evil "spirits," of the preceding verse.
The only reading is the natural one of the Received Text,
which is sufficiently attested by A, E, G, H, M, S, U, V, W,
r. A, A, nearly all the cursives, two copies of the Old Latin,
the Gothic, Clement of Alexandria, and Basil.
X. 32.
Rec. T. KaV Atvtn]? ^tvijicvos kotoI t6v riirov, IXBwv koX ISwv —
And a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him and.
Rev. T. Kat AfvtrTis Kara tov toVov 4X6wv Kal ISuv — a Levite also,
when he came to the place, and saw him.
The omission of yevo/xevos is favored by the earlier seventh-
century corrector of X. who in fact supplies the whole verse
omitted through oversight by the original scribe, also by B, L,
X, H, I, 33, IT 8, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and apparently
the Ethiopic Version. But the word was evidently dropped as
LUKE.
301
redundant in connection with IXOiiiv. There is no reason for
its being introduced into the text by any transcriber or reader ;
and its presence can be accounted for only by its being genu-
ine. It is attested by A, C, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, A,
11, nearly all the cursives, q of the Old Latin, the Peshito and
Philoxenian Syriac Versions. The omission of the superfluous
Tuyxat'ovTo in verse 30, an omission which the Revisers have
also adopted, is doubtless due to the same cause. No tran-
scriber would ever have introduced it.
X. 38.
Rec. T. '^-flvfro 8c iv ti» iroptvecrBai avrois ko\ — Now it came to
pass, as they went, that.
Rev. T. 'Ev 8< TIO iropcv«r6ai avrois — Now as they went on their
way.
In support of the former reading, we have A, C, D, E, F, G,
H, K, M, P, S, U, V, r. A, A, n, nearly every cursive, every
copy of the Old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peshito, Philox-
enian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic.
The latter is the reading of J<, B, L, H, 33, the Curetonian
Syriac and Memphitic Versions. The expression " It came to
pass that " may be said to be a characteristic of Luke's style.
He uses it more than five times as often as all the other writers
of the New Testament combined. Hence, in Luke, when we
find this expression largely supported by respectable witnesses,
and at the same time wanting in the text of other documents,
we cannot but suspect that it has been eliminated from the
latter by some hand aiming after a more concise style. Espe-
cially is this the case when, as here, the statement embodying
the occurrence referred to is connected to iyivtro by Kai If
the revised reading had been the original reading here, it is
incredible that any one, whether critic or ^opyist, would ever
■have changed it to the more cumbersome Hebraistic form
found in the Received Text.
302
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
X. 41, 42.
LUKE.
303
The entire passage, " Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and
troubled about many things; but one thing is needful, and
Mary hath chosen," etc., is reduced in a marginal note to
" Martha, Martha, thou art troubled ; Mary hath chosen," etc.
This, we are told, is the reading of " a few ancient authorities."
But who are they? and what right has any one to expect
that they can claim our assent to this as the genuine text?
They are D, the Old Latin copies a, b, e,ff^, i, I, and Ambrose,
who of course followed his Old Latin Version. The Old Latin
manuscript c omits only the words " but one thing is needful " ;
which Clement of Alexandria also omits in giving the passage
evidently from memory. But such testimony is hardly worthy
of a moment's consideration in the face of all the witnesses
arrayed against it. The note is wholly undeserving of a place
in the margin of any copy of the New Testament.
The same may be said, too, of the marginal reading, " but
few things are needful, or one," which " many ancient authori-
ties " are said to read in place of " but one thing is needful."
That reading is an evident attempt to obviate the apparent
narrowness of limiting to " one " thing the need to which the
Saviour referred ; and that, too, after misconceiving his obvious
meaning. The critic or copyist, taking the words as referring
to Martha's preparing for a meal, and considering as absurd
the idea of the Saviour's saying that one thing (or dish) was
all-sufficient, felt it necessary to modify the statement and
make it read, " Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled
about many things ; but fc7v things will do, or (even) one ;
for Mary hath chosen the choice part," etc. That is, she is
provided for, and as there is but one other, or two at the most,
to prepare food for, there is no need of being troubled about
preparing much ; — thus materializing and perverting the whole
passage. And this view has been transmitted through the cen-
turies by means of Ji^, B, C's sixth-century emendator, L, i, 33,
the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions, the margin of the Phi-
loxenian Syriac, Origen as quoted in Victor's Commentary on
Mark, and by Jerome, and Cyril of Alexandria. A reading
similar to this, but only another gloss, is that of cursive 38,
"but there is need of few things," or, as the Jerusalem Syriac
has it, " and there is need of little," or, as the Armenian Ver-
sion prefers, " but there is need of few things here." That is,
"Man needs but Httle here below." The reading of the
Received Text is, however, the true reading. It is attested
by A, C first hand, as well as its ninth-century corrector, E, F,
G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, r, A, A, n, all the cursives but three,
the Curetonian, Peshito, and Philoxenian Syriac, three copies
of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Basil, Chrysostom, John Damas-
cene, Augustine, and others.
The change which tlie Revisers have made from " but Mary
hath chosen " to "for Mary hath chosen " is an error. The
"for" is a part of the false reading of the margin which we
have just noticed ; and it should have been left with the rest of
that reading in the documents in which it was found. There
is no propriety whatever in using " for " as a connective here,
— the Revisers' text being otherwise the same as the commonly
received text which calls for a continuative conjunctive.
The marginal note informs the reader that " some ancient
authorities " make this verse read " And of which of you that
is a father shall his son ask a fish, and he for a fish give him a
serpent ? " — omitting after " ask " the words " a loaf, and he
give him a stone ? or." The only -Greek manuscript that does
this is B ; the only versions, the Memphitic, the Armenian,
and three copies {ff^'i U ^) of the Old Latin ; and the only
patristic writers, Origen and Epiphanius. If a few more docu-
ments favored the omission, it would doubtless be said that
the words thus omitted were introduced from Matt. vii. 9.
304
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
But we see no reason why Luke should not have represented
Christ as uttering the words as well as Matthew. The two
passages in almost every other respect are alike ; yet neither
should be regarded as taken from the other. The expres-
sion " for a fish " rather implies the putting of a previous ques-
tion like that omitted by B. It may be difficult to say why
the words were omitted, unless it was that they were deemed
an unnecessary presentation of the thought that reappears in
the two following queries.
XI. 34.
Rec. T. i Xvxvos tov (r(a|iaTos co-tiv i d<|>6aX|u>s- — The light of the
body is the eye.
Rev. T. i Xvxvos tov o-u|xaTo'$ cVtiv 6 o<t>9aX|io's crov — The lamp
of thy body is thine eye.
The translation thus given to the Revisers' Text is inadmis-
sible. The proper rendering is "The lamp of the body is
thine eye." There is nothing in the sentence as it stands, or
in the context, implying that tov cro^/juiToi, "the body," stands
for TOV <T(o/MiTos a-ov, " thy body," as would be the case if the
sentence read " Thine eye is the lamp of the (i.e. thy) body."
But this transposition cannot be wrought. " The lamp of the
body " is the subject, and " thine eye " is the predicate. This
is plain. In the preceding verse, Jesus is represented as speak-
ing of "a lamp" in the ordinary sense of the word, and of
what men do with lamps. This leads to his speaking of
another kind of lamp, the lamp of the body. This, he says,
is the eye. And this it is, by enabling the body or the indi-
vidual to find his way from place to place with ease, as persons
do with a larnp at night. But because, in the very next clause,
Jesus passes from the general statement that the lamp of the
body is the eye to a personal application, — " When therefore
//line eye is single " or sound, — some early critic took it upon
himself to insert aov, " thy," in connection with the preceding
LUKE.
305
6<j>6aXfi6':, " eye," as the Revisers have done. Hence we find,
at Matt. vi. 22, that B, several copies of the Old Latin, the
printed copies of the Vulgate, the Ethiopic Version, Origen
according to his Latin interpreter, Hilary, and other Latin
Fathers have the same reading that the Revisers have here,
though the latter do not adopt that reading in Matthew. To
make that reading good, its author must have transposed the
construction, though not the words, of the evangelist, making
them mean " Thine eye is the lamp of the (thy) body." The
same thing was done, probably by the same hand, here; and
his work is preserved by almost the same documents and a
few others ; namely, J«5 first hand, A, B, C, D, M, a few cur-
sives, all the extant manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vul-
gate, the Memphitic, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and
the Ethiopic Version. The scribes and translators of several
of these documents, however, like the Revisers, were sensible
of the incorrectness and impropriety of this reading without
", thy " in connection with " body." Hence we find D, most
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the
Memphitic, the Ethiopic, all add crou, " thy," or its equivalent,
to " body," making the clause read, as the Revisers do, " The
lamp of i/iy body is thine eye." Thus one wrong required a
second to hide the first, if possible. But this additional error
not being adopted by the leading manuscripts, especially J^, B,
C, on which the Revisers relied as furnishing the true text,
they did not feel warranted in inserting it into their Greek,
though they could not keep it out of their English text after
having adopted 6 oc^^otA/ios crou as the predicate of the clause
in the original. The only genuine reading is that of the
Received Text, which is sufficiently vouched for by ^ as
amended by its earlier seventh-century corrector, E, G, H,
K, L (whose testimony is all the stronger from the fact of its
deserting B and its usual allies), S, U, V, X, T, A, A, 11, nearly
all the cursives, the Curetonian Syriac (which also forsakes D
and its accustomed companions), and the Armenian Version.
3o6
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
Xll. 25.
Rec. T. irijx.'"' Ivo ; — one cubit.
Rev. T. irfix«v ; — a cubit.
The omission of Iva is supported by Ji^ first hand, B, D, two
copies of the Old Latin Version, and the two Egyptian Ver-
sions. But its presence is called for, if not by the original
scribe, by the contemporary reviser, of Ji^, A, E, G, H, K, L,
M, Q, S, T*"', U, V, X, r. A, A, n, every known cursive, most
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all the Syriac Versions,
the Ethiopic, the Armenian, and Eusebius. The weight of
external evidence is plainly in support of the received reading.
The word might very easily have been omitted under the
impression that ^XiKia here denotes " stature," as it sometimes
does. If this were the meaning, the use of "one" would
appear not only unnecessary but improper ; for the addition
of eighteen inches to one's height is proportionally no small
addition ; and to emphasize that measure by saying that a
person cannot add " one cubit," meaning thereby even so
much as one cubit, is an unnatural, not to say unwarrantable,
use of words. Hence the omission of " one " by some early
owner or copyist of this Gospel. But the reading " a cubit,"
leaving the word without anything to note the idea of com-
parative smallness implied in the original expression, obtained
very little currency. The reading " one cubit," Iva being em-
phatic by its position as the last word in the sentence, is con-
firmed as the true reading, not only by the general documen-
tary evidence in its support, — the error of omitting eva being
corrected in ^ almost as soon as made, — but by the fact that
the entire sentence including this term agrees word for word
with Matthew's report (vi. 27) of the same utterance. This
agreement, so far from implying that " one " was added by
another hand than Luke's, seeking to conform his report to
Matthew's, shows rather that each evangelist, independent of
the other, reported the Saviour's words in the only form known at
LUKE.
307
the time of writing the Gospels. The true meaning of the utter-
ance really calls for this word : " Who of you by being anxious
can add to his term of life one cubit? " or, as we would natu-
rally say, can prolong his existence a single hand's-breadth
or span ?
xii. 38.
Rec. T. iiaKdpioC tlo-iv ol SoiiXoi <k<ivoi. — blessed are those ser-
vants.
Rev. T. |iaKapio( tlo-iv f kcivoi. — blessed are those servants.
It is true the words 01 SouXoi do not appear in B, D, L, e of
the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, one manuscript of the
Memphitic, or in the younger Cyril's Commentary. But they
are well attested by A, E, G, H, K, M, P, Q, S, T""', U, V, X,
r, A, A, II, all the cursives, c,/, q of the Old Latin, the Vul-
gate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the printed Mem-
phitjc, the Thebaic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Basil, and
John Damascene. Their presence in these is regarded, by
those who consider the words spurious, as introduced from
verse 37. But why they should have been introduced thence,
any more than 6 SouAos in verse 45 should be from verse 43,
or Tou SovXou Ikuvov (for which D, e, and the Latin inter-
preter of Irena;us substitute "his") in verse 46 from verse
43 or 45, is by no means clear. The omission is rather to be
regarded as one of those abbreviations that are peculiar to
B and a few other documents, but which are simply false
readings. The Sinaitic Codex, first hand, omits the whole
expression "those servants," as do b,ff^, i, /of the Old Latin,
two manuscripts of the Vulgate, and Irenaeus' Latin inter-
preter, — a reading which Tischendorf adopts as genuine.
But, of the three readings, the common one is most in
accordance with Jesus' mode of employing the same phrase
again and again after having once used it, and consequently
most likely to be the original and true one.
3o8
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
LUKE.
309
xiii. 27.
Rec. T. ovK olSa {i)ia$ iro'Scv iini' — I know you not whence you are.
Rev. T. o«K olSa iro'Scv i<ni- — I know not whence ye are.
The omission of v/xS?, " you," is in accordance with B, L, R,
T"°', 157, 346, two copies of the Old Latin, and one of the
Vulgate. But it is an obvious and poorly supported simplifi-
cation of the more natural Greek form of expression as given
in the Received Text, as well as in both texts at verse 25, —
where also c of the Old Latin and one manuscript of the Vul-
gate adopt the more natural English form of expression, " I
know not whence ye are." The meaning, of course, is the
same in both cases, as the English rendering should be ; but
simply as a question of textual correctness, the decision must be
given in favor of the Received Text. It is supported by Ji^, A,
E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, I, 33, and nearly all the other cursives,
the Peshito Syriac, several copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
and Origen. D has instead the reading " I never knew you " ;
while C is defective. A similar attempt at simplifying the
Greek idiom appears in Acts iii. 10, and xvi. 3, the last of
which, the Revisers have also adopted, notwithstanding the
strong testimony in support of the idiomatic form.
xiii. 35-
Rec. T. a<|>C(rai vjiiv i oIkos v(iuv cpi])ios' — your house is left unto
you desolate.
Rev. T. a4>'<'>'ai v(i.iv 6 oIkos vi|jiwV — your house is left unto you des-
otiilc.
The common reading here is attested by D, E, G, H, M, U,
X, A, the majority of the cursives, seven copies of the Old
Latin, the Clementine Vulgate, the Curetonian, Peshito and
Philoxenian Syriac, the Ethiopic, and two manuscripts of the
Memphitic, as well as by Chrysostom repeatedly, and Irenseus
as represented by his Latin interpreter. The other is vouched
for by X, A, B, K, L, R, S, V, T, A, n, about 80 cursives, four
copies of the Old Latin, nine manuscripts of the Vulgate, the
Thebaic, the Armenian, and two other manuscripts of the
Memphitic. C is defective. This is one of those instances in
which manuscript authority is insufficient to satisfy the candid
reader that the reading most strongly supported by docu-
mentary evidence is of necessity the true one. Hence the
Revisers, while omitting eprjfjLos from their Greek text, were
constrained to retain its equivalent, "desolate," in their ver-
sion. For, if Luke's text is really what they have given as
such, why should they not have conformed to it in their ren-
dering, and said simply " Your house is left unto you," —
especially after having stricken out epr]fx.o(:? It seems as if the
fact that they could not really do this ought to have awakened
their suspicions in regard to the correctness of their text, not-
withstanding it is so strongly attested. The revised Greek
text in Matt, xxiii. 38 is the same as here, except that cprj/xoi
is retained in the text, while a marginal note informs the reader
that some ancient copies omit it. The words, in both Gospels,
record an utterance of Christ's. Their meaning therefore
ought to be substantially the same. According to Matthew,
Jesus is allowed to have said, " Your \\o\ise is left unto you
desolate." The emphatic word, the word in which the whole
meaning of the declaration centres, is " desolate." All else
but leads up to and ends in this. This word, then, may be
said to contain ///<? iWea for which the sentence was uttered.
Take away this, and it is like having " the play of Hamlet with
Hamlet left out." As already intimated, some ancient text-
tinkers attempted to rid Matthew's record of this word, though
their attempt thus far has deceived no one among modern
editors, as far as we are aware, but Lachmann and VVestcott
and Hort. A similar and seemingly more successful attempt
was made on Luke's text. The end was the same in both. It
was to save Christ from the appearance of having made an
erroneous statement, — a statement which was not thought to
be justified by subsequent events. For, after Jerusalem had
3IO
THE revisers' greek TEXT.
been destroyed by Titus, and, as Josephus says, had been " so
thoroughly laid even with the ground, . . . that there was left
nothing to make those that came thither beheve it had ever
been inhabited," > it was less than two generations before it
was rebuilt. It was not very long " left desolate," deserted,
uninhabited. Hence some pious second-century critic thought
it necessary to strike out tpj/fio? from this recorded utterance
of Christ's. It was, no doubt, well meant ; but it was an un-
witting elimination of the very heart and soul of that utterance.
In view of all this, notwithstanding the array of witnesses in
support of the Revisers' reading, it is incredible that Luke
could have reported this saying in a manner almost identical
with Matthew's, and yet so unlike his as to leave it disembodied
of its real meaning.
XIV. 5.
A marginal note calls attention to the fact that a number of
ancient documents read " a son " in place of " an ass " in the
sentence, " Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into
a pit, and will not at once draw him out on the Sabbath day ? "
A reference to chap. xiii. 15 is then added, as if the word ovos,
" an ass," might have crept into the text here from that verse !
The documentary witnesses to this marginal reading, which is
adopted by almost all textual critics, are A, B, E, G, H, M, S,
U, V, r. A, A, about 130 cursives, three copies of the Old
Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic Ver-
sion, the younger Cyril as cited in different catenas, Titus of
Bostra, Euthymius, and Theopylact. One cursive (508) and
the Curetonian Syriac read, " a son, or an ox, or an ass " ;
while Codex 215 has " a son or an ass." The received reading,
that of the text, is attested by S> K, L, X, n, i, 33, 66 second
hand, 71, 207 second hand, 211, 213, 253, 259, 407, 413, 492,
509, 512, 547, 549, 550, 569, 570, 599, 602, and probably
I H^ars, VII. i. I.
LUKE.
311
Other cursives, five copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the
Memphitic, the Jerusalem Syriac, the Armenian, and the Ethi-
opic ; while D has irpo/SaTov, " a sheep," in place of " an ass."
Textual critics, generally speaking, cannot withstand the mass
of documentary evidence in support of "a son " ; hence they
adopt that reading, under the idea, as expressed by one of
them, that " the heterogeneous collocation a son or an ox
excited objection, so that a son was displaced in some authori-
ties by an ass (following xiii. 15), in others by a sheep (follow-
ing Matt. xii. 11)." This may be specious, but it is of no
weight. The reading " a son or an ox " is heterogeneous. It
was not Christ's way to couple things in this incongruous
manner. Looking at the mere probabilities of the case, it is
not at all likely that he would have thus spoken of a son and
an ox conjointly. To have done it would have been unnatural
in the extreme, — altogether unlike anything elsewhere attrib-
uted to him. But this is not all. The Saviour evidently sought
to convince his hearers that they themselves would not only do
a deed of mercy on the Sabbath, but to a creature inferior to
man, and that too under circumstances that would require a
seemingly greater infraction of the fourth commandment than
they considered him to be guilty of. The main point of Jesus'
inquiry on this occasion lay in his reference to an animal like
an ass or an ox. This is lost if we introduce " a son " instead.
However liable a little child might be to fall into an open well
or pit, a " son " would hardly be in danger of it ; and, if such
a one should fall in, he might extricate himself with but little
or no help, and do it in a short time. Not so, however, with
an ass or an ox. To get one of these large animals out of a
pifor well, especially if it were deep, might require much help,
in fact the aid of several persons. It might require the greater
part of the day. At the best, it would be a laborious task ; it
would call for hard work, — something that in ordinary cir-
cumstances would not be expected or allowable on the Sab-
bath. Hence the pertinence of the inquiry ; this is what
312
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
makes the question not only coherent but exceedingly appo-
site ; which would not be the case if asked with reference to
"a son or an ox." The whole argument from internal evi-
dence is plainly and decidedly against the marginal reading ;
while the close resemblance between ONOC and OYIOC (the
reading of A, S, U, etc., the original form of this false reading,
from which the article was afterwards dropped) is enough to
account for the blunder of the scribe who changed the text
to 6 vids, " son." The fact that this erroneous reading occurs
in so many ancient manuscripts and versions only shows that it
was made at a very early day. Its antiquity is in itself no
evidence of genuineness.
XIV. 17.
Rec. T. t)8t) {TOi|id {<rTi irdyra. — all things are now ready.
Rev. T. rjSij Uroifid iim,. — aU things are now ready.
The presence of Traira, " all things," is called for by Ji^ as
amended probably by the scribe's " proof-reader," A, D, E, G,
H, K, M, P, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, the whole body of the cur-
sives, four copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all the Syriac
Versions, the Memphitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopia, and by
Eusebius of Emisa in his Commentary on Luke. Its omission
is found only in Ji^ first hand, and afterwards as its first correc-
tor's emendation was changed by a seventh-century corrector,
B, L, R, and half a dozen copies of the Old Latin. The omis-
sion looks more like the result of carelessness on the part of a
scribe than the work of the original writer, who would hardly
have left the sentence thus unfinished ; for, without •jrcii'Ta, the
clause is absolutely without a subject ; it needs to be trans-
lated, " They are now ready." But, if we ask. What are ready ?
there is nothing in the context to which " they " can be re-
ferred. The only thing that has been spoken of is a great
supper in preparation. The clause cannot be translated " It
is now ready " ; for troifta, " ready," is in the plural. The
presence of wavra, " all things," is a necessity in order to
LUKE.
313
express the meaning and complete the sentence. The Revis-
ers show this by their rendering, in which " things " is just as
much unrepresented in the original as is "all," which they
have italicized. No doubt the word was carelessly omitted, or
lost through defacement of an early manuscript.
XV. 16.
Rec. T. {irc6v)ui ^C|i(<rai tt|v KoiXCav avTOv &iro tuv KiparCuv — he
would fain have filled his belly with the husks.
Rev. T. <ir€6v)ui x°P'<'<'"''Bii>'cii' «'k twv KcparCuv — he would fain have
been filled with the husks.
The revised reading is supported by ^, B, D, L, R, i, 94,
131, 251, and the four cursives of Ferrar's group, three copies
of the Old Latin, apparently the Gothic, the Thebaic, the
Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, and the Ethiopic. It is
adopted, of course, by Westcott and Hort, but placed by Tre-
gelles in the margin as a secondary reading. Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and the American Committee of Revisers follow
the common reading, which is attested by A (C is defective),
E, G, H, K, M, P, Q, S, U, V, X, T, A, A, n, the rest of the
cursives, nine manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, and the Arme-
nian Version, and Chrysostom. The revised, which is evidently
borrowed from chap. xvi. 21, appears to be but an attempt at
softening down the harshness of the common reading. This
will readily account for its adoption ; whereas, if this revised
reading were genuine, it would be hard to account satisfactorily
for the existence and widespread adoption of the other, which
is far from being euphemistic.
XT. 17.
Rec. T. «"yu 81 Xipiia diro'Wviiai J — and I perish with hunger?
Rev. T. €70) 8( Xi)iu iu8e dird\Xv)iai. — and I perish here with hunger !
The common reading is vouched for by A (C defective),
E, G, H, K, M, P, Q, S, V, X, r, A, A, n, all the cursives but
314
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
ten or twelve, the Thebaic and Gothic Versions. The other is
the reading of X, B, L, e of the Old Latin and the Philoxenian
Syriac Version. The reading, £yu> St oiSe Xi/xw omoWv^uxi., how-
ever, is given by D, R, U, i, 67, 73, 127, 131, 184, 209, and
three of Ferrar's group, nearly all copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, Curetonian, Peshito, and Jerusalem Syriac, Memphitic,
Armenian, and Ethiopia Versions, and Chrysostom. This last
we believe to be the original reading, from which the other two
were derived ; — the common reading, by the absorption of
(ISe, " here," in the last three letters of t'yu) Se, it being con-
sidered a mere repetition of these letters ; while the revised
reading seems to be a critic's device for saving aiSe to the text
by placing it after Xijaol. The absorption of JlSe in eyi) Se is
much more probable than that diSt should have grown out of
c'ya, 8€ from a duplication of the letters. Besides, it is far more
likely that the prodigal son, in contrasting his situation at the
time with that of his father's servants, should have emphasized
his utterance by using the word " here " than that he should
not. Indeed, it is but natural that he should have said, " How
many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to
spare, and I here am perishing with hunger ! " The omission
of the word " here " gives the language an unnatural stiffness
for one in his circumstances. Then the words that follow, " I
will arise and go," etc., as if he felt an utter disgust for the
place where he was, render it morally certain that JSe, " here,"
entered in as a part of his recorded language in verse 1 7.
Appended to this verse is the marginal note, "Some ancient
authorities add, viake me as one of thy hired servants. See
verse 19." These additional words are found in J<. B, D, U, X,
about twenty cursives, and four manuscripts of the Vulgate.
But they are wanting in the great body of witnesses ; namely,
A, E, G, H, K, L, M, P, Q, R, S, V, r, A, A, n, most of the
LUKE.
315
cursives, all manuscripts of the Old Latin, most copies of the
Vulgate, the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac, the Memphitic,
the Gothic, and the Armenian. Augustine also speaks exphcitly
of them as wanting. Westcott and Hort, alone of modern
editors, insert the words in the text, bracketing them to indicate
that, while in their judgment the primary and true reading
includes these words, if they are omitted, a secondary and
perhaps genuine reading still remains. The testimony in sup-
port of the text, however, ought to prevail. Internal evidence
favors the omission. The returning son was yet probably too
far away from the house for the father, in his joy and unwilling-
ness to hear any more expressions of sorrow from him, to
interrupt him by calling to the servants to furnish him at once
with the best there was in the house. It is more likely that,
after the young man had received his father's kiss and tender
embrace (verse 20), he had no heart to add the words he
intended, in reference to being treated as a hired servant. In
either case, however, he would have been restrained from utter-
ing them. They really appear to have been added by some
unappreciative scribe, who, because they are found in verse 19,
supposed that they had been overlooked and omitted here by
some previous copyist. It is, in fact, what Dr. Hort would call
a " conflate " reading, only it appears in B and some of its
companions, instead of in " Syrian " documents. If the read-
ing were genuine, it is simply impossible that it should be so
generally wanting because of Augustine's influence.
XV. 32.
Rec. T. Avijiio-j " — is alive again.
Rev. T. «tl<r€ • — is alive again.
The Revisers' reading follows X ^''^t hand, B, L, R, A, the
Peshito Syriac, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Armenian Versions.
It is adopted by Tischendorf on the supposition that the other
was taken from verse 24. But even there the same hand shows
3i6
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
itself in B, the Peshito Syriac, Memphitic, and Armenian Ver-
sions, chianging tlie compound to the simple form, apparently
under the impression that the former is needlessly redundant.
If avi^Yjae is the genuine reading in verse 24, that is just the
reason why it should reappear here ; while a sensitive critical
reader would naturally seek to change it to the simple form in
both places. Besides, if iCv'^€ is the true form, faithfulness
requires that it be translated " is alive," not " is alive again,"
especially after "again" has been ejected from the original.
Lachmann adopts the common reading, which is abundantly
attested by J^'s earlier seventh-century corrector. A, D, E, G,
H, K, M, P, S, U, V, X, r. A, n, the whole body of the cur-
sives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Philoxenian and Jerusalem Syriac,
Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions, as well as the Apostolic Consti-
tutions, Chrysostom, and others. This form would hardly have
found a place in either of these versions if it had not been
genuine.
XVI. 12.
" And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another's,
who will give you that which is your own?" A marginal note
at the close of this verse says, " Some ancient authorities read
our 07cn." So read B, L, one lectionary, and Origen once ;
while the scribe of 157, three copies of the Old Latin Version,
and Tertullian, perceiving the absurdity of the reading, changed
it to ifjiov, " mine," which, however, is not much better. The
reading, of course, is false. And when it is considered that it
is due to mistaking a v for an v, — some careless copyist having
written ^^tVcpov for i,xir,ipov, — a.nA that this is one of the
most common itacisms in the old manuscripts, and one to
which B is especially given, there need be no difficulty or
question as to the true reading. As the error appeared in B, L,
and Origen, however, Westcott and Hort conclude it must be
genuine, and adopt it in their text, while they relegate the true
reading to the margin ; and in deference to their reverence for
LUKE.
317
the Vatican manuscript the word appears in the margin of the
Revision. Considered on its own merits, the reading would
undoubtedly have been passed by in silence as a transparent
blunder,
zri. 18.
Rec. T. iraj 6 'yapiuv — whosoever marrieth.
Rev. T. 6 -yaiiuv — he that marrieth.
The common reading is that of X; A, E, F, G, H, K, M, P,
S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, most of the cursives, the Peshito and
Philoxenian Syriac and Gothic Versions. The Revisers' is that
of B, D, L, five cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Ar-
menian, the Ethiopic, and the two Egyptian Versions. Both
yield the same meaning ; but the former is more after Jesus'
manner of speaking, he having already used the expression
Tras o in the beginning of the verse. It is more probable that
a reviser of Luke's text changed the phraseology by omitting
rra?, for variety's sake, than that the word was mechanically
repeated in transcribing.
xvii. 3.
Rec. T. ia.v Sc OfidprQ els <r€ 6 aScX(|>6s o-ou, — If thy brother tres-
pass against thee.
Rev. T. iav ofidpi-g 6 oScXi^os o-ov, — if thy brother sin.
The former is attested as the true reading by D, E, F, G, H,
K, M, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, II, nearly all the cursives, three
manuscripts of the Old Latin, the printed Vulgate, the Phi-
loxenian Syriac according to the Codex of Barsalibi, Bishop of
Aniida, the Armenian of Uscan, and Antiochus ; the latter, by ^,
A, B, L, six cursives, nine manuscripts of the Old Latin, and
several of the Vulgate, the Peshito, Jenisalem, and most copies
of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic, Zohrab's
Armenian, the Persic of the Polyglot, Clement of Alexandria,
and John Damascene. Like the omission in Matt, xviii. 15,
found in some documents, the omission here of eU al, which
occurred at an early day, seems to have originated in a wish to
3i8
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
generalize the statement so that it might be used to justify
persons in rebuking, if not in forgiving or attempting to forgive,
other sins than those committed against themselves. That the
words " against thee " are a part of the text is apparent from
the following considerations. As the passage reads without
these words, the statement becomes general, — " If thy brother
sin," if he do wrong in any manner or against any one, " rebuke
him." Yet the words " If he repent, forgive him," show that
the sin is of a personal nature ; for one cannot forgive a sin
not committed against himself, either directly or indirectly.
Besides, if this statement were general, d<s ai " against thee,"
in the next verse would necessarily be emphatic. But, as it is
not, the unavoidable inference is that the sinning of this
third verse has already been limited by that phrase. The
documentary testimony in support of the omission, in itself
considered, is no doubt strong ; but it is by no means infallible,
nor even, in view of the internal evidence against it, is it
overwhelming. The context makes it almost self-evident that
that testimony cannot be relied on.
xviil. 14.
This verse presents one of those vexed passages, the true
reading of which it is exceedingly difficult to determine. The
common reading rj eKtivo';, " rather than the other," is by no
means satisfactory. The idea of preference involved in the
word rj, " rather than," seems hardly admissible as the Pharisee
was not justified at all. Besides, this reading is but feebly sup-
ported, — being attested by only a few cursives and the Arme-
nian Version, — and cannot be defended as the true reading. A,
E, G, H, K, M, P, Q, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, about 150 cursives,
the Gothic, the Philoxenian Syriac, Basil, Cyril, and Theophylact
read ^ yap (Kelvo^. This is adopted by Griesbach, Tischendorf,
and others as the tnie reading, — meaning " or (went) then
the other?" i.g. justified to his house. But this is harsh,
LUKE.
319
unnatural, and really unparalleled elsewhere. It gives an alto-
gether improbable turn to the discourse, which condemns it as
a transcriber's error. S> B, L, i, the margin of 22, 94, 209,
the two Egyptian Versions, and Origen read irap tKtlvov, " above
the other," in the sense of more than or in preference to the
other. This is adopted by Lachmann, Alford, Westcott and
Hort, and others. But the same objection lies against this
that lies against the common reading ; namely, that it imphes
a preference of the publican to the Pharisee, when there was
no preference. The Pharisee went home, not justified in any
measure, but wholly condemned. Besides, this is less strongly
attested than a genuine reading ought to be. Again, D, the
Peshito Syriac, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Persic of the
Polyglot, Cyprian, and Augustine read instead /iSAXov irap'
iKdvov r6v <t>apicralov, " rather than that Pharisee," or simply
p^SXkou Trap' Udvov, " rather than the other." In view of this
variety of readings, and of the unsatisfactory character of them
all, it may not be rash to conclude that the readings that have
come down to us are simply variations of the original, while the
true text is probably lost. The Saviour seems to have said, " This
one went down to his house justified," not above, or more than,
or rather than, but " instead of, the other." The context clearly
indicates that this is his meaning. If this is what he said, in
place of the foregoing expressions we need to use some such
phrase as ivr Udvov, or vVcp Uuvov. Now this last expression,
in a blind uncial manuscript, would very easily pass for f, yap
£V«rvos. Or if the first letter were indistinct or wholly obliter-
ated, it might easily be taken for Trap' (kc2vov. From the first
of these variations, a copyist, not knowing what to do with
the yap, and considering it an error, would naturally drop it,
and so obtain the common reading, as was probably done.
Indeed, the more we consider it, the more are we convinced
that inip Ikuvov, " instead of the other," is the true reading,
from which all the other readings have sprung.
320
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
six. 1 8.
Rec. T. Kvpu, T| (iva <rov — Lord, thy pound.
Rev. T. 'H nvo <rov, Kvipic, — Thy pound. Lord.
This change in the order of the words is vouched for only
by K. B. L. It is evidently the work of a critical hand, seek-
ing to introduce variety. The common order, giving these words
the same relative position here as in verses i6 and 20, is over-
whelmingly supported by all the other witnesses, as well as by
the parallel passage in Matt. xxv. 20-25. The change is abso-
lutely uncalled for.
xix. 20.
Rec. T. {rcpos tjXB* — another came.
Rev. T. 6 ircpos tJXBj — another came.
The insertion of o, "the," though supported by J^ as
amended by a seventh-century corrector, B, D, L, R, three
cursives, and the Armenian Version, is an error. It was doubt-
less inserted to make the phraseology correspond with 6 TrpaJros
in verse 16, and 6 Sevrepos in verse 18, where its presence is
allowable or necessary. But here it is neither. Nor can it
properly be translated ; for there are eight others, instead of
one, whose accounts do not yet appear to have been rendered.
xix. 26.
Rec. T. Klyia •yap vjiiv, — For I say unto you.
Rev. T. X.iyio vp.iv, — I say unto you.
" For," connects this verse, not with the preceding, but with
verse 24, and introduces the Saviour's reason for commanding
the pound to be given to him that had the ten pounds. But
some transcriber, seeing its unsuitableness as a connecting link
between this verse and the preceding, and not perceiving its
force, omitted it ; while others in the same dilemma substi-
tuted " but." The omission is perpetuated in ^, B, L, seven
cursives, one or two copies of the Old Latin, and the Memphi-
LUKE.
321
tic ; while " but " is preserved in the rest of the Old Latin
manuscripts, the Vulgate, and two or three other versions.
The received reading is attested by A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M,
R, S, U, V, r, A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Curetonian
and Philoxenian Syriac ; and could hardly have got into the
text if it were not genuine.
ziz. 29, 30.
Rec. T. iirfaTCiX« 8wo T«v |iaeTiT«» a«TOv «tir<iv — he sent two of
his disciples, Saying.
Rev. T. oir^oTciXt 8vo r&v iiaOTiTuv cliriiv — he sent two of the
disciples, saying.
We do not understand why avrov should be omitted, and
tZ,r(iv, immediately following, not be changed to \iyo>v. The
manuscript evidence in favor of reading avrod is certainly
stronger than in favor of retaining d7rd,v, though the meaning
remains unchanged whether in the one case we omit avrov or
not, or in the other read dTrmv or (with Westcott and Hort)
Xt'yLv. No doubt, avToi is often interpolated in connection
with ^uierjTat, " disciples " ; but here it is called for by A, D, E,
F, G, H, K, M, R, S, U, V, A, A, n, most of the cursive and
Old Latin manuscripts, the Vulgate, the Syriac, Egyptian and
other versions, and Origen once ; while it is wanting in i<, B,
L, three cursives, three copies of the Old Latin, and Origen
and Ambrose, each once. The change can hardly be justified
on the plea of necessity.
zz. 14.
Rec. T. 8€VT€, oiroKT€tv<ii|«v ovto'v, — come, let us kill him.
Rev. T. iiTOKT«tvw|«v ovto'v, — let us kill him.
The omission of " come " is supported by A, B, K, M, Q, n,
a dozen or fifteen cursives, the Vulgate, Armenian,' Gothic, and
most copies of the Old Latin. The word appears, however,
in S, C, D, E, G, H, L, R, S, U, V, T, A, A, most of the cur-
sives, one copy {e) of the Old Latin, and one (Cod. Toletanus)
322
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
Of the Vulgate, the Curetonian, Peshito, and Philoxenian Syriac
the Memphitic, the Ethiopic, and Origan. The fact that Luke
nowhere else uses the word is no evidence that it is inserted
here from Matt. xxi. 38, or Mark xii. 7. He uses the kindred
word 8ev>, "come," but once (xviii. 22), and that in report-
mg Christ's language, where Matthew (xix. 21) and Mark
(x. 21) both give the same word; but no one objects to this,
as if it might have been taken from either of the other evange-
lists. Nor because Luke uses ipxerOc in xiv. 17, while Mat-
thew (xxii. 4), in reporting a similar parable, uses Sivrt, are we
justified in concluding that the latter was not in Luke's vocabu-
lary. Christ himself may have made this very difference in
speaking on these two occasions. If Matthew and Mark have
given Jesus' words correctly in reporting this parable, we see
no reason why Luke should not have done the same thing,
and given the same words, even though some critical hand
may afterward have thought it necessary to abbreviate his
record somewhat. The omission in a few documents, under
the circumstances, is no evidence that the word was not in-
serted by Luke. On the contrary, the testimony strongly pre-
ponderates in favor of its genuineness.
XX. 23.
Rec. T. Tt (ic iretpotcrc ; {m8«(taW (lot STjvopiov • — Why tempt ye
me ? Shew me a penny.
Rev. T. AtlJoTt (jioi Srjvapiov • — Shew me a penny.
The question " Why tempt ye me ? " does not appear in X,
B, L, six cursives, one copy of the old Latin, the Memphitic,
and the Armenian Version. Hence Tregelles, Tischendorf,
Alford, Westcott and Hort, and some others, as well as the
Revisers, omit it. Lachmann, however, adopts it, following A,
C, D, E, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, T, A, A, n, nearly all the
cursives, every copy but one of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
the Curetonian, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic,
the Ethiopic, and Basil. It is generally supposed, but it is
I.UKE.
323
merely a supposition, that the question was introduced from
Matt. xxii. 18. But, if this had been the case, the word
" hypocrites " would hardly have been left untransferred. It is
true, it appears in C, 59, and /of the Old Latin ; which simply
shows that, as far as these documents are concerned, this word
was in all probability brought in from Matthew. But the best
evidence we can have that the remaining words are genuine
is that they appear in all the other witnessing documents
without the word " hypocrites." There is no reason why Luke
should not have recorded this question as well as the words
that follow, especially after prefacing it, very much as Matthew
and Mark do, with the remark, " But perceiving their crafti-
ness [treachery or deceitfulness], he said unto them." Unless
we have made up our minds that the true text is confined to
the three uncials that omit this question and the few secondary
witnesses that agree with them, we must feel that the testimony
of the numerous documents that support the common reading
cannot be safely rejected. This great and widespread unanim-
ity ought not to be overborne by a handful of witnesses, unless
the latter are sustained by other strong and convincing testi-
mony.
XX. 26.
Rec. T. ouK t<rx«<rav {iriXaPcVBai avroC ^'^itaros — they could not
take hold of his words.
Rev. T. ovK to-x^irav {iriXapio-6ai toO ^^(laros — they were not able
to take hold of the saying.
The only witnesses in support of the Revisers' reading here
are Ji{, B, L, and 433. It does seem as if a reading so perfectly
in accord with classic idiom, if genuine, would have been more
widely accepted. A common noun limited by avrou or avr^s
is usually accompanied by the article. But in the Received
Text, pjJ/xaTos, like Xdyou in verse 20, is unaccompanied by the
■article, but limited by auroi; only. This is a peculiarity of
Hebraistic and New-Testament rather than classical Greek.
(See Luke i. 15, 36, 51, 54, 72, etc.) To a classical ear it is
324
THE revisers' GREEK. TEXT.
offensive. Hence a temptation to change tlie pronoun into
the article where practicable. It could not well be done in
verse 20 ; but here there is apparently nothing to forbid. But
the fact that the other form is retained in the great body of
the documents notwithstanding its irregularity, affords a strong
argument in its favor as the genuine reading; for copyists
familiar with idiomatic Greek would naturally be inclined to
change avrov to tov. The reverse could hardly be expected.
In verse 20, Luke wrote iva eViXa/Soivrat avrov koyov, " that
they might take hold of his speech." This leads us to believe
that he wrote in a similar manner here, as represented by the
Received Text, and not according to the Revised Text. As
far as we are aware, Westcott and Hort are the only modern
editors that accept the reading of the Vatican manuscript in
this instance as the genuine reading, — the Revisers having
simply accepted it from them.
zzi. 6.
Rec. T. ouK a<|x6^ircTai \t9os litX XCOij), — there shall not be left one
stone upon another.
Rev. T. ovK a<|>c0'^crcrai X(6o$ iirl XCOu wSc, — there shall not be left
here one stone upon another.
The Revisers' reading is that of X. B, L, Ferrar's group of
cursives, the margin of another cursive, and the Memphitic
Version. But it is a palpable addition from the margin of
some older copy. X, a few cursives, two manuscripts of the
Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, the Armenian, the Gothic
insert " here " before Ai^os, just as it reads in Matt. xxiv. 2 ;
while D and a of the Old Latin read " in the wall here " ;
three copies of the Old Latin, " here in the wall " ; one, " here
on the wall " ; and two, simply " on the wall," without " herej' ;
— a sufficient variety of forms to condemn any reading. The
common reading is attested by A, E, G, H, K, M, Q, S, U, V,
r. A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, three copies of the Old
Latin, the Vulgate, and the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac
LUKE.
32s
Versions. The peculiar wording at the beginning of the verse,
" As for these things which ye behold," calls attention to the
objects of which Jesus is speaking in such a manner as to
render the word " here " entirely unnecessary.
xxi. 34, 35-
Rec T KaX al+vlBios if i|^« i-<'^<rri i\ V*P«' ^'^'''^ ' "« '^*^^'
^dp {«\.WcTaL U\ ^dvras-and that day come upon you unawares.
For as a snare shall it come on all. , , . , .
Rev T Kat al<|.vl8uos €>' vv^ i-^<^ T ^I^P"^ *'«''*^ "* ''7"
|,,.aA€i«Ta. Yap iirl ^Avras-and that day come on you suddenly as
a snare : for so shall it come upon all.
The Revisers follow S, B, D, L, 157, six copies of the Old
Latin the Memphitic, Methodius, Cyril, and Marcion accord-
ing to TertuUian, — the punctuation being called for by the
reading The Received Text is supported by A, C, E, F, G,
H K M, R, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, nearly every cursive,
three manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Armeman,
all the four Syriac Versions, Eusebius, Basil, and Irenaeus
The meaning of the phrase "as a snare" is already expressed
in verse ^4 by " unawares." But, more than th.s, the phrase,
or some equivalent expression like " thus," is needed in verse
35 to complete the meaning, if "as a snare" is mcluded m
verse ,4. This is obvious from the Revisers' rendermg. Hav-
ing taken " as a snare " with verse 34, they found it necessary
in the next verse to insert « so," in order to give its true mean-
ing. But, by placing yip after .ay.'., where it belongs and
where the sense and the great body of ancient witnesses
require it to be placed, all is consistent. 1 he words as a
snare" are allowed their proper place, and neither is verse 34
charged with a superfluous phrase, nor is verse 35 rendered
deficient. But considerations like these are o very little
weight with those who believe that the true text of this Gospel
is to be found in «, B, L, and the Memphitic Version, whatever
other documents may be produced against them
326
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
xxi. 36.
Rec. T. d-ypuirviiTC o«v — Watch ye therefore.
Rev. T. a-ypv-irviirc 8^ — But watch ye.
We have here another questionable reading supported only
by S' B> D, two copies of the Old Latin Version, and one of
Petraeus' transcripts from an ancient Memphitic manuscript.
The conjunction Se, in the sense of " but," given to it by the
Revisers, sets the thoughts of the verse in opposition to what
precedes. But this is unsuitable to the connection. In the
sense of " and," it would serve merely to continue the charge
given in verse 34, " Take heed to yourselves," etc. This is
but little, if any, more suitable on account of the intermediate
thoughts presented in verses 34, 35. The true reading is obvi-
ously ovv, " therefore," — the verse being given as a conclusion
or deduction from the facts stated in the two previous verses,
showing the necessity of watchfulness and prayerful ness. This
reading is abundantly vouched for by A, C, E, F, G, H, K, L,
M, R, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, the entire body of the cursives,
nearly all manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all the
Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and the Ethio-
pic ; to which may be added Matthew's (xxiv. 42) and Mark's
(xiii. 35 ) reports of Christ's words on this occasion.
xxi. 36.
Rec. T. Zva KaraJiwO'iiT* {Kitxryctv TaOra irdvro — that ye may be
accounted worthy to escape all these things.
Rev. T. Vva KaTi<rxil(n]T« {k4>vyciv ToOra irivra — that ye may pre-
vail to escape all these things.
The revised reading is supported by X> B, L, X, i, 33, 36,
57, 131, 157, 209, the Memphitic, the Jerusalem Syriac, and
the Ethiopic, and is adopted by Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott
and Hort, and Tregelles in the text. The other is the reading
of A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, R, S, U, V, r. A, A, n, all but
a few cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Curetonian,
LUKE.
327
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, and Tertulhan.
It is adopted by Lachmann, and placed by Tregelles m the
margin In addition to the documentary evidence m its sup-
port which comes from all quarters of ancient Chnstendoin.
it has claims in favor of being the original reading which the
other has not. Apart from this passage, Luke uses Kanaxvuv,
"to prevail," but once (xxiii. 23), "And their voices pre-
vailed " But he uses it without an infinitive, and in its ordi-
nary acceptation of overcoming, being successful, accomplishing
one's end, a sense in which it hardly admits an infinitive after
it But here the word is employed as synonymous with valere,
to have power, to be able, for which Luke generally and fre-
quently uses laxiuv. Its use in this sense before an mfinitive
is unusual. It is thus used but once in all the Septuagmt, -
Wisdom of Solomon, xvii. 5. "No power of fire availed (or
was able) to give them light." To express this meamng, Luke
would naturally have employed the simple word lax^uv m ac-
cordance with his usus loquendi elsewhere both in this Gospel
and in the Acts, whether speaking in his own name or reporting
the words of others. He simply records the fact that the dis-
ciples were to pray that they might be honored or favored with
deliverance from the evils referred to, and with the privilege
of standing before the Son of man among his elect when he
shall appear in glory. But some early, pious reader seems to
have mistaken Jesus' meaning. Instead of seeing that Luke
represents Jesus as exhorting his disciples to watch, and to
make it a matter of prayer that they might be accounted
worthy to escape tribulations, and to stand before the Son ot
man he seems to have considered the clause " that ye may be
accounted worthy to escape all these things," etc., as present-
ing the motive to their praying, and consequently as involving
the idea of merit on their part for watching and praying. Hence
he naturally enough sought what he regarded a more suitable
form of expression. But the reading, " that ye may prevail to
escape all these things, and to stand before the Son of man,
328
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
does not accord with either Christ's or Luke's style of speaking.
It makes these results appear as consequent upon the efforts
of individuals rather than upon divine favor. From every point
of view, the reading has the appearance of being spurious.
zxii. x6.
Rec. T. 8ti ovK^Ti o« (iT| ^id-yo — I will not any more eat.
Rev. T. 8ti ov (IT) (|>a-yu — I will not eat.
The omission of " any more " is according to X. A, B, H, L,
and apparently the original text of C, four or five cursives, a
of the Old Latin, and the two Egyptian Versions. The word
appears, however, in C second hand, D, E, G, K, M, P, S, U,
V, X, r, A, A, n, the rest of the cursives, the remaining copies
of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all the Syriac Versions, the
Armenian, the Ethiopic, and Origen. Those that regard the
Revised Text as presenting the true reading suppose that the
word was introduced from Mark xiv. 25. But it is there used
in reference to drinking the fruit of the vine ; and several of the
documents that omit it here omit it there also. There ought
to be no question as to the genuineness of the word ; for, aside
from the documentary testimony in its support, its presence is
necessary to express the meaning. Jesus is recorded in verse
15 as having said, " With desire have I desired Xo eat this pass-
over with you." Then, if ovKkn is omitted, he is made to say
in the very next breath, " For I say unto you, I will not eat of
it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God " ; — a statement
that can hardly be reconciled with the other. It is plain from
this, taken in connection with the strong concurrent documen-
tary evidence that has come down to us, that ovkcti must have
been early omitted through inadvertence. Yet there are those
who, sooner than admit the possibility of such a thing, cling to
certain old manuscripts as infallible, just as if earlier scribes
could not make mistakes as well as later ones. The conse-
quence is, the reading of from two to half a dozen manuscripts
is accepted by them as genuine in the face of all the evidence
LUKE.
329
to the contrary, even though the meaning be incoherent, bor-
dering on absurdity, or intolerable on other grounds. The
mystery to us is, how any one can pay such deference to manu-
scripts that are continually presenting palpably false readings,
and again and again disagreeing among themselves. This very
disagreement renders their agreement oftentimes suspicious.
In this instance, we have no doubt they are united in error.
Tischendorf follows the common reading, as do Lachmann and
Tregelles in their texts. The Revisers' reading is simply that
of Alford, and Westcott and Hort, — themselves members of
the Company of New-Testament Revisers of no litde influence
in the matter of textual readings and in determining the char-
acter of the text adopted by that body.
xxii. 19, 20.
The " ancient authorities " to which the marginal note refers
as ending abruptly with saying, " This is my body," - omitting
" which is given for you ; this do in remembrance of me. And
the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the
new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," — are D,
and four copies of the Old Latin Version. The two Old Latin
manuscripts, b and e, also omit these words, inserting, in place
of them, verses 17 and 18, which are omitted in their proper
place. The Curetonian Syriac Version, while giving verse 19
in full, omits verse 20, and instead gives verses 17 and 18,
which are also omitted by this version in their proper place.
All this shows a great confusion among these old documents.
But the fact is really hardly worthy of notice ; for, of all the
ancient ^vitnesses to the text of the New Testament, these are
among the most depraved and untrustworthy, especially m
their omissions and additions. This omission is, plainly enough,
the work of one who took exception to the double reference to
the use of the cup here, -first in verses 17 and 18, and after-
ward in verse 20, - not observing that the former recorded
330
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
what was done at the regular meal, but the latter, the use of
the cup at the institution of the memorial service that
followed.
xxii. 31.
Rec. T. Elirt Sc 6 Evpios- SCjiuv, 2(nci»v, — And the Lord said, Si-
mon, Simon.
Rev. T. SC|x<i>v, i:(|iuv, — Simon, Simon.
The only documentary ground on which the words " And
the Lord said " are omitted is the fact that they are wanting in
B, L, T, and the two Egyptian Versions, — testimony hardly
sufficiently weighty to be called preponderating. Especially
so does this appear, when it is considered that these documents
are given to omitting words and even whole clauses that may
have been thought unnecessary, as these words probably ap-
peared to be to some ancient transcriber, inasmuch as the
Lord had been speaking in the preceding verses to his disci-
ples. It would seem as if the genuineness of the words ought
to be placed beyond all doubt by the testimony of ^, A (C is
defective), D, E, F, G, H, K, M, Q, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n,
the entire body of the cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the
Syriac Versions, the Armenian, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, and
Cyprian. The words are retained by Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tregelles, and others.
xxii. 43, 44.
The " ancient authorities " that omit these verses are A, B,
R, T, 124, /of the Old Latin, Wilkins' Memphitic, together
with ten or twelve manuscripts of that version, some manu-
scripts of the Thebaic, and some of the Armenian Version,
while some of the latter omit only verse 44. Of the four cur-
sives constituting Ferrar's group, 346 has the two verses here
in their proper place; 13 first hand has only "and there
appeared," the rest being supplied by a later hand ; and the
other two omit the verses altogether, while all of them, together
with the margin of C as supplied by the third hand, insert the
LUKE.
331
verses between 39 and 40 of Matt. xxvi. in accordance with the
reading of all known lectionaries or church-service books in the
lesson for Thursday of Holy Week. Though they are wanting in
A, the transcriber of this manuscript, by placing at the close of
verse 42 the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals, inti-
mates not only his knowledge of the verses, but his conviction
that they belonged here, though wanting in his exemplar. The
genuineness of the passage is abundantly attested by X. D, E,
F, G, H, K, L, M, Q, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n (a few of these
marked with an asterisk, denoting that the words are wanting
in some copies), all the cursives except the few just referred
to, every copy but one of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all the
Syriac Versions, some manuscripts of the Memphitic and The-
baic Versions, the Gothic, Ethiopic, and nearly all copies of
the Armenian. That is to say, the reading appears in one of
the two fourth-century uncials, and in most of the others, m
every cursive but two (counting the two or three of Ferrar's
group, in which it is omitted, as one), and in every ancient
version ; to which must be added the express testimony of the
Fathers, some of whom are centuries earlier than the oldest
of known Greek codices ; namely, Justin Martyr and Irenseus
of the second century ; Hippolytus and Dionysius of Alex-
andria, in the third century; Eusebius, Arius, Athanasuis,
Ephraem Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, and others of the fourth century ; and a long list
of others in after centuries from every part of Christendom.
The omission of the verses in a few documents is plainly due
to pious jealousy on behalf of Jesus' divinity, chafing under the
idea of his needing angelic support, and to an inability on the
part of certain controversialists satisfactorily to answer those
who used this text as an argument against the general scriptural
view of our Lord's essential nature. It is truly sad to see a
scholar of Dr. Hort's ability, in his zeal to defend the impec-
cability of his favorite manuscript, resorting to utterances like
the following: "The documentary evidence clearly designates
332
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
the text as an early Western interpolation, adopted in eclectic
texts." And yet he admits that " it would be impossible to
regard these verses as the product of the inventiveness of
scribes." But, to account for their existence, he has recourse
to the purely chimerical notion that " they can only be a frag-
tnent from the traditions, written or oral, which were for a
while locally current beside the canonical Gospels " ; and that
" these verses and the first sentence of xxiii. 34 7)iay be safely
called the most precious among the remains of this evangelic
tradition which were rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the
second century." » Such, to one who pins his faith to the read-
ings of a single manuscript, is the utter worthlessness of the
testimony of ancient Christendom, everywhere in attestation
of the genuineness of a given reading, — testimony which is
simply overwhelming.
zxiii. ig.
Rec. T. oo-ris tJv . . . P€p\T](ifvos ets 4>u\aK^v. — who ... was cast
into prison.
Rev. T. ooTis TJv • • • P^lfltls ^v T^ <f.u\aK^. — one who . . . was cast
into prison.
The revised reading is supported only by B, L, T. The
other is that of ^ as amended by its fourth- century corrector,
A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, V, A, A, n, and all the
cursives. X first hand omits the Greek for " cast," but has
the rest of the reading as the Revisers have it. It is hardly
possible that Luke could have written fiX-qOd'; here, for the use
of an aorist participle without the article in connection with
the verb ilvai, " to be," is not a New-Testament form of ex-
pression. It does occur sometimes among classic writers. But
It is not grammatically appropriate. Not an instance of the
kind can be found elsewhere in the New Testament, — though
occasionally among the manuscripts an aorist may be found
incorrectly given for a perfect, as in IT first hand at Luke xxiii.
' A^o/es on Select Readings, pp. 66, 67,
LUKE.
333
51; or for a present, as in P and a few cursives at Acts xii. 5 ;
or, an anarthrous aorist participle may be improperly con-
nected by a false reading with some form of ttmt, to which it
does not belong, as in D at Acts viii. 13. The New-Testament
mode of expressing periphrastically with wax the English " was
cast," or rather " had been cast," is r]v jSt/Skruj-ivoi, as the
Received Text has it. But this has every appearance of being
a correction of the older but false reading, ^v (iXr]6e.t.<;. The
true reading, beyond a doubt, is that of the original transcriber
of ^, oo-Tts rjv . . . iv Trj <f>vXaKr], " who was in the prison " ; i.e.
near by. This accounts not only for the variations in the par-
ticipial forms afterward introduced, but for the expression iv
Tjj (l>v\aKrj, " in the prison," instead of ets 4>vXaKTJv, " into
prison," the form of expression which would naturally follow
^dWuv, " to cast," and which does follow it in every other
instance in which the word is used in the New Testament in
connection with cjyvXaKrj. But the scribe who introduced the
aorist participle I3\rj0ii<; left the following words unchanged ;
while the later corrector of this reading not only corrected the
participle but changed the preposition with its case, making it
read as in nearly all the manuscripts, and in verse 25 of this
chapter.
xxiii. 33.
Rec. T. oT« airiiXOov — when they were come.
Rev. T. OTt ^X6ov — when they came.
The common reading is attested by A, E, F, G, H, K, M, S,
U, V, X, r. A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Philoxenian
Syriac, and John Damascene. The latter is that of J^, B, C,
I), L, Q, and a few cursives. Several versions, like our A. V.,
seem to support this reading, and yet may be translations of
the other. Nothing therefore can positively be claimed in its
support from the versions. The common reading seems to be
the original one, the compound word meaning here, as it does
in Matt. iv. 24 and elsewhere, " when they had come forth,"
i.e. from the city ; but being misunderstood, it was cut down
334
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
fxxwi r; V '"''■ '' ^°-^^P°nds with Matthew's
(xxv„. 3,) .^,^^0 «33 ^f,^y ^^^^^ .^ ^^ Jerusalem.
The compound verb of the common text is more graphic than
the s,mple one of the Revised Text, -indicating that Calvary
was outs.de of the city; and, though a.^,„,„. (verse .eZ
P . s that they had already passed out of the city, on account
of the remoteness of that word from verse 3s, it is not at all
unnatural that a^A^o. should have been employed by the
writer here instead of Matthew's word J,\0oy.
zxiii. 34.
The first half of this verse, - " And Jesus said, Father, for-
give them; for they know not what they do," -is omitted by
four Greek manuscripts, B, D first hand, and the two cursives
3S, 435, together with a, b, d, of the Old Latin Version, the
Ihebaic, and two manuscripts of the Memphitic. On this
account it is bracketed by Lachmann, double-bracketed by
Westcott and Hort as an interpolation, and noted in the
Revisers' margin as a passage treated by "some ancient
authorities " as spurious. It is as truly a part of Luke's text
as any other passage received as such, — having been omitted
in a few manuscripts probably in accordance with Tatian's
Dmtessaron, as it is not found in any of the other Gospels It
is abundantly attested by X, A, C, D second hand, E, F, G, H,
K, L (which usually sides with B), M, Q, S, U, V, X, r. A, a', n,'
all but two cursives, five copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,'
all the Syriac Versions, all but two manuscripts of the Mem-
phitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Irenaeus, Hegesippus as
quoted by Eusebius, Origen, the Apostolic Constitutions, the
Clementine Homilies, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Gregory of
LUKE.
335
Nyssa, Basil, Hilary, Ambrose repeatedly, as well as Jerome
and Augustine, Theodoret, John Damascene, and a number
of others. To say nothing of the argument that might be
drawn from internal evidence, if such a cloud of witnesses is
not sufficient to place the passage beyond suspicion, we know
not what can be, short of an absolute concurrence of all the
witnesses. The marginal note, in our judgment, should not
have been introduced. As well might it have been noted at
verse 32 that " some ancient authorities [Ji^, B, the Memphitic
and Thebaic Versions] read " tivo other malefactors were
led to be crucified with him." Such marginal notes are not
called for, even if the omissions or the readings referred to
are suspected or adopted by certain modern editors. The
rejection of readings so well attested, or the adoption of others
wholly unworthy of notice, simply because the former are
absent from, or the latter are present in, a particular manu-
script, supported perhaps by a few others, instead of tending
towards securing an exact transcript of the words of the New-
Testament writers as far as they can be obtained, simply reveals
the falsity of the critical principles that lead to such conclu-
sions, especially when the passages so treated are among the
best, most hallowed, and most assuredly genuine portions of
the sacred text.
xxiii. 35.
Rec. T. crucdTu lavrov, ct ovtos Icttiv 6 Xpio'Tos 6 roS 0(ov ^kXik-
To's. — Let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
Rev. T. (TucrdTU iavro'v, cl ovto's icrriv o Xpifrris tov 0cov, 6 {kXck-
To's. — let him save himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen.
The order and construction of the last four words as given
in the Received Text is strongly attested by A, C, E, F, G, H,
K, M, Q, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, 11, nearly all the cursives, the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, and the Ethiopic
Version. That of the Revised Text is the order found in J^, B,
L, and three cursives only. The passage has evidently been
336
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
much tampered with. Not merely has £kA.£kto9 been trans-
posed, making the words read 6 eVXexTos tov ®tov, — which,
however, does not affect the meaning of the Received Text, —
and the position of 6 been changed as in the Revised Text, but
other changes have been made. Thus, instead of the reading
" the chosen of God," three cursives in addition to Ferrar's
group, the Memphitic, Thebaic, Philoxenian and Jerusalem
Syriac, and Armenian Versions, and Eusebius have " the Son
of God, the chosen," or " the chosen Son of God." Codex B
has vlds, "son" instead of outo<s, "this." Codex D, with a
more or less altered Greek text, and its Latin Version tf read
" Save thyself if thou art the Son of God, if thou art the chosen
Christ " ; while c reads " Save thyself if thou art the Christ, the
chosen of God." — Now, when we take the above rendering
of the R. v., we find there is a harshness, an unnaturalness of
expression in the use of the emphatic " this " in the connec-
tion in which it stands. Had the sentence only l^egun with the
conditional clause, " If this is the Christ," etc., and the other
clause followed it, the word " this " would be perfectly natural.
On the contrary, however, the conditional protasis folloius the
principal clause, " Let him save himself," in which the subject
of the verb is not only unemphatic, but unexpressed in the
original. See R. V., above. And the Revisers have correctly
translated the words. The rendering of the A. V., giving the
unemphatic "he" instead of "this," is less faithful to the
original, and awakens no suspicion in regard to the Greek text.
On turning to Codex B, we find that that manuscript has vios
(without the article) in place of olra. (The absence of the
article in this manuscript, especially in connection with predicate
nominatives, is something of very common occurrence, where
other manuscripts have it ; it is, in fact, one of the peculiarities
of the Vatican Codex.) Codex D, several cursives, and a
number of versions also have the title " the Son " in this con-
nection. These facts awaken the thought that o vios, "the Son,"
may, after all, be a part of the original text. And such, on
LUKE.
IZ7
closer examination, we are convinced is the cas,^ Th» a-
tl OVTOr r ' 1 ' ' ^^- ^"C readme
UYIUC [o V.O.] .arc., by simply mistaking the latter for .hi
Taking „ ,16, ,<, be ,he „rigi„,| „,^. . ^ ' 'J'^ ""'• 7-
.3 .he Son, the Chris,, ,he chose^ of G ., " Thl re ifj "
xxiii. 38.
fe '" fS. Ji. i^, ana the Eevptian Ver-smnc • /^\ ■
the omission of the words "in i<.„ T^ ' ^^^ '"
and Hebrew " i. T ^" ""^ ^'^^^' ^"^ Latin,
and Hebrew, ,s accordmg to ^ as changed by the earlier
eventh^entury corrector, B, C first hand' L, /of h Old
Latm the Curetonian Syriac, and the two Egyptian Versio?
to the end of the verse, is according to ><, B, L, and .' Code"
3i8
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
D, 124, and e,P of the Old Latin transfer both words, while
C and c omit both. In other words, the Revisers' reading is
supported throughout only by B and L. On the other hand,
the Received Text, in reading yeypati/xevr], is supported by C,
E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, most of the cursives
and Old Latin Versions, the Vulgate, the Syriac Versions, the
Armenian, and the Ethiopic, while A, D, Q, one lectionary,
and a few Latin manuscripts have iniyty^aixfiivr} instead. In
the reading " in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew," it
is supported by ^ as originally transcribed, and as afterward
amended by its later seventh-century corrector. A, C third
hand, D, E, G, H, K, M, Q, R, S, U, V, r. A, A, n, the whole
body of the cursives, most manuscripts of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian,
the Ethiopic, Eusebius, and Cyril of Alexandria. In reading
ouTos (<TTiv 6 jSao-iXtus Tuiv *Iot)8aiW, it Is supported by A, E,
G, H, K, M, Q, R, S, U, V, T, A, A, n, most cursives, three
copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the
Curetonian, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, the
Ethiopic, Origen, Eusebius, and Gregory of Nyssa. That is
to say, the received reading as a whole is that of A and thir-
teen other uncials, most of the cursives, at least three copies
of the Old Latin, the Vi^lgate, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Versions. The preponder-
ance of evidence is therefore decidedly in support of the
common reading. Since, however, the statement that the in-
scription was written in three different languages is wanting in
a few of the older documents, it is supposed that it was intro-
duced from John xix. 20. But, if this had been the case, the
phraseology would have been more like John's, especially in
the order in which the three languages are mentioned. While
John, as a convert from Judaism, naturally mentions first that
the inscription was " in Hebrew," Luke, as a converted Greek
writing for Greeks, very naturally begins with speaking of the
inscription as being "in letters of Greek." It is not at all
LUKE.
339
;"^;"na7rri:::^^-7-dastheyare
■^ -ems hardly possible t tLn r:? ''' °^'" ^^^^'"^'
-ons and transpositions simil "o Uo k"""'" '' °'"'-
Revised Text were not conTtllv T ''' ^'^^" '" ^^e
^" the old manuscripts it Zht h ^^^rywhere occurring
they are found in a pas^e t th' ' T"" °' ^'^^P^'- '^af
view there seems to be no e t„ t'' " '"" °"' P°'"' ''
^f the truth were really kno vn th "' "''^ '^'""^^^- ^"t,
changes would be a m'a ^0; ^J T"" '"' — of these
of the simplest and mos na ul, T"" "''^'^^'' ^"' «"«
they may be merely specimen" ' ^'^ '°'''"'- ^"^^^*^'
have come down to usfZ2r'T'' '' "'^ ^"^ tha
f-m that, from some f ^ LTu' '''.''''"^^^" '' -^> ^^ not
^he text common in the secoIdirSr:;;-^ ^^^^ °^
xxiii. 42.
The marginal reading d^ rhv Rn^ \ -
fo-/' is supported only Lb La?" ""' ""'" '''' '''^^■
Latm, the Vulgate Ori Jn L '^^P'" of the Old
p-ter (though^is^^Xe ::Terr' '^'^^^ ^-^ --
-th the common reading) and H p' '^""'^^^^ ^^-^
obvious alteration, having aWe' ffo^T ' ''' "^''"^ '^ ^
"meaning of ^„,a..a here Thl h "^^^PP^^hension of the
though common signification of If ' " '" ''^ ^^^°"<^-y
some should have r^d 'd I" "' T.' V '"' "^^"-' 'hat
and so changed the readinr'as to mTl •''' '^'"^ ^" --^'
I comest i„,o thy kingdom •'!> T " "''''" "^hen thou
I Whereas, the wLd hSitT'p ^ J^tt 0/ ^ ^°™^"'°--
ship; and the true meanini of tU °^^'' ^'^^'e, king-
thou comest rn thy ro a t ' " H ''""'"' P^^''^'^"" is " when
; tive, undergoing sufferLg.'' Bufb/S'h^""^ "°-^ " ' ^^P"
oy laith he recognized him ^.
340
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
a king, yet to be enthroned in power ; and his prayer was that,
when Jesus should come as a king indeed, in royalty and glory,
he would remember him. The reading of the text is over-
whelmingly attested as the true reading, and is generally
accepted as such by modern editors.
xxiii. 45.
Rec. T. Kal ia-KorCcOr) 6 ijXios, — And the sun was darkened.
Rev. T. Tov T)\Cov {kXcCitovtos' — the sun's light failing.
The common reading here is supported by A, C third hand
(C second hand omits the clause), D, E, G, H, K, M, Q, R,
S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, all the cursives except a few lectiona-
ries, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Curetonian, Peshito, and
Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Marcion ac-
cording to Epiphanius, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Maca-
rius Magnes, Ephraem Syrus, Cyril, and others. The revised
reading, tVActVovTos, strictly speaking, "becoming eclipsed," is
that of only B and a few lectionaries. J^, C first hand appar-
ently, L, and a dozen lectionaries read ckXhtovtos, " having
become eclipsed." The two Egyptian Versions and the mar-
gin of the Philoxenian Syriac also favor this reading. Origen,
condemning the reading, says, " How could there be an eclipse
of the sun when the moon was full ? Matthew and Mark do
not say that an eclipse of the sun occurred at that time. Nor
does Luke according to most copies, which read, ' And it was
about the sixth hour, and darkness came over all the earth until
the ninth hour ; and the sun was obscured.' In some copies,
however," he adds, " it does not read ' darkness came, and the
sun was obscured,' but ' darkness came over all the earth, the
sun failing ' or being eclipsed. Some one, wishing to explain
the meaning, doubtless ventured to make the change, thinking
that darkness could not have prevailed unless the sun had been
eclipsed." ^ The Revisers' rendering, " the sun's light failing,"
* Works, iii. 922.
LUKE.
341
c.™ a <)„:„' '.,::', ,";.;°;;- - '^-™ '« ^- i., there
or obscured by,. This ™s h^'efel ''o.^r '"T"'
darkness tn^ . eiiect, not the cause, of the
differ m the.r statements concerning it, -one savins 'ft
ieing eclipsed," and the other " the J. 1, 7^ '""
tK» f • , "^ ""^ "^"er, the sun /^azv/zp-^^-^/zeclinsed" •
the former imp v n? thnt fK« «>^i- cLiipbea
.iipiying tnat the eclipse was coexistent with tu^
darkness and indirectly the cause of it whil. T ,
zxiii. 47.
Rec. T. lS6ia^, r6. 0,6, - he glorified God.
Kev. T. itoiaU t6v 0,o'v -- he glorified God.
G hT M P L'^^^^^'-^' 1'"' here is attested by A C E
342
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
S. B, D, L, R, four or five copies of the Old Latin, two
editions of the Memphitic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and Cyril
of Alexandria. As a rule, the writers of the New Testament
preserve the established grammatical distinction between the
aorist as expressive of a momentary past act or state, and the
imperfect as representing something continuous or contempo-
raneous. Especially true is this of Luke. In this entire
Gospel (if we except iXtye, which, instead of meaning was
saying or proceeded to say, sometimes seems to be used inter-
changeably with iTve, "said"), the imperfect, as found in the
Received Text, can nowhere properly be said to be employed
as an aorist. In xxiv. 27, Birjpfjirjvevtv, which has been set
aside by the Revisers for the aorist, denotes Christ's i)ro-
ceeding a/ the same time to interpret. And this, the context
indicates to be the evangelist's meaning — not Christ's act of
interpreting considered as completed. In the verse before us,
as well as in other places, where the aorist of the Received Text
has been set aside by the Revisers for the imperfect, the latter,
though attested by some of the older manuscripts^ is hardly
warranted by the evangelist's usus loquendi elsewhere. Nor
are these changes altogether favored by other modern editors.
The act of the centurion here, as far as the record intimates,
was but the single and momentary one of saying " Certainly
this was a righteous man." To record this as the evangelist
does, calls for the aorist, not the imperfect. The act differs
from those recorded by the same word in v. 26, vii. 16, xiii. 13,
where the imperfect denotes a continuance of the act in distinc-
tion from the momentary acts expressed by the aorists in the
immediate contexts. The aorist being the best attested reading
here, and the one really demanded by the context and the
evangelist's manner of employing the tenses, it ought to be
considered the true reading, — especially since the imperfect
here, as well as in viii. 29, ix. 49, and x. 40, where it has
been adopted by the Revisers in place of the aorist, though
altogether unsuitable for expressing the evangeUst's obvious
LUKE.
343
meanmg, seems to be the result of an early and common
transcriptional error, the difference in the two forms in each
mstance being that of a single letter or two at the most
Besides, the change is in no sense necessary as preparatory to
a proper revision of the English text. As an illustration of the
evangelist's use of the imperfect as contrasted with that found
here in the Revisers' text, the reader is referred to i..Vrp.,^o.
in 48) the next verse, representing the continuous act of the
multitudes turning back one by one from the cross and re-
tracing their steps to their homes, _ something very different
trom the single momentary exclamation of the centurion.
xxiii. 49.
lowerhim ^"'"''''*' "' <^'"'»''<'^<»'eVa<rat aOroT -the women that fol-
Rev. T T,vvatK.s al <rvvaKo\oveoCo-ai a«T«--the women that fol-
lowed with him.
The present participle adopted by the Revisers is the read-
ing of X, B, C, L, R, X, and a few cursives. The aorist par-
ticiple of the Received Text is that of A, D, E, G H KM
r, b, U, V, 1, A, n, nearly all the cursives, and every ancient
version. The aorist infinitive <TvvaKo\ov67t^o.t of A is simply a
clerical error for the aorist participle, and really supports the
common reading. Logically, the aorist participle is the form
required ; for certainly the evangelist is not speaking of women
who "were accompanying " Jesus from Galilee, but of women
who " had accompanied " him. The difference in form between
the two participles is not so great but that an unheeding scribe
might easily mistake the one for the other, as the scribe of A
evidently did the aorist participle for the infinitive. The fact
that every version is with the Received Text is strong docu-
mentary testimony in its support ; which, added to the internal
probability in the case, ought certainly to outweigh the testi-
mony of the mere handful of witnesses against it, especially
when that testimony is so easily accounted for. A moment's
344
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
reference to Matt. viii. lo, xxi. 9 ; Mark xi. 9 ; and Luke vii.
9 will show the legitimate and general New-Testament use of
a present participle preceded by the article in connection with
a verb in a past tense. In all these instances, the participle
with its article is truly rendered only by " that were following,"
— a rendering which cannot be given the present participle
here.
xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51, 53.
The omissions noted in the margin of these verses as made
by " some ancient authorities " appear almost exclusively in D
and the Old Latin manuscripts a, b, e,jp, I. This shows not
only the close relationship subsisting between Codex D and
the Old Latin Version, but their descent from a common exem-
plar which, in these verses, was more or less defective. For
it is incredible that these few witnesses, notorious for their
depraved readings, should, in these instances, alone be right,
while all the others, — comprising the rest of the uncials and
versions, all the cursives, and a number of the Fathers, among
whom are Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Ambrose,
Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, and John Dama-
scene, — should be in error, and have handed down to us a
spurious text. Lachmann brackets verse 12, as if it were of
doubtful genuineness ; but why he should do it, as long as he
admits all the rest of these readings to be genuine, we are
unable to conceive. Tischendorf omits verse 12, as well as
the last half of verse 36, the whole of verse 40 (which the
Curetonian Syriac Version unites with D and its Old Latin
allies in omitting), the last clause of verse 51 (where ^ first
hand unites with D in the omission, which, however, is supplied
by the early seventh-century corrector of that manuscript), and
the words " worshipped him, and " in verse 52 ; while West-
cott and Hort enclose in double brackets all these passages
(except the three words in verse 9, which for no apparent
reason are only single-bracketed), as if they were of doubtful
LUKE.
345
admU a doubt. '" ^^-'n^ess ,s ,00 strong to
xxiv. 10.
Rec. T. tat oi Xoiiral <rvvavToi« arrx.««„
wo.e„ that were with the.. whicht^lhesTtHings ' ^•"-— '' °'''-
othe;:o.e„tt:;hr::i Z:^. ^^^^ -— ^-^
The received reading is attested by J< as amended by its
earher seventh-century corrector K S U V Y a \ l
the cursives, , ,/, of the 0,d L^.^^'^t^'^rMem
ph.c,thePeshitoandPhiloxenianSyriac^
Cynl m h.s Commentary on Luke,-a strong array of early
verstons^ .f not of early uncials. The omission of „r ts accord
-g to X first hand, A, B, D, E, F, G, H, L, M, T, ^ n nea^
fifty curstves, four copies (., .,^^ ,) of the Old La in the
Thebatc, Curetontan Syriac, and Ethiopic Versions. The whole
verse, according to the Revisers' reading and render ngi
Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary'the'
another of James : and the other women with them told these
asks. What is the special significance of the words, "Now they
j7mes^r'wT''f",r"'K-^°^""^'^"^ ""-^"^^ -'^er '
James ? Why should such a clause be inserted here? To
what does It refer? Not, of course, to tlie closing expression
of the previous verse; for the words "all the rest "'denote
those besides the eleven to whom the news was told. If the
clause refers to the women spoken of in verses 8 and 9 as hay!
.ng rettirned and informed the eleven of the empty tomb and
other things, then it makes these verses apparently contradict
he revised reading of the last half of verse xo, which make
t appear that "the other women,- who were with these, were
i^thi: thf ''"' f "^^ '^ ^'^ ^P°^^'^^- '' -"-t be
said that this represents the evangelist, in the first half of the
346
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
verse, as naming the women referred to in the preceding verse,
while the latter half has reference to an after announcement by
" the other women." That would have required him not only
to write aTrai Bi yaav, " And //lese were " instead of the un-
emphatic rjaav St, " And were," or, as we should say in English,
"And it was"; but to say ''afterwards the other women"
instead of " and the other women." Among the witnesses
cited above as omitting ai. A, D, r, about forty cursives, the
Curetonian Syriac and Ethiopic Versions omit ijo-ai/ hi. also, in
the beginning of the verse. This not only greatly reduces the
number of the " authorities " that support the Revisers' reading
of the verse as a whole, but materially changes the reading, —
making it " Mary the Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the
mother of James, and the other women that were with them
told these things to the apostles " ; — an abrupt, and, after what
is said in the preceding verse, a very unnatural and improbable
statement. This being a palpably false reading, the first two
of the omitted words were early restored ; but the omitted
relative, a little farther on, appears to have been overlooked.
This gave the reading found in J^, B, etc., and adopted by the
Revisers. But it shows for itself that something is wrong ; no
one would ever write in this style. The only reasonable and
self-evidently genuine reading is the fuller one of the Received
Text : " And it was Mary the Magdalene, and Joanna, and
Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them
who told these things to the aposdes." Inasmuch as these
women had not been previously named, it was perfectly natural
that the evangelist should here say who they were.
zxiy. II.
Rec. T. rd p^jitara avruv, — their words.
Rev. T. Tol pVifiara ravTo, — these words.
The former is the reading of A (C is defective), E, F, G,
H, I, K, M, S, U, V, X, r, ^, A, n, the whole body of the
cursives, /of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and the text of the
LUKE.
347
Ph.Ioxeman Syriac; the latter is that of K, B, D. L six or
e-ght cop,es of the Old Latin, the Vulgate^'lhe tw; Eg'tian
Vers.ons, the Curetonian, Peshito, and Jerusalem SyriS the
margu. of the Philoxenian Syriac, and the Ethiopic. The
entire verse, according to the Received Text, reads, "And
their words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they
would not believe them." The evangelist's use of pronouns
here was obviously offensive to some of his early readers
persl': TnT ''' """"'' °' "'^'•'' "^'^^""g ^° differen;
persons, in the expressions "their words" and "their sieht "
one critic or copyist dropped the phrase "in their sight "-'a
reading which appears in X and at least two cursives. Another
substituted ,n Its place " to the apostles." This reading is pr -
And their words seemed an idle talk of theirs." This is the
reading of Codex i. A fourth changed "their words," to
these words, -the reading which appears in four uncials
and he majority of ancient versions. That this change was
actually made, notwithstanding the numerous witnesses in its
favor ,s evident from the following considerations. The fact
that the last word of the verse is alral., not aW., shows that
m writing It, the evangelist had in mind the women, as he natu-
rally might after having spoken of /■/.«> words. But had he
written raCra, " these words," the strong probability, amounting
almost to a certainty, is that he would not have written alral,
but avrow referring to "these words," and not to the women
mentioned further back; just as an English writer, -in pen-
ning for example, the words, " It was Mary, and Joanna, and the
mother of James, and other women that told these things to the
apostles ; and these words seemed in their sight as idle talk •
and they would not believe them," _ would more naturally refer
he closing word "them" to "these words" as its antecedent
than to "the women." And so it would be understood by
readers generally. In the Greek, of course, there is no danger
of a misapplication of the pronoun in this instance. Hence to a
348
THE REVISERS GREEK TEXT.
LUKE.
349
mere reader of Greek there is no need of changing avTats to
avToZs to obviate any confusion. But the fact that aiiTais still stands
as an unquestioned part of the original text shows conclusively
that Tavra was originally avrw. Besides, " these words " is not
an expression that a writer would use who has not given the
words to which reference is made. But, after one had said
that certain women had told ^Aese things to the apostles, he
would naturally add that " their words " seemed as idle talk.
The revised reading is, beyond a doubt, an alteration intro-
duced by some later hand than Luke's, as truly as are the other
variations referred to.
xxiv. 17.
Rec. T. irtpiiroTovvTcs, KaC eVrc (rKu0pci>iro£ ; — as ye walk, and are
sail?
Rev. T. ir€piiroTovvT€S ', KoX £crTA9T)(rav o-KvOpuiroC. — as ye walk ?
And they stood still, looking sad.
The common reading is supported by A second hand (C is
defective), E, F, G, H, I, K, M, N, P, S, U, V, X, V, A, A, U,
the entire body of the cursives, every manuscript but one of
the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Curetonian, Peshito, and Phi-
loxenian Syriac, the Ethiopic with one exception, and the Ar-
menian. Codex D and Cyril on Luke, while omitting " and
are," support this reading also. The revised reading, which
can hardly be considered abundantly attested, is that of X, A
first hand apparently, B, e of the Old Latin, the two Egyptian
Versions, and the Roman Ethiopic Version. Codex L reads
fSTTjaav, the aorist active, instead of iarToBTqaav, the aorist pas-
sive. The testimony of Origen, who quotes the verse only as far
as 7r£pt7raTowT£s, proves nothing in favor of either reading, as he
quoted no more than served his immediate purpose, which was
often the case with the Fathers, as it has been with others in
every succeeding age. It is incredible that Luke could have
given such a narrative as "What communications are these
that ye are having one with another as ye walk? And they
stood sad " ; then gone directly on with " And one of them,
named Cleopas, answering said," etc., without a word about
their moving forward till we reach verse 28, where we find
that apparently they had been all the time walking on (instead
of standing still) till they were already drawing near to the
village whither they were going. The new reading has every
appearance of being a second-century amendment or attempted
improvement of the evangelist's words, confined to a few early
documents, but soon abandoned on all hands as a false reading,
appearing in only a single later document, — Codex L of the
eighth century, — in a modified form nowhere else found. It
originated in the evangelist's use of the personal form ifrri
rather than the participle wrts. This personal form shows
that the connection made by the conjunction is not with ire.pi-
TraTovvTes, but with the preceding avTi/SaWcTe, making virtually
two questions condensed into one ; thus, " What are these
subjects about which ye are conversing one with another as ye
walk, and [about which or because of which ye] are sad? " But
the connection not seeming pertinent on account of the ab-
sence of av6' <5v, " because of which," in connection with fare,
though it is substantially implied in the preceding words, fart
was changed to ia-TaO-qa-av, and the question made to stop with
the preceding participle. The reading is the transparent emen-
dation of some stupid critic.
XXIV. 21.
Rec. T. TpCTqv TavTtjv T||i.(pav 07*1 cr^)Upov — to-day is the third day.
Rev. T. TpCi-qv Taurrjv T||itpav d-y«i — it is now the third day.
In support of the common reading, we have A, E, G, H, K,
M, P, S, U, V, W, X, r. A, A, n, most of the cursives, the The-
baic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the Ethiopic Version. Codex
D, five cursives, seven copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and
Augustine have a-rjfxipov, but omit Tavrrjv. The Revisers' read-
ing, which retains ravrrjv but omits (rrjfitpov, is attested by ^, B,
3 so
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
LUKE.
351
L, I , and the Curetonian, Peshito, and Jerusalem Syriac Versions,
as well as the Memphitic and Armenian. — The Revisers' ren-
dering would do very well for Tptrrjv avrr, fifitpav ayei., if this were
the Greek corresponding to it. But how it is to be obtained
from their Greek is a mystery to us, unless iy« is taken imper-
sonally in the sense of " it spends," and the whole expression
is converted literally into " It spends this as the third day.
Still the question arises. What spends? It is easy enough to
translate roSro rpcrov eipo, 0(70. iv T.? Ayp<S, by saying, "Ihis
is my third summer in the country ":- the literal rendering
being, " I am spending this as a third summer in the country.
But the impersonal use of iya, by which the revised rendering
may be similarly obtained, as far as we are aware, is without
warrant. Meyer does not venture thus to try to solve the
pu^zle. He considers "Jesus" as the subject. And his ren-
dering is, " He (Jesus) passes this present day as the third.
But this is far-fetched and altogether unsatisfactory. Besides,
from the rendering " this present day," Meyer appears to take
r.,;r,v and ^,c>v together. But the absence of the artide
forb'ds this. The Greek for " this day," m such a connection
as this, is not ra^,. ^M^'pa., but ra^,v r^ ^M^W or r,v ,^.0.
ravrrtv. The truth is, the reading is a false one ; and all the
bolstering it may receive will not make it good Greek, or such
as Luke could have written. The other reading, however,
presents no difficulty aside from the fact that <r^,x.pov is want-
ing in three uncials, one cursive, and five versions^ This word,
like its corresponding English " to-day," is an adverb ; but .t
L employed here as a neuter noun. That it belongs here s
Dart of Luke's text is shown by the following a-/> -. f^^^"^
wl^lh."-an expression in which the relative oJ is evident y
Tn the'neuter, referring to .^.cpov. If this P--- /f^f /^
^.i^v the expression would be a<^ h> as m Ac s xx. 18.
The whole passage, including the annexed relative clause, may
be trlslated thus: "To-day makes [literally brings] this the
third day from which (reckoning backward) these things oc-
curred." The verb is not used in the sense of passing, — " to
pass one's time," — as some suppose it is; nor yet in that of
leading, say, a quiet life. It is used in its common, well-known
meaning of bringing, leading to, and hence of bringing about,
constituting, making. 2j//ii«pov, " to-day," seems to have been
omitted in a few copies from having been supposed to be
superfluous in connection with the preceding ravTrjv, just as
Tavnqv was omitted, for a similar reason, in other copies that
retained a-qixepov. The reading has all the appearance of being
" distinctively Syrian " ; for it had been familiar to the readers
of the two older Syriac Versions for fifty years, more or less,
before it appeared in the Memphitic Version, and for at least
two hundred years before it was fathered by the Sinaitic and
Vatican manuscripts.
xxiv. 47.
The only " ancient authorities " that read " repentance unto
remission" instead of "repentance and remission" here are
^, B, the Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions. But for the
testimony of B, Dr. Hort would probably pronounce it " an
Alexandrian and Syrian " reading.
xxiv. 53.
Rec. T. olvoCvTts Ka\ cvXoyovvtcs xiv 0tov. — praising and blessing
God.
Rev. T. ««Xo-yovvTJS tAv Oco'v. — blessing God.
The revised reading, which is that of Westcott and Hort, is
attested by only four uncials and one version, — X> E> C first
hand, L, and the Jerusalem Syriac. That adopted by Tischen-
dorf, namely, aiVowres rbv ®i6v, " praising God," is supported
only by D, six copies of the Old Latin, two manuscripts of the
Vulgate, and the Memphitic Version. The common reading,
which is adopted by Lachmann and others, and preferred by
Tregelles and Alford, is the reading of A, C second hand (E
352
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
and G are defective), F, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, all
the cursives, c,f, q of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito
and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic. This
cannot be considered, with Westcott and Hort, a " conflate "
reading any more than " glorifying and praising " God can Ik-
so considered in ii. 13. The phrase atVtiv toy ©eoV, " to praise
God," is used at least twice as often by Luke as the phrase
f-vko-^Cw Tov 0«w, " to bless God." And in view of Luke's
coupling praising God with glorifying him in ii. 13, and with
rejoicing in xix. 37, we see no reason why he should not have
connected it with blessing God here. There is no apparent
reason why any one else should have introduced aiVowrc? koi ;
while either of the shorter readings may easily have resulted
from the longer in consequence of a scribe's being misled, by the
sameness of the terminations aiVOYNTGC and eiXoyOYNTGC,
into supposing the work of copying the two participles was
done when he had transcribed only one. Such errors are by
no means infrequent even in the best manuscripts.
APPENDICES.
The following additional notes are presented after a careful
review, because the facts and data seem to demand them. We
are fully persuaded that, in each instance, the reading as given
in both the Received and the Revised Text is an erroneous one
As generally accepted, both these readings of Mark present
irreconcilable differences, and even a contradiction of the state-
ments clearly and unmistakably made by other evangelists.
Mark, we think, has been misrepresented by most of his copyists
whose work has survived to our day. If he is properly repre-
sented, he will be found to be, not only consistent with himself,
but in harmony with the other evangelists.
At What Hour of the Day was Jesus Crucified?
Mark xv. 25.
In John xix. 14 we find the statement that it was the prep-
aration of the passover, i.e. on the Friday before the passover,
and about the sixth hour, when Pilate delivered Jesus to the
Jews to be crucified. But in Mark we read that it was the
third hour when they crucified him. This seems to make Mark
say that Jesus was crucified about three hours before Pilate
surrendered him to the Jews. Some, however, in order to
reconcile the apparent discrepancy between John and Mark,
3S3
354
THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
suppose that John's sixth hour is the sixth hour after midnight,
t.e. six o'cloclc in the morning. This would give ample time
for all that was done before Mark's " third " hour, or 9 a.m.,
would have arrived. But, while this may appear to reconcile
the statements of the two Gospels, it introduces difficul-
ties almost or quite as great as the one it may seem to remove.
In the first place there is in fact no reason to suppose that
John should differ from the other evangelists in his mode of
reckoning the hours of the day. They, in common with Jews
and Romans everywhere, counted the hours from sunrise.
Why should John differ from others? The only consistent
view of his notations of time requires the same mode of reck-
oning as theirs. Aside from this place, John speaks of the
hours of the day four times, and, in each instance, there is
no probability in favor of counting the hours of the day other-
wise than from sunrise, according to the universal custom of
his day.
Thus, in i. 39, " the tenth hour " corresponds to our 4 p.m.,
making the statement of the evangelist a good reason for the
tarrying of the disciples during the rest of the day, and pre-
sumably over night, with Jesus. — In iv. 6, "the sixth hour " is
not 6 A.M., nor yet 6 p.m. Jesus had been journeying, and
now came to the well, weary and thirsty, after having walked
for several hours under a hot sun ; while the woman came
there also at noon, as the whole succeeding record, which calls
for several hours' time, clearly implies. — So, too, " the seventh
hour," in iv. 52, was one o'clock in the afternoon, not the early
hour of 7 A.M., nor yet the late hour of 7 p.m. — Again, in xi. 9,
the inquiry, "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" implies
not only that " the day " is the time from sunrise to sunset, but
that the hours are reckoned successively from the rising of the
sun, and not from some other point, as, for example, from mid-
day. The " preparation " (of xix. 14,), i.e. the day of prepara-
tion for the passover, refers in like manner to the interval
between sunrise and sunset ; so that when John speaks of the
APPENDICES.
355
day as being "the preparation, and about the sixth hour " h.
ev. ently ^eans the sixth hour after sunrise, o af er ^ da
had fmrly begun; /...about noon, or twelve o'clock ..^^
to our reckoning. Indeed, there i no goTd reason fo':"^
.ng that John reckoned the hours of tl da n anTS^;
manner from Mark or from either of the other evangelists
the t:TGorr-ft"""'^'^^^^" the statements found in
the two Gospels, .f the mode of reckoning is the same in
boh and we see no good reason for any question on th
pomt,-we must conclude that there is an error somewhere in
one or the other of these records as they have come down o
- It .s utterly incredible that two honest histor'ns one of
whom .f not the other, was an eye-witness of what he ;eco ds
should have d.ffered by about three hours in stating theTm t^
an^occurrence so important and well-known as th'e crucifixion
We learn, from Matthew xxvii. i and Mark xv. i that it
was "m the morning," ,.. Friday morning, and probal no
trial. Earher m the mornmg, "as soon as it was day " (Luke
xxu. 66), he had been brought before the supreme council o^he
nat,on So that .t could not have been much if at all earlier than
S.X o'clock when he was brought before Pilate. After some tim"
(i^uke xxu,. 6, 7) that Jesus was a Galilean, and sent him to
Herod to be tried by him. Herod, possibly after some Htt :
de ay, masmuch as such an examination was something he had
no anticipated, questioned him " in many words " ; after which
not havmg obtained any satisfaction from Jesus, he mocked
him arrayed him in gorgeous apparel, and sent him back to
^. ate with the message that he could find nothing against him
^ilate then, by various means, sought to release Jesus; he had
him scourged, and then, in one way and another, wasted much
time m parleying with the Jews and questioning Jesus, before
he finally abandoned him to them. In going through all these
356 THE revisers' greek text.
various mpvements, with the delays necessarily attending them, it
seems reasonable to presume that several hours must have been
consumed. Thomas Scott, in his Family Bible, under Mark
XV. 25, says, "The rulers must have been very early and active
in their proceedings, to have gone through so much business,
and to have surmounted so many difficulties by that hour,"
i.e. by the third hour, or nine o'clock in the morning. In fact,
they could hardly have gone through it at all in less than five or
six hours ; so that it must have been well on towards noon, or
" about the sixth hour," before Pilate delivered him to the
Jews for crucifixion. After Pilate had performed his last act
of preparing the superscription to be placed over the cross, the
conveying of Jesus from Pilate's presence to Calvary by way of
the Damascus Gate was the work of a few moments only. The
distance was not great ; and it was hurriedly traversed by the
infuriated mob.
Why, then, it may be asked in view of the foregoing exposi-
tion, does Mark say it was the third hour when they crucified
him ? We reply, it is extremely doubtful whether Mark really
wrote " the third hour." If the crucifixion took place at noon,
it is not only incredible that he should have written that it oc-
curred three hours earlier, but morally impossible for him thus
to have written. There is, on the contrary, reason to believe that
he actually wrote the " sixth " hour. At least one cursive manu-
script, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac Version, and the
Ethiopic Version read " the sixth hour." Nor should this be
regarded, as it commonly is, as the result of copyists' attempts
to bring Mark into harmony with John. It is a plain indication
that other manuscripts, now lost, once read "the sixth hour."
When it is considered that the Greek uncial characters,, repre-
senting " three " or " third " and " six " or " sixth " are respec-
tively a gamma, T, and a digamma or double gamma, F, and
that Mark must necessarily have written a digamma or " sixth,"
it will be seen that an early, careless copyist might very easily
have mistaken his "sixth" (F) for " third " (F), and so have
appendices.
357
written " third " instead.. This was done so early that the true
reading is preserved to us in no ancient documents, as far as
we are aware, except the three above mentioned. Nor are
those among the earliest.
Though the position we have thus taken, namely, that Mark
really wrote F ( "sixth "), finds almost no support from the
documentary testimony found in connection with this verse, it
is sustained by an appeal to the documentary testimony re-
specting John's language in xix. 14. There can be no doubt
that John wrote F, "sixth"; yet five uncials — Ji^ according to its
earlier seventh-century corrector, D as supplied by a later
hand, L, X, A, — and four cursives credit him with having writ-
ten " the third hour" ; and this again, not necessarily, as some
suppose, in order to reconcile John's statement with Mark's,
but as the result of sheer inattention or want of care on the
part of some very early transcriber who had mistaken John's
digamma, the equivalent of our " 6th," for a gamma, the
Greek representative of the English " 3 " and " 3d." And
if this comparatively respectable body of witnesses could have
been thus betrayed into a misrepresentation of John's state-
ment, is it beyond belief that a body of witnesses far greater
and more respectable should have been betrayed into a like
but unconscious misrepresentation of Mark's record? It cer-
tainly is not incredible. On the contrary, in view of all the
facts and circumstances in the case, it seems altogether prob-
able that it was so. If there is indeed anything incredible in
reference to this reading, it is that Mark should have written
" the third hour," when he knew that Christ was crucified at
noon. The only rational way of accounting for the word
" third " is to admit that some early transcriber unwittingly
blundered in his work, and that others, in reproducing this
Gospel, have generally followed Mark's transcriber rather than
Mark himself.
Indeed, Jerome, hundreds of years ago, in his comment on
Psa. Ixxvii., attributed the reading " the third hour," in Mark,
358
THE REVISERS' GREEK. TEXT.
to an early transcriptional error. His testimony is: "It is
written in Mark that he was crucified the third hour. But this
IS an error of the scribes. It was originally the sixth hour.
But many supposed the Greek symbol F to be T." Hence
this reading.
In corroboration of the foregoing, we will simply add that
Hesychius the grammarian, in his Greek Dictionary, cites a
number of Doric words in which the same error appears of mis-
taking an initial digamma for a gamma ; as, for instance, the
writing of yecrTta for c'o-Tta, Vesta. In fact, it was an error of
no uncommon occurrence ; and it at once accounts for the
strange but only apparent discrepancy between the two evan-
gelists.
Why, then, should we be disturbed about a reading which is
so clearly due, not to Mark, but to others? What we need to
do is simply to return to what is obviously and necessarily
Mark's reading : " And it was the sixth hour when they cruci-
fied him"; ;>. to read licTr;, "sixth," instead of t/oitij, " third."
This will save us from all false attempts at seeking to reconcile
the statements of two evangelists that need no reconciling.
Especially will it save us from the impossible feat of making it
appear that Mark and John reckoned time in different ways.
By taking this as the true reading, we also give an otherwise
unknown and wonderful significance to the statement given by
three of the evangelists : " And the sixth hour having come,
darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour." ' As
much as if we were told that Nature herself was in mourning
not merely one half but the whole of that terrible period dur-
ing which the Lord of life hung in the agonies of death upon
the cross !
1 Matt, xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 33; Luke xxiii. 44.
AITENDICES.
359
II.
When did Mary the Magdalene come to the Sepulchre?
Mark xvi. 2.
President Dwight, of Yale University, in commenting on John
XX. I, m the Sunday School Times for 1891, page 757, says
"The coming of Mary Magdalene to the tomb is here 'stated
to have taken place early in the morning, while it was yet dark.
. . . This is not in exact accord with Mark's statement, though
it answers sufficiently to that of Luke, who says 'at early dawn,'
and that of Matthew, whose words are, ' as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week.' Mark has two expressions ;
— one of which is, ' very early on the first day of the week,' and
the other, • when the sun was risen.' The latter expression is
one which presents a difficulty as related to what is stated in all
the other Gospels ; while the former, if standing alone, would
harmonize with the statements made by them." Dr. Hovey,»
commenting in like manner on John xx. i, says, " It is notice-
able that John speaks of the time when Mary Magdalene came
to the sepulchre as ' early, when it was yet dark.' But Mark
speaks of the women as coming to the sepulchre very early
when the sun was risen. John says early; Mark, very early;
John says, when it was yet dark; Mark, when the sun was
risen. If Mark, then, contradicts John, does he not also con-
tradict himself? " It certainly seems so. " But," as Dr. Hovey
immediately adds, " the latter is not to be supposed " ; and
proceeds to give the explanation advocated by Dr. Robinson,
and others. This, however, is an " explanation " that will not
bear the test of critical examination ; for the Greek aorist par-
ticiple drartiAa^Tos, " having risen," neither has nor can have
any reference to the sun as yet belo^v the horizon. The render-
1 Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 393.
360 THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.
ing of the A. V., " at the rising of the sun," is the result of an
endeavor on the part of King James's Translators to do the
best they could in the circumstances. But it is not a correct
rendering of the Greek that was before them. The only proper
rendering that can be given to the word is that of Tyndale,
adopted by the Anglo-American Revisers, — "when the sun
was risen " ; i.e. after the sun had risen, or was above the hori-
zon. The difficulty originated, not with Mark, but with one or
more of his eariy transcribers. In stating the time, Mark did
not contradict the other evangelists, nor did he contradict him-
self. He wrote : " Very eariy on the first day of the week, . . .
divaTeXXovTos Tov 17A.10U, as the sun was rising." But some care-
less or inobservant second-century scribe mistook Mark's pres-
ent participle for an aorist participle ; and this false reading,
having come down to us in nearly all the documents that have
survived to this day whose testimony has been ascertained, has
been accepted as the true reading. The present participle,
however, which the context calls for, and which there can be
no doubt that Mark employed, is attested by D, three copies
(a, n, q) of the Old Latin Version, and Augustine ; while
Tichonius the Donatist expressly declares : " Mark says as the
sun 7vas rising, not the sun having risen." The dilTercnre
between the two participial forms is a difference of only tw)
letters, —the mistaking of one form for the other being a cleri-
cal error of no uncommon occurrence. Thus, in Mark viii. 6,
where the reading of the Received Text is the aorist Tropi/yytiXt,
" he commanded," the Revisers read the present r-apayyiXXti,
" he commandeth," — the two words differing in three letters
easily and often mistaken one for another. The former, which
is in harmony with the entire context, and is apparently the true
reading, is attested by A, C, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, ^V^
X, r, n, all the cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, all tlie
Syriac Versions, as well as the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic
Versions. The latter, which seems to be an eariy transcrip-
tional error, is supported by S, B, D, L, and A only. In a simi-
APPENDICES,
361
lar manner, in Mark viii. 15, where the true reading is the
imperfect SiKTTfXXtro, " he charged them," i.e. proceeded to
charge them, E, F, the representatives of the lost uncial 4>, 28,
131, and a few other cursives, have the aorist Sito-TttXaTo, he
" charged " them, — the act being represented as one, and past
and finished. This is precisely the error, the writing of -aAa-
for -eAAo-, committed by one of the earliest of transcribers on
Mark's word dfaTcXAoKros, — a word denoting that the sun was
in the act of coming up to the horizon, and applicable to its
position at any time of the early morning, from the first appear-
ance of dawn till sunrise. Another instance of the same error
occurs in Mark xi. i, where F, H, Codex i, and five other cur-
sives, a, b, c,f, ^, and k second hand, the Peshito Syriac, Gothic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions have the aorist dn-eVrnXei',
" he sent," for the present " he sendeth." Again, in Acts xiii.
5, Codex D, and a few cursives have the aorist instead of the
imperfect, — the same error having been committed in spelling
here as was early committed in Mark xvi. 2. The same error
was also committed in Acts xiv. 27, in writing the aorist of the
Received Text dv^yyaXav, " they rehearsed," i.e. once for all, for
the imperfect of the Revisers' Text avr/yyeAAoi', which denotes
a renewed or repeated rehearsing of what God had done. In
view of the frequency of errors of this kind, it is not just to the
evangelist to think that he could have contradicted himself in
xvi. 2, even though nearly all the ancient documents agree in
presenting as his work the obvious blunder of some copyist of
his Gospel. We make no question that Mark wrote, "very
early on the first day of the week, ... as the sun was rising " ;
and that his text should read accordingly, even though Codex
D and the Old Latin Version are not the best of " authorities,"
generally speaking. In this instance, however, they clearly give
Mark's language as he must have penned it.
HECKMAN IXI
BINDERY INC. |S|
MAY 99
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