Skip to main content

Full text of "The revisers' Greek text : a critical examination of certain readings, textual and marginal, in the original Greek of the New Testament adopted by the late Anglo-American revisers"

See other formats




The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz 
Book Endowment for the Humanities 

Class of 1924 


3 1924 091 301 121 

Cornell University 

The original of tliis book is in 
tine Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 

Vol. 2 







Volume II 

By rev. S. W. WHITNEY, A.M. 

Pkove all things; hold fast that which is good 








Copyright, 1892, 
By silver, BURDETT & CO. 

tvpocraphy by j. s. cushing & co., boston. 
Presswork by Berwick & Smith, Boston. 

In view of the examination thus far made of the Revisers' 
Greek Text, the question may arise, how it is possible that a 
body of scholars so eminent as the Company of New-Testament 
Revisers should have been betrayed into introducing so many 
apparendy, and often obviously, false readings. The answer is 
a very simple one. It was owing in part to the manner in 
which they performed their self-imposed task, and in part to 
the principles by which they were governed. 

In the first place, as a body they were not textual critics ; 
that is, they were not men who had devoted years to the study 
of the Greek Text of the New Testament with special refer- 
ence to its correctness or incorrectness as a transcript of the 
long-lost autographs. The task of presenting to the Company 
the arguments />ro and i:on in regard to any questionable read- 
ing became therefore a necessity. This was generally devolved 
upon Drs. Scrivener and Hort, the two members of the body 
who stood almost alone as entitled to speak with authority on 
questions relating to the text. After a statement of the facts, 
and a presentation by each of his views, and his judgment in 
reference to the reading or readings, there was generally more 
or less questioning and discussion among the members of the 
body present at the time ; after which the vote of the Com- 
pany was taken, and the proposed reading accepted or rejected. 
This was the manner in which, as one of their own number 
expresses it, " the text was settled." ^ Generally speaking, it 

' See Ledurts on Bible Revision, pp. 119, 120, by Samuel Newth, D.D. 
London: Ilodder and Stoughton, 1881. 



4 , THE revisers' GRe'eK TEXT. 

was Dr. Hort's earnestness and eloquence that won the day. 
This is probably what Dr. SchalT means in speaking of Dr. 
Hort as one who " exerted great influence in the Revision Com- 
pany on all matters of reading." ' And as the readings advo- 
cated by him were those adopted by himself and Dr. Westcott 
in the " advance sheets " of their forth-coming Greek Testa- 
ment, which had been previously and freely distributed among 
the Revisers for their examination and information, and which 
were regarded as presumably presenting the purest and best 
Greek text of the New Testament in existence, they were 
almost as a matter of course adopted. The exceptions to this 
were comparatively few, and mostly on points practically of 
minor importance. A Text adopted in this hasty manner, 
witliout previous personal investigation or a thorough examina- 
tion of the evidence in support of or against the varying read- 
ings, must almost of necessity introduce errors of various kinds. 

Is it any wonder, then, that corrupt readings should abound 
in a Text framed by a body of men who, however eminent 
they might be in other departments of knowledge and Chris- 
tian work, after listening to plausible arguments in behalf of 
those readings, should "settle the text" by voting them in? 

That it should scarcely be otherwise will be still more obvious 
vv'hen we look at the principle which may be said to constitute 
the corner-stone on which this new structure, the Revisers' 
Text, was erected, namely, that the readings of the oldest 
extant Greek manuscripts are to be preferred to those of all 
other documents. This is the leading principle with Drs. 
Westcott and Hort in all their labors upon the Greek text of 
the New Testament ; and their views on this point were very 
largely shared by the majority of the New-Testament Com- 
pany, and governed them in their decisions. Such is the 
estimate placed by those learned editors on the readings of 

' Introduction to Amer. edition of Westcott and Horfs New Testament 
in Greek, p. ix. 


the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices that other readings, how- 
ever strongly attested, are practically of no account. Cursives 
that differ from these manuscripts are disregarded altogether. 
Early versions and Fathers that support other readings are 
similarly set aside and frowned upon. Such documents and 
readings are everywhere branded as Syrian, or Western, or 
Alexandrian, — terms of no meaning of course, except at most 
to indicate the class of manuscripts to which they are adjudged 
as belonging, and always to show that readings so designated 
are not found in B, and that, in the judgment of these critics, 
they are false and unworthy of regard. In their eyes, " B very 
far exceeds all other documents in neutrality \_i.e. in purity] of 
text."^ " It holds a unique position. Its text is throughout Pre- 
Syrian " ; i.e. ante-Nicene or apostolic.^ " Even when B stands 
quite alone, its readings must never be lighdy rejected."' 
" B must be regarded as having preserved not only a very 
ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text, and 
that with comparatively small depravation either by scattered 
ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by individualisms of 
the scribe himself." * " At a long interval after B, but hardly a 
less interval before all other manuscripts, stands J^."" "The text 
of J< seems to be entirely, or all but entirely, Pre-Syrian." » " The 
fourth century has bequeathed to us two manuscripts, of which 
even the less incorrupt must have been of exceptional purity 
among its own contemporaries." ^ What utterly depraved and 
worthless copies of the New Testament its contemporaries, 
then, must have been ! We fairly shudder at the thought of 

1 Introduction to the New Testament in Greek, p. 1 71. 

2 Ibidem, p. 150. 

" The New Testament in Greek, p. 557. 
* Introduction, etc., pp. 250, 251. 

5 Ibidem, p. 171. One feels like stopping to take a long breath on 
coming to a statement like this. 

" Ibidem, p. 151. Another long breath needed. 
' Ibidem, p. 287. 


the critical horrors from which we have been saved by the loss 
of those corrupt contemporaries of J^ ! Westcott and Hort's 
belief is that, except in a very few instances, " the readings of 
X and B should be accepted as the true readings until strong 
internal evidence is found to the contrary, and that no readings 
of X and B can safely be rejected absolutely";^ which, while 
furnishing a loop-hole of escape, implies that strong internal 
evidence can hardly be found to overcome their testimony. 

These views of Westcott and Hort are also largely shared 
to-day by not a few in America as well as in England. Hence 
the frequent use in certain quarters of the phrase " the best 
texts," or " the preponderance of authorities," not meaning 
thereby the best, the purest, and most correct texts, or the 
preponderance of testimony obtainable from all the different 
sources within reach. What is meant by this language is 
simply the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices ; or, at most, these 
two manuscripts and the handful of other documents that are 
for the most part in accord with them in their peculiar read- 
ings. Such an application of the expression " the best texts " 
is obviously a perversion of words. Properly speaking, the 
best texts are those that are freest from spurious and erroneous 
readings of every kind. But no careful, impartial, thorough 
comparison has ever been made among manuscripts to see 
which are really the best. As a general rule, it has been 
assumed that a certain rnanuscript was the best, and that 
others, more or less coinciding with that, were among the best. 
This, however, is simply a begging of the whole question. 
But let manuscripts be compared one with another with refer- 
ence to what are known to be erroneous readings or are capable 
of being shown to be such, and let those in which the fewest 
number of false or spurious readings are found be pronounced 
the best, and we shall have something like a trustworthy stand- 
ard of what is best among manuscripts and versions. When 

1 Ibidem, p. 225. 


one of two manuscripts or versions is found habitually to con- 
tain what are obviously false readings, or readings that may be 
clearly shown to be false, we have a sound basis for judgment, 
and cannot err in deciding which of the two is the better text. 
But, as just intimated, this is a work that has never yet been 
performed, even with reference to any two documents. All 
that we have as yet is an estimate or judgment formed from a 
general study or examination of documents, enabling one to 
say, for example, that B presents a purer text than X> o"" A 
a better text than D. The true standard of relative excellence 
among manuscripts is yet to be ascertained, and the compara- 
tive superiority and value of documents to be determined. 

Again, it is supposed by some that the science of textual 
criticism in reference to the New Testament is matured ; that 
it admits of very few or no modifications or improvements; 
that the labors of textual critics hitherto have established prin- 
ciples that determine nearly all the questions that have arisen 
or may arise concerning the text ; so that no trustworthy advance 
can now be made except in accordance with principles and 
methods already projected and explained, and that it is vain 
to look for^vard to any future recension of the text that will 
supersede the latest efforts of scholars in this direction. All 
this implies that there is a very general and hearty concurrence 
among students of the text in regard not only to the principles 
of criticism, but to the results attained by the application of 
those principles. But this can hardly be called an impartial, 
or even an intelligent, view of the subject. 

The truth is, the Greek Text of the New Testament, in its 
present state, cannot be said to be setded. All modern editors 
are more or less at variance with each other ; some of them, 
in different editions, are even at variance with themselves. 
This is due mainly to the principles, general and particular, on 
which they have proceeded. Of late years, the restoration of 
the so-called Ante-Nicene Text has been the professed aim of 
certain editors. But the making up of a text from fourth- 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

century manuscripts and ante-Nicene versions and writings alone 
can never give the text of the writers of the New Testament 
In the first place, those manuscripts, versions, and writings 
are not m agreement among themselves ; there is no such thing 
as a distmctively ante-Nicene or fourth-century text. In the 
second place, the earliest extant manuscripts and versions are all 
more or less depraved ; so that if any one of them were taken 
and adhered to, — except where they are universally admitted 
to be m error, — as the basis of a correct text, the text thus 
obtamed would be even more corrupt than any now in print. 
Agam, were any two editors or companies of editors, altogether 
independent of each other, and without any communication, 
either direct or indirect, each with the other, to undertake a 
so-called restoration of the Text of the first century, or of any 
other of the early centuries, beyond what we already have, and 
have had for the last three centuries, there would probably be 
as much difference between the results of the labors of those 
two editors or companies of editors as between any two editions 
of the Greek New Testament now before the public. In fact, 
the critical study of the Greek Text of the New Testament,' 
though dating back more than 350 years, is yet in its minority! 
The more one carefully and critically and reverently examines 
the printed text to which he may have access, though it be 
considered the best, the more deeply will he be convinced of 
this. There are errors not a few yet to be laid bare, and many 
corrections yet to be made, before the text can be property 
regarded as settled. These errors are not of such a character 
as to affect in any appreciable degree the truths revealed ; nor 
are the corrections such as to modify in the least the gen- 
eral trend and end of Scripture teaching. If their influence is 
felt in any degree upon the meaning of the Word, the thoughts 
embodied therein, it will be simply in removing obstructions, 
in shedding light on what may now be more or less obscure, 
in establishing and strengthening the believer's faith, and in 
rendering the New Testament as a whole even more clear, 


more harmonious, more self-evidencing than it is now. But 
the means of detecting these errors are not peculiar to any one 
manuscript or set of manuscripts, however excellent may be its 
general character ; for the true text of the New Testament is 
the possession of no one ancient document or set of docu- 
ments, but is more or less held as a common possession among 
them. Hence, if we would know what that text really is, we 
should not limit our observations, as some do, to the readings 
of a few documents, but extend our views and researches to all 
the various sources of evidence within our reach. Here, then, 
is a field of investigation and labor deserving of profound 
attention, and worthy of the most consecrated energies of the 
Christian student. It is one that calls for earnest, loving, 
patient, persevering labor. If thus entered upon and explored 
with wisdom, freedom from bias, and an eye ever open for the 
truth, the results can hardly fail to be welcomed by all sincere 
lovers and genuine students of God's Word. 



Prolegomenon . 
Readings Examined : 























Romans . 

1 Corinthians 

2 Corinthians 
Galatians . 

1 Tliessalonians 

2 Thessalonlans 

1 Timothy 

2 Timothy 
I Peter 

1 John 

2 John 

General Index . 

Index of Citations from the New 



















1. 15. 

The reading, " This was he that said," to which the marginal 
note refers as found in some ancient copies in place of " This 
was he of whom I said," appears only in J^ as amended by its 
contemporary reviser (the original scribe having omitted the 
words), B first hand, and C first hand.^ The reading, though 
adopted by AVestcott and Hort with a dash before and another 
after it, is an error into which some early reader or scribe seems 
to have been betrayed by not finding any record that John had 
previously uttered the words that follow. But, being palpably 
false, it was subsequently corrected in all these manuscripts. 
It was the same circumstance that gave rise to the original 
reading of X> " This was he who, coming after me, is preferred 
before me " ; which, though more plausible, is without other 
support. The common reading is, beyond doubt, the true one. 
It is abundantly attested by Ji^ as amended by a seventh-century 
corrector. A, B as amended by a sixth-century corrector (C 
third hand reads tXeyov instead of Uttov) , D, E, F, G, H, K, L, 
M, S, U, V, r. A, A, n, as well as all the cursives and ancient 

1 In Huet's edition of Origen's Works, Vol. vi., 3, Origen is made to 
quote this passage with this reading, though other editions, in the same 
place as well as elsewhere, represent him as giving the evangelist's words 
according to the received reading. 




i. i8. 

On the reading ^ovoycv^s ®w, " only-begotten God," referred 
to in the margin, and vouched for by J^, B, C first hand, L, 33, 
the reader is referred to the able and exhaustive essays of the 
late Ezra Abbot, which may be found in the recently published 
volume of his writings entitled Critical Essays (Geo. H. Ellis, 
Boston), pp. 241-285. Dr. Scrivener concludes his remarks 
on this reading with saying that " the present is just such a case 
as calls for the interposition of the more recent uncial and cur- 
sive codices ; and when we find that they all, with the single 
exception of Codex 33, defend the reading 6 /^ovoytv^s vio's, we 
feel safe in concluding that for once Codices X» B, C, and the 
Peshito do not approach the autograph of S. John so nearly as 
Codex A, the Curetonian Syriac, and Old Latin versions." * 

I. 42. 

Rec. T. SCfiuv 6 vtAs 'Iwva • — Simon the son of Jona. 
Rev. T. S()i(i>v 6 vtis 'Iwdvou • — Simon the son of John. 

The reading " son of John " is supported by J^, B first hand 
(C and D are defective), L, 33, five manuscripts of the Old 
Latin, and four of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Roman 
Ethiopic, and Nonnus in his metrical paraphrase. The read- 
ing " son of Jona " is attested by A, B third hand, E, F, G, H, 
K, M, S, U, V, X, r. A, A, n, every cursive but one, c and q of 
the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and Jeru- 
salem Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic as represented by 
the manuscripts, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexan- 
dria. The transcriber of the Old Latin manuscript e, being 
puzzled by the two readings, and not being able to decide 
between them, cut the Gordian knot by writing frater Andrece^ 
" brother of Andrew," instead. We see no reason for blindly 
following the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts and their allies 

^ Introduction, p. 606. 



here any more than in many other places. The reading '\u>a.wov 
(or, as B and the Revisers have it, 'Iwavov) originated in a 
double error. In the first place 'Icoi/S, "Jonah," was mistaken 
or misread as 'lojara, another form for 'luavou or 'Iummvov, from 
the nominative 'loxiva?, as many manuscripts read in Luke iii. 
27. Codex 69 has this very form 'loxiva at xxi. 17 ; and Codex 
91 has 'Iwai/i/a in verses 15, 16, as well as in verse 17 of the 
same chapter. This error was the more readily committed by 
taking vio's in the sense of disciple or follower, as in Matt. xiL 
27 and Luke xi. 19, and frequently in the Septuagint, instead 
of its usual sense of son. This makes the true meaning of the 
Revisers' reading as given in the documents whence it comes, 
not "Simon the son of John," but "Thou art Simon as the 
disciple of John ; thou shalt [henceforth] be called Cephas." 
But this, of course, is a false reading ; and that such is the 
case is evident from the fact that Matthew (xvi. 17) reports 
Jesus as calling Peter, on an after occasion, "Simon, son of 
Jonah " ; nor is there any difference among the manuscripts 
in this reading. But "Jonah" and "John" are names quite 
distinct one from the other in origin, signification, and form, 
the former meaning a dove, and the latter a gift from the Lord 
or given by the Lord. Notwithstanding the scholium cited by 
Tischendorf from the margin of Codex Tischendorfianus IIL, 
to the effect that in place of "Barjona" in Matt. xvi. 17, the 
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has " the son of John," we cannot 
but think that the scholiast is in error, since the two names are 
not interchangeable. If Matthew was correct in reporting the 
Saviour as having called Peter the son of Jonah, and all manu- 
scripts agree in this, the evangelist John, who knew Peter full 
as well, and could report his Master's words quite as correctly, 
as Matthew did, could not have confounded " Barjonah " with 
a name which to a Jew is so widely different from it as " Bar- 
john." The reading of "son of John" found in xxi. 15-17 is 
simply a reading conformed to this, supported by the same 
class of witnesses. 


i. 49. 

Rec. T. OTi ft 6 Poo-iXevis tov 'I<rpa^X. — thou art the king of Israel. 
Rev. T. o-u Poo-iXcvs tl tov 'lo-po-fjX. — thou art king of Israel. 

There is no apparent reason why the Revisers should have 
adopted this reading on the testimony of A, B, L, two cursives, 
and possibly Epiphanius, — five witnesses or six at the most, — 
and not have adopted the reading S/^g in verse 50, which is 
overwhelmingly supported, instead of oij/a. It is true that 
neither change is essential to a revision of the English text, for 
the meaning is the same in either case in both places. But, 
for that matter, only a portion of the changes made by the 
Revisers in the original were necessary to a proper revision of 
the English. Many of them, like this, are evident departures 
from the original, and questionably attested at best ; for there 
can be no doubt that Nathanael, after having said, " Thou art 
the Son of God," added, in the same natural order of words, 
" thou art the king of Israel." Only a lover of variety of expres- 
sion would invert a part of the last clause, and make it read, 
"Thou king art of Israel," and at the same time omit the arti- 
cle as improper. John assuredly would not have so reported 
Nathanael.- That he did not, is abundantly testified by the 
supporters of the common text, — namely, X (C and D are 
defective), E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, A, A, n, nearly 
all the cursives, all the versions, Epiphanius according to one 
codex (though not according to another), Chrysostom, Cyril, 
and Theodoret. 

1. 51- 
Rec. T. Air' apri fi<|;«(ree riv ovpaviv avccj^^TO, — hereafter ye shall 
see heaven open. 

Rev. T. S+co-e* TOV ovpav4v avtip-yiro, — Ye shall see the heaven 


The common reading here is attested by A (C and D are 
defective), E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, T, A, A, H, all the 



cursives, e, q of the Old Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian 
Syriac, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Augustine. On the other hand, 
ott' apTi is- wanting in J^, B, L, six copies of the Old Latin, the 
Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Origen 
two or three times, and Epiphanius and Cyril each once. Its 
presence is attributed by some to its being introduced from 
Matt. xxvi. 64. But it is more probably a part of the original 
text, early omitted through failure to perceive its applicable- 
ness. The word means not " after this " or "hereafter," as the 
A. V. has it, but " from this time," " henceforth." And as the 
language connected with it was taken literally and misunder- 
stood, the expression was piously omitted as unsuitable. But 
a true understanding of Jesus' symbolic language here reveals 
the word to be a significant and important one in its true sense 
of " henceforward " or " from this time onward." 

Rec. T. TavTi]v lirohio'cv t7]v apxT)v t«v o-ijiuCuv 6 'lT](rous. — This 
beginning of miracles did Jesus. 

Rev. T. TavTT]» i-irotTjo-ev apXT)V t«5v (rT||ic[iDv 6 'Iijcrovs. — This be- 
ginning of his signs did Jesus. 

The Revisers' omission of the article is in accordance with 
A, B, L, T"", A, 1, 2,Zi 262, Origen, Eusebius according to some 
codices, Chrysostom in one place, and the Paschal Chronicle. 
But its presence is called for by J^, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, 
X, r. A, IT, all but three cursives, Eusebius in another place, 
Chrysostom in two other places, and Cyril of Alexandria. One 
of the principles of Greek composition also makes the pres- 
ence of the article necessary, if the rendering of the Revisers 
presents the exact meaning of the evangelist. That principle 
is, that a noun limited by a demonstrative pronoun must be 
preceded by the article. It is not to be supposed that John 
could have omitted the article. If his meaning had been 
" Jesus wrought this as a beginning of miracles," he might have 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT, 

written tovto tVoi'ijo-ev apxrjv tZv (T-qixtiiav b 'Itjo-ovs. But the 
only legitimate Greek for " this beginning " is either i^v Ipxqv 
TavTTjv or the Greek of the Received Text. And yet that Greek 
must needs be revised to have a correct basis for a proper 
English version ! 

u. n. 

Rec. T. ol &8cX(j>ol avrov, — his brethren. 
Rev. T. ol d8cX4>o(, — Ais brethren. 

" A revision of the Greek text was the necessary foundation 
of our work," again. So says the Revisers' Preface. But a 
literal translation of the text here would make the correspond- 
ing revised English rendering read "his mother, and the 
brethren, and his disciples " ; or rather, as the reading was 
probably meant to be taken, " his mother and the brethren, 
even his disciples." The reading " the brethren " is supported 
by B, L, T"", three copies of the Old Latin, and Origen in four 
different places. But L, T"", and Origen in three of those 
places also read "and the disciples," — making the consistent 
reading " his mother, and brethren, and disciples " j while X, 
six cursives, two of those three Old Latin manuscripts in com- 
mon with four others, and the Armenian Version omit " and 
his disciples " altogether. The pronoun (" his ") in connec- 
tion with "brethren," is vouched for by J^, A, E, F, G, H, K, 
M, S, U, V, X, r, A, A, n, the entire body of the cursives, 
three copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito, Phi- 
loxenian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, 
the Ethiopic, and Cyril of Alexandria. It is not at all proba- 
ble that Luke, in writing three nouns in succession coupled 
together as here, should have limited only the first and the last 
of the three with " his," when the intermediate one required 
that limitation just as truly as the last of the trio. The absence 
of the pronoun is due, not to its non-insertion by Luke, but to 
its being dropped by some one to whom the idea of Jesus' 



having brothers, in the common acceptance of that word, was 
offensive. It is the work of an early believer in the perpetual 
virginity of the mother of our Lord. There need be no doubt 
as to the true reading, that of the Received Text being abun- 
dantly attested. 

ii. 15. 

Rec. T. i^ix'^t t4 K^p)i.a — poured out the money. 
Rev. T. 4|^x<' 'TO' K^PK^ara — poured out the money. 

There is no difference in the meaning of the two readings ; 
so that the change was not necessary to the revision of the 
English Version. Tischendorf, and Lachmann in his text, 
adopt the former ; Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, the lat- 
ter. The former is attested by Ji^, A (C and D defective), E, 
F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, r. A, A, II, every cursive but one, 
all but two copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and Nonnus. 
The latter is the reading of B, L, T", X, si, ^, q of the Old 
Latin, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and Origen in a number 
of places. B, X, II second hand, ten or twelve cursives, and 
Origen, as well as Cyril, also read avirpeifrev at the end of the 
verse, — a reading which no modern editors, however, except 
Westcott and Hort, adopt as genuine instead of avioTpopcv, 
though they might do it with almost as good reason as to 
adopt the plural here instead of the singular, — a form that 
was introduced under the false idea that it was more appropri- 
ate than the singular to use in connection with <^«x«» "poured 

iii. 13- 

The " many ancient authorities " that " omit which is in 
heaven " from the end of this verse are Ji^, B, L, T", 33, one 
manuscript of the Memphitic, the Ethiopic, and Cyril and 
Origen each once, simply because it did not serve their pur- 
pose to quote the words. The omission, for such it is, was 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

due to the apparent inconsistency of Jesus' being reported as 
speaking of himself as the Son of man " who is in heaven " 
when he was in Palestine. Of course, the words are thrown 
out of the text by Westcott and Hort ; but they are retained 
by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and other modern edi- 
tors. The evidence in support of their genuineness is simply 
overwhelming. They are found in A, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, 
V, r, A, A, n, all the cursives but one (though Codices 80 
and 88 change "in heaven" to " from heaven"), every copy 
of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, all four of the Syriac 
Versions, all but one manuscript of the Memphitic, and the 
Armenian Version. In addition to this, the words are attested 
as genuine by Hippolytus, Origen according to his Latin inter- 
preter very expressly, Dionysius of Alexandria, Didymus, Basil 
the Great, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Eustathius, 
Theodoret, Cyril, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other Greek 
Fathers, not to mention a long list of Latin Fathers. One thing 
is certain, that, while it is easy to account for the omission 
of these words, they probably would not have got into the 
text if they had not been genuine. 

111. 16. 

Rec. T. iris 6 irnTTtiiuv tls ovtov . . . Ix^d {(i)t|V al<&viov. — whoso- 
ever believeth in him should . . . have eternal life. 

Rev. T. irds 6 iritrTevftiv ^v avrcu iyj^ ^wt]v aluviov. — whosoever 
believeth may in him have eternal life. [Margin : " Or, belineth in him 
VI ay haver~\ 

The only Greek manuscripts in support of the Revisers' 
reading eV airw are B and T^ These are seconded, however, 
by three copies of the Old Latin, and seven manuscripts of 
the Vulgate. The common reading is attested by J^ (A has 
€7r' axiTov instead), E, F, G, H, K (L has l-n avria), M, S, U, 
V, r. A, A, n, all the cursives, five copies of the Old Latin 
Version, the printed Vulgate as well as several of its manu- 



script copies, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Lucifer, and 
others. The readings of A and L, which can only mean " on 
him," and therefore cannot be taken with t^n ^^ the Revisers 
in the text take " in him," are in support of the common 
reading, — " whosoever believeth on him." This form of words 
{Tvi(jTf.v(.iv CIS avTw) appears again in verses 18, 36, as well as 
in verse 16. In fact, it is the evangelist's invariable formula 
for expressing belief on or in Jesus ; so that the Revisers' 
marginal rendering "believeth in him," though a legitimate 
translation of their Greek, is the rendering of a form of words 
which John nowhere uses in expressing that thought. The 
revised reading is apparently an attempt on the part of some 
early critic to introduce variety, or possibly to bring the 
evangelist's language here into correspondence with chap, 
i. 4. The order of the words, however, is an unnatural one 
for expressing the thought. Compare xx. 31. The reading 
may safely be regarded a false one. 

ill. 17. 

Rec. T. Tov vtov avTov — his Son. 
Rev. T. TOV u!.6v — the Son. 

The omission of "his" here is the work of the same hand 
that omitted it in the preceding verse. There, however, the 
omission is supported only by J>^ first hand and B. Here it is 
favored by two additional uncials, L, T"", and five cursives. 
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort may be consistent in 
omitting ovtov from both verses, though in neither verse is 
tliere sufficient evidence or good reason for doing it. 

111. 31. 

A marginal note says that " some ancient authorities read 
he that comeih from heaven bcareth witness of what he hath 
seen and heard." In other words, ^ first hand, D, the four 



cursives, i, 22, 118, 473, six manuscripts of the Old Latin 
Version, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Armenian omit "is 
above all," together with the words " and " and " this " in the 
next verse. On this testimony, Tischendorf adopts the read- 
ing ; while Westcott and Hort place it in the margin as a 
secondary reading, which in their judgment may possibly be 
the true one. But it bears too palpable marks of being an 
attempted improvement of the evangelist's language, and is 
too feebly attested to deserve consideration. It -is plain 
enough that the words might have been omitted from a desire 
to avoid a seemingly unnecessary repetition. If they are not 
genuine, it is difficult to see any temptation for introducing 
them in this connection. 

iv. 9. 

The sentence " For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans " 
is noted as one which "some ancient authorities omit." But 
such marginal notes are uncalled for. The clause is omitted 
only by J^ first hand, D, and three copies of the Old Latin 
Version. It is true, Tischendorf regards it as a gloss, and 
omits it ; and Westcott and Hort seem to be in doubt, and 
enclose it in brackets. But it was evidently omitted lest igno- 
rant readers might consider it a part of the Samaritan woman's 
words to Jesus, instead of a parenthetical explanation thrown 
in by the evangelist. As he was not writing for Jews, he very 
naturally inserted the clause to account for the woman's remark, 
just as he inserted verse 8 to show why Jesus asked the woman 
for a drink. Its genuineness is abundantly attested by X ^s 
amended by the original scribe or his " proof-reader," A, B, C, 
E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, T^ U, V, r, A, A, H, all the cursives, 
five copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and all the other 
ancient versions. It is consequently retained by Lachmann, 
Tregelles, and modern editors generally. 



V. 3- 

Rec. T. irX<i8os iroXv — a great multitude. 
Rev. T. ir\f)6os — a multitude. 

The omission of " great " is according to J^, B, C, D, L, 33, 
68, five copies of the Old Latin, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, 
the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Ethiopic, and Chrys- 
ostom twice. But the word may have been early dropped on 
account of the apparent extravagance of speaking of the sick 
who occupied the five porches as " a great multitude." What- 
ever might have been done elsewhere, it seems altogether 
improbable that any one would ever have been tempted to 
insert the word here if not genuine. It is evidently used to 
denote a comparatively great number, a large number for the 
place, or in comparison with the number usually there. In 
this sense, it appears to be a part of the original text, and is 
attested as such by A, E, F, G, H, I, K, M, S, U, V, T, A, A, H, 
nearly all the cursives, three copies of the Old Latin, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Cyril of Alex- 
andria, and Chrysostom in two other places, — which fact not 
only neutralizes his testimony in favor of the omission, but 
really indicates that the evangelist wrote not merely "a multi- 
tude " but " a great multitude." 

V- 3, 4- 

Rec. T. €k8€xoh<v(i)v . . . voo-fj|iaTi. — waiting for the moving of the 
water. For an angel vv'ent down at a certain season into the pool, and 
troubled the water : whosoever then first after the troubling of the water 
stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 

Rev. T. omits; but the margin says that "many ancient authorities 
insert" these words, " wholly or in part." 

The entire passage, which consists of the last clause of verse 
3, and the whole of verse 4, is wanting in J^, B, C first hand, 
T57, 314, ^ of the old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, the Thebaic, 
and one manuscript of the Memphitic Version, — altogether, less 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



than ten documents. In addition to these, D, 3^, /, I of the 
Old Latin, a few manuscripts of the Vulgate, and several of 
the Armenian Version, unite in omitting the fourth verse, and 
only this ; while A first hand, L, 18, omit simply the last clause 
of the third verse, — "waiting for the moving of the waters." 
This clause, however, is supported by A second hand, C third 
hand, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, A, n (this last 
having asterisks attached, to denote omission by some), nearly 
all the cursives, eight manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Peshito, 
Philoxenian, and Jerusalem Syriac, one edition of the Mem- 
phitic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, as well as Chrysostom 
twice, Cyril, and Nonnus in his free paraphrastic way. The 
genuineness of verse 4 is quite as strongly attested by A, C 
third hand, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, S with asterisks, U, V, V, 
A, A with obeli hinting suspicion, 11 as before with asterisks, 
most of the cursives, some of them marked with asterisks, and 
some with obeli, six copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the 
Peshito, Jerusalem, and Philoxenian Syriac (though in the last 
the latter half of the verse is marked with obeli), Wilkins' 
Memphitic, the printed copies of the Armenian, Chrysostom 
and Ambrose each twice, Cyril, Tertullian, and Didymus, — 
with some verbal differences (most of which are easily 
accounted for) among the documents. This, however, is not 
an uncommon thing in some of the best attested passages, as 
Luke ix. 25, xvi. 27, and many others. In regard to the docu- 
mentary evidence, all that we can truly say is, that it is divided ; 
there is nothing really conclusive as to either reading. To 
decide the question, we need to look further, and consider the 

It is said by the advocates of the Revised Text that verse 4 
was inserted to explain the statement in verse 7 about the 
troubling of the water. If the account given in verse 4 was 
foisted into the text, as some suppose, whence was it derived ? 
who would have inserted it? It speaks for itself that it is the 
offspring of a Jewish mind. But Jews were not among the 


i ? 

transcribers and early emendators of the New-Testament writ- 
ings. Josephus records no such account. Neither he nor any 
other ancient author within our knowledge gives any intimation 
. that the Jews had any legend or story of the kind. Moreover, 
the words themselves forbid our viewing them as the record 
of a superstitious conceit, much less of a natural occurrence. 
Verse 4 is evidently designed to state a supernatural or miracu- 
lous event. The water was agitated by an angel. Whoever 
after that first stepped in was at once cured, whatever may 
have been his disease or trouble. Only one, and that the first 
one after the disturbance of the water, could be healed. No 
matter what his trouble was, he was invariably and instantly 
cured. It will not do to say that " the water was found at 
certain intervals to be impregnated with gases which gave it a 
strengthening property, and this was sufficient to attract many 
sufferers." To speak thus is to lose sight of the point alto- 
gether. The water not only possessed at times a property 
which attracted many sufferers, but was endued with power to 
cure every one who first availed himself of it after it had been 
imparted to the water, whatever his disease may have been. 
That property was not merely strengthening; it healed at 
once, and yet healed but one. As Dr. Bloomfield says, " the 
circumstances of the narration utterly exclude the notion of 
anything short of miraculous agency." There is no attempt at 
attributing the cures to natural causes. The efficacy of the 
pool, the time, and mode of its curing are considered and 
represented as results of divine agency. But the writer, instead 
of saying that God troubled the water, in perfect Jewish style 
says, " an angel troubled " it. Just so Matthew says (xxviii. 2), 
" An angel of the Lord rolled away the stone " from before the 
sepulchre; and Paul speaks of the law (Gal. iii. 19) as "or- 
dained through angels," and (Heb. ii. 2) as "the word spoken 
by angels." Angels were the agents by whom God wrought. 
And it is in that sense that the writer speaks here of an angel 
as troubling the water. It accords with the teaching of scrip- 




ture generally, to the effect that angels are the invisible instru- 
ments of good to men. So that this way of stating the fact, 
however different from the manner in which we would naturally 
express ourselves, is not to be wondered at, much less to be 
considered as essentially unscriptural and unworthy of accept- 
ance as a part of the evangelist's record. Again, on reading 
the narrative with this passage omitted, there may be no appar- 
ent break in going from the middle of verse 3 to verse 5, as in 
the text of the R. V. But, in reading on and coming to verse 
6, and finding that at least one of this multitude of invalids and 
sufferers had been there a long time, the reader naturally won- 
ders why this should be so. The next verse explains the mys- 
tery in part, though very enigmatically, it must be confessed : 
" 1 have no man, luhen the wafer is troubled, to put me into 
the pool ; but, while I am coming, another steppeth in before 
me." Yet, even here, the question naturally arises. What does 
this troubling of the water mean? and why does he speak of 
having himself put into the pool ? Now if the omitted passage 
were not genuine, here is just where a corrector or reviser of 
the text would naturally have inserted it, in order to explam 
the poor cripple's meaning. But we find no trace of anything 
of the kind in this connection among the manuscripts or other 
ancient documents. None but the original writer, in anticipa- 
tion of what he was about to say, would have inserted the pas- 
sage where it occurs. It certainly comes in very naturally, and 
presents no appearance of having been interpolated. Similar 
introductory remarks, designed to prepare the reader for some 
following statement or incident, not unfrequendy appear in this 
and the other Gospels. Thus, in Mark v. 24, we read that much 
people followed Jesus, "and thronged him," preparing the 
reader for the disciple's words, in verse 31, "Thou seest the 
multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou. Who touched me? 
Compare Luke v;ii. ^., 45- So, too, in Luke ii. 26, the statement 
that it was revealed to Simeon that he should not die till he 
had seen the Lord's Anointed," is given in order to prepare 



the reader for the words in verse 29, " Now lettest thou thy 
servant depart in peace, according to thy word." Other in- 
stances appear in John ii. i, "And the mother of Jesus was 
there," — a remark introduced to prepare the way for verse 3 ; 
vi. 2, " And a great multitude followed him," preparing the 
reader for the statement in verse 5, "And seeing that a great 
multitude was coming to him " ; vi. 23, " But other boats came 
from Tiberias," — designed to prepare the way for the state- 
ment made in verse 24, "they also took shipping"; ix. 14, 
" And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay," in 
anticipation of the record of the Pharisees' words, verse 16, 
" This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath 
day." Also xi. 18, in view of the fact mentioned in verse 19, 
and perhaps those given in verses 45, 46, 47. (3'he only real 
reason why any consider the passage before us as spurious is 
that it is wanting in less than ten documents, while its presence 
in the rest of the documents, consisting of several hundred 
from all parts of Christendom, is thought to be due to a desire 
to explain verse 7.J But this is an untenable position. Besides, 
the phraseology of verse 4 shows that that verse was penned 
after verse 3, — and penned because the last clause of verse 3 
called for explanation ; for verse 4 explains, not why so many 
impotent persons were lying round the pool, but why they were 
waiting for the moving of the water. This being the case, the 
testimony of A first hand, L, and 18, against the last clause 
of verse 3 amounts to nothing. The fact of their attesting the 
genuineness of verse 4 is of itself a virtual attestation of the 
genuineness of the clause which gave rise to this verse, but which 
they have omitted. And the chief verbal alterations found in 
this verse among these manuscripts are due to their omission 
of that clause. VNow, if these three manuscripts misrepresent 
the text here, as they obviously do, why may not the eight or 
nine documents which omit verse 4 as well as this clause do 
the same ? And, if these give a false text by omitting this 
clause, it is by no means impossible or even improbable that 



they err, and misrepresent the evangehst by omitting verse 4 
also. In fact, the internal evidence, to say the. least, lis very 
strongly against them. With all our natural repugnance^o this 
passage, and our first impressions in favor of its omission, and 
our readiness to find good grounds for rejecting it from the 

narrative, we cannot persuade ourselves that it is spurious-V;^^ ;' , (^ 


V. 44. 

The "ancient authorities" referred to in the marginal note 
as omitting the word " God," and reading " The glory that is 
from the only, ye seek not," are the one Greek manuscript B, 
two copies of the Old Latin, one edition of the Memphitic, 
some manuscripts of the Armenian, and Origen in one place. 
Its omission is easily accounted for. In the exemplar from 
which the Vatican or some closely related manuscript was 
taken, the three words /nofou ©toij ov read MONOY0YOY with 
the stenographic symbol or horizontal stroke above the letters 

' The writer has seen somewhere an attempt to explain this passage 
as follows : The evangelist's word " an angel " is taken to denote a mes- 
senger from the temple, — one of the Levites. At the time of oflFcring the 
daily sacrifices, that is, every morning and evening, he went down into the 
pool, into which the blood of the beasts slain for the sacrifices was sup- 
posed to have run, and stirred the water so as to make it sure that all the 
blood and other impurities had run out of the pool, and not settled there 
to defile the place. After that, whoever first stepped into the water was 
healed, no matter what his trouble was; the healing being considered the 
result of his faith in the efficacy of the blood of the slaughtered animals. — 
This attempt at explanation is a pure conjecture; and its absurdity is ap- 
parent. The evangelist says that " a great multitude " of impotent folk 
lay there, waiting for the moving of the water. But this could hardly be 
if the pool was disturbed twice a day, enabling more than 700 persons to 
be cured every year. Yet here was a man who had been there " a long 
time," probably for years, and had been unable to be cured. If the angel 
had gone down "daily " into the pool, the evangelist would probably have 
said so, instead of saying " at a certain season." Besides, where was the 
efficacy of the blood after it had all run out of the pool? And how could 
any one have faith in it to cure him, when it was not there? 



probaWy very fa.nt, or obliterated, or altogether omitted; and 
the bemg mistaken for an 0, 0Y, /... ©.ov, was dropped as 
superfluous Ihe omission, if found in almost any other manu- 
scnpt, would not be considered worth noticing. No modem 
ed,tor of the Greek New Testament omits the' word; nor d" 

wLr'at^Horr^^^^ '^ ^^'^^ '^ ^ ^-^-^' "cept 

vi. 14. 
"Some ancient authorities read signs r says the marginal 
note. Only two Greek manuscripts (B, and the fragment 0« of 
the stxth century). . of the Old Latin, and the Memphitic and 
Armeman Versions here read " the signs " or miracles instead 
of the s,gn or miracle which Jesus did. The singular, of 
course, refers to the act of feeding the multitude from five 
loaves and two fishes, and still having twelve baskets of frag- 
ments left. But the plural seems to have been introduced 

IZITI '' 'T ;'' '"'■^" "' ■"'^'"^■"g ^°g^'her with this 
•ruracle those that Jesus had previously wrought, -so repre- 
sent,ng the remark recorded immediately after as made nof in 
view of or m consequence of this miracle only, but in view of 
h,s m.rac es generally up to this time. The context, however 
forbids the .dea that such was the evangelist's meaning and' 
consequently that he expressed himself in the plural here.'' The 
plural, however, being found in B, is introduced into the text 
by Westcott and Hort. Hence the Revisers' marginal note 

vi. 47. 

J:^-^^:::^^ ''' '^'' ^-^^ '-''^-^ - «« "^^^ ^^neveth «„ 

edltV^''7 '"f""^ '" '"^P°"'^ ^y ^*' ^' L. T, and Zohrab's 
edition and a few manuscripts of the Armenian Version; the 
former, by A, C, D, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, r. A, A, n, the 


whole body of the cursives, the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, 
Uscan's Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Gothic, Cyril of Alexandria, 
and Hilary. The Curetonian Syriac, in its own peculiar way 
translates the evangelist's words, " He that believeth on God" 
etc. The shorter reading seems to be an early clipping down 
of the text that found a somewhat wider acceptance than the 
same omission in chap. iv. 39, which is perpetuated in the 
cursive 5 70, a and e of the Old Latin, and Origen once ; or 
than that in chap. xi. 45, the only extant support for which is 
C second hand. The omission of the phrase " on him " here 
is altogether unlike John, and is not favored by the context. 
The verse, in fact, is a repetition, in the form of a solemn 
asseveration, of what Jesus had already said in verse 40. Hav- 
ing answered the murmurings of the Jews referred to in verses 
41, 42, he returns in this verse to the subject he had already 
introduced ; and there is no apparent reason why he should 
have omitted the important words "on me," or why the evan- 
gelist should have recorded him as having omitted them, con- 
trary to the all but overwhelming attestation of the various 
witnesses capable of being appealed to. Indeed, the emphatic 
€yu>, " I," with which the next verse begins — " I am the bread 
of life " — implies a reference to and confirmation of the 
declaration " He that believeth on me hath eternal life." The 
omission of these words certainly has a suspicious appearance, 
and is too feebly vouched for to be accepted as genuine. 
Among modern editors, besides the Revisers, Tischendorf and 
Westcott and Hort are the only ones, as far as we are aware, 
that really consider the words spurious. 

vi. 51. 

Rec. T. 6 dpTos 8e ov l^u> 8«<r<i» t| trotp^ (lou to-rlv, ifv t^w Suo-u iirlp 
TTis To5 Ko'cr^iov i<i>fjs. — the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will 
give for the life of the world. 

Rev. T. 6 apTos 8c ov k-fui %mtu> t| <rdp| |iov to-rCv, iirtp rfjs toO 
KoV|i.o\i \ay\%. — yea, the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of 
the world. 



The two oldest extant Greek manuscripts are by no means 
agreed in the readings of this verse. In the Sinaitic manu- 
script, the second clause reads, " If any one eat of my bread, 
he shall live for ever." In this reading, S is joined by a and 'e 
of the Old Latin Version, and by Eusebius, Cyprian, and Hilary. 
Notwithstanding the feeble attestation in support of this reading, 
Tischendorf adopts it as the true one, though he is constrained 
to say that the common reading, "this bread," is the more 
suitable. In the Vatican manuscript, this clause reads as in the 
Received Text. The clause before us, the Sinaitic manuscript 
gives thus, — "The bread which I shall give for the life of the 
world is my flesh." The Vatican manuscript, however, gives it 
as it appears in the Revised Text. Now it is very certain that 
at least one of these manuscripts has given us a false text, even 
if it is one of the oldest known manuscripts of the Greek Testa- 
ment ; for both of these readings cannot be genuine. And, if 
one of them must be more or less false, it is not impossible that 
both may be. The order in which the words of this clause 
appear in X is evidently due to a desire to give to the phrase 
" for the life of the world " the place which seemed to belong 
to It after omitting the words "which I shall give." In B, 
these last words are simply omitted as superfluous, because they 
occur just before. There can be but little question on this 
point, though the reading is also attested by C, D, L, T, three 
cursives, five copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the' Cure- 
tonian Syriac, the Thebaic, the Ethiopic, Origen twice, Athan- 
asius, Cyril, and Cyprian. The common reading, "Yea, and 
the bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the 
life of the world," is every way like John; while the loosely- 
jointed form in which the words are given in the R. V. is un- 
natural and altogether unlike him. The former is evidently 
tiie source of the other two readings, and as such must be 
regarded as the true reading. If that of the Sinaitic manuscript 
were the original reading, nd other would ever have been pro- 
posed. If that of the Vatican manuscript were the reading 



given by the evangelist, we may be assured that the common 
reading would never have appeared, but that the reading of the 
Sinaitic Codex would have been more widely adopted and pre- 
served. It is simply because the common reading is the true 
reading that it has come down to us. Codex A is defective 
here ; but this reading is well attested as genuine by E, G, H, 
K, M, S, U, V, r. A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, two copies 
of the Old Latin, the Memphitic, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and 
Jerusalem Syriac, the Gothic, the Armenian, and by Clement 
of Alexandria, Origen twice, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, 
and Theodoret at least seven times. 

VI. 71. 

Rec. T. Tiv'Io<i8av Stpidivos 'I<rKapii»TT|v. — Judas Iscariot, the son 
of Simon. 

Rev. T. t6v 'lovSav S(|jiuvos 'I<rKapii»ro«. — Judas the son of Simon 

The difference between the two texts is simply in the appli- 
cation of the term " Iscariot," which is generally regarded as 
meaning a man of Carioth or from Kerioth. The question 
is, to which of the two persons, — to the father or to the 
son, — was the name really applied by the evangelist. Before 
proceeding to consider the testimony of the manuscripts, we 
desire to notice one or two other points. The first is that in 
all the other Gospels the name is applied to the son, and to 
him only, the father's name not being given in any of them. 
In Luke xxii. 3, the son is spoken of as " Judas, who was called 
(or, as some manuscripts read, was sumamed) Iscariot." Three 
of the evangelists are thus agreed in applying the name to Ju- 
das. How is it with the fourth? In John xii. 4, all the wit- 
nesses are united in applying the name to Judas, — some calling 
him simply " Judas Iscariot " ; others, " Simon's [son] Judas 
Iscariot " ; and still others, "Judas Simon Iscariot " ; while the 



Codex Bezae (D) calls him "Judas from Carioth." Again, in 
xiv. 22, Judas, the brother of James, is, in nearly all the manu- 
scripts, spoken of as "not Iscariot," which implies that there 
was another Judas among them who was surnamed Iscariot. 
D reads "Judas not from Carioth," which amounts to the same 
tiling. In Miinter's fragments of the Thebaic Version, "Judas 
not Iscariot" reads "Judas the Canaanite," while the Curetonian 
Syriac, in its own peculiar style, calls him "Judas Thomas." 
But this, while displaying one of the singularities of these old 
versions, in no way impairs the otherwise unanimous testimony 
in regard to the implied application in this connection of the 
name " Iscariot " to Judas the betrayer of Christ. In xiii. 2, 
nearly all the ancient documents apply the name to Judas, — 
some calling him "Judas Iscariot, Simon's son"; others, 
"Judas Simon Iscariot"; and two or three others, "Judas 
from Carioth." Only L, M, g of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, 
and the Armenian Version apply " Iscariot " to the father 
here. Origen in the manuscripts of his writings speaks only of 
" Judas Iscariot the son of Simon," though in his printed works 
he is twice made to speak otherwise. In three of the five 
passages in which the name is employed by John, the docu- 
mentary testimony may therefore be considered as nearly 
unanimous in applying the surname " Iscariot " to Judas, and 
not to his father. In xiii. 26, the Received Text reads "to 
Judas Iscariot [son] of Simon," which is the reading of A, E, 
G, H, K, S, U, V, r. A, A, n first hand, most of the cursives, 
eight manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Clementine Vulgate, 
the Memphitic, the Gothic, the Armenian, Origen in six different 
places, and Cyril ; while D has " from Carioth," leaving it 
doubtful whether the phrase should be applied to the father or 
to the son. Two or three cursives, four copies of the Old 
Latin and two of the Vulgate read " to Judas Simon Iscariot." 
The Revisers' Text in that verse has " to Judas [son] of Simon 
Iscariot," which is the reading of Ji^, B, C, P, L, M, X, 11 second 
hand, six cursives, one manuscript of the Old Latin, and four 



of the Vulgate. In the verse before us, the received reading is 
that of E, F, H, K, M, S, U, V, T, A, A, n first hand, nearly 
all the cursives, the printed Vulgate, the Gothic, and Cyril. 
(A is defective here.) D and several Old Latin manuscripts 
read "Judas Scarioth [son] of Simon," or "Judas Simon 
Iscariot." The Sinaitic Codex first hand, the lost uncial repre- 
sented by Ferrar's group, and the margin of the Philoxenian 
Syriac have " from Carioth," which may be applied to either 
father or son. The Revisers' Text is supported by Ji^'s earlier 
seventh-century emendator, B, C, G, L, 11 second hand (though 
the other reading is afterward restored), one cursive, five or 
six manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the 
Armenian, and possibly the Curetonian Syriac, and the two 
Egyptian versions. In both of these instances, the external 
evidence being divided, we are left to the internal evidence to 
aid us in deciding what the true reading is. And since " Is- 
cariot " appears in each of the other Gospels as the surname of 
Judas, and is accepted as such in three other places in this 
Gospel, it is but reasonable to conclude that, in the remaining 
two passages in which the documentary evidence is nearly 
evenly divided, the evangelist applied the name, not to the 
father, but as elsewhere, to the son. There is really no appar- 
ent reason why he should have applied it to the father in these 
two places, when he clearly applies it to Judas in all the 
others. The difference in readings between the two forms 
"Judas Iscariot, son of Simon" and "Judas, son of Simon 
Iscariot " is a difference of only two letters in the Greek ; and, 
when we consider the position of the words, the Revisers' 
reading is easily accounted for. In the original, in documents 
in which the word "Simon" appears, that word generally 
stands between "Judas" and the surname "Iscariot." But, 
as already seen, some manuscripts read "Judas Simon Iscariot " ; 
that is, the word " Simon," instead of being in the genitive, is 
put in the same case with " Iscariot," and in apposition with 
"Judas." Thus, in xii. 4, F, G, H, U, some cursives, two or 



three copies of the Old Latin, and Wilkins' Memphitic read 
"Judas Simon Iscariot," and in xiii. 26, Codices 13, loi, 346, 
four copies of the Old Latin and two of the Vulgate read 
"Judas Simon Iscariot." That is, "Simon" is conformed in 
case to " Iscariot." These, however, are discarded on all hands 
as fiilse readings. In other instances, " Iscariot " is put in ap- 
position with " Simon," which immediately precedes it, and is 
therefore conformed in case to it. Hence " Iscariot," in some 
manuscripts, api)ears divorced from "Judas," and is not unnat- 
urally, yet improperly, made a surname of Simon instead ; as 
in L, M, one copy of the Old I^atin, and the Armenian, — read- 
ing "Judas (son of) Simon Iscariot," in xiii. 2 ; also in Ji^, B, 
C, P, L, and other documents, as already shown, in xiii. 26 ; 
and in Ji^ as amended by its earlier seventh century corrector, 
B, C, etc., in the verse before us. This reading, the Revisers 
and some modern editors have adopted in these last two places, 
but not in xiii. 2, though it is the same erroneous reading in all 
three of them, only that in two of them it was somewhat more 
widely adopted among the manuscripts than in the third. The 
fact that three or four of the oldest extant manuscripts together 
with a few other documents contain this reading, instead of 
being any evidence of its genuineness, is simply an evidence 
that the documents in which a reading so transparently false is 
found are not altogether above suspicion, and that even their 
combined testimony is not to be implicitly received. 

vii. 8. 

The second clause of this verse reads, " I go not up yet unto 
this feast." A marginal note says, " Many ancient authorities 
omit jr/"/ and the American Revisers adopt this reading, — 
" I go not up to this feast." It is vouched for by Ji^, D, K, M, 
n, 17 second hand, 389, 570, six copies of the Old Latin, the 
Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Curetonian Syriac, the Armenian, 
the Ethiopic, Porphyry, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alex- 



andria, and Jerome ; while that of the text, " not yet," is at- 
tested by B, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, U, V, X, r. A, A, nearly all 
the cursives, three copies of the Old Latin, some manuscripts 
of the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Thebaic, the Peshito, Philoxenian, 
and Jerusalem Syriac Versions, and Basil. (A and C are de- 
fective.) Documentary testimony as well as intrinsic probability 
here preponderates in favor of the accepted reading ; for it is 
incredible that Jesus said " I am not going up to this feast," 
and yet, immediately after, went up. At the same time, there 
is no probability that any transcriber intentionally or knowingly 
changed " not yet " to " not." The probability from this point 
of view is wholly the other way. So that many able critics 
consider " not " to be really the evangelist's word, and " not 
yet " to have been introduced in its place in order to reconcile 
the utterance of Jesus with recorded facts. It will not do to 
say, with some, that the difference in meaning, caused by the 
omission of " yet," is immaterial ; that the verb is in the pres- 
ent, and that therefore Jesus really means " I go not up at 
present," leaving it uncertain whether or not he intended to go 
up later. Such a meaning cannot, by any fair interpretation of 
the words, be given to them if Jesus really said " I go not up 
to this feast." This is an absolute disclaiming of any intention 
to be present at that feast ; the negative applies not to the idea 
of time, but to that of going as connected with this particular 
feast. In the phrase " not yet," however, the negative refers 
directly to the time expressed by the enclitic, and not to the 
meaning of the verb except through " yet." The supposition 
that Jesus said " I go not up to this feast," with some such un- 
expressed, underlying thought as "with you," or "publicly," or 
" as the Messiah," or " for the purpose for which you would have 
me go," is utterly inadmissible. It is not like Christ. Nor can we 
conclude that he was bidden by the Spirit to go sooner than he 
expected, and for this reason went, though he had said he was 
not going. Such a view is inconsistent with his manifestly con- 
stant fulness of the Spirit and possession of divine prescience. 



Nor can the supposition be admitted that Jesus, for some other 
reason, or in any respect, changed his mind. We have no 
evidence that he changed his intention on any other occasion, 
not even during his interview with the Syrophenician woman, 
nor as he drew near to Emmaus on the evening after his resur- 
rection. Nor can we take his words in the sense of " I am 
not going up to observe this feast, but for another purpose." 
This would misplace the negation [" I am going up not to 
observe " etc.], and render unmeaning the words that follow. 
Besides, the idea of observance does not lie in the words " unto 
the feast," either in this or any other place. These are all mere 
shifts to find a good meaning in a false reading occurring in 
documents which some seem disposed to consider as incapable 
of uniting in a false reading, especially if that reading is a hard 
one. — The Saviour, no doubt, said just what he meant when 
he declared : " I am not yet going up to this feast " ; and the 
entire connection is in accord with this declaration. His 
brethren evidently comprehended his meaning. They expressed 
no surprise whatever in seeing him at the feast, which would 
hardly have been the case had he said he was not going thither. 
— Now, as Dr. Hort very truly says," "all conflicts between ir>- 
trinsic and transcriptional probability arise from the imperfection 
of our knowledge." If we knew the real character of many of 
the transcribers of the old manuscripts of the New Testament, 
and realized their unfitness for the task they were engaged in, 
we might have less confidence in the result of their labors, and 
the testimony of their manuscripts. Let us see what are our 
leading witnesses in favor of "not." (i) The Sinaitic Codex, 
which gives evidences from beginning to end of having been 
carelessly written, " the whole manuscript being disfigured by 
corrections " ; and (2) the Codex Bezae, which has confessedly 
a " singularly corrupt text," and is in many respects a very un- 
trustworthy witness. To give the reader some idea of how little 

^ Introduction, p. 26. 



we can rely on this as a genuine reading because of its being 
found in these manuscripts, we note in passing that only two 
verses previous to this (in verse 6), the scribe of the Sinaitic 
Codex gives as the true reading, " My time is not come," instead 
of " not yet " come, — the very mistake he makes in this verse. 
In Rev. xvii. 1 2, he gives ovtij>, " thus," instead of ovto), " not 
yet." In John viii. 5 7, D changes ovirm to oiStVo), though with- 
out changing the meaning. In John xi. 30, it changes oviru) to 
ov, just as in the passage before us, — making the record read, 
"Jesus was nof (instead of not yet) come into the village." 
Now, as these changes were effected in other places, why should 
not ouTTU) be changed to ovk here 1 We do not say the change 
was intentionally made ; but we have no doubt that it was made. 
With such copyists as the transcribers of some of the old manu- 
scripts, it would be no difficult thing to write ovk instead of 
ouTTU) while the influence of the preceding negatives still lingered 
upon the mind, or to mistake OYTT", standing at the end of 
a line, for OYK, overlooking the omega written in a diminutive 
and possibly obscure form after the TT, as it was often written. 
In some such way as this, it is by no means improbable that 
" not " crept into the text ; and the sentence that immediately 
follows rather favors this reading : " And having spoken thus to 
them, he remained in Galilee " ; i.e. he did not go up to the 
feast with them. The error having crept in, and that too in a 
very early manuscript, it would of course be almost necessarily 
transmitted in subsequent copies, and be more or less widely 
circulated. — An additional consideration that seems to call for 
" not yet " as the genuine reading is the statement that follows : 
" For my time is not yet come," i.e. not for going up to Jeru- 
salem, but for going up " to this feast," as his brethren obvi- 
ously understood it. It is true, they had been urging him to go 
up to Jerusalem to show himself openly before his disciples, 
and let his claims be known. To that, he had already replied 
in verse 6 : "My time [for doing this] is not yet come." A 
moment or two after, he says to them, " Go ye up to the feast; 



I am not yet going to this feast, for my time [for going] is 
not yet fully come." " Ye " and " I " are emphatic, — the two 
clauses being in strong contrast, indicating that the statement 
was made to satisfy his brethren tiiat, while their time for going 
to the feast had come, his had not. Omit " yet," and Jesus is 
made to say that he is not going at all to that feast. Outto) 
therefore is obviously needed to express his meaning. When 
this is taken in connection with what has already been presented, 
it seems impossible to do otherwise than to reject the simple 
"not" as a fiilse reading. And so Lachmann has done, as well 
as Westcott and Hort, who stand by the Received Text in this 
instance, we ])resume because of their partiality for B, especially 
as it is supported by L, rather than for other reasons, though 
they improperly place " not " in the margin, just as the Canter- 
bury Revisers do. 

vii. 42. 

Rcc. T, o Xpio-Tos €px«Tai ; — Christ cometh. 
Rev. T. cp)(CTai 6 Xpicrro's ; — the Christ cometh. 

The order of the words in the Greek has no effect on the 
meaning or the rendering. The Received Text, which presents 
the words in the same order in which they occur in the end of 
the preceding verse as vouched for by all Greek manuscripts, 
gives the words in the order in which they appear in Ji^, D, E, 
G, H, K, M, S, U, X, r, A, A, n, nearly every cursive, five 
copies of the Old Latin, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the 
Gothic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and Origen. The Revisers' 
Text follows the arrangement of B, L, T, 33, c of the Old Latin, 
the Vulgate, the Jerusalem Syriac, and Cyril. The Peshito 
Syriac, the Clementine Vulgate, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, 
and two copies of tlie Old Latin, both here and at the close of 
the preceding verse, have the words in the order in which they 
stand in the Revisers' Text, — " cometh the Christ." No argu- 
ment therefore can be drawn from them as to the true order, 



which in verse 41 is certainly the reverse of this ; for, as the 
words are transposed there in these versions, they are likely to 
be transposed here also. But, as Tischendorf says, the arrange- 
ment of B, L, T, etc., " seems to be a transposition made with 
a view to separate the words Aa;3t8 and 6 XpicrTo?," so that no 
one should be in danger of reading the passage, " For he 
cometh of the seed of David, from Bethlehem, the village where 
David the Anointed was." In confirmation of this, we find 
that, while D and the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions retain 
the arrangement o XpioTos Ipytrai, they place the words in 
other parts of the verse, that is, away from Aa^CS, while the 
Old Latin Version e omits o Xpurroi, and follows " David " 
immediately with the verb " he cometh." The revised arrange- 
ment is a transparent alteration of the evangelist's words. 

yii. 46. 

Rec. T. OiStVoTf oCtus cXoXtio-cv av6puiros is outos 4 avOpuiros. — • 
Never man spake like this man. 

Rev. T. 048«iroT€ tXoXiio-fv ovrus avflp«iros. — Never man so spake. 

The position given to ovtos, " so," in the Revised Text may 
be correct. But the propriety of omitting as spurious the words 
" like this man," is questionable. Tischendorf not only adopts 
these words, but inserts XoAti, "speaks," after ovroi. The 
revised reading is found in ^ as amended early in the seventh 
century, B, L, T, 225, 229 first hand, one manuscript of the 
Vulgate, the Memphitic Version, Origen, and Cyril of Alexan- 
dria. The common reading is given by ^ first hand, D (omit- 
ting o av6p(tyiroi at the end of the clause), E, G, H, K, M, S, U, 
X, r. A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, most manuscripts of the 
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and Jerusalem 
Syriac Versions, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Gothic, Chrys- 
ostom, and Theodoret. (A is still defective.) One would 
hardly have been tempted to add the words, " like this man," 
for they are wholly unnecessary ; but they might very naturally 



have been, and apparently were, omitted as redundant. Hence, 
probably the shorter and less generally adopted reading. 

vn. 53 — viii. II. 

If the genuineness of this paragraph respecting the woman 
taken in adultery is to be decided by an appeal to documentary 
evidence, it cannot be maintained. That evidence, as it now 
stands, is clearly against the passage as a part of John's Gospel. 
Of all the Greek manuscripts that have come down to us from 
a date prior to the eighth century, the only one that contains 
the passage is D, which is noted " for its numberless and strange 
deviations from other authorities," especially for its " many 
bold and extensive interpolations." ' The only ancient versions 
that contain the passage are the Old Latin manuscripts 6 first 
hand, c, e, ff^, g,j, the margin of /, and the Vulgate and Ethiopic 
Versions, to which may be added the later Slavonic, Anglo- 
Saxon, Persic, and Arabic Versions, which were obtained mainly 
or wholly through the Latin. Of the Greek Fathers, Euthymius, 
of the twelfth century, is the first to notice the passage as a part 
of John's Gospel. The " Apostolic Constitutions," of the third 
or fourth century, alludes to the story of a woman accused 
before the Lord of many sins ; so does Eusebius, following 
Papias ; but he did not consider it as a part of Scripture. Be- 
sides, the copies that contain the paragraph vary among them- 
selves in their readings more than in any other part of the New 
Testament. All of which circumstances naturally lead one to 
conclude that the passage is not a proper part of the fourth 
Gospel. And yet, as Scrivener says, "while it is absent from 
too many excellent copies not to have been wanting in some of 
the very earliest, the arguments in its favor, internal even more 
than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely be brought 
to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings of one, 

1 Scrivener, Introduction, p. 126. 



who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly the 
adding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he was 
commissioned to bear." * And one of the foremost of American 
New Testament scholars has well said, " Uniting the internal 
with the external difficulties, the numerous varieties of reading 
(always suspicious) and the absence of the passage from so 
many manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, the case is strong 
against it — only, however, against its genuineness here. That 
it is, if not Johannean, at least apostolic, and describes a real 
and most remarkable incident in the life of our Lord, cannot be 
well doubted ; there is none in the record of our Saviour's life 
that is more completely lifted above any conception which be- 
longed to the men of his time, and more completely beyond 
the probability of fabrication. In the Lord's answer to his 
accusers, by his ready escaping from the snares laid for him, 
and that subde appeal to their consciences, which, by placing 
the lustful feeling on a virtual equality with the outward act (as 
Matt. V. 28 ff.), dissolved the accusation and dispersed the 
accusers ; and in his subsequent treatment of the woman, his 
separating his mission, on the one hand, from human civil tri- 
bunals, and his assertion of his divine relation as not here to 
condemn and punish, but to pity and save, it proves itself 
worthy of a place — however it got there — in the heart of the 
most spiritual of the Gospels." ' And Dean Burgon, in refer- 
ence to this passage, says, " I am convinced that the first occasion 
of the omission of those memorable verses was the lectionary 
practice of the primitive Church, which, on Whitsunday, read 
from S. John vii. 37 to viii. 12, leaving out the twelve verses in 
question. Those verses, from the nature of the contents, as 
Augustine declares, easily came to be viewed with dislike or 
suspicion. The passage, however, is as old as the second cen- 
tury, for it is found in certain copies of the Old Latin. More- 

' Introduction, p. 610. 

2 A. C. Kendrick, D.D., Amer. Ed. of Mtytr's Gospel of John, pp. 294,. 




over, Jerome deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate." ' 
This seems to be a very reasonable view, if not the real expla- 
nation, of the omission of the passage and of the various readings 
found in connection with it. We should be slow to have the 
passage stricken from the Bible. 

viiL 38. 

Rec. T. '£'Y<'> ° iupaxa irapcl tu ITarpC |i.ov, XaXu ■ Kal vfuis ouv, o 
{inpaKarc irapd Tio iroTpl vfiuv, iroitiTC. — I speak that which I have seen 
with my I-'ather : and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 

Rev. T. a c-yu IwpaKa irapd tu irarpC, XaXw * Kal vficis ovv a rtKovorarc 
irapd ToC irarpo's, iroicir*. — I spealc the tilings which I have seen with 
my Father : and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father. 

The common reading, in retaining " my," is supported by Ji^, 
D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, r. A, A, the entire body of the 
cursives, eight copies of the Old I^tin, the Clementine Vulgate, 
and some copies of Jerome's, the Peshito and Philoxenian 
Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, Chrysostom, and Tertullian ; in retaining "your," it 
follows J<, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, X, T, A, A, nearly 
every cursive, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Phi- 
loxenian Syriac Versions, and all the other witnesses that read 
" my Father." The Revisers' Reading, omitting fLov, is attested 
by B, C, L, T, X, two manuscripts of the Old Latin, and seven 
of the Vulgate, the Roman Ethiopic, Origen, and Cyril of 
Alexandria ; and in omitting v\imv, by B, L, T, 13, the Roman 
Ethiopic, Origen (who in both instances seeks to defend the 
omission), and Cyril of Alexandria. But there is an evident 
contrast between tQ narpi and the following t<2 irarpi, or tov 
rrarpo? of the Revised Text ; and with this contrast existing, it 
is impossible that the Revisers' Text should present the true 
reading. Such a reading, in such a connection, moreover, for- 
bids such a rendering as is given in the R. V. ; though either 

' 7V;^ Las/ Ticclve Verses of Mark, p. 219. 



of these clauses standing by itself, uncontrasted with the other, 
might allow the Greek article to be represented in English by 
an unemphatic " my " or " your." But, as they stand, in con- 
nection with each other, and without the genitives (fiov and 
vfjLtov), the only proper rendering becomes that given in the 
margin, which makes "the Father" refer in both instances to 
God : " I speak the things which I have seen with the Father ; 
do ye also therefore the things which ye heard from the 
Father " ; or, the words might be rendered, " Of what I have 
seen with the Father, I speak ; so, too, what ye have heard 
from the Father, ye do." But either of these — the only legit- 
imate renderings of the Revisers' Text — is so unsatisfactory, 
so palpably inexpressive of Jesus' thought, that it condemns the 
text itself. The Jews evidently perceived that Jesus did not 
refer to God in what he said concerning him whose teachings 
they were said or enjoined to follow. They saw, too, that he 
referred to some other father than Abraham. Hence their 
reply. But this was owing to the Saviour's using the emphatic 
pronoun " your " in connection with " father," and in contrast 
with " my Father." The Revisers' rendering, while doubtless 
giving the Saviour's meaning, is not a legitimate translation of 
the Greek text which they have adopted. In omitting fiov and 
v/xiv, that text is plainly at fault. 

viii. 39. 

Rec. T. Et tc'kvo tov 'Appad|i rJTt, t4 Jp^o toO 'APpadfi 4irowiT€ av. 

— If ye were Abraham's chikiren, ye would do the works of Abraham. 
Rev. T. El TtKva tov 'APpadfi i<m, Ttt ipya toO 'AppaoLfi. ciroiciTC. 

— If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 

To this rendering, against the word "were" the Revisers 
affix the marginal note, "Gr. are"; that is, " If ye are Abraham's 
children " etc. — The received reading rJTc is attested by C, E, 
F, G, H, K, M, S, U, X, r. A, A, n, every cursive except one 
lectionary, seven copies of the Old Latin Version, the Peshito 



Syriac, Origen three times (in each instance followed by the 
imperfect, tiroitiTt), Eusebius three times, Epiphanius, Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Didymus, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary, and 
other Latin Fathers. (A is defective here.) The Revisers' 
reading tore (which they found it necessary to abandon when 
they came to translate) is supported by X> B; D, L, T, one 
lectionary, ^^ of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Origen ten times, 
it being followed in each instance by the imperative -irouiTe (he 
having, without doubt, taken both these forms from a different 
manuscript from that from which he quoted the common reading 
in the three passages above referred to), and Augustine. As 
for the second verb, most of the witnesses give the imperfect, 
some with and some without ai'. Codex B first hand, and, as 
just seen, ff^, the Vulgate, Origen, and Augustine give the verb 
in the present imperative. Now, it is this imperative form 
that points to the origin of the reading eWc, which is supported 
by every witnessing document that has the imperative instead 
of the imperfect. In some early copy, the augment of the verb~ 
seems to have been carelessly dropped, and the av (which 
would naturally accompany ivoulrf, just as it accompanies 
riyanaTc, " ye would love," in verse 42), became lost or absorbed 
in the following vvv, leaving irotuTt in place of i-n-oiuTc av. The 
manuscript that contained this reading, falling into the hands 
of some one else, was afterwards "corrected " by changing ijrt 
to ia-Tt, — giving the plausible reading, "If ye ar^ Abraham's 
children, (fo the works of Abraham." But the copyists of Ji^, 
I), L, and T, as well as an early corrector of B, or some of their 
predecessors, finding that the imperative of the second verb 
was unwarranted, replaced the imperfect i-rroiiiTe, but retained 
{(jTi. Hence the Revisers' reading. The reading of the 
Received Text is placed beyond a doubt as to its genuineness 
by verse 42. There, precisely the same structure occurs as 
here ; and it is fully attested as genuine. And, inasmuch as the 
proper grammatical structure is strictly adhered to there, we 
hazard nothing in saying that it is a moral impossibility for the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

writer of verse 42 to have put words together as they appear in 
the Revisers' Text in the verse before us. Such composition is 
due only to others. If John were given to writing like this, the 
case would be different. But when he uniformly constructs 
his conditional sentences correctly, it becomes his critics to 
recognize this fact, and not to seek to fasten on him the errors 
of his copyists or others. — It may be added in passing, that 
the Revisers' Text, in Luke xvii. 6, presents a similar case of 
false reading, where the revised reading t^^". "ye have," is 
simply an early attempt at improving the Saviour's statement, 
or possibly a transcriptional error for «x"*» "y^ had." In 
either case, it is a false reading. 

vni. 44. 

There can be but little if any doubt on the part of competent 
witnesses that the common reading ov;^ eo-Ti^Ktv, " standeth not," 
which is followed by the American Committee, is the true read- 
ing here. The English Revisers, however, have transferred this 
to the margin, and substituted instead the reading adopted by 
Westcott and Hort, ovk turriKtv, "stood not." This last is 
apparently the reading of J^, B first hand, D, L, X, A, A second 
hand, and six cursives ; while the former, which is adopted by 
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf (though he very inconsis- 
tently reads ovk laTrjKev), and other modern editors, is that of 
B third hand, C, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, T, A first hand, H, 
and nearly all the cursives, — A being defective. 'Eo-TT/Kti/ is 
supposed to be the imperfect of (TTrjKtiv, " to stand." But this 
verb is nowhere found in the imperfect in classic Greek, or in 
the Septuagint ; nor, apart from this passage, even in the New 
Testament ; while ea-TrjKiv appears everywhere. The latter is 
perfectly adapted to the context, it being in fact more in keep- 
ing with Christ's representation of Satan as the father of the 
truth-hating Jews to say that " he standeth not in the truth," 
i.e. his permanent attitude is against it, his character is that of 



a liar, than to say that "he stood not in the truth," as if refer- 
ring to some past act of his. The fact that so many ancient 
manuscripts unite in writing ovk, as if the next word began with 
a smooth breathing, is no evidence in itself against the perfect 
(arrjKtv, " Standeth." It only shows the carelessness or the 
false mode of pronunciation of certain scribes. Any one at all 
familiar with the old manuscripts need not be told that ovk 
occasionally appears where oi;^ properly belongs ; as, ovk evptaKov 
(Mark xiv. 55), in B first hand, L, A ; ovk evpov (Luke xxiv. 3), 
and OVK inapxii- (Acts iii. 6) in Ji^, C ; ovk on (John vii. 22) in 
B first hand-; and ovk hiKtv (2 Cor. vii. 12) in Ji^, C, D, E, 17, 
etc. On the other hand, ovx sometimes usurps the place of 
OVK ; as, ov;^, I80V (Acts ii. 7) in J^, D, E, 61 ; ov;^ oXiyos (Acts 
xii. 18) in Ji^, A, and (xvii. 4) in B first hand, and (xix. 23) in 
^, A, D ; and even ov;^ 'lovSatKuls (Gal. ii. 14) in ^ first hand, 
A, C, P, 17, 37 ; while X ^s amended by its earlier seventh- 
century corrector, B, D first hand, and a few cursives have ovx' 
for OVK here, — apparently intended as a correction of ov^, as if 
the final iota had been overlooked or absorbed in the next 
word. If any one is disposed to think that the evangelist him- 
self may have pronounced to-rrjKcv with the smooth breathing, 
and consequently actually wrote ovk instead of ov^, he ought 
perhaps, in self-consistency, to conclude that John meant to 
say, in iii. 36, ov^ oij/trai, because D, A, A, so represent him ; 
in vi. 42, oi'XL 0VT09, because B, T give this as his language ; in 
vii. 22, OVK on, because the copyist of B represents him as 
having so written instead of ov^ on ; in x. 28, ov prj apirao^rj, 
because Ji^, D, L, X, 71, 157, and a few other cursives read thus 
instead of ov^ dpirda-u ; in xvi. 7, ov pr] IKOtj (as Westcott and 
Hort do), because B, L, and Chrysostom give us these as his 
words instead of ovk iXtv<TiTa.i ; or in xix. 6, ovk tipta-Km, because 
L, A say so.' 

1 Those who desire a more complete examination of this passage are re- 
ferred to the exhaustive essay of the late Prof. Ezra Abbot, to be found in 
his Critical Essays (pp. 286-293), published by Geo. H. Ellis, Boston, 



ix. 4. 

Rec. T. 'E(i« 8ci {p^aJccrBai tA Ip^a toO Tr^|ix|/ovT<5s |i€ — I must work 
the works of him that sent me. 

Rev. T. f,(ias 8<t ip-)fa);fcr6ai tA tp^a toO x^p.i|/avTos )u — We must 
work the works of him that sent me. 

This is one of the worst of the spurious readings introduced 
into the Revisers' Text. It is attested only by B, D, and the 
Thebaic and Jerusalem Syriac Versions, — D, however, reading 
Su ij/iSs etc., instead of rnxai Stt etc. It is, of course, adopted 
by Westcott and Ilort, and is given as a primary reading by 
Tregelles. J^ first hand, L, the Memphitic, Roman Ethiopic, 
and Erpenius' Arabic Versions, and Cyril of Alexandria read, 
" We must work the works of him that sent us." This, Tis- 
chendorf thinks, could not have originated with a corrector of 
the text ; hence he adopts it. And yet it is plainly a modifi- 
cation and attempted improvement of the other, — the apparent 
incongruity between " we " and " me " having naturally led to 
the change. The received reading, which is adhered to by 
Lachmann, Alford, and others, is attested by Ji^'s contemporary 
corrector or " proof-reader," A, C, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, X, 
r. A, A, n, the entire body of the cursives, the Old Latin 
Version, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Gothic, the Armenian, and Piatt's Ethiopic. That this is the 
original reading seems clear. Jesus had just met a blind man, 
to whom all was as night ; and who, by his blindness, was dis- 
qualified for working. Yet no one was to blame for his condition. 
If viewed aright, his blindness was of God, in order that in his 
restoration to sight there might be a display of divine power. 
The announcement of this fact naturally draws the attention of 
the disciples to Jesus as about to make such a display. But, 
before making it, he goes on to say, "I" — with special em- 
phasis upon the word, contrasting himself thereby with the Jews 
who were before him, and who were commanded not to work 
on that day, — "I must work the works of him that sent me 



while it is day," — while the opportunity for working is pre- 
sented, though it be the Sabbath. " The night " — the time of 
darkness, when the eyes must be closed in death to all earthly 
things — " Cometh, when w<? one can work"; not only the 
blind, but all will be disabled from farther work. It is this refer- 
ence to men in general, considered as a reason, though it is not 
formally stated as a reason, for the Saviour's making the pre- 
ceding remark, that led some early reader of this Gospel, who 
failed to see the propriety of Jesus' saying that he, any more 
than others, should work while it was day, to change " I " to 
"we," — making the Saviour say, "We [/>. we all, mankind in 
general] ought to work the works of him that sent me [/.<?. f>/ 
Go(i'\ while it is day, [for] the night is coming, when 710 one 
can work." It is converted into a general admonition against 
being " weary in well doing," or sleeping away one's privileges 
and opportunities. It was by no means necessary to change 
" him that sent me " to "him that sent us." For the emenda- 
tor's purpose, there was no fitness, no propriety in the latter 
wording, while the expression " him that sent me " was altogether 
suitable, it being Jesus' well-known form of speech for " God." 
The change to " us," adopted by Tischendorf, was obviously 
effected by a later hand. — Compare B's reading in xvii. 12, 
oTc 'ifjicv fxiT avTuiv etc. " While we were with them, I kept 
them " etc. 

Lx. 6. 

Rec. T. €ir€Xpi<rev riv iniViv tirl toxps o<{>BaX(iois ToB •n)(})Xoi!, — he 

anointed the eyes of the bUnd man with the clay. 

Rev. T. €ir«'xpi<rev avTOv tov injXov eirl Tois o<}>8aX|ious, — he 

anointed his eyes with the clay. 

Neither this rendering of the Revisers, nor that given in the 
margin — "and with the clay thereof (he) anointed his eyes" — 
can be pronounced a correct rendering of the Revised Text. 
The expression, " the clay thereof," is an unmeaning phrase, 
— one that can be invested with sense only by inserting some 



such word as " made," which cannot be done without reading 
€^ aiiTou. Neither can avrov be referred to the bUnd man, so 
as to be translated with 6<f)6aXfj.ov'i " his eyes." Its position 
forbids this. The only legitimate rendering that this text 
admits is "He spread his clay upon the (his) eyes." The 
Jerusalem Syriac Version has it correctly, "He overlaid the 
eyes of the blind man with /its moistened earth," or clay. 
" His," i.e. the mortar which he (Jesus) had made ; not " its," 
or the mortar of the spittle. The only witnesses to this reading 
as a whole are J^, L, i, 33. Codex B differs from them by 
having iwtOrjKtv, " placed," instead of iirixpivtv, " smeared " or 
" spread." A, C second hand, four or five other cursives, and 
Cyril of Alexandria, like the foregoing documents, read avrov ; 
but, unlike them, these as well as C first hand, E, F, G, H, K, 
M, S, U, X, r. A, A, n, the rest of the cursives, a number of 
versions, including the Syriac, Chrysostom, and Ammonius of 
Alexandria also add toD rv<^\oZ, " of the blind man," as the 
Received Text does. And this Lachmann accepts as the orig- 
inal reading. It is confirmed by D, which in its peculiar way 
reads avT<^ for avrov, and avroti in place of tov Tv<t>Xov. The 
Old Latin Version and the Vulgate also testify, by somewhat 

similar readings, to eTrt'xpicrtl' a-irov tov irrjXov inl Tovi oc^^aX/ious 

ToZ Tv<i>\ov as the true text, — " He spread his moistened clay 
upon the eyes of the blind man." But avrov, being misunder- 
stood or considered superfluous, was after\vards dropped in 
some copies, while it led to the omission of tou tv<^Xou m a few 
in which the pronoun itself was retained. 

X. 18. 

The " ancient authorities," here referred to in the margin, 
that read, " No one took it {i.e. my life) away " in place of " No 
one taheth it away," are only i< first hand, and B. The reading 
is an impossible one, resulting from carelessness in copying, the 
proper vowels having been mistaken for others, — an itacism of 



not infrequent occurrence. Buttmann' speaks favorably of the 
reading ; but it is certainly no gnomic or iterative aorist, as he 
seems to consider it. Westcott and Hort, of course, adopt the 
reading ; but it is indefensible. 

The margin here notes the fact that some ancient documents 
read " ^/ that time was the feast " etc., instead of " And the 
feast was." Those documents are B, L, 2,2>i ^"^d the Thebaic 
and Armenian Versions ; while the Memphitic Version and one 
manuscript of the Latin Vulgate combine both readings, and 
say, " And at that time was " etc. On the other hand, nine or 
ten cursives, two copies of the Old Latin, and Chrysostom omit 
both, and begin the verse without any connective. The read- 
ing, " at that time," is a transparent gloss, designed to give 
definiteness to the statement. If it had been the original read- 
ing, the other would hardly have crept in, much less become 
so generally prevalent. 

X. 22. 

Rec. T. Kal x«'|iu>' tJv • — and it was winter. 
Rev. T. xci)iuv tJv • — it was winter. 

The conjunction of the Received Text may have been ab- 
sorbed in the first syllable of the next word, from some early 
copyist's misunderstanding what was dictated to him ; or it may 
have been omitted by the same hand that changed Sc to rore in 
the beginning of the verse, to give greater point and terseness to 
the passage : " At that time occurred the feast of the dedication 
at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the 
temple in Solomon's porch." This, however, is not in accord- 
ance with John's running style : " Now the feast of the dedica- 
tion was in progress at Jerusalem, and it was winter " ; — the 

> Grammar of N. T. Crtik, American edition, pp. 202, 203. 

5Q THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

latter clause being incidentally thrown in for the information of 
non-Jewish Christian readers. Otherwise the writer would have 
gone directly on, and said, "was in progress at Jerusalem ; and 
Jesus was walking " etc. The conjunction is wanting in S. B, 
D G, L, X, n, four cursives, one manuscript of the Old Latm, 
the Ethi'opi'c, and the two Egyptian Versions ; while it appears 
in A, E, F, K, M, S, U, T, A, A, nearly all the cursives as well 
as manuscripts of the Old Latin (<^ omits the whole clause), 
the Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and Jerusalem Synac, 
the Gothic, the Armenian, and in Chrysostom. 

z. 29. 

"That which my Father hath given unto me is greater than 
all" appears in the margin here as the reading of some ancient 
documents in place of " My Father who hath given them to me 
is greater than all." In other words, some ancient documents 
read o', ^uo^, and ft.T^ov, majus, where most documents read 
S, ^ui, and ;a«^o,v, major, in the sentence o ^ari/,p ,xov 09,Kj 
uL .avra,v ^a<iv i<rrc. The only Greek manuscript that reads 
5 uu^ov is the Vatican Codex as penned by its ongina 

scribe His contemporary " proof-reader," however, changed 
the 5 to o,, but left the other word unchanged, as the uncials 
A and X also read. The Sinaitic Codex and L, on the other 
hand, read S, but have ^.T^ov. All this shows that the tran- 
scribers of these manuscripts were at a loss about the text, and 
left it in obvious error; for neither S . . . /^"^-^ ^<^ri nor os 
aa6. ecrrt is grammatical Greek or reasonably trans- 
laiable. The Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphit.c the 
Gothic Version, and the Latin Fathers generally adopt the 
reading of B, - " ,r^o^ -ihi dedit majus est." But the Greek 
Fathers eive no countenance to this reading. Cynl ot Alex- 
andria, in opposition to Tertullian's reading of d.e passage 
quotes the common text as presenting John's words, fischen 
dorf says, it is incredible that any one who had found o. and 



jiei^iDv in the text should have deliberately changed them into 
o and ijul^ov. We presume no one really supposes that the 
change was deliberately made. It shows for itself that it was 
not. The early readings Z% . . . fjLu^ov and o . . . liu^uiv de- 
clare plainly that the former crept in through the very common 
mistake of writing an o for an u in /j-il^wv, or else that the latter 
arose from the unconscious introduction of 6 as the article, but 
without any breathing, in place of os through the influence of 
the preceding 6 still lingering on the copyist's mind. Either 
one of these blunders having been committed, a subsequent 
scribe detecting the inconsistency of coupling a neuter with a 
masculine word, and not perceiving in which the error lay, com- 
pleted it by making both words neuter, instead of correcting it 
by changing the neuter back to the masculine. This is all there 
is of it ; and the Vatican Codex is one of the places where just 
such errors appear. From the fact that B's " proof-reader " or 
reviser changed the o to os and left /Jiu^ov uncorrected, the 
probability is that in B's exemplar the error was in the latter, 
not in the former, — the reviser in making his correction simply 
"following copy." 

X. 39. 

Rec. T. 'EJ^TOvv oilv irdXiv avTov iriourai • — Therefore they sought 
again to take him. 

Rev. T. itfyrovv iroXiv avr&v iriourai ■ — They sought again to take 

Ovv is wanting in B, E, G, H, M, S, U, T, A, about forty 
cursives, the Mempliitic, Armenian, and Gothic Versions. D, 
the Peshito, and Jerusalem Syriac, and Ethiopic Versions read 
" A>id they sought " etc. But X. A, K, L, X, A, 11, most of 
the cursives, every manuscript but one of the Old Latin, the 
Vulgate, the Thebaic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and Chrysostom 
attest ovv as the true reading. And this is one of the places 
where John, who employs the word so freely, would naturally, 
if not of necessity, use it. It was evidendy dropped out 



inadvertently because of its following ltJ\row, — the copyist not 
observing that the letters OYN needed to be repeated. After 
its omission from some manuscripts, koI was introduced, as in 
D, etc., under the conviction that some connective was neces- 
sary, and that that was the proper one. 

xi. 44. 

Rec. T. Kal «|tj\6(v h T€flviiK<is, — And he that was dead came forth. 
Rev. T. €|f|X6€v 6 tcSvtjkws, — He that was dead came forth. 

This omission of the conjunction is found in B, C first hand, 
L, one lectionary, one version (the Thebaic), and Origen once. 
The fact that Origen omits it is of but little weight. The 
want of connection between sentences embodying thoughts so 
closely united as these is not in favor of the omission. It 
misrepresents the evangelist's well-known style. Having re- 
corded Christ's cry, " Lazarus, come forth ! " he would natu- 
rally follow this up with saying, " And he that had been dead 
came forth." And so we must believe he actually did write, 
unless we reject the testimony of X> A, C third hand, D, E, 
G, H, K, M, S, U, X, r, A, A, n, nearly every cursive, the 
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, 
the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic. It is true that 
D,/of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and Andreas of Crete insert 
ti^u's, or €v6i(o<:, " immediately," in connection with Kal; but this 
does not in the least reflect upon the genuineness of the con- 
junction. The omission belongs to the same class of readings 
as iKpaiiv (in C) and tVpau'ao-ti/ (in L) for iKpavyacnv, in the 
preceding verse, — false. 

xi. 45- 

Rec. T. 9€o<ra(«voi a €iro£ii<rtv, — had seen the things which he did. 
Rev. T. Oeao-aiwvoi o €iroCT|<r£v, — beheld that which he did. 

The plural a is set aside for the singular o, with the marginal 
note that " many ancient authorities read the things which he 



did." This " many " must be a misprint for " most " ; for the 
"ancient authorities " referred to are J<, A first hand, E, G, H, 
K, L, M, S, U, X, r, A, A, n, nearly all the cursives (three of 
them reading Jo-a instead of a), every copy but one of the Old 
Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Armenian, Origen at least 
six times, and Andreas of Crete. The singular, which appears 
in the Revised Text, is the reading of only A second hand, B, C, 
D, three cursives, e of the Old Latin, the Thebaic, Gothic, and 
Ethiopic Versions, — C second or third hand adding (rrnxuov, 
making the words read, " the miracle which." It is clearly a 
change from the plural to the singular suggested by the one act 
to which special reference is made. Had this been the original 
reading, it could hardly have been intentionally changed, much 
less become so general. The same change to the singular wag 
attempted in the next verse, where it appears in C, D, M, two 
or three cursives, two copies of the Old Latin, the Memphitic, 
Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions. But the evangelist evidently 
wrote the same in both verses. 

xi. 53- 

Rec. T. <ruvePovX€i5(ravTo — they took counsel together. 
Rev. T. c'PovXcvcravTO — they took counsel. 

In support of the latter reading, we have the testimony of J^, 
B, D, the lost uncial represented by 13, 69, 124, and 346, Origen 
in one passage, Athanasius, and Chrysostom ; in support of the 
former, that of A, E, G, H, I, K, L, M, S, U, X, T, A, A, H, 
all the cursives except Ferrar's group, Origen twice, the Paschal 
Chronicle, and Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril says explicitly that 
John " does not say that from that hour ihey consulted ipovXix.- 
cravTo to commit the murder, but that t/iey consulted together 
<Tvv(.l3ov\(v(TavTo ; that is, what seemed best to each individually 
was determined upon by all conjointly." While the weight of 
" authority " favors the common reading, it is noteworthy that 
this, and not the simple word, is the one used in the other 
instances (Matt. xxvi. 4, John xviii. 14), in which the chief 


THE. revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

priests, scribes, and elders are spoken of as conspiring against 
Christ's life ; and it is but natural that the evangelist should 
have used the same word to express the thought here. The 
circumstances seem to call for the compound form : they de- 
liberated one with another, they " counselled together," in order 
to effect their purpose. 

xi. 54. 
Rec. T. KaKcI Si^rpi^c — and there continued. 
Rev. T. KOLKCi <) — and there he tarried. 

There seems to be no special difference between the mean- 
ings of these verbs. The latter is used by John about forty 
times, but the former only once elsewhere (iii. 22), — a cir- 
cumstance which rather indicates its genuineness here, the 
other word looking as if it had been substituted instead, on 
account of John's known use of it elsewhere, as in i. 38, 39, 
ii. 12, iv. 40, X. 10, and xi. 6. The common reading, which is 
that adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and others, is attested 
by A, D, E, G, H, I, K, M, S, U, X, r. A, A, n, nearly all the 
cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian, 
and Jerusalem Syriac Versions, and the Paschal Chronicle. 
The revised reading, which is preferred by Tregelles, and 
adopted by Westcott and Hort, is that of X> B, L, 249, the 
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, and Origen three times. 
Indeed, the reading may have originated with Origen through 
his familiarity with John's vocabulary. However this may be, 
it was a current reading in his day. 

xu. 7. 

Rec. T. 'A<}>es oiTtjv • tls tt|V T|)i^pav toC {vTa(j>iair(i.oG (lou TtT^puKev 
airo. — Let her alone; against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 

Rev. T. 'A<}>«S auTijv tva tls tt)v T)(i^pav tov ivTo4>i,ao-(ioO |iov T-r\fi\Kr^ 
airo. — Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying. 

The received reading is supported by A, E, F, G, H, I, M, 
S, U, r, A, A, most of the cursives, one copy of the Old Latin, 



the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and the Gothic. The re- 
vised is attested by J^, B, D, K, L, Q, II, 33, 42, 145, 157, most 
manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the two Egyptian 
Versions, the Jerusalem Syriac, the margin of the Philoxenian 
Syriac, the Armenian and the Ethiopic. But the reading is 
demonstrably false, — having originated in a desire to attach a 
clearer and more natural meaning to Christ's words than they 
seemed to have. Jesus spoke of his burial in anticipation,, 
speaking as if he was about to be, or was on the point of being, 
buried. And this he could do without violence to his words, 
inasmuch as he was laid away in the grave only four or five 
days afterwards. But some early reader of this Gospel, unable 
to see how Jesus could be anointed so long beforehand for his 
burial and while he was still alive and at a feast, considered 
the words irrelevant if not entirely out of place. To remove the 
supposed difficulty, he inserted Iva., "that," and changed the 
form of the verb correspondingly, from the perfect indicative 
to the aorist subjunctive, — making Jesus say, "Let her alone 
that she may preserve it " etc. This, of course, implies that 
the remark was made before the anointing was effected. It 
means, " Instead of asking or wishing her to sell the ointment, 
and to use the money for the poor, let her alone that she may 
keep it for the day of my burial, and use it then." But Judas's 
objection, to which the words of Jesus were a reply, was not 
made until after the woman had used the ointment. His 
words were not, " Why may (or should) not this ointment be 
sold?" but "Why itjas it not sold?" i.e. instead of being used 
as it has been. " The rendering. Suffer her to keep it against 
the day of my Initying, seems to have little pertinence against 
the murmuring of fhe thievish disciple (which was not directed 
against any supposed future use of the money, but only against 
its present alleged waste) ; nor [is it] very intelligible in itself, 
as that part of it which had been used could not be so pre- 
served \i.e. on the assumption, and it is a mere assumption, 
that only a part of the ointment had been used], and of a 



remaining portion of it the text says nothing."' The alterna- 
tive rendering found in the margin, " Let her alone : it was 
that she might keep it against the day of my burial," is simply 
an attempt to make the best of a false reading, — an attempt 
for which there is no warrant elsewhere in the New Testament. 
Tliat is to say, though Iva appears in the New Testament more 
than 650 times, nowhere else can a clause introduced by it be 
found that is dependent on a verb which is neither expressed 
nor necessarily implied in the context, as this marginal render- 
ing supposes this clause to be, — unless it is in some such 
connection as we find it in 2 Cor. ix. 4, " we {that we say not 
ye)." In Mark v. 23, the supplied words, "I pray thee," are 
fiirly implied in the immediately preceding TrapaKaXil, " be- 
seecheth." And in Mark xiv. 49, and two or three other similarly 
constructed passages, the words " it is," or " ye did it not," or 
something similar that might be inserted in a literal rendering, 
as, " But this is that the Scriptures might be fulfilled," are 
clearly demanded not merely by the preceding statement, but 
by oAAd, " but," which implies an unexpressed clause. Here, 
however, there is no such demand. The inserted words, " it 
was," are intended to refer to the course the woman had pur- 
sued, and are equivalent to saying, " She did not sell it, and 
give the proceeds to the poor, — she used it as she has, — in 
order that she might keep it against the day of my burial " ; 
which introduces in connection with the evangelist's words an 
idea that not only is uncalled for by them, but cannot be 
coherently construed with them. The only consistent, self- 
evidently genuine reading here is that of the Received Text, — ■ 
" Let her alone ; for the day of my burial hath she kept this." 
— Because the reading Iva . . . r-qpricrri is found in the two oldest 
extant Greek manuscripts, it does not of necessity follow that 
it must be genuine. We know that these two documents are 

1 A. C. Kcndrick, D.D., in Meyer's Commentary on the Gospel of John, 
American edition, p. 383. 



united again and again, and united with other documents, too, 
in presenting false readings. The mere fact that J^ and B were 
transcribed fifty years, more or less, earlier than A is in itself 
no proof whatever that they contain an earlier and necessarily 
purer text than the latter. There is reason in all things ; in 
judging of textual readings, as well as in other things. A read- 
ing which presents palpable internal evidence of being spurious 
or depraved it will not do blindly to accept as genuine because 
it is found in a certain class of manuscripts, when it is opposed 
in a number of other documents of equally respectable char- 
acter by a reading which reasonably appears to be genuine; 
and even forces itself upon our convictions as such. 

xii. 23. 

Rec. T. air<KpCvaTo — answered. 
Rev. T. airOKpCvcrai — answereth. 

The latter reading is attested by Ji^, B, L, X, 33 ; the former 
by A, D, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, T, A, A, 11, nearly every cursive, 
the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and Jeru- 
salem Syriac, the Egyptian Versions, the Armenian, the Gothic, 
and the Ethiopic. That there should be a difference in read- 
ing here among the Greek manuscripts is not strange, especially 
as the two words in uncials might be easily mistaken by a care- 
less scribe one for the other. But that every one of the ancient 
versions, some of which were made long before our oldest known 
Greek manuscripts were written, should give this verb in a past 
tense if the present is the true reading, is hardly credible. 

x\\. 25. 

Rec. T. a-iroX€<r€i avTT]v • — shall lose it. 
Rev. T. airoWvei aiTT]v • — loseth it. 

It is hardly safe to trust to X. R, L, 33. and ff^ of the Old Latin 
Version as giving us the original text here, when all the other 



documents, including not only Greek manuscripts, but versions, 
and the Fathers as far as we have their testimony, declare in 
favor of the other reading. When it comes to the translating 
of a tense which there is no special reason for changing to 
another tense in translating, and we invariably find that tense 
rendered by a future in the languages into which it is translated, 
the unavoidable and just conclusion is that the tense in the 
originals from which those versions were made must have been 
a future. The present, " loseth it," of the Revised Text, found 
in only four Greek manuscripts, is clearly the result of ignorance 
or inattention on the part of some early scribe, under the influ- 
ence of the preceding present, " He that loveth his life." The 
same alteration was evidently wrought, in some one or more 
lost manuscripts, on the word ^vkaiu, "shall keep," in the 
latter part of the verse ; for several copies of the Old Latin, 
tlie Vulgate, Nonnus, and even Origen there have the present, 
(f>v\dcra€i, custodit, " keepeth," though it is not known to exist 
in any extant Greek manuscript of the New Testament. The 
true reading here, beyond question, is airoXicrfi, " shall lose," 
which the Revisers have rejected. It is attested by A, D, E, 
G, H, K, M, S, U, X, r. A, A, 11, every cursive but one, every 
copy but one of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, and all the 
other ancient versions, as well as some of the Fathers, Greek 
and Latin. If we needed any farther proof of the genuineness 
of this reading, we might find it in the parallel passages, in 
which Christ is invariably reported as having employed the 
future, " shall keep." It is so even in Matt. x. 39, where it is 
preceded as here by a present, — "He that findeth." Critics 
who, in instances like this, pronounce a reading spurious on 
account of its identity or similarity with a parallel reading, 
adopt mere conjecture, not argument, in proof of their position. 
The existence of the future here in all the versions cannot be 
accounted for by saying that it was introduced from the parallel 
passages. Christ's words may be expected to be given by all 
his reporters in language more or less identical. 



zui. 18. 

Rec. T. '0 rpiiyav (itT enoO tAv aprov — He that eateth bread with me. 
Rev. T. 'O TpuY<Dv (iou t6v aprov — He that eateth my bread. 

The Revisers seem to have strained a point in their margin 
, in translating the common reading, " He that eateth his bread 
with me." If this had been the meaning of the evangelist, he 
would probably have inserted airov, " his," after aprov, just as 
he inserted it after Trrepvav immediately following, in order to 
express "his heel." The literal rendering of the Greek is, "He 
that eateth //le /c7(z/ with me " ; i.e. as the A. V. has it, " He that 
eateth bread witli me," or is a table-companion, a familiar friend 
of mine. But let that pass. The common reading, which is 
followed by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and others, is attested by 
}^, A, 1), E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, T, A, A, n, nearly all the 
cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, tlie Peshito and Philoxenian 
Syriac, tlie Memphitic, the Gothic, and the Armenian Version, 
Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom twice, Cyril of Alexandria in giv- 
ing the text, and Theodoret. The reading of the Revisers is 
that of B, C, L, three cursives, one manuscript of the Vulgate, 
the Ethiopic Version, Origen three times, Eusebius, and Cyril 
in commenting on the verse. It is an evident attempt at con- 
forming the evangelist's words to those of the Septuagint in Psa. 
xl. 10 (xli. 9), 6 ia-Oiwv upTovi pov. The other is unquestionably 
the genuine reading. 

Rec. T. 'Ep\.€irov ouv tts oXXtiXovs oi )ia6T|Ta(, — Then the disciples 
looked one on another. 

Ivev. T. cpXeirov cts oXXijXous 01 \t.a.6i\Tal, — The disciples looked one 
on another. 

Ovv is wanting in ^ as changed by its earher seventh-century 
emeudator, B, C, three cursives of the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries, e of the Old Latin, and the Armenian Version. 
Origen, in one place, inserts 8i instead ; but, two pages further 
on, he quotes the verse without St or ovv. Quoting it, however, 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

as he does, it is but natural that he should omit the conjunction, 
which was not at all necessary to his purpose, but rather in his 
way. This passage is one of those in which John, whose use 
of connectives is one of the striking features of his style, and 
who employed ow more freely and frequently than any other 
New-Testament writer, would most naturally have used it. It 
is, in fact, improbable that he could have written the verse 
without it. The word may easily have dropped out, in tran- 
scribing, on account of its resemblance to the preceding syllable. 
Its presence is well attested by ^ first hand. A, D, E, F, G, H, 
K, L, M, S, U, X, r. A, A, II, most of the cursives, all but two 
manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the 
Gothic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and Cyril. A few cursives and 
versions, like Origen in one instance, insert Se instead. 

xiil. 23. 

Rec. T. 'Hv Sc dvaKcCfUvos — Now there was leaning. 
Rev. T. ijv dvaKcCfuvos — There was at the table reclining. 

The conjunction is wanting in B, C first hand, L, four cur- 
sives of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, the 
Philoxenian Syriac Version, and Origen twice. It is found in 
K, A, C second hand, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, X, T, A, A, n, 
the rest of the cursives, most copies of the Old Latin (a few 
of them and the Vulgate having "therefore"), the Peshito 
Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, the Armenian, 
and Cyril. Its use is perfectly Johannean ; and most editors 
consider it genuine. 

xiii. 24. 

Rcc. T. irv6<<r6ai rts av tit] irepl ov \(y«.. — that he should ask who 
it should be of whom he spake. 

Rev. T. Kal kiyti avri^, Etiri t£s «erTi irtpl ov XtYtt. — and saith unto 
him, Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh. 

In support of the common reading, we have A, D, E, F, G, 
H, K, M, S, U, r. A, A, n, most of the cursives, <r of the Old 



Latin, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the 
Armenian, and Cyril of Alexandria. The revised reading is 
that of B, C, I, L, X, 33, most manuscripts of the Old Latin, 
the Vulgate and Ethiopic Versions. Origen also has this read- 
ing in two or more places. There are a number of variations, 
however, among the documents. The Sinaitic Codex com' 
bines the two readings, adding the revised after giving the 
received. The Vulgate and several manuscripts of the Old 
Latin, instead of " and saif/i unto him," have " and sai'ei unto 
him." Two Old Latin versions and Origen omit " unto him." 
Five copies of the Old Latin have "Ask (him)" instead of 
"Tell (us)" ; while another of tliese Old Latin manuscripts as 
well as tlie Vulgate and Origen omit both "Ask" and "Tell." 
Another copy of the Old Latin and the Ethiopic Version omit 
" who it is." In a word, the revised reading is attended with 
so many variations that it is fairly suspicious. But this is not 
all. It might be asked, If Peter s/>o/;e to John, why should he 
also have beckoned to him, as if John was too far away for 
him to say to him what he wanted to say? We are neither 
told nor allowed to infer that he beckoned to him simply to 
gain his attention. If, from the distance at which he must 
have been from John to make it necessary to beckon to him, 
he spoke loud enough for John to hear him, why should he 
not have addressed his inquiry directly to Jesus, who of course 
must have heard whatever he might have said to John, inas- 
much as the latter was leaning on Jesus' breast. And again, 
what propriety was there in Peter's saying io John, "Tell us 
who it is " etc. ? for Peter cannot be supposed to have thought 
that John knew whom Jesus meant any more than himself. 
The revised reading, however, which is evidently an attempt to 
enliven the discourse by introducing the form of direct address, 
seems to have originated in the idea of some early reader that 
Peter supposed that the Saviour must have told John who 
it was to whom he referred ; whereas the very circumstances 
mentioned — the sad and troubled state of Jesus' mind, and 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

the doubting, questioning look of the disciples themselves — 
show that there was nothing of this kind. There is no reason 
whatever for supposing that John had received any confiden- 
tial disclosure of the secret. The idea that Peter could have 
entertained any such thought is wholly foreign to the conditions 
of the narrative. The very fact of Peter's "beckoning" to 
John is enough to show that he intimated by a gesture what he 
was not willing to express in words, — namely, his desire that 
John, because of his nearness to Jesus, would ask him who it 
was. If Peter were represented, as some of the Old Latin 
versions represent him, as having said to John, " Ask him who 
it is," there might be some show of propriety in it. But this is 
not the reading. On the whole, the revised reading, with its 
more or less conflicting witnesses and its obvious points of 
questionableness, has every appearance of being a fabrication. 
On the other hand, the common reading, sustained by the 
generally concurrent testimony of its witnesses (only D, as 
might be expected of this manuscript, reading "who //lis one 
might be," and the Memphitic Version, otherwise concurring 
with th^ others, omitting "who it might be "), commends itself 
as presenting every reasonable indication of genuineness. Com- 
pare note on Mark x. 49. 

xiii. 32. 

Rec. T. El 6 Oc&s ISo^do-Si] 4v avru, 
Rev. T. Omits. 

-If God be glorified in him. 

This clause is found in J^ as corrected by its earlier seventh- 
century emendator, A, C as changed by its sixth-century 
reviser, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, F, A, A, most of the cursives, 
four copies of the Old Latin, most manuscripts of the Vulgate, 
the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac, the Memphitic, Munter's 
Thebaic, the Gothic, the Armenian, and the printed Ethiopic. 
Origen gives it twice, Cyril and Nonnus each once, and Hilary 
four times. It is wanting in Ji^ first hand, B, C first hand, D, 



I,, X, II, twelve or more cursives, several copies of the Old 
Latin and of the Vulgate, in the Philoxenian Syriac, some 
manuscripts of the Ethiopic, and in Ambrose. But the clause 
would not have found its way into the text, if it were not 
genuine. It may have been dropped as superfluous ; but it is 
more probable that it was unconsciously omitted by some 
copyist on account of its likeness to the preceding clause, the 
copyist supposing that he had transcribed it, when he had 
given only what preceded. 

zni. 32. 

Rec. T. So^cLcrd avriv Iv {auriJ, — shall glorify him in himself. 
Rev. T. So^Acrci auTov Iv airu, — shall glorify him in himself. 

Though the Revisers set aside the common reading in the 
Greek, it will be observed that they find it necessary to follow 
it in translating. In support of the received reading, we have 
J^ as corrected by its earlier seventh-century reviser, A, C, D, 
E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, X, P, A, II, nearly all the cursives, 
most copies of the Old Latin, tlie Vulgate, and other versions, 
Chrysostom, Cyril, and Tertullian. The revised is supported 
by X first hand, and again as changed by its later seventh- 
century emendator, B, H, A, a few cursives, and Origen twice. 
But it must be borne in mind that the old manuscripts, in 
which the breathings and accents are generally omitted, often 
give oMTov as their spelling of kaxnov. Thus in John ii. 24, J^ 
first hand, A first hand, B, L, give avrov (Westcott and Hort, 
avTov) for eauToV ; in viii. 22, D first hand, F, A, a few cursives, 
and Origen read avrov for tauroV ; in xx. 10, X fii'st hand, B, L, 
have avTovs (Westcott and Hort, auTou's) instead of taurov? ; 
and so in many other places. But it cannot be supposed that 
these forms are intended always to denote the simple personal 
pronoun of the third person. In many cases, they are plainly 
used as the syncopated form of the reflexive, as Westcott and 
Hort present this form here, — aJra). 



XIV. 4. 

Rec. T. Kal 8iro« iyi) vira7« ot8oT«, KaV tt]v 686v otSare. — And 

whither I go ye know, anil the way ye know. 

Rev. T. Kal oirou i-yoi v-ird-yu otSarc ti)v oWv. — And whither I go, ye 
know the way. 

The latter reading is that of Ji^, B, C first hand, L, Q, X, a 
few cursives, a of the Old Latin, the Memphitic, the Ethiopia, 
and the Persic of Walton's Polyglot. The former is the text 
presented by A, C third hand, D, E, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, 
r, A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Old Latin with the 
exception of a single manuscript, the Vulgate, the Peshito, 
Philoxenian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Gothic, Chrysostom, 
and Cyril. The difference between these readings cannot be 
regarded as due to accident. Nothing short of a deliberate 
purpose could have effected the change, whichever way it was 
made. The two oldest extant manuscripts have the shorter 
reading ; and, if these were trustworthy, we should be com- 
pelled to accept it as the genuine reading. By looking forward, 
however, into verse 5, where the same hand has evidendy been 
at work, we find that B, C first hand, a, and the Ethiopic Ver- 
sion, omitting the connective " and," read irSs olSafx-ev rijv 68w, 
" How know we the way?" while D, i, <?, w, and Tertullian, 
some of them retaining " and," others omitting it, read irus ri]v 
oSw o'Sifiiv, where the Received Text has kol ttS? ZwiiMtda ttjv 
080V tiSfVai; "and how can we know the way?" This last 
reading is supported by J< (except that it places hwd/xtda after 
6S0V), A, C second hand, E, G, H, K, L (omitting KaC), M, N, 
Q, S, U, X, r, A, A, n, the entire body of the cursives, all but 
four manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the three Syriac 
Versions, the Memphitic, the Gothic, and Chrysostom. That 
is to say, most of the supporters of the shorter reading in verse 
4 (or J^, L, Q, X, all the cursives, and the Memphitic Ver- 
sion), are found parting company with their allies, and uniting 
in verse 5 with the supporters of the longer and commonly 



accepted reading. They throw their testimony in the latter 
verse against the supporters of the shorter reading, which the 
Revisers have also adopted there. In verse 4 they unite with 
them in the abrupt, artificial, un-Christlike utterance, "And 

whither I go ye know the way " thither. But, in verse 5, 

after saying, " We know not whither thou goest," they cannot 
sanction the unnatural curtailment of Thomas's words, " How 
know we the way?" This language speaks for itself that it is 
the work of some lover of cold, epigrammatic phraseology, not 
the utterance of an unlettered, bewildered, anxious disciple, 
who would naturally say, " an^f how is it possihle for us to know 
the way?" The simple, twofold reply of Thomas inverse 5, 
" Lord, we know not whither thou goest, and how can we know 
the way?" shows plainly enough that Christ's words in verse 4 
must have been, " Both whither I go ye know, and the way ye 
know." But some early reader of the Gospel, thinking he 
could improve upon this, cut it down to suit himself. And the 
result of his revising, which robs the Saviour's words of their 
heart and gracious fulness of meaning, must be accepted as a 
part of the genuine text ! 

XIV. 7. 

Rec. T. ^yviIkciti av • — ye should have known. 
Rev. T. av iq'8€it« • — ye would have known. 

The change here seems to have been wholly unnecessary to a 
revision of the English text. In fact, if the Revisers had fol- 
lowed their Greek, they would have made strange work with the 
English. The rejected reading is attested by A, C third hand, 
D second hand, E, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, P, A, A, n, nearly all the 
cursives, Athanasius, Pseudo-Athanasius twice according to the 
codices, and Chrysostom. The revised reading is that of B, C 
first hand, Q (and, if tiSijrt, the perfect subjunctive, can be con- 
sidered the same reading, of L and X also), four cursives, Basil, 
and Cyril. But this is an inherenUy improbable reading. It 
is a pluperfect in form, but it has the signification generally of 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

an imperfect or preterite. In John viii. 19, it appears twice, 
and is to be translated as an imperfect : " If ye knew {r,ltiTt) 
me, ye would kno7v {rjSuTi av) my Father also." So in general 
where it appears as genuine.' Here, therefore, to be consistent, 
we need to translate the word, " If ye had known me, ye would 
k>W7u (not 7vould have knoivn) my Father also." The common 
text represents Jesus as using the same word in both protasis 
and apodosis. This was Jesus' usual way of speaking. But 
some one, evidendy desirous of introducing variety into his 
language, changed it to a word which, though in the pluper- 
fect, John never employs except as an imperfect. The only 
safe course here is to adhere, as Lachmann and others do, to 
the accepted reading, — especially so, if the end sought is only 
a revision of the English New Testament. 

XIT. 14. 

Rec. T. Edv Ti oXTiynyTi iv ria ov6]i.a.rl (tov, — If ye shall ask any- 
thing in my name. 

Rev. T. iav ti alTf]trr\Ti )U Iv rif ov6fiarl (lov, — If ye shall ask me 
anything in my name. 

The American Committee of Revisers here very properly 
follow the Received Text, but add the marginal note, " Many 
ancient authorities add me." This received reading is attested 
by A, D, G, K, L, M, Q, S, A second hand (the original scribe, 
by a common oversight, having omitted this verse together with 
the last clause of the previous verse), 11, most of the cursives, 
four manuscripts of the Old Latin, one of the Syriac Version, 
the Memphitic, the Ethiopic, and Cyril. The revised is vouched 
for by Ji^, B, E, H, U, T, A, thirty or more cursives, two manu- 
scripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxe- 
nian Syriac, the Gothic, and Uscan's Armenian Version, — the 

* The only exceptions to this are in Matt. xxiv. 43, Luke xii. 39, and 
. Rom. vli. 7. 



last of these omitting "in my name." In verse 13, as well as 
in XV. 7 and xvi. 26, Jesus presents the same thought without 
saying "shall ask ?»e." Yet, in verse 13, four cursives insert 
"me," while others, as here, insert "the Father." All these 
readings are mere additions, intended to determine to whom 
.the request should be presented, — a point which Jesus himself 
makes perfecdy clear in xv. 16 and xvi. 23. The critical hand 
that inserted " me " here was perhaps led to this by the repe- 
tition of alr^a-riTf, "ye shall ask," in connection with the 
emphatic iyu> ttou^o-o), "/will do it." 

XV. II. 

Rec. T. tva t] xO'P" T *M-T *" ^K^'*" H'*'>T1> — '^^' ™y J°y ""'E^' remain 
in you. 

Kev. T. Iva r\ xapi tj ijii] kv i^iv ^i — that my joy may be in you. 

The former is the reading of X. K. G, H, K, L, M, S, U, X; 
r, A, A, n, most of the cursives,/ of the Old Latin, Chrysostom, 
and Cyril. The latter is that of A, B, D, ten cursives, the Old 
Latin with the exception of one manuscript, the Vulgate, the 
three Syriac Versions, the Gothic, the Armenian, and the 
Ethiopic. The Greek manuscripts greatly preponderate in 
favor of the former ; but the versions, in favor of the latter. 
In the most ancient manuscripts t was often written « (and 
nice versa), as we still find it in later ones. Thus vn-tlv appears 
in D, at Mark xi. 29, xiii. 37, etc., for vfilv; /xeiKpoTcpos in the 
same Codex at Luke vii. 28, for fUKpoTcpo'i ; ynvofiivrj^ in A and 
B, at John xxi. 4, for ytvo^e'i/T/s ; and, not to refer to number- 
less other instances, the familiar forms AaviS, IltXaTo?, Xopa^iV 
or :ADpa(:v appear in very many manuscripts as Aavti'S, Ilet- 
XaT09, and Xopat,€iv or Xmpa^av. Now the ifiiv in this clause 
was undoubtedly written in early manuscripts v/xeiv. But, in 
copying the words YMGINMGINH, some transcriber inadver- 
tently overlooked and omitted the second ME IN, and the two 
words became reduced to YMG I N H, afterwards ifuv g. Hence 



the few Greek manuscripts and the various versions with this 
reading. The fewness of Greek manuscripts in support of jj 
is not the only thing, however, that naturally awakens suspi- 
cion. It is the unusual combination of uncials, — A, B, D. 
Besides this, the sense which yields is tame in comparison 
with that thrown into the words by fj-civrj. The very context 
indicates that the Saviour said what he did to his disciples, not 
so much that his own joy might simply be infused into them 
and ie in them, as that it might continue in them, so that, as 
he added, their joy might be made to abound. The idea of 
his joy abiding as a permanent joy in them is what he seems 
to have intended to express; and this calls for the common 

zvi. 4. 

Rec. T. tva Srav «X6d tj (Spo, |ivT)|iovtvi)T£ avruv, — that when the 
time shall come, ye may remember . . . them. 

Rev. T. iva orav eXGu t) upa airwv, |ivt]|iov(vt]tc avruv, — that when 
their hour is come, ye may remember them. 

There is much confusion here among the manuscripts. In 
some, axiTutv stands both before and after fji.vrifj.ovivriT€ ; in some, 
only before ; in some, only after ; and in still others it is 
entirely wanting. We believe with Tischendorf that the origi- 
nal reading is that of the Received Text, which is attested by 
X, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, Y, r. A, A, most of the cursives, the 
Memphitic, the Jerusalem Syriac, the Ethiopic Version, Chrys- 
ostom, and Cyril, — giving avrSiv as the object of /xnj/iovti^re, 
and placing it where it should be, after the governing verb. 
But some early critical reader, desirous of making it clear 
7ci/tat hour the Saviour meant, inserted the word avrSi/ after 
(opa, thereby converting " the hour " into " their hour," as a 
brief way of saying " the hour for remembering what he had 
told them." Hence the Revisers' reading, which is found in 
A, B, n as originally written, four cursives, the Peshito and 
Philoxenian Syriac, and Gothic Versions. Others, as the lost 



uncial represented by Ferrar's group, L, H second hand, five 
cursives, eight copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Augustine, 
and Cyprian twice, retaining the pronoun after <Lpa, reject the 
other as unnecessary, and read " that, when their hour shall 
come, ye may remember that I told you [of them]." Finally, 
I^, one cursive, a of the Old Latin, and the Armenian Version 
omit the pronoun as superfluous in both places, and read " that, 
when the hour shall come, ye may remember that I told you 
[of them]." This glance at the origin of the different readings 
clearly indicates the common reading to be the genuine one. 

xvi. 23. 

Rec. T. 8<rQ &v alr^o-riTt r6v HaT^pa Iv T<j ovoVotC (io«, 8(i<r£i i(itv. 

— Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he wiU^give it you. 

Rev. T. Iv Ti otTTJoTiTt Tov iTCLripa, Scio-ei i(iiv €v tu ovoVarC |to«. — 
If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name. 

While the Revisers adopt the reading followed by Tregelles, 
Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort in the latter part of this 
passage Griesbach and Lachmann still hold to the common 
reading as presenting the original text. But this would hardly 
be the case if the testimony were overwhelmingly agamst the 
received reading. In support of it are A, C third hand, D, E, 
G H K M S, U, r. A, n, the whole body of the cursives, the 
Old Latin Version, the' Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and 
Jerusalem Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic 
Chrysostom twice, and Cyril once. The revised is supported 
by S, B, C first hand, L, X, Y, A, Munter's Fragments of the 
Thebaic Version, Origen twice, and Cyril once, on a different 
occasion.^ It will be seen from the foregoing, that all the 
ancient versions, except Miinter's Fragments of the Thebaic, 
have the common reading. This rather indicates that while 
the new reading was known in Origen's day, -the middle of 
the third century, -it did not exist in those earlier exemplars 
from which the oldest of the old versions, to say nothmg of the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

rest rnust have been taken. These versions .// agree in read- 
ing, 'Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my nLe." Is t 
poss>bIe that the sources from which they were derived could 
every one o them, have been corn^pt, and been corrupted 
exactly ahke? The collocation of words given in the RevS 
lext has every appearance of being the result of a pious desire 
to fix the supposed true meaning of the passage, effected 
apparently, about the close of the second century It is one 
of those well intended efforts which appear in certain ancient 
manuscnpts, but which are blindly received by too many as 
the veritable work of the Holy Spirit. We can almost see the 
poor man at work over his manuscript. He finds Christ saying 
In that day of ME ye will ask n.//./.^." He goes on, and 
thmks he finds h>m saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you 
lUa^soarr ye shall ask THE FATHER, -in my name he 
W.1 g,ve ,t you ! " To make this, which is not a bad meaning 
and which he piously believes to be the true meaning, clear 
to others, -to fix it so that it shall not be misunderstood -_ 
he finds nothing necessary but to transpose two words He 
neither adds to, nor takes from, the text; he simply places 
b.<ru v^:v, "he will give you," before instead of after the other 
words, so that the meaning, formerly ambiguous, may in future 
be perfectly transparent : " He will give it you in my name ' " 
Does any one say, he might have done this at xv. i6? There 
is no such occasion for transposing the words there as here 
\nd in XIV. 13, 14, there is no possibility of making the trans- 
position. Verse 24 shows Jesus' meaning, and confirms the 
x.mmon reading. It shows that the contrast is between asking 
^/insf for something, and asking the Father in Chrisfs name ■ 
' In that day ye shall ask me nothing; but whatsoever ye shall 
sk the Father in my name, he will give you. Hitherto ye 
lave asked nothing in my name; ask, and ye shall receive " 
f the revised reading, " He will give it you in my name," were 
orrect, the next verse would need to read, " Hitherto have ye 
ueived nothing in my name." But the reading, "Hitherto 



have ye asked nothing in my name," which could not truthfully 
be changed, while irrelevant as connected with the Revisers' 
previous reading, is in perfect harmony with the original word- 
ing. It harmonizes, also, with all Christ's utterances in this 
Gospel in regard to his disciples' asking in his name. The 
onlji act that it is said the Father will do in Jesus' name is 
the sending of the Comforter, xiv. 26 ; and this, not in answer 
to his people's prayer, but in answer to his own ; xiv. 16. This 
uniformity of expression in Christ's use of words to present the 
same thought, as we have before observed, is one of the evi- 
dences not only that the language so given is his, but that the 
record containing it is genuine, while another would be dis- 
posed to introduce some change in the phraseology. 

xvii. 3. 

The Revisers here had an opportunity to do really needed 
work in correcting a false reading. But they allowed it to 
pass unimproved. The text, both received and revised, reads, 
"And this is life eternal, that they might (or should) know 
\Jva yivu><rKu><jL] thee " etc. In other words, the verse begins 
as if it was intended to be a definition of the eternal life to 
which reference is made at the close of the previous verse, but 
ends with the declaration of a purpose, — " that they might 
(or shoukl) know " etc. The trouble lies in the form of the 
Greek verb, which the text gives in the subjunctive. Instead 
of this, the true reading is yivwo-Kovcrt, the indicative, " they 
know." This is attested by A, D, G, L, Y, A, A, the cursives 
33, 244, and the lectionary 222. The other reading may be 
an itacisr^ ; but, more probably, the transcriber who intro- 
. duced it was led into the error under the idea that the indica- 
tive present should never follow "i/a, — and, once introduced, 
it was naturally accepted. But the construction of Iva with 
the indicative is untiuestioned in i Cor. iv. 6, " that ye be not 
puffed up" or "not to be puffed up." Also in Gal. iv. 17, 



and possibly elsewhere. And when we consider that " John 
is much less rigorous than others in his employment of the 
particle Iva, and its original telle force is often obscured by 
him," ' while internal probability demands the indicative, and 
the external attestation is so emphatic in its favor, we can 
hardly err in the conclusion that the indicative, not the sub- 
junctive, is the original reading here. With this, the language 
is consistent throughout : " And this is life eternal, to know 
\_iva yivu)(TKov(n, literally ' that they know '] thee " etc. Tre- 
gelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Davidson, and others adopt this as 
the true reading. 

xvii. 4. 

Rec. T. rh Ipyov iTcXcEuo-a — I have finished the work. 
Rev. T. TO IpYov T€\ei<io-as — having accomplished the work. 

The substitution, as here, of a participle in place of a per- 
sonal verb, and sometimes, as in verse i, in place of a verb 
and a conjunction following, a change which generally makes 
no real difference in the signification, is as a rule a step of 
more or less doubtful propriety. The whole context generally 
— certainly here — shows the participle to be an intruder, the 
work of a pedant striving to improve the language, to break up 
the sameness of the style, and to introduce a variety of expres- 
sion unfamiliar to the evangelist. And when these readings, 
though vouched for by what are generally considered the best 
manuscripts, are opposed by a large and respectable, though 
perhaps not an overwhelming body of other witnesses, it ought 
to be regarded, in connection with the evidence from internal 
probability, as decisive proof of their spurious character. 

1 Buttmann, Gram, of New Test. Greek, p. 235, American edition. 



XVll. II, 12. 

Rcc. T. T^pijirov avTOus ^v tu? oydfiarC <rov, oiJs S^8uKd$ (loi • — 

keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me. ^y" i'ri\- 
povv avTous kv T(^ 6v6)iarC (rov * oijs S^SwKds ^01 ^(}>irXa{a, — 1 kept them 
in thy name : those that thou gavest me I have kept. 

Rev. T. T<ipT)(rov airous iv tiu 6v6)iaTC <rov, u S^SuKds (loi, — keep 
them in thy name which thou hast given me. i^i> {r^pouv avTOvs kv t<u 
ov(5p.aTt <rou, u S^SuKas p-oi • Kal 4<|>vXaJa, — I kept them in thy name 
which thou hast given me : and I guarded them. 

The received reading, in verse 11, is attested by D second 
hand, 69, a few cursives, three copies of the Old Latin, the 
Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, and Epi- 
phanius twice ; in verse 12, by A, C third hand, D, E, G, H, 
K, L, M, S, Y, r. A, A, n, nearly all the cursives, the Old 
Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito, and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Gothic, the Ethiopic, and Origen. The revised reading, in 
verse 11, is supported by X> A, B, C, E, G, H, K, L, M, S, Y, 
r, A, A, n, most of the cursives, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and 
Jerusalem Syriac, the Thebaic, the Armenian, Athanasius, and 
Cyril, — and seemingly by D first hand, U, X, and ten or twelve 
cursives, which read o instead of J. In verse 12, <S is sup- 
ported by B, C first hand, L, t,t„ 64, and Cyril three times, — 
and o by the earlier seventh-century corrector of J^ (the origi- 
nal transcriber having omitted the clause), the Memphitic, the 
Thebaic, the Jerusalem Syriac, and the Armenian Version. It 
will be observed that the testimony in support of ai in verse 12 
is far less weighty than in verse 11. It will also be observed 
that the attestation of ovs in verse 1 1 is very feeble, but not so 
in verse 12. In view of this. Dr. Broadus says, "How [shall 
we] explain the fact that so very many authorities have whom 
here [in verse 12], and which in the immediately preceding 
and exactly similar sentence? Are not the phenomena best 
accounted for by supposing that in verse 12 the Saviour's lan- 
guage returns to the expression of verses 6 and 9, and that 
so the true reading is which in verse ii, and whom in verse 



12?"^ We think not. Jesus was not in the habit of changing 
his language in this manner. When he did express himself 
differently after having once uttered a thought, there was a 
reason for it other than the mere seeking of a varied diction. 
In verse 2, his words are irav o Se'SwKa? avrol, " all that thou 
hast given him." Note the words; not merely the singular 
relative, but the singular antecedent ttSlv, which calls for a rela- 
tive in the singular. Just so in vi. 37, iraf i BiBoxrt, and in vi. 
39, irav o 8e8a)K£, though the reference, in all these instances, 
is to those whom the Father had given him. But in verse 6 
of this chapter Christ's words are to!.'; avOpwiroi<s oJg 8eS<oKa?, 
" to the fiien whom thou hast given " ; and in verse 9 Iwtpl 
avTSv . . .] TTcpi Zv Se'SwKtts, " for f/iose whom thou hast given." 
So, too, in xviii. 9, oJs StSmKas /xoi . . . ii avrwv, " of /hose whom 
thou hast given me." In all these instances, the relative is 
plural, because its antecedents are in the plural. In these two 
verses (ii, 12), however, this consistency in Jesus' language 
as reported by the evangelist is marred. Some early blunder- 
ing critic, wishing to bring the language of this clause into 
conformity with that in verse 2, and not considering that the 
plural antecedent avrov's would be a standing protest against 
his work, changed o's to o. Hence the reading of D first 
hand, U, X, etc. But others, not being able to refer o to ain-ovs, 
and mistaking its intended reference, instead of changing it 
back to ov?, as D second hand really did, regarded it as an 
erroneous transcription of <S, referring it to ovofxan, " name," 
and accordingly gave it this form. This change was wrought 
in verse 1 1 at an evidently early date. Hence the appearance 
of this reading in so many manuscripts and versions. But was 
not the reading in verse 12 made at the same time? It seems 
at first sight that, if made at all, it must have been made then. 
One would hardly be expected to change a reading in one 
verse, and for no apparent cause leave the same reading un- 

1 Note, p. 343 of American Commentary, Gospel of John. 



changed in the next verse. But the critic, instead of changing 
the word in verse 1 2, cut the knot by omitting the entire clause 
in which the word appears, as we actually find it omitted in 
the Sinaitic Codex, which reads, " I kept them in thy name ; 
I guarded them," etc. Copyists who transcribed from this and 
like manuscripts, in supplying from other sources the omitted 
words, would be likely to obtain a correct reading. All tran- 
scripts from exemplars thus prepared would then contain <S in 
verse 11, and ovq in verse 12. This will easily account for the 
inequality of the evidence in support of u in the two verses. 
Whatever may be said in favor of the reading, " Keep them in 
//ly 7tame which thou hast given vie" this language is neither 
clear nor like any other utterance of Christ's. The expression, 
" thy name," as used in verse 6, as every intelligent Bible reader 
ought to know, is only an oriental synonym of "thee," as 
" his name " is a synonym of " him," and " my name " of " me." 
In I Cor. x. 2, the apostle Paul expresses himself according to 
English idiom : " and were all baptized [professedly bound] 
7into Moses." But elsewhere, as in i Cor. i. 13, 15, he em- 
ploys the oriental form of speech : " Were ye baptized in [or 
rather unto] the name of Paul?" and "in [unto] my name?" 
instead of " Were ye baptized unto Paul?" and "unto me?" 
In like manner, the words " baptizing in [unto] the name of 
the Father," etc., in plain English mean "baptizing unto the 
Father," etc. Just so, to believe on or in one's name is to believe 
on or in the one named. To believe, for example, in the name 
of the Lord is to believe in the Lord. To glorify God's name 
is to glorify God. To manifest or make known God's name to 
men is to manifest God, to make him known to men. The 
lame man at Jerusalem (Acts iv. 10) was healed in or by "the 
name of Jesus Christ," or, as is immediately added, " even in " 
or " by him." It was through power received from Jesus. In 
Acts iv. 12 we read that there is "none other name," i.e. no 
other one, by whom we must be saved. Any attempt to attach 
an intelligible scriptural meaning to the words " thy name which 



thou hast given me " must prove a failure ; for the reading is 
obviously a spurious one. Christ's prayer was that the Father 
would keep his followers in union with himself, and not suffer 
them to become apostates. 

Tlec. T. tva Kal a«To\ €W T|ntv ?v ioav • — that they also may be one 
in us. 

Rev. T. tva Kal avroV {v tjiiiv w<riv • — that they also may be in us. 

The Received Text here is overwhelmingly supported by ^, 
A, C third hand, E, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, X, Y, r. A, A, n, all 
the cursives, three manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, 
the Peshito, Philoxenian, and Jerusalem Syriac Versions, the 
Gothic, the Ethiopic, Clement of Alexandria, Origen again and 
again, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Theo- 
doret, Cyprian, Hilary, and others. The revised reading is that 
of B, C first hand, D, four copies of the Old Latin, the Thebaic 
and Armenian Versions, and possibly three or four of the 
Fathers. But C first hand is untrustworthy here, for it omits 
(V in the beginning of the verse also, making it read, " That all 
may be as thou. Father, art in me and I in thee ; that they 
also may be in us." Even Origen's testimony, in the one place 
where he omits h/, is not in favor of this reading. It is, c^ eyii 
Kat (TV a/ (o-fjicv, tva koI axrrol iv rifuv mjiv, " As thou and I are 
one, that they also may be [/./?. may be one] in us." These 
words, however, are not properly a quotation of Jesus' language. 
Not only is the documentary testimony emphatic in support of 
the common reading, but the internal evidence is also. The 
very point of the Saviour's prayer lies in the word that has 
been omitted from the Revisers' text. In verse 20, Christ is 
represented as saying, " I pray not for these only, but for them 
also who believe on me through their word." And what was 
his prayer? "That they all may be one, even as thou. Father, 
art in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; " i.e. 



not only united, as he had just prayed they might be, but 
united " in us." The word Iv is necessary to give pertinence 
to the accompanying expression " in us." Omit the word 
" one," and the prayer becomes simply a prayer that " those 
who believe on him," and who are therefore " in him," .may be 
in him and the Father! The words are completely emptied 
of their meaning. And yet the reading must be accepted as 
genuine, because haply some careless transcriber omitted hr 
from among the several similar syllables of which it is one, 
and his omission crept into three manuscripts and six or seven 
ancient versions that have come down to us 1 

xvu. 24. 

Rec. T. oiis SiSuKas (loi, 9^« Iva . . . k&kcivoi «o-i |wt' (|u>5' — I , 

will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me. 

Rev. T. 5 8^SuKa$ (toi, fliXo) I'va . . . KaKctvoi «o"i (mt c^lov * — that 
which thou hast given me, I will that . . . they also may be with me. 

The received reading is attested by A, C, E, G, H, K, L, M, 
S, U, X, Y, r. A, A, n, all the cursives, the Old Latin, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the 
Thebaic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Clement, Eusebius, Chrys- 
ostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Cyprian, and others. The revised is, 
that of Ji^. B, D, the Memphitic and Gothic Versions, and a 
manuscript of the Vulgate to' which Lachmann seems to have 
had access. Yet lachmann rejects the reading ; and rightly, 
for it is a companion of the false readings found in verses 1 1, 
12. It testifies against itself ; for the relative, instead of having 
an antecedent in the singular as at verse 2, is accompanied 
by an antecedent in the plural, — eVai/ot, " they," or " those " ; 
and we may rest assured, at least, until we have better evidence 
to the contrary than we now have, that John never wrote, and 
that Jesus never uttered such Greek as cKeivot o, " those (or 
they) which." See Note on verses 11, 12. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

XIX. 7. 

Rec. T. Kori t4v vo|iov fniuv dijxCXci diroOavciv, — by our law he 
ought to die. 

Rev. T. Kara riv vo|iov o^xlXci diroSavctv, — by that law he ought 
to die. 

The presence of -qfiZv, " our," here is attested by A (C and 
G are defective), E, H, K, M, S, U, X, Y, r, A, n, all the cur- 
sives, one copy of the Old Latin, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and 
Jerusalem Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the 
Gothic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, Chrysostom, and Cyril. 
The omission is found in J^, B, L, A, all manuscripts but one 
of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Origen three times, and, as 
might be expected, in Hilary and Augustine, as well as in D's 
text as restored after the ninth century in certain mutilated 
portions, of which this from John xviii. 14 to xx. 13 is one. 
H/j-uiv was probably regarded as superfluous by some early 
critical scribe ; or it may have dropped out, as words often do, 
in transcribing. Hence its omission in a certain class of docu- 
ments. And, if the word were not emphatic, its absence would 
be by no means unusual or strange. Compare verse 26. But 
some qualifying word like " our " law, " that " law, or the law 
" to which we refer," is really essential here. This the Revisers 
saw. Hence they translated, " and by that law." Their text, 
however, reads " and by /Ae law," or " according to the law." It 
would be just as proper to translate rov vo/xov here, " our law," as 
" that law." But neither is really proper ; for, whether we say 
" our " or " that," the word is emphatic, and not legitimately 
represented in Greek by the article. That there is no proba- 
bility that the evangelist wrote the verse without ^fiwv is apparent 
from the fact that he begins it with an emphatic "we" : " IVe 
have a law " ; and, to carry out the idea thus introduced, this 
emphatic "we" needs to be followed by "our," — "and accord- 
ing to our law," that is, as distinguished from your Roman 
code, "he ought to die." And the weight of documentary 



evidence really preponderates in favor, and in confirmation, of 
this reading. Compare Revised Text of Luke ii. 51. 

XX. 18. 

Rec. T. 5ti iiapaKt t6v Kvpiov, — that she had seen the Lord. 
Rev. T. oTi 'EupaKa tov Kvpiov, — I have seen the Lord. 

The received reading is supported by A, D, E, G, I, K, L, 
M, U, r. A, A, n, all the cursives, five manuscripts of the Old 
Latin Version, the Peshito, Philoxenian, and Jerusalem Syriac, 
and the Armenian, as well as by Cyril and Severianus. "I 
have seen " is the reading of ^, B, X, three copies of the Old 
Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, and the Ethi- 
opic ; while S, and 2;^ read, " We have seen." In addition to 
this, two of the three Old Latin manuscripts that support the 
Revisers' reading, the Vulgate and the Thebaic Version also 
read, " and he said these things ft? me," instead of " to her " ; 
while the Memphitic reads, " and these are the things that he 
said to me " ; and the Ethiopic and a few others close the 
verse with the words, " and what things he said to her she 
recounted," or, " she recounted to them." And, if their read- 
ings are false here, what assurance have we that they are not at 
the beginning of the sentence ? These various readings, cer- 
tainly, very naturally awaken suspicion as to the genuineness of 
the remaining peculiar variation which these documents sup- 
port. They indicate, as already suggested, that the form of 
direct address originated in a transcriptional blunder, in writing 
fiapaKa for liapaKc. But this reading being harsh and not generally 
acceptable, the last few words became more or less modified, 
— some documents returning to the original text as found in 
other copies, and others giving the words a still different turn. 
Whatever may have been its origin, however, the revised read- 
ing is plainly not in harmony with John's manner of narrating 
events. On the other hand, it is perfectly in accord with his 
usual mode of writing, to say, " Mary the Magdalene cometh, 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

announcing to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and he 
had said thus and so to her." — Compare Note on Mark x. 49. 

xxi. 23. 

Rec. T. icaV o^k «tir(v ... 6 'iTierovs, — yet Jesus said not. 
Rev. T. oiK €t-ir€v h\...i> "I^o-ovs, — yet Jesus said not. 

The common text, which Lachmann, Tischendorf, and others 
follow, is attested by A, D, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, X, V, A, A, n, 
nearly all the cursives, seven copies of the Old Latin, the Vul- 
gate, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic. 
The revised reading is that of X, B, C, 33, and apparently that 
followed by e of the Old Latin, the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac 
Versions, and Schwartze's Memphitic, while Wilkins' Memphitic 
is without a conjunction. Origen, Cyril, and Chrysostom also 
support the revised reading. But, if this had been the original 
reading, the other could hardly have crept in. It looks as if 
U was introduced to give a more pronounced adversative char- 
acter to the conjunction than Kal was supposed to have. John, 
however, often uses the latter as equivalent to 8«. For the 
purpose of revising the English version, the change was wholly 
unnecessary, even if Sc could be considered the evangelist's 


1. 19. 

Rec. T. Tg ISCf 8ioX«KTij> avruv — in their proper tongue. 
Rev. '1'. Tfl SiaX^KTu avruv — in their language. 

The Revisers have omitted "own " or " proper" on the tes- 
timony of three manuscripts, — Ji^, B first hand, D. But the 
Received Text is supported by A, B third hand, C, E, all the 
cursives but two (which read " Judean " instead), and by Euse- 
bius and Chrysostom. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and most other 
modern editors accept the word as genuine. It is one that 
Luke uses elsewhere (ii. 6, 8) in the same connection, — 
though D, alone of all the Greek manuscripts, in one of these 
instances rejects it, — and employs it to denote the dialect 
peculiar to the speakers and hearers referred to. He means 
not merely their language in a general way, but their own lan- 
guage, — in this instance the very idiom of the inhabitants. 
The word is really emphatic, though it seems to have been 
omitted in two or three copies, as it is afterwards in one of 
these very manuscripts, as unnecessary. While Tregelles gives 
it a secondary place, Westcott and Hort, as far as we know, 
are the only editors, aside from the Revisers, who reject it as 

Rec. T. T|<rav Siravrts 6(iio9u(ia86v itt\ to outo. — they were all with 
one accord in one place. 

Rev. T. Tjo-av irdvT«s onoC ItiX to avTo'. — they were all together in 
one place. 

The common reading o/io^u/AaSoV is vouched for by C third 
hand, E, most of the cursives, the manuscripts of Athanasius' 




writings, as well as by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Augustine 
in his treatise against the Manicheans. The revised 6/xov is 
supported by Ji^, A, B, C first hand, two cursives (i8 and 6i, 
the last of which is considered by some, because of its general 
resemblance to B, the most important of the cursive manuscripts 
of the Acts) , e of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and Augustine in 
two other places. D and the two Egyptian Versions omit the 
word as superfluous. And, indeed, h\xxm is superfluous. No 
one of us would think of writing or saying, "They were all in 
company together," or " in the same place together," which are 
the literal renderings and only meanings of the Revisers' Greek. 
No more ought we to suppose that Luke could have written 
thus. And we must be convinced of this, when we consider 
two or three facts. The first is that o/iov is a word that Luke 
nowhere uses, — unless here, in this needless, superfluous way.' 
On the other hand, o/io^u/iaSoi/, " with one accord," is a word 
that Luke employs at least eleven times in this treatise. It 
expresses just the idea that he would naturally wish to express 
here ; for all know that in those days there was a wonderful 
unanimity and harmony of action among the disciples. Then 
the expression tTri to avrd, " in one place," which occurs several 
times elsewhere is each time rendered " together." ' The only 
apparent reason why it is not so translated here is the palpable 

1 John is the only one of all the New-Testament writers who employs 
A/ioC; — twice in the sense of in company (iv. 36, xx. 4), and once as 
meaning in the same place (xxi. 2). The word primarily and properly 
has a local reference. It is nowhere used in Greek as meaning " together," 
in the sense of being in concert, in harmony or agreement. Yet it may 
have crept into the text here under the impression that such was the case; 
though we are inclined to doubt it. The word does not seem to have been 
introduced intentionally. 

3 At Acts iii. I, the Revisers have taken this expression, and, connecting 
it with the last verse of chapter ii., translated it "to them," — a rendering 
which it does not admit, and for which, if that had been the writer's mean- 
ing, he would undoubtedly have written ai^rott, as in chapters v. 14 and 
xi. 24 he wrote ti? Kcpfvi " '° 'te Lord." 



absurdity of the rendering, " They were all together together," 
which is partially hidden under the words " together in one 
place." It looks as if some early transcriber's mind had been 
preoccupied with the idea embodied in i-nX rh avro, which lay 
just before him, and half-confused with a lingering impression 
concerning the form of the proper word to be written, uncon- 
sciously allowed that impression to control his pen and cause 
him to write ofiov instead of ofjLoOvfm&ov. Mistakes of like char- 
acter not only appear elsewhere among the manuscripts, but 
are made again and again even in our day, and sometimes by 
the most careful copyists.' As we are confident that no English 
writer would put words together thus, we are the more ready to 
believe that Luke's words were perverted in some such way 
as this, whoever may apparently testify to the contrary. Indeed, 
when we consider how excellent a writer of Greek Luke was, 
and how he expresses himself elsewhere, we cannot bring our- 
selves to believe that he wrote in this absurd manner. 

* If the reader considers this explanation unsatisfactory, and still holds 
that the manuscripts that support the Revisers' reading must present the 
original text, let him look at the following, and see what he thinks of the 
correctness of some of those manuscripts : — In Acts i. 14, the original 
scril^e of the Sinaitic Codex wrote ^crap oftodv^adbv n po^Kaprepovvm bpuodv- 
liaSbv, i.e. They all " were with one accord continuing with one accord " 
in prayer. And this lay uncorrected till the seventh century. In i. 18, 
Codex A, Gaudentius and Theophylact omit irivTa, reading "and — his 
bowels gushed out." In ii. 9, A has " Car«padocia," while C has "/"appa- 
docia," for " Cappadocia." In ii. 17, B, the Thebaic and Ethiopic Ver- 
sions, and Cyril of Jerusalem read ^£t4 raOra, " After these things," in 
accordance with the Septuagint, instead of Peter's words " In the last 
days"; while C and one cursive combine the two, and read, "After these 
things, in the last days." In viii. 6, D reads -ovto (the letters preceding 
orfo being obliterated) Kal ivl^ovro instead of 6iJM$vixaS6v, which can mean 
only that they did something " and washed "; — or, to give D's reading of 
the whole verse, "And when they heard of it all, the multitudes gave heed 
to the words spoken by Philip," and did something " and washed them- 
si:lves (ouTout?) on hearing him and seeing the miracles that he wrought." 
— But enough of this. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

11. 47. 

Rec. T. 6 Kvpios irpoo-tTCSci . 

Lord added to the church daily. 

Rev. T. o Kvpios irpo<r<T(Sci , 
Lord added to them day by day. 

Ka6' T|)i{pav Tn {kkXtio-Ci}. — the 
K08' T||<,€pav cirl t4 outo. — the 

Here, it will be seen, the Revisers have omitted "to the 
church," and in its place substituted the first three words of 
the next chapter. But cVi t6 avrd, as every reader of Greek 
must know, means, not " to them," but as the margin has it, 
" together," — at the same time, unitedly. This reading is 
vouched for by X. A, B, C, G, 61, the Vulgate, the two Egyptian 
Versions, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and by Cyril of Alexandria, 
and Lucifer. D reads i-irl to airb iv rrj €ic/<Xr;o-i^, then begins 
the next chapter with 'Ev 8e raTs rjnipaiit ravrats TliTpcK, etc. 
That is, we will suppose, "The Lord a/ //le same time was 
adding daily such as were saved in the church," — possibly, 
" to the church " ; then goes on, " Now in those days Peter 
and John," etc. The Received Text is attested by E, P, nearly 
all the cursives, and the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Ver- 
sions. Though this lacks the support of the oldest known 
manuscripts, it is loudly called for by the oldest of the versions 
and the intrinsic evidence of the readings. The Revised Text 
seems to have originated in a misapprehension of the true 
construction. This early led to the connecting of l-ni to avrd 
with this verse, instead of leaving it to be construed with the 
verse following. Taken thus, the clause was made to mean, 
" And the Lord at the same time was adding to the church daily 
such as were saved," — a meaning not at all incongruous or 
improbable, considered in itself. Then, in order to fix this as 
the real meaning of the evangelist, the two phrases, " to the 
church " and " at the same time " were made to change places. 
This accounts for the order in which these words stand in 
Codex D, with the preposition iv, " in," between the two. But 
some critic or copyist, afterwards finding that in verse 41 there 



is no church spoken of, to which the additions were made, or 
in wliich the work was going on, and considering that the 
reading here ought in this respect to correspond with that, 
omitted " to the church," or " in the church," as superfluous 
or unmeaning. Hence the reading adopted by the Revisers. 
• The true reading, however, has been preserved in documents, 
which, though mainly of later date than some of the others, 
contain what is evidently an older text, and the genuine text. 
The phrase Inl to ovto, seemingly out of place here, if not 
essential to a full expression of the writer's meaning in the 
next verse, is in perfect accord with the statement there made, 
and its emphatic position at the head of the sentence indicates 
its importance there as directing special attention to the fact 
that the apostles went together and worked together, two and 
two, as the Saviour had taught them to do. 

iii. 6. 

Rec. T. CYCipit Kal irfpfirdTti, 
Rev. T. ircpiirarci. — walk. 

■ rise up and walk. 

The Revisers' Text, omitting the two words " arise and," is 
in accordance with X» 1^> D, and the Thebaic Version. The 
other represents the reading found in A, C, E, G, P, all the 
cursives, one manuscript (Hort's /;) of the Old Latin, the Vul- 
gate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the 
Armenian, the Ethiopic, Irenffius, Origen, Eusebius, Basil the 
Great, Basil of Seleucia, Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodoret, 
Eutherius of Tyana, Cyprian, Lucifer, Epiphanius, Didymus, and 
others. The words " arise and " are rejected on the testimony 
of four witnesses elsewhere found united in presenting false 
readings, — it being inferred that the words were introduced 
from Matt. ix. 5, or Mark ii. 9, or Luke v. 23, or John v. 8. 
But, as the man was a cripple, in a sitting posture (verse 10), 
nothing was more natural than that Peter should say to him, 
" Arise and walk," especially as Peter at the same time took 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

him by the hand, and helped him up. On the. other hand, 
nothing could well be more unnatural than to say to one who was 
reclining, as this man probably was, "In the name of Jesus 
Christ of Nazareth, walk." The man was not in a position to 
walk. It is far easier to believe that for some unknown reason 
the words translated "rise up and" were omitted than that 
they were not written there by Luke, especially when we see 
the array of witnesses in their support (some of which extend 
centuries farther back than the oldest known witnesses to the 
contrary) , and are expressly told by the writer of the narrative 
that Peter, after telling him to rise, " took him by the hand, 
and raised him up." 

IV. I. 

The reading " chief priests," to which the marginal note 
refers as found in some ancient documents in place of "priests," 
is attested by B, C, the cursive 4, the Armenian and Ethiopic 
Versions. There is no probability of its being the correct read- 
ing, though Westcott and Hort, in accordance with their 
principles, admit it as such into their text. The priests referred 
to were those Levites then on duty in the temple as guards, 
whose business it was to preserve order under the command of 
" the captain of the temple," who was also a priest. The chief 
priests had nothing to do with this part of the temple service, 
and probably were not present at the time the affair spoken of 
occurred. The word " chief-priests " seems to have been 
ignorantly introduced from verse 6 or 23, to give the appear- 
ance of greater authority to the transaction. The reading of 
the text is abundantly supported by J^, A, D, E, P, 61, and the 
rest of the cursives, three copies {d, e, and Hort's h) of the 
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
and the two Egyptian Versions, as well as Lucifer and Chrys- 



iv. 25. 

Rec. T. A Bid <rT6|iaTOS AaplS toO iraiSo's erou clirc&v, — Who by the 
mouth of thy servant Uavid hast said. 

Rev. T. 4 ToB irarpos t|)1uv Std IIwvuaTos 'A'yCou <rTo'(i<iTOS AaplS 
• .iraiSo's o-ov cliruv, — who by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father 
David thy servant, didst say. 

In a marginal note, the reader is told that " the Greek text 
in this clause is somewhat uncertain." The revised reading, 
while felt to be incorrect, was adopted apparently in sheer des- 
peration, simply because of what was considered its superior 
attestation. It is the reading of ^, A, B, E, a few cursives, 
and Athanasius. (C is defective.) But it is certainly "a conflate 
reading," as Dr. Hort would call it ; made by combining one 
or more other readings with the original. The received read- 
ing, though attested only by P, the cursives generally, and by 
Chrysostom and Theophylact, is apparently the original reading. 
That it is what Luke wrote, we have no doubt. But some 
very early reader, having in mind Acts i. 16 and ii. 29 (or 
Mark xii. 36 and xi. 10), wrote in the margin of his copy, as 
explanatory notes, the words 8ta iri/tu'/iaTos aytov, " by the Holy 
Spirit," and tow iraTpos yifioiv, " our father " ; and some one else, 
into whose hands this copy passed, afterwards embodied these 
notes in a certain way in the text, while others in their copies 
embodied them in other ways. This accounts for the different 
and variously arranged readings that aj)pear in the old manu- 
scripts and other documents, some of which we append : Codex 
D reads, "who by (Ss Zia) the Holy Spirit, speaking by (XoX^o-as 
Sia) the mouth of David thy servant, hast said." Didymus, 
like Codex D, omits " our father," and reads " who by the Holy 
Spirit and the mouth of David thy servant didst say." With 
this, the Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions closely corre- 
spond : " Who hast said by the Holy Spirit in the mouth of 
David thy servant." The Vulgate gives the full reading : "Who, 
by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of our father David thy 


THE revisers' greek TEXT. 

servant, hast said." So, too, with variations greater or less, 
read the Thebaic, the Ethiopia, the Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Armenian Version, as well as Irenseus, Lucifer, and the author 
of De Vocaiione Gentium. Hilary and Augustine, while re- 
taining " our father," omit " by the Holy Spirit." The fact that 
there are so many variations — omissions, additions, and trans- 
positions — in the longer reading adopted by the Revisers is in 
itself ground of reasonable suspicion. This is admitted on all 
hands. That this is the true explanation of the origin of this 
aggregated reading, there can be no question. That Luke 
himself wrote this clause as it stands in the Revised Text, is 
incredible. And to adopt it as if it came from his pen is an 
act of flagrant injustice to him, as well as a wrong to his readers. 
We must not forget that the old copyists of the New Testament 
writings were very far from being infallible. 

V. 1 6. 

Rec. T. <rvW)px«TO Si Kal to irXfjOos T«iv ir^pij irdXcuv A% 'I(pov<r(]iX^|i, 

— There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto 

Rev. T. crvWjpxeTO 8« KaX to irXijOos tCv xfpij x6Xfuv 'I<povo-aX^)i, 

— And there also came together the multitude from the cities round about 

The preposition " unto " is retained by D, E, P, nearly all 
the cursives, the Demidovian codex of the Vulgate, the Arme- 
nian Version, and Chrysostom. It is omitted by J{, A, B, 103, 
575, some copies of the Vulgate, the Ethiopia, the two Syriac 
and two Egyptian Versions, and Lucifer. The arrangement of 
the words twv nepi^ -n-oKeoiv forbids the taking of Trtpi^ as a 
preposition governing 'lepova-aX-ijiJ.. It can be legitimately con- 
strued only as an adverb used adjectively, and meaning, " the 
surroumUii^ cities." This necessitates the use of as, or some 
other preposition before 'kpovo-aAi^/i, making the whole clause 
read, "And the populace also of the surrounding cities (or, 



of the cities around) came together unto Jerusalem." The 
omission of «s was the natural result of losing sight of the true 
construction, and considering ire'pi^ a preposition, as the Re- 
visers have done. If Luke's meaning had been " of (or from) 
the cities round about Jerusalem," he would doubtless have 
'written tmv ttoKhhv irt'pi^ 'YipovdoX-^fL ; but, if he wrote tS)v tripi^ 
TToXcuyv 'lipovaaXyfi., his only meaning could be, " of the sur- 
rounding cities of Jerusalem." But this is a transparently false 

V. 28. 

Rec. T. Ou irapa-yYcXtc;^ irapti-y-ytCXaiuv ijiiv — Did iiot we straitly 
command you? 

Rev. T. Uapa'Y'YiXCiji iraptiYY^'^o-H'"' u(iiv — We straitly charged you. 

The received reading here is supported by Ji{ as corrected 
by its earlier seventh-century emendator, the Greek text of 
Codex D, E, P, all the cursives, both Syriac Versions, the The- 
baic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Athanasius and Cyril each in 
one place, Basil the Great, Theodoret, and Chrysostom twice. 
The revised reading is that of ^ first hand, A, B, the Latin Version 
of Codex D, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, Athanasius and Cyril 
each in another place, and Lucifer. After "asked" in verse 
27, one naturally looks for a question. Hence, certain critics 
say, ov was inserted, and the sentence transformed into a 
question : " Did we not straidy charge you ? " But, really, oi 
was more probably stricken out than inserted. And it was on 
this wise : An early reader, remembering that the aposdes 
were positively charged (iv. 18), on the preceding day, not to 
teach in the name of Jesus, considered it absurd that this clause 
should read interrogatively, and holding that the last clause of 
the verse' is the proper place for the question, struck out the 
01', making the verse read, "We straitly charged you not to 
teach in this name ; and lo ! ye have filled Jerusalem with 
your teaching ; and do ye intend to bring upon us this man's 
blood ? " After which, the narrative goes on naturally, " And 



Peter and the apostles answering, said," etc. But to leave 
the verse, as the Revisers do, without any question in it, is 
probably more than the early corrector of the text intended. 
Yet to transfer the question to the end of the verse is unnatural, 
and inconsistent with the language of the record itself; for 
verse 29 shows that the apostles' answer was not to the last 
but to the first clause of verse 28. The received reading 
undoubtedly presents the original text, as the documentary 
testimony warrants us in believing. It is the stronger way of 
putting the statement, and just the way in which it was likely 
to be put, considering the circumstances in which the parties 
were placed. 

V. 33- 
Rcc. T. ipovX«-uovTO — took counsel. 
Rev. T. 4po«\ovTO — were minded. 

The common reading is supported by Ji^, D, H, P, most of 
the cursives, the Latin Version of E, the Vulgate, the two 
Syriac Versions, and Lucifer. The other is that of A, B, E, 
about fifteen cursives, the two Egyptian, the Armenian and 
Ethiopic Versions, and Chrysostom twice. But the writing of 
(jiovXovTo for ifiovXtvovTo was an error of frequent occurrence 
among ancient scribes ; and this error seems to have been 
committed here. Not only is the Revisers' a feebler word 
than the other, but it fails to meet the apparent requirements 
of the context. *E/3ovA.£voi'to, on the other hand, expresses all 
that t/3ovXovTo does ; and, by informing the reader that the 
Jews "proceeded to take counsel" (which is the import of 
the imperfect here), it also prepares him for the statement of the 
next verse : " There stood up one in the council," or San- 
hedrim, etc. The context shows that they not only wished or 
were minded to slay the apostles, but proceeded at once to 
take measures to execute, if possible, their wish. This calls 
for IfiovXivovTo ; and there need be no question that this is 
what the author of the Acts wrote. Tischendorf, Alford, and 
others adopt it as the genuine reading. 



V. 39- 

Rec. T. oi SvvourSc KaToXStrai airo • — ye cannot overthrow it. 
Rev. T. ou Suv^o-io'Sc KaToXvo-ai oiTotis * — ye will not be able to 
overthrow thera. 

The present, Swao-^c, of the Received Text is attested by A, 
H, P, most of the cursives, one copy of the Vulgate, the Peshito 
and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Ethiopic, and The- 
ophylact in one form of his commentary. The Revisers' future 
is found in J{, B, C, D, E, about thirty-five cursives, a catena, 
the Vulgate, Origen, Chrysostom, and Theophylact in the other 
form of his commentary. It seems to be a part of the false 
reading preserved to us in a few early manuscripts, which, by 
carrying the thought into the future, called for a change from 
the present to the future of this verb : " Ye wiil not be able to 
overthrow it [or them], neither ye, nor kings, nor tyrants," as 
D reads ; or, as it is in E and a Greek manuscript to which the 
Saxon Bede had access, " Ye will not be able to overthrow it, 
neither ye nor your rulers." This future, too, is seemingly 
favored by the last word of the preceding verse, — " it will be 
overthrown." This would naturally lead a person who was 
changing the text to substitute the future for the present here. 
Without the additional expressions found in D, E, etc., the 
present is the stronger and more probably genuine reading. — 
As to the last word, whether we should read avro or avrovt, 
there also seems to be a question. The common reading is 
that of C first hand, H, P, nearly all the cursives, the Clemen- 
tine Vulgate, the Demidovian manuscript, the Peshito Syriac, 
the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions, Chrysostom twice, and 
Theophylact in both commentaries. Origen, quoting from 
memory, or paraphrasing, has instead, " the instruction of this 
one." The revised reading is that of J{, A, B, C second hand, 
n, E, less than fifteen cursives, a catena, two copies of the 
Vulgate, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, and the Ethi- 
opic. The connection, however, does not favor it. Gamaliel 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.' 

had just said, " If this counsel or this work be of men, it will be 
overthrown ; but if it is of God," — referring to the counsel or 
work just mentioned, not to the men under arrest, he necessarily 
went on to say, — " ye cannot overthrow it:' Gamaliel could 
scarcely have positively affirmed of the apostles, " Ye cannot 
overthrow them ": for they could easily have been taken aside 
and put to death. But, of any divine purpose or work, he 
could say, without fear of contradiction, " ye cannot overthrow 
it." Besides, the end sought was not the punishment or over- 
throw of the disciples, except as a means to something else. 
That end was the overthrow of the new religion, — which Gama- 
liel seems clearly to have thought might be a divine institution ; 
and it was to this that his words evidently had reference. But 
some early emendator, finding him saying in verse 38, "Refrain 
from t/iese men, and let t/iem alone," thought that Gamaliel 
must have referred to the men here. Accordingly, to correct 
the text, as he supposed, he changed avro to aurous. In view 
of the other spurious readings that are preserved in D, E, and 
other manuscripts in this and the preceding verse, one may be 
prepared to believe that even this strongly attested reading, 
auTovs, which is plainly out of harmony with the context, is also 

vi. 13. 

Rec. T. ov iravcrai ^-fjitara p\ao'<{>t|)ia XaXuv Kard rov toVov toO 
a-ytov TovTou. — ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy 

Kev. T. ov iraverai p'^p.ara XaXuv Kara k.t.X. — ceaseth not to speak 
words against this holy place. 

The revised reading may have the stronger external evidence 
in its favor, it being attested by X. A, B, C, D, six cursives, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and the two 
Egyptian Versions, while the other is supported by E, H, P, 
all the other cursives, a Latin lectionary of the eleventh century, 
the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions only. But no one of us, 



in speaking of others, would be likely to say that they " spoke 
words " against us. What else could they speak ? We should 
either omit " words," or else insert some qualifying term, as 
" hard " or " lying " or something similar. No more ought we 
to believe that Luke wrote " He ceaseth not to speak words 
' against this holy place." This is not in accordance with his 
manner of expressing himself. In verse 11, where the same 
utterance is recorded, the speakers are represented as saying, 
" We have heard him speak blasphe^noiis words against Moses " 
etc. And so, no doubt, it was recorded here. It is very easy 
to say, however, that the word " blasphemous " was introduced 
from verse 11. That it really was thus introduced, there is no 
evidence whatever. On the other hand, it is intrinsically im- 
probable that the expression " to speak words " against a person 
or thing proceeded from so careful and finished a writer as 
Luke. Some early transcriber, in all probability, carelessly 
omitted the word, and the error was left uncorrected. But his 
blunder should not be accepted as presenting the original text, 
any more than other blunders, though transcribed into other 
manuscripts, and even translated into a number of other 

vii. 7. 

The old reading here, SovXtwrojcrt, " they may be in bondage," 
is far more strongly supported by the documents than SouXtu- 
o-ovcri, " they shall be in bondage." Yet the latter, which is 
intrinsically the true reading, is very properly adopted by 
Tischendorf, the Revisers, and Westcott and Hort, — Ji^, B, 
and other documents to the contrary notwithstanding. 

vii. 36. 

Rec. T. {v Yn Alviiirrou, — in the land of Egypt 
Rev. T. iv T[j At'Y'"''"'o>, — in Egypt. 

The former of these readings is supported by the Greek text 
of Codex D, the greater part of the cursives, a corrector of the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Latin version e of Codex E, the Vulgate, the Peshitoand Philox- 
enian Synac, the Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopia Versions, 
and Theophylact; the latter, by B, C, four cursives, a catena 
or commentary, the Latin version ^ of Codex D, and the The- 
baic Version, while four other cursives read simply iv Aly{hrrw 
But probably no one of these is the original reading. A-yt-^ro's 
is a word which occurs in the New Testament twenty-five times, 
— in the Acts fifteen times ; but never, either in the New 
Testament or in the Septuagint, is it properly accompanied by 
the article. The only instance now occurring to us in which 
the article accompanies it in the Septuagint is in Isa. xix. i8, 
where we read iv rrj AZywro. in Van Ess's edition. But this is 
a misprint or a clerical error for eV yrj Afy^rro.. It is true, also, 
that m Acts vii. ii Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and 
Westcott and Hort, as well as the Revisers, read 5\r,v rr,v 
klyvTTov, "all Egypt." But this, though supported by X, A, 
B, C, and 8i, is unquestionably a clerical error, which origi- 
nated in writing T for T, or r^ for y7,v, and Afyv^rrov for 
Aiy,;,rrov, — the Original reading there being 6\r,v y?,v AZyvVrov. 
Compare the Septuagint at Gen. xli. 19, 46. Tij Alyvnro^, y^, 
AtyuVrov, and yj AlyCTTTw are all legitimate expressions ; but 
not y7,v K'yvirrov, nor yet r^ Ai'yvTrTo.'. — In the verse before 
us, the true reading is plainly <V yy AZyvVro,, as Tischendorf 
reads, following X, A, E, H, P, 61, and nearly fifty other cur- 
sives, the first hand of the Latin Version of Codex E, and 
Chrysostom. This, too, is probably the correct reading in Acts 
xiii. 17, given by C, D, E, H, L, P, most of the cursives, a 
catena, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, and followed by Tisch- 
endorf, — a form occurring again and again in the Septuagint." 
S, A, B, and less than twenty cursives, however, here (xiii. 1 7) 
read iv y!j AJyvVrou, — which is adopted by Lachmann, West- 
cott and Hort, and the Revisers. 

■ See Gen. xlvii. 11, 27, 28; Ex. xii. 29; xiii. 15; xvi. 3; xxii. 21 ; 
xxiii. 9; Lev. xix. 34; Numb. xiv. 2; Deut. x. 19; Psa. Ixxvii. (Uxviii.) 
12; Jer. xliv. 26, 27, 28. 



vui. 18. 

The ancient documents to which the marginal note refers as 
omitting the word " Holy " from the clause " the Holy Ghost 
was given," are ^, B, the Thebaic Version, and the Apostolic 
Constitutions. The two words to ayiov, could not have been 
accidentally lost ; nor could their presence, if they were not 
already in the text, have been considered such a necessity as to 
tempt any one to insert them. The expression was apparently 
omitted on account of the occurrence of ayiov in the preceding 
as well as the following verse, by which a reader or scribe was 
very easily led to think the retention of the word here unneces- 
sary, and its removal a decided improvement. Its presence as 
a part of the text is attested by all the other uncials (including 
A, C, D, L) and versions, and by all the cursives, besides Basil 
the Great, Chrysostom in two different places, John Damascene, 
and others. 

viii. 37. 

This verse is omitted by the Revisers, with the marginal 
note, " Some ancient authorities insert wholly or in part, verse 
37, ^/id Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou 
mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God." This passage, though quoted by Irenaeus 
in both Greek and Latin, and known to Cyprian, Jerome, 
Augustine and others, is not found in any extant Greek manu- 
script earlier than the seventh century. It is wanting in Ji^, 
A, B, C (D is defective here), H, L, P, more than eighty 
cursives, some copies of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, and 
the text of the Philoxenian Syriac, the two Egyptian Versions, 
and the Ethiopia, and in Chrysostom's and Theophylact's notices 
of the context. Besides this, the documents that have the 
verse differ considerably in their readings, — a circumstance 
that always awakens a suspicion of spuriousness. Though 
perfectly in harmony with the context, it seems as if it can 



hardly be accepted as genuine. And yet, if it is an interpolation, 
it is as old as the second century at least. We should be slow 
to pronounce it positively spurious. 

IX. 25. 

Rcc. T. XaPo'vTis Sc avxiv ol |xa6i)TaC — Then the disciples took him. 
Rev. T. XaPo'vTis Si 01 )ia6i)Tal airoO — but his disciples took him. 

The received reading here is supported by E, H, L, P, nearly 
all the cursives, a catena, the Clementine Vulgate, the Peshito 
and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, the two Egyptian Versions, 
the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and Chrysostom. The revised is 
the reading of X> A, B, C, F% 61 first hand, four manuscripts 
of the Latin Version, and Origen. But this, in all probability, 
is a false reading. As Bede says, Paul could not as yet be said 
to have made disciples ; and, if he had, they would not be his, 
but Christ's ; nor can Luke be supposed to have spoken of 
them as Paul's disciples. Nor, on the other hand, can the 
word " his " here by any law of speech be referred to Christ. 
It is simply a copyist's blunder in writing AYTOY, "his," for 
AYTON, " him," the object of the participle Xa/3dvT«s. The fact 
that this form appears in a few of the earliest extant manu- 
scripts, a few copies of one version, and a single passage in 
Origen, instead of proving its genuineness, only confirms the 
view that it is an erroneous reading, which, on that very 
account, met with but limited acceptance. The disciples referred 
to were obviously those at Damascus. 

X. 3. 

Rec. T. «I)<rtl cSpav lvvaTi]v — about the ninth hour. 

Rev. T. oxrtl irepl liipav lvv&rr\v — as it were about the ninth hour. 

The Received Text is the reading of L, P, most of the cur- 
sives, the Vulgate, the Thebaic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic 
Version. The Revised is that of >^ A, B, C (D is defective 



here), E, twenty-five cursives, a catena, the Peshito and Phi- 
loxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, Irenaeus, and John Damascene. 
The word cirei', Luke uses at least fifteen times ; in ten of which 
he uses it in connection with numerals, and once with words 
denoting a measure of space. In each of these eleven instances 
'{i.e. of uses with numerals), unless this is an exception, he 
employs the word in the sense of " about," or " nearly." If 
the Revisers' reading here is correct, he uses it in the sense 
of " as it were," — denoting a sort of resemblance to some- 
thing else, or an implied denial of just what is otherwise said 
in connection with the word. Thus, we read, in ii. 3, of 
"cloven tongues resembling fire"; and in ix. 18, that " there 
fell from his eyes something like scales " ; and again, in Luke 
xxii. 44, that " his sweat became as it were great drops of 
blood." But why should Luke have said "as it were about 
the ninth hour"? Did he mean to say that the vision did not 
really occur about the ninth hour? No one among us surely 
would be expected to say, " You may look for me to-morrow, 
as it were about noon." The word " about " covers the entire 
ground. That certainly is Luke's iisus loqucndi elsewhere. If, 
however, we will only allow for a moment that ancient manu- 
scripts are not necessarily infallible, but may even be united in 
error, as every textual critic knows they are again and again, 
the difficulty is not far to be sought. Some early reader, like 
some modern ones, had a notion of his own about Luke's 
meaning ; but, finding that Luke's words here were not suffi- 
cient to support him in his interpretation, he went to verse 9, 
and imported thence the preposition ■Trcpt, "about." This 
enabled him to give to the clause the meaning he thought he 
had found in it, or, more properly speaking, thought he had 
ensured to it, but which the Revisers have ignored ; namely, 
" He saw in a vision, as it were openly (distinctly, with the naked 
eye), about the ninth hour," etc. The only thing that seems 
to have stood in the way of making his meaning obvious to 
others was the position of the words. But while the reading 



was accepted by some, and possibly in the sense in which it 
was thus meant, others, who probably had earlier exemplars to 
follow, have transmitted to us the genuine text as generally 
received. If Luke had used the word wcrit in the sense of " as 
it were," he would assuredly have inserted it before <^vtpu)s, 
not after it. That he meant to say, " as it were about the ninth 
hour," is really too much for even the most credulous reader to 

Rec. T. Tc<ro-ap<riv Apx^ts ScScpicvov, Kal KaSit'fUvov — knit at the 
four corners, and let down. 

Rev. T. T«<ro-aptriv dpxats Ka6if'(Wvov — let down by four corners. 

The fuller reading is that of C first hand, L, P, 6i, and nearly 
all the other cursives, a catena, the Latin Version // of Codex D 
(which is defective here), the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions, Clement of Alexandria, 
the Apostolic Constitutions, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. The 
shorter reading is that of J<, A, B, C second hand, E, four 
cursives, the Vulgate, the Ethiopic, Origen in four different 
places, — though he may have quoted from memory, and as 
much from chapter xi. 5 as from this verse,— Cyril, and Theod- 
oret. But this reading, found in the three oldest extant Greek 
manuscripts, is probably the result of a comparison with xi. 5, 
and a desire to make it correspond with that. It is impossible 
to account for the presence, in this connection, of the omitted 
words, if they are not genuine, especially as there is nothing 
like them in the account given in the next chapter. 

X. 24. 

The reading "he entered," referred to in the marginal note, 
and adopted by Westcott and Hort, instead of" they entered," 
is that of B, D, 61, and two other cursives, the Vulgate, the 
text of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Ethiopic, and Theophylact. 



The common reading, " they entered," is attested by X, A, C, 
E, H, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito Syriac, the mar- 
gia of the Philoxenian Syriac, the two Egyptian Versions, the 
Armenian, and Chrysostom. If Luke's thoughts at the time 
were taken up with Peter, as the chief one of whom he was 
speaking, he may have written " he entered." But the proba- 
bility is against this ; for his having just made mention of others 
in company with Peter makes it exceedingly probable that 
he wrote "they entered," — especially as he immediately fol- 
lows it with the remark that " Cornelius was waiting for them." 
The error, whether in writing the singular for the plural or the 
converse, might very easily h.ave been effected through want of 
due care on the part of a scribe in mistaking an for an G, or 
vice versa, leading him to write the singular for the plural, or 
the contrary. 

X. 30. 

Rec. T. Airo TCTopnis T]|j.4pas (i^XP' TaiTrjs rfjs copas liliiv v^imiiav, 
Kal TT)v ivvaniv aipav irpoo-tuxo'iifvos — Kour days ago, I was fasting until 
this hour, and at the ninth hour 1 prayed. 

Rev. T. A-irA T€TapTT)s T)|ji<pas p-^XP' TavTT)S rfjs lopas r\y.y\v ttjv ivva- 
TT]v irpoo-tvxo'p.evos — Four days ago, until this hour, I was keeping the 
ninth hour of prayer. 

The Received Text here is supported by A second hand, D, 
E, H, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian 
Syriac Versions, the Thebaic, and Chrysostom. The revised 
reading is that of X, A first hand, B, C, 61, and three other 
cursives, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and the 
J'lthiopic. The mention of fasting here, as well as of praying, 
is an important circumstance, intended to show how Cornelius 
had been engaged. Some suppose that its omission may be 
explained by the fact that no fasting is spoken of in verse 3. 
This is possible. But it seems due rather to a misunderstand- 
ing of the preceding words, which some early reader probably 
took to mean, that on the fourth day previous, only from early 



morning until about three o'clock, Cornelius had been without 
eating. This was thought to render kijo-to/w, " fasting," un- 
meaning. Hence its omission as well as that of the following 
conjunction, leaving the remaining words to indicate that Peter, 
who set out in the morning, did not reach Cornelius' house till 
some time after three o'clock the next day : " I was keeping 
the ninth hour of prayer," said Cornelius ; i.e. I was observing 
the three o'clock prayer service " until this hour," — which, of 
course, makes it some time after three. But Cornelius' men, 
who started after three p.m. for Joppa four days before, were at 
Peter's door within twenty-four hours. The reading, however, 
is somewhat disjointed, as the Revised Version shows. But 
restore the omitted words, and all becomes coherent and clear : 
" Four days ago, I was engaged in fasting [He may have begun 
to fast the previous day ; but on that day he says, I was fasting] 
until this hour, when [in addition to fasting] I was observing 
the ninth hour of prayer in my house ; and lo ! " etc. This 
makes Peter and his companions only a little longer on the way 
to Cornelius than the others had been in going to Joppa. 

Rcc. T. (iT)8€V SiaKpivojitvov • — nothing doubting. 
Rev. T. |tTi8«v SiaKpCvavra making no distinction. 

The former reading is supported by H, L, P, most of the 
cursives, the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the 
Ethiopic, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius. The latter is the read- 
ing of the earlier seventh-century corrector of S. A, B, 6i, 
and five other cursives ; while, instead of this, S first hand, E, 
and four or five cursives have the present participle ScaKpcVovra. 
D and the Philoxenian Syriac Version omit the words. The 
variation in reading between A, B and K, E naturally awakens 
suspicion respecting the active participle. In x. 20, Luke 
reports the Spirit as having said to Peter, "Go with them, 
nothing doubtingr But here, if the Revisers' reading is correct, 



Peter is reported as saying, that the Spirit bade him " go with 
them, tnaking no distinction." This certainly is a distinction 
with a decided difference, not to say an incompatibility of 
meaning. If the Spirit's bidding to Peter was as recorded in 
X. 20, it cannot be what the Revisers' text here says it was. 
This text, however, misrepresents Luke. It is language which 
some early reader thought to be more appropriate for Peter to 
employ under the circumstances than the Spirit's bidding. To 
him it appeared unsuitable for Peter to defend his course by 
saying that he was told to go unhesitatingly. It was better to 
say, that he was bidden to go without making any distinction 
between Jews and Gentiles, — an idea which he readily gathered 
from the context. 

Rec. T. iroXus t« dpi6|i.&s irio-rtio-as {irc<rTpcij>cv — and a great number 
believed, and turned. 

Rev. T. TToXis Tt dpi6p,6s 6 irio-Ttio-as iir€'<rTp«j>€v — and a great 

number that l)elieved turned. 

The received reading is supported by D, E, H, L, P, nearly 
all the cursives, tlie Peshito Syriac Version, and Chrysostom. 
The other is the reading of X, A, B, 36, 61, 180, and a catena. 
The presence of the article makes the words mean that a great 
nimiber who became believers on this occasion turned to the 
Lord. But this is not all. It implies either that some who 
believed did not turn to the Lord, or else that some who turned 
to the Lord did not believe. That is to say, the presence of 
the article, to be of any significance, requires us to understand 
the clause as meaning either that a great number, but not all, 
that believed, turned to the Lord ; or else that a great number 
that believed, to say nothing of others who did not believe, 
turned to tlie Lord. Compare the sentence, "Very many who 
saw him were convinced of the truth of the report." This 
does not mean that all who saw him were convinced, or that 
none but those who saw him were convinced ; but that of those 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

who saw many were convinced. So the revised reading can 
only mean that of those who believed or became believers on 
this occasion, a great number turned to the Lord. To make 
the sentence read as Luke must have written it, the article should 
be rejected : "A great number having believed turned to the 
Lord " ; or, as the A. V. has it, " A great number believed, and 
(as the immediate consequence) turned to the Lord." 

Rec. T. c^air^o-TciXav Bapviipav St«X6civ lus * AvTiox«£as • — they sent 
fortli liarnabas that he should go as far as Antioch. 

Rev. T. t|air€<rT€i\av Bapvd^av lus 'AvTio\cCas' — they sent forth 
Barnabas as far as Antioch. 

The common reading is that of D, E, H, L, P, most of the 
cursives, a catena, the Thebaic and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, 
and Chrysostom. The other is supported by Ji^, A, B, 6i, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and 
the Ethiopic. But evidently SitXOilv was early omitted as 
superfluous. If Luke had not written it, there would have 
been no temptation for any one else to insert it ; for there is 
nothing objectionable in the reading, "They sent Barnabas 
forth to Antioch," — €(1)9 in the sense of " to " or " unto " being 
a common use of the word with Luke. See Luke iv. 42, xi. 
51 ; Acts i. 8, viii. 10, ix. 38, xiii. 47, etc. 

xi. 23. 

"Some ancient authorities," says the marginal note, — that 
is, the Vatican Codex, the eleventh-century cursive 40, and the 
.two Egyptian Versions, — read, " that they would cleave unto 
the purpose of their heart in the Lord." But the word Iv 
seems to have been inserted simply for the sake of definitely 
fixing the supposed meaning. The rendering " to cleave to/' 
or "adhere to," or "abide by," shows the true meaning here 
of the verb Trpoafitvuv. In a local sense, denoting continuance 



in a place, the verb would very naturally be accompanied by iv, 
" in," as in i Tim. i. 3. But here, as in Matt. xv. 32, and 
in Mark viii. 2, or in i Tim. v. 5, the preposition is wholly 
uncalled for, and is, no doubt, spurious. 

xu. 5. 

Rec. T. irpoo-CDXi) 8« riv «KTevT)s i}.voy.ivr\ — but prayer was made 
without ceasing. [In the margin, these words are more properly rendered, 
"but instant and earnest prayer was made."] 

Rev. T. irpoo-cvxT ^f riv cktcvus 'yivo|Uvt| — but prayer was made 

The Received Text follows the reading of A second hand, 
E, H, L, P, 61, and nearly all the other cursives, a catena, 
Basil the Great, Chrysostom, and Severianus. The Revised 
adopts that of Ji^, B, and what seems to be the original reading 
of A, three cursives, the Latin Version e, the Vulgate, and 
Lucifer. But these Latin "authorities," as well as D, which 
reads iv iKTtvua, take the word in the sense of incessantly, or 
without ceasing, as our A. V. does in the text, which is inad- 
missible. Luke's word is not the adverb, but the adjective. 
He is speaking of the character of the prayer that was going 
up on Peter's beiialf, — earnest, intent, as with feelings drawn 
out to the utmost on his behalf, — not of the manner of offer- 
ing it, or of the frequency of it. 

xu. 25. 

The " many ancient authorities " to which the note refers as 
reading " returned to Jerusalem " instead of " returned from 
Jerusalem," are Ji^, B, H, L, P, 6r, and about thirty-five other 
cursives, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Roman 
Ethiopic, the Arabic of the Paris Polyglot, some manuscripts 
of Chfysostom, and Theophylart. A few cursives read " re- 
turned to Antioch" instead. The text is supported by A (C 



is defective here), a number of cursives, the Peshito Syriac 
Version, as well as the text of the Philoxenian, the two Egyptian 
Versions, the Armenian, Piatt's Ethiopic, and some of the 
manuscripts of Chrysostom ; while D, E, nearly twenty cur- 
sives, a catena, the Vulgate, and one manuscript of Chrysostom, 
read dird, " from," instead of i$, " from." Then again, between 
twenty and thirty of these documents that read " from" (em- 
bracing some that read cf and some that read ano) , notably E, 
the Peshito Syriac, the Thebaic, and Erpenius' Arabic Version, 
read " from Jerusalem to Antioch." A variety of readings 
surely sufficiently great to please almost any lover of varying 
texts. The marginal reading cannot, from the nature of the 
case, be the true reading ; yet the accepted reading, which 
the context plainly calls for, lacks the strong support of nearly 
all the uncials, — a comparatively rare occurrence respecting a 
genuine reading. Westcott and Hort conjecture "that the 

original order was rrjv eU 'lepovaa\r]ft irXrjpwa-avTC; SuiKOVtav," — 

adding that " the article is more liable than other words to 
careless transposition." ' P>ut this collocation, besides being 
without a shadow of support, makes such Greek as Luke could 
not have written. It embraces between the article and its 
noun the word irXripiLaavTa, so making it an adjunct and modifier 
of that noun instead of its governing word. In order to express 
their idea of the possible original meaning, the order would need 

to be either vXripuxTavTC'; ttjv di 'l€pov(Ta\r]p, BuiKOviav, or TrXrjpoi- 

<xavTc<: Tr]i' SiaKoviav ik 'UpovaaXiqfjL, i.e. " having fulfilled their 
ministry to Jerusalem." But either of these transpositions, 
with nothing whatever to support it, is too violent a wresting 
of the writer's language to find acceptance in any quarter. That 
tU early and easily crept into the text, in place of ii, need not 
be doubted. In xi. 29, 30, we read that the disciples at Antioch 
sent relief to " the brethren that dwelt in Judea " by the hands 
of Barnabas and Saul. Then follows an episode, relating what 

1 Select Keadings, p. 94. 



happened "about that time," possibly before Barnabas and 
Saul left Antioch, — this digression occupying all but the last 
two verses of chapter xii. At verse 24 of that chapter, Luke 
resumes his narrative respecting affairs at Antioch, — not very 
many days having elapsed between the events of xi. 30 and 
those of xii. 24, 25. But some early reader seems to have 
perused this portion of the Acts under several false impressions. 
In the first place, he must have taken the words, " the brethren 
residing in Judea" (xi. 29) to mean the brethren that were 
dwelling in various parts of Judea, instead of simply the brethren 
in Jerusalem. Then he seems to have regarded the circum- 
stances narrated in xii. 1-19 as necessarily occurring after 
Barnabas and Saul had left Antioch. He may also have con- 
sidered the statements in verses 20-23 as made concerning 
Herod while he was yet in Jerusalem, instead of while spending 
his last days at Cesarea. Under some or all of these impres- 
sions, he would naturally have supposed that Barnabas and Saul, 
very soon after arriving in Jerusalem from Antioch, left the city 
and spent the time in passing up and down through Judea 
visiting the brethren, till after the death of Herod, when they 
" returned to Jerusalem," having fulfilled their ministry in Judea, 
to aid them in which they had taken Mark along with them. 
This will account at once for the introduction of tU in place of 
ff, — the latter having been naturally considered an erroneous 
reading. Hence, too, the appearance of «s in so many of the 
uncials. Instead of going through Judea, however, Barnabas 
and Saul went directly from Antioch to Jerusalem, "fulfilled 
their ministry," that is, turned over to the brethren there the 
funds they had brought for their relief, and very soon after 
returned to Antioch, or, as the text has it, "returned from 
Jerusalem," taking Mark along with them. 

xiii. 18. 

Here, instead of the reading of the text, €TpoTro<f>6prja-tv, "he 
suffered their manners," the margins of both the Authorized and 



the Revised New Testament give hpo^o^oprfcrev, " he nourished 
them with fatherly care." This, which is regarded as the true 
reading by the American Revisers, is attested by A, C first 
hand, E, eight or ten cursives, the Latin Version of Codex D 
(which is rather significant, being opposed not only to its own 
Greek but to the Latin Versions generally), the Peshito and 
Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Armenian, 
both Ethiopia Versions, and Erpenius' Arabic ; to which may 
be added the testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions, Cyril of 
Alexandria, and the Septuagint Version of 2 Maccab. vii. 2 7. The 
common reading is that of Ji^, B, C second hand, D, H, L, P, 
61, and the great majority of the cursives, the catenas, the 
Vulgate, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Origen, and 
possibly Chrysostom and Theophylact. The marginal reading 
has not the strong attestation of Greek manuscripts which the 
other has, though it is well supported by the Versions. But it 
certainly harmonizes better with the context, which refers, not 
so much to God's forbearance with his ancient people, as to 
his interpositions on their behalf, and .his repeated favors and 
gifts to them. It was more appropriate to the occasion, too, 
than the reading of the text would have been. " It would 
hardly have suited the apostle's purpose," in addressing a 
Jewish audience whom he desired to please, " to have inter- 
posed, by way of parenthesis in the midst of his details of 
benefits received, the unwelcome suggestion of their obstinate 
ingratitude and of God's long forbearance." Hence, modem 
editors generally give the marginal reading the preference. It 
is the reading of Deut. i. 31, as given by A, B first hand, and 
most other manuscripts of the Septuagint, — the reading which 
was accepted in the apostolic age, and has been ever since, 
and which the Anglo-American Revisers of 1885 have there 
given to the Hebrew verb, as did their predecessors of 161 1. 
There are, in fact, strong reasons for believing that it is the 
original reading. Origen translated the Hebrew verb in Deut. 
i. 31 by tTpoTTo^opija-tv, " he put up with their conduct," because 



the apparent comparison of God to a nurse seemed to him 
unsuitable, and was rather repulsive than otherwise ; and for 
the same reason that reading, which appeared very plausible, 
was adopted by others. Hence, doubtless, its appearance in 
most of the uncials and cursives here. 

zlii. 1 9, 20. 

Rec. T. KaT€KXT|po8<STn<r€v avrois ttiv yf^v avr&v. Kal (uroL ravro, 
is «T«(ri T«TpaKoo-(ois Kal irtvWiKovTa, e8uK6 Kpirds — he divided to them 
their land by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the 
space of four hundred and fifty years. 

Rev. T. KaTcKXT|pov6)ii]o-( ttiv -yf^v avruv, us €T€<ri TcrpaKoo-Cois KaV 
irtvT^KOVTtt • Kol (iCTtt TauTa cSuKC Kpirds — he gave (Aem their land for 
an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years: and after these 
things he gave //;<•»» judges. 

The change from KaTeKXrjpoSorrja-ev to KareKXrjpovofjLrjcre is as it 
should be : the former is a later and feebly attested reading. 
But the omission of avrots is one the propriety of which may be 
questioned. As for the rest of the passage, the reading of the 
Received Text is supported by D, E,, H, L, P, nearly all the 
cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Erpenius' Arabic, 
and the two Ethiopia Versions ; D, however, as well as the 
Peshito Syriac, Erpenius' Arabic, and the Roman Ethiopia 
omit the phrase, " after these things." The revised reading is 
that of J^, A, B, C, 61, and six other cursives, the catenas, the 
Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and the Thebaic Ver- 
sion, which also omits "after these things." Tischendorf says 
that the united authority of the four oldest manuscripts should 
not be abandoned except for most weighty and sufficiently evi- 
dent reasons. Yet, in verse 33, he abandons it, as do Lach- 
mann and Tregelles, to read, in accordance with D, Origen, 
Hilary, and others, " the first psalm " instead of " the second 
psalm." Of course, the united testimony of the oldest manu- 
scripts is not to be lightly set aside. At the same time, there 
is such a thing as being slavishly bound to it, and following it 


■THE REVIS£RS' greek TEXT'. 

as if it were infallible. The textual critic must seek to avoid 
both extremes. In the passage before us, according to the 
Revised Text, the apostle says, apparently, that God gave the 
Israelites the land of Canaan to be their inheritance for only 
about four hundred and fifty years. But this, plainly enough, 
is not the apostle's meaning. Humphry, while not venturing 
an explanation of the meaning of the Revised Text here, simply 
says that, by the transposition of phrases which the Revisers 
have made, " the discrepancy is avoided, which the common 
text presents, between the statement of S. Paul and the received 
chronology of the Old Testament as to the interval from the 
exodus to the time of Samuel the prophet." ' Without attempt- 
ing any explanation of our own concerning this " discrepancy," 
which plainly enough led to the monstrous reading adopted by 
the Revisers, we prefer to quote the comment of Dr. Hackett 
on the passage : " This number is the sum of the years assigned 
in the Old Testament to the administration of the judges . . . 
added to the sum of the years during which the nation was sub- 
ject to foreign oppressors. Hence it would be very natural for 
"the Jews to speak of four hundred and fifty years as the proxi- 
mate number of years during which the judges ruled. But 
whether the computation arose in that way, or in some other, 
it was certainly in use among the Jews ; for Josephus {^Ajitiqui- 
iics VIII. ii. i) gives the time from the departure out of Egypt 
till the building of the temple as five hundred and ninety-two 
years. If we deduct from that the forty years in the wilderness, 
twenty-five for the administration of Joshua (^Antiquities V. i. 
29, — not stated in the Old Testament), forty for Saul's reign, 
forty for David's, and four under Solomon (i Kings vi. i), we 
have for the period of the judges four hundred and forty-three 
years, which the apostle could call, in round numbers, about 
four hundred and fifty years. It is evident that Paul has fol- 
lowed here a mode of reckoning which was current at that time, 

1 Commmtary on the R. V., p. 2 1 9. 



and which, being a well-known received chronology, whether 
correct or incorrect in itself considered, was entirely correct for 
his object, which was not to settle a question about dates, but 
to recall to the minds of those whom he addressed, a particular 
jjortion of the Jewish history." ' The revised reading is the 
rasult of an attempt to obviate a difficulty which thus appears 
to have no real existence. Compare Meyer, who, in his note 
on this verse, agrees with Hackett. 

- Whom think ye that 

• What suppose ye 

xiu. 25. 

Rec. T. TCva )U virovoeiTt etvai ; ovk €l|jiV i-yci • - 
I am ? I am not he. » 

Rev. T. T( <|ic iirovoeiTe ttvai ; ovk «t(il i-^m • 
that I am? 1. am not he. 

The former of these readings is according to C, D, E, H, L, 
P, nearly all the cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Phi- 
loxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, and Chrysostom. 
The latter follows X. A) 1^- ^^^ 'he Thebaic, and the Ethiopic 
Version. The original reading, probably, was nVa /it,- and the 
form of the sentence interrogative. But, on account of the 
ellipsis of uvTos in the clause following the question, the words 
were early and somewhat widely misunderstood, and the two 
clauses taken declaratively as forming one sentence : " I am 
not the one whom ye suppose me to be." Rut, as the con- 
struction appeared somewhat harsh, nVa not being a relative, 
and yet equivalent to ov or oi/nva, " the one whom," two. p-e 
seems to have been considered a transcriptional error (oTriefj-e, 
to which it was accordingly changed, — ti being less harsh, and 
rendering the sentence more plainly declarative, as Tischendorf 
makes it, and as others still insist it should be : " What ye 
suppose me to be, I am not " ; or, " I am not what ye suppose 
me to be." If this had been the original reading, it seems 
hardly probable that it would ever have been changed to the 

1 Commentary on the Acts. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Other, which is inherently the harder reading. The other, 
however, is sufficiently attested, and should be retained as the 
true reading, introducing a question : " Whom do ye suppose 
me to be ? " 

xm. 33. 

Rec. T. TavTT)v 6 0«6s iKirnr\i\patKt rots Wkvois airuv T|(itv, — God 
hath fulfilled the same unto us their children. 

Rev. T. Ttti-niv 4 Gfis <KirtirX^po>K« rots rUvoit i\n&v, — God hath 
fulfilled the same unto our children. 

The first of these readings is found in C as amended by its 
second corrector, E, H, L, P, 61, and nearly every other cur- 
sive, the catenas, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Armenian, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. The revised reading 
is that of J<, A, B, C first hand, D, the Vulgate (except one 
manuscript which reads "your"), both Ethiopic Versions, 
Hilary (sometimes reading "your," however), Ambrose, and 
Bede. The Memphitic Version reads "unto the children," and 
the Thebaic, "unto their children." The eleventh-century 
cursive 76, alone reads, " unto us, the children." We cannot 
resist the conclusion that the Received as well as the Revised 
Text fails to present to us Luke's words as he wrote them. 
We go farther : we are convinced that the true reading has 
come down to us in the single cursive 76, which reads toTs 
TfKvois riixii', " to us the children," — the words "the children " 
corresponding to " the fathers," in the preceding verse. But 
the meaning, and consequently the construction, not being 
understood, rjfuv was early thought to be a transcriptional error, 
and so became changed to rjixwv. Hence the appearance of 
this form in the five oldest uncials and in Jerome's Latin Ver- 
sion. Others, however, who saw that ^/xiv was in apposition 
with TCKi'ois, in order to render the text clear to others, inserted 
avTMv between the two words. Hence the received reading, 
which is that of the cursives generally. The translators of the 
two Egyptian Versions dropped -^fiiv ; the one writing " the chil- 



dren," and the other, " their children." Westcott and Hort 
admit that the " text \i.e. the Revised Text] which alone has 
any adecjuate authority . . . gives only an improbable sense. 
It can hardly be doubted that ij/ioii/ is a primitive corruption of 
y[\u.v, — Tous irartpas and tois rtKi/ots being alike absolute. The 
sug^stion is due to Bornemann, who cites x. 41 in illustra- 
tion." ' There certainly is something exceedingly incongruous 
in Paul's being represented as saying that God had "com- 
pletely fulfilled" his promise to "our children," many of whom 
were yet unborn ! — entirely overlooking the parents, whom he 
was addressing and the very ones, apparently, to whom the 
promise was fulfilled. 

XV. 24. 

Rec. T. dvoo-KcuAJovTcs tus '('ux^^s vi(iuv, X^^ovtcs irepiW(ive(r6ai Kal 
Ti)p«iv Tov vipov, ols ov 8ico-Tei\d)u6a ' — subverting your souls, saying, 
Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such 

Rev. T. dva<rK«va^ovT€s tols >I<ux*s wjimv, ols ov Si.(o~rci\(SL|u6a • — 
subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment. 

In support of the received reading, we have C, E, H, L, 
P, nearly every cursive, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
the Armenian, Piatt's Ethiopic, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. 
The revised reading follows J^, A, B, D, 13, 61, the Vulgate, the 
Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Roman Ethiopic, the Apostolic 
Constitutions, and Athanasius. Epiphanius omits the words, 
" subverting your souls," as well as the clause that follows ; and 
Origen, in quoting the passage, stops short at the words " have 
troubled you." The omitted words are, no doubt, a part of 
the original text. They were probably omitted through over- 
sight, because of the resemblance between iMLUN, the last 
syllable before the omission, and vdMON, the last syllable of 
the omitted clause. It is very generally supposed, however, 
that they were supplied by some later hand from verse i or 5. 
But, since those verses show that the necessity of circumcision 

' Stlect Readings, p. 95. 

I 12 

THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

was the very question in reference to which Paul and Barnabas 
were sent to Jerusalem to confer with the brethren there, it is 
by no means probable that those brethren in their reply 
would have said nothing whatever in regard to the matter, 
especially in alluding to what they had heard concerning 
certain ones that had gone to them from Jerusalem. Besides, 
the words ols oi Suo-TeiXa/xt^a, that immediately follow, show 
clearly that the omitted clause is a part of the original text. If 
these words are properly translated, they will be represented in 
English, not by " to whom we gave no commandment," — which 
comes in rather awkwardly, — but, as in the Peshito Syriac 
Version, by " things which we have not commanded," or rather 
" in respect to which things (that is, circumcision and the keep- 
ing of the Mosaic law) we have given no commandment." The 
dative here denotes that in reference to which the action is 
done. (Winer, § 31, 6.) It is a common New-Testament use 
of the dative, as in Rom. vi. 20, " Ye were free in regard of 
righteousness." R. V.' If the words which the Revisers have 
omitted had been omitted from the letter to the brethren at 
Antioch, we question whether they would have " rejoiced for 
the consolation " or encouragement afforded them by that let- 
ter, as we are informed (verse 31) they did. On the contrary, 
the letter would probably have proved very unsatisfactory if the 
main subject concerning which they sought information and 
advice had been utterly ignored. 

' Other instances abound, though the dative is usually translated by " in." 
Matt. xiii. 14 (R. V.), " unto them is fulfilled "; (A. V.) " in them " etc.; 
i.e. in regard to them. Acts vii. 51, " uncircumcised in \i.e.asto'] heart 
and ears"; xiv. 8, "impotent in his feet"; xvi. 5, "strengthened in the 
faith," or in regard to their faith ; xviii. 2, " a man of Pontus by race," or 
as to nationality. Numerous other examples may be had by a reference to 
Winer's Grammar of the New Testament Diction. 



XV. 34- 

Rec. T. «8o|« S« t<J SCXf. {iri|ieivai avTov. — Notwithstanding it 
pleased Silas to abide there still. 

The Revisers omit this verse, with the marginal note, " Some 
ancient authorities insert, with variations, verse 34." It is 
generally considered that the verse is an interpolation, made 
with reference to Silas only, and with a view to account for the 
statement in verse 40 : " But Paul chose Silas, and departed " 
etc., — a statement which seems to imply very strongly that 
Silas was in Antioch at the time. From a careful examination 
of verses 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, we cannot see that any but 
the four brethren — Judas, Silas, Paul, and Barnabas — were 
sent down to Antioch with the letter and message from the 
apostles at Jerusalem. So that we are not justified in supposing 
that the statement of verse 33 has reference to any others. 
We are told in verse 35 that two of these brethren " tarried in 
Antioch," instead of returning to Jerusalem. Of the other two, 
if verse 34 is omitted, nothing seems to be said ; but the reader 
is left to infer that they returned to Jerusalem. This verse is 
wanting in Ji^, A, B, E, H, L, P, 6r, and about sixty other 
cursives. It is wanting, also, in two copies of the Old Latin 
Version, one of the Vulgate, and some copies of the Syriac and 
Memphitic Versions, besides being unrecognized by Chrysos- 
tom, and by Theophylact in one form of his commentary. But 
it is attested by C, D, most of the cursives, the Clementine 
Vulgate, the Philoxenian Syriac, some copies of the Peshito, 
the Armenian, both Ethiopic Versions, and Theophylact in the 
other form of his commentary. Instead of the accepted read- 
ing, avTov, " there," which seems to be a later reading, C and D 
have avToi^, " them." Taking this as the original ending of the 
verse, we find that it agrees with the ending of verse 33 ; and 
this enables us to account at once for the absence of verse 34 
from some of the documents. It was omitted by homoioteleii- 
ion, — flie result of oversight on the part of an early transcriber. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Then, as to its import, it may be said that ?So^£ means, in a 
general way, " it seemed good " ; but the word does not neces- 
sarily indicate that Silas kept his thought to himself. It some- 
times denotes the expression of an opinion. And this is what 
it seems to mean here. Silas suggested to his brethren that 
they had better not return to Jerusalem. With the reading 
avTou's instead of avroS in the Greek, of verse 34, the three 
verses may be rendered consecutively as follows : " Now, after 
they had spent some time there, they were given full liberty by 
the brethren [at Antioch] to return [if they wished] to those 
that had sent them forth. But Silas thought best [and pro- 
posed^ that they continue [or persevere, i.e. in the evangelistic 
work in which they were engaged]. And Paul and Barnabas 
prolonged their stay in Antioch, teaching and preaching the 
word of the Lord, with many others also." There was evidently 
a great work on their hands. Of course, Silas, who proposed 
remaining, and Judas, who was his co-worker (verse 32), 
remained also. Luke did not consider it necessary to state 
this after what he had said in verses 32, 34, but left it to be 
taken for granted by his readers. The connection between 
verse 34 and the context is perfect. It calls for no forced 
rendering ; while the omission of the verse is easily and natu- 
rally accounted for. The words of the sacred penman must 
not be rashly set aside. 

xvi. 13. 

Rec. T. ou {vo|i({cTO irpoo-euxi) clvai, — where prayer was wont to be 

Rev. T. ou lvo)iC|o)uv Trpoo-tu^Tjv Avax, — where we supposed there 
was a place of prayer. 

The documents are greatly at variance here. The Received 
Text follows the reading of E, H, L, P, nearly all the cursives, 
two catenae, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. Codex D and the 
Old Latin and Vulgate read : " where there seemed (^Soictt) to be 
a place of prayer." A and B, apparently : " where we expected 



to be in a place of prayer." The Sinaitic Codex: "where he 
thought that there was a place of prayer." The Peshito Syriac : 
" because a house of prayer was seen there." The Memphitic, 
Thebaic, and Armenian Versions have still other readings, no 
two of which are alike. The revised reading seems to be that 
of d, 13, 40, 61, and possibly the Roman Ethiopic Version. 
But these various readings evidently arose from a misunder- 
standing of Luke's meaning, which, it would seem, is expressed 
with sufficient clearness by the Received Text: "Where was 
wont to be a place of prayer " ; i.e. where the Jews of Philippi 
were accustomed to meet for" prayer. Verse 16 shows that it 
was more than " a supposition " with Paul and his companions 
in regard to this place of prayer. After finding it to be such, 
Luke would hardly have written " where we supposed " ; he 
would rather have said, " where \se. found," if he had intended 
to record their own thoughts or experience concerning it. 

xvii. 3. 

Rec. T. ovt6s Imv 6 Xpio-ros 'Iricrovs — this Jesus ... is Christ. 
Rev. T. ovt6s lirrw 6 Xpicrris, 6 'lT|(rovs — this Jesus ... is the 


There is much diversity here among the manuscripts in regard 
to the use of the article. B alone upholds the Revised Text. 
Codices A, D, and 6i, four manuscripts of the Vulgate, the 
Thebaic, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Ethiopic, the printed 
Armenian, and Chrysostom on one page read " Christ Jesus " 
without any article (and so Tischendorf and some others), 
making the two words, properly speaking, one name. The 
Sinaitic Codex, the single cursive 38, the Clementine Vulgate, 
the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, and the manuscripts of the 
Armenian Version do the same, only they transpose the two 
words, and read "Jesus Christ." The received reading is that 
of H, L, P^ most of the cursives, and Theophylact ; while 
that of E, a few cursives, a catena, and Chrysostom on the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT.^ 

page following that above referred to, by transferring these 
terms, make Luke say, " This one is Jesus, — the Christ whom 
I preach unto you." In the reading of B, which the Revisers, 
following VVestcott and Hort, have adopted, the presence of 
the article before 'l7;aovs indicates either that the latter is to 
be construed with ovto<;, — "this Jesus," — as the Revisers have 
construed it, though the position of the words does not really 
favor this construction ; or else that it is meant to point out 
more particularly which Jesus is referred to ; in which case, 
the true rendering would be, " and that this is the Christ, f/ie 
Jesus whom I proclaim unto you"; as in xix. 13, "I adjure 
you by //le Jesus whom Paul preacheth." It is not usual for 
Codex B to prefix the article to 'Ii;o-ovs, unless the latter is 
coupled with outos, or required to be particularized in some 
such way as this. This reading, if it can be legitimately con- 
strued as the Revisers have taken it, certainly yields an excellent 
meaning ; but, apart from the questionable construction, as it 
is found only in B and has the appearance of being a critical 
emendation, it can scarcely be adopted with any degree of con- 
fidence as a genuine reading. If we accept the reading of the 
Received Text, the proper rendering of the verse is not that 
of the A. V. It should rather be, " Expounding them, and 
showing that the Christ needed to suffer and to rise from the 
dead; and that this one, — Jesus, whom I proclaim unto you, 
— is the Christ." This requires no article before 'Irja-ovi, and 
gives the words in the natural order in which we should expect 
to find them, — " This is the Christ, [namely] Jesus, whom I 

rvii. 14. 

Rec. T. iroptveorOoi us lirl ttiv 0oXo<r<rav • — to go as it were to the sea. 
Bev. T. iroptifo-Sai Iws l-rrX ttiv 9AXa<r<rav • — to go as far as to the sea. 

The common reading ok is supported by H, L, P, most of 
the cursives, a catena, the Philoxenian Syriac and Armenian 
Versions, and Chrysostom. The revised is that of J<, A, B, E, 



61, and seven or eight other cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito 
Syriac, and the Memphitic. Codex D, about ten cursives, the 
Thebaic and Ethiopic Versions omit the word. The truth is, 
iLi was misunderstood ; hence it was early changed in some 
copies, as if to make its meaning sure, to toy;, " as far as " ; 
wh'le in others it was dropped as superfluous. Its use here is 
found nowhere else in the New Testament ; but it is a common 
classical use of the word, which Luke would be very likely to 
make in this connection. As the elder Buttmann says, when 
" prefixed to the prepositions iiri, ei's, Trpo's, in answer to the 
question whither, ... it gives them the signification towards, in 
the direction of; literally as if, leaving it undetermined whether 
the point aimed at is reached. Thus, Thucyd. vi. 61, dTrtVAeov 

Hera riys SaXa/iti/ia? Ik t^9 StKtXtas ok cs 'kO-qva^, ' They sailed 

away in company with the Salaminia from Sicily towards 
[literally as for'] Athens.' It can everywhere be used of a 
journey not yet completed." ' So here, it denotes the apostle's 
intention of going to the sea, — "The brethren at once sent 
Paul forth " from Berea, " that he might continue on his way 
seaward," or toward the Gulf of Salonica, some twenty miles 
distant, as he intended to do, and there take passage for 

xvii. 26. 

Rec. T. lvolr\<Tt tc tvis aV(iaTos irav JOvos — and hath made of one 
blood all nations. 

Rev. T. kiroir[<rl -n evos irav EBvos — and he made of one every nation. 

The Received Text follows D, E, H, L, P, most of the cursives, 
a catena, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac and Armenian 
Versions, Irenajus, Theodoret twice, Chrysostom repeatedly, 
Cosmas of Alexandria, Theophylact, and Bede. The Revisers' 
reading is that of {<, A, B, 61, and seven or eight other cursives, 
the Vulgate, the two Egyptian Versions, Piatt's Ethiopic, and 

I Buttmann's Greek Grammar, § 149, m. I. 



Clement of Alexandria. The latter Reading, however, is an 
early alteration, made on the ground that it is more rational 
to speak of every nation as descended from " one nation " than 
from "one blood." If evos, "one (nation)," had been the 
original reading, it might have been changed to " one man," or 
" one couple," but never to " one blood." The idea of the 
apostle is that God made the world of mankind from one 
common life-principle, which, in accordance with Jewish views, 
was in the blood. 

xviii. 3. 

Rec. T. €(jL«ve irap' avTois, KaV ttpydJcTo • — he abode with them, and 

Rev. T. {|i<v< irap' avrots, Kal TipYAtovro • — he abode with them, 
and they wrought. 

The singular is the reading of the earlier seventh-century 
corrector of X> A. (C is defective here), D, E, H, L, P, all 
the cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
the Thebaic, the Armenian, and Chrysostom. The plural is the 
reading given by the original scribe of ^, B, the Memphitic 
Version, and Origen as represented by his Latin interpreter, 
who makes him say e/ operabantur simul, " and they wrought 
together " ; which may express Luke's meaning, but certainly 
is not what Luke wrote. Both verbs were, doubtless, originally 
in the singular, and spoke concerning Paul. But on account 
of the plural " with them," and the plural " they were " which 
follows immediately after, elpyaiiro became easily drawn into 
the plural also. But the plural seems to have found very limited 
acceptance, and to have been soon abandoned as false. It 
will be observed that " with them " is connected with " he 
abode," but not with " he wrought " ; because the meaning is 
not that he wrought with Aquila and Priscilla, but only lived 
with them, and wrought with Aquila. This last, however, is 
not stated in words. But it is implied in what follows : " For 
they by their occupation were tent-makers"; — that is, not 



Aquila and Priscilla as some suppose, but the two men, Paul 
and Aquila. The reading, " He abode with them, and they 
wrought," implies not that Paul and Aquila worked together, 
but that Aquila and Priscilla did the working, for by occupation 
they were tent-makers, while Paul possibly was engaged in 
pleaching or doing something else, — thus making the last 
clause of the verse appear as giving a reason why the husband 
and wife could not be idle, not as a reason why Paul worked 
with Aquila. 

XYUl. 7. 

Rec. T. ovonoTi 'Iouo-tov, — named Justus. 

Rev. T. ov6(xaTi Ttxou 'Iovo-tod, — named Titus Justus. 

The received reading is that of A, B third hand (C is defec- 
tive here), D first hand, H, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the 
Latin Version of Codex D, the Ethiopic, Chrysostom, and 
Theophylact in one form of his commentary. The revised 
follows X, E, four cursives, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the 
Armenian, and Theophylact in the other form. The original 
scribe of B, the first corrector of D, and the Philoxenian Syriac 
give " Titius " instead of " Titus." The Peshito Syriac and 
Thebaic Versions read "Titus" instead of "Justus." Bede, 
commenting on the name Tiii Jtisti, which appeared in his 
Latin New Testament, says, " In Greek, the name is written 
Justus" which is doubtless the original and only name as given 
by Luke. The additional name, "Titus," arose from repeating 
the last syllable of the preceding word and the first three letters 
of the following word, so making ovofian TiVou 'louVrov out of 
ovo/mTIIOYo-Tov, the second I requiring only a horizontal mark 
at the top to change it to a T ; and this the scribe may indeed 
have found there, or thought was there. This TiVou became 
changed in B, and two other documents, to TitCov ; while in 
two versions it superseded the original " Justus." In cursive 
98, Tov Ti'rou is written over 'Iou'o-tou ; while, apparently on 
account of perplexity in determining what the name really 


.THE revisers' GREEK tEXT; 

was, the copyists of 2, and 30, omitted the whole expression, 
" named Justus," or, " named Titus Justus," or, " named Titius 
Justus." The very changes through which the word passed, 
and to which it led, to say nothing of its obvious origin, are 
enough to condemn it as a false reading. 

xviii. 21. 

Rec T tWiiv ■ Att 1" wivTcs •rijv copTT|V -riiv {pxoii^v iroi<^<rai els 
•I.poo-6X«^a- udXwv Si dvaKd^+o.- saying, I must by all means keep 
this feast that cometh in Jerusalem; but 1 will return agam. 

Rev. T. «lir<lv, HAXw 4vaK4ii+« - saying. I wiU return agam. 

The former of these readings is found in D, H, L, P, most of 
the cursives, a catena, one manuscript of the Vulgate, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, Piatt's Ethiopic, Chrysostom, 
and Theophylact in both copies of his commentary. The latter 
is that of S- A, B, E, less than ten cursives, all but one copy of 
the Vulgate! the two Egyptian Versions, the Armenian, and the 
Roman Ethiopic. The reference to attending the feast at 
Terusalem is wanting in the three oldest extant manuscripts ; 
vet it is not impossible that it might have been early omitted, 
from the fact that the record in the next verse does not seem 
to favor it. From that record, one might infer that the apost e 
went up to Jerusalem, saluted the church, and --ediate y 
rceeded to Antioch. But it should be observed that, in both 
Zt verse and the one following it, the historian is very brief in 
his mention of Paul's movements, barely mentioning certain 
poinTs and passing on, -the element of time scarcely claiming 
hi attention Besides, if the omitted words -which are evi- 
d en l^ven as the apostle's reason why he could not consen 
fo r ml longer in Ephesus at this time -are not genume t 
seems hardly possible that, in view of the record in verse 22 
any one else would have represented him as uttermg them. It 
s tr^e they bear a kind of resemblance to Luke s words con- 
cernTng hil in xx. x6. But there, everything favors such a 



statement, while here there is no apparent temptation for 
another to represent the apostle as speaking of the necessity 
of being in Jerusalem at the feast. 

zix. 14. 
• Rec. T. 01 toOto iroioOvrts. — which did so. 

Rev. T. TovTO iroioCvT€S. — which did this. 

The article is attested by E, H, L, P, most of the cursives, 
the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and the Armen- 
ian. It is wanting in J^, A, B, seven cursives, and the Memphi- 
ttc Version. C is defective here, and D has an altogether 
dilTerent reading. .A^fter omitting the article, the Revisers 
should not have retained the rendering of the A. V. The only 
proper translation that their Greek admits is, "And there were 
seven sons of one Sceva . . . doing this " ; unless T)aav, at one 
end of the sentence, and -woLovvrfM, at the other, are taken 
together and rendered, " And seven sons of Sceva were doing 
this thing." The truth is, ot was early dropped on account of 
its recurrence after v\oi, which led to its being overlooked. Its 
presence, as in the Received Text, is necessary to express the 
idea that there were seven sons " who did " this thing. The 
Revisers have incorrectly translated their own Greek, which is 
supposed to be correct ; that is all. 

xix. 16. 
Rec. T. KaraKupicvo-a; airuv, — overcame them. 
Rev. T. KaTaKup«vo-os b.^^aTlfav, — mastered both of them. 

The whole verse, as revised, reads, " And the man in whom 
the evil spirit was leaped on them, and mastered both of them, 
and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house 
naked and wounded." Both of whom? Apparently, of the 
sons of Sceva ; but of these there are seven referred to just 
before. No two of them are singled out from the rest. Then 
again, after saying that the man in whom the evil spirit was 
had " mastered " both of them, why should Luke have added, 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

" and prevailed against " them ? Does not " mastering " mean 
" prevailing against " ? It is not like Luke to repeat his thoughts 
after this style. It must be obvious to every one that there is 
a mistranslation here, or that the text has become grossly 
corrupted ; or possibly there is a little of both. AvtS>v is the 
reading of H, L, P, most of the cursives, the Peshito Syriac, 
and the Thebaic, which also adds " seven," — making it read, 
" mastered the seven." The Roman Ethiopic reads, " mastered 
them all." 'Afji<f>oTipuiv is supported by Ji^, A, B, D, about 
fifteen cursives, a catena, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the 
Armenian, the Philoxenian Syriac, and Theophylact in one of 
his commentaries. Owing to the strong testimony in attesta- 
tion of the latter reading, and the difficulty of accounting for 
the presence of d/x<^oTt'p(i)v if it is not genuine, it must be 
accepted as the true reading. The others are only variations 
due to a misunderstanding of Luke's meaning. And yet we 
cannot, for a moment, accept Meyer's interpretation that " the 
mode of representation is not exact, as we only see from 
Alx<t>oT€p(i>v that, of those seven sons, but ^o on this occasion 
were active, whom Luke has already conceived to himself in 
[the foregoing] avrov?." This is not in accordance with Luke's 
mode of expressing himself. He speaks as truly of the seven 
in avToxf; as he does in the preceding avrois, or his words are 
meaningless. It is this misunderstanding of Luke's meaning 
which has led not only to the substitution of aura)!' for aiKfyorhwv, 
but to several other changes, such as the omission of KaC after 
afJ.4>OT(puiv, the writing of Kvpuvaa^ and KaTtKvpUvatv for Kara- 
Kvpiojaa^, to say nothing of still other variations, which have 
also led to a mistranslation of his words. Indeed, KaraKvpuvaa^ 
is not above suspicion. Codex A reads KartKvpUva-av ap.<f>oT(pwv, 
" they mastered both of them." In the first half of this, A is 
supported by E, H, L, P, forty-five cursives, Chrysostom, and 
Theo])hylact in at least one form of his commentaries ; and in 
the latter half, as stated above, by J>5, B, D, etc. And this, we 
believe, gives us the original reading, KariKvpUvcrav ap.<^oTipu>v, 
KoX lo-xvo-t KaT avTw, etc. Thus worded, the verse may be 


rendered, "And when the man in whom the evil spirit was 
eaped on them, they [Sceva's sons] overcame both ftS 
demomac and the demon] ; yet it went hard with them [ie theexorc.sts,-literally, 'it availed against rhem'l, so tha^ 
, they fled out of that house naked and wounded." The las 
clause .s added to show that although Sceva's seven sons suc- 
ceeded m mastering their assailants, it was a dearly bought 
vctory. It was not such an exercise of power as Paul dis- 
played. I he use of W, which we insert from Codices 105 
184, m the sense of "but," or "yet," is not uncommon. I 
appears m Luke xn.. 7, Acts x. .8, and elsewhere throughout 
th New Testament. On the use of the nominative absolute 
with a particple, as here, see Buttmann's Grammar of N T. 
Greek, American edition, p. 298. 

3tix. 34. 

The Revisers have made no change here in the form of the 
particple translated "when they knew." The genitive found 
m the text is the grammatical form properly required by the 
connection. But this is an obvious correction, supported by 
only a few cursives and a catena. The nominative *VtyvoW« 
which is not often found thus absolute, is attested by all the 
uncials, most of the cursives, Chrysostom, and Theophylact in 
both his commentaries. It is but another instance of the same 
unusual construction that appears in verse 16, upon which we 
have just been commenting. The historian, in both that verse 
and this, after having begun to write, changed his mind, doubt- 
less unconsciously, respecting the construction, and proceeded 
with his sentence, without conforming to the precise customary 
laws of expression.' The change, it is tnie, makes no difference 
m the meaning. But we are surprised that the Revisers, who 
seem to have been desirous of revising the Greek Text, as well 
as the English, should have left uncorrected a reading 'that no 
modem editor can consider genuine. 

' See Butt., Gramm<tr of N. T. G,;ek, § ,44, m. 13, a, c. Winer, § 63, 1., i. 


THE revisers' greek TEXT. 

XX. 3- 
Rec. T. i^^vcTO Yvupii] toO viiroo-rpjcJMiv — he purposed to return. 
Rev. T. {-y^vtTo 'yvu)it)$ toO viro<rTp^4>uv — he determined to return. 

The nominative yvwfir), of the Received Text, is supported 
by B third hand, H, L, P, most of the cursives, the Greek mar- 
ginal reading of the Philoxenian Syriac, and Chrysostom. The 
genitive, of the Revised Text, is the reading of J^, A, B first 
hand, E, ten or twelve cursives, and a catena. It is the reading 
which one would naturally expect to find here on the assump- 
tion that the sentence has a strictly grammatical construction. 
Hence, its presence in connection with an abnormal rival read- 
ing naturally awakens suspicion. If this genitive were the 
original reading, a scribe would not have been tempted to write 
yvwfjiri, when by so doing he would of necessity leave the parti- 
ciple TTotiJcra?, at the beginning of the verse, in the nominative 
absolute, or rather without an apodosis, — a comparatively rare 
construction, but one to which Luke was somewhat given, as 
we have seen in the two preceding notes. The meaning of the 
words is substantially the same, whichever reading is adopted. 
If, however, the genuineness of the reading must be determined, 
intrinsic probability strongly favors the retention of the nomina- 
tive. Literally, the rendering would be, " And having tarried 
[;".<■. when he had tarried] three months, ... a decision was 
made [/'.(?. it was thought best] to return through Macedonia." 
This conclusion seems to have been reached after consultation 
among the brethren. Hence the form that Luke gave to his 
statement, using yvwfx-q instead of yvwfj.r]';. The latter would 
indicate that the decision was Paul's alone. 

XX. 5. 

Rec. T. ovTOi irpotX66vTts — These going before. 

Rev. T. ovTOi Sc TrpotXflovTts — But these had gone before. 

The " but " of the Revised Text is found in X, A, B, E, ten 
or twelve cursives, the Memphitic and Philoxenian Syriac Ver- 



sions, and Theophylact in one of his commentaries It is 
wantmg m D, H, L, P, most of the cursives, a catena, the Vulgate 
the Syriac, the Armenian, Piatt's Ethiopic, Chrysostom! 
and Theophylact in the other form of his commentary. It 
_ seems to have crept into the text at an early day, as in many 
other places, to connect the verse with what precedes, and 
possibly through impressions received from the context itself 
m which the word appears again and again. _ npo<ra^oW«,' 
having come unto," which is referred to in the margin as 
found instead of TrpotA^oVres in many ancient manuscripts is 
simply an early clerical error in writing ^poa- for ^po-, and is 
one of common occurrence; as in verse 13, in A, B first hand, 
E, H, P, more than forty cursives, Chrysostom, and Theophy- 
lact ; in xii. 10, in D, L, and ten or a dozen cursives ; and in 
Luke 1. 17, m B first hand, C, L, V, and several cursives. 

xxi. 22. 
Rec. T. ..rdvTws S.t uXfjeos <rvv<XetEv • dKowo-ovrai ydp Sn lXf,\v6ai 

-the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou 
art come. 

Rev. T. ud^«s dKoicrovrat Srt IX^iXvBas. - they will certainly hear 

that thou art come. 

The common reading here is attested by J<, A, C second 
hand, D, E, H, L, P, most of the cursives, a catena, the Vulgate 
and Chrysostom ; the revised, by B, C first hand, five or six 
cursives, the two Egyptian Versions, the Philoxenian Syriac 
both Ethiopic Versions, and the Armenian, which also omits 
"certainly." The Peshito Syriac clips the verse down still 
more, and makes it read, " Now, because they will hear that 
thou hast come " ; in which it is followed by Erpenius' Arabic 
Version. The revised reading seems to be one of numberless 
examples indicating B's readiness to adopt an abbreviated text 
Its transcriber almost everywhere showing a disposition to 
alirulge by rejecting what may have appeared to him to be 
superfluous or unintelligible. I„ view of this, it is difficult to 



understand why we should be expected to give up a portion of 
the accepted text which is not only strongly attested, but in 
perfect keeping with the context, and presents no real evidence 
of having been interpolated. 

zzi. 24. 
Rec. T. tvo gup^o-MVToi rxiv Kt+oX^v, — that they may shave their 


Rev. T. tvo {vpVovToi -riiv k^oX^i — that they may shave their 


The aorist subjunctive, of the Received Text, is attested by 
A, B third hand, C, D first hand (who, however, in his haste or 
carelessness omitted two letters, and wrote ^pmvrai), H, L, 
nearly all the cursives, a catena, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. 
The future indicative, of the Revised Text, — which is im- 
properly translated " may shave," — is the reading of K. B first 
hand, D as afterwards amended, E, P, and half a dozen cursives. 
It is simply an early change from the subjunctive to bring 
the word into conformity with the following yvmaovrai, " will 
know," which the scribe supposed to be also dependent on Iva, 
but which is really independent of it, as the Revisers make it. 
Others, under the same false impression respecting the con- 
struction, early changed yvticrovrai to the subjunctive to make 
it correspond with ivp^amvrai. Hence the reading yvC>m, of 
the Received Text, which the Revisers have justly rejected. 

zxiii. 28. 
The only ancient witnesses, referred to in the marginal note 
as omitting the clause, "I brought him down unto their coun- 
cil " are B first hand, and 61. The contemporary reviser of 
B however, corrected the error by placing the omitted clause 
in the margin. The Roman Ethiopic Version omits only the 
words " unto their council." It was simply a transcriber's error, 
corrected soon afterward, and found elsewhere in but a single 



xxui. 30. 

The " many ancient authorities " that add the rejected word, 
" Farewell," are ^, E, H, L, P, all the cursives but one, a 
catena, the Clementine Vulgate, two copies of Jerome's Ver- 
' sion, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Piatt's 
Ethiopic, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. The word is wanting 
in A, B, r3, two copies of the Vulgate, the two Egyptian Ver- 
sions, and the Roman Ethiopic. It may have been added by 
some scribe, as the customary and proper epistolary close, and 
possibly introduced from xv. 29 ; but it is quite as likely to 
have been early omitted as unnecessary. The testimony in 
fivor of retaining the word seems on the wliole quite as strong 
as against it, unless it be the fact that a few of the later witnesses 
give the word in the plural instead of the singular. 

XXV. 13. 

Rec. T. ita-trcL<r6\uvoi tov •I'l^o-rov. 
Rev. T. ao"ira<rd)uvoi tov 'i'<i<rTov. 

- to salute Festus. 

- and saluted Festus. 

The former of these readings is apparently without the sup- 
port of a single uncial. It is attested by 61, and most of the 
other cursives, a catena, the Latin Version of E, the Vulgate, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Chrysostom, 
and Theophylact in one form of his commentary. Codex C 
apparently has both readings by different hands, but neither is 
clear ; and D is defective. The latter reading is that of ^, A, 
B, the Greek Text of E, H, L, P, about twenty cursives, the 
Memphitic, both Ethiopic Versions, and Theophylact in his 
other commentary. The Revisers must have adopted this 
reading in sheer desperation, from lack of what they considered 
sufficient evidence in support of the other. They virtually 
abandon it when they come to translate, and place the proper 
rendering in the margin, though it is improperly given, even 
there, by being noted as an alternative rendering, " Or, having 



saluted," and not as the true one, " Gr. having saluted." The 
Revisers' reading denotes that Agrippa and Bernice had already 
saluted Festus before they came to Cesarea ; whereas the other, 
and apparently the only possible reading, makes it appear that 
they came thither for the very purpose of paying their respects 
to him. The ex[)ression " and saluted " is not a translation of 
acrira<7aju,tvoi, preceded as it is by a verb — KariyvrT/o-av. It is 
only a makeshift. Dr. Hort, in his note on the word, says, 
" The authority for -a.\>.f.vw. is absolutely overwhelming ; and, as 
a matter of transmission, -o/x£vot can be only a correction. Yet 
it is difficult to remain satisfied that there is no prior corruption 
of some kind " ; ' that is, if we understand his meaning, no 
corruption prior to transmission. It may be difficult for one 
who seems to believe in the infallibility of second-, third-, and 
fourth-century copyists, to remain satisfied that there was no 
error of some kind in the original manuscript ; but, for one 
who believes that all early copyists were fallible as well as later 
ones, there is no difficulty in being fully satisfied that Luke 
wrote the future participle here ; while some early blundering 
scribe made him appear to have written the aorist. It requires 
but the change of a single letter ; and the mistake thus made 
is one of frequent occurrence, and sometimes, as here, of a 
glaring character. Thus, in chapter xx. 22, A, the Greek texts 
of D and E, H, five or more cursives, and Theophylact in one 
form of his commentary, read to. crvvai/TTjo-avra, " which have 
befallen," in place of to. crvvavTjJo-orra, "which are to befall" 
me. Similar to this is the writing of the aorist for the present 
participle in Matt. xiii. 18, where X's original scribe, B, X, two 
cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac, and Chrysostom read tou (tttu- 
pavro?, " him that sowed," — the true reading in verse 24, — 
instead of tov a-irtipovToq, "the sower"; also in Matt, xxviii. 
19, where B, D, read /JairTto-avrEs for ^a-n-ri^ovTei, making Jesus 
teach that his followers should baptize men before making dis- 

1 Select Readiitss, p. 100. 



ciples of them, — contrary to all apostolic practice. In Acts 
v'ii- 32, S> A, C, E, H, L, some twenty cursives, a catena, 
Chrysostom, and the Paschal Chronicle also read tov Kiipavroi 
avTov, " the one that slieared him," instead of tou Kupovro^ avrov, 
"the one shearing him," or " his shearer." In Acts xxviii. 23, 
• J^ has Siafji.apTvpdp.ivo<;, " having testified," for 8iafiapTvp6fji.fvoi, 
"testifying"; and B repeatedly has Svvofim and Svi/o/xevos for 
Bivafiai and Bwdp.evo';, — which presents the reverse error of 
writing o for u. All this shows that we cannot be governed 
altogether by manuscript "authority," even if it is "over- 
whelming " ; especially when that authority is, in all probability, 
if not obviously, an early transcriptional error. 

xxvi. 16. 

Rec. T. Mv T{ €t8« — both of these things which thou hast seen. 

Rev. T. uv T€ Mii y.( — both of the things wherein thou hast seen me. 

Appended to this, in the Revisers' margin, is the note, "Many 
ancient authorities read which tlwu hast seen." This of course 
is the common reading. It is attested by Ji^, A, C second hand 
(D is defective), E, H, I, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the 
Vulgate, the Meraphitic, and the Ethiopic Versions. Augustine 
adds a me, " from me." The Revisers' reading is that of B, G 
first hand, 105, 137, a few lectionaries, the Peshito and Philox- 
enian Syriac, the Armenian, and Ambrose. This reading 
appears to have originated in a desire to render the two relative 
clauses symmetrical, and alike in constniction : "those things 
in which thou hast seen me, and those in which I shall appear 
unto thee " ; — i.e. in which thou shalt yet see me. Besides 
being thus open to suspicion, its attestation seems hardly suffi- 
cient to demand a displacement of what is apparently the 
genuine text, and one that is abundantly vouched for. The hiv 
in both instances is equivalent to eVfiVui/ a, — the relative in the 
latter instance being without the governing Kara., which is a not 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

infrequent construction. The two clauses may accordingly be 
rendered, " both of those things which thou hast seen, and of 
those [in reference to] which I will appear unto thee." 

XXVl. 20. 

Rec. T. its iroUrdv tc tt)v x(dpav — and throughout all the coasts. 
Rev. T. irdo-4v t€ tt)V xupav — and throughout all the country. 

The presence of ti?, " through," as in the Received Text, is 
attested by E, H, L, P, all the cursives, a catena, the Vulgate, 
and Chrysostom. Codices C and D are defective. The prep- 
osition is demanded by the construction, which here changes 
from the preceding datives to an accusative. But it was early 
omitted through its resemblance to the preceding syllable, — 
'Iepo(roXij/i.01CGIC, as they appear in uncial letters, — the latter 
being overlooked after the copying of the former. Hence its 
absence from Ji^, A, B, and one or two copies of the Vulgate. 
In any other manuscripts the omission would be recognized as 
an oversight, and treated accordingly. 

xxvi. 28. 

Rec. T. |u ircCScis Xpio-riaviv -ycv^o-Sai. — thou persuadest me to be 
a Christian. 

Rev. T. (K ireC9tis Xpio-riaviv iroi{i<rai. — thou wouldst fain make 
me a Christian. 

The common reading yeviaOai is supported by E, H, L, P, 
most cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac 
Versions, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. The 
Revisers' irot^o-at is attested by J^, A, B, 13, 17, 40, 61, the 
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic Version, 
Piatt's Ethiopic and Cassiodorus. It must be admitted that 
TTOLTiaai. has every appearance of being a genuine reading. It 
could not have been intentionally introduced in place oiytvifrOai ; 
nor could it easily have got in otherwise if it were not genuine. 



TiviaeM is evidently a later reading ; and it seems to have crept 
in from the margin, where it was probably originally written in 
explanation of the supposed sense in which 7roir;o-at was used by 
the writer and should be taken by the reader, as apparently 
indicated in verse 29; as if Agrippa's meaning was, "Thou 

, persuadest me /<? become a Christian." noi^^ai, however, is used 
simply to prevent the repetition of the preceding verb incmvw, 
" to believe," just as " to do " is often used in English, and 

facere in Latin ; and the words are to be rendered, " Thou per- 
suadest me to do it as a Christian " ; i.e. to believe the prophets 
as Christians do, — to accept their view of the prophecies as 
applying to Jesus. This use of -rroulv is by no means uncom- 
mon. We have examples of it in Luke vi. 10, "And he did it," 

— i.e. stretched out his hand; i Tim. i. 13, "I did it igno- 
rantly, — i.e. blasphemed and persecuted ; Rev. xiii. 5, " Power 
(or permission) was given him to do it for forty and two 
months," — i.e. to blaspheme. Compare note on Mark vi. 20. 

— Without the word Xpio-Twi/oV, Agrippa's answer would imply 
that he did not believe the prophets till persuaded to do it by 
Paul. This, however, was not his meaning. He simply did 
not previously regard the prophecies as applying to Jesus. 
Hence he employs Xpio-Tiavof, admitting that Paul had made a 
strong argument, and had in a measure persuaded him that the 
prophecies did have reference to Jesus, whom the Jews had 
crucified. See Note on the rendering of Acts xxvi. 28, 29, in 
The Revisers' English Text. 

xxvn. 16. 

Rec. T. KaXoij|icvov KXavSrjv, — which is called Clauda. 
Rev. T. KaXov|i(vov KavSa, — called Cauda. 

The Revisers, having changed " Clauda " to " Cauda," add 
the marginal note that many ancient authorities read "Clauda." 
The only known Greek manuscripts that read " Cauda " are X. 
as amended early in the seventh century, and B. Besides 



these, the Vulgate alone reads "Cauda," or "Cauda." The 
Peshito Syriac gives " Kura " ; and Piatt's Ethiopic, " Keda " ; 
— variations that are still farther from the true reading. The 
received reading, " Clauda," or " Claude," is supported by ^ 
first hand. A, H, L, P, 6i, and the rest of the cursives, the 
Memphitic, the Philoxenian Syriac in both text and margin, 
the Armenian, Erpenius' Arabic, Chrysostom, and Bede. Unless 
the testimony of B and the Vulgate is to be considered unim- 
peachable, we see no reasonwhy we should not continue to 
read, with Tischendorf and the Received Text, " Clauda." 

xxvii. 19. 

Rec. T. avToxcipcs •n\v (rKfVT)v tov irXoCov {ppC<|(a|i.fv. — we cast out 
with our own hands the tackling of the ship. 

Rev. T. auT6xeip<$ rT]v o-K(vr\v tov irXoCov cppiijfav. — they cast out 
with their own hands the tackling of the ship. 

The former of these readings is that of H, L, P, most of the 
cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, 
Piatt's Ethiopic, and Chrysostom. The latter is attested by Ji\, 
A, B, C, about twenty cursives, a catena, one Old Latin manuscript, 
the Vulgate, and the Armenian. Verses 18, 19, as given in the 
Revised Version, read as follows : " And as we labored exceed- 
ingly with the storm, the next day they began to throw the 
freight overboard ; and the third day they cast out with their 
own hands the tackling of the ship." On reading this, one can 
hardly refrain from asking why it should be said that the sailors 
cast out the tackling 7vifh their own hands, especially after 
having been told in the previous verse that they had been 
engaged the day before in lightening the ship of its freight. 
Who shoJiM do it, if the ship's crew did not? And how should 
they do it, unless with their own hands? Why, then, this 
uncalled-for statement? Humphry says it was because the 
passengers were not called on to help them. If the text means 
anything, it means this just as truly without these words here 



as in the previous verse. The four older uncials are assuredly 
astray, here. One of them (B) certainly errs in the very next 
verse in omitting XoittoV, " at last," when speaking of all hope 
as taken away. Another (A), in verse 21, improperly omits 
" then" before " Paul stood forth." A third (J^), in verse 27, 
speaks of the shipmen as deeming that some country " ex- 
tended before " them, irpoayaytti', instead of " was drawing 
near," Trpoo-ayeiv, to them. And the fourth (C), in verse 28, 
says " we found " for " they found " fifteen fathoms of water. 
It certainly is not impossible, then, that they should be united 
in error here in representing Luke as saying " they cast out " 
with their own hands the tackling, — a reading into which 
some early scribe might easily have been betrayed by finding 
in the previous verse the statement that " they began to lighten 
the ship." If this accounts for the origin of the reading, and 
the received be accepted as the true reading, there will be no 
difiiculty. It becomes plain enough why Luke should have 
said, " We cast out with our own hands the tackling." It was 
something not expected of passengers, especially of soldiers 
and their prisoners. And probably the reason why it was 
found necessary for them to do it was that the seamen were 
still engaged on that day, as on the previous day, in trying to 
lighten the vessel of its cargo ; for we afterwards find (verse 
38) that they were still at work " casting out the wheat into 
the sea," and lightening the ship. 

xxvn. 37. 

A marginal note offers the information that some ancient 
authorities here read " about three-score and sixteen souls," in 
place of the accepted reading, " two-hundred three-score and 
sixteen souls." The reader will observe that these authorities 
are not among the later uncials and the cursives ; they consist of 
B, the oldest of all known Greek manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment, and its faithful ally, the Thebaic, one of the early versions, 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

- these two, and only these. Epiphanius, who probably could 
not see the point or the propriety of saying -about seventy- 
stx, says, as most persons would naturally say, "about sev- 
enty." Westcott and Hort adopt this unique reading, " about " 
seventy-six, and place the "two hundred," which appears in 
all the other documents, in the margin opposite oJj, " about " as 
a secondary reading. Hence the artless note in the Revisers' 
margm. But though "about" has the "authority" of the 
Vatican manuscript, the Thebaic Version, and Epiphanius, it is 
but the result of an obvious blunder. Some early transcriber 
was copymg from an exemplar in which rQ ttAo.V, "the ship," 
stood immediately before the numeral, as it does 'in X, A, B, C, 
and a number of cursives, and not before ai ^a<rai ^yLi, "all 
the^uls," as in the Received and Revised Texts. On coming 
to crog',the abridged Greek form of writing " two-hundred and 
seventy-six," corresponding to our 276, he evidently connected 
the (7 of o-og'with the last letter of the preceding word, which 
was inadvertently repeated by him, as was common ; and so he 
changed the reading to oJs oq\ i.e. " about seventy-six." It was 
simply a blunder, and later copyists generally had the discern- 
ment to see it. And if certain modern editors were not 
infatuated with an apparently superstitious reverence for B, 
Bible-readers at this late day would not be introduced to that 
palpably impossible reading, " about seventy-xw souls." The 
American Committee of Revisers very properly omit this note. 

xxvii. 39. 

Again some ancient authorities are said to read " bring the 
ship safe to shore " in place of " beach the ship " or " drive 
the ship ashore." That is, they read .Wwat instead of HZ^aai, 
— the two words having almost the same sound ; so that it is 
no wonder if, especially in copying from dictation, the former 
word should have crept into a few copies. It is so given, how- 
ever, only by B first hand, C, and the Memphitic and Arme- 



nian Versions. Persons in the perilous condition in which 
these sailors were, usually think more of saving themselves 
than of anything else. They care but little as to what becomes 
of the vessel if they themselves can only reach the land in 
safety. In this respect, these seamen do not appear, from 
verse 30, to have been very different from other men. The 
idea of saving the ship probably did not enter their minds. 
Their one thought was how best to save themselves and what 
little they had left. Hence, as Luke tells us, " they deter- 
mined, if they could, to beach the ship." The other reading 
will do to go along with " about seventy-six." 

xxvii. 41. 

Rec. T. viri T<is ptas tuv Kv|xdruv, — with the violence of the waves. 
Rev. T. iiri rfjs P(a$, — by the violence of the waves. 

Though the Revisers omit tSv Kv/iaTojv, in accordance with 
the reading of X fi^'s*^ hand, A, B, unsupported by any other 
uncial, or by a single cursive, or version, or patristic writer, 
they have given us, in italics, the corresponding English words, 
" of the waves." And this is revision. After omitting tw 
Kv/iaT(i)v so as to present the genuine Greek Text as the neces- 
sary proper basis for the revision of the English Version, it 
does seem as if, for the sake of consistency, they would have 
kept from adding in English the words " of the waves." But 
the trouble is, they have adopted a false Greek Text, by which 
it is impossible for any version to abide. Amidst the fourfold 
occurrences of the syllable twv immediately after jStas, " vio- 
lence," some early scribe unquestionably lost himself. Having 
written the first Tutv, on casting his eye back to his exemplar, 
he caught sight of the third instead of the first, from which 
he evidently passed on in perfect unconsciousness of having 
omitted the two preceding words, rutv KvyAruni. If the read- 
ing which the Revisers have adopted had been the reading 
of Luke, a glossarist, as Meyer forcibly remarks, would more 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT^ 

naturally have written on the margin r^, ^oAcJcrcr,,, "of the 
sea," than rwy Kvp.<LTwv. The former occurs repeatedly in this 
connection, but the latter does not occur again in the whole 
book of Acts. In support of rw Kv^dro^y as a part of the orig- 
mal text, we have X as amended early in the seventh century 
C (D IS defective), H, L, P, all the cursives, a catena, the Vul- 
gate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, Piatt's 
Lthiopic, and Chrysostom. In view of all the circumstances, 
It really seems as if a candid inquirer after the truth, who is at 
all qualified to sit in judgment in the case, ought to be satisfied 
that the Greek for "of the waves" is a genuine portion of the 
text. The Revisers, however, have only followed others. 

xxviii. I. 

Another marginal note says that some ancient documents 
read " Melitene " here instead of " Melita " or " Melite." This 
is a vitiation of the text, the only known ancient supporters of 
which are B first hand (though this is changed to Me/i/e by 
what Tischendorf thought might be the contemporary Reviser's 
hand), a lectionary, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, and 
the Armenian Version. Besides these, three manuscripts of 
the Vulgate read Militene ; Jerome has either Militine or 
Milctena; the Memphitic Version, J/zr/^Z/w^,- and Piatt's Ethi- 
opic, Malajat. These variations, by the unsettled character 
of their orthography, do not tend to establish the genuineness 
of the reading. In fact, there can hardly be any doubt as to 
its spuriousness or its origin. Where Luke wrote Uiktr-q -^ 
v^croi, or rather MeAITHHNHCOC, some tired or careless 
copyist, becoming confused among the letters of like or similar 
form, and very possibly more or less confounding the first of 
these words with the familiar name MitvXtJvt, (Mitylene), an- 
nexed the first syllable of .^rros to MfXirr), and wrote instead 
MeAITHNHHNHCOC, or MtXiTijvr, f, vijo-o-:. It was a mis- 
take, unconsciously made and easily to be accounted for, and 



was seen to be such by the Reviser of B, who at once corrected 
it. But because it appears in B, and is endorsed by a few ver- 
sions, Westcott and Hort adopt it without comment ! Hence 
this marginal note. But the common reading of the text, which 
is adopted by all other modern editors, is sufficiently attested 
by X. A, B third hand if not second, C, H, L, P, nearly all the 
cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Clementine 
Vulgate, one manuscript of Jerome's, and Chrysostom. 

xxvui. 13. 

Here the marginal note says some ancient authorities read, 
" cast loose," instead of " fetched a compass," or " made a 
circuit." Only Ji{ first hand, and B read thus. If nepicXovTe; 
can really mean " having cast loose," it implies that the vessel 
had been moored or tied up to a wharf. There is nothing in 
the narrative to indicate that this may not have been the case. 
The vessel was detained at Syracuse three days. If this deten- 
tion was in order to discharge a part of the cargo, or to take 
on more, the ship might have been fastened to a mole or pier. 
If it was on account of the unfavorable wind, the vessel would 
more probably have been anchored in the bay. The general 
course from Malta to Puteoli, through the Strait of Messina, on 
the east side of which Rhegium lay, is northerly. From the 
use of KaTaxOivTf;, " touching," coming to land, or lying by, at 
Syracuse, as well as from the delay of three days, we may infer 
that the ship lay at anchor in the bay on account of an unfavor- 
able wind. She could easily come from Malta to Syracuse with 
a west wind. But, under the high, mountainous range of Etna, 
which skirts the eastern coast of Sicily, it is impossible, with a 
west wind, to make any headway northward along that coast, 
except by rowing. The only way is to put to sea in an easterly 
or northeasterly course from Syracuse, until a vessel is fairly 
out from under the lee of the mountain range, then tack about, 
and run in a northwesterly course toward the strait. After 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

having waited in the harbor for three days, and still finding 
the wind blowing from the west, the captain seems to have 
determined to wait no longer, but to put to sea, and take 
this roundabout course, TrtpieX^oVrts ; and so they " arrived at 
Rhegium." This reading, which is the only probable one, is 
attested by X as amended early in the seventh century, and 
all the other uncials except B, by all the cursives, and all the 
ancient versions. It is adopted, too, by all modem editors 
except Westcott and Hort. The other reading, which properly 
means " having taken away," and which is altogether unsuited 
to the connection, differs from this only in the omission 
of a single letter. It looks as if an ancient scribe, not under- 
standing the meaning or seeing the applicableness of ircpuX- 
66vTt<:, and remembering that in the preceding chapter a similar 
word is used, considered the obscure term an erroneous reading, 
and by omitting one letter, changed it to make it correspond 
with the word found in xxvii. 40. And the fact that this read- 
ing is confined to these two kindred manuscripts, though after- 
wards corrected in one of them, confirms us in this position. 

zrviii. 16. 

The Revisers omit " the centurion dehvered the prisoners to 
the captain of the guard ; but." These words are not in Ji^, A, 
B, I, 61, and three other cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito and 
Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, the Armenian, Erpenius' Arabic, 
or Chrysostom. They appear, however, in H, L, P, 137, and 
nearly all the other cursives, a catena, Theophylact in both 
commentaries, as well as in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac 
Version. They are generally considered an interpolation ; and 
possibly they are. But they may have been eariy omitted and 
for a while rejected, as embodying irrelevant matter, having no 
special connection with the immediate subject of Luke's narra- 
tive. Yet they have every appearance of being genuine. After 
having referred to other prisoners than Paul (xxviii. i, 42), it 



is but natural that Luke should state in a word what befell 
them as well as Paul on their joint-arrival at Rome. There 
are no various readings here, as there generally are in inter- 
polated passages. And perhaps a still stronger evidence of 
genuineness is the presence of the article (tw) in connection 
with a-TpaTo-TTtSdpxn, "the commander of the praetorian co- 
horts." Originally, the command of the emperor's body-guard 
was shared by t7vo prefects. But, during the reign of Claudius, 
Burrus Afranius was appointed sole commander ; and he con- 
tinued to hold this position till the spring of a.d. 62. On his 
death, the command was again divided, as before, between two 
prefects. Now Paul arrived in Rome as a prisoner early in the 
spring of A.D. 61, or 62 at the very latest. So that Burrus 
must have been the captain of the guard to whom the prisoners 
were delivered. No one but Luke, however, in introducing a 
statement of this kind, would have been likely to keep so close 
to the truth of history. An interpolator would in all probabiUty 
have said that the centurion delivered the prisoners either to 
" the captains of the guard," or to " a captain of the guard," 
— "the captain" implying that there was but one, which is not 
in accordance with the well-known general history concerning 
the command of this guard. It can hardly be argued with 
justice that the article here denotes simply the captain of the 
guard to whom this matter was assigned, or whose duty it was 
(possibly for that day) to receive prisoners. The command 
of the emperor's body-guard was an office in which, when there 
were two commanders, each shared the duties and responsi- 
bilities alike. Compare, for example, the following sentence : 
" The State Treasurer turned over to the select-man of the town 
of Utopia the funds voted by the Legislature for the rehef of 
its sufferers." It would hardly be said that that meant " the 
select-man whose duty it was to receive those funds," unless 
there was something in the context or circumstances mentioned 
that plainly implied this. It would rather be understood to 
mean that there was but one select-man for that town, at that 
time at least. 



Rec. T. JavTois — themselves. 
Rev. T. avTois — themselves. 

The manuscripts that support the shorter form of this word 
are J<, A, B, C, D first hand, and ten cursives. The common 
form is given by D third hand, E, G, K, L, P, the rest of the 
cursives, Origen, Didymus, Chrysostom twice, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, and others. The word is, no doubt, the reflexive. 
If it had been really necessary to substitute the shorter for the 
longer form, the rough breathing ought to have been employed 
also ; for the Revisers have translated it as a reflexive ; and, 
among the old manuscripts, which have neither breathings nor 
accents, the reflexive is repeatedly written in this form. The 
change, especially the transforming of it into a personal pro- 
noun, can in no sense be called necessary to the revision of 
the English text. Compare Note on i John v. 18. 

ii. 14. 

Rec. T. iroi^ — do. 
Rev. T. TTOiwciv — do. 

The change from the singular to the plural is in accordance 
with the reading of ^, A, B, half a dozen cursives, Origen, 
Clement of Alexandria, and John Damascene ; but it is neither 
sustained nor favored by the apostle's general use of verbs in 
connection with neuter plural nominatives. In the course of 
his epistles, he employs verbs with neuter plural subjects, at 



least ninety times. Three of these are in the future ; ' and 
these futures are all in the plural. But they are quoted from 
the Septuagint.'' Four are in the imperfect. These, on the 
other hand, are in the singular; for in i Cor. x. 11, the true 
reading is undoubtedly that of Ji^, B, C, K, L, twelve or more 
cursives, and several Fathers, rvTriicis (rwi/Saivcv, which is 
adopted by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, 
and for the adoption of which there are stronger reasons than 
can be found for the adoption of the plural here.' Seven of 
these verbs are in the perfect, all of which are in the singular. 
Twenty are in the aorist ; and of these, only two are in the 
plural, and they can be easily accounted for. In Rom. xv. 2 7, 
the verb is plural because of the connection in which it stands. 
The idea of plurality evidently prevailed in the apostle's mind 
throughout the passage, and led instinctively to the plural form 
in both the verbs connected — the one directly, and the other 
indirectly — with the neuter plural subject. Hence, he natu- 
rally, if not necessarily, wrote d yap toIs irvcv/xaTi/cots airwv 

(KOivtiivrjcrav To, iOvTj, o(/)£iXov(Ti koI iv TOis (rapKiKoii's XilTOvpyrjaal 

auTots, " If the Gentiles have been made partakers of their 
[Hebrew Christians'] spiritual things, they [Gentile Christians] 
ought also to minister to them in carnal things." In i Cor. 
X. 6, the other instance in which the apostle employs the aorist 
in the plural, ravra hi Tviroi vp.S)v lycmjOrjo^av, " Now these things 
were our examples," — taking this to be the true construction, 
— the verb is similarly drawn into the plural by the plural 
predicate nominative tvttol. But we are inclined to think that 
the true construction here requires us to take Tavra adverbially, 
and not as a nominative. In that case, the real subject of this, 
as of the preceding, verb is avroi understood ; and the mean- 
ing is, " And in these respects {i.e. the two points mentioned 
in the preceding verse) they became examples (of warning) 

' Rom. XV. 12; Gal. iii. 8; Ileb. i. 12. 

2 Isa. xlii. 4; Gen. xviii. 18; xxii. 18; Psa. (ci. 28, or) cii. 27. 

' See Note on l Cor. x. II. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

for us." In one other instance (2 Tim. iv. 17), Tregelles and 
the Revisers give the verb in the singular, in accordance with 
the common reading ; but Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
and Westcott and Hort, following X, A, C, D, E, F, G, P, 17, and 
ten other cursives, read axovVojo-ic. In the remaining fifty-six 
instances, the verbs are in the present. In two or three of 
these, the manuscripts are more or less di^^ided ; but the singular 
is commonly adopted. In only two of all the other instances, 
apart from the passage before us, is the plural unquestioningly 
admitted ; namely, i Cor. xii. 25, and xiv. 10. In both these, 
as in the case of the plural aorists already noticed, the imme- 
diate context undoubtedly lent its influence in causing the verbs 
to be in the plural. This may have been the case here, — the 
plural ovToi, following on immediately after the verb, and at 
the same time representing the more remote iOvri, may have 
caused the apostle to use the plural woiSxnv instead of the 
common singular form. It may be added that in no other 
instance, unless it be Gal. v. 17, ravra a'AAiJXots an-tKtirat, 
" these things are contrary to each other," where L, from fifteen 
to twenty cursives, John Damascene, and Theophylact employ 
the plural, does this disturbing influence in any degree appear. 
Neither the construction nor the meaning is in the least affected 
by the change which the Revisers have made ; and, as it was 
in no wise essential to the attainment of the end for which 
they were chosen, perhaps it would have been as well to have 
left the Greek unchanged here, as it was in i Tim. v. 25, and 
2 Tim. iv. 17. 

Rec. T. irpwTov |i€v y&p 8ti linmi9r\a-av — chiefly, because that unto 
them were committed. 

Rev. T. trpuTov |i«v 8ti {iria-r(v9T)<rav — first of all, that they were 
entrusted with. 

The Revisers, in omitting yap, have followed B, D first hand, 
E, G, five cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the Mem- 

ROM A ns. 


phitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Chrysostom, John Damas- 
cene, Origen as represented by his Latin interpreter, and 
Ambrosiaster. The omission has the appearance of an endeavor 
to free the sentence from an apparently superfluous element. 
It is hard to account for the presence of ydp on the supposition 
that it is not genuine. The common but more difficult reading 
is the more strongly attested. It has the support of J<, A, D 
third hand, K, L, nearly all the cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac 
Version, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Euthalius, Photius, 
Theophylact, and (Ecumenius. King James's Revisers evidently 
did not know what to do with ydp. They made it introduce 
a reason for saying " chiefly," or " first of all." Its true use, 
however, is to introduce a reason for saying " much every 
way," with special reference to the word " much." But that 
reason is implied rather than given. Fully expressed, it would 
be -rrpCiTov piv yap to rrepicro-oV icTTiv on k.t.X.. ; literally, " for, 
in the first place assuredly, they have the advantage that they 
were entrusted," etc. ; or briefly, " for, first of all, they were 
entrusted with the oracles of God." On account of the ellipsis, 
oTi does not need to be translated, as ydp itself often does not 
after aX\d, " but," when the clause which the latter impliedly 
introduces is unexpressed.' 

iil. 22. 

Rec. T. cts irivTas koX lirt irdvras tous iriirrtvovTas ' — unto all and 
upon all them that believe. 

Rev. T. els irdvTas rois incrTtilovTtts * — unto all them that believe. 

The omission of the words rendered " and upon all " is sup- 
ported by ^ first hand. A, B, C, P, 47 first hand, 137, the 
Memphitic, Armenian, and both Ethiopic Versions, Clement 
of Alexandria, Cyril, and Augustine. Origen also may be said 

1 Compare 'AXXi 7dp (cal TTfpafwiv 17577 upa, " But it is now high time 
to conclude." Literally, " But (I will say no more), for indeed it is already 
time to come to a conclusion." — Xett, Anab. III., ii. 32. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

to favor this reading, though, instead of quoting the verse, he 
links together parts of this and the preceding verse. In other 
words, he cites what suits his purpose, and in so doing does not 
give the words "and upon all." At the same time, these words 
are called for by ^ as amended early in the seventh century, 
D, E, F, G, K, L, nearly all the cursives, the Clementine Vul- 
gate, one manuscript of Jerome's, the Peshito and Philoxenian 
Syriac Versions, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, and CEcumenius. There is no apparent reason 
why they should have been added, if not genuine. The sentence 
is not any more incomplete without them than with them. Nor 
is there anything that seems to demand their insertion by a 
glossarist. So far, then, transcriptional probability favors the 
presence of the expression. On the other hand, it is by no 
means strange that the words, if genuine, should have been 
omitted. Their absence in some documents may be due to the 
common transcriptional error of homoioieUuton, — the tran- 
scriber's eye having gone from the first ■ira.vTo.% to the second, 
and so caused him to overlook the intervening words. Or they 
may have been intentionally omitted from having been consid- 
ered redundant, apparently a mere repetition of the preceding 
phrase. The fact that several copies of the Vulgate and John 
Damascene retain the latter phrase while they omit the former, 
rather strengthens this belief. It must be borne in mind, too, 
that the reverence paid by second- and third-century transcribers 
to the apostolic writings, as Dr. Hort says, "was not of a kind 
that exacted a scrupulous jealousy as to their text as distin- 
guished from their substance," and that " the Epistles bear 
abundant traces" of this laxity on their part.' Besides, the 
accumulation of prepositions with the same object, so far from 
being contrary to the apostle's habit of speaking, is in perfect 
accordance with it. Witness chapter xi. 36 ; Gal. i. i ; Eph. iv_ 
6 ; Col. i. 16. So here, in the double phrase ti<i iravras koi «Vi 

^ Introduction to New Testament in Creek, p. 7. 



TravTa?, he refers to the righteousness that is accounted to be- 
lievers as coming " un/o all " and being "for all " that believe, 
whether Jews or Gentiles, " for there is no difference " between 
them before God. We are constrained therefore to consider 
the omitted words, though not contained in some ancient docu- 
, ments, as a genuine reading, fully sustained by internal evidence, 
as well as supported from without. 

iv. ig. 

Rec. T. oO KaT(vi5T)o-( th {awrov <ru|jia — he considered not his own 

Rev. T. KaTcv6i](rc ri tavrov iru|ia — he considered his own body. 

The common reading is attested by D, E, F, G, K, L, P, 
nearly all the cursives, the Old Latin Versions d, e, f, g, the 
Vulgate, the Philoxenian Syriac, Origen twice, Chrysostom 
according to one edition, Epiphanius, the Paschal Chronicle, 
Theophylact, OLcumenius, and Ambrosiaster. It is what Dr. 
Hort is pleased to call " a Western reading." * The Revisers 
omit o\) in accordance with the testimony of J^, A, B, C, 67 
second hand, 93, 137, two copies of the Vulgate, the Peshito 
Syriac, the Memphitic, Erpenius' Arabic Version, John Damas- 
cene, and apparendy Origen and Chrysostom in other places. 
It is thus strongly supported by the oldest known documents. 
And it yields what many consider an excellent meaning ; namely, 
that Abraham fully recognized his own condition, but was not 
staggered thereby. Still, we cannot but regard it as a false 
reading. Let us look at the real meaning of the original. The 
Revisers' Greek does not mean, as their rendering indicates it 
does, that Abraham considered his own body as good as dead, 
etc., "without being weakened" in faith thereby. In other 
words, the verb atrQivdv does not mean " to be weakened," but 
" to be weak." By giving ao-^tvi^o-as, " being weak," its proper 

^Introduction, etc., p. 124. 



signification and omitting the second negative as the Revisers 
have done, the reasoning will not be found to be very forcible 
or altogether conclusive : " And as he was not weak in faith, he 
considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about 
a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb; but, 
looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through un- 
belief." The question arises, Why should it be said that he 
considered his own body as good as dead, etc., if he was strong 
in faith ? What is the pertinence of saying that, as he was not 
weak in faith, he considered his own and his wife's infirmities, 
etc. ? It will not do to introduce, with Buttmann,' the particle 
fiiv in connection with the verb, and read, " He considered 
indeed his own and Sarah's condition, but nevertheless he 
wavered not." The apostle, it is true, is somewhat loose in 
his use of /xo/ as compared with classical writers ; but in a case 
like this, where the presence of the particle is essential if the 
negative is not employed, the omission of \i.€v is an offence of 
which, we can safely say, he could not have been guilty. To 
insert it here would be to make Greek for him instead of making 
English out of his Greek. The only satisfactory reading of the 
sentence is obtained by restoring the negative which the Re- 
visers have omitted. This makes the apostle say, beginning 
with verse 18 : Abraham against hope hopefully believed that 
he would become the father of many nations, according to what 
had been told him ; namely. So shall thy seed be. And, as he 
was not weak in faith, he did not take into account [the con- 
dition of] his own body, — that having already lost its power 
of procreation, he being about a hundred years old, — or the 
deadness of Sarah's womb ; but depending upon the promise 
of God, so far from wavering in unbelief, he was strengthened 
in faith, giving glory to God, etc. The point is, that, being 
strong in faith, he did not really consider his own and Sarah's 
condition any obstacle in the way of their having a posterity ; 

1 Grammar of N. T. Greek, p. 356. 



but, on the contrary, he believed that God would make good 
his promise, and confidently left it with him to do it. The 
whole drift and the very point of the aposde's argument show 
that he must have used two negatives, — " not weak in faith," 
" did not consider." But the second of these was evidently 
, early omitted from the text by some meddling hand, perhaps 
under the idea that it was inconsistent with the statement given 
in Gen. xvii. 1 7 ; whereas, the true reference of the apostle is 
to Gen. XV. 5, 6. — Compare Meyer on the passage. 

V. I. 

Rec. T. jlp^vTjv ?xo(«v xpis riv 0«6v — we have peace with God. 
Rev. T. «tp^iv1]v «x"|i«v irpos tov 0«6v — let us have peace with God. 

The received reading here, which is that adopted by the 
American Committee of N. T. Revisers, is supported by X's 
contemporary " proof reader," B third hand, F, G, P, most of 
the cursives, and a few of the Fathers. The Canterbury Re- 
visers' reading is that of the scribe of K, A, B first hand, C, D, 
E, K, L, between thirty and forty cursives, the Latin versions 
of D, E, F, G, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
the Memphitic, the Armenian, and both forms of the Ethiopic 
Version. It is also supported by Origen, Titus of Bostra, 
Chrysostom, Euthalius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, Ambrosiaster, and others. External evidence 
therefore is greatly in favor of the Canterbury reading. 

This reading, however, is entirely unsuitable to the context, 
which is not hortatory but doctrinal and didactic. So far from 
being hortatory, the verse introduces the conclusion at which 
the apostle has now arrived. This is obvious from the word ' 
" therefore," with which the chapter opens, and by which it is 
connected with what precedes. Having concluded the fore- 
going argument, the apostle goes on to show that, having been 
justified by faith, believers have peace with God. They are no 
longer regarded by him as enemies ; they have been placed on 



a footing of reconciliation and peace with him through Jesus 
Christ. It is a truth which his readers needed to know in 
order to understand their true relations to God as believers in 
Jesus. But suppose we take the verse as an exhortation : 
" Therefore being justified by faith, let us have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ." This implies two things. In 
the first place, it implies what is not true ; namely, that those 
who are justified do not necessarily have peace with God. It 
ignores the very point which the apostle makes ; and that is, 
that they have peace with God because of their having been 
justified by him. It implies also that there may be some other 
way of being at peace with him than through Christ, though 
the apostle would have his readers seek only that peace with 
God which is to be had through Christ. Both of these views, 
however, are antagonistic to the apostle's belief and teaching, 
and consequently cannot be involved in his language. His 
words are not " Let us have the peace of God " ; that is, the 
inward consciousness of security which God imparts to be- 
lievers. This would be a proper subject of exhortation; but 
the other is not. Peace with God is the necessary consequence 
of justification. A believer may not be conscious of it ; but 
this does not affect the truth that he has peace with God, and 
has it as a believer in Christ. The Greek subjunctive or Eng- 
lish imperative, therefore, calling upon him to have peace with 
God, is manifestly out of place. 

But this is not all. Intrinsic probability is still farther op- 
posed to this reading. Peace with God is not obtained by 
being sought. It follows as an immediate and necessary result 
of justification. The believer in Christ is one against whom 
God has no claims for punishment. God loves and deals with 
him as a child for whom only grace and goodness are in store. 
How then can believers, those who are already at peace with 
God through Jesus Christ, be reasonably exhorted to have this 
peace ? There is not in all the New Testament an exhortation 
to this effect. And to suppose the apostle to have been capa- 



ble of exhorting his readers as justified persons to have peace • 
with God through Jesus Christ is simply to consider him, 
unacquainted with the subject of which he was speaking. For 
him to have done it would have been a moral impossibility. 
And yet the five oldest manuscripts represent him as having 
done it. The erroneous reading — for it is nothing else — 
originated in simply mistaking O for fJ, an error of common 
occurrence among ancient manuscripts. The same itacism 
appears among several of them in i Cor. xv. 49, making the 
apostle say, " Let us hear the image of the heavenly." ^ The 
Revisers, however, in their text, very properly read the indica- 
tive, " we shall bear," notwithstanding that four of the five 
great vmcials, together with other manuscripts, have the sub- 
junctive. An exhortation to bear the image of the heavenly 
would, however, be no more out of place there, or out of har- 
mony with the context, than is the exhortation to believers to 
have peace with God through their Lord Jesus Christ. The 
opposite error of writing o for to is also occasionally found in. 
the best manuscripts. Thus, in Rom. xiv. 19, BiiDKo/jLtv appears 
in ^, A, B, F, G, L, P, etc., instead of Siu>Ku>iJiev.^ Yet the Re- 

1 The following are a few other instances. In Rom. v. 10, Codex L and 
a few cursives have (ru0ri(Tiine6a, " we should be saved," for auBTiaSfuBa, 
" we shall be saved," though in the preceding verse they give the word 
correctly, in the future indicative. In I Cor. xiv. 15, where the Received 
Text reads, with B, K, L, 1 7, 37, and the great body of the cursives, irpoae- 
viofj-at Ttf TTPtviiaTi, irpoaeiionai Si, " I will pray with the spirit, and will 
pray," etc.. A, D, E, F, G, P, and three cursives read Trpotrei^w/mi . . . 
irpoaev^tii/Jiai Si, " Let me pray with the spirit, and let me pray," etc., while 
the Sinaitic Codex reads irpoireufw/iai . . . Tpocevio/iai Si, " Let me pray 
with the spirit, and I will pray," etc. On this. Principal Edwards says 
{Commenlary on i Coiinlhiaus), "The future indicative yields a meaning 
so much more satisfactory that it must be accepted. . . . The best manu- 
scripts often confound with u. If it were hortatory, we should have 
expected the plural." But he says nothing of the peculiar reading of the 
Sinaitic Codex, which virtually makes the apostle say, " If I can only pray 
with the spirit, I will pray with the understanding also." 

' In the first verse of chapter vi. Xi ^> ^t ^ number of cursives, and the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

visers, in this case, discard the testimony of these manuscripts, 
and following what are commonly considered less trustworthy 
witnesses read, as does the Received Text, " Let us follow after 
things that make for peace." Still, they deem it necessary to 
say in the margin, " Many ancient authorities read we follow" 
even though it is evidently a false reading. Prebendary 
Humphry seeks to justify the reading "Let us have peace 
with God " by a reference to Heb. xii. 28. But the two cases 
are by no means parallel. The former is out of harmony with 
the context, and is really an incredible reading ; whereas the 
exhortation to have a thankful heart or to be thankful is per- 
fectly natural and legitimate, and accords with the context. 

If there is anything that should put the textual critic on his 
guard against an over-confidence in the old manuscripts, it is 
the fact of the existence among them of errors such as these. 
They reveal, on the part of copyists, not merely carelessness, 
but ignorance of the first principles of Christian experience, 
and a lack of heart to enter into the meaning of the sacred 
writers, in some of their utterances at least. 

V. 2. 

The ancient authorities referred to in the marginal note as 
omitting " by faith " are B, D, E, F, G, the Roman Ethiopic 
Version, and Origen in two instances. But the genuineness of 
the words is attested by J^ first hand, C, K, L, P, nearly all the 
cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Memphitic, the Armenian, Piatt's Ethiopic, Origen in two other 

Memphitic Version read the present indicative iirinivofitv, " we continue," 
for the present subjunctive ivi/iivuiity, "let us continue." In viii. 26, D, 
K, L, P, more than seventy cursives, and several of the Fathers, including 
Origen, have the future indicative wpoacv^6)u8a, " we shall pray," instead 
of the aorist subjunctive irpoafv^iiiieBa, " we should pray." Also, in Heb. 
xii. 28, X, K, r, 31, and many other cursives have ^xoMf. " we have," for 
tXWM*'', " let US have." 



instances, Chrysostom once, Euthalius, Cyril, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, Ambrosiaster, and others ; as well as by the read- 
ing, iv Trj TTi<TTti (in J< as amended by its contemporary reviser, 
A, 93, 1 24, Titus of Bostra, and Chrysostom in the same con- 
nection as before), which is simply the true reading with the 
' final letters of the preceding eVx'jKa/ie N repeated and pre- 
fixed. Griesbach and Tischendorf, as well as the Revisers, 
retain the words. But Lachmann rejects them, Westcott and 
Hort bracket them, and Tregelles questions their genuineness. 
But the fact that they may be omitted without injury to the 
sense is presumptive evidence not only that they are a part of 
the original text, but that they were really omitted in a few 
copies as superfluous. 

V. 6. 

Rec. T. Kara Kaip<5v — in due time. 
Rev. T. In KarA Kaip6v — in due season. 

By adopting this reading, the Revisers repeat tn, but do not 
translate it. Nor can it be translated without letting In in the 
beginning of the verse go untranslated. The word is repeated 
in i<. A, C, D first hand, two cursives, Epiphanius, and John 
Damascene. But it was evidently introduced here by some early 
scribe, who, having associated it with aadtvuiv, the meaning 
of wliich is modified by it, carried it along in his mind, and 
inserted it after this word, not realizing that he had already 
written it in its proper place. Afterwards, certain transcribers, 
as those of S. A, C, D, and others, in the mechanical per- 
formance of their duty, allowed both readings to remain, 
apparently without questioning their propriety. But the scribe 
of B, or one of his predecessors, was evidently perplexed by 
this double use of in. In his quandary, he took the second to 
be the true reading, inasmuch as it stood in immediate con- 
nection with the word to be modified by it. But he changed 
t'n yap, in the beginning of the verse, to u ye, " if indeed," 
a reading found elsewhere only in Westcott and Hort, to 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

which Dr. Hort, for himself, adds the note, "But d ntp [for 
which there is no authority whatever] would better explain all 
the variations, and be equally appropriate."' Other scribes 
and translators, most of them retaining, like B, the second irt, 
changed Iti ydp somewhat differently. The Peshito Syriac 
Version transformed it to tJ Si, "and if." One cursive, the 
original text of the Codex Fuldensis of the Vulgate, Isidore of 
Pelusium, and Augustine read d ydp, " for if." The Memphitic 
Version has " for if yet." D as amended at an early date, F, 
G, the Vulgate generally, and a few Latin witnesses read tk tL 
ydp, tit quid enim, " for why." " The misplacement of the in 
[;.<?. its insertion after aa-OcvSyv'] came to predominate because 
a church-lesson began with Xpio-Tos." — Meyer. This misplace- 
ment is given as genuine by S, A, B, C, D first hand, F, G, two 
cursives, the Vulgate, the Philoxenian Syriac, possibly Irenaus, 
Epiphanius, and John Damascene. But it is omitted by D third 
hand, E, K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the Peshito Syriac, 
the Memphitic, the Armenian, both forms of the Ethiopic, and 
Origen twice. In view of all this evidence, internal and external, 
the second Iti must be considered no part of the original 
reading. Its insertion in any modem Greek text of the New 
Testament is but a servile acceptance of the testimony of a few 
old manuscripts as authoritative, even though they present as 
the true reading a palpable error that is easily accounted for, 
and that makes an untranslatable combination of words. 

V. 17. 

The marginal note, " Some ancient authorities omit of the 
gift," is hardly worthy of a place here, the omission being 
found in no manuscript but B, and the cursive 49. Irenseus 
gives the passage once, and Origen twice, without the phrase, 
as do Chrysostom and Augustine. But they evidently regarded 

1 Select Readings, p. 108. 



" of the gift " and " of righteousness " as synonymous, either 
of which, in their view, expressed the apostle's meaning with- 
out the other. Hence Origen, after quoting the passage twice 
wilhout TTj^ Sdjptas, three pages further on quotes it with these 
words but without r^s StKatocruVj/s. The scribe of B, or perhaps 
some preceding scribe, in all probability took the same view,, 
omitting "of the gift," while the scribe of C and the copyist: 
of 70, taking the same view, retained " of the gift," but rejected: 
" of righteousness." The omission of t^s Swptas in B is simply 
one of those abbreviated forms of speech that abound in the. 
Vatican Codex, and is no more worthy of notice than is C's; 
omission of r^s SiKaioo-w?;?. Three other examples of a similar: 
nature occur in B in this very chapter ; namely, the omission 
of o ©tds in verse 8, oiyjuaTov after 'It/o-oS in verse 11, and of 
Ka.1, " also," after olnn, " so," in verse 15. In all these instances- 
of omission in B, except that of 6 ©to's, verse 8, the omitted, 
word or words have been bracketed by Westcott and Hort as 
of somewhat questionable genuineness; though, for the same- 
reason 6 ©£09 might have been bracketed as well as the others.' 
The Revisers, however, have no marginal notes acquainting the 
reader of these omissions, nor of the omission of -r^s SiKoxocrvvr}^ 
by C, 70 first hand, and Origen ; though all of them deserve it 
quite as much as the one noted by them. 

vii. 23. 

Rec. T. otxiiaXuTCJovrd \u riS v6\i.(o — bringing me into captivity to 
the law. 

Rev. T. alxH'<i^''''''lovTi t" iv Tcy v6yiif — bringing me into captivity 
under the law. 

The Revisers' Text, understood as rendered by them, pre- 
sents a harsh and unnatural construction ; for the verb itself 
means " to bring under control," " to subdue," and, in circum- 
stances like this, calls for a dative. If iv is properly employed 
here, the only legitimate construction is that of the instrumental 
dative : " bringing me into captivity iy riteans of (or through) 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

the law of sin " ; as Theodoret and others who adopt this read- 
ing understand it. But Paul can hardly be supposed to have 
said, " I see a different law in my tnembers warring against the 
law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity through the law 
of sm which is in my members." An ignorant scribe or anno- 
tator, however, not being able otherwise to understand the 
apostle, would very naturally have inserted iv, or written it upon 
the margm, to aid the construction, or to explain the meaning. 
Its presence is attested by what might ordinarily be regarded 
a tolerably strong group of uncials, — J<, B, D, E, F, G, K, P. 
But when we look at some of the readings presented by B in 
the immediate context, our confidence in its testimony here is 
shaken, and we fear that the rest of the group have also been 
betrayed into giving false testimony. In only the preceding 
verse, for example, B stands alone in reading tov voo's, "of my 
mind," for roG ©£oC, "of God." Again, four verses farther on 
(vm. 2), X, B, F, G, unite in giving what Dr. Hort pronounces 
" a very unlikely reading " ; namely, <r£ for ^t, i.e. " thee " for 
"me," after iKtveip„>a€, "freed." With such obvious errors 
m the Vatican manuscript so close at hand, we may be par- 
doned if we place very little confidence in its testimony in 
upholding iv as a genuine reading. The common reading is 
supported by A, C, L, most of the cursives, the Peshito and 
Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, and several Fathers. It has 
also every appearance of being genuine, — which is more than 
can be said of the Revisers' reading. 

vm. II. 

It has long been a question which of the two readings is the 
true one, — that of the text, " by " or " through " his Spirit, or 
that of the margin, "because of" his Spirit. The former is 
attested by S, A, C, P second hand, less than twenty cursives, 
the Memphitic, Woide's Thebaic, the Armenian, both Ethiopic 
Versions, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Portus, Atha- 
nasius, Didymus, Basil, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrys- 



ostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Macarius, John Damascene, and 
others. The latter is vouched for by B, D, E, F, G, K, L, P 
first hand, about seventy cursives, Mai's Extracts,' the Vulgate, 
the Peshito Syriac, the Thebaic according to Griesbach, Origen 
again and again, Irenoeus, Methodius according to Epiphanius, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Euthalius, Severianus, TertuUian, Hil- 
ary, Ambrosiaster, and many others. But the question cannot 
really be decided by documentary evidence alone. This is 
about equally divided. Internal evidence is altogether in favor 
of the marginal reading, — "on account of his Spirit." The 
New Testament nowhere teaches that the " quickening " of 
our mortal bodies at the resurrection is to be effected through 
the agency of the Holy Spirit, as the reading of the text would 
lead one to suppose it is to be.^ It is everywhere " God who 
quickeneth the dead " through our Lord Jesus Christ.' And it 
is because believers are Christ's that they are to be raised from 
the dead, and endued with immortal bodies. In other words, 
it is because of the Spirit of God that dwells in them. Hence, 
with the attestation which this reading has, we need not hesi- 
tate to adopt it as the true reading. Its teaching is that God, 
who restored to life him in whom dwelt the fulness of the 
Spirit, will in due time bring out from among the dead the 
bodies of believers, because of their being endued with 
the same Spirit. 

^ A compilation («) of New Testament readings extracted by Cardinal 
Angelo Mai, 1843, from the Speculum, z. Latin work ascribed to Augustine. 

''■ Jesus indeed says, John vi. 63, " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the 
flesh profiteth nothing." There is no allusion here, however, to the resur- 
rection. Christ refers simply to the life-giving principle in man in distinc- 
tion from the substance of his body. His meaning is. The spirit is that 
which animates the body, not the body that which animates the spirit. For 
this purpose the body, "the flesh," is of no account. To this animating 
principle in man he likens his own words : they are an animating principle, 
they are the source of spiritual life. Compare I Pet. iii. 18, R. V. 

8 Sec John V. 21; vi. 39; xi. 25; Rom. iv. 17; I Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45, 57; 
2 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. i. 10, 19, 20; I Thess. iv. 14, 16. 

'5^ THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

viii. 24. 

Rec. T. o 7dp pXlvH tis, t£ Kal IXirlla ; — for what a man seeth, 
why doth he yet hope for? 

Rev. T. o TfAp pX<irei, tCs ikmla ; — for who hopeth for that which 
he seeth? 

The Revisers have adopted, with Westcott and Hort, a read- 
ing found only in B first hand, and on the margin of the 
eleventh- or twelfth-century cursive 47, — testimony in itself 
very far from being conclusive, or even of preponderant weight. 
Had this been the original reading, it seems impossible that 
the other should have crowded it out of every known document 
but two, especially when we consider that, on the supposition 
that it is genuine, it is difficult to see how the other could have 
got into the text. The reading is not only improbable ; it is 
not in strict harmony with the context. It seems to be one of 
B's abbreviated forms, partially corrected, almost as soon as 
made, by the insertion of t[ after tis. Ti was evidently dropped 
as superfluous, because the apostle's words were misunderstood, 
— Tts having been taken interrogatively, and the question sup- 
posed to mean, " For who also hopes for what he sees? " This 
was the first step, leaving the text as given by only two hands, 
the original scribes of Ji^ and 47. But Kat also was felt by others 
to be unnecessary. Hence its omission in B, and its removal, 
at least eight centuries afterwards, from Codex 47, by some 
reader who probably was able to compare that manuscript with 
B, and consequently noted on its margin, "Anciently it read 
thus " ; i.e. without tC Kai. But, while Kai was thought by many 
to be needless, ri was restored in B by its contemporary reviser, 
and retained by the scribes of D, F, G, and their Latin trans- 
lators ; also by the translators of the Vulgate and the Peshito 
Syriac, and by Origen, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and 
others, — all of whom omitted the KaC. The true reading is, no 
doubt, that of the Received Text, which is attested by J^'s 
seventh-century corrector. A, C, K, L, P, nearly every cursive, 



the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Clement, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John Damascene; and virtually, 
also, by B as corrected by its early reviser, D, F, G, and the 
other witnesses that retain ti, though they omit Kat, — the 
omission of this word not materially affecting the apostle's 
thought, which centres on the hope itself, not on the person 
who may be indulging it, as the Revisers' reading evidently 
makes it. 

viii. 35. 

The marginal note, stating that some ancient authorities read 
" of God " where the text reads " of Christ," would be more 
satisfactory if it stated the facts in the case. The Sinaitic 
manuscript, seven cursives, a lectionary of the Latin Vulgate, 
together with Origen, Eusebius, Ephraem Syrus, Basil, Hilary, 
Jerome, Epiphanius, and others read "of God"; — some of 
these Bathers giving this reading repeatedly. But the Vatican 
Codex alone of all the ancient manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment, reads "of God which is in Christ Jesus," — a reading 
evidently taken from verse 39 by some ancient copyist who 
regarded the words " the love of Christ " as conflicting with 
the expression " the love of God which is in Christ Jesus," and 
so changed the former to correspond with the latter. Origen, 
in two out of his ten or more citations of this passage, also 
gives the reading, " the love of God which is in Christ Jesus " ; 
while in another place he gives the whole expression as it 
stands in verse 39, " the love of God which is in Christ Jesus 
our Lord." The previously mentioned witnesses, however, 
were satisfied with substituting simply, " of God," for " of 
Christ," as that sufficed to obviate the supposed difficulty. 
The reading really deserves no notice. Westcott and Hort, 
however, insert it in their margin, on the principle, we 
presume, that no readings of Ji^, B, can safely be rejected 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

viii. 38. 

Rec. T. ovTt &pxal oirt Suvdfuis oirt jvcirruTa oCtc (i^Wovra 

nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come. 

Kev. T. ovTe dp^al outc ivea-Tara ourt (i^Wovra oCt« Svvd)uis — nor 
principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers. 

The reading of the Revisers is strongly supported by docu- 
mentary evidence, — the common reading having only the 
attestation of K, L, the cursives a/a body, the Peshito Syriac, 
the Gothic, and a few Fathers, — Chrysostom several times. 
But the truth is, that the documents indicate early and great 
confusion among copyists, translators, and others, in the giving 
of this verse, — some transposing, some adding to, some taking 
from, and some otherwise changing, the terms given by the 
apostle. The reading seems to have originated with an early 
copyist, in omitting 8wa/i«s ovre by homoiotelenton. Some one, 
afterwards observing the omission, probably placed ovre Swa/i£is 
in the margin, whence the words were transferred to the text, but 
put in the wrong place. That the apostle should have made this 
arrangement is incredible. His mind was one that grouped 
objects together naturally. This is obvious everywhere. Hence 
we may be assured that he could not have inserted " powers " 
between " things to come " and " height," with neither of which 
it has any affinity in thought. Again, apxa-i, in the sense of 
principalities, is a word which he nowhere else uses alone. 
He generally couples it with liovulon, "powers," as in Eph. iii. 
10 ; vi. 12 ; Col. i. 16; ii. 15 ; Tit. iii. i. In i Cor. xv. 24 and 
Eph. i. 21, he uses the singular in connection with both iiovala. 
and Swn/iis. It is hardly possible, therefore, for him to have 
used %vva.fjLU<i in this connection without coupling it with apyal. 
This constrains us to believe that its true place is after ap\at, 
— a position from which it was early displaced by some careless 
transcriber. To say that the apostle dictated the terms in the 
order given by the Revisers because, as some say, he meant 
" powers " in the most general sense of the term, is, at best, 



only an attempt to defend a false reading. There is nothing 
in the context to indicate that such was the case. A glance at 
the passage shows, rather, that Sura^uets is called for after apx^', 
or else not at all. With this word, it forms a compound term, 
" principalities and powers," by which, as by the similar expres- 
" sion in Eph. vi. 12, the apostle designates those evil spiritual 
agencies against which the Christian has to contend. This 
seems obvious from the contrasts running through the passage, 
— death and life, angels and evil spirits, things present and 
things to come, height and depth, — a succession of antitheses, 
followed by the all-embracing specification, " nor any other 
created object." This gives concinnity and harmony to the 
whole train of thought. But the other order not only breaks 
up this adaptation of terms to each other, and leaves us without 
any apparent reason for the introduction of Swdp-w;, but repre- 
sents the apostle as employing two words in a strangely un- 
Pauline manner. It will, no doubt, be said, " But we must 
take the text as we find it, and not try to shape it to our notions 
of what it should be." Very true. But what is the text? Not 
necessarily what a few of the oldest known documents, say the 
five oldest extant manuscripts, present to us. If it were, all we 
should need to do, would be to follow them without any regard 
to other witnesses. But this we cannot do, for no two of them 
present the same text. They are continually in conflict, more 
or less, one with another. In one verse, they may be united in 
presenting a true reading ; in the next, be more or less divided 
between true and false readings ; while, in the third, they may 
conspire in presenting a spurious reading. We are not pleading 
for conjectural readings. The reading we adhere to as present- 
ing the apostle's language here is by no means without support. 
It is sustained not only by the oldest known version of the New 
Testament, which fact ought to have some weight, but by strong, 
if not overwhelming, intrinsic probability. Internal evidence 
of this character supported by a comparatively few documents 
is often stronger testimony in favor of a reading than that of 
scores and even hundreds of external witnesses to the contrary. 



X. 3. 

Rec. T. T^v ISCav 8iKaio<HivT)v ItjToCvrts o-rijo-ai — going about to 
establish their own righteousness. 

Rev. T. T^v ISCav J^toBvt.s OTTjcrai — seeking to establish their own. 

There is hardly sufficient warrant for the omission of " right- 
eousness " here. The manuscript testimony is about equally 
divided between the two readings. But the internal evidence 
strongly favors the received reading. The apostle as the orig- 
inal writer would naturally give this, the word embodying the 
most prominent idea in his mind, in each of the three instances 
in which it appears in the verse ; while a critical reader would 
be tempted to improve the phrasing by striking out the word 
if possible in at least one of the three instances, so as to avoid 
its unpleasant recurrence. The word appears here in X, F, G, 
K, L, nearly all the cursives, the Syriac Versions, both forms of 
the Ethiopic, the Gothic, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Chrysos- 
tom, Cyril, Theodoret, Ambrose, and others, but is omitted in 
A, B, D, E, P, three cursives, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the 
Armenian, Origen again, Clement, Basil, Chrysostom too, and 
Cyril, Augustine, and others. It would hardly have found a 
place here if it were not genuine. 

X. 5. 

Rec. T. Muo-fls 7Ap yp&^ti tt|v SiKaioorvvriv ttiv Ik toO v6|iot) 8ti 4 
Troi^o-as aira av$p«iros tf\tr(Tai Iv auTots — For Moses describeth the 
righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things 
shall live by them. 

Rev. T. Muo-tIs -ydp Ypd<|>£i 8ti tt)v SiKaio<rvviiv ttiv (k v<5hov 6 iroi^i- 
o-as avepuiros SijirtTai. iv auTQ — For Moses writeth that the man that 
doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. 

This verse is given as a reason for the statement contained 
in the preceding verse ; namely, that, to every one that be- 
lieveth, Christ is the end of law unto righteousness. Having 
thus spoken of the observance of the law as a means to right- 




eousness, the apostle seeks to confirm the statement by saying, 
not because Moses writes that the man that doeth the right- 
eousness which is of the law shall live by that righteousness 
(Moses nowhere makes such a statement) ; but because Moses 
describes the righteousness which is of the law to be, that the 
' man who t^e/Zi the things prescribed by the law shall live by- 
them, i.e. by fulfilling those requirements, as stated in Lev. 
xviii. 5 and Gal. iii. 12. In other words, Moses represents the 
righteousness required by law as consisting in the tfoing of 
something. But Christ is the end of all this. The righteous- 
ness of the gospel consists in believing. As far as the law was a 
means to righteousness, it ceased with Christ's fulfilment of it. 

Now there have evidently been a number of alterations made 
in the apostle's language here by different manuscripts. In 
the first place, there was no apparent antecedent for airo ; hence 
this must needs be dropped. Then there was no antecedent 
for avTots, and this must be changed to avrj;, so as to refer back 
to ZiKoxod-ivriv. But, since this failed to give a reading altogether 
satisfactory, it was thought necessary to remove on, and place it 
immediately after ypd4>ci. But, while this may improve the sense, 
it makes a misstatement, and destroys the apostle's argument. 
The apostle is simply quoting here, as he is also in Gal. iii. 12, 
in support of his position, the language of Moses as given by 
the LXX. That he should not quote it in this verse, where his 
reasoning calls for it, and yet should quote it in a similar con- 
nection in the other epistle, is incredible. It should be allowed 
to stand unchanged, as the Received Text presents it, in both 
places. These alterations were made, of course, during the 
second or third century, those early days when the New-Testa- 
ment Scriptures were so freely tampered with. 

X. 9. 

The reading of the margin, "confess the word with thy 
mouth, that Jesus is Lord," is a reading of the Vatican manu- 
script, found also in Clement of Alexandria, and partly followed 

1 62 


by a single cursive, 71, and in another part by a single version, 
— the Memphitic. It deserves no notice, however, having 
nothing to commend it, and being unsupported by any evi- 
dence of weight. In consequence of VVestcott and Hort's 
reverence for the Vatican manuscript, it is adopted by them. 
Hence its appearance in the Revisers' margin. 

xi. 17. 

Rec. T. Tfjs ptJlS KoX Tfjs indTT]TOS — of the root and fatness. 
Rev. T. Tijs p(Jt)s TTJs iriiTTiTOS — of the root of the fatness. 

The only evidence in support of the Revisers' reading is the 
testimony of X first hand, B, and C. John Damascene in 
different places seems to favor both readings. Tischendorf 
conjectures that the presence of the conjunction in the com- ^ 
monly accepted reading is due to the troublesome nature of 
the reading presented by these three manuscripts. But the 
more troublesome fact concerning this reading is that it is 
found in only three manuscripts, and receives no support from 
internal evidence. The absence of the conjunction in certain 
ancient exemplars may account for the reading found in D 
first hand, F, G, and their accompanying Latin versions, which 
omit T^s pt^?;? Kai. But, no doubt, xat was accidentally omitted 
by some early transcriber from whose copy these manuscripts 
are descended, while ^'s seventh-century emendator. A, D as 
afterwards corrected, E, L, P, all the cursives, the Vulgate, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the Armenian, the 
Ethiopic have descended from exemplars not thus vitiated. 
Admitting that the Revisers' Text presents the true reading, 
what does pt'^a, "root," here mean? Prebendary Humphry, 
himself one of the New-Testament Revisers, says, " the source 
and origin of its richness." If this is true, the apostle does 
not use the word literally, but figuratively, as in i Tim. vi. 
10. Yet, in both the previous and the succeeding verse, he 
contrasts "root" with "branches," and means thereby the 



literal root, the underground part of the tree of which he is 
speaking. Even in this verse, he refers to the branches no less 
than three times, and the last time in such a way as to leave no 
room to suppose that he means anything different from what 
he means in the other verses : " Thou didst become partaker 
, in common with the branches of the root (as well as the fat- 
ness) of the olive tree." The meaning of which evidently is 
that the Gentile, being incorporated by faith into the true Is- 
rael, denoted by the olive tree, becomes, together with those 
among whom he is incorporated, a partaker of the root, i.e. of 
Christ, and of the fatness of the tree, i.e. of the blessings which 
believers derive from Christ. Compare with this the revised 
reading : " Thou didst become partaker with the branches of 
the root (or source) of the fatness of the olive tree," i.e. of 
Christ. Rut why this roundabout phrase, " the root of the fat- 
ness " ? The fatness of the olive tree is something that has 
not been referred to in any previous verse so as to make the 
expression " the root (or source) of the fatness " at all perti- 
nent or called for. Had this been the apostle's meaning, he 
would naturally have said, " become partakers with them of the 
root of the olive tree." But this is only half of his meaning. 
Or, if his words had been written in the reverse order and 
without the conjunction, so as to allow of their being rendered, 
as in the Memphitic Version, "partaker with them of the fat- 
ness of the root of the olive tree," the word " root " still having 
the same signification as in the verses preceding and following, 
the reading would be more natural, and more in harmony 
with the context, though it would transfer the idea of fatness 
from the tree to the root. But to say that "root" here means 
not the root of the olive tree, but the source of its richness, is 
to give an exceedingly lame defence for an obviously false 
reading. The truth is, the revised reading is a long-discarded 
error, utterly unworthy of being revived. It disappeared soon 
after it originated, and should have been left among the old 
manuscripts where it was found. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT, 

The reading of the marginal note, " serving the opportunity " 
instead of " serving the Lord," is attested only by D first hand, 
F, G, one cursive, a few Latin versions and Latin Fathers. It 
is not the weight of documentary evidence that seems to have 
called forth the note, but the fact that many commentators and 
scholars have thought, and perhaps still think, this the true 
reading. Even so able a commentator as Meyer, while admit- 
ting that " Kvpiio is certainly the oldest and most diffused read- 
ing," says " if it were original, we cannot well see why Kaipw 
should have been substituted for it." It could not have been 
done intentionally. But we need not be at a loss to see that 
some copyist might easily have mistaken the abbreviation 
KPUI [xvpto)] for KgPUl [Katpep], these being the forms in 
which these words were anciently written. This would have 
been the more readily done if the scribe regarded, as he prob- 
ably did 'regard, the injunction as only another way of expres- 
sing what we find in Eph. v. 16, and Col. iv. 5. The main 
objection urged against KvpCm is that "serving the Lord" is a 
precept not suited to the context ; that, while it enjoins a com- 
prehensive duty, the injunction is thrown in as an independent 
precept among others of special and less comprehensive range. 
This, however, is a false view of the passage. The apostle had 
said, " In zeal, be not backward ; in spirit, be fervent." Then, 
lest any one should misunderstand or pervert his meaning, he 
adds as a qualifying clause referring back to both these injunc- 
tions, " serving the Lord." It shows in whose service he would 
have their zeal and earnestness employed. The words, so far 
from being superfluous or misplaced, are necessary; they are 
altogether pertinent. As an addition to the two previous 
clauses, they are perfectly Pauline, somewhat similar in effect to 
the qualifying phrase "in the Lord " affixed to various expres- 
sions or clauses in this epistle and elsewhere. The reading 
" serving the time," or " serving the opportunity," as a possibly 
genuine reading, is really deserving of no consideration whatever. 



Rec. T. wpa t|hm I^t] i^ Cirvou i^epeiivai — now it is high time to 
awake out of sleep; i.e. for us to awake, etc. 

Rev. T. upaiiSti 4(ias ii virvou iY«p9'ivai — now it is high time for 
you to awake out of sleep. 

The common reading, ^/i5s, is attested by S's seventh- 
century eraendator, D, E, F, G, L, nearly every cursive, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the 
Armenian, the Gothic, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damas- 
cene, and others. The Philoxenian Syriac and Ethiopic Ver- 
sions, and Origen and Cyril, like our A. V., omit the pronoun. 
The revised reading is that of S first hand. A, B, C, P, three 
cursives, and one passage of Clement of Alexandria, — not 
overwhelming evidence, it must be confessed. It is adopted, 
however, by Tischendorf, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, as 
well as the Revisers ; while Lachmann, Tregelles, Meyer, and 
others adopt the received as the genuine reading. It looks 
like a change made to save the apostle from including himself 
among those needing to awake out of sleep, — a change favored 
by the participle eiSdre?, " since ye know." Or it may have 
been thought to be the only proper word to follow the passive 
verb, iyepe^vai, taken in the sense of Mng roused, rather than 
in its later intransitive and more common New-Testament sense 
of awaking; as if the apostle meant to say, "It is high time for 
you to be aroused from your sleep " ; — the necessary rousing 
or awakening to be effected by his words to them. But we 
have no evidence that the Christians at Rome were asleep 
more than others, so as to make it necessary for the apostle to 
say to them particularly, " It is high time for you to awake," 
or, " for you to be roused." The exhortation, from his stand- 
point in reference to Christ's second coming, was one applicable 

to Christians generally, on whose behalf he is here speaking. 

It is therefore altogether unnatural for him to say, — indeed, 

improbable that he should have said, " It is time for you to 

1 66 

THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

rZ,. V ,r '"'^"^^'"g ^e^^es. he did not hesitate to in- 
clude hnnself among those who should cast off the works of 
darkness, put on the armor of light, and walk honestly, not In 
reve hng, etc. We are confirmed in the conclusion that he 
must have written ^^, instead of V« by the fact that it was 
not Paul's manner of writing to give an irrelevant reason To 
anythmg. And yet. ,f the Revisers are right, he has done it in 
saying ^,y i^y^.p^^ .^-^ . ^^^^^^^ 

with the A. v., "for now is our salvation nearer," or, with the 
R. v., for now ,s salvation nearer to us," than when we believed 
lo g^e a consistent reason for saying "j,u should awake," one 
would naturally say, "For now is your salvation nearer" or 
now IS salvation nearer fo you." 'Y/.a, seems to be an earlJ 
a eration that gained but little favor, and was confined to 
Alexandria, where it undoubtedly originated. 

ziv. 4. 

Rec. T. 4 0c6s — God. 

Rev. T. 6 Kvpiof — the Lord. 

" For f/ie Lord hath power to make him stand." This reading 
IS attested by the four oldest uncials, together with P, a ninth- 
century uncial, and is also the reading of the Memphitic The- 
baic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions. The Peshito 
Syriac Version, which is two centuries older than the Vatican 
Codex, translates the verse as follows: "Who art thou that 
thou judgest a servant not thine own, who, if he standeth 
standeth to his Lord ; and if he falleth, he falleth to his Lord? 
But he will assuredly stand ; for his Lord hath power to estab- 
lish \<\mr — explaining the Greek 6 ©£os by an additional use 
of the phrase, "his Lord." It is not an uncommon thing for 
this Version to insert a gloss, instead of closely following the 
original. (The Philoxenian Syriac, which is noted for its ex- 
treme literalness, has "God," not "the Lord," here.) This 
gloss of the Peshito Version was afterwards introduced into the 



margin of certain Eastern Greek manuscripts, and, in conse- 
quence of its repeated occurrence in the sixth and following 
verses, readily passed from the margin into the text of subse- 
quent Alexandrian manuscripts, not in the form, " his Lord," 
but " the Lord," 6 Kilpios. It is evidently what Dr. Hort would 
call " a Syrian reading." The true reading is 6 0£os, the word 
that appeared in other manuscripts, and still appears in D, 
E, F, G, L, and the whole body of the cursives, as well as 
in the Vulgate and Old Latin Versions. This is also the read- 
ing of the Fathers generally, from Origen downward. It is 
not taken, as Tischendorf intimates it might be, from verse 3, 
" for God hath received him." There, there was no motive for 
changing " God " to " the Lord," as there was here ; otherwise 
the change would doubtless have been made, and the entire 
context would have favored it. 

xiv. 6. 

Rec. T. Kal 6 |it] (|)povo)v ttjv T|)i^pav KvpCu ov (f>povft — and he that 
regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. 
Rev. T. omits. 

Meyer, who adopts the reading followed by the Revisers, 
says, " The opposite of the observance of days, Paul has not 
added because he has not at the beginning of this verse planned 
his language antithetically." But this statement will hardly bear 
testing. Throughout the preceding context, from the first verse 
of the chapter, the language is antithetical. In verse i, the re- 
ceiving of a weak brother is contrasted with his non- reception 
" to doubtful disputations." In verse 2, one who believeth in 
eating all things is set in contrast with one who has not this 
belief, but eats only herbs. In verse 3, the former is coun- 
selled not to despise the latter ; and the latter is charged not 
to judge the former. In verse 4, the man that judges another's 
servant is given to understand that not he, but the servant's 
master, is that servant's judge. In verse 5, one man is repre- 

1 68 


sented as esteeming one day above another ; while another, 
in contrast with him, is represented as esteeming all days alike. 
Hence it is scarcely just to the apostle to say that he had 
not at the beginning of this verse planned his language an- 
tithetically. He had' so planned it from the beginning of the 
chapter. It is hardly possible, therefore, to believe that he 
could have said, " He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto 
the Lord," without introducing its antithesis, especially as the 
antithetical strain continues in the latter part of the verse and 
the two verses following. It is on account of this antithetical 
character of the whole context that we are more and more 
convinced that the words omitted from the Revisers' Text must 
be genuine. Completeness in expressing the apostle's thought 
calls for their presence. It is true, the external testimony in 
favor of the omission appears strong. But the bare fact that 
the oldest known manuscripts omit these words is not in itself 
proof decisive against their genuineness. There is, in the very 
idea of the apostle's speaking favorably of the non-observance 
of days held sacred by many, something forbidding to a scru- 
pulous mind, — one of weak faith on this point. In those 
early days of the Christian Church, when the exact language 
of the New-Testament writers was less sacredly observed than 
in later centuries, and when we know that liberties were taken 
again and again with their language, a copyist who questioned 
the propriety of not regarding one day above another, and to 
whom the idea was offensive, might very easily have satisfied 
himself that he had discharged his duty as a scribe by inserting 
only the first half of what he found here written in reference to 
the observance of days. This is quite as probable as that the 
omission is due to homoiotdeuton, to which it may possibly be 
owing. But, whatever may be the reason of the non-appear- 
ance of this clause in most of the uncials, we are far from 
believing that it is an interpolation in the Syriac Versions, one 
of which runs back well nigh to the apostles' days. It has 
every appearance of being genuine, and is demanded by the 




context and the style of argument adopted by the apostle. 
The widespread nature of the omission is due to the early date 
at which it was made. On the other hand, Basil of Cesarea, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascene, Photius, and other 
Fathers, attest the words as genuine, as well as C third hand, 
L, P, most of the cursives, and the Armenian and two Syriac 

xiv. ig. 

The Revisers attach to this verse the note, " Many ancient 
authorities read, we follo^u "; that is, instead of " let us follow." 
But this is one of those marginal notes that tend to lumber up 
the volume, and certainly benefit nobody. It cannot be said 
to have been inserted in the interests of justice or candor. 
Though Tischendorf adopts it, he does it from what he feels to 
be the force of " authority " ; that is, the testimony of his 
favorite Sinaitic Codex, supported by A, B, F, G, L, P, and half 
a dozen cursives. Of all the versions, not one adopts it ; and 
it is all but universally regarded a false reading, having crept 
into the text at an early day in consequence of the error of 
some copyist in writing an o for an <o. Such transparent errors, 
as common as they are transparent, however respectably sup- 
ported, ought not to be thus dragged to the light, and made to 
appear worthy of consideration. It is true that C, D, and E 
are the only uncials that read StwKui/xfv, " let us follow " ; but 
they are supported by the context, by all the versions, by nearly 
all the cursives, and approved generally by commentators and 
editors, even by VVestcott and Hort. 

Rec. T. <rvp irCo-rtv ex*''* ; — Hast thou faith? 

Rev. T. OT) -irCo-Tiv iiv ex*''S — The faith which thou hast. 

The Revisers' reading is attested by the four oldest manu- 
scripts J^, A, B, C, — all Alexandrian, and by only one of the 
ancient versions, — the Memphitic. If this is the true reading, 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

how shall we account for the fact that it is not found in any 
of the old versions except that of the people among whom the 
four oldest codices originated? The testimony of all these 
witnesses amounts virtually to that of but one witness. Other 
than these, the only manuscript testimony in support of this 
reading is a tenth-century copy of the Latin Vulgate Version ; 
whereas the testimony of D, E, F, G, L, P, of the whole body 
of the cursives, of all other Latin Versions, of the Peshito and 
Philoxenian Syriac, Thebaic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, 
— that is, the testimony of all the rest of ancient Christendom, — 
is in support of the received reading. However we may seek 
to account for the presence of jjv, " which," it has every appear- 
ance of being an interpolation, — either accidentally or design- 
edly such. The absence of the article before ttlcttiv followed 
by a relative clause is a fatal objection to the admission of such 
a clause. Compare Gal. i. 23. Again, the presence of yv makes 
o-v, " thou," the subject not of €;(«? but of the more remote t^^ ; 
and makes it unaccountably emphatic by removing it so far 
from its verb. It is difficult to see why the subject of this verb 
need be expressed at all, much more why it should be made so 
very emphatic. Moreover, admitting that the apostle could 
have written ttlo-tiv rjv for t^v irianv rjv, and that his meaning 
therefore is, " T/ie faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself 
before God," it must be acknowledged the whole reading has 
an air of stiffness unnatural to Paul, which renders it exceed- 
ingly suspicious, though favored by the most ancient of known 
Greek manuscripts. But, with the common reading, the passage 
presents all the simplicity, directness, and naturalness peculiar 
to the apostle. His argument is that Christians should pursue 
a course that will edify instead of injuring their brethren, even 
in reference to things lawful and innocent. Consequently they 
should not knowingly eat flesh that may possibly have been 
offered in sacrifice to idols, or drink wine, or do anything else 
that will cause others to stumble. Then appealing to his readers 
individually, he very naturally says, either concessively, " Thou 



hast faith ? " or interrogatively, " Hast thou faith ? " i.e. to eat 
all things (verse 2), or what others may consider unclean. 
(Verse 14) " Have it to thyself" ; don't parade it before others 
who have different views from yours, and who consider your 
course sinful. This is relevant, and perfectly Pauline. But to say, 
" Do THOU, [the] faith which thou hast, have to thyself before 
God," is to speak in an ungrammatical and apparently uncalled 
for manner, altogether unlike the apostle's ordinary mode of 
expression. This false reading seems to have grown out of 
a careless repetition of the last syllable of irto-Ttv, making 
TTICTINTINeXGIC out of the two words -iricmv and tx"'- 
But a subsequent copyist, naturally considering the second Tl 
a mistake for H, changed the reading to TTICTINHNGXGIC, 

i.e. TTICTTIV TjV «X"*- 

xiv. 23. 

It is very true that a large number of manuscripts, some 
ancient, insert after this verse the doxology found in chapter 
xvi. 25-27. But we question whether it is legitimate revision 
work to insert this statement in the margin without saying any- 
thing more. That the doxology properly belongs here, few 
scholars at present contend. It was brought in through the 
Lectionaries or early church service books, which inserted it 
at the close of a lesson. It was thus that it found its way 
into the text both here and at the end of the epistle in A, P, 5, 
17, and certain copies of the Armenian Version. In some 
manuscripts, as L, about two hundred cursives, the lectionaries, 
and a few third-class versions, it appears here, but not at the 
end of the epistle. And so Griesbach and Matthsei have it in 
their editions ; but this is not generally approved. Others still, 
as D third hand, F, G, considering it altogether spurious, omit 
it in both places. But the preponderance of testimony assigns 
it its place at the end of the epistle, and there only. It would 
be quite as suitable to append to chapter xvi. 25 the note, 
"Some authorities question the genuineness of this passage," as 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

It IS to give the note here annexed, or the one there placed in 
the margin. Indeed, no such note as we find in either of these 
places is really called for. 

XV. 15. 

Rec. T. Ttiv xApiv ttiv BoBtio-Av |ioi vir4 toO 0eoO — the grace that is 
given to me of God. 

Rev. T. TT]v x<lpiv TTiv fioetio-dv jioi airi toO GtoO — the grace that 
was given me of God. 

There is no difference here made in the rendering of wo' and 
a-n-o. There is, however, this difference in the meaning of the 
two prepositions : the former, employed as here, means " by," 
and refers to God as the efficient cause, the giver; while the 
latter means " from," with a reference to God as the primal 
source of the gift. The weight of external evidence is greatly 
in favor of the former ; the latter being attested only by Ji{, B, 
F, and the doubtful testimony of John Damascene. This read- 
ing may have proceeded from a mistaking of the word in the 
exemplar by an early scribe, as indeed the other might have 
proceeded from a misreading of this. But arro has rather the 
appearance of being an altered reading, made with a view of 
bringing the passage into conformity with expressions found 
elsewhere, as in James i. 17 ; also 2 Cor. v. 18, "All things are 
from God," but by Jesus Christ. In Acts ix. 15, xiii. 47, xxii. 
21, xxvi. 16, Rom. i. 5, etc., the apostle is represented as 
having received his commission as an apostle to the Gentiles 
through the Lord Jesus, — an idea which would be expressed 
by a-Ko Tov ®tov rather than by the unqualified phrase vivo rov 
©£o5. Hence, apparently, the change from Itto to d;ro. 

XV. 17. 

Rec. T. €x<<> ovv Kavxtjoav — I have therefore whereof I may glory. 
Rev. T. €X" 0''*' ""iv Kovxio-iv — I have therefore my glorying. 

The latter reading is attested by B, C apparently, D, E, F, G, 
and the single cursive 37; the former, by '^, A, L, P, the rest 



of the cursives, the Peshito Syriac, and the Armenian Version, 
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damas- 
cene. The position of t-^w shows that special emphasis is to 
be given to " I have." Accordingly, the Revised Text must 
mean, I have therefore the glorying (that I have) in Christ 
Jesifs as regards things pertaining to God. It is not a mere 
fancy. It is something that truly belongs to me, something 
that I really possess. Others may deny it to me ; but this 
cannot affect the truth in the case, or prove that I have 
no such glorying. But what the special significance or per- 
tinence of such a declaration can be, especially in this con- 
nection, it is difficult to see. The apostle has said nothing 
previous to this concerning glorying in Christ. Why, then, 
should he draw the conclusion, " Therefore I have my glorying 
in Christ " ? It seems to be a very unnatural and strange 
conclusion to arrive at from the premises in the case. And 
yet it is the only conclusion that the presence of the article 
seems to allow. That gives definiteness to the glorying, and 
makes it the apostle's. But remove the article, and a different 
meaning presents itself : " I have therefore a glorying — a 
subject or ground of glorying " ; or, " I have therefore whereof 
I may glory." It will not do to say that Kavxr/o^'s does not admit 
this meaning. Both here and in 2 Cor. i. 12, to say nothing 
of Rom. iii. 27, the apostle uses Kavxqcn-^ as equivalent to 
Kav-)(riixa, just as in Rom. viii. 39, he uses KTt'cns for ktio-im. 
Nor is this all. In 1 Cor. v. 6, 2 Cor. v. 12, ix. 3, Phil. i. 26, 
he uses Kavxqixa where we might naturally expect to see Kavxyja-K. 
In short, he employs the two words interchangeably in accord- 
ance with later Greek usage. Taking the word, then, without 
the article, — a reading that is really more strongly attested 
than the other, — the meaning is both plain and pertinent. In 
the preceding verses, the apostle refers to the grace that had 
been bestowed upon him that he should be a minister of Christ 
among the Gentiles. In view of this unspeakable privilege, he 
says, " I /lave therefore ground of glorying in Christ Jesus in 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

things pertaining to God." Men may say I have not, but I 
have. It is an act of unspeakable grace on God's part to 
permit me to preach Christ among the Gentiles. I glory in it. 
After thus positively stating that he regarded the relation which 
he sustained to God in being called to the ministry of the 
Gospel as a ground of glorying in Christ, he adds as a reason 
for saying this, " For I dare * not speak except of things which 
Christ has wrought through me," having permitted me to 
preach the Gospel to the Gentiles from Jerusalem to Illyricum, 
and through the intermediate countries, especially where no 
other preacher of the gospel has been before me. Thus favored 
of God, the apostle felt warranted in saying, " I have therefore 
reason for boasting in Christ in matters pertaining to God." 
How the article ever crept into the text, one may not be able V 
to say positively, any more than he can explain how Didymus 
of Alexandria, in quoting this passage, should again and again 
have written ncTroCOrja-iv, " confidence," in place of Kavxrjo-iv, 
unless it was to present his idea of the apostle's meaning. It 
is enough to show that the article does not belong there, and 
that there is sufficient evidence to justify one in taking this 

xvi. 27. 

The A. V. has " to God only wise, be glory through Jesus 
Christ for ever," where the R. V. reads, " to the only wise 
God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever." 
The Greek in both Texts is the same. But the Revisers have 
the marginal note, " Some ancient authorities omit fo whom." 
These authorities are B, two cursives (33, 72), the Peshito 
Syriac, the Latin Version of F, and Origen ; while two other 

1 That is, reading roXixd, the present, with X's seventh-century 
emendator, B, the Peshito Syriac, d, e, f, g, the Vulgate, the Armenian 
Version, Origen, and others of the Fathers, — a form which Westcott and 
Hort have placed in their margin, but which really seems to be the true 



cursives read urj ^o^a, " be glory," in place of <5 v ^°^^> " *° 
whom the glory." The preponderance of external evidence, 
therefore, is very greatly in favor of the retention of <J, " to 
whom." But this makes an exceedingly hard reading, — a 
circumstance, it is true, which in the eyes of some is all the 
more in its favor, as affording an argument in proof of its 
genuineness. Yet it is difficult to believe that the apostle could 
have written these last three verses in this disconnected manner. 
Nor should this belief be entertained except as a necessity 
from which there is no reasonable ground of escape. The 
fact that B alone of all the uncials omits w looks, it must be 
confessed, like an evident attempt, on the part of the copyist 
of that manuscript, or of some one who had preceded him, to 
remove a difficulty. But, if this is true of him, it must be true 
also of another scribe a hundred years or more earlier than 
that of B, one of whose copies was in the hands of Origen, 
who quotes the passage without the relative. And, if true of 
these, it must also be true of the translator or translators of the 
Peshito Syriac Version, who lived in another part of Christen- 
dom, and at least another hundred years earlier. But if, in 
these three separate instances, different scribes should have 
pursued one and the same course, it really seems strange that 
the same thing was not more extensively done, as it must have 
suggested itself to others also, and could have been effected so 
very easily. Now the fact that the Sinaitic manuscript has the 
relative is proof that <J was considered by some as a part of 
the text as eariy as the middle of the fourth century. And the 
fact that it exists in all but one of the eariiest Greek manu- 
scripts, and in all but one or two of the eariiest Versions, is 
presumptive evidence that it must have been an accepted 
reading for many years previous to that, if not from the very 
first. Still, we believe that <I is no part of the original text, 
but that this text is correctly handed down by B, the Peshito 
Syriac Version, and the few other documents that omit "to 
whom." When we consider the length of this doxology (verses 



25-27), and the ease with which the connection may be lost 
by a copyist before reaching the end, especially in the com- 
paratively slow process of writing in uncials, it is by no means 
difficult to believe that an early scribe, to whom the form of 
the doxology in Gal. i. 5, 2 Tim. iv. 18, and Heb. xiii. 21, was 
familiar, having lost the connection, and trusting to his memory 
for the moment, rather than observing his exemplar, should 
have unconsciously inserted the <S that appears in those places. 
Any one who is accustomed to do much in copying, as well as 
in the way of original composition, and observing his mistakes, 
will realize that a copyist is far more likely, in similar circum- 
stances, to introduce an error of this kind than the original 
writer would be. And we are the more convinced that " to 
whom " was thus introduced by the fact that J^, A, D, E, the 
Vulgate, the Armenian, the Ethiopic Version, and other wit- 
nesses for this reading add the twv aluivwv, " and ever," of 
those verses ; while B, C, and other documents are without this 
additional phrase. Codices P, 31, 54, and the copy of this 
episde that was in Chrysostom's possession, as well as the 
Memphitic Version, instead of " to whom," have " to him." But 
this is simply an attempt to correct the phraseology by making 
it correspond with Rom. xi. 36. 


i. 15- 
Rec. T. tva ^^ ris .1^ 8ti .t, rh i^iv «vo^a ipAimo-o. - Lest any 
should say that 1 had baptized in mine own name. 

Rev. r. tva H^^ t« .i^n 8ti .Is ri Iv-ov fivo^a ipawrto-enr.. - lest 

any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. 

The first of these is the reading of C third hand, D, E, F, G, 
L, P, most of the cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Synac 
and Gothic Versions, Theodoret, Tertullian, and others. The 
latter follows S, A- B, C first hand, ten cursives, the Latm ver- 
sions of E and F, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Armeman, the ■ 
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Chrysostom, John Damascene, 
Ambroslaster, and others. There is no perceptible d.fference 
in the meaning of the two readings ; so that the apostle might 
have expressed himself equally well in either. In verse 13, he 
expresses his thoughts successively in the passive : /^Christ 
Mi? was Paul cnui_fied for you? or, were ye iapfize^ m 
the name of Paul? " This is natural ; it is Paul-like In verses 
14-16, however, he quite as obviously expressed himself suc- 
cessively in the active : " I l'aj>t,z.^ none of you . . lest any 
otld lay I ../.W in my own name ... I ^f^^ff^t/^ 
household of Stephanas ... I know not whether I ^./W 
anv other." This, too, is perfectly natural, and what might be 
expected from the aposde. But some early critic seems to 
have taken offence at the monotonous recurrence of the aonst 
active ; and, in order to vary the expression without affecting 
the apostle's meaning, substituted the passive form, which he 
had just found in verse 13- This, however, did not satisfy 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT, 



every reader ; hence it was afterwards changed to i^awTiady,, 
" lie was baptized." This is the reading of Euthalius, and of 
the cursives lo, 31. The change was evidently wrought to 
make the verb correspond grammatically with the one preceding 
it : " Lest any one should say that he was baptized in my name." 
If the passive were the original reading here, it is difficult to 
see why it should ever have been set aside for the active. The 
active, however, has every indication of being genuine ; and 
there is no good reason why it should be abandoned. 

ii. 1. 

Rec. T. KarayyAAuv tijitv ri (laprvpiov toO 0«oO. — declaring unto 
you the testimony of God. 

Rev. T. KaTayyOAuv ijitv t4 (luo-r^piov to« 0€Ov, — proclaiming 
to you the mystery of God. 

The common reading is that of X's seventh-century emen- 
dator, B, D, E, F, G, L, P, most of the cursives, the Vulgate, 
the Thebaic, the Philoxenian Syriac, both Ethiopic Versions, 
the Armenian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, John Damascene, 
Pelagius, and others. The revised is supported by X first hand, 
A, C, seven or eight cursives, one Old Latin Version, the Peshito 
Syriac, the Memphitic, and by Antiochus, Ambrose, Augustine, 
and Ambrosiaster. It looks like a gloss, introduced from verse 
7, to obviate the difficulty presented by the expression, " the 
testimony of God," a phrase nowhere else used as a synonym 
of the Gospel. " The testimony of Christ " is an expression 
employed in verse 6 of the preceding chapter as synonymous 
with " the gospel of Christ " ; i.e. the testimony borne con- 
cerning him by his followers. But the phrase " the testimony 
of God " evidently admits of no such interpretation : it can 
mean only the testimony given by God, — what God testifies 
to or declares. This supposed difficulty seems to have led to 
the substitution of /tuo-rvpiov, the " mystery," i.e. the secret 
which God had kept to himself from the foundation of the 
world, but which he revealed to men in the coming of Christ. 

This ''mystery" is sometimes spoken of as the mystery of God, 
and sometimes as the mystery of Christ, — quite as often the 
former as the latter. Hence the ease with which it found its 
way here in place of " testimony." If the latter word, as some 
suppose, had been introduced from i. 6, the phrase would 
undoubtedly have been changed to correspond throughout with 
that, — " the testimony of Christ." We cannot but conclude 
that the common reading, which certainly has a preponderance 
of evidence, both external and internal, in its favor, is the 
genuine reading. It is so regarded by Lachmann, Tregelles, 
Tischendorf, Alford, and others. But Griesbach favors /jlvctt-^- 
piov ; and WeStcott and Hort adopt it, placing /mpTvpiov in the 
margin as a secondary reading. 

iii. 12. 

Rec. T. <l Si Tis 4iroiKo8o|i€i tir\ riv 0f|UXiov toCtov — Now if any 

man build upon this foundation. 

Rev. T. <l hi Tis {iroiKoSo)ut iirX tov 6<|X^iov — But if any man build- 
eth on the foundation. 

The presence of tovtov is attested by Ji^'s seventh-century 
emendator, C third hand, D, E, L, P, all the cursives, the Vul- 
gate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the 
Armenian, Origen, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrys- 
ostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, Augustine, and 
others. The word is omitted in J^ first hand. A, B, C first hand, 
one Old Latin Version, the Thebaic, the Ethiopic, and by Cyril 
-ef Alexandria, and Ambrose. Among words of similar ending, 
it might very easily have dropped out in copying without being 
missed. It is by no means probable that the apostle introduced 
the word OiixtXiov, " foundation," in this connection without 
TOVTOV as its natural accompaniment, pointing back to the foun- 
dation mentioned in the preceding clause. It is easier to beUeve 
that the word is wanting in a few documents through the care- 
lessness of some early transcriber than that it was omitted by 
the apostle or his amanuensis. 



IV. 2. 

Rec. T. 5 8c Xoiir6v, - 
Rev. T. w8«, Xoiiriv, - 

• Moreover. 

- Here, moreover. 

The received reading is found in D as corrected by a later 
hand, E, L, most of the cursives, Origen three times, Didymus, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, and others. The revised is 
that of X, A, B, C, D first hand, F, G, P, six cursives, the Latin 
versions of D and E as well as of F and G, the Vulgate, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, 
both forms of the Ethiopic, Origen once as represented by his 
Latin interpreter, Augustine, and others. The weight of ex- 
ternal evidence is, no doubt, in favor of cSSt ; but, as Principal 
Edwards, who adopts the reading, says, " it is difficult to fix the 
meaning." If taken in the sense of " in this matter," it makes 
the phrase " in stewards " redundant. If the meaning is sup- 
posed to be " on earth," it indicates a contrast between faithful- 
ness in this life and faithfulness in some other sphere. But 
there is evidently no implied contrast here, as there is in Col. 
iv. 9, or Heb. xiii. 14. To connect it, as Lachmann does, with 
the preceding verse, so as to read " stewards of the mysteries of 
God /;/ this matter" is harsh, and makes the expression super- 
fluous. To render it, with Meyer, " such being the case " or 
" in these circumstances," is to give it a signification unwarranted 
by its New Testament use, and having no special point or 
applicableness. Indeed, beyond all reasonable doubt, the word 
is a very early transcriptional error for o 8/, made in consequence 
of the scribe's writing from dictation, and misapprehending the 
true expression. Taking 5 Si \onr6v, " and what is more," as 
the true reading, there is no difficulty. The two verses taken 
together may be rendered as follows : " Such being the case, 
let a person regard us as ministers of Christ, and stewards of 
the mysteries of God : and, what is more, it is required on the 
part of stewards that a man be found faithful." 

The rule that the more difficult reading is more likely to be 



the true reading is, no doubt, an excellent rule in certain cir- 
cumstances. But to push it to the extreme of making an 
unmeaning reading, that may easily be accounted for, appear 
to be the genuine reading, in the face of a plain if not self- 
evidently correct reading, is an abuse of the rule. 

▼ii. 37, 38. 

Rec. T. KoXus iroui . ■ . koXws irout . . . Kp<ioro-ov towi. — doeth 
well . . . doeth well . . . doeth better. 

Rev. T. KoXus iroifio-ti . . . koXus iroiei . . . Kp<t<r(rov iroi^erci. — 

shall do well . . . doeth well . . . shall do better. 

The common reading is supported in the first of these in- 
stances by D, E, F, G, K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Ethiopic, 
Theodoret, and John Damascene ; in the last, by the same 
witnesses, together with the additional testimony of Clement, 
Methodius, and Chrysostom twice. The future of the Revised 
Text is attested in the first instance by X. A, B, 6, 17, 46, 67 
second hand, Basil, the Memphitic, and its kindred version the 
Bashmuric ; in the last instance, by all these except the Bash- 
muric, together with the additional testimony of Codex 37 and 
Euthalius. This future is an early alteration made for the sake 
of varying the phraseology. There is no more call for the 
future at the end of these two verses than in the middle of the 
latter verse, or at the end of verse 36, where the present, ov;^ 
d/xa/oTavti, " sinneth not," remains undisturbed. The apostle, 
no doubt, wrote the present in each of these four instances ; but 
a meddling critic sought to improve his language. 

vm. 4. 

Rec. T. ou8«ts ©t^s ?Ttp<« ct (it) ets. — there is none other God but one. 
Rev. T. ouScVs 0«os «t (1.1] tls. — there is no God but one. 

The former of these is the reading of Ji^ as amended early in 
the seventh century, K, L, most of the cursives, the Peshito 



and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, Chrysostom twice, Theodoret, 
John Damascene, and others. The latter is attested by J< first 
hand. A, B, D, E, F, G, P, eight cursives, the Vulgate, the 
Memphitic, the Bashmuric, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Basil, 
Euthalius, Cyril, Irenaeus as represented by his Latin interpreter, 
Augustine, Ambrosiaster, and others. The revised reading thus 
appears to be the more strongly attested. This, however, is only 
to be expected ; for Ircpos has the appearance of being super- 
fluous ; and, in copying from different exemplars, one or more 
of which were without erepos, though the others had it, a scribe 
would naturally give the simpler and more concise form of ex- 
pression the preference. But the bare fact that erepos appears 
in any manuscripts is prima-facie evidence of its genuineness ; 
for no scribe or reader would have been tempted to insert a 
word seemingly so utterly unnecessary. 

vui. 7. 

Rec. T. Tives Si t^ <rvv«t8<)<r«i tov clSuXov l«s apri — for some with 
conscience of the idol unto this hour. 

Rev. T. Tivts 8« T^ a-vvT)SiC9i {us apn tov <tSfiXov — but some, being 
used until now to the idol. 

The common reading, <rwct8ijo-«, is that of the seventh- 
century corrector of X, D, E, F, G, L, nearly all the cursives, 
the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, 
and others. The Revisers' avvrjOtia is found in Ji{ first hand, 
A, B, P, five cursives, the Memphitic, the Bashmuric, the 
Ethiopic, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Euthalius, John 
Damascene, and others. Of the two readings, the former is 
the more difficult. Hence, apparently from a misapprehension 
of its true meaning, the word a-vvr)Oua, in its classic sense of 
familiarity or intimacy, was originally written as a gloss in the 
margin, whence it was afterward introduced into the text in place 
of 0Tn'tt8iy<7«, taken in the sense of consciousness or knowledge. 



Thus, " conscience of the idol," or scrupulosity in regard to it, 
became transformed to familiarity with, or habituation to, the 
idol. The only unquestioned use the apostle makes of avm^OiM 
is in xi. 16, and then in the sense in which the evangelist John 
(xviii. 39) uses it : " We have no such custom." But this 
signification is very different from that presented in this verse. 
If, therefore, we can judge anything from the context, or from 
the apostle's acknowledged use of o-vnj^tia, the revised reading 
here, instead of restoring the original text, has only set it aside. 

viii. 8. 

Rec. T. Bpu|i.a Si riiiM o« irapCo-njo-i T<p 0€u • o6t€ •ydp ^Av 4>4y<i>)uv, 
irepur(r(vo)Uv • o\!t« Wv |1i) <t>dYu|i(v, {i(rT<pov|i«6a. — But meat com- 
mendeth us not to God : for neither if we eat, are we the better : neither 
if we eat not, are we the worse. 

Rev. T. Bpu)iia 8< y\<f''a.% ov irapourTiicrci ti^ @eu ■ o{Sr€ tdv |i.t) <)>&y<i)|UV 
v(rTcpov)i€6a, oCrt tdv <|idYU)Uv ircpi(ro-eu6)u6a. — But meat will not com- 
mend us to God : neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, 
are we the better. 

We have here several points to notice. First, the present 
Trapto-TTjo-i of the Received Text is displaced by the future 
Trapao-T^o-a. This is the reading of J^ first hand. A, B, eight 
cursives, the Memphitic, the Bashmuric, Clement of Alexandria, 
Origen, and John Damascene, each of the three employing it 
twice, Cyril, and some manuscripts of Athanasius. The common 
reading is attested by the seventh-century corrector of J^, D, E, 
L, P (as well as by F and«G, which read (Tvvicxr-i^aLv instead), 
most of the cursives, the Vulgate, Origen once, Basil twice, 
Athanasius, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, Tertullian, Cyp- 
rian, and others. The word does not properly mean to " com- 
mend," but to " present," to " place before." The apostle's 
idea is, that food does not aff^ect our standing before God ; it 
places us on terms neither of fellowship nor of disfavor with 
him. It in no way determines our relation to him. The 
statement is of a general character, as true in reference to one 



day as to anotlier, as is evident from the expansion which the 
apostle gives to the tiiought : If we eat, we are no better ; if we 
eat not, we are no worse. This calls for the present, ■Kap!.art)<ji.v, 
which the apostle no doubt wrote. But some early reader, 
perhaps governed by Rom. xiv. lo, considered the statement 
as having reference to man's standing before God in the final 
day of accounts ; and so, by way of correcting the reading, 
changed it by two slight alterations to the future, — a form, 
however, which apparently obtained but little currency. Our 
second-century critic having made this change, his next step 
was to drop yap from the text, and set the last two clauses over 
against the first as an additional argument for indifference to 
meats. As the verse reads without yap, the first oIt(. means 
not simply "neither," but "neither on the other hand," — the 
form of the negative implying a reference back to the negative 
of the preceding clause, as well as forward to the corresponding 
negative following. The verse is thus made to mean, now, 
food will not affect our standing before God in the final day 
of judgment. Neither, on the other hand, if we abstain from 
eating are we the worse now ; nor, if we eat, are we the better. 
This, however, gives the language a forced and artificial appear- 
ance. But, if we return to the received reading, the argument 
becomes natural, forcible, and Paul-like : " Now, food does not 
affect our standing before God : for neither, if we eat, are we 
the better ; nor, if we eat not, are we the worse." The yap is 
omitted by X, A, B, four cursives, two copies of the Vulgate, 
the Memphitic, the Bashmuric, the Armenian, the Ethiopia, 
Origen once, where he begins his citation with ovn, and would 
naturally omit yap as irrelevant, Basil, Euthalius, Tertullian, 
Cyprian, and Augustine, some of them quoting only what 
Origen quotes, and in the same manner that he does. The 
conjunction is given in D, E, F, G, L, P, nearly all the cursives, 
the Clementine Vulgate, three copies of Jerome's, Clement of 
Alexandria, Origen twice, Basil also, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
John Damascene, Ambrosiaster, and others. Now, as to the 



transposed position of the last two clauses. Meyer thinks that 
the true order is for the negative clause to come first, as the 
Revisers have it. His reason is that " a transcriber would have 
a mechanical inclination to place the positive half of the state- 
ment first." Generally speaking, this is no doubt true. But 
there may be reasons to lead a transcriber or a corrector of the 
text to reverse the order, as is the case here. Having begun 
the verse by making it read, " Now, food will not affect our 
standing before God " ; he would hardly go on with saying, 
" Neither, on the other hand, if we eat, are we the better" 
etc. He would naturally reverse the clauses, and say, " Neither, 
on the other hand, if we abstain from food — if we eat not, are 
we the worse " ; then allow the clause, " neither, if we eat, 
are we the better," to follow as a sort of after-thought. The 
construction shows the hand of a reviser all the way through. 
This order is attested by A first hand, B, one cursive, five copies 
of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Bashmuric, the Armenian, 
and Basil once. The order of the Received Text is that of 
X, D, E, F, G, L, P, about all the cursives, the Clementine 
Vulgate, and some copies of Jerome's, the Peshito and Phil- 
oxenian Syriac Versions, the Ethiopia, Clement of Alexandria, 
Origen three times, Basil also once, Chrysostom twice, Eutha- 
lius, Cyril, Theodoret, John Damascene, Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Augustine, and others ; while Codex A second hand, by a care- 
less misplacement of the negative, reads, " Neither, if we eat 
not, are we the better; nor, if we eat, are we the worse." 
The Revisers' reading, Trepi<x<Tiv6fj.i6a, in place of irepKra-ivoixev 
which Westcott and Hort retain, is found only in B, and in 
Origen once. It is simply an attempt to make the two verbs 
correspond in form. 

ix. 15. 

If, as the Revisers claim, their revision of the Greek Text 
was the necessary foundation of their work of revising the 
English Text, it would seem as if that necessity ought to be every- 

1 86 


where manifest in the translation. We have already pointed 
out changes in the Greek that were in no way necessary to t!ie 
renderings given, — readings, in fact, which were introduced 
into the text only to be abandoned in translating. Another of 
these occurs here. If the change from -tva rts Ktvtocny to ouStU 
Kiviocrii were a necessity to enable the Revisers faithfully to rep- 
resent the aposde in English, then, on coming to translate, 
instead of abandoning the latter reading and following the 
former, they ought in faithfulness to have given some such a 

rendering as this : " It were good for me to die rather than 

My glorying, no one shall make void." Some take rj to mean 
" or " instead of " than " : — " It were good for me rather to 
die ; or no one shall make my glorying void." But this, to say 
nothing of its obscurity, is a reading calling for a rendering of 
exceedingly questionable propriety. As far as we are aware, 
/j.aXAoi' 17 invariably means " rather than." Lachmann adopts 
the reading ; but, in his perplexity to give it a meaning, he 
punctuates it so as to make the apostle say, " It were good for 
me that I die rather than (that) my boasting (should). No 
one shall make (it) void." The difficulty of finding a satis- 
factory Pauline construction and meaning for the words is 
sufficient evidence against the genuineness of the reading. 
There certainly is some error in connection with it, however 
well attested it may be. And, as long as it affords an untrans- 
latable phrasing, what can justify the claim of necessity, advanced 
on its behalf and on behalf of similar changes ? 

Rec. T. ravra Sc irAvra Tiiirot o-vv^Paivov ^KtCvois • — Now all these 
things happened unto them for ensamples. 

Rev. T. ToCra 8( TumKios <ruvfpaivov {kcCvois ■ — Now these things 
happened unto them by way of example. 

narra, as given in the Received Text, is attested by C, K, 
L, P, most of the cursives, the Latin versions of D and E, the 



Vulgate, both Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, the Armenian, 
Irenaeus, Origen several times, Chrysostom, Euthalius, The- 
odoret, John Damascene, Ambrosiaster, and others. It also 
appears in the transposed reading Travra 8c ravra, in X> ^^^ 
Greek texts of D and E, F, G, five or six cursives, the Ethiopia 
Version, Augustine, and others. It is wanting in A, B, 17, the 
Thebaic Version, Marcion according to Epiphanius, Tertullian, 
Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, and 
others. The word is probably a part of the genuine text, but 
was omitted as unnecessary, especially in the citations of the 
passage by the Fathers ; and, from some of these, the omission 
may have crept into the few copies that are without the word. 
— The reading ruVoi is attested by D, E, F, G, L, most of the 
cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac, Memphitic, and Thebaic Ver- 
sions, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damas- 
cene, and others. The revised reading rimtxis, on the other 
hand, is attested by X) A, B, C, K, P, twelve or more cursives, 
the Peshito Syriac, the margin of the Philoxenian, Marcion 
twice according to Epiphanius, Origen twice, Hippolytus, Basil 
twice, Macarius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alex- 
andria, and others. This is probably the original reading, but 
was changed to rwoi to correspond with the reading of verse 6. 
After this change, owing to the harshness of the reading raCra 
8e trdvTa rvrroi uvvijiaivfv, the verb was changed to the plural, 
as it reads in the Received and Revised Texts. This, as we 
pointed out in our note on Rom. ii. 14, is contrary to the 
apostle's usus loqtiendi. The plural of the verb is given by A, 
D, E, F, G, L, the majority of the cursives, Chrysostom, The- 
odoret, John Damascene, and others. But the singular is at- 
tested by Ji{, B, C, K, L, twelve or more cursives, Marcion twice, 
Origen four times, and the rest of the witnesses that read 
TVTriKois. As the singular verb lypa<t>r] follows immediately after, 
it is by no means probable that a plural verb preceded, when 
both have the same subject, — " All these things happened to 
them typically, and were written for out^^dmonitiou." 

1 88 THE revisers' greek text. 

xii. g. 

Rec. T. iv Tu avru IIvcv|xaTi, — by the same Spirit. 
Rev. T. iv Tui iv\ IIvcvfiaTi, — in the one Spirit. 

The former is the reading of ^, C third hand (the original 
scribe omitted the whole phrase), D, E, F, G, K, L, P, most 
of the cursives, the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, Clement, 
Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. 
The latter is the reading of A, B, six cursives, the Vulgate, 
Didymus, Euthalius, Basil, John Damascene, Hilary, Ambro- 
siaster, Augustine, and other Latin Fathers. The former is 
apparently the true reading. 'EvC seems to have been intro- 
duced from verse ii in order to break up the uniformity of the 
apostle's language. In that verse, after having enumerated the 
gifts of the Spirit bestowed upon one and another, the apostle 
naturally closes with saying, " All these worketh one and the 
same Spirit." But the use of ivi in verse 9 seems forced, there 
being nothing in the connection to indicate that the apostle 
really needed to say "by the one Spirit," rather than "by the 
same Spirit," as elsewhere. The evidence, both external and 
internal, preponderates in favor of the common reading. 

xiii. 3. 

The many ancient authorities, referred to in the marginal 
note as reading " If I give my body r/ia/ I may glory" instead 
of " to be burned," are the three oldest Greek manuscripts, J<, 
A, B, the eleventh-century cursive 1 7, whose text resembles B's 
more closely than any other known cursive's, the Memphitic, 
the Thebaic, the Roman Ethiopic, and Ephraem Syrus. The 
reading is manifestly false, and seems, obviously enough, tu 
have originated in the mistaking of one letter for another, — 
the only difference between the two readings consisting in a 
single letter having a similar sound to that in the other. Bishop 
Wordsworth, in his note on the passage, well says that the 
reading so plainly spurious " is worth notice, as showing that 



the best uncial manuscripts are not always to be depended on, 
and sometimes are blemished with errors." Notwithstanding 
the transparency of the error, Westcott and Hort adopt it as the 
genuine and only reading. And Dr. Hort adds that " it gives 
an excellent sense " j though it is hard to see it, even after he 
tries to show it. 

xiv. 38. 

This verse, as given by both the Revisers and the A. V., 
reads, " But if_any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant." That 
is, the last verb is in the imperative, ayvoCnw. With some, it 
has been a question as to what the apostle really means. The 
words might be rendered, " But if any one ignores them [does 
not recognize and acknowledge the things that I write as 
commands of the Lord], let him ignore them," — he does it 
at his peril ; it is not worth while to waste words on such a 
one. But, as the marginal note indicates, a number of ancient 
witnesses — X ^''^t hand, A first hand apparently, D first hand, 
F, G, Origen, and the Latin versions of D and E — give the 
present indicative passive, dyvottrat, "he is ignored," as the true 
reading. And this is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and 
Westcott and Hort, apparently on account of its being the more 
difficult reading. But it seems impossible to give it a satisfac- 
tory meaning. It cannot legitimately be considered the present 
for the future. If the aposde meant " he will be ignored," i.e. 
in the day of judgment, it would have been as easy for him to 
say dyvo7;<7fTat as dyvotiTat. Besides, if this had been his mean- 
ing, he would hardly have abstained from inserting the emphatic 
auTos, — making the verse read, " But, if any one ignores them, 
he will himself be ignored." Jerome in his perplexity translates 
the word by the future, ignorabitur, "he will be ignored " ; and 
Ambrose and Ambrosiaster approve of this reading, as Origen 
is also made to do by his Latin interpreter Rufinus. But there 
is no known Greek manuscript to support it. The only appar- 
ently genuine reading is that of the text, — " Let him be igno- 
rant" of them. 

I go 


3tV. 14. 

The authorities referred to in the marginal note, as reading 
"our (instead of your) faith also is vain," are B, D first hand, 
a few cursives, the Thebaic, Bashmuric, and Gothic Ver- 
sions, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, Cyril, CEcumenius, 
Rufinus, and others. The reading seems to have been intro- 
duced in consequence of the wording of the preceding clause, 
" then is our preaching vain," and of that of the clause follow- 
ing, " Yea, and we are found false witnesses," etc. The accepted 
reading, however, is abundantly attested, though Westcott and 
Hort adopt the false reading of B, D, etc. Besides, — and this 
also indicates the genuineness of the common reading, — it 
yields a stronger argument in support of the apostle's position 
than if he had said, "Then vain is our preaching, vain also our 
faith " ; for his preaching was but the result of his faith ; so 
that, if the former was vain, the latter could hardly be other- 
wise. But by urging not only that his preaching, but that his 
hearers' faith also, was vain if Christ had not risen, he really 
enforced his reasoning. 

3CV. 49- 

We have here the marginal reading, " Let us also bear the 
image of the heavenly." This, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tisch- 
endorf, and Westcott and Hort feel constrained to adopt as 
the true reading, — another illustration of the untrustworthiness 
of ancient manuscripts, even when agreed. The context is not 
hortatory, but argumentative, and designed to afford encourage- 
ment. The apostle argues that as the earthly Adam was, such 
also are his earthly descendants, — corruptible, exposed to suf- 
ferings and death ; and as the heavenly Redeemer is, such are 
also the members of his heavenly family to be, — incorruptible, 
glorified. In other words, as we have borne the image — 
carried the likeness — of the earthy, by being subject to vanity, 
disease, and death, we shall also bear the image or likeness of 



the heavenly, by being endowed with incorruptibility and glory. 
The language is in perfect accordance with the apostle's style 
of presenting truth in different forms. He was not satisfied 
with simply presenting it once ; but he repeated it in other 
words, to bring it, if possible, more clearly an(l forcibly before 
his readers. Compare verses 42-44; also 53, 54. — EtVtiv, 
" image," has but one meaning in both clauses. What that is, 
the connection clearly shows. The apostle's aim obviously was 
to encourage his Christian readers to be steadfast and immov- 
able in the faith in view of the resurrection to a life of glory 
awaiting them after death. An exhortation, in such a connec- 
tion, to bear the image of the heavenly, would be altogether 
misplaced and out of harmony with the context. And yet this 
inadmissible marginal reading, which is very easily accounted 
for as an error of frequent occurrence, is attested by ^, A, C, 
I), E, F, G, K, L, P, by far the greater part of the cursives, the 
Vulgate, the Memphitic, and the Gothic, Origen repeatedly, 
Methodius, Csesarius of Constantinople, Basil, Macarius, Gregory 
of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Euthalius, Cyril, John Damas- 
cene, TertuUian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrosiaster, and others, — 
an apparently overwhelming torrent of authority ! On the other 
hand, the only possibly genuine reading, that of the text, is 
attested by B, a comparatively small number of cursives, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, 
and the Arabic Version, Origen in some editions, Cyril, Theod- 
oret, Photius, Theophylact, and CEcumenius. (Compare Note 
on Rom. v. i.) 



i. I. 

Rec. T. dirioToXos 'Iiio-oO Xpio-roB — an apostle of Jesus Christ. 
Rev. T. dirio-roXos Xpio-roO "Itio-oO — an apostle of Christ Jesus. 

The latter is a well-known favorite order with Codex B,* 
which is supported here by the few additional witnesses, ^, M, 
P, 1 7 of course, an eleventh-century manuscript of the Vulgate, 
the Philoxenian Syriac, Euthalius, and Theodoret. It is hardly 
safe to follow the leading of B in a case like this, though the 
meaning is not affected in the least by so doing, when the re- 
ceived reading is attested by A, D, E, G, K, L, nearly all the 
cursives, a fifth-century fragment of the Old Latin Version, 
the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, 
the Gothic, Chrysostom, John Damascene, Ambrosiaster, and 
others, — reaching back at least a century and a half, possibly 
two centuries, earlier than the date of Codex B. 

Rec. T. 
Rev. T. 

i. 10. 

KaX fitrai • — and doth deliver. 

KttV ^v(r(T(ii • — ^nd will deliver. 

The whole verse reads, A. V., " Who delivered us from so 
great a death, and doth deliver : in whom we trust that he will 
yet deliver us " ; R. V., " Who delivered us out of so great a 
death, and will deliver : on whom we have set our hope that 
he will also still deliver us." The present, of the Received 

' See Rom. i. I; ii. i6; I Cor. i. i; Gal. ii. l6, both times; Eph. i. I, 
both times; i. 5; Phil. i. I, both times; i. 6, etc. 



Text, is attested by D third hand, E, F, G, K, L, M, most of 
the cursives, one copy of the Old Latin, all but three manu- 
scripts of the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Philoxenian Syriac, 
Origen two or three times, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
lact, CEcumenius, Jerome, and Ambrosiaster. The future of 
the Revised Text is the reading of X. B, C, P, 1 7, and four 
other cursives, the Latin version of G, three manuscripts of 
the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Armenian, Euthalius, and John 
Damascene. The Roman Ethiopic has both the present and 
the future. The difference in readings seems to have origi- 
nated in the eariy omission of pvirai as superfluous, making the 
verse read, " Who delivered us from so great a death, and in 
whom we trust that he will yet deliver us." The text is thus 
given in A, D first hand, the Peshito Syriac, the Latin version 
of E, one manuscript of the Vulgate, Piatt's Ethiopic, and 
Chrysostom. Some eariy reader, by a comparison of manu- 
scripts, having discovered the omission, restored the word 
incorrectly, perhaps from having confounded it with pvaerat in 
the line below, while others replaced the genuine pucrai. This 
will account for the comparatively feeble uncial attestation of 
" doth deliver." That this is the true reading, however, there 
can hardly be a doubt. A critical reader would not be tempted 
to insert such an expression in such a connection. But it was 
just like the apostle to do it. It was an ever-abiding conscious- 
ness with him that God is the present as well as the past and 
future deliverer of those who trust in him. It led him on this 
occasion to say of God, He " has delivered " me from imminent 
death, and he " continues to deliver " me ; and in his confidence 
in God, he adds. He " will yet deliver " me. His experience 
was that of the psalmist : "I sought the Lord, and he heard me, 
and delivered me from all my fears. Many are the afflictions of 
the righteous ; but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. Yea, 
the Lord shall help them and deliver them ; he shall deliver 
and save them, because they trust in him." Ps. xxxiv. 4, 19 ; 
xxxvii. 40. 


THE revisers' GREER TEXT. 

iii. 3- 
Rec. T. *v irXa|l KapSCas <ropKtvais. — in fleshly tables of the heart. 
Rev. T. Iv irXoJl KapSCais o-opKtvais. — in tables t/iat are hearts of 

In attestation of the received reading, we have F, K, most of 
the cursives, the Latin versions of D, E, F, G (three of them 
against their own Greek), the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the 
Memphitic, the Gothic, the Armenian, Irenseus, Origen several 
times, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Macarius, Cyril of 
Alexandria, Theodoret, John Damascene, Hilary, and others, — 
testimony, some of which nms back to the middle of the second 
century, or two hundred years earlier than the date of our oldest 
Greek manuscripts. The revised reading is attested by X. A, 
B, C, D, E, G, L, P, twenty-five or more cursives, the Philox- 
enian Syriac alone of all the versions, Eusebius also, and 
Euthalius. The latter, however, is plainly a transcriber's error 
in writing'ia.i.% for KapSia^, — an error very easily committed 
in connection with the plural forms immediately preceding and 
following. The expression iv rats KapStais in the foregoing 
verse may also have had some influence in misleading the copy- 
ist. The expression cannot properly be translated, however, as 
the Revisers have translated it ; for aapKiVais " fleshly " or " of 
flesh," belongs to -rXaii, "tables" or "tablets," as truly as 
Ai^tWis, " of stone," belongs to the same word just before. The 
only legitimate rendering that can be given to the words is 
" tables of flesh (or ' fleshly tablets '), hearts." But the reading 
"hearts" is a palpable error for "of the heart," — one easily 
accounted for, and really deserving of no regard. To obtain 
the Revisers' rendering, the Greek would need to be iv TrXail 
Tals KapSuws (rapxtVats. 

iii. g. 

The marginal reading, " For if there is glory in the ministry 
of condemnation," is attested by J{, A, C, D first hand, F, G, 



17, and six other cursives, several copies of the Old Latin 
Version, the Peshito Syriac, the Ethiopic, Origen, Cyril, and 
Ambrosiaster. But it is an attempted improvement of the 
apostle's language. From the beginning of verse 7 to the end of 
verse 1 1, the leading idea with him, either expressed or implied, 
was the 8uikovux or " ministration." This naturally led him to 
express himself here as in the text : " the ministration . . . is 
glory" — not as in the marginal reading: "there is glory in 
the ministration" or " attaching to the ministration" etc. 

iv. 6. 

Rec. T. 4"^ XAinpai — light to shine. 
Rev. T. <}>uJs Xd(i\J(ei — light shall shine. 

The former is attested by the earlier seventh-century corrector 
of ^, C, D third hand, E, F, G, H, K, L, P, all but one or two 
cursives, the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, 
the Gothic, the Armenian, Marcion several times as cited by 
Epiphanius, Origen, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Macarius, Chrys- 
ostom, Euthalius, Cyril, Theodoret, John Damascene, Tertullian, 
and others. The latter is the reading of ^ first hand. A, B, D 
first hand, 67 second hand, Clement, and possibly the Ethiopic 
Version. It does not readily commend itself as the true read- 
ing. The usual sign of direct address, the recitative oti, is 
wanting before cV. There is no known occasion on which God 
is previously spoken of as having said, " Light shall shine out 
of darkness," to which the apostle might be supposed to refer. 
There is no apparent reason why the apostle should depart from 
his ordinary mode of expression to introduce a single clause in 
direct discourse when the indirect seems far more to his pur- 
pose. To all which, it may be added that the reading is an 
obvious itacism, an early scribe having probably confounded 
Xa/n/zai with \afjLipu as the words were dictated to him, and so 
wrote the latter for the former. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



iv. 14. 

The omission of " the Lord," in the clause " who raised up 
the Lord Jesus," to which the marginal note refers, is sanctioned 
by B, 17, 71, 73, one of the fragments of a fifth-century manu- 
script of the Old Latin Version, the Vulgate, the Armenian, 
Chrysostom, Tertullian, and others. But the word might easily 
have been omitted, as it probably was, because of its absence 
before 'l-qaov immediately following. None but a believer in 
the infallibility of Codex B would really think of omitting it. 

V. 17. 

Rec. T. yiyovt Kaivd tA irdvra. — all things are become new. 
Rev. T. •y^-yove Kaivd. — they are become new. 

The former of these readings is supported by D second and 
third hands, E, K, L, P, all the cursives, the Clementine Vulgate, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the manuscripts 
of the Armenian Version, Piatt's Ethiopic, Ignatius in his epistle 
to Polycarp as represented by his Latin interpreter, also in his 
epistle to the Magnesians, Justin Martyr, Origen, the Apostolic 
Constitutions, Methodius, Didymus, Ephraem Syrus, Athanasius, 
Chrysostom, Euthalius, Cyril in two passages, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, Tertullian, Ambrose in one of his epistles, Ambro- 
siaster, and others, — a strong array of witnesses from the earliest 
days. The revised reading is attested by X, B, C, D first hand, 
F, G, four manuscripts of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, an early 
edition of the Armenian Version, the Roman Ethiopic, Athana- 
sius according to a manuscript, Hilary, Ambrose in a second 
epistle, Augustine, and the author of Z)e Promissionibus etc., of 
the fourth century. At the same time, the Peshito Syriac Version 
omits " and all things " from the beginning of the next verse, 
running the two verses together thus : " And all things are made 
new by God." Cyril of Alexandria, in two other places than those 
just referred to, summarily and loosely cites the words so as to 


make them read, " Old things have passed away and become 
new." The difficulty seems to have been that some early 
transcriber, not being able to comprehend the apostle's mean- 
ing in the words, " Behold, all things have become new," and 
considering to. vdvTa an erroneous reproduction of the to. rravra 
immediately following, omitted it, and made what seemed to 
him the more natural subject, implied in to. apxaw, take its 
place, giving us the reading, "Old things are passed away; 
behold, they have become new." But how old things have 
both passed away and become new, — that is, have disappeared 
and yet not disappeared, — he left his readers to conjecture. 
It is as if the revelator had said (Rev. xxi. 4, 5), "The former 
things are passed away ; behold, I make them new." 

xi. 4. 

Rec. T. KoXus T|vttx«<r0«. — ye might well bear with him. 
Rev. T. KoXus av^x'"'^*- — X^ <J° ^^" '° bear .with him. 

The Received Text gives the reading of Codex 47, and a 
number of other cursives, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. 
The Revisers' reading is that of B, D first hand, 1 7, and Cyril 
in a single passage. The true reading, however, seems to be 
that of X, D third hand, E, F virtually, G, H, K, L, M, P, most 
of the cursives, Chrysostom, Euthalius, and John Damascene, 
— namely, avuxtcOt, the reading adopted by Griesbach, Tre- 
gelles, Tischendorf, and admitted by Westcott and Hort into 
the margin. This and the received reading, however, are but 
different modes of writing the imperfect. But, as dveix^ade is 
the acknowledged genuine form of the word in verse i, it is but 
proper, with all the evidence we have in its favor, to consider 
it the true form here. In verse i, the other two forms — the 
present and the doubly augmented imperfect — are also found 
among the manuscripts as various readings for avtix^aOi as well 
as here. But there, those readings are universally rejected as 
false. They are really deserving of no better fate here. This, 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

we think, will be apparent on considering the apostle's meaning. 
In verse i, he had said, " I would that ye might bear with my 
foolishness a little." He then tells them (verses 2, 3) why he 
makes this request. After which, he goes on to say, " For, if 
he that cometh (among you) preacheth another Jesus than the 
one we preached, or if ye are receiving a different Spirit from 
the one ye received (through us), or a different gospel from that 
ye accepted (at our hands), i.e. if ye are in a mood to do 
this, ye may well bear with (us)." Is it asked why? The 
apostle himself gives the answer : " For I reckon that I am in 
no respect inferior to the most eminent apostles," etc. This 
gives unity, harmony, and force to his language, which the 
revised reading does not and cannot give. That reading is a 
substitution of the present indicative instead of the apostle's 
imperfect, apparently on account of the present Kr\pwjcru, 
" preacheth," and Xafj-^dveTe, " ye are receiving," employed by 
him in the protasis. But Paul must be trusted to say in his own 
way what he desired to say. 

zi. 6. 

Rec. T. <t>av(pu6^vTcs — we have been made manifest. 
Rev. T. ^avfpttio'avTcs — v^e have made ti manifest. 

The former is the reading of the earlier seventh-century cor- 
rector of J^, D third hand, E, K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, 
a fragment of a fifth-century manuscript of the Old Latin Ver- 
sion, the Clementine Vulgate, two manuscripts of Jerome's, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, Chrysostom, 
Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, and the poet Sedulius. 
The latter is attested by J^ first hand, B, F, G, and 1 7. But it 
is obviously a part of the gloss <f>avepu>(TavTti lavrovi, " having 
manifested ourselves," originally written on the margin of an 
early manuscript to explain the meaning of <j>3.v(.pm6ivm. This 
gloss actually appears in full in M, two cursives, the Gothic and 
Armenian Versions ; while, in 67, it appears as <f>avep<Z<rai cavrov?. 
Codex D first hand, a few Latin manuscripts, and Ambrosiaster 




give the passive aorist participle in the nominative singular on 
account of the apostle's speaking of himself in the singular in 
both what precedes and what follows; while cursives i, 108, 
give it in the dative singular, as agreeing with TravTt. The 
active participle, used without the reflexive originally attached 
to it, and without any expressed object as it is in the Revised 
Text, seems to refer back to yvcuo-ti, " knowledge," to furnish 
it with an object : " In everything we have made our knowledge 
manifest among all men to you-ward." But, just what this 
means, it is not very easy to see. One of the Revisers, com- 
menting on it, explains it thus : "In every thing we have made 
the gospel which we preach manifest among all men with a view 
to your benefit." ' The reader can take his choice. We prefer 
to restore the apostle's word, which the Revisers have rejected, 
and read : " But if [we are] indeed deficient in speech, yet [we 
are] not in knowledge, but [the contrary], as in every respect 
we showed ourselves in all things relating to you " ; i.e. while 
we were with you. This rendering is necessitated by the parti- 
ciple, which, so far from being equivalent to a verb in an inde- 
pendent clause as the versions make it, introduces a dependent 
clause ; and this clause can depend only on another — namely, 
" we are the reverse of this " — implied in the second dAA*. 

XI. 32. 

Rec. T. irido-ai )U B^uv • — desirous to apprehend me. 
Rev. T. iriderai (W • — in order to take me. 

The presence of QiXiav is attested by Xi D third hand, E, F, 
G, K, L, M, P, all the cursives, the Memphitic, Philoxenian 
Syriac, Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions, Chrysostom, Euthalius, 
Theodoret, and John Damascene. It is wanting in B, D first 
hand, the Latin versions of D, E, F, the Vulgate, the Peshito 
Syriac, the Armenian, Erpenius' Arabic, and Procopius. The 

' See Humphry's Coinnientary. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

revised reading has more of the appearance of being an abridg- 
ment of the apostle's language than the other has of being an 
exegetical extension of it. If his precise meaning had been 
what the revised rendering represents it to be, he would hardly 
have failed of using his favorite form of expression tls to TriaVot 
[It, " in order to take me." But, in saying " wishing to take 
me," he would naturally give the infinitive without the prepo- 
sition and the article. 

xli. 7. 

Rec. T. tva |i.t| vmpatpufiai, — lest I should be exalted above measure. 
Kev. T. 816 Ivtt |ti) wnpaCf i«|Lai, — wherefore, thai I should not be 
exalted overmuch. 

The received reading here is attested by D, E, K, L, P, all but 
one or two cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian 
Syriac, the Armenian, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, John Damascene, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, and 
others. It is adopted also by Tregelles and Tischendorf. The 
revised reading is that of J^, A, B, F, G, 17, and Euthalius. 
Codex 67 strikes out Tva, and inserts Std instead. Dr. Hort 
says, " The documentary and transcriptional evidence place the 
genuineness of Sio above doubt : its omission is a characteristic 
^Vestern attempt to deal with a difficulty by excision." ' This 
is plausible, no doubt, but it does not seem to be altogether 
satisfactory, even to Dr. Hort, who adds, a little farther on : 
" In all probability there is a corruption somewhere." And it 
is just here. Some early critic connected the five preceding 
words of the verse with verse 6 in this manner : " But I forbear, 
lest some one consider me something more than he sees, or 
hears from me, that I am, even through the abundance of my 
revelations." Then, in order suitably to connect what follows 
with this, he introduced Std : " Wherefore, lest I should be 
exalted overmuch, there was given me," etc. This very con- 

' Select Readings, p. 1 20. 




struction appears in the Ethiopic Version. Lachmann, in like 
manner, places a full stop after airoKoXv^tuiv, " revelations," but 
connects that and the four preceding words with the close of 
verse 5, placing verse 6 within parentheses, — an exceedingly 
harsh and improbable construction, but one to which he was 
apparently driven by his faith in the Alexandrine and Vatican 
Codices. As in other cases, the original text here can be 
secured only by abandoning the testimony of our oldest Greek 
manuscripts, and accepting that of other, and in this instance 
more trustworthy, witnesses, — some of which date farther back 
than those manuscripts by one or more centuries. This, the 
American Committee of Revisers have done, though they retain 
" wherefore " in the margin, as the reading of " some ancient 


111. lO. 

Rec. T. yiypairrax -ydp 'EmKardparos — for it is written, Cursed. 
Rev. T. -y^-ypairTai yap Sn 'EmKaTdpoTos — for it is written, Cursed. 

The difference here relates solely to the text ; the import of 
the readings is one and the same. The former is attested by 
K, L, most of the cursives, the Vulgate, Origen, Theodoret, and 
others ; the latter by S, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, P, six cursives, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, and Armenian Versions, 
Euthalius, Cyril, and John Damascene. This reading is strongly 
supported by uncial testimony, but it is not in accordance with 
the aposde's habitual mode of expressing himself Not another 
instance can be found in all his writings in which he employs 
oTi as a mere sign of quotation after the words ytypanrai ydp. 
In iv. 2 2, where the language is indirect, giving the substance 
but not the exact phraseology of what is quoted, of course on 
appears, just as its corresponding English word " that " appears 
in the rendering. But, in every instance of direct quotation, 
•yap is followed by the citation without an intervening on. Just 
so where he employs the formula, Xtya yap 17 ypa<l>-^, " For the 
Scripture saith." The only apparent exception to this is in 
Rom. ix. 17, where t<u <E>apa<jij follows ypa<f>Tq. This, however, is 
simply to mark just where the quotation begins. The same 
change (of inserting on after ydp) was attempted by some early 
critic, on the apostle's language as reported by Luke in Acts 
xxiii. 5. This, however, was very properly disregarded by the 
Revisers, though it is attested as genuine by ^, A, B, three 
cursives, and one form of Theophylact's Commentary, and is 




adopted by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort. The apostle's 
habitual mode of expressing himself declares strongly against 
the insertion of on. In verse 13 of this chapter we find a 
similar critical hand has been at work, omitting the ydp after 
yiypaiTTai, and inserting before it the conjunction on in the 
sense of " for," or " because," — a combination that the apostle 
never employs. Yet the Revisers, following Westcott and Hort, 
adopt it. This reading is supported by A, B, C, D first hand, 
E first hand, F, G, two cursives, the Vulgate, the Ethiopia 
Version, Irenaeus according to his Ladn interpreter, Eusebius, 
Euthalius, John Damascene, Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, Am- 
brosiaster, and others ; while the received reading, which is in 
accordance with the apostle's habit of writing, is attested by 
^, D and E as afterwards corrected, K, L, P, nearly all the 
cursives, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, 
the Armenian, Irenaeus' Greek text as given by Theodoret, 
Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, and others. In both 
of these verses, the work wrought upon the text was not only 
supererogatory, but evidently depraving, and needs to be 

iv. 6. 

Rec. T. tis ToLs Kap8£as i|iflv — into your hearts. 
Rev. T. tts rds KapSCas t)|xuv — into our hearts. 

The latter reading is attested by J^, A, B, C, D first hand, F, 
G, P, fifteen cursives, several copies of the Vulgate, Origen 
according to his Latin interpreter, Athanasius, Basil, Euthalius, 
Cyiil (against Nestorius), Tertullian, Hilary, Jerome, Ambro- 
siaster, and others. The common reading has the support of D 
as afterwards corrected, E, K, L, most of the cursives, the 
Clementine Vulgate, three or more manuscripts of Jerome's, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic, 
the Ethiopic, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril (again against Nes- 
torius as well as elsewhere), Theodoret, John Damascene, 
Victorinus, Augustine, and others. Those who accept the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 


testimony of the older uncials consider "your hearts " a modi- 
fication of the original text in consequence of the preceding 
lark, "ye are." But ^/tuiv is quite as likely to be an instance 
of an ever-recurring itacism, found in the oldest and best manu- 
scripts. There is no similarity whatever between the use of 
i\\x.Z)v here and that in Rom. vii. 4 ; for there, the statement is 
not that "ye should be joined to another" "that we might 
bring forth fruit," but that " Christ was raised from the dead 
that we [all who believe in him] should bring forth fruit unto 
God." Nor can ^fiZiv as a genuine reading be accounted for 
on the fanciful supposition that it arose involuntarily from the 
apostle's own lively consciousness of the blessedness of adoption. 
The logical Paul could never have penned two such monstrous 
von-sequiturs as " Because ye are sons, God sent his Spirit into 
our hearts " ..." so that thou art no longer a servant, but a 
son " ; in other words, ( i ) " Because ye are sons, God has given 
us the spirit of sons," and (2) "Inasmuch as we have his 
Spirit, thou art a son." This certainly is not the apostle's style 
of arguing. The text speaks for itself, and pronounces " our " 
a palpably false reading. Notwithstanding the seemingly strong 
attestation in its favor, the other reading is in reality the 
more strongly supported, and should be accepted with un- 
questioning confidence. 



IV. 7. 

Rec. T. kXt|pov(S|io« ©coO Sid XpurroC. — an heir of God through 

Rev. T. K\T|povi|u>s Sid 6«ov, — an heir through God. 

The first of these readings is attested by ^'s seventh-century 
emendator, C third hand, D, E, K, L, P, nearly every cursive, 
the Gothic Version, Didymus De Trinitate, Chrysostom, Eu- 
thalius, Theodoret, and John Damascene. The second is 
according to J^ first hand. A, B, C first hand, 17, the Latin 
versions of F and G, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, Clement of 

Alexandria, Basil, Didymus De Trinitate in another place, 
Cyril, Victorinus, Augustine, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, and others. 
The Greek texts of F and G read 8ia ©tov, i.e. an heir " because 
of God " ; while the Armenian and the Roman Ethiopic Ver- 
sion read simply " an heir of God " ; and other documents have 
other readings. The documentary evidence is not only greatly 
at variance in itself, but largely in conflict with intrinsic proba- 
bility. If we read, with the Revisers, " an heir through God," 
and ask How, through God ? the reply is, " Through the mercy 
of God." ' But, if this had been the apostle's meaning, he 
would, no doubt, have so expressed it. If we ask further. An 
heir of whom? the implication is, of God. This makes the 
apostle virtually say, " And if a son, then an heir of God through 
the mercy of God." Can any one believe that this is what the 
apostle meant? or, if it is, that he would have expressed him- 
self in this questionable manner? He had already said, in iii. 
26, "Ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." 
And if sons through Christ, then heirs through Christ, as a matter 
of course. His aim is to show that it is not through the law 
that we become God's children and heirs, but through Christ, 
as we everywhere read. But this teaching, which continues 
down to verse 5, is lost in verse 7 of the R. V. in consequence 
of the new reading, though the allusion to the law is preserved 
in the word " bondservant " in the first half of the verse. The 
fault is plainly with the manuscripts and other witnesses that 
testify to the apostle's having written "an heir through God." 
Obviously some very early copyist, in transcribing, omitted the 
words ©toC 8ia Xpto-Toij, " of God through Christ," and the 
omission passed into other transcripts before being observed. 
(So plausible is this reading that Griesbach considered it as 
probably the true reading, though there is but one known ex- 
tant document in support of it.) Readers, who subsequently 
noticed the omission, or some of them, sought to supply what 

1 Humphry, Commentary, p. 347. 



was wanting by writing it either on the margin or in the text 
according to the best of their recollection, — one writing simply 
®cov ; another, Sta ®iov ; another, Sia ®c6v ; another, ©coC &a 
X.KTTov; another, simply SiaX;;io-Tou; another, Sta'lT^crovXpitrToi); 
another, taking the apostle's words from Rom. viii. 17, [liv ©<o5 
(nryKA.r;povo/u,os 8e XpioTov; and one manuscript (Codex 178), if 
no more, survives with the omitted words still unrestored ; while 
the original reading — the one called for by the context — comes 
down to us through other channels. 

IV. 23. 

Rec. T. 81A rffi lirayyiKiai. — by promise. 
Rev. T. Si' lirayyeXtas. — through promise. 

The presence of the article is attested by B, D, E, F, G, K, 
L, P, most of the cursives, Origen four times, Theodoret, and 
others. It is wanting in J^, A, C, four cursives, EuthaHus, 
Cyril, and John Damascene. The Revisers follow Tregelles 
and VVestcott and Hort in rejecting the article ; but Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Lightfoot, and others very properly consider it a 
part of the text. It has reference to the particular promise 
recorded in Gen. xvii. 16, 19, in accordance with which Isaac 
was born ; and it should not be omitted. Its omission grew out 
of the fact that the article is wanting before (rdpKa in the previous 
clause, with which the phraseology here was made to correspond 
in this respect. 

Rec. T. 
Rev. T. 

IV. 2^. 

tA ■ydp 'A^ap - 

- For this Agar. 
Novf this Hagar. 

ri Si 'A-yap - 

The Revisers' Sc is the reading of A, B, the Greek texts of 
D and E, four cursives, two manuscripts of the Vulgate, the 
Memphitic and Thebaic Versions, the margin of the Philoxenian 
Syriac, and Ambrosiaster. The common reading ydp is that 
of J<, C, F, G, most of the cursives, the Latin versions of D 



and E as well as of F and G, the Vulgate, the Peshito and 
Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic Versions, 
Origen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, John Dam- 
ascene, Theophylact, CEcumenius, Victorinus, Augustine, and 
others. It was originally overlooked and omitted probably in 
consequence of the juxtaposition of the syllables yap 'A yap, — 
the eye of the transcriber passing unconsciously from the one 
to the other before his pen had completed its work. After the 
omission, Se was inserted as a connecting link. Westcott and 
Hort adopt the latter ; but Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, 
Lightfoot, and others, adopt yap. It is no doubt the true 

Rec. T. T^n iXruOcpCi;. o«v, •q Xpio-ros T||ias j]\tv6lpii><n, 0"H\Kin, — 

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. 
Rev. T. T^ {\<v6f pC<} T||ias Xpurros T|\««6^pu<rt • <jt^k«t« o{v, — With 

freedom did Christ set us free : stand fast therefore. 

In attestation of the ■;; of the Received Text, we have D 
corrected by an early hand, E, F, G, K, L, most of the cur- 
sives, the Latin version of D as well as of E, F, and G, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the 
Ethiopic, Marcion, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
and Oicumenius. Its omission is according to Ji^, A, B, C, D 
first hand, P, less than ten cursives, the two Egyptian Versions, 
the Armenian, and John Damascene. The order given in the 
Revised Text to the next two words, 17^.5? Xptoros, is attested 
by X '•'■St hand. A, B, D, E, F, G, P, six or more cursives, Cy"l> 
John Damascene, and others, and is probably the original order. 
This collocation of words indicates that the relative rj was early 
dropped by an inattentive scribe on account of its being fol- 
lowed by i7p.a9, which begins with the same letter, — the omission 
of the duplicate of a letter being a slip of frequent occurrence, 
and in some instances the result of ignorance, among ancient 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 


transcribers.' If we restore „', the Revisers' reading otherwise 
cannot reasonably be objected to. But the presence of this 
word necessitates a revision of their punctuation and rendering ; 
thus : " Stand fast therefore in the freedom with which Christ 
hath made us free ; and be not again entangled with a yoke 
of bondage." 

V. 21. 

Rec. T. .j>e6voi, <|.4voi, ^«ai, — envyings, murders, drunkenness. 
Rev. T. <})e6voi, fU9ai, — envyings, drunkenness. 

The received reading is attested by A, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, 
P, most of the cursives, the Vulgate with the exception of a 
single manuscript, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Memphitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Gothic, Eph'raem 
Syrus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascene, Lucifer, Am- 
brosiaster, and others. The Revised Text is supported by 
X, B, five cursives, the twelfth-century Demidovian manuscript 
of the Vulgate, Clement of Alexandria, Euthalius, Chrysostom 
in one place, .Augustine, and Irenaeus and Origen according to 
their Latin interpreters. The omitted word, in consequence 
of the resemblance between it and the one preceding, might 
very easily have dropped out of the text through homoiotdeuion. 
Its omission in this way is far more probable than that it was 


' As examples of this, witness the omission of v in yivve<n% in Matt. i. 
'*> by K, B, C, P, S, Z, A, and other documents, originating, perhaps, in 
the influence of yeviaew in i. 1; also in yevinjeiv in Matt. i. 20, by K, A; 
in yevvfiiMTa in Matt. xii. 34, by A and a few cursives; in ly€vrli0-ri in 
Mark xiv. 21, by A, L, A, 69, and other cursives; and in iyeyr/jBritrav in 
John i. 14, by A, B, A, and a number of cursives. In Matt. vi. 4, B, A, 
and John Damascene omit the verb I, " may be," after i\erifju)avin]. In Matt, 
vii. 14, L omits the article i^ after <TTti>^. The omission of \ is of frequent 
occurrence. In like manner, in Matt. xiii. 16, D, M omit the article ol 
after iiaxipioi, " blessed." This omission of one or more letters preceded 
or followed by the same letter or letters is one of the commonest errors 
occurring in the old manuscripts. 

introduced from Rom. i. 29. The fact that it appears in all 
the ancient versions, which would hardly be the case if it were 
a spurious reading, confirms this view. 

vi. 2. 

We must unite with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott, 
and others, in regarding the future indicative avairXrjpiMrtTe, 
" ye shall fulfil," as the true reading here, instead of the aorist 
imperative iva-n-Xripuxrare, " fulfil ye." It certainly is more in 
keeping with the context. The apostle, after having said, 
" Bear ye one another's burdens ; an/f so (since thus) ye shaU 
fulfil the law of Christ," would very naturally run verse 4 into 
the same mould : " Let each prove his own work ; and then he 
shall have his glorying in regard to himself, and not in regard 
to another." Besides, all the other imperatives in these verses 
are in the present ; and the fact that this is in the aorist 
naturally awakens the suspicion that it is only the future 
indicative slightly changed. The future is attested by B, F, G, 
two cursives, four manuscripts of the Old Latin Version, Mai's 
Extracts, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, 
the Ethiopic, the Gothic, Theodoret, Tertullian, Cyprian, Vic- 
torinus, Jerome, Augustine, Orosius, and others. The aorist 
imperative is the reading of ^, A, C, the Greek texts of D and 
E, K, L, N, P, nearly all the cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac 
and Armenian Versions, Clement, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Didy- 
mus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Euthalius, and John Damascene. 
The presence of the future rather than the imperative in most 
of the versions strongly favors this as the original reading. 

vi. 15. 

Rec. T. <v -yelp Xpio-TiJ 'InoroO oure irtpiToji^ — For in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision. 

Rev. T. ouTt -yap ir«piTO(i^ — For neither circumcision. 

The received reading here is attested by J^, A, C, D, E, F, 
G, K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Woide's Thebaic, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Piatt's 
Ethiopic, Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, Victorinus, 
Ambrose, and Ambrosiaster. The Revisers' reading is that of 
only three Greek manuscripts, namely, B and the two cursives, 
17 of the eleventh century, and 47 of nearly the same age, 
— the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, the Thebaic 
according to Griesbach's readings, the Venetian edition of the 
Armenian, the Roman Ethiopic, and the Gothic, Chrysostom, 
Jerome, and Augustine. But it is exceedingly improbable that 
the apostle, while combating Jewish prejudices, should say 
absolutely that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is 
nothing, even though he had in the preceding chapter (verse 6) 
qualified the statement by prefacing it with the words " in Christ 
Jesus." By placing the observance and the non-observance of 
a God-given, hallowed, national ceremony unqualifiedly on one 
and the same level of inutility, it would look as if he regarded 
the Mosaic law a thing of no account. In the circumstances 
in which he was placed, it was but natural, therefore, that he 
should restrict his language here, as he had before restricted it, 
in order to prevent misapprehension, and a perversion of his 
words. Indeed, it was hardly possible for it to be otherwise. 
And the strong documentary evidence before us irresistibly 
leads to the conclusion that he really did do this. But some 
one, wishing to make the apostle's utterance more striking and 
perhaps somewhat startling, — or, possibly, merely considering 
the words "in Christ Jesus" altogether unnecessary, since they 
had been once given before, — struck them out. The Revisers' 
reading has, in fact, every appearance of being " a distinctively 
Syrian reading." 


i. I. 

To this verse is appended the marginal note, " Some very 
ancient authorities omit /// Ephesiis." To prevent this from 
being misleading, the Revisers should have added in substance 
Meyer's remark, " But the words are so decisively attested that 
they cannot be deprived of their right to a place in the text." 
These " very ancient authorities " are the original scribes of X 
and B. A corrector of the twelfth-century cursive 67 (whose 
corrections betray greater or less affinity with B), marks the 
expression as doubtful ; while Origen and Basil the Great found 
it wanting in certain copies, and Marcion seems to have in- 
terpolated "at Laodicea" instead. On the other hand, the 
expression is found in all the other uncials and cursives, and 
even in these two uncials as afterward corrected, and in 67, 
as it came from the hand of its original scribe. The evidence 
of the versions, too, is unanimous for " in Ephesus." Several of 
the Fathers also, as Ignatius (according to the Syriac Version 
of his Epistle to the Ephesians, written two hundred years 
before Ji^ and B), Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascene, 
and others, attest the reading. Even Origen and Basil repre- 
sent the epistle as written to the Ephesians. The omission of 
the expression appears to have arisen in this way : The letter, 
after being received at Ephesus, was probably duplicated so 
that a copy could be sent to one or more other churches in 
the immediate vicinity. From such a copy the words " in 
Ephesus " would naturally, if not necessarily, be omitted, and 
the blank be left without the name of any other place, as no 



THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Other name was inserted by the writer. Copies taken from 
such a copy would naturally appear with a blank where copies 
made directly from the autograph, but not specially intended 
for other churches, would have the apostle's words " in Ephesus." 
The Colossians were/charged (Col. iv. i6) by the apostle him- 
self to have his letter to them read by the church at Laodicea, 
and to see that they obtained from the Laodiceans another 
letter of his, or a copy of it. The letter thus referred to may 
have been this Epistle to the Ephesians, which, or a copy of 
which, the Ephesians had been verbally instructed by Tychicus 
(Eph. vi. 21, 22), when he delivered the letter to them, to 
send to the church at Laodicea. Hence, perhaps, Marcion, 
who may have obtained, in the next century, a copy more or 
less directly from some member of the Laodicean Church, calls 
it the Episde to the Laodiceans. That Paul inserted the words 
" in Ephesus " is evident. The language, " to the saints that 
are, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus," not only differs from 
his usual style of address, but misrepresents him. Elsewhere, 
after the expression " to the saints that are," he invariably adds 
words denoting where they are ; as, " in Rome," " in Corinth," 
" in Philippi." This naturally leads us to conclude that here 
he added " in Ephesus." If he did not, the words can legiti- 
mately mean only, " to the saints that are also believers in 
Christ," — as if any saints, in his use of the word, were not of 
necessity believers in Christ. The apostle could not have given 
utterance to such an idea. Basil's assumption that "saints 
that are " is the correct reading, and that the meaning is 
" saints that are saints," is a mere conceit, alike unworthy of 
the apostle and unsuited to the connection. — The marginal 
note is really uncalled for. As it stands, it is more harmful 
than otherwise. Ordinary readers, for whom, principally, the 
revision was or should have been designed, are liable to be 
misled by it. 



i. 14. 

Rec. T. T<o nvcv)iaTi . , . tu 'A^Ctp, 8s {<mv &ppaP<iv — that Holy 
Spirit . . . which is the earnest. 

Rev. T. Tip IIvcv)iaTi, . . . tco 'A7(<i>, & Iottiv (SLppa^uv — the Holy 
Spirit . . . which is an earnest. 

The received reading os has the support of )^, D, E, K, most 
of the cursives, Didymus, Chrysostom in his comment, The- 
odoret, John Damascene, Photius, Theophylact, (Ecumenius, 
Victorinus, and others. The Revisers' o is the reading of A, B, 
F, G, L, fifteen cursives, Athanasius, Euthalius, Chrysostom in 
the text, and Cyril. Lachmann, like the Revisers, adopts this 
as the true reading. Tischendorf adopts os. Tregelles also 
reads os, but places o in the margin ; while VVestcott and Hort 
place o in the text, and 0% in the margin. 'Os is probably the 
original and true reading, early set aside by some critical hand 
for o, on account of the gender of the antecedent, Ilvtv/xn, 
" Spirit." The apostle, in employing the masculine, conforms 
the gender of the relative to that of the predicate noun in its 
own clause, namely, appafimv, " an earnest," or pledge. In ii. 
13, the relative represents a plural noun, OXifio-t, "tribula- 
tions " ; but, inasmuch as the predicate nominative is in the 
singular, the relative ijti? is in the singular also, to agree in 
number with Zoia, "glory." In vi. 17, the noun following in the 
predicate is a neuter, /ov/aoi, " a word " ; hence the relative is 
neuter, though it refers back to the feminine /uiKaipa, " sword." 
In I Tim. iii. 15, the noun in the predicate of the relative 
clause is a feminine, cKicXryo-wi, "the church," and the relative is 
accordingly ijtis, though the ' antecedent is a masculine, o'ko). 
On the same principle, in Gal. iii. 16, the relative is os, "who," 
— the following noun being Xpioro?, "Christ," though the 
antecedent is a neuter, cnrfp/m, " seed." The same is true in 
I Tim. iii. 16, where the relative (which appears in some docu- 
ments as o and in others as ©eo?), though representing the 
neuter noun, /xuo-tjJ/jioi/, " mystery," immediately preceding, is 


THE revisers' GREaSK TEXT. 

unquestionably masculine, because the one meant by nvar^piov, 
and spoken of in what follows, is Christ, precisely as in Col. 
i. 27. (See Note on i Tim. iii. 16.) This is the apostle's 
habitual mode of writing. Instead of supposing that he de- 
parted from it in this instance, it is more reasonable and just 
to conclude that the neuter o is the work of another, who 
thought he had discovered an error, and desired to correct it. 

i. 15. 

Rec. T. Kal tt|v A.-ydiniv tt|V ds iravras — and love unto all. 
Rev. T. Kal ttjv ets irdvros — and which yt shnu toward all. 

The common reading, Tr\v ayairriv, is vouched for by the 
seventh-century corrector of {i^, D, E, F, G, K, L, nearly every 
cursive, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Memphitic, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Ephraem Syrus, Chrysos- 
tom, Cyril, Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, Victorinus, 
Augustine in one of his epistles, Ambrosiaster, and others. 
The words are wanting in JiJ first hand, A, B, P, 17, Origen, 
Cyril in another treatise, Jerome, and Augustine on Predestina- 
tion. They were, no doubt, omitted in consequence of the 
recurrence of ti^v, — the eye of a copyist having passed from 
one to the other, leaving ayaurrjv and one of the articles unno- 
ticed and unwritten. The sentence as revised indicates that 
something is wanting. Properly translated, it reads : " Where- 
fore I also, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and 
[. . .] which ye have toward all the saints, cease not to give 
thanks," etc. This double use of connectives without any 
substantive between them, though common enough with the 
modern school-boy, is something that was unknown to manly 
writers of Greek in the apostle's day. In addition to this, the 
fact that all the versions contain the omitted words leaves no 
room to doubt their genuineness. It is but justice to the 
American Committee of Revisers to say that they did not 
approve of the change in the text. 



V. 2. 

Rec. T. KaOus Kal 6 Xpio-ris ■fivAinio-fv fiixas, Kal irop^5uK€v iavirov 
Jirep li(i.av — as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us. 

Rev. T. KaOus Kol 6 Xpio-T^s T|-y4inio-€v vp-ds, Kal irap^SuKtv lavriv 
iirtp Tiiiiiv — even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us. 

It is altogether improbable that the apostle Paul ever dictated 
or penned words according to this revised reading. There was 
no call for such writing on his part. And it is unjust to repre- 
sent him as having thus expressed himself, — especially when 
the source of such incoherence is obvious. The apostle wrote, 
" Be followers of God as beloved children ; and walk in love, 
even as Christ loved us, and gave himself up for us." But 
some copyist, governed by the person of the preceding verbs, 
carelessly wrote V^^, " you," for ^^tS^, " us," leaving the second 
" us " unchanged. And so it passed into a number of copies, 
giving this reading more or less currency. Afterwards, some 
corrector tried his pen. But, instead of changing the " you " 
back to "us," he altered the second "us" to "you." Thus, 
at least three different classes of manuscripts came into use ; — 
the original reading " us ... us"; the first departure there- 
from reading "you ... us" ; and the second departure "you 
you." This accounts for the preponderance of docu- 
mentary attestation in support of the second " us " ; while the 
manuscripts, versions, and Fathers are neady equally divided 
between " us " and " you " after " loved." 

V. 30. 

Rec T (UXii «o-(i€v ToB o-iparos airov, <k rfls o-opKJs airoO Kal Ik 
tJIv &o-t€u.v a«TOv. - we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his 

bones. , , . 

Rev. T. (UXti te-plv toB <r<iiiaTOS airoB. — we are members ot his 


The entire reading, as given in the Received Text, is attested 

by S's seventh-century corrector, D, E, F, G, L, P, nearly 



every cursive, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
and Armenian Versions, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and others. 
Irenaeus, speaking concerning what the Revisers have omitted, 
states expressly that the apostle "says this, not of some spiritual 
and invisible man, for a spirit has neither bones nor flesh, but 
of a distribution (of the members) similar to what is found in 
the human body, which consists of flesh, nerves, and bones." 
Whatever may be thought as to the correctness of this com- 
ment, it proves that Irenaeus, a.d. 178, accepted the words as 
genuine. Their omission, however, is according to J^ first 
hand, A, B, 17, 67 second hand, the Memphitic and Ethiopic 
Versions, Methodius, and Euthalius. Those who reject the 
words consider them as introduced from Gen. ii. 23. But, if 
they had been thus introduced, they would read Ik tS>v oa-rtiov 
airrov Kai €k rrji aapKo's avrov, as in the Septuagint, and not in 
the inverted order in which they stand here. Besides, no one 
would think of making such an addition as " out of his flesh 
and out of his bones," to language apparently as complete as 
" We are members of his body " ; especially when the glorified 
body of Christ has neither flesh nor bones, and the addition 
would naturally appear not only unnecessary but misapplied. 
It was rather on this account that the words were omitted, — 
because their import was enigmatical, and they had the ap- 
pearance of being irrelevant, — a mode of dealing with obscure 
and difficult expressions by no means uncommon in a certain 
class of documents. In writing these words, no doubt, the 
aposde had in mind the record respecting Eve as formed from 
Adam's bones and flesh. The allusion, however, was not made 
under the idea that believers in Christ are in any sense taken 
from him and made his, as Eve was from Adam. It was simply 
to express the thought that the relation subsisting between 
Christ and his church is as close and intimate as if the latter 
had been taken and formed from his flesh and from his bones, 
as Eve was from Adam's. And so the apostle himself teaches 



us by prefixing the words, " even as Christ also [nourisheth and 
cherisheth] the church " ; and adding immediately after, "This 
is a great mystery (or hidden truth) ; but I am speaking con- 
cerning Christ and the church." (Verse 32.) The words, 
properly rendered, would read, "We are [so to speak] mem- 
bers of his body, out of his flesh and out of his bones." The 
language, of course, is figurative, and must be so interpreted, 
without subjecting it to tension or violence. 


11. I. 

The change made by the Revisers in this verse from nvd to 
tU before airkdyxva, " tender mercies," was simply for its own 
sake, not in order to prepare the text for a correct English 
rendering. The word may be " overwhelmingly " supported by 
documentary evidence, — J<, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, P, 
more than fifty cursives, Euthalius, Chrysostom, John Damas- 
cene, and CEcumenius ; but it is only the result of an early 
thoughtless repetition of the tU occurring twice just before. 
The same blunder was perpetrated in changing tI to tU before 
irapaixvBiov, " comfort," A. v., "consolation," R. V., the second 
of the four nouns here accompanied by this word, — a blunder 
which still appears in D first hand, L, 17, 46, 73, 137, and 
twelve or more cursives, and in Theodoret and Theophylact. 
Though Tis o-B-Adyxva is ungrammatical Greek, the change, like 
hundreds of other changes, does not affect the English text in 
the least. Those who defend this reading assume that the 
combined testimony of certain ancient manuscripts is unim- 
peachable, and that the apostle employed tU in reference to 
the abstract idea of compassion embodied in uirXayxva, a neuter 
plural ! But Meyer shows conclusively that this latter assum])- 
tion is altogether untenable. In no one of the other eight 
instances in which the apostle employs airXayxya, does he treat 
it as a singular by connecting with it an article or an adjective 
in the singular. If tU is a copyist's blunder, as we make no 
question it is (and it is easily accounted for as such), "How," 
say those who believe in the infallibility of copyists rather than 



in the apostle's ability to write Greek correctly, " how could 
such an ungrammatical blunder, if not genuine, be so widely 
circulated?" We answer. In precisely the same way that it is 
now continued in circulation by those who believe it to be the 
true reading, — by holding to it, and handing it down to others. 
Or, — to give our answer in a little different form, — it is just 
as the false reading in Matt, xxiii. 24, " strain at a gnat," has 
been handed down through nearly three centuries of intelligent 
printers and editors, whose reverence for the letter of the A. V. 
has withheld them from correcting it, though Tyndale has it 
" strayne out," and King James's Revisers could not, in place 
of it, have sent to the press such a reading as " strain at." The 
Greek word hivXli^av means to strain off, or out, through a sieve, 
cloth, filter, or by some other means ; and that any body of 
Greek scholars should be capable of translating it " strain at," 
is utterly incredible. Any one familiar with the mistakes of 
copyists, and the mechanical way in which copying is generally 
done, should be the last to ask how such blunders can be per- 
petuated, and the first to do the original writer the justice of 
believing that he did not write what he was morally and intel- 
lectually incapable of having written. 

111. 13- 

Rec. T. Ii** '("ivrov ov Xo^C^opLai KaTciXT|<^vai ■ — I count not myself 
to have apprehended. 

Rev. T. l^a ifiauriv oCttu Xo'YC{a)iai KaT<t\if4>ivai * — I count not 
myself yet to have apprehended. 

The ov, of the Received Text and the Revisers' margin, is 
attested by B, D corrected by a second or third hand, E, F, G, 
K, L, most of the cursives, the Latin version of D as well as 
those of E, F, and G, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the text 
of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the Armenian, Origen, 
Chrysostom twice, Tertullian, Victorinus, and Jerome on Ezekiel. 
Oviru) is vouched for by J«s, A, the Greek text of D, P, 1 7, and 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

about forty other cursives, the Memphitic, the Ethiopic, the 
margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, 
Euthalius, Chrysostom in one place, in another ovStVco, and in 
yet another ov as just noted, Theodoret, the Paschal Chronicle, 
John Damascene, Ambrosiaster, Jerome against Pelagius, and 
others. But this reading was introduced in consequence of the 
repeated "already," of verse 12. To have been genuine, it 
should have preceded, not koyi^ofuu, but KaTcikr]<t>ivai. As it 
stands, it belongs to the former, and should be taken with it, 
making the clause read, " I do not yef consider myself to have 
apprehended " ; whereas the Revisers improperly connect it 
with the latter by rendering the clause, " I count not myself jr/ 
to have apprehended" It is true, this rendering is calhd for 
by the statement, " Not that I have already obtained, or am 
already made perfect," in verse 12; but the position of outtu 
forbids it. This, however, is to be expected, as the word is 
merely a modification of ov, which belongs to Xoyt^o/itat, 

IV. 23. 

The Revisers omit " Amen " at the close of this verse ; and 
yet the documentary evidence preponderates in its favor. In 
support of it, we have ^, A (C would doubtless be found here 
if not defective), D, E, K, L, P, every cursive but one, a 
seventh-century fragment of the Old Latin Version, the "Vulgate, 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, the 
Armenian, the Ethiopic, Theodoret, John Damascene, Ambro- 
siaster, and others. The omission is found only in B, F, G, one 
cursive, 47, the Thebaic, the only version except the Latin 
versions of F and G, Chrysostom, Euthalius, and Victorinus. 
We do not understand why the word should be omitted here, 
yet retained at the close of i Cor. xvi. 24, when the testimony, 
for and against, in the two instances is as nearly identical as 
can well be. 


1. 7. 

Rec. T. irKTris viirlp \ph<Jv SidKovof ToO Xpurrov, — for you a faithful 
minister of Christ. 

Rev. T. irwrTos uirlp T|(ni>v 8idKOvos tov Xpio-roO, — a faithful min- 
ister of Christ on our behalf. 

The v\xMv of the Received Text and the Revisers' margin is 
attested by the seventh-century corrector of X> C, D second 
hand, E, K, L, P, most of the cursives, the Latin versions of D 
and F as well as that of E, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Phi- 
loxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic, the Armenian, the 
Ethiopic, the Arabic, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, Sedulius, Ambrosiaster, and others. The ^^wv, of 
the Revised Text, is less strongly attested by X first hand. A, B, 
the Greek text of F, and of D according to the original scribe, 
G, ten cursives, and only the Latin translation of G among all 
the versions. It was carelessly introduced in place of v/xilv in 
consequence of following so closely after the preceding r\^u>v. 
That it is a false reading is obvious from iv. 12, 13 : " Epaphras, 
who is one of you . . . always striving for you {yiikp v/xtuv, as 
here), in his prayers, etc. ... he hath much labor for you" 
(vjrtp v/xaiv again), etc. The verse might perhaps be more 
faithfully expressed in English thus : " Even as ye learned from 
Epaphras our beloved fellow-servant, who is faithful on your 
behalf as a minister of Christ." The apostle seems to have 
been desirous of assuring the brethren at Colosse of Epaphras' 
well-doing and faithfulness on their behalf while earnestly labor- 
ing with him in his imprisonment. 



The marginal reading, v/xas, " you," in place of " us " in tlie 
clause, " who hath made us meet to be partakers " etc., is too 
feebly attested to merit consideration. It crept in through 
some transcriber's carelessness under the influence of the pre- 
ceding context, as is evident from a comparison of this verse 
with verses 13,14. It is attested only by J^, B, half a dozen cur- 
sives, two copies of the Vulgate, the margin of the Philoxenian 
Syriac, the Ethiopic Version, Didymus, Theophylact, and Am- 
brosiaster. On VVestcott and Hort's principles, it cannot safely 
be rejected. Hence its appearance in the margin. — It may 
be added that D, F, G, and a few other documents, read here, 
" who hath called us to be " etc., while B alone reads, " who 
hath called and made you meet to be " etc., — a reading, which, 
if found in any other manuscript. Dr. Hort would call a 
" conflation." 

The marginal note assures the reader that, instead of " hath 
he reconciled," " some ancient authorities read, ye hazie been 
reconciled." The only known ancient document that reads 
a-noKaTri\Xa.yr)Tt, "ye were (or have been) reconciled," is B. 
Codex D first hand, G, the Greek text of F, the Latin versions 
of D, E, and G, Mai's Extracts, the Gothic Version, Ambro- 
siaster, and possibly Irenaeus, have the nominative plural of the 
second aorist passive participle, aTroKaToAAayoTts, " having been 
reconciled," — a reading that is by no means suited to the 
connection. The reading of B evidently arose from beginning 
a sentence with mvi, under the influence of the preceding words, 
"you being in titne past alienated " etc. This was thought to 
require the reading, " But now ye have been reconciled " etc., 
— which throws the construction out of harmony with what 
follows : " that he might present you " etc. The reading of the 
text, " he hath reconciled," points back to a fulfilment of God's 



purpose as expressed by the aorist active, dTroKaraXXa^at, to 
reconcile," in verse 20, and seems to be, beyond doubt, what 
the apostle wrote. On account of his involved and parentheti- 
cal language, which to himself was perfectly clear as well as 
natural, many and perhaps most commentators have labored 
over the construction in this verse. But a moment's careful exam- 
ination of his words ought to suffice to make them clear to 
every one. Throughout this passage (verses 19-22) the lead- 
ing subject of discourse is "the Father," as in verses 12, 13. 
The latter half of verse 20 is parenthetical, placmg an inter- 
jected thought, that naturally presented itself, between the 
verb "reconcile," in verse 20, and "even you," a part of its 
object, in verse 21. With these points in view, the passage 
may be rendered, " For it pleased the Father, in h.m [Christ] 
to have all fulness dwell, and through him to reconcile all 
things to himself [the Father] (having made peace through 
him by means of the blood of his cross, whether as to things 
upon earth or things in heaven), even you, who were once 
alienated and enemies by your inclination for evd works. But 
now he [the Father] hath reconciled (you) by the body of hi 
[Christ's] flesh, through his death, that he [the Father] rnight 
present you holy, and without a blemish, and unreprovable in 
his [Christ's] presence." (Compare 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 i iv. 14; 
xi. 2 ; Eph. V. 25-27 ; Jude 24, 25.) 

i. 27. 

Rec. T. 8s io-Ti Xpio-ris — which is Christ. 
Rev. T. 8 foTi Xpio-T6s — which is Christ. 

The first of these readings is attested by S- C, D, E, K, L, 
most of the cursives, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Euthalius^, Cyril, 
Theodoret, and John of Damascus ; the last, by A, B, 1^, O, r, 
„ 47, and 67 second hand. 'O was, no doubt, origmally 
int'roduced to make the gender of the relative the same as tha 
of its antecedent roi) ;xv<rTr,p.ov, "the mystery, -a change 





which was favored, and possibly thought to be required, by the 
construction aal/MiTos o ia-nv ■^ cKKXrja-ia in verse 24. But 
the apostle's usual mode of writing calls for the masculine, be- 
cause of the predicate noun, Xptoros, which it represents, and 
which embodied an idea of far greater weight in his mind than 
Ixva-Ti^piov, and would thus naturally lead him to write the 
masculine instead of the neuter. (See Note on Eph. i. 14.) 
While Lachmann and Westcott and Hort adopt o (though the 
latter place o? in the margin as a secondary and possibly genuine 
reading), Griesbach, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Meyer, and other 
editors follow the Received Text. 

text, set aside for what was incorrectly considered the true 
reading. Others, while retaining iv airrj, omitted iv ilx<^pi<TTia, 
— a reading preserved to us in Codex P, which constitutes an 
additional witness in favor of Iv avrfj. The sentence without 
these words really seems to stand in no need of any addition. 
And certainly no reader or scribe would have been tempted 
to insert them if they had not been genuine. When we grasp 
the apostle's meaning, — not "abounding in the faith," but 
abounding in faith (that in which he would have them pt^axov- 
/xcvot, "made firm,") with thanksgiving, — we see a propriety, 
a special force in the exhortation, which the bare words 
"abounding in thanksgiving " do not possess. 


Rec. T. ir€pi<r<rc«ovTcs Jv ovt^ Iv ivxapurrCi}. — abounding therein 
with thanksgiving. 

Rev. T. ircpKTO-cirovTts iv «4\opio~r(^j. — abounding in thanksgiving. 

The words Iv avrrj omitted from the text by the Revisers, 
are found in B, D third hand, E, K, L, most of the cursives, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, John Damascene, and Ambrosiaster. They are 
wanting in ^ first hand. A, C, 17, and ten or twelve other 
cursives, a few copies of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the 
Ethiopic, Euthalius, and others. The presence of the pronoun 
and its preposition evidently gave trouble to early readers and 
scribes on account of the iv ivxapicrTia. following immediately 
after. This led some to omit the words. Others, instead of 
omitting them, took them to be a transcriptional error for Iv 
ouTo), employed by the apostle in the former part of the verse. 
Hence the appearance of this phrase in X ^^ corrected by a 
seventh-century reader, D first hand, the Vulgate, and other 
documents. This reading is too feebly attested to be supposed 
for a moment to be the original reading, from which iv avrrj 
may have sprung. On the contrary, the presence of cv avT<2 
tends indirectly to prove that iv avr^ is a part of the original 

ii. 18. 

Rec. T. i m «'ip»«'' *I^P<iT.Ou,v, - intruding into those things which 

he hath not soon. , • i, v u^tv. 

Rev. T. a WpaKiv i^P<irtiu>v, - dwelling in the things which he hath 


The negative, which the Revisers have relegated to^the 
margin, is supported by the seventh-century corrector of S, C, 
D second and third hands, F, G, K, L, P, most of the cursives, 
the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the 
Armenian, Origen in one edition of his works, Chrysostom, 
Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, Ambrosiaster accord- 
ing to one edition, Augustine, and Jerome. The m is wanting 
in « first hand. A, B, U first hand, 17, 28, 67 second hand, 
Mai's Extracts, the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions, Origen 
in other editions, Lucifer, Ques/iones ex utroque Testamento, 
and Ambrosiaster according to another edition. There is 
nothing in the immediate connection to indicate that either 
the presence or the absence of ^ is really due to transcrip- 
tional error. It is due rather to a misapprehension of the 
import of a part of the context. If the word is genuine, its 
absence in some manuscripts is owing originally to intentional 
omission, from being considered incompatible with the apostle s 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



meaning. If spurious, its presence is due to the opposite con- 
sideration that it is essential to the expression of the apostle's 
thought, and that it was really inserted by him, but in some 
way, in transcribing, had been omitted. From a mere tran- 
scriptional point of view, the latter is less credible than the 
former ; that is, on this ground, the probability is rather in 
favor of the genuineness of the negative than otherwise. And 
when we look at the words themselves, this probability increases. 
'E/ij8aT£ijci)i', nowhere else used in the New Testament, primarily 
means stepping in or on, as on an island or into any territory ; 
hence, entering on or coming into possession of; and, by an 
easy transition, laying claim to, — a meaning necessarily im- 
plied in the act of taking possession of. This claim may be 
just or unjust. That is not determined by the word itself, but 
by the context. If the apostle's meaning here were, as some 
suppose, simply entering upon or into, there is no probability 
that he would have gone so far out of his usual and natural 
course as to say iix/Sarewav instead of claeXOwv ; or if it were, 
as the Revisers have it, " dwelling in," that he would have used 
this word instead of ivoiKo>v. Besides this, the employment by 
the apostle of the simple twpaKcv to denote the seeing of things 
in vision or by means of visions is altogether incredible. And 
yet it must be so taken if the negative is discarded. Grimm, 
in his Lexicon, under the word e>/3aT£iju), says, " If we expunge 
/iij, we must render [the clause], 'going into curious and subtile 
speculation about things which he has seen in 7'isions granted 
},i,n,'" — which the Revisers have condensed into "dwelling 
in the things which he hath seen," though the import of their 
words is by no means clear apart from Grimm's or some similar 
paraphrase, like Humphry's, " asserting a knowledge of things 
supernatural which he has seen." This obscurity, coupled 
with the unnatural use to which some of the words need to be 
put in case the negative is omitted, forms a strong presumption 
that the omission is unwarranted. With the negative, the text 
is natural, easy, and commends itself as genuine : " Let no 

one" divert you from your steadfastness and constancy in 
following Christ by placing any obstacle in your way, and so 
"beguile you of your reward " — the crown of life — "seeking 
to do it under the guise of humility and angel-worship, laying 
claim to what he has not seen, vainly puffed up," etc. 

ill. 6. 

The marginal note says, "Some ancient authorities omit 
upon the sons of disobedience" and refers to Eph. v. 6, as if 
these words might have been introduced from that verse. Eph. 
ii. 2, where the apostle has the expression, " in the children of 
disobedience," might also have been referred to. The fact 
that a phrase or expression appears (possibly more than once) 
in a certain epistle, and again in another epistle written at the 
same time by the same person, is no reason why we should 
question its genuineness in one of those episdes any more than 
we should its genuineness the second or the third time it might 
appear in one and the same episde, even though the testimony 
of a few ancient documents may seem to indicate that it is a 
false reading. The witnesses here referred to in the words 
" some ancient authorities " are one Greek manuscript, B, and 
two versions, the Thebaic and the Roman Ethiopic, — whose 
unsupported testimony in favor of any peculiar reading may 
be considered prima-facie evidence against its genuineness. 
In this instance, they are supported by Clement of Alexandria, 
Cyprian, and Ambrosiaster. This, however, is not enough to 
prove the words omitted by them to be no part of the original 
text. The expression Iv ols, which follows, is the apostle's own 
protest against the mutilation of his language. Tliis expression 
does not mean " in the which," as the A. V., the R. V., and 
others make it mean, as if it referred to the sins specified in 
verse 5. It refers, as the same expression does in Eph. ii. 3 
(where the same thought is expressed), to "the sons of diso- 
bedience " immediately preceding, and means " among whom," 





as the Revisers have it in their margin ; for the apostle hardly 
meant to reason in a circle, and say, " in which things ye also 
formerly walked, when ye lived in those things." Verse 7, 
following on after the mention of " the sons of disobedience," 
should read, " Atno?ig whom ye also once walked, when ye 
were living (or, were alive) in those things." Now, if we omit 
the phrase " upon the sons of disobedience," as B and its 
frequent ally in error, the Thebaic Version, would have us do, 
we lose the true antecedent of ols, and are compelled to make 
the apostle speak unlike himself, and say what he had no 
thought of saying. (Compare Eph. ii. 3.) Though this phrase 
is placed in brackets by Lachmann, and omitted by Tischen- 
dorf as a result of one of his false principles of criticism, and 
also by Westcott and Hort through their partiality for B, its 
omission is a palpable error, not worthy of 'a moment's con- 
sideration as a possibly genuine reading. 

IV. 15. 

Rec. T. TTjv KOT* oTkov auToO tKKXT]<r(av. — the church which is in 
his house. 

Rev. T. •n\v Kar oIkov avrfiv {KK\i)(rCav. — the church that is in 
their house. 

The common reading, " his house," is attested by D, E, F, 
G, K, L, most of the cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, 
the Memphitic, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Gothic, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascene, and others. 
The revised reading, "their house," is that of ^, A, C, P, eight 
cursives, one copy of the Arabic Version, and Euthalius. In 
addition to these readings is another, " her house," inserted in 
the Revisers' margin in deference to Westcott and Hort, who 
adopt it in their own text in preference to either of the other 
two. This is supported only by B, the marginal reading of the 
twelfth-century cursive 67, and the Philoxenian Syriac Version, 
— unless the ejus of the Vulgate is to be taken as standing for 

" her " rather than for " his." This, however, can hardly be 
conceded, since the Latin versions as a rule side with D, and 
the Latin versions of D, E, F, and G all translate axnov by ejus, 
" his." The common reading is, no doubt, the original one. 
It has in its favor the testimony of the Peshito Syriac and 
Memphitic Versions, which dates back at least to the close of 
the second century, and is fully one hundred and fifty years 
earlier than the earliest evidence in support of either of the 
other readings. Besides this, it is altogether improbable that 
Nu/if^av represents the Doric feminine Nuyu.<^a. But an early 
reader, taking it as a feminine name, considered airoii an error, 
and accordingly changed it to ai-nj<;, " her." Hence the read- 
ing of B. The revised reading, however, originated probably 
as a simple, perfectly natural, and by no means uncommon 
transcriptional error, — the scribe's thoughts for the moment 
dwelling on the idea of Nymphas' household, rather than having 
Nymphas himself in view. Hence "their house" instead of 
"his house." That airCiv is the genuine reading, and refers 
back to " the brethren in Laodicea," including Nymphas, as if 
they all formed one family and lived in the same house, and the 
" church that was in their house " embraced yet others, is absurd. 
What, then, is to be gained by changing the plain, strongly sup- 
ported, and most probably genuine reading, " his house," to the 
absurd and obviously incorrect reading, " their house," or even 
to " her house," which is both very improbable and very feebly 
attested ? 




Rec. T. |ivf Cav v|iuv iroioil|Mvoi — making mention of you. 
Rev. T. (i^tttv iroio«(Mvoi — making mention a/you. 

The pronoun, as in the Received Text, is found in >{ cor- 
rected by its seventh-century emendator, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, 
P, nearly every cursive, a fragment of a seventh-cen'tui^ copy 
of the Old Latin Version, the Clementine Vulgate, three copies 
of Jerome's, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, 
the Bashmuric, the Ethiopic, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, Ambrosiaster, and others. It is wanting in X first 
hand, A, B, 17, 67 second hand, 122 first hand, a few copies of 
the Vulgate, the Armenian Version, and Euthalius ; and was 
probably inconsiderately regarded by an early scribe as an 
improper repetition of the word employed just before, — Trepi 
irdirroiv vfiCv ftviCav v/tGiv Trotov/jiivoi, — the remaining words being 
understood to mean, " making mention of you all," by con- 
sidering Trepl equivalent to our " of," " spake o/him," as in Luke 
ii. 38, and elsewhere frequently. To one taking this view of 
the words, the second ii/j-wv would of course appear simply as a 
previous transcriber's error that ought to be corrected. Hence 
its omission. The same thing was undoubtedly done in Eph. 
i. 16, where the apostle's language is very similar, and where 
the witnesses are in like manner divided in regard to the read- 
ing, though somewhat more strongly arrayed in favor of the 
omission than here. Yet in both instances a proper under- 
standing of the apostle's meaning and construction calls for i/x^v 
after as well as before /ivtuiv, as the Revisers' rendering shows. 

1. 10. 

Rec. T. 5v r[yuptv Ik vcKpuv, — whom he raised from the dead. 
Rev. T. ov {j-ycipcv Ik tc3v vcKpwv, — whom he raised from the dead. 

The omission of the article is in accordance with the testi- 
mony of A, C, K, a large minority of the cursives, the Armenian 
Version, Eusebius, and CEcumenius. Its presence is attested 
by K> 1^1 1^> E, F, G, L, P, most of the cursives, Chrysostom, 
Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, and Theophylact. The 
presence or the absence of the article, especially when it does 
not in the least affect the translation, may seem to be a point 
of but little or no moment. And so, no doubt, it often is ; but 
not in this instance. For the apostle, in common with most 
other New-Testament writers, makes a nice distinction in the 
use of the article in connection with the plural vexpoi, " dead." 
When he employs this word in reference to a particular class 
or portion of mankind whom he calls " dead," he invariably 
connects the article with it.' But, when he refers to the dead 
in general, he uses viKpot without the article. This seems to be 
the use that the apostle here makes of the word, as it evidently 
is in Rom. iv. 24, vi. 4, 9, and in every other place where he 
speaks of Christ as " raised from the dead." In the light of 
these facts, it seems as if A, C, and the other witnesses who 
unite with them are in the right, while the Revisers and others 

1 See I Cor. xv. 35, 42, 52, that is, the righteous dead ; 2 Cor. i. 9, those 
that are given up for dead, who in the eyes of others are virtually dead; 
Eph. v. 14, the morally dead; Col. i. 18, the dead in Paradise, the right- 
eous dead, as explained by I Cor. xv. 20, " the first fruits of fAtm that have 
fallen asleep" who constitute only a portion of the v€KpS>v generally, men- 
tioned just before; and i Thess. iv. 16. Even here belongs Rom. iv. 17, 
meaning the inefficient, whether morally or physically so, with a direct 
reference in the context to the latter class. Here, too, belongs i Cor. xv. 
29, where vcKpol denotes the dead in general, but 6t veKpol those who have 
united themselves by faith to a crucified Saviour, and with him are dead to 
sin, to the world, etc. 


THE revisers' GREEKIteXT. 



Who follow i^, B, D, and their fellow witnesses misrepresent the 
apostle by inserting the article. We hold to the Received Text 
therefore, as presenting the apostle's words without being 
" added unto." Similar instances of tampering with his lan- 
guage are found elsewhere. Thus, in i Cor. xv. 15, F and G 
insert the article before vcKpo!, where all other known documents 
are without it. In verse 20, in which the apostle speaks of 
Christ as raised from the dead, F and G, as in verse 15, insert 
the article, in which they are joined by John Damascene. In 
Eph. i. 20, where the apostle again speaks of Christ as raised 
from the dead. Codex L, about twenty-five cursives, and Euse- 
bius insert the article. In Phil. iii. n, the Received Text 
incorrectly reads, with K, L, most of the cursives, the Mem- 
phitic and Armenian Versions, Theodoret, and Theophylact, Ik 
TMv v(.Kpu)v instead of Ik vtKpmv. And again, in Col. ii. 12, B, 
D, E, F, G, 1 7, and most of the other cursives, Theodoret, 
John Damascene, and others have the same reading instead of 
the apostle's anarthrous vcKpCv. — We have been thus full and 
explicit on this point, so that the reader may understand the 
facts in reference to the apostle's use of this word as connected 
with the article. 

u. 12. 

Rec. T. 0€ov To5 KoX^o-avros i|ios — God, who hath called you. 
Rev. T. 0<oS ToB KoXovvTOs vfids — God, who calleth you. 

The aorist participle of the Received Text, which the Re- 
visers have thrown into the margin, is attested by X. A, six 
cursives, the Latin version of F, Mai's Extracts, the Vulgate, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the The- 
baic, the Bashmuric, the Gothic, the Armenian, Chrysostom in 
his first citation of the passage, Theodoret, and Ambrosiaster. 
The present, of the Revised Text, is the reading of B, D, E, F, 
G, H, K, L, P, most of the cursives, the Latin versions of D, 
E, and G, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Chrysostom in 

two subsequent citations, Euthalius, John Damascene, and 
others. The fact that nearly all the ancient versions support 
the first of these readings, and one of them doing this against 
its own Greek text, testifies strongly to its genuineness. Another 
fact pointing in the same direction is, that those whom the 
apostle is addressing are Christians, persons whom he calls (i. 4) 
" brethren beloved of God." A third fact is, that the apostle 
goes on immediately to say, "And for this reason — that is, not 
because God is calling you, but because he has called you — . 
we thank him without ceasing that, w/ien ye heard the gospel 
from us, ye regarded it not as the word of man, but as the 
word of God," etc. That is, he thanks God continually for 
something that has already occurred. In 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14, 
he writes, " God chose you from the beginning imto salvation 
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ; 
unto which he called you by our gospel for the attainment of 
the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." He here uses the prepo- 
sition €is in what seems to be two senses, — first, as meaning 
"unto," and immediately after as meaning "for," — unto salva- 
tion, /<?r glory. So, in the verse before us (though he does not 
repeat the preposition because the two meanings would natu- 
rally present themselves to his Greek readers in his use of the 
word), his meaning is, "who hath called you into his kingdom 
and unto glory " ; or, as Tyndale and the A. V. have very well 
expressed it, simply " unto, his kingdom and glory " ; as it is 
also expressed in i Pet. v. 10. But, as the glory referred to 
was evidently something not yet attained by the Thessalonians, 
the apostle's meaning failed of being grasped by some of his 
early readers. Hence it was thought necessary to change the 
aorist participle to the present, making the clause read, " who 
is calling you unto his kingdom and glory," as something yet 
future. And possibly this was aided by the apostle's assurance 
in v. 24, " Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." 
The common reading is on the whole the more strongly attested, 
and should not be set aside. 





iii. 2. 

The marginal note says, " Some ancient authorities read, 
fellow-tvorker with God" ; i.e. in place of the A. V.'s "min- 
ister of Clod, and our fellow-laborer," and the R. V.'s " God's 
minister." This reading is attested only by D first hand, the 
Latin versions of D and E, and Ambrosiaster. Nevertheless 
it seems to be the original and true reading, and is so con- 
sidered by Griesbach, Lachmann, Alford, EUicott, and others. 
(Compare i Cor. iii. 9.) The various readings — and there are 
several of them — can hardly be accounted for satisfactorily on 
any other supposition. But, if we take " a fellow-worker with 
God " to be what the apostle wrote, the other readings appear 
at once as devices to obviate the seeming difficulty presented 
by this phrase. Thus, — to instance some of them, — B and 
the Armenian Version suppress " of God," making the words 
read, " Timothy, our brother and a fellow-worker in the gos- 
pel." X> A, P, the margin of 67, three other cursives, the 
Vulgate, Memphitic, Bashmuric, Gothic, Philoxenian Syriac, 
and Ethiopic Versions, Basil, Euthalius, and Pelagius substitute 
" minister " for " colaborer," or " fellow-worker," giving the 
Revisers' reading, " a minister of God." E, F, G, and 1 7 
combine the two, making " a minister and co-laborer of God " ; 
while the text of the A. V., following D third hand, E second 
hand, K, L, most of the cursives, the Peshito Syriac, Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, John Damascene, and others, read " a minister 
of God, and our fellow-laborer." 

iv. 8. 

Rec. T. Tov KaV S6vTa — who hath also given. 
Rev. T. riv SiSAvra — who giveth. 

The Kai is attested by X. D first hand, F, G, K, L, most of 
the cursives, the Vulgate, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, 
Clement, Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, CEcumenius, 
Pelagius, and others. It is omitted by A, B, D second and third 

hands, E, ten cursives, a catena, the Peshito Syriac, the Mem- 
phitic, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrosiaster, and others. The aorist 
participle Swto is attested by the seventh-century corrector 
of J^, A, K, L, most of the cursives, Clement, Chrysostom, 
Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, and others. The 
present of the Revised Text, has the support of ^ first hand, 
B, D, E, F, G, seven or eight cursives, Origen, Athanasius, and 
Didymus. Both of these new readings — the omission of koL 
(which is not approved by Griesbach, Tischendorf, and other 
modern editors), and the adoption of the present participle 
instead of the aorist — fail to commend themselves as genuine 
readings. It seems hardly possible that the conjunction should 
have got into the text and obtained so extensive a circulation, 
if it had not been placed there by the original writer. The 
reason of its omission, however, is obvious. It was thought to 
connect the words following it with the preceding part of the 
verse. But, as there was no propriety in such a use of KaL, it 
was dropped. At the same time, the participle was changed 
to the present, so as to correspond grammatically with the 
preceding presents, oBtrZ^v, " rejecting," and Aeerd, " rejecteth." 
The fact, however, that the present, "who giveth," makes 
" unto you " a feeble, and indeed questionable ending for the 
verse, if it does not render it absolutely superfluous, is an 
indication of its spuriousness ; whereas the aorist participle 
renders " unto you " or " unto us " necessary, while it naturally 
corresponds in time with iKoXeaev, "called," in verse 7, to 
which the conjunction " also " refers : " God ca//ed us . . . who 
/ia//i also given " etc. 

v. 4- 

"Some ancient authorities read as //lieves." Only A, B, and 
the Memphitic Version however ; which Lachmann and West- 
cott and Hort follow as if it were the true reading. But it 
originated plainly enough in error, and not only misrepresents 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

the apostle, but is unsuited to the context. It makes the sen- 
tence read " But ye, brethren, are not in darkness that that day 
should overtake you as (one might overtake) thieves "; — not 
"as thieves overtake others" ; for KAeWas, "thieves," is in the 
accusative, — a transcriptional error for kXcW^s, "a thief," — 
and, as such, must be the object of some verb. But the apostle 
leaves us in no doubt as to what he wrote. In verse 2, he says, 
"The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief (cometh) in the 
night " ; i.e. unexpectedly. Then, in verse 4, referring back to 
this, he says, " Ye are not in darkness, that that day should 
overtake you as a thief" overtakes people ; i.e. unexpectedly. 
If certain textual critics were not apparently infatuated with the 
idea that the New Testament is to be found only in two or three, 
or, at most, five of the oldest manuscripts, we should not have 
such monstrosities and palpably false readings again and again 
thrust before us for acceptance as possibly genuine portions 
of the text. 


n. 3. 

"The man of lawlessness" is noted in the margin as the 
reading of " many ancient authorities " instead of " the man of 
sin." It is the reading of Ji^, B, ten cursives, the Memphitic, 
Thebaic, and Armenian Versions, Origan, Euthalius, Tertullian, 
Ambrose, and Ambrosiaster ; and, for obvious reasons, is adopted 
by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort. The common reading, 
which is followed by Lachmann, Alford, Ellicott, and others, is 
that of A, D, E, Y, G, K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, the 
Ethiopic, Irenseus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascene, and Augustine. 
There need be no doubt as to whether the reading of the text 
is the true one. It is unlike anything elsewhere found in the 
apostle's writings, and would hardly have got into the text if it 
had not been genuine. But " the man of lawlessness," meaning 
the lawless man, would very naturally be, and probably was, 
suggested by and adopted from the phrases " the mystery of 
lawlessness" and "the lawless one," in verses 7 and 8. 

n. 13. 

Again the reader is informed that many ancient "authorities" 
read " God chose you as first fruits (instead oi from the begin- 
ning) unto salvation." Yet it is impossible for the apostle to 
have said this ; for the Thessalonians did not receive the Gospel 
till after Paul had been engaged in preaching Christ and build- 



THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

ing up churches in other fields for about seventeen years. The 
Thessalonian church was not the first fruits of the Gospel even 
m Macedonia; for a church was gathered at Philippi before 
Christ was ever preached in Thessalonica. Yet this false read- 
ing is fathered and handed down to us by B, F, the Greek text 
of G, P, I 7, and half a dozen other cursives, the Vulgate, the 
Philoxenian Syriac, Didymus, Euthalius, Cyril, Ambrosiaster, 
and others. 


The witnesses that attest the marginal reading " that enableth 
(or strengtheneth) me," — a reading taken, probably, from 
Phil. iv. 13, — instead of " that enabled (or hath strengthened) 
me," are five cursives and Theophylact. The original scribe 
of Ji^, however, reads " that strengtheneth," omitting " me," — 
the only known "authority" for this reading. Tischendorf, 
who frequently follows Ji^ where no other modern editor does, 
pays no attention to this reading. And how Westcott and Hort 
could place it in their margin as a possibly genuine reading, 
and induce the Revisers to do the same thing, is a mystery ; 
for the entire context shows that the apostle is thanking 
the Lord, not as his strengthener at the time, or even as the 
constant source of strength to him, but as the One who had 
strengthened him in the past, who had stood by him and 
bestowed upon him power and influence with men, after having 
counted him worthy of confidence, and entrusted him with the 
work of the ministry of reconciliation. (Compare 2 Tim. iv. 1 7.) 

iii. 16. 

Rec. T. }itlyoi l<rr\ to rffi cv<rcP<Cas y.v(rr(\piov ' Q(6i {<|>avcpu6t) — 
great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest. 

Rev. T. fx^'ya ivri to Tf]s eio'cPcCas jiu(rTT|piov • os 4^avcpu6Tj — great 
is the mystery of go<lliness; He who was manifested. 

In connection with this, the Revisers give the marginal note, 
"The word Go^, in place of //e who, rests on no sufficient 




ancient evidence. Some ancient authorities read which " ; i.e. 
some ancient documents have o, quod, instead of os, qui. The 
received reading is attested by a twelfth-century corrector of 
X, a modern emendator of A, C third hand, D third hand, K, 
L, P, most of the cursives, the Georgian and Slavonic Versions, 
(Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Didymus, Chrysostom, 
Pseudo-Athanasius, Euthalius, Theodoret, Severus of Antioch, 
John of Damascus, Theophylact, CEcumenius, and others. The 
revised reading is that of J< first hand, A first hand apparently, 
C first hand, the Greek texts of F and G, 17, 73, 181, the 
Peshito Syriac, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Mem- 
phitic, the Thebaic, Piatt's Ethiopic, Origen according to his 
Latin interpreter, Epiphanius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euthe- 
rius, Cyril, and others. The Revisers' marginal reading, o, is 
the reading of D, the Old Latin versions ol d,f,g, the Vulgate, 
Gelasius of Cyzicus (a.d. 476), the Latin Fathers generally, in- 
cluding Hilary, Augustine, Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, and others. 
Besides these, there are several versions whose reading may 
represent either the masculine 0% or the neuter o, as the text 
of the Philoxenian Syriac, Erpenius' Arabic, the Armenian, 
and the Roman Ethiopic. Of the three readings, it may be 
unhesitatingly said that o is not genuine. It is a variation of 
OS, due to the difficulty of making the latter refer back to the 
neuter noun /xvo-TiJpiov. As such, it supports the reading os. 
The same grammatical difficulty probably led to the changing 
of DC, the uncial form of os, into 0C, the usual abbreviated 
form of 0£os as it appears in the earlier uncials. This change 
would be favored, certainly, by the fact that the statements 
which follow are evidently predications respecting Christ, who 
was in the beginning with God, and was God. That os is the 
true reading, seems evident from the preponderating external 
testimony in its favor. In addition to this, it is the hardest 
reading of the three. If ©to? or o had been the original read- 
ing, there is no likelihood that any copyist would have converted 
either of them into a masculine pronoun to represent a neuter 



noun. Again, while it may seem impossible to a superficial 
reader that the Apostle Paul should have written or dictated os 
in this connection, this construction, as we have already seen, 
is exactly after his manner of writing.' The wording, /jLva-r-qpiov 
... OS t'o-Ti ;^io-To's, " of this mystery, which is Christ " in you, 
etc. (Col. i. 27), is precisely what he gives us here. The 
only exception that we take to the Revisers' work is that they 
have given us a most wretched rendering after having cor- 
rected the Greek text. Instead of the bungling translation, 
"Great is the mystery of godliness; He who," etc., the reader 
ought to have found, " Great is the mystery of godliness, which 
was manifested in the flesh," in accordance with the rendering 
given in Col. i. 27 ; or, which we should prefer to see, " Great 
is the mystery of godliness, even Christ, who was manifested 
in the flesh," etc. This not only expresses the apostle's mean- 
ing, but does it in clear, intelligible English. 

Rec. T. Koiriufuv Kal ovci8it<i)u6a, — we labor, and suffer reproach. 
Rev. T. Komutuv Kal d'Yuvi((S)u6a, — we labor and strive. 

The common reading here is attested by the seventh-century 
corrector of X> D, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the Latin ver- 
sions of D, F, G, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian 
Syriac, the Memphitic, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, 
Chrysostom again and again, Euthalius, Theodoret, John Dam- 
ascene, Ambrosiaster, and others. The Revisers' word " to 
strive " is supported by the original scribe of Ji^, who is noted 
for his innumerable careless readings, by A, C, K, the Greek 
texts of F and G, less than ten cursives, and Cyril, but not by 
a single ancient version. The indications are that, if this read- 
ing is not a mere transcriber's blunder in hastily taking the 
unfamiliar ONElAi^o/nt^a to be the familiar A flJJN if d/it^a, 
which is by no means improbable, and which we believe to 

' See Notes on Eph. i. 14 and Col. i. 27. 



have really been the case, it is an early adaptation of the text 
to Col. i. 29, where the apostle speaks of " laboring and striving " 
though in a different way. There it was perfectly natural for 
him to speak of laboring and striving to present every man 
perfect in Christ, according to the ability which God gave him 
for doing it. But here it is not up to the apostle's manner and 
meaning to say that " because of this \_i.e. the fact that godli- 
ness affords promise of life, both now and hereafter], we /aiar 
and strive ; for we have set our hope upon the living God," 
etc. He meant more than that. Come what might, for him, 
union with Christ was life, whether in this world or in that 
to come. The consciousness of this enabled him to labor, — to 
exert himself in toilsome, painful, and continued effort, — and 
to suffer reproach, — to be willing for Christ's sake to be con- 
sidered the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things, 
as he himself, in i Cor. iv. 13, explains his meaning of the 
kindred word XotSoptio-^at, " to be reproached and despised." 
And this he could do, as he goes on to say, because his trust 
was in God, the preserver of all men, especially of believers. If, 
in place of this thought of readiness to endure reproach, we 
substitute that of simply striving, we render his language tame 
even to flatness, and out of harmony with what follows. As 
conclusive evidence that the received is the true reading, we 
point to the fact that not a single ancient version contains the 
other. Even the Latin versions of F and G are a standing 
protest against the reading of their own Greek texts. 

VI. 5. 

Rec. T. d4)C(rTa<ro diri tbv toiovtwv, — From such withdraw thyself. 
Rev. T. Omits. 

The genuineness of this clause is attested by D third hand, 
K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, Mai's Extracts, one copy of 
the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, 
Piatt's Ethiopic, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, John Dam- 



ascene, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Lucifer, and others. The 
words are wanting in J^, A, D first hand, F, G, 17, 67 second 
hand, 93, the Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic, Gothic, and Roman 
Ethiopic Versions, and Ambrose. Yet they have every appear- 
ance of being genuine. They certainly are not imported from 
any other of the apostle's writings. Their early omission is 
easily accounted for by their seeming interference with the con- 
nection. But there is no real obstruction of the thought. The 
apostle, having referred to a class of contentious, evil-minded 
persons who expected to make religion a source of gain to 
themselves, very naturally adds the brief injunction, " From such, 
withdraw " ; then, without any real break in the discourse, he 
goes on, as suggested by the preceding words : " Godliness with 
contentment, however, is great gain." A special emphasis is 
to be given to the words " is " and " great." 

vi. 7. 

Rec. T. 8<iXov 5ti oiSl I5*''*7'""-'' ''■'• 8t»vd|«9tt • — and it is certain we 
can carry nothing out. 

Rev. T. 8ti ov8( <5«v<YK<tv ti 8uvd)u6a • — for neither can we carry 
anything out. 

The first of these readings is supported by J<'s earlier seventh- 
century corrector, D second hand, K, L, P, every cursive but 
one, and apparently the Syriac Versions, — "we know that" 
etc., — also by Basil, Macarius, Euthalius, Chrysostom, The- 
odoret, and John of Damascus. Codex D first hand, has a 
similar reading, — aXyfi\<i on oiSc, " and is it true that " etc., — 
which seems to be that followed by the Vulgate and most copies 
of the Old Latin. The revised reading is attested by X first 
hand, A, F, G, 17, one copy of the Old Latin, one or two of 
the Vulgate, and the Thebaic. (The Vatican manuscript is 
defective here.) The Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic 
Versions have " and " in place of on. Polycarp, in writing to 
the Philippians, has aX\' oiSs instead of on ouSt, — " ^«/ neither 
have we anything to carry out." Cyprian three times gives the 
same reading, employing vernm in place of dXXa, — " but neither 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

can we carry anything out." The Revisers' reading is, very 
plainly, not the original reading. The aposde did not write in 
that illogical style. As for the common reading, it lacks proper 
support. It has every appearance of being a mere makeshift. 
Dr. Hort thinks that the text adopted by him and the Revisers 
is the parent of all the other readings. And he is probably 
right in this. But he does not claim that it presents the original 
text. On the contrary, he holds, and Dr. Westcott agrees with 
him in holding, that " a primitive [?".<?. a very early] corruption 
must lurk somewhere." ' But when he attempts to account for 
the difficulty by supposing that on arose, in transcribing, out of 
" an accidental repetition of the last two letters of [the preced- 
ing] K^/xov," by reading -ov as on, i.e. by not repeating ov, he 
is wide of the mark ; and Dr. Westcott wisely withholds his 
assent. The truth evidently is that on is a very early tran- 
scriptional error for In, made possibly in taking a copy from the 
autograph itself. Nothing would be easier than to mistake G T I 
for Oil ; and the error once made at such a time, the true 
reading would naturally be lost. It is like printing " selfe " for 
" selle " from Shakespeare's manuscript of Macbeth, referred to 
in our introduction ; or printing " strain at," in Matt, xxiii. 24, 
for the "strain out" of the manuscript of King James's Re- 
visers • or giving " He" in Matt, xxiii. 39, in the Anglo-Amer- 
ican Revisers' " Parallel New Testament," for the " Ye " which 
their manuscript called for. Restoring In here for o'n, we have 
the very natural and proper reading, even though it be a pro- 
divior scriptio, " For we brought nothing into the world ; nor 
y,t can we carry anything out." The apostle employs In as in 
Acts ii 26 • "And moreover, my flesh also shall rest m hope. 
So too, in I Cor. iii. 2, " For ye were not previously able to 
belr it ■ yea, ye are not for that matter even now able ; for ye 
■ are still carnal." (Compare also Matt. xxvi. 65, -"besides 
this " ; Matt, xviii. 16, - " more " or " in addition " ; and Heb. 

xi. 32, 36-) ^ 

> Notes on Select Readings, p. 134. 


Rec. T. atrio-ToXos Kal SiSdo-KoXos WviJv, — an apostle, and a teacher 
of the Gentiles. 

Rev. T. air6oToXos Kal SiSdo-KoXot. — an apostle, and a teacher. 

The Revisers' reading is found in only two Greek manu- 
scripts, — X '""'St hand, and A ; yet this is viewed by Tisch- 
endorf and Westcott and Hort as authoritative testimony. 
Codex 1 7, which usually sides with these documents, omits 
iQvCiv ; but, as it reads Siaxovos, " a minister," instead of StSd- 
o-KoAos, its testimony respecting iQviav is of but little weight! 
The received reading, which is accepted as genuine by Gries- 
bach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, and modern editors 
generally, is strongly attested by the early seventh-century 
corrector of X> C, D, E, F, G, K, L, P, every cursive but one, 
all the Latin Versions, both Syriac Versions, both Egyptian, the 
Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, — in fact, all the ancient 
versions as well as Fathers who quote or refer to the passage. 
Yet, because the apostle in his first epistle to Timothy speaks 
of himself as " an apostle and a teacher of the Gentiles," some 
modern editors think that, in view of the testimony of the two 
oldest known Greek manuscripts, the testimony of all the other 
documents should pass for nothing, and the additional word be 
regarded as having been introduced from the apostle's first 
epistle. Thus, Tischendorf, in assigning his reason for omitting 
the word, says, " In view of this testimony, it seems clear that 
the additional word should not be retained, since it was so easy 
to transfer it hither from i Tim. ii. 7, when Paul's epistles were 



THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

first brought out together. It is also to be considered," he 
adds, " that, as the apostle progressed in his writing, there was 
no need of adding iOvwv in the same way in both places." 
This idea of an easy transference of language from one place 
to another by scribes or critical readers governed Tischendorfs 
judgment in too many instances, and led to the frequent vitia- 
tion of his text. It is far safer to regard the absence of iOvutv 
from the three manuscripts in which it is wanting as due to 
misjudgment, ignorance, or carelessness on the part of some 
early reader or scribe than to consider the word a spurious 
reading. Its presence is certainly needed to express the apos- 
tle's meaning. And the fact that he employed it in one epistle 
is the very reason why we might expect him to employ it 
again in precisely similar circumstances in a subsequent epistle. 
This really seems to be one of those instances in which we 
need to bear in mind Tischendorfs wiser words as elsewhere 
expressed : " In spite of the great preference to be given to 
our oldest Greek manuscripts, we must not overlook the fact 
that sometimes those opposed to them, and centuries later, have 
at the same time the authority of much older versions and 
Fathers." * In other words, as Dr. Ezra Abbot says, " though 
the presumption is in favor of the oldest manuscripts, mere 
antiquity cannot prove the excellence of a copy," or of a read- 
ing.' It is hardly possible that iOvZv, if spurious, should not 
have been omitted in some one, at least, of the ancient versions 
or early Fathers. 

ii. 18. 

The only ancient witnesses in support of the marginal read- 
ing, "a resurrection," — "saying that there has already been 
a resurrection," — are J^, F, G, and 17. The omission of the 
article is a palpable error, rendering the clause meaningless ; 

> Herzog's Encydoptdia, article, " Bibel-Text : — the N. T." 
* Schaff-Herzog, Encycl. (3d ed.). Vol. i., p. 278. 



for, in the first place, the apostle did not preach a resurrection, 
as an indefinite, or local and partial affair. He preached the 
resurrection of all. Acts xvii. 18; xxiv. 15. Then again, it is 
incredible that he meant to represent Hymenaeus and Philetus 
as being such simpletons as to claim that an occurrence had 
taken place, like a general resurrection of the dead, which of 
necessity would be universally known because of its wide-spread 
character, and yet was one that nobody had heard of. Much 
less can it be supposed that, if the apostle wrote "a resur- 
rection," he meant a resurrection of certain individuals, — a 
circumstance which no one denies, and which there is no harm 
or heresy in saying. But he doubdess did represent Hymenaeus 
and Philetus as claiming that the resurrection had already passed, 
— meaning thereby, all the resurrection that there was to be, — 
the alleged and generally supposed future resurrection. Their 
heresy was the same as that to which the aposde refers in 
I Cor. XV. 1 2. And to express this thought affirmatively, the 
article is a necessary part of the text. So that its omission is 
plainly not to be referred to the aposde. Yet this omission 
is regarded and accepted by Tischendorf as presenting the 
genuine reading ; it is also preferred by Tregelles and Westcott 
and Hort as more likely to be the true reading than that of the 
text because it is the more difficult of the two, while the article 
is given a place in their margins, as only a possibly genuine 

iv. 17. 

It must have been through oversight that the plural oKouo-ciMnv 
was not adopted here in place of aKouVr;, " might hear." It is 
true, the change would not have affected the rendering in the 
least. But the plural is attested by X, A, C, D, E, F, G, P, 17, 
and about ten other cursives, Eusebius, Euthalius, and others ; 
while the singular is supported by K, L, most of the cursives, 
Chrysostom, a manuscript of Euthalius, Theodoret, John Dam- 
ascene, and possibly one or two others. It is true that the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Singular ,s m accordance with the apostle's usual mode of 
^vr.tmg, and is probably what he wrote. But then, what be- 
omes of the "authorities"? and where is the consistency of 
chang,ng Rom^„. ^4, and not changing x Tim. v. .5, or . Tim. 
IV. 1 7 ?_ See Note on Rom. ii. 14. 


Rec. T. apxatt Kal ijouo-tois — to principalities and powers. 
Rev. T. d(>\ais iJouo-Cois — to rulers, to authorities. 

The conjunction is preserved in D third hand, E second 
hand, K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, the Latin versions of D, 
E, F, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Memphitic, the Armenian, the Ethiopia, Basil twice, Chrysostom, 
Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, Lucifer, Jerome, Am- 
brosiaster, and others. It is wanting in ^, A, C, the Greek of 
D by its first hand, the Greek texts of E and F, both texts 
of G, 17, 31, and 67. The use of d/)^?? and i^ova-Ca together is 
one of frequent occurrence in the apostle's letters ; but nowhere 
else does he use them connectedly without a conjunction, 
except in Eph. vi. 12, where in his deliberate and emphatic 
manner he repeats, instead, the previous preposition before the 
second of these and two other nouns. It was not his way 
to employ these words as the Revised Text represents him to 
have done. The omission of Kai was an early error, evidently 
introduced in consequence of the preceding dpXAIs, leaving 
the impression upon the careless scribe that he had penned 
the word when he had not ; and though the error is pre- 
served in the oldest extant manuscripts, it was afterwards 
corrected in some of them, and it vitiates none of the versions 
except that of G, which is only what might be expected. As 
long as we have abundant authority for retaining KaC, it seems 
hardly worth while to misrepresent the apostle's manner of 
speaking because a few evidently vitiated manuscripts do it 



THE revisers' GREEK TEXT, preposition where there is none in the G eek 
and greatly relieves the asperity of the new reading. ' 


Verse 6. 

This verse, as rendered by the Revisers, reads, "That the 
fellowship of thy faith may become effectual, in the knowledge 
of every good thing which is in you, unto Christ." The ancient 
documents are nearly equally divided here between " you," of 
the text, and the marginal reading, "us." The former is sup- 
ported by J^, F, G, P, a large number of cursives, perhaps the 
majority of them, the Clementine Vulgate, two or three copies 
of Jerome's, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, 
Theophylact, and Primasius. The latter is attested by A, C, D, 
E, K, L, about fifty cursives, most of the manuscripts of the 
Vulgate, the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, Zohrab's Armenian 
Version, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, John Damascene, 
CEcumenius, Ambrosiaster, and Pelagius. Most modern editors 
adopt or give the preference to the latter ; among whom may 
be mentioned Griesbach, Lachmann, EUicott, and Alford, as 
adopting it ; while Tregelles and Westcott and Hort insert it 
in the text, but place " you " in the margin as a secondary 
reading. Tischendorf, in his last edition, adopts "you" in 
accordance with the accepted reading and the Revisers' Text. 
Bat most editors are against him. The true reading, however, 
is not to be decided by the testimony of documents. It can 
be decided only by knowing, if possible, the apostle's meaning. 
In the midst of a context where a single individual is addressed, 
and " thou," " thy," " thee," is the word employed, it seems 
hardly probable at first sight that the apostle would introduce 
the plural " you " instead. Hence, Meyer and others decide 



THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

for "us," denoting Christians generally; and conclude that 
" you," or rather v/miv, is a transcriptional error for ^ixlv, " us," 
the more easily made because of the scribe's remembering that 
in verse 2 the apostle had mentioned others besides Philemon, 
and in verse 3 addressed them as " you," — " Grace to you, 
and peace," etc. That Meyer's interpretation of the passage 
is a failure in several respects, there can be no doubt. Hence, 
his judgment concerning the true reading, as between "you" 
and " us," is of little worth. Our own belief at first was that 
" us " is the true reading ; but the more we consider the passage, 
and the better we understand what seems to be the apostle's 
aim in verses 4-7, the more we are convinced that " you " is, 
after all, the right word. That aim is evidently to prepare the 
way for introducing the subject of Onesimus' return, and for 
pleading with Philemon on his behalf. The meaning of these 
verses, as it presents itself to us, without going into details, 
may be briefly given as follows : " I thank my God (always 
making mention of thee in my prayers when I hear of the faith 
which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and of thy love for all 
the saints), that the communication [the sharing of what thou 
hast with others, which is but one of the fruits] of thy faith 
should become effective for Christ in a hearty recognition [on 
thy part] of every good thing [whether person, or deed, or word, 
or undertaking] among you. For I have had much joy and 
comfort in consequence of [literally, based upon] thy love, be- 
cause the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through thee, 
brother." This commendation of Philemon for exercising an 
unselfish benevolence towards the saints and in behalf of every 
Christian effort among them, with which the apostle closes this 
introductory paragraph of his letter, seems to call unmistakably 
for " among you " at the close of verse 6. For the apostle 
would very naturally, in addressing Philemon, speak of his fellow 
Christians at Colosse, or wherever Philemon lived, under the 
term " you," from the fact that Philemon was one of them. 


Verse 10. 


Rec. T. Iv Tots 8f<r|iois jiou, — in my bonds. 
Rev. T. iv Tots 8e<rjiois — in my bonds. 

We see no good reason for omitting the pronoun from the 
text here. Its presence is attested by the early seventh-century 
corrector of X, C, D third hand, E, K, L, P, nearly all the 
cursives, tlie Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, 
the Armenian, the Ethiopic, — in short, all the ancient versions 
except the Latin, — Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, John 
Damascene, and other Greek Fathers. It is wanting in ^ first 
hand. A, D first hand, F, G, 1 7, and three other cursives, the 
Vulgate, and of course Jerome, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, and other 
Latin Fathers. It is not essential to expressing the thought in 
the Greek ; and for this very reason it may have been dropped 
by some early scribe. At all events, its retention in the text 
would not have interfered in the least with the Revisers' legiti- 
mate work ; and, in fact, the reading of the R. V. implies that 
it is retained. 

Verse 25. 

The "many ancient authorities" that read "the Lord," or 
rather, that omit "our," are K, P, 17, 3h 47, 116, and the 
Philoxenian Syriac and Armenian Versions. The fact is scarcely 
worthy of being noted, and probably would not have been, but 
that Westcott and Hort remove the word from the text, and 
consign it to the margin. — The note on the omission, by some, 
of " Amen," at the end of the verse, is also made for a similar 
reason, and is equally needless. It is true, the word does not 
even appear in Westcott and Hort, in either margin or text, 
though it is quite as strongly attested as the other. 


i. 8. 

In the marginal note, the reader is told that the two oldest 
manuscripts read " his kingdom," where all other documents 
have " thy kingdom." But this does not tell half the story. 
If we were asked why these manuscripts read thus, we should be 
constrained to say, because some scribe either misunderstood, 
or sought to pervert, the writer's meaning. Instead of reading 
6 Oeds as a compellative, " O God," he read the verse thus : 
" But as to the Son he saith, God is thy throne for ever and 
ever ; the sceptre of his kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness." 
This reading, which has no support but that of the Sinaitic and 
Vatican manuscripts, Westcott and Hort adopt. It is not the 
reading of the Septuagint (Psa. xlv. 6), whose readings the 
writer of this epistle so closely followed throughout, nor is it 
in harmony with, or up to the level of, his argument, which is 
to set forth the superiority and supremacy of the Son of God 
over the highest of created intelligences. The principle with 
Westcott and Hort, which evidently led to the introduction of 
this marginal note, is that, aside from the palpably false read- 
ings of X and B in Mark iv. 21, Gal. ii. 12, Jas. i. 17, Rev. xviii. 
21, and possibly a few "indecisive coincidences" between these 
manuscripts, no readings of X. ^t can safely be rejected abso- 
lutely, — a principle which no one can adhere to without pre- 
senting a more or less vitiated text. It absurdly assumes that 
the scribes of these texts were all but infallible, and that every 
other manuscript, every ancient version, every patristic writer 
that quotes the passage, errs in giving the reading of the text. 



1. 12. 

Rec. T. <lo-€l irepiP<5Xaiov iXCJtis auTovs, — as a vesture shall thou 
fold them up. 

Rev. T. uo-el irjpip<iXoiov {Xfjtis avTois, ws ludriov, — as a mantle 
shall thou roll Ihem up, as a garment 

The received reading (without addition) is according to D 
second hand, K, L, M, P, all the cursives, the Latin version 
of F, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the 
Memphitic, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, and others. 
The revised is the reading of ^5, A, B, D first hand, one manu- 
script of the Vulgate, the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions. 
Lachmann adopts the latter reading; Tregelles gives it the 
preference, still admitting that the other may be the true read- 
ing ; while Westcott and Hort, in adopting it, connect (i liLa.Twv 
with what follows, and read, " As a mantle shalt thou roll them 
together ; as a garment they shall also be changed." That it 
is a false reading is obvious. The phrase "as a garment" 
comes in very appropriately in verse 11:" They all shall wax 
old as doth a garmentr But here, in verse 1 2, it is out of place, 
so that editors hardly know what to do with it. The Revisers 
connect it with the preceding clause. But it is a bungling, 
superfluous addition there. Westcott and Hort connect it with 
the following verb, but not as the scribe of E did, by placing 
it after Kai, for he saw that otherwise the conjunction would be 
misplaced and the words rendered meaningless ; for nothing is 
previously spoken of as being " changed." If the verb were 
" shall wax old," — the word that is used in verse 11, — there 
might be some propriety in having rat follow ok I/mitiov, and 
reading, "As a garment they shall also grow old." But what 
settles the whole question is the fact that the writer is quoting 
from Psa. cii. 25-27, closely following the Septuagint Version 
here as elsewhere ; and in that connection the phrase appears 
only as it is given here inverse 11. The expression was, no 
doubt, transferred by some eady reader from the preceding 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

verse to the margin as a possible explanation of the meaning 
of the phrase wdo. iripij36Xaiov ; and some one, afterwards 
copying from this, and supposing the words to be a part of the 
text, inserted them as best he could. And so it comes down to 
us in a few old manuscripts, while the genuine text is preserved 
in earlier versions and later manuscripts. Notwithstanding the 
testimony of the oldest known manuscripts, Tischendorf, with 
all his partiality for J^, adheres to the received reading, as do 
Meyer and others. 

iii. i6. 

The Revisers, as well as a number of modern editors and com- 
mentators, take the first word of this verse as the interrogative 
T^vc';, " who? " instead of the indefinite pronoun rii/t'?, " some ; " 
and consequently place an interrogation point, instead of a 
colon or a semicolon, after the word " provoke." This either 
makes the ydp that introduces the verse meaningless and useless, 
or compels us to take it as a mere emphatic expletive, equiva- 
lent to " why," " forsooth," or some such word, — " Why, who 
did provoke?" But, by so doing, we obtain a harsh, unnatural 
construction, altogether unlike anything else in the epistle. 
Besides, there is no need of it. On the contrary, the common 
reading, properly understood, seems to present the writer's 
thoughts connectedly and clearly, giving the following forcible, 
conclusive, and apparently satisfactory argument : We are made 
partakers of Christ, if we really hold the beginning of our 
confidence firm unto the end, while it is said, To-day if ye 
hear his voice, harden not your hearts as was done in the 
provocation. That is, we have become partakers through Christ 
of an inheritance in heaven if we firmly maintain from first to 
last our confidence and trust in him as long as we are privileged 
to hear God's warning voice, and do not harden our hearts and 
provoke him by distrusting him, as the Israelites did in the 
wilderness. For some of them, when they heapd, did provoke 
him. Yea, did not all who. came out of Egypt by Moses 



do this? Yes, nearly all. And with whom was he displeased 
during those forty years? Was it not with them that had 
sinned? — and so on to verse 19, where we find that those who 
failed to enter into rest, failed " because of unbelief" as we 
read in Num. xiv. They were not, so to speak, " made par- 
takers of Christ," because they did not " hold the beginning 
of their confidence firm unto the end," as they might have 
done. The argument in its course passes from the affirmative 
declaration of verse 14 to the negative statement with which it 
concludes in verse 19. And this it does without harshness, 
without a break, and as far as we can see, without any real 
ground of perplexity. 

Rec. T. (It) (Tu-yKCKpaiilvof — not being mixed. 

Rev. T. [11] o-vYKiKcpao-fi^vovs — because they were not united. 

The first of these readings is attested by Ji$, 13, 31, 37, 41, 
114, the Latin versions of D and E, the Clementine Vulgate, 
three copies of Jerome's, the Peshito Syriac, Erpenius' Arabic, 
Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and Lucifer. The other, in 
one of its varying forms with uniform ending, is supported by 
A, B, C, D, E, K, L, M, P, most of the cursives, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, FZuthalius, Macarius, Chrysostom, Photius, Theoph- 
ylact, CEcumenius, and others. The entire clause, according 
to the Canterbury Revisers' rendering, reads thus : " But the 
word of hearing did not profit them, because they were not 
united by faith with them that heard." This, the younger 
Buttmann calls a " hermeneutically difficult " reading. It is 
rejected by Tischendorf, the American Revisers, and some of 
the ablest of modern commentators, as an impossible reading. 
One of the English Revisers, in attempting to explain it, says, 
" Its meaning appears to be, The word of the message did 
not profit those to whom it was preached, because they were not 
united by faith (not made one in heart) with those who heard 
the message (viz. Moses and the Prophets [or, as others have 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

it, Joshua and Caleb]), and preached it." Another of them 
says, in reference to the passage, "Overwhelming critical 
evidence compels us to accept the somewhat strange rendering 
of the R. V. Many critics of high name have been tempted 
to abide by the apparently far simpler and more satisfactory 
reading which is represented in the A. V. ; but faithfulness to 
the laws of evidence and grammar will not permit of such a 
course." ' But he does not venture on an explanation of the 
meaning of this overwhelmingly attested reading. There cer- 
tainly is nothing in the laws of grammar that will not permit 
our accepting the reading of the Received Text; neither is 
there in the laws of evidence, or in our faithfulness to those 
laws. In the first place, our intuitive discernment, or what some 
might call common sense, assures us that the reading repre- 
sented by the A. V. is not only a " more satisfactory reading," 
but, apart from all documentary evidence, one that commends 
itself as more probably the true reading than the other. In 
the next place, it is not a reading without any external evidence 
to support it. It is not a conjectural reading. So far, then, 
we are not unfaithful to the laws of evidence. " No ; but the 
evidence is insufficient." Are we sure of that? What if the 
last syllable, -ovs, of the Revisers' word should be a transcrip- 
tional blunder for -os ? What would the " overwhelming critical 
evidence" be worth? Simply nothing. Yet this is just what 
that reading is, — an error to which the preceding eVctvovs prob- 
ably gave rise ; one of a class of errors abounding in all the 
manuscripts more or less. If faithfulness to the laws of evi- 
dence requires us to adopt such readings when they occur 
mainly or wholly in the older manuscripts, why not be consistent 
and faithful in following all false readings found in those manu- 
scripts? We are not to stultify ourselves when judging of the 
value of documentary evidence, any more than when we are in 
the jury-box, weighing the evidence presented to us in a court 

1 Roberts : Companion of the K. V., p. 35. 



of justice. The reading of the Received Text here, testified 
to by X> ^id by the Peshito Syriac, the most ancient of all our 
witnesses, is, no doubt, the genuine reading. The words tois 
oKowacriv, however, should be rendered, " upon their hearing 
it," or, " when they heard it " ; for, according to classic rather 
than general New-Testament usage, these words are temporally 
subordinate to the clause, jm) o-vyKiKpafulvcyi ttJ ttCcttci, "not 
having been mixed with (or, accompanied by) faith." ' Taking 
the words thus, they afford a plain and conclusive reason why 
the word preached proved unprofitable : " The word addressed 
to the ear did not profit them [^i.e. those just referred to], as it 
was not mixed with faith when they heard it." Dr. Hort's 
objection to this reading, that it identifies " them " with tois 
aKouo-acriv, which thus, he says, " becomes a superfluous and at 
the same time ambiguous repetition," is by no means trans- 
parent. Where the ambiguity lies, it is hard to see. And how 
it can be called a superfluous repetition, if properly understood, 
it is equally difficult to discover. As already indicated, the 
American Revisers did not unite with their British co-laborers 
in this change. They stand by the Received Text. 

A marginal note says, " Some ancient authorities read flte 
teaching of" in place of " of the teaching of" That is, B and 
d, the Latin Version of D, make " teaching," like " foundation," 
the object of the participle translated " laying." The Latin 
Version e, accompanying Codex E, instead of doctrinam, the 
reading of d, has the ablative, doctrina, meaning " with the 
teaching of baptisms." All other manuscripts and versions 
have the reading of the text, — " of the teaching (or doctrine) 
of baptisms." It seems hardly proper to suppose that the true 
reading of any ordinary passage could have been preserved in 

> Compare Heb. vi. 6, vii. i, etc., and Buttmann, Gram, of N. T. Creek, 
§ 144. I. 2- 



a single Greek manuscript and a single copy of an old version ; 
and yet in this instance it may be. Some genuine readings, no 
doubt, have disappeared altogether from manuscripts, versions, 
and patristic writings, as far as known and examined. The 
passage before us is a peculiar one. The Greek manuscript in 
which the marginal reading appears is the oldest New-Testa- 
ment manuscript known. This manuscript is supported in this 
reading by a copy of one of the very oldest versions, which, in 
this rendering, forsakes not only every other copy of that ver- 
sion, but the Greek manuscript itself, of which it professes to 
be a translation. These facts mean something. The reading 
cannot be accounted for on the score of its being a blunder. 
In a long sentence like this, bristling with genitives, there is 
not the least probability that a transcriber should make such a 
blunder as to write an accusative for a genitive ; though the 
contrary might easily have been done. Nor is there a shadow 
of a possibility that an interpreter should translate a genitive by 
an unmeaning accusative. Neither can the two — the Greek 
accusative and the Latin accusative — fairly be regarded as 
coming from the same source, if that source is a false reading, 
especially as the Greek text (D) of which this Latin reading (d) 
professes to be a version gives no countenance to this latter 
reading. It may be said that the accusative in B is the result 
of an early tampering with the text, — a result preserved else- 
where only in //. This is the only rational way of accounting 
for it, if it is a false reading. And yet, such is its nature that, 
but for the overwhelming documentary evidence against it, it 
would be hardly possible to question its genuineness. Let us 
look at it as related to the context. In construction, as already 
observed, this accusative is to be taken as a second object of 
the participle Kara^aAXo/ievot, — unless, as the marginal note 
intimates, it should be regarded as in apposition with " founda- 
tion," — "not laying again tht fountfaiion of repentance from 
dead works, and of faith toward God, even the teaching of 
baptisms," etc. But this construction is neither allowable nor 



plausible. If this were the best that could be done, we might 
be led to reject the accusative as an unaccountably strange and 
false reading. But we go back to KaTa^oAXo/itvoi. We ques- 
tion it as to its meaning and use. It appears elsewhere in the 
New Testament only twice ; namely, in 2 Cor. iv. 9, and Rev. 
xii. 10. In both these passages it is rendered "cast down."* 
This is really its true meaning here, of which it has been de- 
prived in consequence of the presence oivaXiv, "again." The 
latter word, however, is not to be taken in the sense of " once 
more," or " a second time," as it evidently is by both King 
James's and the Canterbury Revisers. It has reference to a 
former condition of things, and denotes, with its verb, a return, 
a coming back to that previous state, though that coming back 
may not be a second return, but the first. Its use here, as in 
verse 6, is no doubt somewhat pleonastic. Properly translated, 
the writer's words mean, " Not casting down again the founda- 
tion principles of repentance from dead works and of faith in 
God \_i.e. not subverting and renouncing them, and being again 
without any ground to build on], or the teaching of baptisms, 
and of the laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the 
dead, and of eternal judgment." This makes " teaching " the 
object of "casting down," used figuratively for " rejecting," and 
gives what seems to be the very thought of the writer, who, as 
the whole context shows, is warning his readers against back- 
sliding and its consequences. The only apparent objection to 
this reading and rendering seems to be the want of the con- 
junction 17, " or," in connection with this accusative, — which, 
however, may very easily have been lost from the text through 
a misunderstanding of the writer's meaning. Another thing 
that gives strong color to this as the true reading is the fact 
that Qt^kXiov is thereby made to refer only to repentance and 

1 In Rev. xii. 10, the Revisers have followed the majority of other 
modern editors, and adopted the simple instead of the compound verb 
in their Greek text, though in their Version they retain " cast down," the 

rendering of the rejected compound verb. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

faith as the fundamentals of the Christian life, while the other 
four things are made subjects of needful instruction, — the 
first two of them being matters of practice to a greater or 
less extent in the apostoHc church ; and the other two being 
truths of cardinal importance to men as believers in Christ. 
On both of these classes of subjects there was more or less 
questioning and doubt in that early day ; and believers needed 
to be taught the truth respecting them. 

If ^aTTTUTfiSiv StSaxjv is, as it appears to be, the true reading, 
it settles at once the question whether the writer means " the 
doctrine (or teaching) of baptisms," or whether, as some infer 
from the order of the words, the only meaning that his language 
will allow is " baptisms of doctrine," i.e. baptisms consequent 
upon teaching, baptisms administered after due instruction, — 
though it must be confessed it is difficult to get the latter 
meaning out of the two genitives. With an accusative, how- 
ever, for the second word of the combination, the difficulty 
disappears ; the only possible rendering to be given to the 
words is, " teaching of baptisms," instruction respecting bap- 
tisms. It decides, also, the government and construction of 
the three leading genitives that follow, all being dependent 
upon this accusative, as already shown. In a word, it clears 
up the whole passage, — which is one of the best evidences of 
its being a genuine reading. The accusative early became 
changed to a genitive through the influence of the successive 
pairs of genitives with which it stands connected. — Lachmann, 
as well as Westcott and Hort, admits SiSax>}v into the text on 
the sole documentary evidence of B and </. It is strongly 
supported, however, by internal evidence. 

viii. 8. 

The American Revisers here very properly call attention to 
what seems to be a false reading in the Received Text, which 
the Canterbury Revisers retain, namely, " finding fault wi'/A 
them." Instead of this, the American Committee suggest as a 



marginal reading, "finding fault with it" ; i.e. with the first 
covenant, which is spoken of in the preceding verse as 
not faultless. This reading is supported by the early seventh- 
century corrector of ^, B, D third hand, E, L, nearly all the 
cursives, John of Damascus, and other Greek Fathers. The 
reading of the text, which represents God as censuring his 
people, rather than expressing dissatisfaction with the Old 
Covenant, is supported by X first hand. A, D first hand, K, 
P, four cursives, the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Peshito Syriac 
Versions, Euthalius, Theodoret, and Chrysostom in one place, 
though elsewhere he favors the other reading. The corre- 
spondence between " faultless " in verse 7 and " finding fault " 
in verse 8, as well as the entire subsequent context, seems to 
leave no doubt that the true reading is the marginal reading 
suggested by the American Revisers. 

Rec. T. i v6)ia$ . . . ov8^iroT« Evvarai — the law . . . can never. 
Rev. T. 6 v(S|io$ . . . ov5^xOT« Svvavrai — the law . . . they can never. 

The English Revisers have banished the verb of the Received 
Text to the margin, with the note that some ancient authorities 
read " it can " ; i.e. " the law can never." The witnesses for 
this reading are D first and third hands (the latter correcting 
the change made by the second hand), E, H, K, L, the majority 
of the cursives, the Latin versions of D, E, and F, the Vulgate, 
the Memphitic and Bashmuric Versions, Origen, Chrysostom 
giving the text, Theodoret, and OEcumenius, who adds, " That 
is, the law can never." The plural, which the Revisers have 
adopted, is found in ^, A,' C, D second hand, P, 1 7, and be- 
tween thirty and forty other cursives, Chrysostom in two other 
instances, Euthalius, John Damascene, and Theophylact. Dr.. 

1 Codex B is defective in the rest of this epistle, as well as in the epistles 
to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and in the Apocalypse. The B of the 
Apocalypse is a manuscript by a later hand. 



Hort very strangely says,' "The analogies of ix. 9, x. 11 (the 
sacrifices) and x. 10 (the Levitical priest, answering to the true 
High Priest) are in favor of SuVavrai." But, finding it " diffi- 
cult to think that we have the text quite complete," he proceeds 
to give several changes, in order, if possible, to make SuVavTai a 
suitable reading. In all this. Dr. Westcott is unable to agree 
with him. And justly ; for these passages represent the sacri- 
fices, not the priests, as unable to make the worshippers perfect, 
just as the singular, Suvarai, does here : " The law . . . can 
never, with the same sacrifices year after year, . . . make per- 
fect," etc. But, with the plural, it is not the sacrifices but the 
Levitical priests that are represented as unable to accomplish 
the work : "The law having a shadow of the good things to 
come, . . . they [i.e. the priests] can never with the same sacri- 
fices . . . make perfect them that draw nigh." This reading 
not only shows Dr. Hort's remarks to be somewhat inconsid- 
erate, but makes the writer speak entirely out of harmony with 
his teachings elsewhere. Nor is this all. It renders purpose- 
less and unmeaning the clause preceding. Why this reference 
to the law as a shadow of good things to come, if it is not the 
observance and work of the law that is about to be spoken of? 
According to this reading, however, the Levitical priests ought 
to have been referred to as shadows, rather than the law and 
its rites. — Still other considerations might be urged to show 
that the Received Text presents the original reading. But 
these are not necessary. There can hardly be a question in 
the mind of any impartial judge respecting the plural hvvavrai. 
It is too plainly erroneous, — occasioned by the foregoing 
■7rpoa<f>ipov,Tiv, " they offer." The fact that it is attested by the 
three oldest known manuscripts ought not, in view of all the 
circumstances, to have a feather's weight. And so Tischendorf, 
the American Revisers, and others who adopt the singular are 
forced to conclude. 

1 Select Readings, p. 131. 



X. 34- 

Rec. T. •tjx.viiiiTKovni ixtxv iv Javrots — knowing in yourselves that ye 

Rev. T. "yivwo-KovTts ix^v iavrovs — knowing that ye yourselves have. 

The marginal reading, " that ye have for yourselves," is to 
be preferred here to that of the text, either the Received or 
the Revised. The received reading, indeed, is unsupported 
except by a few cursives. It is an obvious interpretation of 
cavrois, the marginal reading, and is of comparatively recent 
date. The Revisers' iavrov^ is attested by X» A, H, five cursives, 
the Memphitic Version, Clement of Alexandria, and Euthalius. 
The Latin versions of D, E, F, and the Vulgate read vos, 
though this does not properly represent the reflexive of the 
Greek. In like manner, the Paschal Chronicle substitutes u/tSj 
for tavTous. These readings clearly indicate that, on the part 
of those who made them, there was a sense of the unfitness of 
vosmet, vos ipsos, or eavrous in this connection. And so there 
is. There is nothing in the context to call for the emphatic 
reading, " Knowing that -^^ yourselves have a better possession." 
But, as the writer had just addressed his readers as having 
joyfully submitted to being robbed of their goods, he very 
naturally added that they did this under the consciousness that 
they had/(?r themselves, or still remaining to themselves, a better 
possession, and one that would abide by them. It was simply 
because the force of the dative here was not perceived that it 
was early changed to the accusative. And this reading, by 
having been transmitted to us in the two oldest extant Greek 
manuscripts, is thrust into the text as the true one. The sim- 
ple dative tavroZs is attested as genuine by D, E, K, L, about 
seventy cursives, Chrysostora, Isidore, Theodoret, John Damas- 
cene, and Theophylact. It is adopted by Griesbach, Matthaei, 
Delitzsch, Alford, and others. Instead of standing in the mar- 
gin, it ought to have its rightful place in the text, as it has in 
editions embodying the readings and renderings preferred by 
the American Committee of Revisers. 



XU. 3- 

Rec. T. iiri rfiv aiiaprcuXuf ets avrAv dynXoYCav, — contradiction 
of sinners against himself. 

Rev. T. virA tcov ofuipruXwv tts lavrous dvriXo'ylav, — gainsaying of 
sinners against themselves. 

We have here another change in the text for which the 
English Revisers alone are responsible. — The first of these 
varying readings, under the different forms of avroV, avrov, and 
lavTov (for the manuscripts present the reflexive under all 
these forms), is attested by A, D third hand, E second hand, 
K, L, P, nearly every cursive, the Latin version of F, the Clem- 
entine Vulgate, several copies of Jerome's, the Memphitic Ver- 
sion, Chrysostom, John Damascene, and others. The Revisers' 
reading, under the forms of eaurous and avrov:, is supported by 
J5, D first hand, E first hand, 1 7, four copies of the Vulgate, 
the Peshito Syriac, Euthalius, and Theodoret. The Syriac 
Version translates very freely, " Consider how much he suffered 
from sinners, those who were enemies of their own life ; " /.<r. 
their own enemies. While the received reading is perfectly 
appropriate, and harmonizes with the preceding line of thought, 
this revised reading introduces an idea altogether out of har- 
mony with the context. It carries upon its face the stamp not 
merely of improbability but of counterfeit currency. On this 
ground, and only on this, it is rejected by Lachmann, Tregelles, 
Tischendorf, Alford, the American Committee of Revisers, and 
others. But Westcott and Hort cling to it because of its 
npparent antiquity ; and through them it appears in the Re- 
vised Text. Another of the English Revisers tries to explain 
the expression " against themselves " by saying, " ' Sinners 
against their own souls,' as we read in Num. xvi. 38." But 
this is not a parallel passage ; for here the meaning is that the 
censers of "the two hundred and fifty men that offered in- 
cense " were " hallowed," consecrated to the Lord, and became 
a witness against them, a standing memorial in the presence 



Of the Israelites of the sin by which they perished. The read- 
ing adopted by the Revisers did not originate in carelessness, 
as some may suppose, but in a misinterpretation, through igno- 
rance, of the writer's meaning. This is evident from the ren- 
dermg tn vobis, which appears in the Latin versions accompany- 
ing U and E. This tells the whole story. It shows that the 
readmg kavTovi arose from connecting that word with " ye " the 
subject of the verb "consider," and of " become weary" fol- 
lowing immediately after. And the meaning thus intended to 
be given to the verse was, " Consider a,nong yourselves him 
that endured such contradiction of sinners, lest ye become 
wearied in your souls unto fainting." But it was not generally 
so understood. And very properly, because such a distortion 
of the apostle's language as this construction calls for is by no 
means admissible. The order of his words forbids it. 

xii. 7. 

Rec. T. (t iraiStCov 4-iro(UveT«, — If ye endure chastening. 

Rev. T. fls T-atSetov iiro(ifv€T€ • — It is for chastening that ye endure. 

The common reading, «', is attested only by a large number 
of cursives, Euthalius, and Theophylact. The other («5) is 
attested by all the uncials, more than fifty cursives, the Vul- 
gate, and virtually the Peshito Syriac, Memphitic, Thebaic, and 
Armenian Versions. Codex D, however, connects «s ,ratS«W 
with the preceding words : " But he scourgeth every son whom 
he receiveth for chastening" ; then puts the following iiro/x^ere 
in the aorist imperative, i-rofj^uvaTc, "endure." Some of the 
Latin versions translate the words in disciplina ; some, in 
disciplinam : and one at least, in doctrinam. The reading 
evidently troubled the ancients, as it does our modern critics 
and interpreters. Let us, then, look at the other reading for a 
moment or two. It is true, the documentary evidence in favor 
of this is comparatively weak. But it is not quite so feeble 
relatively as that calling for " strain out a gnat," in our English 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Version, in which the documentary evidence — authorized, too, 
at that — in support of " strain at a gnat," is of the most 
voluminously overwhelming character. But let us suppose that 
£1 may be the true reading. How does it fit in? It makes 
verse 7 begin (A.-V.), " If ye endure chastening" ; while verse 8 
begins, " But if ye be without chastening," etc. That is to say. 
If, on one supposition, ye are chastened, ye may infer thus and 
so ; but if, on the other hand, ye are not chastened, ye may 
come to another and very different conclusion. So far, then, 
as to whether €t or tis be the true reading, the writer's argu- 
ment leaves us very little room to doubt The word "endure," 
however, is not the best word by which to bring out his mean- 
ing in iirojuicV£T£. This word literally means to remain under, 
then to continue patiently or without chafing under, to remam 
under and be submissive to. Now, by giving this rendering to 
v-n-ofiivcTt, and reading d in connection with it, we have what 
we may consider, without doubt, the writer's thought as well as 
his words. To show this the more clearly, we give the two 
verses together : " If ye continue submissive under chastening, 
God is dealing with you as with sons. For what son is there 
whose father does not chasten him? But if ye are [/.^. if ye 
continue, or are left] without chastening, ye are not dealt with 
as sons, — ye are not sons, ye are not genuine children." The 
internal evidence thus makes it conclusively clear that "if" is 
the true reading. The other is an early transcriber's error. 

zii. 18. 

Rec. T. +tiXa+w|Uvs> fip«i, koI wkovii^v*. irvp£, — unto the mount 
that might be touched, and that burned with fire. 

Rev. T. +Ti\a<|.«|i€va. Kal KCKavjiivi?, — unto a mount that might 
be touched, and that burned with fire. 

The presence of opti, as a part of the text, is attested by 
D, K, L, nearly all the cursives, the Clementine Vulgate, the 
Armenian Version, Chrysostom twice, Athanasius, Theodoret, 



John Damascene, CEcumenius, and others. But the word is 
wanting in J^, A, C, 17, 47, the Latin versions accompanying D 
and F, several manuscripts of the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, 
the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Ethiopic, Erpenius' Arabic, 
Origen in one place, but not in two others aftenvards, Eutha- 
lius, Primasius, and others. If the Revisers' Greek presents 
the genuine reading here, then the translation which they have 
given to it in the text is an improper one. The Greek words 
do not call for the inserting of " a mount " in the rendering. 
The insertion of this expression obviously indicates a want of 
confidence on the part of a majority of the body of Revisers 
in their own text, the only legitimate meaning of which is, 
" unto a palpable and kindled fire," as the Revisers give it in 
the margin. But this reveals a suspicious reading ; for the 
kindling or burning of a fire naturally precedes the feeUng of it, 
not only in fact, but in the expression of the fact. It is true 
that a previous mention of opos, or of some locality, is imphed, 
in verse 19, in the words, "which voice they that heard in- 
treated," etc. This language, as well as what follows, shows 
that the preceding statements are not of a general, indefinite 
nature without any local reference, as the language of the 
revised Greek text up to that point indicates. Hence it is 
impossible to resist the conclusion that opti is a part of the 
genuine text. And this consideration may have led to the in- 
sertion of "a mount" into the R. V. But the idea does not 
inhere in, nor is it implied by, the revised Greek text. The 
conviction that opti is necessary in order to express the writer's 
thought simply indicates that the word has been omitted in 
those documents in which it is wanting. It ought to be restored 
to the text in accordance with the demands of external and 
internal evidence, its presence being essential to express the 
obvious meaning of the writer, — a tangible mountain, as op- 
posed to the intangible, spiritual Mount Zion of verse 22. 



ziii. 21. 

Rec. T. Iv iravrX tp-yu &'ya6u — in every good work. 
Rev. T. {v iravrl a-yaSu — in every good thing 

The received reading here is well attested by C, D thinl 
hand, K, M, P, the whole body of the cursives, the Peshito 
Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, Chrysostom twice, 
Theodoret twice, John Damascene, and others. Codex A 
reads, "in every good work and word," — the addition of "and 
word" having been made, apparently, from 2 Thess. ii. 17. 
The omission of €,oya. is according to S. D first hand, the Latin 
versions of 1) and F, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, Euthalius, 
Primasius, and others. Tischendorf (in accordance with his 
principle of rejecting the one of two rival readings that corre- 
sponds more or less with a genuine reading elsewhere) omits 
"work," under the idea that it must have been introduced 
from 2 Thess. ii. 17, because it is wanting in J<. Westcott 
and Hort also omit the word. But Lachmann, Tregelles, 
Alford, and others generally retain it as genuine, as in fact the 
documentary evidence demands, and as the connection,— 
" making you perfect in doing his will in every good work " or 
endeavor, — seems to require. 

Rec. T. iroiuv 4v vjiiv — working in you. 
Rev. T. iroiuv kv tj|iiv — working in us. 

This clause, following on immediately after the above, speaks 
for itself. I'he documentary testimony in regard to the reading 
is as follows : In favor of the received reading, A, C, P, most 
of the cursives, the Latin versions accompanying D and F, the 
Vulgate, Peshito Syriac, Memphitic. and Ethiopic Versions, 
Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret in citing the passage, John 
Damascene, and Theophylact. In favor of the revised, are X, 
the Greek text of D, K, M, about twenty-five cursives, the 
Armenian Version, CEcumenius in both text and comment, and 
Theodoret in commenting on the passage. But this reading, 



even if the documentary evidence preponderated in its favor 
instead of inclining strongly the other way, ought to be set 
aside as an obvious itacism originating in carelessness. The 
very connection shows that "you," not "us," is the proper 
and undoubtedly genuine reading : " Make you perfect in every 
good work to do his will, working in you that which is well- 
pleasing in his sight." The original scribe of D presents us 
with the reading " make us perfect " instead of " make you 
perfect," as well as with the reading "working in us"; and it 
is possible that both these erroneous readings originated in the 
exemplar from which Codex D was taken. The former, how- 
ever, is now found only in the Greek text of D, while the 
latter has been preserved not only in D, but in Ji{ and a few 
other kindred documents. 




i. 13. 

Rec. T. ov JirnYVctXaro i Kvptos Tois o-yair&riv o4t<v. — which the 

Lord hath promised to them that love him. 

Rev. T. ow <in]-n€lXaTO -rots a^awwiv o4t6v. — virhich the Lord 
promised to them that love him. 

The omission of 6 Kvpios appears only in J^, A, B, one cur- 
sive, one manuscript of the Old Latin, and in most editions of 
the Armenian Version. The reading of the Received Text is 
supported by C, K, L, P, almost every cursive, the Vulgate, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Ethiopic, 
the Venetian edition of the Armenian, and John Damascene 
twice, though some of these versions, and four or five cursives, 
read "God" instead of "the Lord." There are those who 
speak of God as " He " and " Him," using the word inde- 
pendently, without reference to an antecedent, and generally 
spelling it with a capital initial. But that was not the Apostle 
James's way of speaking. The Revisers' Greek, in fact, leaves 
the verb without any subject, not even a pronoun expressed. 
In the preceding context after verse 7, the apostle makes no 
reference to the Lord. In that verse, he assures his readers 
that a man of wavering, doubtful mind need not think that lie 
shall receive anything of the Lord. Then follow various ob- 
servations respecting persons of one kind and another, — the 
double-minded, the lowly, the rich, the patient man. In speak- 
ing of the last, the apostle pronounces him blessed in enduring 
temptation. Now it is incredible that, after speaking thus of 
men, he should proceed and say, "For, being approved, he 
shall receive the crown of life which he promised to them that 

love him," — the second "he" of this sentence being only 
implied, and yet meaning the Lord. It is far more credible 
that some careless copyist overlooked the OKC, standing in 
his exemplar for 6 Kupios, and passed on without it. If such 
omissions were not common among transcribers, the case would 
be very different. But knowing that they are of frequent 
occurrence, and, after being once made, are too often mechani- 
cally repeated, we have every reason for concluding that this 
is what must have occurred here. Let us not, then, do the 
apostle the injustice of attributing to him an error that he could 
hardly have committed, and that can so easily be accounted 
for in the few documents in which it appears, especially as we 
find it necessary, in translating his mutilated words, to supply 
what he himself, beyond all reasonable doubt, wrote. The 
error of omitting " the Lord " here is certainly not as great as 

that of writing djrocrKiacr/AaTOS for a7rocrKt'acr/ia, " shadow," in 

verse 1 7, a reading which is utterly unmeaning, and yet appears 
in ^ and B, — and only in those two manuscripts. 

Rec. T. T| irto-ris \<Dpls t<3v cpY^v WKpd ioTiv. — faith without works 
is dead. 

Rev. T. t| irjo-ris X^P^^ ''■''*' «PY<*v apYV) Icttiv. — faith apart from 
works is barren. 

The common reading here is supported by )j^, A, C second 
hand, K, L, P, nearly all the cursives, a catena, the Clementine 
Vulgate, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic,' 
Uscan's Armenian, the Ethiopic Version, Origen, Cyril of 
Alexandria, Qicumenius, and others. The revised reading, 
o-pyT], is that of B, C first hand, 27, 29, one manuscript of the 
Old Latin Version, three of the Vulgate, the Thebaic, and 
Zohrab's Armenian. It is obviously an early scholiast's work, 
intended to show the apostle's meaning in the word " dead." 
First written in the margin, it afterwards crept into the text. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

and so appears in a few documents. It is an unmeaning plati- 
tude in comparison with the apostle's word, which appears also 
in verse 1 7, where apyrj would be, if possible, still more inapt, 
and in verse 26, which forbids its use. The idea that faith 
without its fruits or resultant works is barren, is one which the 
apostle would hardly think of presenting. But that faith, if it 
produce no results, is t/ead, — virtually no faith at all, is a truth 
which many need to have taught them before they can realize 
it. NtKpd is too strongly attested, and too expressive of the 
apostle's thought, to be set aside. 

ii. 26. 

Rec. T. X^P^S ■'■'•'' «P7<*>' — without works. 
Rev. T. x<i)pls tp^yuv — without works. 

The presence of the article is attested by A, C, K, L, P, 
nearly every cursive, a catena, Theophylact and CEcumenius. 
It is wanting in J^, B, 69, 182, and Origen, who may have cited 
the words from memory, or without any regard to the article. 
The article is used by the apostle in verses 18 and 20, the only 
other places where he speaks of " faith without works." And 
in all these passages, — as much here as in the others, — it 
seems to be necessary in order to the real expression of his 
meaning. These are among the places where the true force 
of the article is, perhaps, best expressed in English by the per- 
sonal pronoun. Thus, in verse 1 8, we should render the words, 
" Show me thy faith without i/s works, and I will show thee my 
faith by its works." So, too, in verse 20, as well as here, 
" Faith without zA works is dead." In each of these instances, 
Twv ipywv means the works of faith, its necessary results. With- 
out the article, the meaning, though nearly the same, is less 
expressive : " Faith without results is dead." But as faith is 
particularized, — "the faith," t.e. the faith of the Christian as 
such, the faith that lays hold on Christ, so the works need to be 
particularized to denote the works which such a faith produces, 
and not works in general. 



iii. 3- 

Rec. T. I80V - 
Rev. T. ctS^- 

■ Behold. 
- Now if. 

The revised reading is attested by K, A, B, K, L, twenty-five 
cursives, /of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, John 
Damascene, and (Ecumenius. That of the Received Text is 
supported by C, P, a large number of cursives, the Peshito and 
Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, the Armenian, Piatt's Ethiopic, 
and Theophylact. Other readings are " Moreover," and " Why 
then?" but they are evident departures from the original. Of 
the two given above, « M may be the more difficult ; but it 
does not follow from this that, with all its attestation, it is the 
true reading. As we have already observed, the old manu- 
scripts do not always distinguish between a and i, as later 
manuscripts do. Hence we find such speUings as ^p.dv for ^/x7i/, 
and vfiuv for iplv. In Acts xxvi. 5, for example, S. C. E, 
have epr,<TK[a, while A, B, H, L, P, and others have epr,,TKua; 
in Col. ii. 18, C, D, E, F, G, P, and others adopt the former 
spelling, while S, A, B, L, and others adopt the latter ; and in 
Jas. i. 26, 27, the first of these modes of writing the word is 
followed by J<. while the second is generally adopted by other 
manuscripts. Again, in Acts i. 15, Codex E has crKocra for 
£'ko(ti, " twenty " ; and in the next verse, X, B, D, have AavtlS 
for the more common Aa/3e'8, " David." There is, in fact, much 
irregularity among the manuscripts on this as on many other 
orthographical points. So that here cl8i may be only another 
way of spelling I8e, which may be said to be but another form 
of J8ov. (Compare Mark xiii. 21 ; John xix. 4 ; Gal. v. 2, etc.) 
In fact, the context seems to require us so to regard it. In the 
next verse, we read JSov koI rk irXota (where Codex 24 reads 
dSi K.T.\.), "Behold also the ships." And in the verse fol- 
lowing, we read, " Behold how great," etc. Just so, in chapter 
v., the apostle uses "Behold" for calling attention in verses 
4,' 7, 9, II, successively, — showing that this was a peculiarity 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

of his. But what seems to indicate that iSov (or rSt) is the 
true reading here is the W in verse 4, " Behold also the ships," 
— the "also," which connects the two similitudes, implying 
that attention had previously been called to something else, 
and now is called to ships that are guided by a small rudder. 
Hence, in view of the questionable testimony of the three oldest 
manuscripts and their associates, and the strong internal evi- 
dence against it, we believe the Received Text gives us the 
apostle's real meaning and form of expression. 

iil. 5- 

Rec. T. l\i-^av irflp — a little fire. 
Rev. T. t|\(kov irOp — how small a fire I 

The received reading is attested by A first hand, C second 
hand, K, L, all the cursives, a catena, ff of the Old Latin 
Version, Mai's Extracts, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, John 
Damascene, and Theophylact. The revised is supported by Ji^, 
A second hand, B, C first hand, P, the Vulgate, Antiochus, and 
CEcumenius, — respectively seventh and tenth century writers. 
A reading like this, so hard and yet so easily accounted for, one 
might suppose would make believers in hard readings as such 
pause some time before adopting it. In the close connection 
in which it stands to yjXU-qv, a scribe, writing from dictation, 
might very naturally have become confused in regard to the 
word, and, taking oXiyoi/ to be r)kCKov, have written the latter 
instead of the former. One might infer this from the docu- 
mentary evidence, which preponderates so strongly in favor of 
oXiyov, — including every cursive, and every ancient version but 
one, as well as one of the four oldest Greek manuscripts. But 
the reading speaks for itself : ijAtVos properly means " how 
great," " how much," " how large," — like quantus in Latin. 
In the language of irony, it may be employed, as many another 
word may be, to denote its opposite, and so mean " how small," 



" how little," as the satirist Lucian uses it in a single instance. 
But the Apostle James is not dealing in irony. Besides, it 
would hardly be possible for him to use ij\tKoc and rjXiK-qv in 
opposite senses with only one word between the two, even if 
he were speaking ironically ; much less could he do it while 
uttering plain, sober truth. If rjXUov is the apostle's word, 
those who believe in " translating as far as- possible the same 
Greek word by the same English word," should adhere to 
principle, and "faithfully" translate, "How much wood (or 
rather, How great a forest) is kinilled by how mtich fire ! " It 
is just as possible to render the words thus in English as it 
was for the Apostle James to have written the corresponding 
words in Greek. But he never wrote thus, — the two oldest 
Greek manuscripts to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The reading, yivtoo-KCTe, " know ye," alluded to in the margin 
as read by some in place of ywuxTKiTia, " let him know," is sup- 
ported only by B, 31, 184, the Philoxenian Syriac and Armenian 
Versions. The verb seems to have been changed to the second 
person plural in order to refer back to the introductory word 
of the previous verse, d8£A.<^ot, " brethren," because of an ap- 
parent doubt about its reference as a verb in the third person 
singular, — whether to the one converted or to the one con- 
verting him. It has every appearance of being an altered 
reading. If it had been genuine, there is no probability that 
the third person would ever have been introduced or would 
have supplanted it. Though adopted by Westcott and Hort, 
it is really entitled to vr, notice. 


lU. 21. 

Rec. T. J . . . avrCrvirov — the like figure whereunto. 
Rev. T. 5 . . . ovrtrvirov — which . . after a true likeness. 

The only documentary evidence in support of the first of 
these readings is a large number of cursives, among which is 
104, a carefully written manuscript of the eleventh century, 
containing the whole New Testament. The o of the Revised 
Text is attested by the seventh-century corrector of J^, A, B, C, 
K, L, P, between fifty and sixty cursives, a catena, the Vulgate 
and Armenian Versions, Didymus, Cyril, John Damascene, 
Theophylact, OEcumenius, Cyprian, and others. The original 
scribe of Ji^, Codex 73, and the Memphitic and Ethiopic Ver- 
sions omit the relative. Constrained by documentary testimony, 
modern editors generally read o instead of <S. Yet internal 
evidence compels us to believe, with Dr. Hort, that the former 
is " a primitive error for <S, the force of which might be hidden 
by the interposition of koI vj«.as before dvTtVvTrov. . . . Both by 
sight and by sound the interchange of letters would be easy." ' 
We cannot, however, regard the change as accidental. It 
seems, rather, to have originated as a correction, under a mis- 
apprehension of the reference intended by the relative. "O is 
evidently designed to refer to the preceding word, vSaros, 
" water " ; whereas the original <S, as we understand it, relates 
to the preceding statement concerning the salvation of Noah 
and his family in the ark by means of water. After making 


' Seltct Readings, p. 102. 



that statement, the apostle goes on to say, " Whose counter- 
part (literally. The antitype to which), baptism, doth now 
save you also, — not the putting away of filth from the flesh, 
but the request of a good conscience on God's behalf, — through 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Eis 0eoV is not to be taken 
in the sense of " toward God," as is commonly done. It denotes 
the motive under which the fTrepwTr]fJLa, the request to be bap- 
tized, is supposed to be made, — literally, " for God," ;>. on 
God's behalf, or on God's account, the sense in which the 
preposition is used in Rom. xv. 26 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12 ; etc. It is 
done to obey and honor God. The last six words of the verse, 
of course, are to be taken with the first clause, as showing how 
baptism saves, — through faith in the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ, which is symbolized and confessed in the act of baptism. 
The reading o gives a strained and unnatural construction to 
avTLTVTTov and /SaTTTicTfui, 35 Well as makes water indirectly a 
saving means; whereas ^ makes a God-honoring desire to 
receive a divinely instituted ordinance in the exercise of faith 
in a buried and risen Saviour, which that ordinance symbolizes, 
the means of salvation. 

iv. I. 

Rec. T. iraeivTos iirtp f]|iuv <rapKt — hath suffered for us in the flesh. 
Rev. T. iraedvTo$ o-apKl — suffered in the flesh. 

In support of the received reading, we have J< (its seventh- 
century corrector simply changing V^v to ij/^Sv), A, K, L, P, 
nearly all the cursives, the Memphitic Version, the Philoxenian 
Syriac, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, Didymus, Epiphanius 
twice, Athanasius four times, Basil, Cyril twice, Theodoret, Ps.- 
Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome. This reading is confirmed 
by X first hand, 31, and a few other cursives, the Peshito Syriac, 
Theophylact, and CEcumenius, which have i/xZv, "you," instead 
of rjfxwv, " us," — a reading which was probably introduced as 
an intended correction of ij/xiv, because of the use of the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

pronoun of the second person in the closely related clause that 
follows. The omission of " for us " appears in B, C, three 
cursives (one of them calling for the omission in the margin), 
the Vulgate, the Thebaic, Athanasius according to some manu- 
scripts, Theodoret after having once given the full reading, John 
Damascene, GLcumenius in commenting on the passage, Augus- 
tine in other places than the fore-mentioned, Ambrose, and 
Fulgentius. This omission, however, is plainly due in part to 
what was considered the Heedlessness of the phrase, as it is not 
found in connection with the same words in the next clause, 
but more especially because of what was deemed the seeming 
impropriety of connecting pronouns of the first and second 
persons in the manner in which they are brought together here, 
— Tra^oiTos vTrip ij/xoiv (rapKi Koi v/itis, Forasmuch as Christ 
" suffered for its in the flesh, do ye also," etc. If the expression 
were not genuine, it could hardly have got into the text in that 
shape, and become so generally accepted. The readings that 
differ from this plainly indicate a desire to rid the text, in one 
way or another, of an obnoxious phrase. 

The marginal reading here, of d/xaprtais, "unto sins," in place 
of dfiapria';, " sin," appears in J^ as changed early in the seventh 
century, B, one cursive, and the Ethiopic Version. It is a 
very natural transcriptional error, resulting from the position 
of the word after TreVauxAI, the writing of which seems to have 
left an impression that misled the scribe in writing this word. 
As far as we are aware, this false reading is adopted only by 
Westcott and Hort, among modern editors. 

ly. 14. 

The Revised Text and Version omit the closing words of 
this verse : " on their part indeed he is evil spoken of, but on 
your part he is glorified." This omission is favored by J<, A, 
B, less than twenty cursives, some copies of the Vulgate, the 
Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Armenian, 



the Ethiopic, Erpenius' Arabic, and Tertullian. But the words 
are attested by K, L, P, by far the greater part of the cursives, 
three copies of the Vulgate, the Thebaic, the margin of the 
Philoxenian Syriac, Cyprian, Theophylact, and Qicumenius. 
The language is, to say the least, in perfect harmony with the 
context. It may even be said to be the necessary complement 
of the thought introduced in the former part of the verse. The 
words might very easily have been omitted by homoioteleuion. 
They form just three of the ordinary lines of an uncial manu- 
script, counting fourteen letters to a line. Let us suppose that 
a line began with erat, the last four letters of aya-Kav-crai, which 
precedes this sentence. If the omitted words followed, they 
would fill out just three lines, and leave the same four letters, 
the last of the word So^<i^-£rat to begin the third hne below the 
first £Tai. Now, in copying, the eye of the scribe, after he had 
written avajKixv, on returning to the exemplar, might very easily 
have rested on the lower instead of the upper trax, and gone 
on from that, and so lost the intervening three lines. Such 
omissions appear again and again in all the old manuscripts. 
And this certainly looks very much like one of them. The 
words, however, have been widely preserved ; and, instead of 
continuing to omit them, we should hold to them all the more 
firmly. Let us see how the verse reads with this clause attached : 
" If ye are reproached for the name of Christ {i.e. on the 
score of being Christians), ye are happy {i.e. ye are fortunate, 
it is a good thing, a blessed thing for you) ; for the spirit of 
glory and of God resteth upon you. On their part, it is true, 
he is blasphemed ; but, as far as ye are concerned, he is 
glorified " by it. The particle /xcV, " indeed," should not be 
overlooked. It is equivalent to our concessive phrase, "it is 
true," — admitting the force of the statement with which it 
is connected, and at the same time adding weight by the con- 
trast to the statement that follows. The sentence is just in the 
line of the apostle's argument, and cannot be omitted without 


THE revisers' greek TEXT. 

V. 2. 

Rec. T. iKOvo-Cuf, fii^Si alcrxpoKcpSus — willingly; not for filthy lucre. 
Rev. T. cKovo-fws Kara 0«6v, (iti8e alcrxpoKcpSus— willingly, accord- 
ing unto God; nor yet for filthy lucre. 

The omission of Kara ®t6y in the Received Text is according 
to B, K, L, most of the cursives, a catena, the Peshito Syriac, 
Mai's Extracts, CEcumenius, and others. Its presence is attested 
by K. A, P, about twenty cursives, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, 
the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, Antiochus, 
and Theophylact. The former reading is followed by Gries- 
bach, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and others; the latter, by 
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers. But icora 
©tof is a transparent gloss, originally written on the margin, in 
explanation of (Kovaio)':, — showing that this was understood to 
mean " according to Gobi's will." Afterwards, it was intro- 
duced into the text, generally as the Revisers have it. Some, 
however, placed it after TrpoOvfiw^, " cheerfully," or, " of a ready 
mind." Others inserted other words, also, in connection with 
it, at the close of the verse. 

'ETrto-KOTTovvTts, " cxcrcising the oversight," which is referred 
to in the marginal note, is omitted by Ji^, B, two cursives, and 
three or four Fathers only. Of these, the testimony of the two 
uncials is all that carries any weight ; and of these two wit- 
nesses, B omits verse 3 also. Until we can see some good 
reason for this latter omission, in which B stands alone, we can 
have very little confidence in the testimony of that document 
here, even though attended by half a dozen other viritnesses, 
against a word which is all but overwhelmingly attested, if not 
plainly demanded by the context. 


1. 4. 

Rec. T. TaOra yp6.^0fuv vfiiv, tva t| xnpd v|i<iiv tj ir<irXi)p<i>|UvT|. — 

these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 

Rev. T. ToOra 7pdi|>0|icv t])uis, Vvo t] x<''P°^ ■fip.iiiv ^ ircirXTjpiD|i^v7]. — 
these things we write, that our joy may be fulfilled. 

In support of the Revisers' emphatic ij/u-eis, we have ^, A 
first hand, B, P, 13, one manuscript of the Vulgate (though 
this is afterwards changed), and the Thebaic Version. The 
corresponding vfuv of the Received Text is attested by A as 
afterwards corrected, C, K, L, every cursive save one, a catena, 
the Vulgate, both Syriac Versions, the Memphitic, the Armenian, 
the Ethiopic, Theophylact, and CEcumenius. No doubt, the 
former is the harder of these readings ; but its hardness is of 
an unreasonable kind. For there is no calf whatever for an 
emphatic " we " here, as if some one else, whose words, per- 
haps, needed confuting or confirming, had been writing to those 
to whom the epistle was addressed. This pronoun is not 
introduced in any of the preceding verses, not even in connec- 
tion with the verbs in the first verse, where the writer might 
appropriately have said, " which we oiirselves have heard," if 
no more. The reading, doubtless, resulted from carelessly 
mistaking YMGIN for HMGIC. This would readily, and, if 
there had been any indistinctness in the copy, all the more 
readily, have occurred just after the scribe had written ypd<^o/i£v, 
we " write," — the word being taken as the subject of that 
verb. — In the other case, the common reading, ''your joy," is 
attested by A, C, K, P, most of the cursives, the Clementine 
Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, 



THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



the Ethiopic, Augustine, and Theophylact and CEcumenius in 
their citations of the text. The reading "our joy " is attested 
by S. E, L, less than thirty cursives, four manuscripts of the 
Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the Thebaic, Erpenius' Arabic, and 
Theophylact and CEcumenius in commenting on the passage. 
(The Peshito Syriac and Erpenius' Arabic also add tV i/x'". 
making the apostle say " that our joy in you may be full.") 
This reading is simply an itacism, naturally resulting from the 
previous verb, "we write," — some having afterwards thought 
^ it necessary, in order to make the meaning clear, to supple- 
ment it by adding " in you." Such a reading misrepresents 
the true end the writer had in view as indicated by the clause 
introduced by Iva, however true it might be that his own joy 
would be increased as a result of his writing. Indeed, such an 
utterance as " that our (my) joy may be full " could hardly 
have proceeded from the pen of one who thought more of 
imparting joy to others than of being filled with joy himself, — 
a lesson which he had many years before, according to his own 
record, learned from the lips of his blessed Master : " These 
things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in 
you, and that your joy might be fully John xv. 11. That 
"your joy " is the true reading here, appears from the fact that 
the clause in which it stands follows on naturally as a fuller 
statement of the apostle's meaning in verse 3 : " What we have 
seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have 
fellowship with us " ; " and these things we write unto you, 
that your joy may be full." It corresponds with the whole 
tenor of the epistle : " These things write I unto you, that ye 
sin not"; ii. i. "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have 
known him . . . unto you, young men, because ye have overcome 
. . . unto you, little children, because ye have known " etc. ii. 13, 
14, 2r. "These things have I written unto you . . . that ye may 
know" etc. It is on their account, for their benefit, for their 
rejoicing, not on his own account or for his own greater joy, 
that he writes. The obvious purpose of the epistle was to 

impart a fulness of joy to its readers. When the apostle him- 
self assures us of this, we do him great injustice to give heed 
to fallible and fallacious documents, however innocent they 
may be in their misrepresentations, rather than to his own 
repeated declarations and the necessary conclusions that follow 
from them. 

iii. 5- 

Rec. T. tva rds ojioprCas ti|ii3v apj), — to take away our sins. 
Rev. T. tva rds ojiaprias api;), — to take away sins. 

The reading of the Received Text is attested by J^, C, K, L, 
nearly all the cursives, a catena, the Clementine Vulgate, the 
Peshito Syriac, the Thebaic, Athanasius, Theophylact, and 
CEcumenius. The other is the reading of A, B, P, five or six 
cursives, five manuscripts of the Vulgate, the Memphitic, Phi- 
loxenian Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, Tertullian, 
Fulgentius, and other Latin Fathers. If the reading were " to 
take away «'/?," we should expect the omission of the pronoun. 
And so Augustine writes the word here — peccatum — without 
the pronoun. But it is not John's habit to use the plural "sins" 
without a limiting word. See John viii. 24, xx. 23, i John i. 
9, ii. 2, 12, iv. 10, Rev. i. 5, xviii. 4, 5. Aside from the present 
verse, these are all the passages, except John ix. 34, in which 
he uses the word in the plural ; and in this last, the language is 
not his, but that of others. The documentary evidence for the 
pronoun leads us to believe it to be genuine ; and when we 
couple with this the fact that the apostle again and again em- 
ploys this pronoun to denote believers in general, we need not 
hesitate about accepting it as such. It is in perfect accordance 
with his usual mode of speaking, while the phrasing, " to take 
away sins" without any limiting adjunct, is not his way of ex- 
pressing himself at all. The omission seems to be due, if not 
to oversight, to a desire to generalize the thought, as if the 
pronoun limited the meaning of " sins " to the apostle and his 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

iii. 14. 

Rec. T. 6 lit] aYowiv t4v a8«\<t.dv fiivfi iv t<J eovAru. — He that 

lovcth not his brother abideth in death. 

Rev. T. 6 n^i i-yair(2v |Uv€i {v tu 6a.v6.Tm. — He that loveth not 
al)i(leth in death. 

The received reading is attested by C, K, L, P, nearly all the 
cursives, the Memphitic, Woide's Thebaic, both Syriac Ver- 
sions, the Ethiopic, Theophylact, CEcumenius, and Cassiodonis. 
The revised is vouched for by J<, A, B, three cursives, the Vul- 
gate, Munter's Thebaic, the Armenian, Didymus, Lucifer, and 
Augustine. Instead of tov d8(X<f>6v being a later addition, as 
some suppose, its absence looks more like an early omission. 
If the apostle really meant that one -who does not love a tnie 
Christian abides in death, he must have written, "He that 
loveth not his brother." But, if he meant to say in general 
terms that he who has no spiritual love, — no love either for 
God, or for men as Christians or beings for whom Christ died, 
— is still in a state of spiritual death, he must have omitted 
the words that follow in the next verse. The testimony of the 
documents being contradictory and nearly equally balanced, 
we are left to appeal to the text for additional evidence, if there 
is any. Here, in only the preceding sentence, we find the 
apostle saying, " We know that we have passed from death to 
life because we /ove the brethren." Now, after having written 
this, it is hardly possible for him to have said, " He that doth 
not love, abideth in death," and then to have added in the 
very next breath, "Every one that hateth his brother, is a 
murderer." After having written, " He that loveth not, abideth 
in death," he would naturally, if not of necessity, have written, 
" He that hateth, is a murderer," — a truth, no doubt ; but not 
just the truth to which he gave utterance. The context evi- 
dently enough calls for " He that loveth not his brother, abideth 
in death." But some critical reader of the second century, 
under the impression that the apostle had drawn the lines a 



little too taut, and that very possibly he had brought the 
matter too near home for his own satisfaction, desired to tone 
down the thought. Hence the offensive expression was erased, 
and a comparatively pointless but orthodox generality made to 
take its place. That such was actually the case, we are satisfied 
by a reference to the next sentence as it reads in B, one of the 
witnesses in favor of this depraved reading. That sentence, in 
only that one manuscript, reads, " Every one that hateth his 
own [cairrol instead of aurov, " his " ] brother, is a murderer." 
To retain the expression as the apostle wrote it seemed to our 
ancient critic to be too comprehensive. But to cut out the 
words " his brother " here, — " He that hateth, is a murderer," 
— would make the sentence still more sweeping. Hence the 
substitution of " his own " for " his," — making the apostle say, 
" Every one that hateth his own brother, his own mother's son, 
is a murderer, — leaving the reader to console himself with 
the thought that he may possibly hate some brother Christian, 
and yet not be a murderer. The omission of " his brother " in 
verse 14, and this change in B, of " his " to " his own," in verse 
15, are evidently the work of the same hand, though the former 
was less palpable, and so became a comparatively widespread 
reading, while the latter scarcely went beyond its originator. 

Rec. T. iriis SvvaTtti a-yairijv J — how can he love? 
Rev. T. ou Suvarai a'ya-ir^v. — cannot love. 

The first of these readings is supported by A, K, L, nearly 
all the cursives, a catena, the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, Mem- 
phitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, John Damascene, 
Theophylact, CEcumenius, Cyril, and Augustine. The second 
is attested by X, B, six cursives (one of them by a second 
hand), the Thebaic and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, and 
Lucifer. We see no reason why this should supersede the 
common reading. It is simply an early attempt to improve 



upon the apostle's way of expressing himself. In iii. 17, he 
shows how he prefers to word his own thoughts : " Whoso hath 
this world's goods, etc., . . . how dwelleth the love of God in 
him?" Instead of this last clause, he might have said, "the 
love of God dwelleth not in him." But he did not. In his 
Gospel also this interrogative form of speech appears about ten 
times instead of a simple negative declaration. And, though it 
occurs in language attributed to others, it was one of John's 
peculiar ways of writing. Hence, though he might have writ- 
ten " he cannot love God," his usus loquendi leads us to believe 
that he did not do it, but that he expressed himself more for- 
cibly, and said, "how can he love God?" — leaving the ques- 
tion to answer itself. If the Revisers' reading had been the 
original reading, probably no one would have thought of chang- 
ing it 

V. 7. 

This verse is omitted by the Revisers without comment. It 
is now generally regarded by critical scholars as an interpo- 
lation. The only Greek manuscripts in which it is found are 
Codices 34 of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, a fifteenth or 
sixteenth century cursive ; no, a sixteenth-century manuscript 
of the whole New Testament, but of no authority whatever, it 
being merely a copy of the Greek text of the Complutensian 
Tolyglot; and 162 (of the Acts) of the fifteenth century. 
Besides these, 173 (Acts), an eleventh-century manuscript, has 
the omitted passage in the margin by a recent hand. The 
only versions that really support it are the Latin ; and these 
are by no means united. The words seem to have been placed 
originally in the margin of an African copy of the Latin Ver- 
sion as a gloss on verse 8, whence they afterward crept into 
the text of other copies, and from them into two or three of 
the latest of the Greek manuscripts. They cannot be success- 
fully defended as a part of the original text. 



V. 18. 

Rec. T. h YivvTiScls (k toB 0toO Tr)pci {aurdv, — he that is begotten 
of God keepeth himself. 

Rev. T. 6 Y'vvTiOcls ^k tov 0cov Tt]p«i ovtov, — he that was begotten 
of God keepeth him. 

The former of these readings is attested by )j^, A (the original 
scribe, after having written avrov, finding that he had erred, at 
once wrote a small uncial e over the a of auTov, and so changed 
the word to kaxtrov)} K, L, P, every cursive but one, a 
catena, the Peshito Syriac, Memphitic, Thebaic, Armenian, and 
Ethiopic Versions, Origen three times, Ephraem Syrus twice, 
Didymus four times, Severus, Theophylact, Qscumenius, and 
others. It is favored even by the rendering of the Vulgate, sed 
generatio Dei servat eum, " but a divine birth (or, his being 
begotten of God) keeps him." The other reading is attested 
only by B and one cursive. And even B's testimony is ques- 
tionable. Its reading may be either avrov, " him," or airdi', 
" himself." In Matt. vi. 34, where all other witnesses, including 
the sixth or seventh century corrector of B, read eavr^s, B as 
given by its scribe, together with L and A, reads avrrji, the 
breathing and accent being wanting. But with the rough 
breathing, avrq<;, it is only another mode of spelling tavr^s, as 
Westcott and Hort regard it. So in Luke xii. 17, B and L first 
hand read tV ain-w, where all other manuscripts have iv tavrai ; 
and Westcott and Hort give it as cV aurw, " in himself." In 
verse 21 of the same chapter, Ji^ first hand, B, L, and a single 
lectionary read avrm (Westcott and Hort, avrw), where all 
others read iavrio. In Luke xxiii. 2, B, G, T, and a single cur- 
sive read avrov, where all other documents have tavrov, which 

' Scrivener, after speaking of " the fact that avrov is corrected into 
iavTOv by the original scribe," — Introduction, p. 655, — adds in a foot- 
note, " So it seems to me after careful inspection of Codex A." This 
statement, from one so thoroughly versed in the reading of New-Testament 
manuscripts, may be regarded as altogether trustworthy. . . 



is also Westcott and Hort's reading. But in verse 12, these 
editors read avrovi (with the rough breathing), following the 
spelling of X. B, L, T, and a few cursives. (It might be said 
in passing, that Codex L, as well as A, is very much given to 
writing the word in this abridged form, often standing alone in 
doing it.) In Luke xxiv. 12, B, L read avTov (Westcott and 
Hort auTov), where all others read iavrov. In John ii. 24, there 
is a strange confusion, and intermixture of readings. While 
the great majority of witnesses, including Origen twice, and 
Cyril, as well as J^ third hand, and A second hand, read eavrov 
avToh, i.e. Jesus did not trust " himself to them," Ji^ first hand, 
B, L, one cursive, Origen once, and Cyril once, read aurov 
(which Westcott and Hort make aurov) airois, but A and Codex 
253 read avroi/ tavrots, /'.<?." him to themselves," — completely 
reversing things. In John xx. 10, J^ first hand, B, L, read 
avTovs (Westcott and Hort avTow), where all the other fifteen 
uncials, together with J^ as corrected early in the seventh 
century, every cursive, Chrysostom, and Cyril read tavrovs. 
(Compare Note on John xiii. 32.) We might fill pages with 
additional examples from the older manuscripts of these de- 
partures from general later usage. But, we presume, we have 
already given enough to satisfy any candid reader that, though 
the scribes of B and other ancient manuscripts may have written 
avTo), auTov, aimjs, etc., we are not necessarily to understand 
them as having written the personal pronoun. The earlier 
manuscripts are generally without accents and breathings. And 
these forms, from being often written £<^' aurov, \iS avrov, etc., 
as well as from the connection in which they stand, indicate 
clearly that they were pronounced with the aspirate, and em- 
ployed as the abbreviated forms of the reflexive. This is tnie 
of the reading atru, as Westcott and Hort give it, in the tenth 
verse of this chapter, which the Revisers write a.vrZ, and 
translate " him." It is simply the shorter form of writing the 
£auT<S which they have rejected, though the latter is well attested, 
especially by ancient versions, which render it by the reflexive 



" himself." So in the verse before us ; the word is not avrov, 
but avrov. The reading kavTov, the testimony for which far 
exceeds that in favor of the abbreviated form, is no doubt the' 
true reading, and should be retained, as it is by the American 
portion of the Revisers. This reading harmonizes perfectly 
with Scripture teachings elsewhere. With this reading, all the 
supposed difficulties, as well as the fanciful and contradictory 
interpretations of the verse disappear. These interpretations; 
at best, are mere expedients by which to explain and bolster 
up, if possible, a false text, and are all unsatisfactory because 
not founded on the truth. One of these fanciful readings is, 
" Whosoever is born of God sinneth not ; but the begotten 
{i.e. the only-begotten Son) of God keepeth him; and the evil 
one toucheth him not." Another is, " He that hath been be- 
gotten of God, it keepeth him " ; i.e. the fact that one has 
been born of God preserves him that is regenerated. This, in 
substance, is the rendering of the Vulgate, and the inter- 
pretation of the Latin Fathers. But the Greek text gives no 
countenance to such a view. Another interpretation is, " He 
that has been begotten of God (i.e. a regenerate person) 
keepeth him (i.e. keepeth God, keeps him in constant, living 
union with himself); and the evil one toucheth him not"; i.e. 
does not touch God, and by not being able to touch God, does 
not touch his children. Another view, differing from this last 
only in the latter part of the verse, is, that the evil one toucheth 
not the regenerate person, — the " him " after " toucheth " 
being referred, not to God, but to the person who keeps God 
in union with himself. But the idea of our keeping God is 
hardly scriptural. On the contrary, it is God that keeps us, 
not we that keep him. (Compare Psa. xli. i, 2; xcvii. 10; 
cxxi. 3-8 ; Prov. xxiv. 12 ; Isa. xxvii. 3 ; John xvii. 11, 15.) Of 
himself, the Saviour says (John x. 11), "I am the good Shep- 
herd" ; and a shepherd, we all know, is a keeper of sheep, — 
those whom the good Sliepherd keeps being the sheep of God's 
pasture. The Saviour himself says of his disciples (John xvii. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



12), " I kept them in thy name." But, however true it is that 
the Saviour is, in the highest sense of the word, the keeper, the 
guardian, the preserver of the redeemed, the idea th3it o yivvrj6us 
here denotes the Son of God is an unwarranted one. It is the 
term o ixovoytvrj<s, " the only-begotten," that is so often applied 
to Christ. John uses it in only the preceding chapter, verse 9 ; 
and, if his reference here had been to Christ, he would un- 
questionably have used the words o /Aovoycv^s vio't, " the only- 
begotten Son." In Gal. iv. 29, 6 ytwrjOek, " he that was bom," 
is used in connection with the phrase " after the flesh," con- 
cerning Ishmael. Here, in connection with the phrase "of 
God," it is used, plainly enough, of a regenerate person, one 
" born of God," as in iii. 9, iv. 7, v. i, 4, and in this very 
verse, in the words, o yeyewrjixtvoi £k tou ©£ov1, " he that hath 
been born of God." The only difference between the two is 
that, in the original, the one participle is in the perfect, and as 
such refers to the life of the regenerate person subsequent to 
his regeneration ; while the other, the aorist participle, points 
more especially back to the time of his regeneration. No such 
distinction, however, can be made in the English rendering. 
Nor is it essential, as the two mean the same thing. What we 
need in order to see the apostle's real meaning, is to translate 
the verse correctly, if possible, in every particular. We will 
offer first a translation, then say a few words in regard to certain 
points connected with it. " We know that no one that is born 
of God sinneth ; yea, he that hath been born of God keepeth 
himself, and the evil one harmeth him not." The verse con- 
sists of two parts. The first is a general statement : " We 
know that no one that is born of God sinneth." This is only 
repeating what the apostle had already said in iii. 9. His 
reference is solely to the new man, the divine nature implanted 
in man at his regeneration. This, beiijg a nature begotten of 
God, is /lo/j ; in its bent, desires, purposes, aims, and acts, // 
sinneth not. It is a principle of holiness as well as life. The 
rest of the verse presents only another phase of the same 

thought. It is introduced by aXXa. This, however, is not 
adversative in meaning here. There is no opposition in thought 
between the sentence it introduces and the one preceding. 
On the contrary, it enforces and confirms the same truth. 
Hence oXAd needs to be translated " yea," as in John xvi. 2, 
2 Cor. iii. 15, Phil. ii. 17, and a number of other places : "Yea, 
he keepeth himself," i.e. from sin. This holy principle, the 
new and divine nature in the regenerate, has no affinity for 
sin ; on the contrary, it repels it, and so keeps the evil one at 
a distance. In verse 4 of this very chapter, the apostle speaks 
of the offspring of this divine birth, not as a person, but as a 
principle, a thing : " Whatsoever is born of God overcometh 
the world." This includes not only the germ of holiness im- 
planted and quickened into being by the Spirit through the 
truth, but the faith, the love for divine things, the new hope in 
reference to God and eternal objects, the spirit of forgiveness, 
of patient endurance of wrong, and every spiritual grace con- 
ferred upon the regenerate. These constitute the new man, 
the Christ that is formed in us ; and this new creation keepeth 
itself. But the apostle, viewing the man himself as under the 
dominant power of this holy principle, very naturally speaks 
of him as " keeping himself." The Apostle Paul expresses the 
same truth in i Tim. v. 22, in a hortatory form, "Keep thyself 
pure." The Apostle James also (i. 27) speaks of the child of 
God as "keeping himself unspotted from the world." Jude, 
too (verse 21), says, "Keep yourselves in the love of God." 
And John himself concludes his epistle with saying, " Little 
children, keep yourselves from idols." 

2 JOHN. 

Verse 8. 

Rec. T. tva ^^.^\ aircXcV<i>|Uv d f Ip'yao'diuSa, dXXd . . , aTroXd^uiicv. 

— that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we 
receive [a full reward]. 

Rev. T. Vva fiij a-iroX<<niT« d (Ip-Yocro^uSa, dXXd . . . diroXd^i^Ti. — 
that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive [a 
full reward]. 

In support of the first of these readings, we have K, L, P, 31, 
most of the other cursives, and Theophylact and CEcumenius 
in their quotations from the text. The second is the reading 
attested by B and the Thebaic Version only, — that adopted 
by Westcott and Hort. There is also a third reading, with all 
the verbs in the second person ; namely. See " that ye lose not 
what ye have wrought out (or obtained by working), but that 
ye receive a full reward." This is attested by X. A> ten cur- 
sives, a catena, the Vulgate, Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, 
Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, Irenaeus accord- 
ing to his Latin interpreter, Lucifer, Isidore of Pelusium, John 
Damascene, and others ; while Theophylact and CEcumenius 
in their commentaries refer to it as the reading of some. The 
weight of evidence, both internal and external, is decidedly 
against both the common and the revised reading, and calls for 
this third reading, which is that of Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles in his text, the Revisers in their margin, and which is 
adopted by the best modern commentators. 


Verse 22. 

Rec. T. Kal ovs |mv IXccirt SiaKpivdiuvbi, — And of some have com- 
passion, making a difference. 

Rev. T. Kal ous jifv iXcarc SiaKpivofuvovs, — And on some have 
mercy, who are in doubt. 

The text of this and the following verse in the old manu- 
scripts is in a sad state of confusion, so that it is by* no means 
easy to determine what the true reading is. It seems clear, 
however, that there are //are classes of persons spoken of in 
these verses, as the R. V. indicates, and not two only, as the 
A. V. would lead one to suppose. The presenting of but two 
classes by the latter is due, as will soon be seen, to the omis- 
sion of certain words in verse 23. In attestation of the nom- 
inative SiaKpivoiJLivoL, in the verse before us, we have K, L, P, 
most of the cursives, a catena, Theophylact and CEcumenius, 
each in citing the text. The accusative of the Revised 
Text is the reading of Ji^, A, B, C, nearly twenty cursives, 
the Vulgate, the Syriac Versions, Clement, Ephraem Syrus, 
Jerome of course, Cassiodorus, and Theophylact and CEcu- 
menius in their comments on the passage. The nominative, 
therefore, has no support from external evidence of the earliest 
date. It will be observed, however, that in verse 23 the 
adjuncts apTrd^oirts, " snatching," or " pulling," and /uto-ovvrcs, 
" hating," are in the nominative, and refer, not to the objects, 
but to the subjects, of the preceding verbs. This leads us 
to conclude that the author of the epistle probably wrote 
the nominative here, as in the following instances, giving direc- 
tion thereby how those whom he is addressing should per- 



THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

form the duty enjoined upon them. On account of the early 
corruption of the text, it is not to be wondered at if, in the 
ignorance or uncertainty that existed concerning the writer's 
meaning, a false reading became more prevalent than the true 
one. — Now, respecting the other word, iXtcire, or, as the Re- 
vised Text has it, iktart, it is very questionable whether this 
is really the right word here. The American Revisers say, in 
a marginal note, "Some ancient authorities read, And some 
refute" instead of, "And on some have compassion." That 
is, tXtyxeTf appears instead of cXetirt in A, C first hand, nearly 
twenty cursives, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, the Armenian, 
the Ethiopic, Ephraem Syrus, Cassiodorus, Theophylact and 
(Ecumenius in their commentaries, as well as in Clement of 
Alexandria, Jerome, and an early scholiast. Lachmann, Tisch- 
endorf, and Alford adopt this as the true reading, as does Huther 
also ; and Tregelles gives it the preference. The objection to 
it is that, on account of the presence of eXctirc in the next 
verse as well as here, some early corrector of the text may be 
supposed to have substituted «A.€yx«T£ for it in this place, while 
some other corrector, retaining iXtCnt here, omitted it in verse 
23. But this is only an objection in appearance. Let us 
assume that €X€'y;:^£T£ is the original reading here, and eXttiTc or 
IktoTf. in the next verse, and only there. Let us now suppose, 
what is perfectly supposable, and by no means improbable, that, 
in an early exemplar from which a scribe was copying, a line 
ended with tXe-, the first part of iktyx^Tt, and that the fourth 
line after this also ended with the same letters, being in this 
case the first three letters of the other word. (The interme- 
diate fifty-five letters would make just four lines.) A copyist, 
having reached the end of the first of these lines, on returning 
to his exemplar, might have glanced at the lower line, then 
hastily passed to the left side of the page or column he was 
copying from for the rest of the word, and carelessly finished it 
off with elre or are, instead of yxtTt ; then, returning to his proper 
place without observing his error, he would have gone on with 



the next word, StaKjOifOfievot. This will account for the omission 
of c'Xc'yxfTc, and the appearance in its place of cXcctre. After 
the latter word had obtained currency, some one, naturally 
objecting to its two-fold appearance, omitted it, with two or 
three other words, from the next verse, and so gave rise to the 
reading of the Received Text. The reading cXcy^tTc is cer- 
tainly well supported, especially by early versions and patristic 
testimony. It is also clearly called for on internal grounds. 
It presents to us not only three different classes of persons to 
be dealt with, but three different modes of dealing with them. 
Adopting it, therefore, in place of either the received or the 
revised reading, and reading instead koI ous fiiv tXt'yxfc Sta- 
Kpivofitvoi, we have what seems to be, as far as we can ascertain 
from the confused state of liie documents, the writer's thought 
in these two verses. He is exhorting his readers respecting 
the course they should pursue in reference to those members 
of the church who had been and still were more or less under 
the influence of false teachers. And he says : "And some put 
to shame by confuting them ; but others save by plucking them 
out of the fire ; and others deal compassionately with, in fear, 
abhorring even the garment contaminated by the flesh." 


1. 5- 

In the familiar clause, " and washed us from our sins in his 
own blood," the word ko{^avTi, " washed," is set aside by the 
Revisers, and AijVwti, " loosed," inserted instead, with the mar- 
ginal note, that many authorities, some ancient, read, "washed." 
This familiar reading is attested by B, P, most of the cursives, 
the Vulgate, the Memphitic, both forms of the Ethiopic, An- 
dreas, and Arethas. The other is the reading of J<, A, C, ten or 
more cursives, the Syriac and Armenian Versions, and Prima- 
sius. The Revisers are doubtless right in making the change. 
When we consider that " the blood of Christ " is only another 
way of saying " the death of Christ," there is no difficulty in 
seeing that the apostle must have written " and loosed us from 
our sins by his blood " ; i.e. set us free, or opened the way 
for our deliverance, from sin by laying down his life. The 
same idea in a slightly varied form is presented in v. 9 : "Thou 
wast slain, and didst redeem us unto God with thy blood out of 
every tribe," etc. But some early reader, probably having vii. 
14 in mind, and possibly i John i. 7, took the preposition iv in 
its primary sense of " in," instead of considering it the accom- 
paniment of an instrumental dative, in the sense of " by " or 
" with," and naturally enough considered \v<TavTi, " loosed," an 
error for Xowravn, " washed," and so changed the original read- 
mg. But the revised reading is in perfect accord with Acts xx. 
28, Eph. i. 7, ii. 13, I Pet. i. 18, 19, and other passages. 



1. IS- 

Rec. T. ireirvp<i)(if vol * - 
Rev. T. -irtirupwiJi^vTis • ■ 

■ they burned. 

- it had been refined. 

The former is the reading of B, P, most of the cursives, 
Andreas, and Arethas. It cannot be the true reading, for fee/ 
burning in a furnace could hardly be represented as glowing 
like burnished brass. They would very soon be consumed. 
The other reading is attested by A, C, only. It is an unmean- 
ing reading, out of all grammatical harmony with the context, 
and utterly untranslatable. The true reading seems to be that 
adopted by Tischendorf, — -iri-Kvpuiji.kvw, " burning," referring to 
yakKoKi^avw, " burnished brass." It is attested by ^, at least 
four cursives, the Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic, Syriac, and 
Ethiopic Versions, Irenoeus according to his Latin interpreter, 
Cyprian, Victorinus, Primasius, and others. The conjecture of 
Diisterdieck, in his critical note on the passage, that 7r£7rvpa)/xo'jjs 
is a clerical error for jrtTrupw/xtVfl, a form in support of which 
there is not the least documentary evidence, is of no weight 
whatever. It proceeds on the assumption that xaX/coAi^ava), a 
word used nowhere but here and in ii. 18, is feminine; while 
John doubtless viewed it as a masculine, like xoAkos, "brass," 
and Xt)3avos, " frankincense," out of which he probably coined 
the word, though it is commonly regarded as a neuter. 

Rec. T. Tu &'y'Y^'i> "T'OS 'E<{>«<r(vns <KKX.i](rtas — Unto the angel of the 
church of Ephesus. 

Rev. T. Tii AvytXip Tu Iv'E^ia-a lKKkr\ — To the angel of the 
church in Ephesus. 

The Revisers' reading of the second article, though attested 
by A and C, — and these are the only known ancient witnesses 
for it, — is simply a stupid mechanical repetition of the dative 
form preceding. If it means anything, it is not what the R. V. 



gives us but "Unto the angel that is in Ephesus, concerning 
the church •• write. The true reading is r^, .V 'E^ia. eV.A,..a,. 
of the church in Ephesus," _ corresponding to the addresses 
to the other churches, and attested by S, B, P, all the cursives, 
the Armenian Version, Andreas, and Arethas. The same blun- 
dering scribe probably changed the text in the same way in 
verse 8, — " To the angel that is in Smyrna." The same change 
was also attempted in verse i8, and is preserved to us in 
Codex A, the leading " authority " that we have for this false 
reading in this first verse, and the only one for it in verse 8. 
The Revelator's form of address was one and the same to all 
the seven churches. And so, Tischendorf and others give it. 

ii. 13- 

Rec. T. iv Tats f\fupa.i% iv ats "Avrtiras i jidprvs (lov 4 iri<rT6s, — 

in those days wherein Antipas zvas my faithful martyr. 

Rev. T. 4v Tats TKitpais "AvTCiras 6 (idpTvs |to«, 6 mo-Tis (lou, —in 

the days of Antipas, my witness, my faithful one. 

The reading, iv aU, of the Received Text, is attested by the 
earlier seventh-century emendator of J<, P, eight or ten cursives, 
the Armenian Version, Andreas, and Arethas. It is also favored 
by the reading aU without the preposition, found in B, more 
than forty cursives, one manuscript of the Vulgate, the Syriac 
Version, both forms of the Ethiopic, and the fourth-century 
treatise, Questiones ex utroque Testamento. The Iv ais, or 
possibly the simple alt, was early lost from some copies in 
consequence of the preceding ^ixepan, having the same ending, 
— a case of homoioieleuton. The revised reading is that of 
A, C, the Vulgate, the Memphitic Version, and Bishop Hayiiio, 
of the ninth century. The Clementine Vulgate, two of the 
three Leipsic copies of the Apocalypse in Latin, and Primasius, 
read "in those days," without in quibus, "in which," following. 
The Revisers say in the margin that the Greek text here " is 
somewhat uncertain." That is, if we understand the note, they 



are themselves in doubt whether the revised text is the true 
text. And no wonder ; for, after having omitted ats, which is 
essential to the construction and is also well attested, they 
found it necessary to represent the nominative 'AvrtVas in 
English as a genitive by translating it " of Antipas," — to say 
nothing of the insertion of /xoC after irioro's, which, though found 
in A, C, and two cursives, is wanting in J^, the oldest of all the 
manuscripts, as well as in B, P, nearly every cursive, the Vulgate, 
Memphitic, and Ethiopic Versions, Andreas, Arethas, Primasius, 
and others. A and C certainly are not infallible, as we have 
already seen from their attestation of " the meaningless error," 
TrtTTvpoifjLtvr)';, in i. 15. Not only is the received reading the 
correct one here, but it is sufficiently attested as such to be 
more safely accepted than rejected, especially when, by reject- 
ing it, we make an incoherent text, which it is impossible to 
believe to be genuine, or to translate. 

ii. 17. 

Here, in place of tw vikZvti, " to him that overcometh," A 
and C have tw vikovvti, a false form, as if from a verb in -iut 
instead of from one in -dw. Yet Tischendorf adopts it. The 
same false spelling appears also in A at verse 7, which Lach- 
mann adopts ; and again in C at xv. 2, where we find viKovvrai 
for viKu)vTa<:, " those that are victorious." These forms can be 
attributed only to the ignorance of scribes ; and they show 
that the old manuscripts especially, since they are more con- 
fided in than later ones, need to be closely and continually 

Rec. T. ov . . . (CpT)Kd <rov tA ?p7a — I have not found thy works. 
Rev. T. oO . . . evpijKa <rou epya — I have found no works of thine. 

In connection with this revised rendering is the note that 
many ancient authorities read, " I have not found thy works." 



That is, they present the received reading, adopted by Gries- 
bach, Tischendorf, and others. This commonly accepted read- 
ing is attested by J^, B, P, nearly every cursive, the versions 
generally, Andreas, and Arethas. The other, which is adopted 
by Lachmann and Westcott and Hort, as well as the Revisers, 
is the reading of A, C, and the margin of Codex i, a twelfth- 
century cursive. It is plainly an attempt to make the apostle's 
language more definite. The phrase crov ra ipya, " thy works," 
which appears, also, in the preceding verse, and wherever else 
in the Apocalypse crov is coupled with ipya, was considered too 
general an expression, and forming an unsuitable subject for 
the accompanying predication. Hence the omission of to to 
render the statement more explicit. But the omission is too 
feebly attested to be allowed to set aside what is well known to 
be a genuine form of speech with the apostle. 

iv. 1,7,8; V. 6. 

The received readings, Xeyovaa, exov, kiyovra, etc., found in 
these verses and elsewhere, are undoubtedly critical emenda- 
tions to make the participle correspond in gender with the 
nouns with which they are construed, as ipoivq, ^mov, apviov, fwa, 
etc. Whereas, the readings, Xtywv, (x<^v, Xeyovres, etc., which 
the Revisers have substituted instead, while not in grammatical 
accord with the nouns with which they are to be taken, are the 
genuine readings, given in the masculine rather than the fem- 
inine or the neuter, on account of their being referred by the 
writer himself to the intelligences symbolized by the feminine or 
neuter nouns employed, — their hidden meaning rather than 
their grammatical character governing the writer's thought and 
pen. This is the only way of accounting for these apparendy 
anomalous forms, which cannot reasonably be attributed to 
error on the part of transcribers, or to emendation on the part 
of critics. The following are also examples of the same nature. 
Chapter. V. 12, i^ios . . . rh ^viov (Tischendorf, and Westcott 



and Hort in the margin, but not the Revisers, after Codex A) ; 
xi. 4, Xv;)(i/iai . . . to-ToiTts, symbolizing the teachers and the 
receivers of the truth ; xi. 15, ^tavai . . . XtyovT«, the "voices " 
representing the angelic hosts of heaven ; xiv. 19, Trjv Xrjvov . . . 
Tov ixiyav (Tischendorf, Lachmann, Tregelles in the text, and 
Westcott and Hort, after A, B, C, P, more than twenty cursives, 
and Arethas, but not adopted by the Revisers), symbolizing 
those whom God employs as instruments in carrying out his 
purpose; xxi. 14, to tiIxo^ ■ ■ ■ tx*^"' '^e wall being a part of 
the holy city symbolizing the bride, the Lamb's wife, or the 
risen and glorified saints. Quite analogous to these, and to be 
accounted for in the same way, is the combination t<u Orjpim 
(neuter) o?, "the beast w/io," xiii. 14, — that beast symboliz- 
ing a body of tyrannical rulers. 

V. 9. 

Rec. T. T|-yiSpcuras no ©em t||ws iv Ttf at^arC irov — thou hast re- 
deemed us to God by thy blood. 

Rev. T. TiYipotras tu 0tw Iv tw atfiaTl <rov — thou didst purchase 
unto God with thy blood rneii. 

The former reading is attested by Ji^, B, P, most of the 
cursives, the Vulgate, the Syriac, Memphitic, and Annenian 
Versions, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Augustine, Fulgentius, Andreas, 
Haymo, Arethas, Primasius, and others. In some of these, 
however, t<S OtuI follows 17/Aa? instead of preceding it, while in 
others it is altogether wanting. This is simply due to the fact 
that Tw @t<S was omitted by one of the ancient scribes in copy- 
ing, as several documents still attest, and that in restoring it to 
the text it was misplaced, — having been inserted after instead 
of before rjfiai. This, however, does not militate in the least 
against the genuineness of ij/xSs. The Revisers' reading, which 
omits 17/Ji.d?, is attested only by A and the Ethiopic Version ; 
while the eleventh-century cursive 44 has -rjfjiuiv (" to our God ") 
in place of rjfiai. (This, however, may be merely a transcrip- 



tional error.) The word was no doubt omitted on account of 
the avTovi, " them," in the next verse, with which " us " was sup- 
posed to be inconsistent ; and at the same time, /3ao-tXevao/«i', 
"we shall reign," in verse lo, which is demanded both by ij/xa« 
here, and by the closing words of iv. i, was changed to fiavf 
ktvaoxxTiv, " they shall reign," which Griesbach, Tischendorf, and 
others adopt, and afterwards to ^a.aiXe.voM<nv, "they reign," 
which Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers adopt. 
That " us " is a proper reading is seen in the fact that the song 
in which it occurs was shared by " the four-and-twenty elders," 
who represent redeemed and glorified saints ; while " them," in 
the tenth verse, is not inappropriate as referring to the same 
persons, after they have been spoken of as redeemed " out of 
every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," — the words 
"and madest them" being equivalent to "whom thou didst 
make," if expressed in idiomatic English. This would perhaps 
be the best rendering for Kai avrous here, as the Revisers them- 
selves have translated these words in Mark i. 19. (Compare, 
also. Note on Mark i. 19, in The Revisers' English Text.) 
The two verses would then read, " And they sing a new song, 
saying. Worthy art thou to toke the book, and to open its seals, 
for thou wast slain, and didst redeem us unto God by thy blood 
out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation ; whom 
thou didst make to be to our God kings and priests ; and they 
shall reign upon the earth." 

vi. I. 

The Revisers' rendering, " as with a voice of thunder," does 
not indicate that the corresponding Greek word in their text is 
,^<«,o},— a nominative. This rendering of the nominative is 
justifiable in Acts xix. 34; but here "with a voice" can only 
be a legitimate rendering for the dative <i>u>vrj, — there bemg 
nothing in the context to make it an allowable rendering for 
the nominative. Some of the later documents give the form 
<^o)vfl; but the older ones are without either accents, or the 



iota whether ascript or subscript. Even the cursive manu- 
scripts generally either omit this iota entirely, or pay but little 
attention to its insertion, far more frequently omitting it than 
inserting it. This may account for the want of " authority " 
not only for ^i^vrj here, but for yy in Matt. ii. 6. The eariiest 
known manuscript of the New Testament that contains an 
I subscript dates from the latter half of the twelfth century. 
In view of all which, it seems to us perfectly justifiable, be- 
cause demanded by the context, to write <^wg here. (Compare 
viii. 13.) 

vi. 17. 

Rec. T. t| T||i<po T| (ifYdXi) ri^s op-y<ls outoO, — the great day of his 

Rev. T. i\ 'igpicpa t] |ji<Yd\T] Ttjs op-yf^s auruv, — the great day of their 

The singular form of the pronoun in this verse is vouched 
for by A, B, P, every known cursive but one, the Memphitic, 
Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, the four forms of Andreas"^ 
Commentary, Arethas, and Primasius. The plural, adopted by 
the Revisers, is given by ji^, C, one cursive, the Vulgate and 
Syriac Versions, the author of the fourth-century work De 
Promissionihiis Di?nii/. Temporis, Fulgentius, Haymo, and some 
others. The documentary evidence is thus divided, with an 
apparent preponderance in favor of the common reading. The 
expression " their wrath " of course means the wrath of " him 
that sitteth upon the throne," as well as that of the Lamb, just 
mentioned. But the reference of the writer seems to be to the 
immediately preceding statement concerning "the wrath of the 
Lamb " only. It looks as if some early reviser had changed 
" his " to " their," because the general New-Testament phrase- 
ology speaks of the divine wrath as the wrath 0/ God^ which 

* John iii. 36; Rom. i. 18, ix. 22, xii. 19, impliedly; Eph. v. 5; Col. iii. 6; 
Ileb. iii. Ii, iv. 3; Rev. xi. 18, xvi. 19, xix. 15. 




he would include with the wrath of the Lamb here. In verse 
1 6, however, men are represented as crying to be hidden from 
the face of God and from the wrath of the Lamb, as two 
distinct things. Then, as a reason why they desire to escape 
from the latter, it is added, "because the great day of hii 
wrath is come." This is natural, and just what the author 
might be supposed to have written. It is also favored by the 
documentary evidence, and is accepted as the true reading 
by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf in his seventh edition 
(though in his eighth he abandons it for the reading of his 
favorite Sinaitic Codex) , and by most modem commentators. 

XI. 5. 

Rec. T. A Tis avTois OfXu A8iKf|o-oi, — if any man will hurt them. 
Rev. T. ct Tis fltX^o-n avTois d8iK<i<roi, — if any man shall desire to. 
hurt them. 

The common reading ^c'Ag is almost without support. The 
revised Qt\-{](rtj is the reading of X and A only. The true 
reading seems to be ^cVci, the reading of B, C, P, nearly all the 
cursives, Andreas, Arethas, and Primasius. It is the true read- 
ing in the first clause of the verse, as admitted by the Revisers ; 
and there is no reason why they should not have employed the 
same form liere. It would have been unnatural for the apostle to 
have framed the two clauses differently for no apparent reason. 
Some critical reader or careless copyist must have mistaken the 
meaning, and changed the language. But the original text is 
abundantly supported. ©cXei should be read in both clauses 
of the verse, with its corresponding English, " purposeth," or 
" desireth." Then, if »coi is, as it seems to be, intended to 
emphasize what follows, it should be rendered " yea," as the 
Revisers have rendered it, for example, in John xvi. 32. The 
verse, properly translated, would then be, "And if any one 
desireth to hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and 
devoureth their enemies ; yea, if any one desireth to hurt them, 



thus must he be destroyed ; " i.e. not in any ordinary way, but 
by their fearless, truthful utterances. The language is symbolic. 

xi. 8, 9. 

Rec. T. t4 irriiiiaTa avruv . . . tcL irrwiiaTa airuv ... to tttw- 
)iaTa airuv — their dead bodies . . . their dead bodies . . . their dead 

Rev. T. tA TTTciijjta auTwv ... TO irTwjia avTwv . . . tA 7rTU|jLaTa 
avTuv — their dead bodies . . . their dead bodies . . . their dead bodies. 

To the first two of these renderings in the Revised Version 
is attached the marginal note " Gr. carcase" ; that is to say, 
the corresponding Greek in the Revisers' Text in those two 
instances is in the singular, and denotes a corpse, a dead body, 
not corpses or dead bodies. In the third instance, it will be 
observed, their reading corresponds with that of the received 
text. It is in the plural. This plural is attested as genuine by 
all the documents, with the single exception of Cursive 14, 
which reads t6 <Tu>;ua, " body," and one manuscript of Andreas, 
which has to. a-to/xaTa, " bodies " (probably a transcriptional 
error), while all his other manuscripts read to. TmofULTa. The 
received reading, aside from this, is attested, in the first instance 
in which the word occurs, by X, P, ten or twelve cursives, the 
Vulgate, the Syriac Version, Andreas, Victorinus, Primasius, 
and others ; in the second instance, by the same witnesses 
except X> one manuscript of Andreas, and Victorinus. The 
singular form, given in the Revised Text, is attested, in the first 
instance, by A, B, C, thirty-five cursives, the Memphitic, Arme- 
nian, and Egyptian Versions, Arethas, and others ; in the 
second, by the same witnesses, together with J^ and one manu- 
script of Andreas. But this reading is palpably false, and by 
no means inexplicable. We say palpably false ; for no sane 
person, speaking of the remains of these or any other witnesses, 
in penning only forty-five words, would twice mention those 
remains as a corpse, and immediately after as corpses. The 
Revisers themselves find it impossible to do it. Notwithstand- 




ing their Greek text, which is supposed to present the original, 
God-given language of the Revelator, they reject it, and say 
successively, with King James's Revisers, " their dead bodies." 
Why, then, should they have adopted that text? Simply 
because of devotion to manuscript " authority " on the part of 
a few of their number. It was not because that text was essen- 
tial to a revision of the English text. It was not because it is 
incredible that John could have done otherwise than twice 
speak of two (or more) dead bodies as one, then the third 
time express himself in regard to them as the rest of mankind 
would ; as their English Version plainly indicates. It was not 
because the Greek singular to tttwim avrZv means "their dead 
bodies," as if it could be taken collectively, with De Wette, to 
mean " that which has fallen of them " ; i.e. their corpses — a 
use of the word altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable. It 
was not that the plural form might be interpreted as meaning 
that each of the witnesses had more than one body or one 
corpse, as one would naturally interpret the words " their ears " 
in the clause " Their ears are dull of hearing " ; any more than 
one might possibly interpret in a similar manner the expression 
" their consciences " in such a phrase as " being convicted by 
their consciences." Nor was it because there is no evidence 
that John wrote the plural in each of these three instances. It 
was simply owing to undue deference to the testimony of fallible 
and depraved documents. Textual critics have been too ready 
to say that the correction of the singular into the plural shows 
that offence was taken at the singular. But the truth is, strange 
as it may seem, no such offence was ever taken. The " correc- 
tion" so-called, that is, the change which the genuine text has 
undergone, has been wholly the other way : offence was taken 
at the plural. The witnesses, whose dead bodies are spoken 
of, are represented in verse 4 as olive-trees and candlesticks. 
To some ancient critic, who took irrui/xa in its primary sense of 
" a fall," the sense in which the word is perhaps most commonly 
used by classical writers, the thought of " the corpses " of olive- 


trees and candlesticks, no doubt, seemed absurd, the obvious 
result of a misunderstanding of the apostle's meaning. Then 
m order to restore what he considered the original text he 
changed the plural to the singular, making the apostle 'say 
"And their /a// shall be on (or in) the street of the great city '' 
etc and . . . " nations shall witness (or behold) their>// (or 
defeat) for three days and a half." But, the third time the 
word occurs, he was under the absolute necessity of leaving it 
m the plural, because of the absurdity of saying that men shall 
not suffer " their fall to be deposited in a tomb." Not only 
does this show how the revised text arose, but it reveals the 
untrustworthy character of some of those to whom we are 
mdebted for the Greek text of the New Testament, and to 
whom many m our day defer, even with profound reverence. 

xi. 9, 10. 

Rec. T. p\.',|,o«o-iv, shall see . . . a4.^a-ou<rt, shall sufTer . . . vopo«o-iv, 
shall rejoice . . . .i+paveTJo-ovrai, shall make merry . . . u.V+ovaiv, shall 

Rev. T. pX.Vov<riv, do look . . . i<|>{ov<ri, suffer . . . xo£pov<riv, re- 
joice . . . «4<|)paCvovTai, make merry . . . irtV+ouo-iv, shall send. 

In verse 7, as presented by both the Received and the Re- 
vised Text, we find three futures, — " sh.ill make," "shall over- 
come," and "shall kill." Then follow the above verbs; the 
last of which, as given in both texts, is also a future. In regard 
to the other four verbs, there is an obvious difference in the 
time expressed, — the Received Text giving them in the future, 
and the Revised Text in the present. Yet there is no apparent 
reason why there should be this change from the future to the 
present on the part of four, or indeed of any, of these eight 
verbs. The context seems to call for the future in every in- 
stance, and no more in the last one and the first three than 
in the intermediate four. But the documents do not furnish 
as strong evidence in support of the future in the case of those 



four as in that of the others. Tischendorf, on the testimony 
of X first hand, P, four cursives, a few manuscripts of the 
Vulgate, the Armenian Version, and two manuscripts of Andreas, 
adopts the present 7rf';ix7rovo-iv, " send," in verse lo, instead of 
the future, " will send," consistendy with the four preceding 
presents, all of which he adopts, as do the Revisers. The future, 
however, is far more strongly attested than the present. It is 
the reading of the earlier seventh-century corrector of J^, A, C, 
most of the cursives, the Clementine Vulgate, most copies of 
Jerome's, the Memphitic and Syriac Versions, Primasius, and 
others. It is supported, also, as far as the tense is concerned, 
by B, thirty or more cursives, the other two manuscripts of 
Andreas, and Arethas' Commentary, all of which read, " will 
give," instead of " will send," gifts. The other four futures, 
of the Received Text, though not as strongly attested a% the 
presents of the Revised, are no doubt genuine. It is by no 
means improbable that an early reader changed the five futures 
in these two verses into the historical present with a view to 
enliven the discourse. It certainly has that appearance. There 
is not a shadow of probability that the aposde varied his tenses 
as the Revised Text varies them. The internal evidence is 
wholly to the contrary. 

xi. i8. 

Rec T TOis (iiKpots KaX rots (U^AXois, — small and great. 

Rev. T. Tois ^iKpois KaV Tois yuy&KoxK, — the small and the great. 

These words are supposed to belong to the preceding expres- 
sion To« <t>oPov^ivoi,, and should properly be in the same case 
with it The received reading here is that of a seventh-century 
corrector of K, »- ^' ^^^ ^^^ cursives, the Vulgate, Andreas, 
Arethas, Cyprian, Primasius, and others. Tischendorf, DUster- 
dieck, and others unhesitatingly adopt it as the genume readmg. 
The revised reading is that of S ^^'^^ hand. A, and C only. 
But A reads the accusative here because of its previous readmg 



Tovs dyious Kal tovs (^oySou/utcVow, an obvious transcriptional error 
for Toi? dyiois Kal rots <^o/8ou;ii.o'ois. Through inattention on the 
part of scribes, the other two uncials unwittingly fell into the 
same error as far as the words cited above are concerned. To 
suppose the Apostle John to have been capable of committing 
this error is to entertain a most humiliating opinion of his ability 
as a writer of Greek, and an unwarranted estimate of the power 
of transcribers to keep from slips. The reading has really no 
claim to serious consideration. It is barely possible, but not 
very probable, that it originated in an attempt to make the 
language correspond, in part at least, with the reading of the 
Septuagint (Psa. cxv. 13), €v\6yr]<Ti tous <^o/3ov/ieVovs tov Kvpwv, 
Tovi fxiKpov^ fj-tTo. Tuiv fxtyd\u)v, " He will bless them that fear 
the Lord, the small with the great." Still, a recollection of this 
passage may have had some influence on the transcriber, and 
have been the means of leading him astray. But, whatever may 
have been its origin, it is obviously a false reading. 

Rec. T. KoWotAOiiv {irl ti]v a|i.|iov Ttjs OaXd(rtri)s * — And I stood 
upon the sand of the sea. 

Rev. T. Kal i<n6.6-i\ lit\ tt\v a|i.|i,ov Ttjs 6aXd(r(riis . — and he stood 
upon the sand of the sea. 

The first of these readings is attested by B, P, nearly all the 
cursives, the Memphitic Version, Erpenius' Arabic, Andreas, 
^nd Arethas; the second, by J^, A, C, 87, 92, the Vulgate, the 
Syriac, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and Bishop Haymo. Those 
who hold to this reading regard the dragon as taking his stand 
by the sea in order to call forth the seven-headed beast, and to 
equip him with power. But this is being wise above what is 
written ; for, while verse 2 shows that the dragon gave posi- 
tion, power and authority to the beast, he is not represented 
as having called the beast up out of the sea, or as being stationed 
on the shore for that purpose. The last that we read of the 



dragon, previous to this verse, is that he departed to make war 
■with the womaris seed (xii. 1 7). But, according to this reading, 
in the very next breath, before he has had time to do any 
fighting, he is standing upon the s^nd of the sea. This cer- 
tainly does not give assurance of the genuineness of the reading. 
And when we consider that a scribe, who has just recorded a 
statement respecting the dragon, and finds no other subject 
introduced, on coming to iardOrjv would very naturally refer it 
to the dragon, and without due attention write it in the third 
person singular, — simply omitting the last letter of the word, 

we can very easily see how this reading should have crept 

in. This makes the apostle say, " And the dragon waxed wroth 
with the woman, and departed to make war with the rest of 
her seed (such as keep the commandments of God, and hold 
the testimony of Jesus), and stood upon the sand of the sea.'-' 
Thus no time is allowed the dragon to do any warring before 
he is on the seashore. And if he is there to bestow power and 
government upon the seven-headed beast, it is difficult to see 
when he wages the warfare he is said to have gone forth to 
wage. We are told, however, that he is to employ the beast 
as^his instrument in the conflict he has undertaken. But is 
there anything to warrant this interpretation? All that we 
are apparently justified in concluding from the text is that the 
beast derived its power and authority from the dragon ; i.e. it 
inherited the same spirit, and was empowered to accomplish 
the same unhallowed ends. As a consequence, similar homage 
and worship were given to both the beast and the dragon 
Now if we understand, with the Received Text, Tischendorf 
and others, that John instead of the dragon stood on the sand 
of the shore, we allow an indefinite period of time between the 
departing of the dragon (xii. 17) and the commg up of the 
beast mentioned in xiii. i. And not only this; we also see 
the significance of John's standing by the sea ; namely, that he 
might have a full view of the beast coming up out of the water. 
The obvious intent of the former statement is to show that the 



apostle is in a proper position to witness and report the next 
scene presented to him. 

xiii. 7. 

The omission of the first half of this verse, referred to in the 
marginal note, occurs in A, C, P, four cursives, Zohrab's Arme- 
nian Version, two manuscripts of Andreas, and Irenseus as 
represented by his Latin interpreter. It is not, however, be- 
cause the clause is spurious, or of questionable genuineness in 
any degree. The omission is due simply to the ever-recurring 
transcriptional error of homoioteleuton, the transcriber's eye, in 
copying, having passed unconsciously from kox fS60r]avT<S, "and 
it was given to him," at the beginning of the clause, to the 
same words at the beginning of the next clause, causing him to 
leave the intermediate words unwritten. And from one copy 
the omission passed into others, — thus indicating a kind of 
relationship between certain manuscripts. 

xiii. 8. 

Rec. T. «Sv oi •yf-ypoirrai ra dv6|iaTa — whose names are not written. 
Rev. T. ov ou fiypairrai to ovo|ia avroS — cverjr one whose name 
hath not been written. 

The TO ovo/xa, of the Revised Text (without the Hebraistic 
avrov following it, which is found only in A, C) seems to be the 
true reading, and not ra. ovofixnTa. But the relative JJv, referring 
back to TTavtts ot KaToiKovvTK, " all who dwell," has been im- 
properly changed to ov. The former is attested by Ji^, B, P, 
most of the cursives, the Vulgate, the Memphitic, Syriac, Arme- 
nian, and Ethiopic Versions, Andreas, Arethas, Primasius, and 
others. The latter is attested only by C, and the Latin inter- 
preter of Irenseus. A reads ovai, — a clerical blunder, of course, 
but perhaps for ou ou. The singular form (ou) of the relative 
grew out of the singular to ovo/m limited by it, — the expression, 
" all persons whose name is not written," appearing inappro- 



priate, or, at all events, less appropriate than " every one whose 
name is not written." Others, instead of changing !>v to oZ, 
were led by this seeming impropriety to substitute the plural 
Ta ofo/ittTa, of the Received Text, for the singular to ovofia, 
which the Revisers read, according to A, B, C, forty or more 
cursives, the Memphitic and Syriac Versions, three manuscripts 
of Andreas, Irenseus according to his Latin interpreter, and 
Augustine. The plural appears in X> P> fo"'' cursives, the 
"Vulgate, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions, Arethas, Primasius, 
Haymo, and one manuscript of Andreas. The singular, how- 
ever, is the more strongly attested, and must be regarded as 
the true reading. (Compare xvii. 8.) 

ziii. to. 

Rec. T. Et Tis atxH">^<»<''a»' <r«vd-y€i, «ls otxn<iX«iirCav vird^ei • — He 

that leadeth into captivity, shall go into captivity. 

Rev. T. €t Tis «ts otx|Jia\o)o-tav, «ts olxtiaXoKrCav OtrdYCi • — If any man 

is for captivity, into captivity he goeth. 

The received reading here is unsupported by any known 
Greek manuscript. Codex 33 omits the preposition before the 
first atx/xoXwo-iav, but reads aTrayei instead of miviya immedi- 
ately after; while 35, and one manuscript of Andreas give very 
nearly the same reading. The revised reading is that of A, 
three copies of the Vulgate, and a Slavonic manuscript, which 
of course is of comparatively recent date. The uncials, X. B, 
C, P, and four of the best cursives, 28, 38, 79, 95, read simply 
d (though C has ^ here) tis d% aly^jJiXuxriav viraya (B alone 
reading vTray.^). But, as far as we are aware, only Tregelles 
among modern editors ventures to accept this as the true read- 
ing. It is generally thought that the second atxf»aA.<i«7tiiv with 
its accompanying preposition is omitted in these manuscripts 
by hojitPtofekuton ; which is possible, and by no means improb- 
able. This is the position taken by neariy all modern editors. 
But why limit the omission to these two words ? If, as there is 




ground for believing, the original reading was tl ri'; «? atx/xa- 
Xojo-tai' crvvayii (or avdyu, as several documents read), tis al^jjux- 
X.m(Ttav vnayu, we see no reason why the absence of cmvaya (or 
dTrayct) from the leading manuscripts may not be accounted 
for in this way just as well as that of the remaining two words. 
By restoring this word as well as the other two, and taking the 
verb as a present used de cona/ii as in John x. 32, xiii. 6, and 
elsewhere, we obtain this as the meaning of the clause : " If 
any one would lead (or would lead away) into captivity, into 
captivity he goeth " ; that is, as a necessary consequence. It 
will be observed that this reading obviates the necessity, which 
the Revisers found themselves under, of giving the preposition 
€1? two different meanings in identical and close connections. 
The reading of A (adopted by the Revisers) seems to be this 
reading only partially restored. It is a significant fact that it 
is found in no other Greek manuscript. 

In the second clause of the verse, Westcott and Hort give the 
present oTroKTciVti in the margin as a secondary and possibly 
genuine reading in place of the future dTroKTcvei, "shall kill." 
This present is attested by Ji^, 28, 79, while B, 26, 87, though 
spelling the word as a future, accent it as a present, as if it were 
considered such by the scribes of those manuscripts. Taken 
as a present again used de cottatu, it yields an excellent mean- 
ing : " If any one would kill with the sword, with the sword 
must he be killed." And this, we are inclined to think, is the 
original reading. It puts this clause in harmony with the pre- 
ceding, and makes the two yield not only an intelligible, but 
what seems to be in every respect a satisfactory sense : " If 
any one would lead into captivity, into captivity he goeth ; if 
any one would kill with the sword, with the sword must he be 
killed." That is, if, in times of persecution and bloodshed, 
one would resist his oppressors, and seek to lead them with 
himself (or, would attempt to subdue them and carry them 
away) into captivity, he but places himself in a position to be 
led into captivity; or if, in other words, he would take the 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

sword in hand to resist them, he must expect to perish by the 
sword. In meekly continuing to fulfil their duties as Chris- 
tians, and in calmly yielding if necessary rather than resisting 
when thus tried, the saints show their patience and the faith 
they have in God. " Here is the patience and the faith of the 

xiii. 15. 

Rec. T. i866i} avru Sovvai irvcSfia rg ctK6vi — he had power to give 
life unto the image. 

Rev. T. {S60T] auTiij SoSvai irvcv|xa t^ ctK6vi — it was given unto him 
to give breath to it, even to the image. 

The received reading is attested by X> B, P second hand, 
all the cursives, Hippolytus, Andreas, and Arethas; the Revis- 
ers', by A, C, P first hand. This reading seems to have been 
adopted, not because it is more strongly attested than the 
other, but because it is a more difficult reading, and probably 
the Revisers as a body could not withstand Dr. Hort's argu- 
ments in its favor. Not another instance can be found in the 
Apocalypse in which the apostle uses this aorist passive (iBuOrf) 
without giving also in close connection with it the dative denot- 
ing the receiver of the thing given. This shows the apostle's 
manner of using the word ; and we may safely infer from it 
how he expressed himself here. It is vain to think for a mo- 
ment that axnfi may denote the receiver but that the Revisers 
have mistaken the construction. The only true rendering for 
the words — " It was given to her [or, to it'\ to give life to the 
image," — is meaningless. There is nothing in the preced- 
ing context to which the word can possibly be referred as an 
antecedent, notwithstanding Dr. Hort's vague surmisings con- 
cerning the earth. It is scarcely possible that the apostle could 
have so far departed from his ordinary usus loquendi as not only 
to omit giving the dative denoting the recipient, but to give in 
its place a word that is absolutely uncalled-for and purposeless. 
By turning to the context, we discover the probable origin of 



this strange reading. We find that the careless copyist had 
just written iZoOy\, and the impression which the last letter of this 
word made on his mind led him, as he wrote the succeeding 
word, to finish this, too, with the same letter. Yet Dr. Hort 
says : " It is impossible either to account for the text \i.e. for 
airij] as a corruption of avraJ, or to interpret it as it stands." ' 
Still, though a confessedly impossible reading, it must be admitted 
in the face of an appropriate and even better attested reading 
to be a part of the genuine text ! Thus these blunders are intro- 
duced, one after another, under false principles, or rather 
under principles of criticism which within reasonable limits 
may be perfectly just and safe, but, when pressed to extremes, 
end in giving us spurious readings and gross absurdities. 

xiv. 13. 

Rec. T. ri 8< «p7a auruv clkoXouSci — and their works do follow. 
Rev. T. tA 'Yap Ipya ouriiv dKoXouSct — for their works follow. 

The received reading here is attested by B, most of the 
cursives, Andreas, and Arethas ; while the older manuscripts J^, 
A, C, P, four cursives, the Vulgate, the Syriac Version, Augus- 
tine, Primasius, and others support the revised reading. If we 
were left to be governed simply by documentary evidence, 
we should be compelled to adopt yap as the genuine reading. 
But this word has the suspicious appearance of being a gloss ; 
while the true meaning of the passage demands Se. The latter 
was apparently set aside in consequence of a misapprehension 
of the real import of the words, resulting from a false view of 
scri[)tural truth ; namely, that one's good deeds are the ground 
or source of future blessedness : for the object of yap is evidently 
to introduce a reason for the blessedness of those who die in 
the Lordy — namely, because their works follow with them; 
i.e. as De Wette expresses it, " the memory of their deeds." 

1 See Select Readings, p. 138. 



This Virtually makes their future reward consist in their past 
works rather than in their continued faithfulness, obedience, 
and activity in the service of God. In contrast with this, the 
apostle was commanded to write, " Blessed henceforth are the 
dead who die in the Lord ; yea, saith the Spirit, [who die] so 
as to rest from their labors ; but their works follow with them." 
Their toils, their tears, their sorrows, their sufferings are over ; 
they rest from these. But their works of obedience, holy min- 
istry, love, and gratitude continue ; they follow, and flow from 
them continually. They that die in the Lord, so far from 
resting from these, are blest ; they cease not from their service 
or worship day or night. Rev. iv. 8; vii. 15. Their blessed- 
ness consists in part in cessation from toils and trouble, but 
mainly in the perfect service of God as his loyal, loving, 
redeemed subjects. 

XV. 3. 

Rec. T. 6 PoiriXcvs xciiv d-yCuv, — thou King of saints. 
Rev. T. 6 PatriXcvs tuv aCuvuv. — thou King of the ages. 

The reading, ayiusv, of the Received Text, is virtually without 
support. The revised reading is attested by ^ first hand, C, 
two cursives, the Clementine Vulgate, a few copies of Jerome's, 
the Syriac Version, Erpenius' Arabic, the margin of Uscan's 
Armenian, Haymo, and others. This is the title which the 
Apostle Paul assigns to God in i Tim. i. 17, — " the King 
eternal." It is adopted by Westcott and Hort as the true 
reading here. And yet the marginal reading, o ySao-iXtiJs rwv 
idvZv, " Thou King of nations," which is adopted by Lachmann, 
Tregelles, Tischendorf, and placed by Westcott and Hort in the 
margin as a secondary reading, is more probably the original 
reading. It is well attested by Ji^'s seventh-century correc- 
tor, A, B, P, nearly fifty cursives, the Memphitic, Ethiopic, 
and Armenian Versions, Andreas, Arethas, Cyprian, Ambrose, 
and Primasius. It harmonizes, also, with what follows : . . .. 
"a// nations shall come and worship before thee." These vari- 



ations seem to be due to the partial obliteration of the original 
word in some early manuscript, in trying to restore which, one 
gave one word, another another. 

XV. 6. 

Rec. T. ivS«Su(i.<voi \tvov Ka6apov Kal Xa|jiirp6v, — clothed in pure 
and white linen. 

Rev. T. 4v8cSu)i{vot X£Bov KaOapov Xa|i.irptfv, — arrayed with precious 
stone, pure aniJ bright. 

The common reading Xi'voi' is supported by B, P, nearly all 
the cursives, the Clementine Vulgate, the Syriac and Armenian 
Versions, Andreas, Arethas, Primasius, and others. The Re- 
visers' is the reading of A, C, three cursives and the margin of 
a fourth, and several manuscripts of the Vulgate. The Sinaitic 
Codex (not, as some suppose, on account of the difficulty pre- 
sented by \i6ov, but because there are seven angels spoken of 
as "clothed") gives i\\t plural, KaOapov'; AiVovs, "clean linen 
garments," — in which reading it is accompanied by the Mem- 
phitic Version. The Ethiopic Version and Erpenius' Arabic are 
without any corresponding word. It is plain that kWov, present- 
ing us with angels clothed in stone, is an impossible reading ; 
but the weight of the testimony in support of it is thought by 
some to be too great to be set aside. Hence, Lachmann, 
Westcott and Hort, and others adopt it. Tregelles does not 
venture to reject it, but accepts it hesitatingly. Tischen- 
dorf, Alford, and others, however, read Xlvov, with the Received 
Text. It is true that XiVov is nowhere else in the New Testa- 
ment used in the sense of linen. Aside from this passage, it is 
found only in Matt. xii. 20 ; and there it denotes the raw 
material, flax. But is " stone " mentioned in any other passage 
of the New Testament, or indeed in any other writing, as 
clothing material, even for human beings, to say nothing of 
angels ? The Revisers virtually repudiate their own reading ; 
for, instead of faithfully translating it as it should be trans- 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

lated, "clothed in clean, bright stone," they render it "arrayed 
with precious stone, pure and bright," interpolating the words 
"precious" and " and." (The former word is a part of the 
text m xvii. 4, xviii. 12, 16, xxi. 19, and is employed with 
" stone " in speaking of ornaments and ornamentation.) Then, 
to give the word still more plausibility, the Revisers change the 
simple word " clothed " to the ambiguous vocable " arrayed," 
which includes the idea of decking and adorning as well as of 
clothing. (Compare Matt. vi. 29 ; Acts xii. 21 ; Rev. xvii. 4 ; 
xviii. 16. Also Rev. xi. 3, where "arrayed" would be altogether 
inai)propriate.) The reading they have adopted finds no justi- 
fication in the Septuagint rendering of Ezek. xxviii. 13. The 
two cases are altogether different. The prophet refers to the 
manner in which the king and people of Tyre displayed their 
pride and ostentation. But the apostle is speaking of the dress 
of angels. There is no similarity between the characters, the 
circumstances, or the expressions employed in reference to 
them. In the one case, mention is made of the extravagant 
adornment of the person with all manner of costly stones : 
" With every precious stone (Trai' \l6ov xpv<rTov) hast thou been 
attired, — with the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the 
beryl, the onyx, and the jasper," etc., — language that is nei- 
ther unnatural nor unreasonable. In the other, it is the 
material in which angels are clothed that is spoken of, which 
according to this reading, is "clean, bright stone," — material 
seemingly altogether unsuitable for angels' apparel. If noth- 
ing else convinced us that kWov was a transcriptional error, 

probably the result of carrying the next word along with this 
in the mind at the time, — the combination "clean stone," as 
clothing material, would be enough. The word "clean " is not 
only redundant, but an altogether unsuitable epithet for " stone " 
thus employed. 


XVll. 3. 


Rec. T. 9t]pCov k6kkivov, •y^V-'"' ovoftdruv pXactliiiiiCas, — a scarlet- 
colored beast, full of names of blasphemy. 

Rev. T. 6i]p(ov KdKKivov, Y^)iovTa dvo|iaTa p\a(r<)>T||i(as, — a scarlet- 
colored beast, full of names of blasphemy. 

The reading ovofjuxTmv, of the Received Text, is but feebly sup- 
ported, being attested by only twelve or fifteen cursives, Hip- 
polytus, Andreas, and Arethas. That of the Revised Text, 
yifiovTa ovofuxra, is attested possibly by Ji^ first hand, A, 13, and 
19, certainly by P; while Ji^ as afterwards corrected, B, and 
twenty-five or thirty cursives read yiixov ovufjuara ; and three or 
four cursives read yi^uiv ovofjuxra. The word with which ■yt/i.oi' 
(or yi/xovTa) is to be construed is the neuter 6-qpLov just pre- 
ceding. And as the neuter ixpv follows immediately after, and 
belongs to the same neuter noun, it is better with Lachmann, 
Tregelles, Diisterdieck, and others, to take the ye'/xovra of Ji^ 
and A as two words, yt'/iov rd. This gives three neuter adjuncts 
in succession limiting the neuter Orjplov, — a reading which is 
perfectly natural, and commends itself as genuine. It is by no 
means probable that the apostle wrote first a neuter adjective 
KoKKivov, then a masculine, then a neuter again, as the Revised 
Text makes it appear that he wrote. The reading of Lach- 
mann and Tregelles, as far as yi/xov is concerned, it will be 
observed, is that of J< corrected, B, and twenty-five or more 
cursives ; but these witnesses all omit the article to. following. 
This article seems necessary to indicate a reference to the 
names of blasphemy mentioned in xiii. i, where this beast first 
appears. If, however, the reading with three neuter adjuncts 
is not the original reading, we should say with Tischendorf that 
yifjLovra . . . tx""™ '^ the true reading rather than ycynovra . . . 
€xov, as the Revisers have it. In that case, the two masculine 
adjuncts would be accounted for on the principle mentioned in 
our note on iv. 7. But that the apostle, after having introduced 
the masculine adjective yifiovra, should return to a neuter 
adjunct in Ixov is incredible. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



xviii. 3. 

. viiruKt irdvTo rd jevT], — for all nations 

Rec. T. 8ti {k toO olvov . 

have drunk of the wine. 

Rev. T. 8x1 Ik toO otvo« . . , u^^<.Kav ^Avra tA ievr,,-for by the 
wine ... all the nations are fallen. 

The received reading, W,ra,K., adopted by Lachmann, Tre- 
gelles, Tischendorf, and others, is attested by P, twenty-five or 
more cursives, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Armenian, Hippoly- 
tus, Andreas, Arethas, Haymo, and others. Th.e other reading 
TrcVrcKav, is that of A, C, from ten to fifteen cursives, the Mem- 
phitic and Ethiopic Versions; while S, B, read the regular 
third person plural TrtTrrolKaa-tv instead of the Alexandrian. 
Four cursives read ,r£irori« "have become drunk," — taken 
probably from xiv. 8. The difference in spelling between 
^inwKav and ni^rmKav is but slight, the One having a letter which 
the other is without. But the difference in meaning is greater. 
It IS not because the weight of manuscript authority is in favor 
of the former that Tischendorf and others adopt it, but because 
internal evidence calls for it. On turning to xiv. 8, we find it 
said that Babylon has fallen because she has " made all nations 
dr/ni of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." The same 
sacred penman would naturally say here, " Babylon is fallen, 
because all nations have r/runi of the wine of the wrath of her 
fornication." However natural it might be to say, "have fal- 
len from drunkenness," one could scarcely say, " have fallen 
from wine." The simple truth is that the revised reading is an 
erroneous one. It was unconsciously introduced by some early 
scribe in consequence of the impression made on his mind by 
the twice-used word eVeo-ev, " is fallen, is fallen," in the preced- 
ing verse. Just so in John vii. 6, the scribe of B was betrayed by 
the preceding ndpe(TTiv into writing this word for eo-rtv at the 
close of the verse, and, in giving John xiv. 16, the scribe of J< 
wrote Tr,prj,Tw, " I will keep," for ipmrrjcrw, •• I will ask," because 
of the impression that r-qp-^atre, the last word of the preceding 

verse, made on his mind. This is by no means an uncommon 
source of error in transcribing. The writer of these pages him- 
self many years ago, in transcribing a sentence from Macaulay, 
wrote it as follows : " The history of Charles V. is both a less 
valuable and a less interesting both than the Lives of the Poets." 
A few years afterwards, on reverting to his manuscript, he 
observed the error, but could not correct it without turning to 
the volume from which he had taken the sentence. By going 
thither, however, he saw at once that the undue prominence 
given in his thoughts to the point he was aiming to illustrate 
had caused him unwittingly to write " both," for " book." So 
here ; the impression made by " has fallen, has fallen," in verse 
2, on the copyist's mind probably led him unconsciously to 
write " have fallen," in place of " have drunk " ; and the fact 
that the error comes down to us through our oldest extant man- 
uscripts makes it no less an error, and should have no weight in 
deciding upon the true reading. 

xviii. 7. 

Rec. T. 4865ao-€v iaMri\v — she hath glorified herself. 
Rev. T. i8(5|o<r«v aijT^v — she glorified herself. 

The Revisers have here set aside the Greek reflexive, and 
substituted the personal pronoun, because the uncials, with 
the exception of J^ as written by its earlier seventh-century 
emendator, give the abbreviated spelling. If this is the true 
spelling of the word here, we insist, either that it should have 
the rough breathing, as Westcott and Hort give it, or that it be 
properly rendered " her," and not as if it were the reflexive. 
To reject the Greek reflexive, and give the Greek personal 
pronoun for the purpose of preparing the way for a faithful 
English rendering, then mistranslate it as a reflexive, looks very 
much like revision work that is not merely unnecessary, but 
sadly in need of re-revision. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



ZYUi. ig. 

Rec. T. iKpa{ov — cried. 
Rev. T. {Kpa^v — cried. 

The imperfect of the Received Text is adopted by Tischen- 
dorf, Diisterdieck, and others, both here and in verse 18. Here 
it is attested by X, B, P, all the cursives but one, and by Andreas 
and Arethas. It is similarly vouched for as the true reading in 
verse 18. The aorist of the Revised Text is attested by A, C, 
35, and Hippolytus. This is the form adopted by Lachmann 
and by Westcott and Hort. But the verb has the appearance 
of having been changed to the aorist to correspond in tense 
with (^aXov, "they cast"; while the imperfect is apparently 
the original form, employed to denote an action contemporane- 
ous with that expressed by the preceding verb, while the " cry- 
ing " denoted by it was also in all probability prolonged and 
repeated. All this would naturally require the imperfect, the 
form found in the Received Text. Nothing but a less probably 
genuine reading is gained by adopting the aorist. 

xix. 13. 

Rec. T. i|idTiov PcPa|i|icvov aI)iaTi • — a vestnre dipped in blood. 
Rev. T. i|jidTiov pcpavTur|Uvov at|iaTi • — a garment sprinkled with 

The received reading Ptfiaixfj-ivov is that of A, B, most of the 
cursives, three manuscripts of Andreas, and Arethas. The 
revised reading is that of P, 36 ; while four other cursives, 
Hippolytus, Origen, and one manuscript of Andreas read ippav- 
TLcTfjievov ; and a late corrector of X gives nipipcpavTi.aix.tvov, 
which is adopted by Tischendorf ; and still others read ippap.ivov. 
The Latin versions and Fathers generally read aspersa, con- 
spersa, or spersa ; but just what Greek word any one of these 
represents, it is impossible to say. The mere fact that the idea 
of a garment " sprinkled " with blood appears in so many differ- 

ent forms affords good reason for suspecting and rejecting the 
readings that embody it. The other reading, however, is unique 
and well attested. It is accepted, also, as the true reading by 
Lachmann, Tregelles, DUsterdieck, and modern editors and 
commentators generally, as far as we know. 

XX.. 6. 

A marginal note says, " Some ancient authorities read the " ; 
i.e. " the thousand years," as in verse 7, instead of " a thousand 
years," as in verse 4, where the expression first appears in con- 
nection with these souls. The reading of the text, without the 
article, is attested by A, most of the cursives, the Armenian 
Version, Andreas, and Arethas. That of the margin, calling 
for the article, is supported by X. ^. M, 18, 38, 47, 92, and 
the Syriac Version. It is also what might be expected from the 
writer of the Apocalypse. In verse 2 of this chapter, in first 
giving the time during which he represents Satan as being 
bound, he says " a thousand years." But, in referring to that 
period in the next verse, his words are "until the thousand 
years " should be completed. So here, in first mentioning the 
time that the souls lived and reigned, the apostle says "a 
thousand years." But in verses 5 and 7 the same time is 
referred to as " the thousand years." It is hardly to be sup- 
posed that, as he employed the article just before and just 
after, in this connection, he would have omitted it here in 
speaking of the same period of time. In view of all the evi- 
dence presented to us, we should be disposed, with Tischendorf, 
Westcott and Hort, and others, to insert the article as clearly a 
part of the original text. 

XX. 9. 

Rec. T. 4ir4 tov 0£oB Ik toS ovpavoC, — from God out of heaven. 
Rev. T. Ik toO ovpovoO, — out of heaven. 

The Revisers reject from the text the phrase " from God," 
then add the marginal note, " Some ancient authorities insert 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

from God." The witnesses in support of the received reading 
are the early seventh-century corrector of J^, P, 7, and a num- 
ber of other cursives, the Vulgate, the Syriac Version, and 
Jerome ; as well as the three cursives, i, 17, 19, and one manu- 
script of Andreas, which have ani, " from," instead of U, " out 
of," heaven. The shorter reading of the Revisers' Text is attested 
by A, three cursives, the three Leipsic Latin copies (4, 5, 6) 
of the Apocalypse, another manuscript of Andreas, Tichonius 
the Donatist once, and Primasius. This reading, however, 
appears to be a clipping down of the original, under the idea 
tlKit the phrase " from God " was superfluous in connection with 
the expression " out of heaven." The Demidovian manuscript 
of tlie Vulgate, on the other hand, rejects " out of heaven," and 
reads only, a Deo, " from God." This manuscript of the twelfth 
century, as far as we are aware, is the only extant representa- 
tive of this old reading, which originated, like the Revisers', in 
the supposition that the use of both expressions was pleonastic, 
— only it omits the latter instead of the former of the two 
phrases. The reading of B, twenty-five or more cursives, the 
Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Armenian, and Erpenius' Arabic 
Version, the other two manuscripts of Andreas, Arethas, Vic- 
torinus, Augustine, and Tichonius in another place only indicates 
an early attempt to give the two phrases in the order found in 
xxi. 2, 10. Similar work of omission and of transposition of 
the terms to make them correspond with the reading here was 
attempted by some in xxi. 2, 10; but it was not followed to the 
same extent as it was in trying to bring this reading into con- 
formity with that. There can be but little if any doubt that 
the original reading embraces both phrases as given in the 
Received Text, while their collocation indicates that the reading 
was not borrowed from chapter xxi. The former expression 
represents the origin or source of the fire, as " from God " ; 
and the latter, the place whence it proceeded, — "out of 


xxi. 3. 


" Some ancient authorities omit, and be ^/teir God," says the 
marginal note. That is, these two words are wanting in J<, B, 
I' 7, 8, 29, 39, 92, and twenty-five or more cursives, the Mem- 
phitic, the Armenian, Erpenius' Arabic Version, Irensus, two 
manuscripts of Andreas, Arethas, Augustine, Primasius, and 
Haymo. Hence, Tischendorf rejects them, and Westcott and 
Hort consign them to the margin. But evidently they were 
early dropped as superfluous or inappropriate. So far, how- 
ever, from being really superfluous or inappropriate, they need 
to have a special stress laid upon them, — God himself will be 
with them as //la'r C^'^, — denoting the intimately close, tender, 
hallowed and unchanging relation that is to subsist between 
him and them, — a relation even more tender and hallowed 
than the same phrase imjjlies in the Old Testament in reference 
to the Israelites under Moses and his successors. A failure 
to recognize the true force of the term led to its omission 
from some early manuscript. But its genuineness is sufficiently 
attested by A, P, 79, and a number of other cursives, the Vul- 
gate, the Syriac Version, Iren^us in another place, Ambrose, 
the other two manuscripts of Andreas, and Tichonius. 

xxii. 16. 

The Revisers have done well in leaving unchanged, and 
withoul; any alternative marginal reading, the words i-n-l rais 
tKKXiycrtais ; and in translating them " for the churches," by 
which they have corrected the false rendering of Tyndale and 
the A. V., — "in the churches." The marginal note, "Gr. 
over," might, however, much better have been omitted, as well 
as many other similar ones ; for tTri' with the dative means 
"for" sometimes, as truly as "over" at other times. Gries- 
bach and Westcott and Hort place tV, " in," or " among," in 
their margins as a possibly genuine reading instead of iiri. This 



reading is found in A, four cursives, the Vulgate, Athanasius, 
and two manuscripts of Andreas. But it has no claim to 
acceptance. It evidently arose from a misunderstanding of 
irri, and from perplexity in regard to the meaning of that prep- 
osition. DUsterdieck and others consider the true reading to 
be rais (KKXyjatai^, without any preposition, — a reading that 
is attested by seven or eight cursives, the Armenian Version, 
Arethas, and two other manuscripts of Andreas. But if this, 
which can mean only, " for the churches," had been the original 
reading, the other forms would never have been suggested, 
especially the form im. rals iKKX-qaiaK, which is attested by ^, 
B, most of the cursives, the Syriac Version, and one manuscript 
of Andreas. In the proper application of the rule that a diffi- 
cult reading is more likely to be genuine than an easy one, this 
is " the harder reading " as compared with either of the other 
two. That the clause is correctly rendered, " I, Jesus, have sent 
mine angel to testify unto you these things /or the churches," 
i.e. on account of, or on behalf of, the churches, is evident 
from a reference to chapter i. i, 4, ii. 


[The numbers i. and ii. denote the volume ; the letter n. refers to the 

Abbot, Ezra, LL.D., Critical Essays 
of, noted, ii. 12, 45 n.; quoted, ii. 

Abbreviations, incorrect reading of, 
i. 23, 356, ii. 164. 

"Abiathar," readings in connection 
with, i. 36. 

Address, use of direct versus indi- 
rect, i. 236, ii. 79. 

Agrippa, words of, ii. 131. 

Alford, Dean Henry, D.D., adher- 
ence of, to received readings, i. 

83. 9 ' . 92. 95. " 6, ii. 46, 90, 1 79. 
237, 245, 266, 270, 282, 319; re- 
ceived readings rejected by, i. 76, 

84. 3'9. 322, 326, 329, ii. 72, 165, 
234, 265, 296; quoted,!. 271. 

" Amen," genuineness of, consid- 
ered, ii. 220, 253. 

American Committee of N. T. Re- 
visers, adherence of, to Textus 
Keceptus, i. 143, 313, ii. 44, 66, 
147, 201, 214, 259, 264, 266, 291 ; 
marginal readings adopted into 
text by, ii. 33, 106, 265; marginal 
note omitted by, ii. 134; marginal 
readings suggested by, ii. 262, 296. 

Angel, troubling of water by, con- 
sidered, ii. 22. 

■Anomalous Readings, i. 332, 350, 

u. 15, 50, 74, 77, 123, 124, 127, 
174, 218, 228, 299, 300, 302, 313. 

Aorist (Luke vii. 11), i. 283; im- 
properly rejected, i. 341, 360, ii. 
57, 232, 235. 

Apocalypse, early treatment of, i. 
18; use of aorist in, ii. 316. 

Aquila, occupation of, ii. 118. 

Article, Greek, improperly omitted, 
i. 75, 143, 184, 213, ii. 14, 15, 
121, 206, 247, 274, 3or, 325; in- 
troducing indirect interrogative 
clauses, i. 225, and n. 4; improp- 
erly inserted, i. 138, 194, 197, 
320, ii. loi, 116, 173, 231; with 
demonstrative pronoun, i. 350, ii. 
15; falsely rendered, ii. 78; im- 
properly used in Septuagint, ii. 
94; improper form of, ii. 299. 

Augustine cited, i. 315, ii. 40. 

d7air77T6s (Luke ix. 35), i. 296. 

d7piSv, a false use of, i. 241. 

a£e\<^af, use of, i. 59, 98. 

dei (Mark xv. 8), i. 250. 

dScpoi' (Matt, xxvii. 4), i. 161. 

at, an omission of, considered, i. 305, 

Af7uirT05, always without the arti- 
cle, ii. 94. 

6.KOM1.V, omission of, i. 90, 98. 

6.Ko\i(!a.mi (Luke viii. 12), i. 287. 



ixovras (Mark v. 36), i. 196. 
dKot/o-jj, uncorrected, ii. 247. 
d/xapT-fifiaTot for Kplaeus, consid- 
ered, i. 191. 
dpapT-^iTj] (Matt, xviii. 15), i. 124. 
ip.(t>l^\riaTpov, omission of, consid- 
ered, i. 34. 
ifupor^pup (Acts xix. 16), ii. 122; 

reference of, ii. 123. 
ivaTTTv^as (Luke iv. 17), i. 269. 
iyBpbnrov (Matt. ix. 32), i. 85. 
6^yepunr<p (Matt. xix. 3), i. 126. 
avot^as (Luke iv. 17), i. 269. 
air-/iyayov (Luke xxiii. 33), i. 334. 
airo<TTi\\ei, a clerical error, illus- 
trated, i. 238 n. 
ipTi (Matt. xxvi. 53), i. 160; (John 

i. 51), ii. 15. 
ipxa(, a frequent use of, ii. 158. 
oOtois (I,uke viii. 3), i. 286. 
avTon (Matt. xiv. 12), i. 102; 

(Mark ix. 26), i. 228. 

airrov, changed in B to airroit, i. 

. 22; (Matt. xii. 46), i. 97; (Mark 

xiii. 27), i. 246; (Luke xix. 29), 

i. 321 ; a false reading for oin-oi5s, 

. ii- i'3- 

airf (Mark viii. 20), i. 215; 

(Luke V. 5), i. 273; (Rev. xiii. 

15), ii. 316. 

" Baptisms, the teaching of," ii. 259. 
Basle, Codex E (Gospels) in Public 

Library of, i. 9. 
Bede, the Venerable, cited, ii. 96, 

Bengel, J. A., prime canon of, noted 
, and illustrated, i. 48, 235, ii. 180. 
" Bcthsaida " (Luke ix. 10), i. 295. 
Beza, Theodore, Codex D presented 
, to Cambridge by, i. 9. 

Biblical facts, a knowledge of, nec- 
essary, i. 4. 

Bloomfield, S.T., D.D., cited, i. 221. 

Bornemann, F. A., cited, ii. III. 

Breathings, often misrepresented by 
copyists, ii. 45 ; generally omitted 
in the old Mss., ii. 63, 140, 290, 

British and Foreign Bible Society, 

London, Codex H in Library of, 

i. II. 
British Museum, London, Codex A 

in, i. 9; Codices G (Gospels), N 

in part, and R, in, i. 10. 
Broadus, J. A., D.D., on Mark 

xvi. 9-20, i. 254; quoted, ii. 73. 
Burgon, Dean J. W., on Mark xvi., 

9-20, i. 254; quoted, i. 255, 

256, ii. 40; headings in volume 

on Mark xvi. 9-20, cited, i. 

259 n. 
Burrus Afranius, ii. 139. 
Buttmann, Professor Alexander, 

cited, i. 42. 288 n., ii. 49, 72, 

123, 146, 257, 259 n. 
Buttmann, Philip, cited, ii. 1 17. 
^avrl^uv (Mark i. 4), i. 173- 
pUjTfLt (Mark viii. 23), i. 216. 
pXrjOel!, unwarranted use of, i. 

p\ri0V (Matt. V. 30), i. 66. 

Cambridge, Codex D in University 
Library, i. 9; F (Epistles) in 
Library of Trinity College, i. 10; 
T» in University Library, i. n. 

Changes, early made in one Gospel 
and not in another, i. 60. 

"Clauda," ii. 131. 

Claudius, Emperor, reign of, noted, 
ii. 139. 



Clement V., Pope, decision of, at 
Council of Vienna, i. 165. 

Codices, account of, H, A, B, C, D, 
, D (Epistles), E (Gospels), i. 9; 
E (Acts), E (Epistles), K (Gos- 
pels), F (Epistles), G (Gospels), 
G (Epistles), M (Gospels), H 
(Acts), II (Epistles), I, K (Gos- 
pels and Epistles), L (Gospels, 
Acts, and Epistles), M, N, P, Q, K, 

s, T, i. 10; T^ to z, r, A, e, a, s, 

n, S, i. 1 1 ; *, i. 39. 

Codex D, evidence respecting, i. 20; 

compared with older Mss., i. 20 

n. 2; Latin version of, not always 

. in agreement, with Greek text of, 

i. 57, 180, ii. 259. 

Conflations. See " Readings, Con- 
' flate." 

Constantinople, chief seat of tran- 
scribers, i. 19. 

Consiriuiio ad seiistim, examples of, 
, ii. 213, 223, 239, 302, 303. 

Copyists, errors of, noted, i. 84, 99, 
ii. 93; illustrated, ii. 82, 83 n. I, 
208 n., 235, 316; ignorance of, 
, illustrated, ii. 301. 

Cornelius, fasting of, ii. 99. 

Cowper, William, quoted, i. 235. 

Criticism. See " Textual Criticism." 

Cyril of Alexandria quoted, ii. 53. 

Damascus, disciples at, not Paul's, 

ii. 96. 
Dative, a common N. T. use of, ii. 

Davidson, Dr. Samuel, on internal 

evidence, i. 53. 
Df conalii, verbs used, ii. 315. 
Derponstrative pronoun and article, 

i. 350, ii. 15. 

De Wette, W. M. L., opinion of, i. 
225, ii. 308; quoted, ii. 317. 

DiaUssaroii, Tatian's, omissions 
adopted from, i. 165, 334, 339. 

Digamma, as a symbol, i. 356, 358; 
often mistaken for gamma, i. 357, 

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, re- 
specting early corrupters of the 
text, i. 17. 

Documents commonly deemed most 
trustworthy, i. 24; their charac- 
ter illustrated, i. 25-32, 33-44. 

Doxology, authorities, fro and con, 
i. 68; appropriateness of, i. 71. 

Dresden, Codex G (Epistles), in 
Royal Library of, i. 10. 

Dublin, Codex Z in Library of Trin- 
ity College, i. II. 

Dusterdieck, Dr. Friedrich, conjec- 
ture of, ii. 299; readings adopted 
by, ii. 310, 321, 324; opinion of, 
ii. 327. 

Dwight, President Timothy, D.D., 
quoted, i. 234, 359. 

i(, i. 326, ii. 60, 80, 124, 180, 206, 

SfuTf (Luke XX. 14), i. 322. 
ievTtponpdiTif (Luke vi. l), force 

of, i. 278. 
SLa(Td<f>T](rov (Matt. xiii. 36), i. 100. 
Svpip.eis ( Rom. viii. 38), i. 23 ; proper 

place of, ii. 158. 
SvapiffTaKTa (Matt, xxiii. 4), i. 


Edwards, Principal T. C, quoted, 

ii. 149 n. I, 180. 
Egypt, Codex B referred to, i. 9. 
Elijah (Luke ix. 54), i. 29S. 
EUicott, Bishop C. J., on omissions 



in Codex B, i. 66; reading of Gal. 
vi. 2 by, ii. 2og. 

Epaphras, character of, ii. 22 1. 

Epistles, early treatment of, i. 18. 

Eusebius, omission by, in quoting 
Matt. iv. 24, i. 62; a false read- 
ing in, i. 67; on Mark xvi. 9-20, 
i. 256. 

Eve, relation of, to Adam, ii. 216. 

Hvt (Luke XV. 32), a false reading, 
i. 316. 

elKTJ (Matt. V. 22), i. 65. 

eU, use of, in Mark i. 21, noted, i. 
35; various readings from mis- 
apprehensions concerning, i. 84; 
improper omission of, ii. 88, 130; 
transcriptional error for d, ii. 
267; meaning of, in I Pet. iii. 21, 
ii. 279. 

eU at (Luke xvii. 3), i. 317. 

rf Ti (Matt, xviii. 28), i. 125. 

elxov and ^x""'"'' for ^X"/"" (Mark 
viii. 16), i. 213. 

iKfX (Mark i. 13), i. 175. 

{KKtlirotrroi (Luke xxiii. 45), i. 340. 

ixpa^e (Matt. xiv. 30), i. 104. 

i\6eiv (Matt. xiv. 29), i. 103. 

iftiv (Luke xvi. 12), i. 316. 

iy (Luke iv. i), i. 267; (Luke 
xxiii. 42), i. 339; (AcU xi. 23), ii. 

Iva (Luke xii. 25), i. 306. 

iii'Eif>4<xifi (Eph. i. l), ii. 211. 

(vit aZ/iaTos (Acts xvii. 26), ii. 118. 

i^ 'IfpovtraXf^/t (Acts xii. 25), ii. 

iirtpuTttfia, meaning of, ii. 279. 

€py(ov for TcxvCjVji. 91. 

Hpij/ios (Matt, xxiii. 38), i. 151; 
(I>uke xiii. 33), i. 309. 

?Ti (Mark viii. 17), i. 214; (Rom. 

V. 6), ii. 151; (l Tim. vi. 7), iL 

eiffii (Mark i. 23), i. 177; (Mark 
ii. 2), i. 180; (Mark vii. 35), i. 

?Xf" (Matt. xvi. 8), i. 115. 

?Xw/«i' (Rom. V. i), ii. 147. 

tut, a common use of, ii. 102. 

^ iKeivos (Luke xviii. 14), i. 318. 

?Xfl< (Mark i. 39), i. 178. 

V/Jiipif (Matt. xxiv. 42), i. 155. 

Ttnirtpov (Luke xvi. 12), i. 316. 

Tjudv (John xix. 7), ii. 78. 

iqv (Rom. xiv. 22), ii. 170. 

flTt (John viii. 39), ii. 43. 

fffaro (Luke viii. 45), what im- 
plied by position of, i. 292. 

False readings, why, in Revisers' 
Text, ii. 3; how perpetuated in 
ancient documents, ii. 219. 

" Farewell " (Acts xxiii. 30), ii. 127. 

Farrar, Archdeacon F. W., D.D., 
quoted, i. 47. 

" Fathers of the Church," com- 
plaints of, i. 17; Latin texts used 
by, i. 19; African and Western, 
use of inferior Mss. by, i. 20; an 
interpretation of, ii. 291 ; words 
employed by, ii. 324. 

Ferrar's group of cursive Mss., i. 
34; representing a lost uncial, 
i. 120. 

Gamaliel, real utterance and mean- 
ing of, ii. 92. 

" Gennesaret," blind use of, i. 106; 
use of, elsewhere, i. 107, 201. 

" Gergesenes " and kindred names 
examined, i. 76, 288; testimony 
of Mss., i. 76. 



Gnostics, early corrupters of the 
text, i. 17. 

Greek text, a form of, unsupported 
by Mss., i. 88; present state of, 
of N. T., ii. 7; a fourth-century, 
of the N. T., ii. 8; errors in, yet 
to be discovered, ii. 8; the true, 
of the N. T. in no one ancient 
document, ii. 9. 

Greek Texts, common name for, i. 
15; after the fifth century, i. 16; 
worst corruptions of, when, i. 17; 
nature of errors in, i. 22. 

Gregory of Nyssa, misquotation 
from, noted, i. 256. 

Griesbach, J. J., his leading canon 
of textual criticism, i. 51; mis- 
application of, i. 60; readings 
adopted by, i. 77, 330, ii. 69, 224, 
245, 327; use of false text by, 
ii. 171. 

TaXiXafot, as a " Western " read- 
ing, examined, i. 270. 

"yip, omission of, considered, i. 210, 
320, ii. 143; position of, consid- 
ered, i. 279, 325; spurious use of, 
i. 158, 303, ii. 317; falsely fol- 
lowed by &Ti, ii. 202; not to be 
supplanted by 5^, ii. 206. 

ffviadai. (Acts xxvi. 28), ii. 131. 

7f;'A/«;'os (Luke x. 32), i. 300. 

yvbiiiii (Acts XX. 3), ii. 1 24. 

Ilackett, H. B., D.D., quoted, ii. 108. 

Hamburg, Codex H (Gospels) at, 
i. 10. . 

Hammond, C. E., on Textual Criti- 
cism, i. 254; quoted, i. 257. 

Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt, a 
reading of, ii. 311. 

Hearing ears, i. 99, 

Hebraisms cited, i. 109, 141, 184, 
265, 267, 323, ii. 313. 

Helvldius denies the perpetual vir- 
ginity of Mary, i. 58. 

Heresies, Irentcus against, i. 17, 18. 

Heretics, work of, in corrupting the 
text, i. 17. 

Hesychius, the grammarian, cited, 
i. 358. 

Iloiiioioleleuta, defined, i. 9, 22; 
examples of, i. 27, 352, ii. 113, 
I44> 158. 179, 207. 208, 281, 300, 

Hort, F. J. A., D.D., later texts, how 
designated by, i. 16; testimony 
of, respecting early textual cor- 
ruptions, i. 17; statement of, 
considered, i. 17 n. ; on the office 
of textual criticism, i. 46; on early 
modifications of the Greek text, i. 
61; quoted, i. 331, 332, ii. 5, 6, 
35, MI, 128, 144, 145, 152, 154, 
189, 200, 259, 278, 317; opinion 
of, noted, i. 154, 242, ii. 244,317; 
argument of, for false rffadings, 
i. 290, ii. 264. 

Hour of Christ's crucifixion consid- 
ered, i. 353. 

Hovey, Alvah, D.D., quoted, i. 359. 

Hug on origin of Codex B, i. 9; on 
Mark xvi. 9-20, i. 257. 

Humphry, W. G., B.D., opinion of, 
on Ms. authority for Matt. i. 25, 
i. 60; comments of, i. 222, 225, 
ii. 108, 150, 162, 199, 205, 226. 

Internal evidence, principles of, 
i. 48. 

Interrogative versus indefinite pro- 
noun, ii. 256. 

" In thy name," ii. 75. 


THE revisers' GREEM TEXT. 

Iota subscript, earliest use of, in N. 

T. Mss., ii. 305. 
Irenncus, complaint of, i. 17, ig; 

differences in texts noted by, i. 

17; use of inferior Mss. by, i. 

20; a reading defended by, ii. 

216; error adopted by, ii. 313. 
"Iscariot," a surname of whom? ii. 

Itacism, defined, i. 22; illustrated, 

i. 40, 90, 3r6, ii. 48, 149, 149 n. 

I, 2, 169, 195, 271, 284. 
1, often written « in the old Mss., 

ii. 67, 275. 
laSi^Tu (Luke vii. 7), i. 74. 
lSl(f (Acts i. 19), ii. 81. 
ISou (James iii. 3), ii. 275. 
/5(iv (Matt. ix. 4), i. 82. 
lax^piy (Matt. xiv. 30), i. 105. 

Jerome, complaint of, i. 18; a be- 
liever in the perpetual virginity, 
i. 58; readings adopted by, i. 58, 
173, ii. 41; comment of, on 
Matt. xi. 19, i. 92; an opinion 
of, i. 172; translations of, noted, i. 
256, ii. 189; quoted, i. 277, 358. 

John the Evangelist, invariable 
formula of, ii. 19; use of con- 
nectives a peculiarity of, ii. 60; 
certain uses of language by, noted, 
ii. 285, 286, 288, 302; versus the 
Revisers' Text, ii. 311, 316. 

" Jona " and " John " distinct names, 
ii. 13. 

Joseph, words of the angel to, i. 
59; the father of other children 
of Mary, i. 60. 

" Joseph," misapplied by the Revis- 
ers, i. loi; and "Joses," distinct 
names, i. loi. 

Josephus, quoted; i-' 310, ii. io8. ' 

Judas, objection raised by, ii. 55. 

Jude, reading of 'verse 22 consid- 
ered, ii. 294. 

Justin Martyr, readings from, i. 37, 
87, 280. 

Kendrick, A. C, D.D., quoted, ii. 
40, 55. 

Kaffaptfwv (Mark vii. 19), construc- 
tion of, i. 204. 

Kal, Hebraistic use of, i. 30, 109, 
184, 203, 265, 267, 301 ; improper 
omission of, i. 109, 144, 247,267, 
278, ii. 249; improper reten- 
tion of, i. 173. 

Kal vriarelf, on the omission of 
(Mark ix. 29), i. 228. 

Kal Tus (Mark ix. 12), i. 223. 

KaraPaWSfuvoi, meaning of (Heb. 
vi. l), ii. 261. 

Kariirtaev (Luke viii. 6), i. 287. 

KOTto'xi'f"', Luke's use of, i. 327. 

Kaiix')'"-^, use of, considered, ii. 173. 

Koaiwv, on the omission of (Matt, 
xiii. 35), i. 100. 

Kpdjas (Mark ix. 26), i. 228; (Mark 
XV. 39), i. 252. 

Kvpltf, abbreviated form of, noted, 
ii. 164. 

Lachmann, Carl, adherence to re- 
ceived readings by, i. 37, 38, 91, 
92, 103, 127, 152, 188, 198, 216, 
220, 233, 262, 270, 277, 284, 287, 

313. 3'6, 322. 327. 329. 330. "• 
17, 18, 20, 37, 44, 46, 54, 59, 66, 
69, 77, 80, 81, 165, 179, 206, 207, 
237. 245. 266, 270, 306, 321, 324; 
rejection of received readings by, 
i. 37, 56, 66, 69, 74, 77, 83, 85, 



95, 96, 108, 113 n., 116, 122, 151, 
191, 214, 246, 288, 319, ii. 142, 
186, 189, 190, 209, 213, 224, 234, 
235. 255. 262, 282, 296, 302, 304, 
318, 319, 324; inconsistency of, 
i, 96; false construction by, ii. 

Laodiceans, Epistle to the, ii, 212. 

Laud, Archbishop William, Codex 
Laudianus (E Acts) presented 
by, to Oxford University, i. 10. 

Lectionaries, a false reading due to, 
ii. 171. 

Lightfoot, J. B., D.D., adherence 
of, to certain readings of the Re- 
ceived Text, ii. 206, 207. 

Lucian, Presbyter of Alexandria, re- 
ferred to, i. 18. 

Luke, Curetonian Syriac reading of 
(xxiii. 43), i. 22; misrepresented 
by scribes, i, 285, ii. loi; promi- 
nent thought of, considered, i. 
286; style of, illustrated, i. 301, 
ii. 97; words of, perverted, ii.83; 
use of Greek by, ii. 88, 124. 

Xf^fTf, construction of (Matt. xv. 
5; Mark vii. 12), i. 109. 

\Wov (Rev. xv. 6), ii. 319. 

Macaulay, T. B , error in quoting, 
noted, ii. 322. 

Magdala, how transformed into 
Magadan, i. 113; parallel cases 
cited, i. 113 n. 

Mai, Cardinal Angelo, extracts by, 
from the Speculum, ii. 155 n. I. 

Ms., the oldest Greek, a reading 
found only in, i. 22. 

Mss., methods of copyists of, com- 
pared, i. 16; later, compared with 
and corrected by older texts, i. 

19; earliest date of, of the Old 
Latin Version, i. 19; character of, 
in second century, i. 19; two old- 
est Greek, i. 19; earliest Greek, 
not necessarily the best, i. 20; 
how to use, i. 21, 45; earliest, 
contain early corruptions, i. 21; 
additions in early, i. 33 ; omissions 
in early, i. 34 (see also " Omis- 
sions ") ; many errors of, from 
second and third centuries, i. 36; 
modifications in early, i. 39; sub- 
stitutions in early, i. 4t; more or 
less vitiated, i. 45; often at vari- 
ance, i. 45, ii. 155; cause of the 
preservation of, i. 45 ; untrust- 
worthiness of early, illustrated, i. 
55, 76, 84, 92, 107, 113 and n., 
129, "39. '44, 152, 163. >86, 191, 
196, 198, 200, 209, 220, 223, 224, 
230, 238, 263, 270, 277, 282, 295, 
298, 305. 3". 3 '9. 325. 332,346. 
349, 357. 360, ii. 33, 36, 43, 45. 
50, 55, 61, 69, 73, 83 n., 87, 107, 
no, 113, 119, 122, 128, 145, 147, 
149 n. I and 2, 158, 169, 175, 
180, 186, 190, 194, 200, 211, 215, 
218, 222, 225, 227, 234, 236, 240, 
244, 249, 255, 258, 263, 265, 267, 
272, 275, 278, 282, 289, 301, 309, 
313, 314, 319, 322; early collec- 
tions of, few and costly, i. 61; 
confusion and variations of, noted, 
i. 83, 96, ii. 50; Greek, against 
revised reading noted, i. 88; a 
reading of the two oldest, noted, 
i. 88; authority of, insufficient, i. 
309, ii. 129; later, disregarded by 
the Revisers, ii. 5; the earliest, 
without accents and breathings, 
ii. 63, 140, 290, 304. 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 

Marginal notes, needless, i. 56, 62, 
66, 67, 74, 82, 83, 98, 122, 161, 
163,171, 179, 188, 197.231, 232, 
249.316. 335. ii- '52, 161, 169, 
172, 211, 235; harmful, i. 68; ii. 
171; misleading, i. 95, 128, 303, 
ii. 254; improper, i. 252; omitted 
by American Revisers, ii. 134. 

Marginal reading, unsupported by 
Greek Mss., i. 56; conflate, i. 188; 
of John V. 3, 4, considered, ii. 21. 

Marginal readings, false, i. 56, 96, 
102, 117, 162, 199, 213, 270, 299, 
303, 310, ii. 12, 103, 137, 174; 
genuine, i. 64, 82, 83, 90, 95, 98, 
100, 115, 128, 132, 151, 164, 172, 
178, 207, 231, 232, 246, 249, 289, 
290, 293, 297, 298, 329, 330, 334, 
344, ii. 17. 20, 21, 33, 44, 95, 105, 
113, 138, 150, 154, 211, 227, 234, 
265, 282, 313, 326; emendations, 
i. 67, 74, 103, 122, 123, 124, 127, 
162, 170, 181, 197, 202, 299, 302, 
339, ii. II, 19, 27, 86, 102, 137, 
152. '57. 161, 222, 237, 239, 254, 
277, 298, 326; probably genuine, 
i. 72, no, 203, ii. 127, 196, 260; 
not internally sustained, u 314, ii. 
194, 246; transcriptional errors, 
i. 163, 178, 231, 312, 316; ii. 26, 
48, 50, 98, 126, 133, 134, 136, 
164, 188, 190, 191, 222, 235, 253. 

Mark, Gospel of, five Mss. of, well 
preserved, i. 24 n. 2; readings 
from, peculiar to Sinaitic Codex, 
i. 25, 26; readings from, peculiar 
to Codex A, i. 26; readings from, 
peculiar to Codex B, i. 27, 28; 
readings from, peculiar to Codex 
C, i. 28, 29; chapter vii. of, want- 
ing in Codex C, i. 28; chapter 

xvi. of, in full in Codex C, i. 28; 
readings from, peculiar to Codex 
D, i. 29; readings from, peculiar 
to Codex L, i. 30; Curetonian 
Syriac Version defective in, i. 
30; readings from, by various 
ancient documents, i. 33-44; the 
evangelist, a Jew, i. 172; in har- 
mony with Matthew, i. 174; xvi. 
9-20, testimony in support of, i. 
256; misrepresented by copyists, 
'■ 353. 360; apparently not in 
harmony with John, i. 353, 359; 
on the hour of the crucifixion, i. 
356; XV. 25, true reading of, i. 
358; xvi. 2, true reading of, i. 
360, 361. 

Mary, perpetual virginity of, referred 
to, i. 58; other children of, i. 59; 
prophecy concerning, i. 59. 

Mary the Magdalene, when at the 
sepulchre, i. 359. 

Matthrei, C. F., a false reading of, 
iu 171; a genuine reading adopted 
by, ii. 265. 

Matthew, Gospel of, peculiar read- 
ings from, in the Curetonian 
Syriac Version, i. 30-32; Hebrew 
Gospel of, ii. 13. 

Meyer, H. A. W., opinion of, i. 225, 
ii. 185; quoted, ii. 122, 152, 167; 
readings adopted by, ii. 165, 167; 
cited, ii. 252. 

Modena, Codex H (Acts) in Grand 
Ducal Library, i. 10. 

Moscow, Codex K (Epistles) at, 
i. 10; V (Gospels) at, i. 11. 

Moses, improperly quoted, ii. 161. 

Munich, Codex X in University 
Library, i. II. 

Mayaddf, i. 112. 



fiapTvpwv (l Cor. ii. l), considered, 

ii. 178. 
fi^v, improperly omitted, i. 174. 
/ii), omission of, considered, ii. 225. 
in)iiva, false use of, noted, i. 281. 
IJ.OV, improper omission of, ii. 41. 

Naasenus, misquotation by, i. 72. 
Name, my, thy, his, etc., import of, 

ii. 75. 
New Testament, differences between 
earlier and later Mss. of, consid- 
ered, i. 16; method of copying 
Mss. of, i. 16; depravations of, 
i. 17; copies of, early tampered 
with, i. 17; date of the worst 
corruptioi'S of, i. 17, 19; various 
readings of, referred to, i. 19; 
views of critics of, i. 20; value of 
oldest Mss. of, considered, i. 20; 
as to the genuine text of, i. 21, 
ii. 7, 9; when readings of Mss. 
of, may be set aside, i. 21 ; pur- 
pose of the writings of, i. 21; 
paralkl readings of, frequently 
altered, i. 23; documents gener- 
ally relied on for the text of, 
i. 24; character of the ancient 
documents of, i. 24; an anoma- 
lous Greek form in, i. 42; views 
of early editors of, i. 45 ; disagree- 
ment of oldest Mss. of, i. 45 ; con- 
flicting use of general principles 
of criticism by editors of, i. 48; 
books of, originally separate, i. 
61 ; the canon of, slowly and 
progressively made, i. 61 ; source 
of false readings in, i. 87; Greek, 
first written in uncials, i. 93. 
Nominative absolute, rare use of, 
ii. 123, 124. 

viKpi (James ii. 20), ii. 273. 
fcKpot, Paul's use of, considered, ii. 

Omission, examples of, in early 
Mss., i. 34-39. 5^. 61, 64, 65, 68, 
81, 85, 90, 98, 104, 109, no, III, 
112, 115, 116, 119, 121, 123, 124, 
125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 13s, 
140, 143, 144, 145. 147. 148, 150, 

151, 153, 156, 164, 168, 169, 170, 
175, 176, 178, 180, 187, 188, 202, 
203, 207, 210, 212, 213, 214,216, 
224, 227, 228, 231, 232, 244, 245, 
246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 
253, 265, 267, 268, 272, 275, 276, 
278, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 297, 
298, 301, 306, 307, 308, 312, 313, 
317. 321. 322, 328, 330. 334. 337. 
345. 349. 351. ii- '4. "5. »6, 17, 
19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 33, 38, 39, 41, 
49. 5'. 52. 59. 60, 62, 76, 78, 81, 
85, 88, 89, 92, 95, 98, 99, 102, 
III, 113, 117, 120, 121, 125, 126, 

130. '35. 138. 142. 143. 145. «50. 

152, 156, i6o, 162, 167, 179, 181, 
187, 196, 199, 206, 207, 208, 210, 
211, 214, 215, 220, 224, 225, 227, 
230, 234, 242, 245, 249, 253, 269, 
270, 272, 274, 280, 285, 286, 297, 
300, 302, 303, 313, 314. 325. 326. 

Origen, complaints of, i; 17, 19; 

testimony of, i. 79, 88, 100, loi, 

246, ii. 54; quoted, i. 340, ii. 118; 

misquotation from,noted,ii. ir n.; 

rendering of a Hebrew verb by, 

ii. 106. 
Orosius, quoted, i. 285. 
Oxford, Codex E (Acts) presented 

to University of, by Abp. Laud, 

i. 10; Codex r in part, and Co- 




dex A, in Bodleian Library at, 

i. II. 
i pairTlfuv without xal (Mark i. 4), 

the true reading, i. 21, 173. 
i yevinifftlt, unwarranted use of, ii. 

6 Geo's, improperly set aside, ii. 166. 
ol ivffpwiroi (Luke ii. 15), why 

omitted, i. 265. 
ol SoSXot, improper omission of, i. 

i Kvpiof, improper omission of, i. 

170, ii. 272. 
dXiyo-iruTTlav, improper use of, con- 
sidered, i. 120. 
S\ov, Matthew's use of, i. 135. 
. . . fitii^ov (John X. 29), ii. 50. 
6 ftovo-ytv-fii, use of, referred to, ii. 

4^0 (Acts ii. i), ii. 82. 
(Scot (Luke xiv. 5), i. 310. 
tpyt^o/um^, meaning of, examined, 

i. 64. 
Spet (Heb. xii. 18), ii. 269. 
it (Eph. i. 14), ii. 213; (Col. i. 

27), ii. 223; (l Tim. iii. 16), ii. 

240; (Rev. xiii. 14), ii. 303. 
JTi, as a sign of quotation, ii. 202; 

(1 Tim. vi. 7), ii. 244. 
06 (Acts V. 28), ii. 89; (Rom. iv. 

19), ii. 145; (Phil. iii. 13), ii. 219. 
oixiri (Luke xxii. 16), i. 328. 
oio, ii. 51, 59. 
owrw (John vii. 8), ii. 33; (Phil. iii. 

13), ii. 219. 
6 Xpurro! (John vii. 42), ii. 37. 
J (Rom. xvi. 27), ii. 174; (I Pet. 

iii. 21), ii. 278. 
uSe (Matt. xxvi. 53), i. 160; (Mark 

ix. i), i. 219; (Luke xv. 17), i. 

314; (i Cor. iv. 2), ii. 180. 

wf (Acts xvii. 14), significance of, 

ii. 117. 
oSrel, Luke's use of, ii. 97. 

Paris, National Library of. Codices 
C and D (Epistles) in, i. 9; Co- 
dices K (Gospels), L (Gospels), 
M (Gospels) in, i. 10. 

Patristic writings, early date of, i. 1 7. 

Paul, occupation of, ii. 118; use of 
language by, ii. 140, 163, 164, 
173, 202, 210, 212, 241, 244, 249; 
style of, ii. 168, 170, 177; not 
illogical, ii. 166, 204; versus copy- 
ists and Revisers' readings, ii. 
148, 212, 215, 218. 

Peshito Syriac Version, resemblance 
of, in peculiar readings, to oldest 
Mss., i. 19; one of a few wit- 
nesses to a genuine reading, i. 22; 
glosses frequent in, ii. 166. 

Philippi, a place of prayer near, ii. 

Pilate, use of " righteous " by, i. 1 62 ; 
question of, i. 251 ; Christ brought 
before, i. 355; Christ delivered 
by, to be crucified, when, i. 356. 

Proper names, spelling of, i..Sl, 75, 

Psalms i. and ii., reference to, ii. 

irdXii- (Mark xi. 3), i. 239; (Heb. 
vi. i), ii. 261. 

rdirra (Luke xiv. 17), i. 312. 

irSi (Luke xvi. 18), i. 317. 

irXotoi', without the article (Matt, 
xiv. 22), i. 104. 

iroieii', used to save repetition of 
other verbs, i. 199, ii. 131. 

irotciTe (Matt. xxi. 13), insufficiently 
attested, i. 137. 


rotijirat (Acts xxvi. 28), a genuine 

reading, ii. 130. 
irot7)<rw/ifi/ (Matt. xvii. 4), i. ug. 
TToXv (John V. 3), ii. 21. 
TrpSs interchanged with cU, i. 85. 
vpuTov, omission of (Matt. xvii. 

"). i- "9. 
TTTwfM (Matt. xiv. 12), i. 102; for 

(TWMO (Mark xv. 45), i. 253. 
Tus (Mark ix. 12), i. 223. 
<t>piiTov (Matt. xiii. 36), i. 100. 
^wkt}, use of (Rev. vi. i), ii. 304. 
•puvTjt (Matt. xxiv. 31), i. 151. 

Reading, a form of, unsupported by 
Ms. authority, i. 88; original, 
probably lost, i. 159, 200, 223, 
319. ii. 244; true, of Mark ix. 12 
considered, i. 222; probably gen- 
uine, supported by a single Greek 
Ms., ii. no, 260, 315. 
Readings, peculiar to single docu- 
ments, value of, i. 32; evidence 
respecting, to be duly weighed, i. 
S3; conflate, defined and illus- 
trated, i. 171, 175, 188, ii. 87, 
222; Revisers', adopted by vote, 
li. 3; preference given by the 
Revisers to, of oldest Mss., ii. 4; 
"Alexandrian," " Syrian," " West- 
ern," ii. 5; various, in Rev. xv. 
3, noted, ii. 318. 
Relative, Greek, questionable form 
of, i. 96; uses of, noted, i. 125, ii. 
74, 213, 223; questionable uses 
of, ii. 74, 77, 170, 175. 
Rendering of Hebrew verb (Deut. 

i. 31), cited, ii. 106. 
Revised Version, Preface of, quoted 
' from, i. 63, 242, ii. 16. 
Revisers, inconsistency of, i. 38, 96, 

"• 14. 63, 121, 123, 127, 135, 140, 
186, 306, 307, 323; incorrect ren- 
derings of, i. 55, 106, ,43, 201, 
204, 237, 262, 304, 320, 340, 343, 
349, ii- 41, 42, 47. 78, «4- 88, 121, 
126, 127, 145, 153,186, 194,219, 
225, 227, 241, 269, 276, 299,300, 
304. 3'6, 323; not textual critics, 
11. 3; failure of, to make a needed 
correction, ii. 71. 
Revisers' Greek Text, defined, i. 15; 
plea in behalf of alterations found 
in, i. 15; unwarranted omissions 
in, i- 34, 97, 156, 168, 227, 244, 
253.330, ii-28, 38, 62, 92, III, 
"3. '62, 304; inconsistent with 
English version, i. 37, 143, 238, 
343, ii. 82 n. 2, 316; not identical 
with Westcott and Hort's, i. 48; 
needless changes in, i. 55, 63, 83, 
85. 97. 126, 133, 140, 141, 159, 
247. 265, 274, 280, 286, 288, 289, 
307. 332. 341, ii. 16, 17, 37, 63, 
65, 80, 130. 135, J40, 151, 186, 
192, 202, 206, 223, 230, 231, 253, 
268, 272, 274, 299, 307, 323; false 
or questionable readings of, con- 
sidered, i. 84, 86, 109, 143, 153, 
'57. 17', 182, 184, 186, 189,195! 
198, 199, 216, 219, 224, 228, 234, 
237. 240, 242, 249, 251, 262, 266, 
325. 340, 348, 349. 360, ii. 46, 53, 
57. 64, 73, 76, 82, 86, loi, 162, 
228, 243, 257, 263, 266, 299, 307, 
3", 316, 319, 321, 325; anti- 
Johannean readings of, ii. 15, 79, 
284, 285, 288; false constructioii 
in, li. 84; omission of Acts viii. 
37 and xv. 34 in, considered, ii. 
95. "3; readings of, supported 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 



by a single Greek Ms., ii. 115, 
300, 303, 313, 3'4; reading of 
Rev. xiii. I and ID in, considered, 

ii. 3>>. 3'4- 
Kiddle, M. B., D.D., quoted, i. 242, 
Roberts, Alexander, U.U., on simi- 
larities and diversities of readings 
in the Gospels, i. 73; opinion of, 
i. 225, 226; answered by Dean 
Burgon, i. 256; quoted, ii. 258. 
Rome, Codices L (.Acts and Epis- 
Ues), N in part, S (Gospels), and 
T, at, i. 10; Codices T* and Y 
at, i. 11; Christians of, referred 

to, ii. 165. 
Rossano, Codex S in Archbishop's 

Library at, i. 11. 
^iJ/xoTos, a Hebraistic use of, i. 323. 
picrai (2 Cor. i. lO), ii. 192. 

Sabbath, words spoken with refer 

ence to, i. 310, ii. 46. 
Sceva, sons of, worsted, ii. 123. 
Schaefer, critical note by, i. 192 "• 
Schaff, Philip, D.D., opinion of, 1. 


Scott, Thomas, quoted, 1. 35° 
Scrivener. F.H. A., LL.D., account 

of uncial Mss. from, i- 9; e.^n- 
mate of Codex M by, i. 10: tes- 
timony of, concerning early docu- 
ments, i. 19; on t^= doxology in 
the Lord's prayer,!. 69; on t^«- 
yo,v (Matt. xi. 19). '• 93; °" 
Mark xvi. 9-2°. '• ^54; <i^°^^^' 
i. 242, 263, 291, ii. 12. 39. 40. 

289 n. 
Severus on Mark xvi. 9-2°. ^^^f * 

copyist, i. 256. 
Septuagint, rendering of Isa. xiv 

IS, in, i. 95; results of copyists 

familiarity with, i. I4>. "• 59. 3' ' ; 
cited, ii. 83n., 94. "o6, 161,320. 
Shakespeare, a misprint from Ms. 
of, noted, i. 49. "• 244- 
Sidon," omission of (Mark vii. 
24), i. 207; construction of, in 
Mark vii. 31, i. 208. 
Silas at Antioch, ii. Ii3- 

Son of God" (Mark i. l), i- l?'- 
"Son of John," ii. 12. 
" Spirit," reference of (John vi. 63), 

ii. 155 n. 2. 
Statements designed to prepare the 
way for subsequent statements, 

ii. 24. 

Stephen, Robert, referred to, 1. 20. 

St. Gall, Switzerland, Codex A in 
monastery of, i. H- 

St. Petersburg, Codex K at, i. 9! 
Codices E (Epistles), H (Epis- 
tles) in part, I. and P (Acts, 
Epistles, and Apocalypse) at, 
i. 10; Codices T^ TS T in part, 

e, n, at, i. II. 

"Strain at" (Matt, xxiii. 24), an 
illustration of perpetuated blun- 
ders, ii. 219, 244. 

Stunica, reference to Mss. used by, 

i. 20. 
Symbols, errors from mistaking, 1. 

356. 357. "■ 26- 

Syriac Version, Curetonian, charac- 
ter of, i. 20. 

Syrian Church, use of inferior Mss. 

by, i. 20. 
"Syrian readings," examples of, 1. 

86,9i.i73.35'.«-'6V'°' ra 
„r.piSa,, Kc!^arr« (Mark xi. 8), 

i. 240. 
„»,(\apov, meaning of, considered, 

i. 274- 

avvfiSeta, Paul's use of, ii. 183. 
iTv<rTpe<poiJ.ivwy (Matt. xvii. 22), i. 

<rw/xa (Matt, xxvii. 58), i. 168. 

Tatian, given to abridging, i. 165; 
Diatessaron of, referred to, i. 164, 


" Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," 
date of, i. 68; testimony of, for 
the doxulogy, i. 68. 

Tenses, changes of, noted, i. 118, 
137, 190, 261, ii. 72, 93; im- 
proper use of, noted, i. 149, 159, 
189, 218, 233, 238, 283, 2S9, 332, 
341, 361, ii. 42, 48, 55, 57, 58, 
91, 126, 127, 181, 183, 192, 197, 
232. 235- 239, 306, 309, 323. 

TertuUian, iiicinoriter quotation by, 


Texts, tlie " best," ii. 6. 

Textual criticism, Bengel canon of, 
cited and illustrated, i. 48; Gries- 
t)ach's canon of, cited and illus- 
trated, i. 51 ; calls for two cKisses 
of evidence, i. 53; sciLMice of, 
supposed by some to be matured, 
ii. 7; presents a field of future 
labor, ii. 9; principles of, carried 
to extremes, ii. 316. 

Textual critics, work of, when 
needed, i. 46; considerations 
not to be overlooked by, i. 47; 
agree on general principles, but 
dilTer on their application, i. 47; 
necessary qualiUc.itions of, of the 
N. T, i. 52; infatuation of some, 
ii- 236, 317. 

7'ex/us Kieeplus, defined, i. 15; 
Stephen's work on, referred to, 
i. 20; omission of " neither the 

Son," from Matt. xxiv. 36 in, 
considered, i. 152; an important 
omission from Matt, xxvii. 49 in, 
considered, i. 164. 

Thayer's Grimm's Lexicon, referred 
to, i. 243 n., ii. 226. 

Thcophylact, opinion of, i. 78. 

Thomson, W. M., D.D., quoted, i. 


Thucydides, cited, ii. 117. 

Tichonius the Uonatist, testimony 
of, on Mark xvi. 2, i. 360. 

Time, John's mode of reckoning, 
i. 354; compared with that of 
the other evangelists, i. 354. 

Tisclicndorf, Constantine, account 
of Mss. from, i. 9; opinion of, 
concerning Codex D (Epistles), 
i. 9; citations of, from Codex R, 
i. 10; certain erroneous readings 
adopted by, i. 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 
37, 38, 40, 41, 4-2, 44; reason of, 
for omitting certain words, i. 36, 
ii. 270; adherence to received 
readings by, i. 37, 83, 85, 95, 97, 
103, 108, 116, 151, 154, 188,214, 
2i6, 262, 270, 277, 313, 329, ii. 
17. 18, 38, 44, 54, 59, 68, 80, 81, 
90, 132, 179, 206, 207, 213, 224, 
251, 256, 257, 264, 266, 302, 306, . 
310, 312, 319, 321, 323; rejec- 
tion of received readings by, i. 
56, 66, 69, 76, 84, 90, 91, 92, 96, 
103, 113 n., 123, 127, 147, 151, 
178, 182, 186, 187, 1S8, 191, 195, 
197, 210, 216, 220, 231, 232, 234, 
245. 246, 284, 28S, 293, 307, 318, 
322, 326, 344, 351, ii. 20, 28, 29, 
47. 69. 93. 94. I4>. 142, 165, 189, 
190, 209, 228, 237, 245, 247, 270, 
282, 296, 304, 318, 325, 326; er- 



roneous citation by, i. 56 n.; 
adoption of a verbosior lectio by, 
i. 85; inconsistency of, i. 234; 
opinion of, i. 242; quoted, ii. 38, 
245, 246; genuine reading adopt- 
ed by, ii. 299. 

"Titus" (Acts xviii. 7), a false 
reading, ii. 1 19. 

Transcribers, mistakes of, i. 16, 22, 
ii. 311. 

Tregelles, S. P., LL.D., rejection of 
received readings by, i. 56, 69, 
76, 90, 96, 103, 108, 113 n., 122, 
191, 214, 220, 277, 288, 322, 326, 
ii. 17, 46, 69, 141, 190, 206, 282, 
314, 318; adherence to received 
readings by, i. 91, 116, 127, 151, 
152, t88, 216, 233, 270, 329, 330, 
ii. 18, 20, 44, 142, 165, 179, 207, 
213, 224, 245, 266, 270, 306, 321, 

Tyre and Sidon (Mark vii. 24),-i. 

ei\Ta (Rev. xi. 5), ii. 306. 
SefUXiov (Heb. vi. l), reference of, 

ii. 261. 
eto't, omission of (Matt. xxii. 32), 

i. 145. 
ecoD, omission of (John v. 44), ii. 

t4 SlKTva, reading of, considered, 

toDto, overlooked by copyists, i. 

265; use of, in Luke xxiv. 11, 

i. 346; for Toirrd, i. 279, 280. 
ravTrif, omission of (Matt. xv. 15), 

i. 112. 
T€Kvwv, mistaken for Tex""' (Matt. 

xi. 19), i. 91. 
tIj, improperly read for rlt (Rom. 

viii. 24), ii. 156. 

TO, introducing an indirect inter- 
rogative clause, i. 225 and n. 4. 

tA Up6v (Matt. xxi. 12), i. 137. 

ToXyaw, ii. 1 74 n. 

tA 6vofia (Rev. xiii. 8), ii. 313. 

tA irveOfia (Mark i. 26), omitted 
only in B, i. 35. 

toCtoi', omission of (i Cor. iii. 12), 
ii. 179. 

ToB Tu^XoD (John ix. 6), ii. 48. 

TUTriKuJj (J Cor. X. 11), ii. 187. 

Twv tpywv (James ii. 26), ii. 274. 

Uncial Mss., described, i. 9. 

Utrecht, Codex F (Gospels) in 
Public Library of, i. 10. 

ulo'j for 6vos, i. 310; meaning a dis- 
ciple, ii. 13. 

{ifiicv, omission of, noted, ii. 41. 

iiwkp iKelvoh, a probably lost read- 
ing, i. 319. 

mo for i-jrl, i. 30, 95 n., 211. 

Vatican Codex, certain readings pe- 
culiar to, i. 27, 28. 

Venice, Codex U in Library of St. 
Mark's, i. 11. 

Versions, oldest, referred to, i. 17; 
connection between Codex D 
and the Old Latin and Cureto- 
nian Syriac, i. 19; agreement 
among, an argument for a read- 
ing, i. 60, 62, 65, 69, 83, 90, 102, 
105, 163, 178, 188, 190, 202,204, 
208, 229, 239, 241, 253, 268, 274, 
287,315,343. ii- ". 16, 57, 58, 
69, 138, 169, 170, 194, 209, 220, 
221, 233, 242, 245, 246, 254, 276. 

Victor of Antioch on Mark xvi. 9- 
20, i. 256. 

Vienna, two leaves of Codex N at, 
i. 10. 



Vulgate, quoted from, ii. 289. 

Weiss, Bernhard, D.D., testimony 
of. concerning early textual cor- 
ruptions, i. 18; quoted, i. ig, 
Westcott, Canon B. F., D.D., opin- 
ion of, concerning Codex 102 
(Gospels), i. 35; versus Hort, 
ii. 244, 264. 
Westcott and Hort, adherence to 
one Ms., i. 16; their reading of 
Mark i. 4, i. 21; certain addi- 
tions to the text by, i. 23, 34; 
certain omissions from the text 
by, i- 36, 37. 38. 39. 66, 291, 293; 
certain modifications adopted by, 
i. 40, 41 ; a few readings sulisti- 
tuted by, for those of the Tcx/us 
Jieceptus, i. 41, 42, 43, 44; false 
reading of Matt, viii, 10 adopted 
by, i. 74; their estimate of the 
two oldest Greek Mss., i. 95 n.. 

'54, ii- 5, 6; consistency of, i. 
96; their manner of writing the 
contracted reflexive, ii. 63, 289, 
290,323; reject the testimony of 
N, B in Acts vii. 7, ii. 93; quoted, 
'■• 104, MI, 244; adhere to re- 
ceived reading in Rom. xiv. 19, 
ii. 169. 

Wetstcin, J. J., Codex F (Gospels) 
collated by, i. 10. 

Winer, Geo. B., D.D., cited, i. 192 n., 
288 n., ii. 1 12. 

Wolfenbuttel, Codices P (Gospels) 
and Q in Ducal Library of, i. 10. 

Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, 
quoted, ii. 188. 

Xenophon, Anabasis of, referred to, 

i- 279; cited, ii. 143 n. 
Xpta-T6! (Matt. xvi. 21), i. 117. 

^, or Codex ^iious Laura, refer- 
ence to, i. 39. 




[Figures witliout any accompanying mark or letter denote passages or read- 
ings from the Text proper, more oi; less fully examined. Those with an asterisk 
(•) denote marginal readings noticed. Those with an obelisk (t), passages 
only briefly noted. Those followed by n., passages cited or noticed m foot- 


i. 5, 7,8,10. ...i.iian- 

i. 7,8, 10 i. 55* 

i. 18 i-5<J* 

i. 25 i- 58,, 

ii. 6 "• 305t 

iv. 24 i- 61 

V. 4 i-62* 

V. 13 \-^i 

V. 22 '• ^4* 

V. 25 '• 6^* 

V. 30 i- 66 

V. 37 ■•'• 67* 

vi. 8 i-67* 

vi. 13 •■68 

vi. 34 ii. 289t 

vii. 13 i- 72* 

viii. 9 i- 72* 

viii. 10 i. 74* 

viii. 23 '■75 

viii. 28.... i. 75, 113 "• 

viii 29 i- Si 

i.. 4 '-82* 

is. 14 '-83* 

ix. 18 i-83 



ix. 32 1-85 

X. II i. 236! 

xi. 2 i- 86 

xi. 9 i- 88 

xi. 15 i- 90* 

xi. 16 :i- got 

xi. 19 i. 6ot, 9' 

xi. 23 i. 93. 95* 

xii. 4 1-96* 

xii. 31 1-96* 

xii. 46 i. 59t,97 

xii. 47 1-98* 

xiii. 9 i- 98 

xiii. 16 i- I44t 

xiii. 18 ii. I28t 

xiii. 35 i- '°o* 

xiii. 36 i- 100 

xiii. 43 i- 99*. '°' 

xiii. 55 i- >o' 

xiii. 55, 56 i- 59t 

xiv. 12 i. 102 

xiv. 24 i- 102* 

xiv. 29 i- 103* 

xiv. 30 i. 104 

xiv. 34 i- 106 

XV. 4. 

...i. loS 

XV. 6 i. 109, no* 

XV. 14 i- m 

XV. 15 i- "2 

XV. 39 i- 22t, 112 

xvi. 2, 3 i- 115* 

xvi. 8 i- 115 

xvi. 13 i. 116 

xvi. 21 1- "7 

xvii. 4 i- ••8 

xvii. II i- I '9 

xvii. 20 i- 120 

xvii. 21 i- 121 

xvii. 22 i. 122* 

xviii. II i- 123 

xviii. 14 1- '23 

xviii. 15 i- '24* 

xviii. 28 .1- '25 

xix. 3 i- '26 

xix. 9 i- 127* 

xix. 10 i- 127 

xix. 16, 17 i- 128* 

xix. 20 i- 132 


xix. 29 i. 132* 

XX. 15 i. 133 

XX. 16 i. 134 

txi. 4 i. 135 

xxi. 6 i. 136 

xxi. 7 i. I36t 

xxi. 12 i. 137* 

xxi. 13 i. 137 

xxi. 15 i. 138 

xxi. 44 i. 140* 

xxi. 46 i. 140 

xxii. I i. 141 

xxii. 5 i. I4it 

xxii. 13 i. 142 

xxii. 23 i. 143 

xxii. 27 i. 144 

xxii. 30 i. 145 

xxii. 32 i. 145 

xxiii. 4 i. 147* 

xxiii. 14 i. 148 

xxiii. 17 i. 149 

xxiii. 19 i. 150 

xxiii. 35 i. 152 n. 

xxiii. 38.. i. 151*, 309t 

xxiv. 31 i. 151* 

xxiv. 36 i. 152 

xxiv. 38 i. 153 

xxiv. 42 i. 155 

xxiv. 48 i. 156 

XXV. 2 i. 157 

xxvi. 26 i. 159 

xxvi. 53 i. 160 

xxvi. 69 i. 272! 

xxvii. 4 i. 161* 

xxvii. 5 i. l6l 

xxvii. 24 i. 162* 

xxvii. 28 i. 162* 

xxvii. 49 i. 1O4* 

xxvii. 58 i. 168 

xxviii. 2 i. 169 

xxviii. 6 i. 170* 


i. 171* 


1- 21, 173 

i- 174 

'■ '75 

i. 176 

i- 34.41 

21 •• 35t 

'■ '77 

i- 272t 

i. 178 


• '3 

• "4 
. 16 

• '9. 
■ 23 



■45 '■ 35t. 4'! 

i- ' i- '79 

i. 2 i. 180 

i- 3 i- '80 

i- 4 --i- 35t. 4it. 181* 

i-8 i. 35t 

i. 12 i. 182 

i- '5 i- '84 

i. 16 i. 184 

i. 22 i. 186 

i. 26 i. 36! 

ii- I i. 3^1 

ii. 14, 16 i. 188* 

ii. 15 i. 188 

ii. 21 i. 42t 

ii. 25 i. 189 

ii. 26 i. 190 

ii. 28 i. I44t 

ii. 29 i. 190 

ii. 30 i. 207! 

ii- 32 i- 33t 

V. I i- 33t 

V- 10 i. 193, 236! 

V. 16 i. 27t, I44t 

v. 21 i- 95 n- 


2 i. 36t 

27 i- '94 

36 !i. 195 

• 2 i. 197* 

• "4 '-401, 197* 

.20 i. 198 

. 22 i. 199* 

• 27, 28 i. 36t 

■ 29, 56 i. 42t 

■ 33 '• '99 

• 35 '-401 

- 53 '■ 201 

i. 4 i. 201*, 202 

i. ,2. f ■■ '°9t. "°t. 
I 203 

i. 16 i. 203* 

i. 19 i. 22t, 204 

i. 24 i. 207* 

i. 28 i. 210 

i. 30 i. 210 

i. 31 . . .i. 2oSt, 212 
i- 35 • •■'■ 33t, 212 

vii. 37 >■ 213 

viii. 3 i. 42t 

ii. 6 i. 360 

ii. 7 i. 26t 

ii. 10 i. ii2t 

ii. 15 i- 361 

ii. 16 i- 213* 

ii. 17 i. 214 

ii. 20 i. 215 

ii. 22 i. 42t 

ii. 23. . . .i. 215, 236t 

viii. 26 i. 216 

viii. 37 i. 218 

ix. I i. 219 

ix. II i. 221 

ix. 12, 13 i. 222 

ix. 14 i. 4ot 

ix. 23 i. 224 


THE revisers' GREEK TEXT. 


«. 24 i. 227 

ix. 26 i. 228 

ix. 29 i. 228 

Jx. 40 i. 229 

''•7 i- 231* 

X. 24 i. 232* 

'■ 26 i. 43t 

X- 36 i.4it 

x-43 i. 233 

x-49 i- 234 

xi- 3 i- 237 

xi. 8 i. 240 

xi. 22, 23 i. 43t 

xii. 4 i. 241 

27. 30. 34/ •" 

xii. 21 i. 243 

xii. 36 i. I44t 

xiii. 6,7,9,22,23.. i.38t 

xiii. 8 i. 244 

xiii. II i. 244 

xiii. 22 i. 245 

xiii. 27 i. 246 

xiii. 33 i. 246* 

xiv. 2 i. 43t 

xiv. 3 i. 247 

xiv. S, 30, 3i..;.i. 38t 

xiv. 18 i. 4it 

xiv. 51 i. 247 

xiv. 52 i. 248 

xiv. 68 i. 249* 

xiv. 72 i. 249 

XV. I i. 44t 

XV. 4, 20, 36 i. 39t 

XV. 6 i. 44t, I59t 

XV. 8 i. 250 

XV. 12 i. 251 

XV. 25 i 44t, 353 

XV. 34 i. 27t 

XV. 39 i. 251 


XV. 44 i- 236! 

XV. 45 '-281, 253 

"vi- 2 i. 359 

xvi. 9-20.. i. 39t, 253 


. 26 i. 272t 

.78 i. 261 

.14 i. 262 

i- 15 1-265 

i. 51 i. 265 

ii. 17 i. 266 

ii. 20 i. 267 

V. I i. 267 

V. 4 i. 268 

V. 17 i. 269 

44 . . .i. 114 n, 270* 
V. I i. 272 

v-5 i-273 

v-9 i- 274 

V. 17 i. 274 

v-33 i-275 

vi. I . . . .i. 152 n., 276 

vi. 6 i. 278 

vi. 23 i. 279 

vi. 26 i. 279t 

vi. 34 i. 280 

vi. 35 i. 281* 

vi. 48 i. 281 

vii. 7 >• 74t 

vii-9 i- 74t 

vii. II i. 283 

vii. 32 i. 284 

vii. 33 i- 285 

viii. 3 i. 285 

viii. 6 i. 286 

viii. 9 i- 237t 

viii. 12 i. 287 

viii. 26, 37 i. 288 

viii. 27 i. 288 


viii. 35 i. 289 

viii. 43 i. 289* 

viii. 45. . .i. 290*, 291 

ix. 2 i. 293* 

ix. 10 i. Sit, 293 

ix. 35 i. 296 

ix. 50 i. 229 

ix. 54 i. 297* 

ix. 55 i. 298 

ix. 56 i. 299! 

x. I, 17 i. 299* 

x. 15..]. 93t. 95t. 299 

X. 21 i. 300 

X- 30 i- 30«t 

X. 32 i. 300 

X. 38 i. 30' 

X. 41.42.; i. 302* 

xi. II i. 303» 

xi. 34 i. 304 

xii. 25 i. 306 

xii. 38 i. 307 

xiii. 25 i. 3o8t 

xiii. 27 i. 308 

xiii. 35 i. 308 

xiv. 5 i. 310* 

xiv. 17 i. 312 

XV. 16 i. 313 

XV. 17 i. 313 

XV. 21 i. 314 

XV. 24 i. 315! 

XV. 32 i. 315 

xvi. 12 i. 316* 

xvi. 18 i. 317 

xvii. 3 i. 317 

xvii. 6 ii. 44t 

xvii. 30 i. 28ot 

xviii. 14 i- 318 

xix. 18 i. 320 

xix. 20 i. 320 

xix. 26 i. 320 




xix. 29, 30 i. 321 

XX. 14 i. 321 

XX. 23 i. 322 

XX. 26 i. 323 

xxi. 6 i. 324 

xxi. 34, 35 i. 325 

xxi. 36 i. 326, iis 

xxii. 16 i. 328 

xxii. 19, 20 i. 329* 

xxii. 3' i. 330 

xxii. 43. 44 i. 330 

xxiii. 19 i. 332 

xxiii. 26 i. 334t 

xxiii. 29 i. I44t 

xxiii. 32 i. 335t 

xxiii. 33 i- 333 

xxiii. 34. .i. 332t, 334* 

xxiii- 35 i- 335 

xxiii. 38 i. 337 

xxiii. 42 i. 339* 

xxiii. 43 i. 32t 

xxiii. 45 i. 340 

xxiii. 47 i. 341 

xxiii. 49 i. 343 

xxiv. 3, 6, 9 i. 344* 

xxiv. 10 i. 345 

xxiv. II i. 346 

xxiv. 12 i. 344* 

xxiv. 17 i. 348 

xxiv. 21 i. 349 

xxiv. 27 i. 342t 

xxiv. 36, 40 ... . i. 344* 
xxiv. 47 . .i. 207t, 351* 
xxiv. 51, 52 ...i. 344* 
xxiv. 53 i. 351 


i. 15 ii. II* 

i. 18 ii. 12* 

i-39 i.354t 

i. 42. . .i. 114 n., ii. 12 

i. 49 ii. 14 

i. 51 ii. 14 

ii. II ii. 15 

ii. 12 ii. 16 

ii. 15 ii. 17 

iii. 13 ii. 17* 

iii. 16 ii. 18 

iii. 17 ii. 19 

iii. 31 ii. 19* 

iv. 6 i. 354t 

iv. 9 ii. 20* 

iv. 47 i. 272! 

iv. 52 i. 354t 

3 ii. 21 

3. 4 ii. 21 

44 ii. 26* 

. 14 ii. 27* 

i- 37. 39 ii. 74t 

47 ii- 27 

51 ii. 28 

i. 63 ii. 155 n. 2t 

71 ii.30 

11. 3 i.272t 

i ii-33* 

i'-42 ii. 37 

ii. 46 ii. 38 

ii. 53-viii. II. ..ii. 39* 

iii. 38 ii. 41 

iii. 39 ii- 42 

iii- 44 ii-44* 

ix. 4 ii. 46 

ix. 6 ii. 47 

ix. 15 i-237t 

X. 18 ii. 48* 

X. 22 ii. 49*, 49 

X. 25 i. i9ot 

X. 29 ii. 50* 

X. 39 ii. 5' 

xi. 9 '. 354t 


- 44 ii. 52 

•45 i'-52 

.53..; ii.53 

- 54 ii-'S4 

xii. 7 ii.54 

xii. 23 ii. 57 

xii. 25 ii. 57 

xiii. 2 ii. 3it 

ii. 18 ii. 59 

ii. 22 ii. 59 

ii. 23 ii. 60 

ii. 24 ii. 60 

ii. 26 ii. 31 1 

ii.32 ii-62, 63 

V. 4. 5 ii- 64 

v. 7 ii. 65 

XIV. 14 ii. 66 

xiv. 22 ii. 3if 

XV. II ii. 67 

xvi. 4 ii. 68 

xvi. 23 ii. 69 

xvii. 2 ii. 74t 

xvii. 3 ii. 71 

xvii. 4 ii. 72 

xvii. 6, 9 ii. 74t 

xvii. II, 12 .ii. 73 

xvii. 21 ii. 76 

xvii. 24 ii. 77 

xviii. 9 ii. 74! 

xviii. 40 i. 114 n. 

xix. 7 ii. 78 

xix. 14.... i. 353,354 

xix. 31-37 i. i66t 

xix. 34 .i. i65t 

XX. I i. 359 

XX. i8...i.237t, ii. 79 
xxi. 15, 16, 17... ii. I3t 
xxi. 23 ii. 80 


THE revisers' greek text. 



ii. I 

11. SI 

ii- 47 ii. 84 

iii. 6 ii. 85 

iii. 10 i. 3oSt 

iv. I ii. 86* 

iv. 12 i. 264! 

iv. 25 ii. 87 

V. 16 ii. 88 

V. 28 ii. 89 

V. 33 ii- 90 

V. 39 ii- 91 

vi- 13 ii. 92 

vii- 7 ii- 93 

vii. II ii. 94f 

vii. 36 ii- 93 

viii. 18 ii. 95* 

viii. 32 ii. I29t 

viii- 37 ii- 95 

ix. 25 ii. 96 

X. 3 ii. 96 

X. 1 1 ii. 98 

X. 20 ii. loot 

X. 24 i. 22t, ii. 98* 

X- 30 ii- 99 

xi. 12 ii. 100 

xi. 21 ii. loi 

xi. 22 ii. 102 

xi. 23 ii. I02* 

xii. 5 ii- 103 

xii. 25 ii. 103* 

xiii. 17 ii. 94t 

xiii. iS ii. 105* 

xiii. 19, 20 ii. 107 

xiii. 25 ii. 109 

xiii. 22 ii- ' 'o 

xiv. 27 i- 3<i't 

XV. 24 . . . . . . . ii. Ill 

XV. 34 ii- "3 

xvi. 3 i. 30St i 


xvi. 13 ii. 114 

xvii. 3 ii. 115 

xvii. 14 ii. 116 

xvii. 26 ii. 1 17 

xvii. 28 i. 279t 

xviii. 3 ii. 118 

xviii. 7 ii. ng 

xviii. 7, 24. . .i. 114 n. 

xviii. 21 ii. 120 

xix. 14 ii. 121 

xix. 16 ii. 121 

xix. 34 ii. 123 

XX. 3 ii. 124 

XX. 5 ii. 124 

XX. 5 ii. 125* 

xxi. 22 ii. 125 

xxi. 24 ii. 126 

xxiii. 5 ii. 202t 

xxiii. 28 ii. 126* 

xxiii. 30 ii. 127* 

xxiii- 34 i. 237t 

XXV. 13 ii. 127 

xxvi. i6.i. 279f,ii. 129 

xxvi. 20 ii. 130 

xxvi. 28 ii. 130 

xxvii. 16 ii. 131 

xxvii. 19 ii. 132 

xxvii. 37 ii- 133* 

xxvii. 39 ii. 134* 

■ 41 ii- 135 

fi. 11411., 
111. I . . . -^ .. ' 

I 11- nG* 

■ '3 

ii- '37* 
xxviii. 16 ii. 138* 


i. 24 ii. 140 

ii. 14 ii. 140 

iii. 2 ii. 142 

iii- 22 ii. 143 


iv. 17 ii. 231 n. 

iv. 19 ii. 145 

V. I ii- 147 

V. 2 ii. 150* 

V. 6 ii. 151 

V. 17 ii. 152* 

vii. 23 ii. 153 

viii. 2 ii. I54t 

viii. II ii. 154* 

viii. 24 ii. 156 

viii- 35 ii- i'57* 

viii. 38 ii. 158 

X. 3 ii. 160 

X. 5 ii. 160 

X. 9 ii. 161* 

xi. 17 ii. 162 

xii. II ii. 164 

xiii. II ii. 165 

xiv. 4. ii. 166 

xiv. 6 ii. 167 

xiv. 19 ii. 169* 

xiv. 22 ii. 169 

xiv. 23 ii. 171* 

XV. 15 ii. 172 

XV. 17 ii. 172 

XV. 27 ii- 141 1 

xvi. 27 ii. 174 

I Corinthians. 

'•'5 •'• '77 

ii. I ii. 178 

iii- 12 ii. 179 

iv. 2 ii. 180 

vii. 37. 38 ii- 181 

viii. 4 ii. 181 

viii. 7 ii. 182 

viii. 8 ii. 183 

ix. 15 ii. 185 

X. 6 ii. I4lt 

X. II ii. 186 



1 Corinthians. 

xii. 9 ii. 188 

xiii. 3 ii. 188* 

xiv. 15 ii. 149 n. i 

xiv. 38 ii. 189* 

XV. 14 ii. 190* 

XV. 15, 20 ii. 232! 

XV. 29, 35, 42, 52. ii. 23 In. 
XV. 49 ii- 190* 

2 Corinthians. 

i. I ii. 192 

i. 9 ii- 231 n. 

i. 10 ii. 192 

iii- 3 "- '94 

iii. 9 ii. 194* 

iv. 6 ii. 195 

iv. 14 ii- 196* 

V. 17 ii. 196 

xi. 4 ii. 197 

xi. 6 ii. 198 

xi. 32 ii. 199 

xii. 7 ii- 200 


iii. 10 ii. 202 

iii. 13 ii. 203t 

iii. 16 ii. 2i3t 

iv. 6 ii. 203 

iv. 7 ii. 204 

iv. 23 ii- 206 

iv. 25 ii- 206 

V. I ii. 207 

V. 21 ii- 208 

vi. 2 ii. 209 

vi. 15 ii. 209 


i. I ii. 211* 

i. 14 ii. 213 


i. 15 "■ 2'4 

i. 16 ii- 230! 

ii- 13 ii- 2i3t 

v. 2 ii. 215 

V. 14 ii- 231 n. 

v. 30 ii. 215 

vi. 17 ii. 2i3t 


ii. I ii. 218 

iii. II ii. 232! 

iii. 13 ii- 219 

iv. 23. ii. 220 


i. 7 ii. 221 

i. 12 ii. 222* 

i. 18 ii. 231 n. 

i. 21 ii- 222* 

i. 27 ii- 223 

ii. 7 ii. 224 

ii. 12 ii. 232t 

ii. 18 ii. 225 

iii- 6 ii- 227* 

iv. 15 ii. 228 

1 Thessalonians. 

i. 2 ii. 230 

i. 10 ii. 231 

ii. 12 ii- 232 

iii. 2 ii. 234* 

iv. 8 ii- 234 

iv. 16 ii- 231 n. 

V. 4 ii- 235* 

2 Thessalonians. 

ii. 3 "• 237* 

ii. 13 ii. 237* 

ii. «3. '4 ii- 233t 

1 Timothv. 

i. 12 ii. 239* 

iii- 15. '6 ii- 2i3t 

iii. 16 ii- 239 

iv- 10 ii- 241 

vi. 5 ii. 242 

vi. 7 ii. 243 

2 Timothy. 

i- II ii. 245 

ii. 18 ii. 246* 

iv. 17 ii. 247 

iii. I ii. 249 


6 ii. 251* 

'o ii- 253 

25 ii. 253* 


i. 8 ii. 254* 

i. 12 ii. 255 

iii. 16 ii. 256 

iv. 2 ii. 257 

vi. 2 ii. 259* 

viii. 8 ii. 262 

x. I ii. 263 

X- 34 ii- 265 

xii. 3 ii. 266 

xii. 7 ii. 267 

xii. 18 ii. 268 

xiii. 21 ii. 270 


i. 12 ii. 272 

i- 17 'i- 273t 

ii. 20 ii. 273 

ii. 26 ii. 274 

3 so 



iii. 3 "-275 

iii. 5 ii. 276 

V. 20 ii. 277* 

I Peter. 

iii. 21 ii. 278 

iv. I ii. 279 

iv. I ii. 280* 

iv. 14 ii. 280 

V. 2 ii. 282 

I John. 

1-4 "-283 

iii. 5 ii. 285 

iii, 14 ii. 286 

iv. 20 ii. 287 

V. 7 ii. 288 

V. 10 ii. 29ot 

V. 18 ii. 289 

2 John. 
8 ii. 294 


22 ii. 295 


i. 5 ii. 298* 

i. 15 ii. 299 

ii. I ii. 299 

ii. 13 ii. 300 

ii. 17 ii. 301 

iii. 2 ii. 301 

iv. I, 7, 8 ii. 302 

V. 6 ii. 302 

V. 9 "■ 303 

vi. I ii. 304 

vi. 17 ii. 305 

xi. 5 ii. 306 

xi. 8, 9 ii. 307 


xi. 9, 10 ii. 309 

xi. 18 ii. 310 

xiii. I ii. 311 

xiii. 7 ii. 313* 

xiii. 8 ii. 313 

xiii. 10 ii. 314 

xiii. 14 ii. 303! 

xiii. 15 ii. 316 

xiv. 13 ii. 317 

XV. 3 ii. 318 

XV. 6 ii. 319 

xvii. 3 ii. 321 

xviii. 3 ii. 322 

xviii. 7 ii. 323 

xviii. 19 ii. 324 

xix. 13 ii. 324 

XX. 6 ii. 325* 

XX. 9 ii. 325 

xxi. 3 ii. 327* 

xxii. 16 ii. 327