YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

A COMPANION

TO

THE GREEK TESTAMENT

AND

THE ENGLISH VERSION

BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.
PRESmENT OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OX REVISION

With Facsimile Illustrations of
Mss, AND Standard Editions of the N'ew Testament

NEW YOEK
HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE
1S83

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1383, by
HARPEK & BROTHERS,
In the Offlce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington,

All righta reserved.

TO THE
MEMBEES OF THE AMEEIOAN EEVISION COMMITTEE
IN REMEMBRANCE OP TEN TEARS OP HARMONIOUS CO-OPERATION
?Debicatcir BY THE AUTHOR

PREFACE.

A Manual of Textual Criticisra of the Greek Testament
and its application to the English Version is a desidera
tum of our literature, and meets a demand which has been
greatly stimulated and widely extended by the appearance
of the new Revision.
This book has grown ont of my studies in connection
with the Revision Comraittee, and was prepared at the
request of several fellow-Eevisers and friends whose learn
ing and judgraent I highly esteera. It embodies the sub
stance (thoroughly revised) of ray Introduction to the
American edition of Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa
ment, and several additional chapters, besides iraportant
contributions frora Bishop Lee, Professor Abbot, Dr. Hall,
and Professor Warfield, whieh are acknowledged in the
proper place. The last chapter contains a brief history
and explanatory vindication of the joint work of the two
Revision Companies, and fairly expresses, I believe, their
general views on all essential points, with a preference for
the American renderings where they differ from the English.
An official report of the American Committee will appear
after the revision of the Old Testaraent is corapleted.
I feel under special obligation to Dr. Ezra Abbot, qf Cam
bridge, who has kindly aided rae in correcting the proofs
as they passed through the press, and suggested numerous
improvements. In the departraent of textual criticism and

VI PEEFACE.
microscopic accuracy, this modest and conscientious scholar
is facile princeps in America, with scarcely a superior in
Europe. Every meraber of the American Revision Com
mittee will readily assent to this cordial tribute.
The publishers deserve my thanks for their liberality in
incurring the great expense of fac-simile illustrations of
manuscripts and standard editions of the Greek Testament.
Some of the forraer and all of the latter are entirely new,
and- add mucb to the interest of the book.
The extraordinary increase of biblical study, even among
laymen, since the Revision of 1881, is one of the most en
couraging signs of the times, and of true progress. The
New Testament is the greatest literary treasure of Christen
dom, and worthy of all the labor and study that can be
bestowed upon it to make it clearer and dearer to the raind
and heart of men. ,
I dedicate this book to my brother-Revisers as a merao
rial of the many happy days we spent together, from month
to month and from year to year, in the noble work of
iraproving the English version of the Word of God.
PHILIP SCHAFF.
New York, August, 1883,

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER FIRST.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. j.^^^.
Literature  1
Three Elect Languages  4
Spread op the Greek Language  '. 6
The Jews and the Greek Language  8
Christ and the Greek Language  12
The Apostles and the Greek Language  16
The Greek AND THE English  17
The Macedonian Dialect  19
The Hellenistic Dialect  22
The Septuagint  23
The Apostolic Greek  25
Hebraisms  2Y
Latinisms  35
Number and Value of Foreign Words  38
The Christian Element  39
Peculiarities of Sttle  43
Matthew  46
Mark  51
Luke  .'  54
Paul  62
John  66
The Apocaltpse  15
Evidential Value of the Language of the Greek Testament.. 80

Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER SECOND.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ^j^^^
Literature on the Sources of the Text and on Textual Crit
icism  82
SouECES of the Text  85
Facsimiles of Manuscripts  91
General Character op Manuscripts  93
A, Uncial Manuscripts  98
1, Prlmary Uncials  102
Codex Sinaiticus  103
" Alexandrinus  Ill
" Vaticanus  113
" Ephrjlmi  120
" BEZ.E.,.,.  ,,.  122
2. Secondary Uncials  124
B. CiTRSiTE Manuscripts  ,.'.......  133
List op Published Uncials  139
CHAPTER THIRD.
ANCIENT VERSIONS.
Value op Versions  142
Latin Versions :
The Old Latin  144
The Vulgate  148
Syriac Versions:
The Peshito  152
The Harclean  154
The Curetonian  ]56
The Jerusalem  I57
Egyptian Versions:
The Memphitic  158
Tub Thebaic  159
The Bashmuhic  I59

TABLE OF CONTENTS. ix
PAGE
J5THI0PIC Version  159
Gothic Version  160
Armenian Version  i63
CHAPTER FOURTH.
PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS.
Value of Patristic Quotations  164
Greek Fathers  leT
Latin Fathers,  169
CHAPTER FIFTH.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Nature and Object of Textual Criticism  171
Origin of Variations  173
Number op Variations  ;  176
Value op Variations  177
Classes of Varliiions  183
1. Omissions  183
2. Additio.ns  183
3. Substitutions  193
Critical Rules  202
Application of the Rulks  i  205
The Genealogical Method  208
CHAPTER SIXTH.
HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT-
Preliminary Remarks  225
I. The Period of the Textus Receptus : From Erasmus anb
Stephens to Be.ngel and Wetstein. — A,D. 1516-1750  228
The Textus Receptus  228
Erasmus  229
Complutensian Polyglot  232
COLIN^US  236
Stephens  236

X TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGK
Beza  237
Elzevirs  240
Walton's Polygt;ot.  :  , , . . 241
Mill  ,\ ,,.:.. 244
Bentley  245
Bengel  246
Wetstein  247
II. Second Period : Transition prom the Textus Receptus to
the Uncial Text, From Griesbach to Lachmann. — A,D.
1770-1830 :.,.,.  249
Griesbach  ,  260
Matthjsi  252
Scholz  253
III. Third Period: The Restoration of the Primitive Text.
From Lachmann and Tischendorf to Westcott and Hort. —
A.D. 1830-81  254
Lach.-mann  254
Tischendorf  257
Tregelles  262
Alford  266
Westcott and Hort  268
Scrivener and Paljier  282
Retrospect and Prospect  287
CHAPTER SEVENTH.
THE AUTHORIZED VERSION.
Literature  299
The Bible and Christianity  305
Origin of King James's Version  312
Rules Prescribed  317
Progress op the Work  319
Reception  325
Was King James's Version ever Authorized ?  330
Critical Estimate. — Merits  337
Defects  347
Preparations for Revision  364

TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI
CHAPTER EIGHTH.
THE REVISED VERSION, ^xgh
Literature  371
Action op the Convocation of Canterbury  380
Organization and Rules op the British Committee  382
Work of the British Committee  387
American Co-operation  391
Constitution of the American Committee  396
Relation op the American and English Committees and
Agreement with the University Presses  398
Publication  403
Reception, Criticism, and Prospect  411
Merits op the Revision as Compared with the Old Version.. 417
The Greek Text op the Revised Version  420
Select List of Textual Changes  428
Select List of I.mproved Renderings  434
The English Style of the Revised Version  455
Archaisms  459
New Words  ,  462
Improvements in Rhythm  464
Grammatical Irregularities  465
Infelicities  466
Inconsistencies  468
Needless Variations  474
The American Part in the Joint Work  478
The American Appendix  482
The Public Verdict  490
Appendix I. — ^List op Printed Editions op the Greek New
Testament  497
Appendix II. — Fac-similes op Standard Editions op the Greek
Testament  525
Appendix III — List op English and American Revisers  571
Appendix IV. — List of American Changes Adopted by the
English Committee  579
Appendix V. — Adoption op the Revision by the Baptists... 607
Alphabetical Index  609
Index of Scripture Passages Explained  615

CHAPTEE FIEST.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Literature.
I. Ckitic.vl Editions of the Greek Testament.
By Lachmann (1842-50, 2 vols.); Tischendorf (ed. octava critica
major, 1864-72, 2 vols., with a vol. of Prolegomena by Gregm-y and A h-
hot, 1883) ; Tregelles (18,57-79) ; Westcott and Hokt (1881, with a
separate vol. of Introduction and Appendix, Cambridge and New Tork,
Harpers' ed., from English plates).
Lachmann laid the foundation for the ancient uncial instead of the
mediaeval cursive text; Tischendorf and Tregelles enlarged and sifted
the critical apparatus; Westcott and Hort restored the cleanest text
from the oldest attainable sources. All substantially agree in principle
and in results.
Bilingual editions : Novum TestaTneTitum Grcece ei Ge-rmanice, by Oskar
VON Gebhardt. Lips. 1881. (Tischendorf's last text with the read
ings of Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the revised version of Luther.)
The Greelc-English New Testament, heing Westcott and Harts Greek Text
a^nd the Revised English -Version of ISSi. New York (Harper and Broth
ers), 1882. II. Grammars of the Greek Testament.
G. B. Winer (Professor in Leipsic, d. 1858) : Grammar of New-Testa-
Tnent Greek (^Grammatik des neutest. Sprachgeln^auchs), Leipsic, 1822; 6th
ed. 1855; 7th ed. by G. LiisEMANS, 1867. American " revised and author
ized" translation from the seventh edition, by Prof. J. H. Thayer (of
Andover Theological Seminary), Andover, 1869 (728 pages). English
translation by Eev. W. F. Moulton (Principal of The Leys School, Cam
bridge), with valuable additions and full indexes, Edinb. 1870 ; 2d ed. 1877
(848 pages).
Winer's work is a masterpiece of classical and Biblical learning. It
marked an epoch in New-Test, philology by checking the unbridled
Ucense of rationalistic exegesis, and applying the principles and results
1

2 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
of classical philology to the Greek of the New Test. Earlier translations
by Stuart and Robinson (Andover, 1825), by Agnew and Elubelce (1840),
and by Masson (Edinb. and Phila. 1859). All these are now superseded
by Moulton and Thayer.
Alexander Buttmann : Grammatik des neutest. Sprachgehrauchs,
Berlin, 1859  A Grammar ofthe New-Testament Greek, translated by J.
H. Thayep.. Andover, 1873 (474 pages).
The German original was an appendix to the 20th ed. of Philipp
Buttmann's (his father's) Griechische Grammatilc. Prof. Thayer gives
in the translation references to the Grammars of Hadlev, Crosby, Don
aldson, and,jELF, and to Goodwin's Greek Moods and. Tenses.
S. Chr. Schiklitz : Grundziige der neutestamentlichen Grddtdt nach den
beSten Quellen Jur Studirende der Theologie und Philologie. Giessen, 1861
(436 pages). — ArUeitung zur Kenntniss der neutest. Grundsprache. Erfurt,
1863 (267 pages).
Thomas Sheldon Green: A Treatise on the Grammar ofthe New
Testament. London, 1842 ; New ed. 1862 (244 pages).
Samuel G. Green : Uandimok to ilie Giammar of the Greek Testament ;
together with a Complete Vocahulaj-y, and an Examination ofthe ChiffNeW'
Testament Synonyms, London (publ. by the Eeligious Tract Society'),
revised ed. 1880. The Grammar contains 422 pages, the Vocabulary 180
pages. Intended for students who have not studied the classical Greek,
and well adapted for the purpose. III. Dictionaries.
C. L, W. Grimm (Professor in Jena) : Lexicon Grceco-Lafinum in Libros
Novi Testamenti. Ed. 2da emendata et aucta. Lipsiiie, 1879. Based upon
the Cluvis Novi Testamenti Philologica of Chk. G. Wilke (d. 1856).
An English translation with many improvements by Prbf. J. H. Thay
er, of Andover, Mass., will be published by the Harpers in New York
(1883?). S. G. Schirlitz : Griechisch - deulsches Worterbuch zum Neuen Test.
Giessen, 1851; 3d ed. 1868 (426 pages).
Heb.«.vnn Cremer: Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutest. Gra
citat. Gotha, 1866 ; 2d ed. improved, 1872 ; 3d ed. 1882. English trans
lation, under the title Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek,
by Williara Urwick. Edinb. 1872 ; 2d ed. 1878.
EuwARD EoBiSsoN (Professot in the Union Theological Seminar}-, New
York, d. 1863) : .4 Greek and English Lexicon ofthe New Testament. Ee
vised ed. New York (Harpers), 1850. At first a translation of WahFs

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 3
Clavis (1825), then an independent work (1836). So far the best Lexicon
in the English language, but in need of a thorough revision, especially as
regards textual criticism. IV. Concordances.
Car. Herm. Bruder: Taiiiiiov rOiv rijc (fairijc iiaSir]KrtQ \k%iii>v,
sive ConcordanticB omnium vocum N. T. Grteci, ed. ster. Lips. 1842 ; 3d ed.
1867, reprinted 1876. Indispensable. Based on the work of Erasmus
ScHmid (also spelled Schmidt in his preface, Prof, at Wittenberg, d. 1636),
first published at Wittenberg, 1638, and again with a new preface by Ern.
Salom. Cyprian, Gotha and Leip.s. 1717.
George V. Wigram : The Englishman's Greek Concordance ofthe New
Testament, London (James Walton), 1844; 5th ed. 1868. The Greek
words are given in alphabetical order with the English Version (King
Jaraes's). Reprinted, New York (Harpers), 1848.
Charles F. Hudson : A Critical Greek and Englisli Concordance of
ihe New Testament, revised and completed by Ezra Abbot. Boston,
1870; 7th cd. Boston and London, 1882. Very useful, but requiring
adaptation to the Eevision of 1881.
V. Special Treatises,
Dominicus Diodati (a lawyer in Naples): Exercitatio de Christo
Graece loquente. Neapoli, 1767 ; republished by Dr. Dobbin ( Prof, of
Trinity College, Dublin), London, 1843.
G. Bern, de Eossi (professor of Oriental languages in Parma) ; Della
lingua propria di Cristo e degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina. Parma,
1772. Against Diodati.
Hein. F. Pfannkuche (d. 1833) : On the Prevalence ofthe Aramasan
Language in Palestine in the Age of Christ and the Apostles (in Eichhorn's
" Allg. Bibliothek," viii. 365-480), 1797. Based on De Eossi, and trans
lated from the German by Dr. E. Robinson, with introductory art., in the
« BibUcal Repository " (Andover, Mass.), vol. i. 309-363 (1831). Still
valuable. Joh. Leonh. Hug (R. Cath., d. 1846) : Zuffand der Landessprache in
Palastina als Matthaus sein Evangelium schrieb, in his Einleitung in die
Schriften des N. T., ii. 30-66; 3d ed. Stuttgart, 1826 (a 4th ed.'appeared
1847). Translated by Dr. E. Robinson in " Biblical Eepository," Ando
ver, 1831, i. 530-551. He agrees with Hug in maintaining that the
Greek and Aramaean languages were both current in Palestine at the time
of Christ and the Apostles.

4 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
G. VON Ze!zsChwitz : Profangracitat und biblischer Sprachgeist. Leip
sic, 1859.
Alexander Egberts : Discussions on ihe Gospels. London, 1862 ; 2d
ed. 1863. Eenews the opinion of Diodati.
William Henry Guillemard: Hebraisms in the Greek Testament.
Cambridge, 1879. This contains the text of the Gospel of Matthew
(which appeared first in 1875 as the beginning of a Hebraistic edition of
the Greek Test.) and extracts from the other books.
See also James Hadley, art. Language of the New Test., in Hackett
aud Abbot's ed. of Smith's " Diet, of the Bible," ii. 1590. B. F. Westcott,
art. Hellenist, ibid. ii. 1039 ; art. New Test., ibid. iv. 2139. Ed. Reuss, art.
Hellenistisches Idiom, in Herzog's " Beal-Encj'klop.," v. 741 (new ed. 1879).
Fk. Delitzsch, Ueber die palastinisehe Volkssprache, in "Daheim" for
1874, No. 27. THREE ELECT LANGUAGES,
IHSOYS O NAZQPAIOS O BA2IAET2 TQN lOYAAIQN,
JESUS NAZARENUS REX JUDAORUM.
There are three elect nations of antiquity — the
Jews, the Greeks, and the Eoraans; three elect cities
— Jerusalem, Athens, and Eome ; and three elect
languages — the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Latin.
These three agencies worked together for the
introduction of the Christian religion and for the
spread of Christian civilization. The threefold in
scription on the Cross, which is recorded with slight
variations by all evangelists,' proclaimed, in the
name of the representative of the Eoman empire,
the universal destination of the Gospel. What was
written in bitter irony proved to be a true oracle

' John xix. 19 and the parallel passages.

.THE LANGUAGE OF TIIE NEW TESTAMENT. 5
of' heathenism; as Caiaphas, the high-priest, uttered
an involuntary prophecy in the name of hostile
Judaism when he said of Jesus : " It is expedient
that one man should die for the people, and that
the whole nation perish not." '
" In that inscription of Pilate," says an able histo
rian," " there seems to be an unconscious prophecy
of the future destiny of the world. From that Cross,
and through the channel of the Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin languages, have radiated all the influences
whicii have made modern civilization the precious
inheritance it is. That Cross was set up at the point
of confluence of those three great civilizations of an
tiquity whicii have ever since profoundly affected
the life, public and private, of the people of West
ern Europe, The Hebraic monotheistic conception
of the Deity, the Greek universal reason, and the
Eoman power, and especially its language, have
been the great secondary nieans of the propagation
in that portion of the world of Christian civiliza
tion. In the West, Eoman law, Eoman Christian
ity, and Eoman power went together into the most
remote regions, and won their triumphs on the same
fields and by the use of the same Latin language.
By means of this Latin language Eoman civilization
was presented to the minds of the barbarians as
including many things outside the domain of force,
and conquered them, when force failed, by appeals
to their reason and their hearts. It was the Latin
' John xi. 50, 51.
' Dr. Charles J. Stille Qsite Provost of the University of Pennsylvania),
in Studies on Medieval History (Philadelphia, 1882), p. 39.

:6 .THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
language in the service of the Church, and in the
administration of the law of the empire, which
taught the barbarians in what the true, power and
glory of Eome and the perpetuity of her systein
consisted; ahd thus'was made an important step in
.their preparation for the reception of that civiliza
tion of which the Eoman language was the -vehicle,
as the Eoman organization was the motive force." '
The Hebrew is the language of religion, the
Greek the language of culture, the Latin the lan
guage of law ahd empire. The oldest revelatioiis
of God to one nation are recorded in Hebrew ; but
the .last revelation to all nations is recorded in
Greek, to be reproduced in the course of time in
all the languages of the earth,
BPEEAD OF THE GEEEK LANGUAGE,
There is a remarkable providence in the general
spread of this rich and noble tongue throughout the
civilized world before the advent of our Saviour:
first by the conquests of Alexander, the greatest of
Greeks, and afterwards by Julius Csesar, the greatest
of Eomans — both of them unconscious forerunners
of Christ.
The Greek was spoken in Greece, in the islands
of the JEgean Sea, in Asia Minor, in Egypt, Syria,
Sicily, and Southern Italy,
It was at tlie same time the medium of inter
national intercourse in the whole Eoman empire,
which stretched from the Libyan Desert to the
banks of the Ehine, and from the river Euphrates
to the Straits of Gibraltar, and embraced the civil-

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 7
ized world, with a population of about one hundred
and twenty millions of squls. It was the language
of government, law, diplomacy, literature, and trade.
It occupied ,fhe position and exerted the influence
of the Latin in the Middle Ages, of the French in
the eighteenth century, and of the English in the
nineteenth. In Paul's language the term ".Hellen,"
or Greek, is synonymous with " the civilized world,"
as distinct from the barbarians, and with " Gentiles,"
as distinct from the Jews.' .
Even in the capittil of the Eoman empire the
Greek was the favorite language at the imperial
court among literary men, artists, lovers, and trades
men. The Greeks and Greek-speaking Orientals
were the most intelligent and most enterprising
people among the middle classes. The Latin clas
sics were but successful imitators of Greek poets,
historians, philosophers, and orators. Paul, a Eoman
citizen, wrote his Epistle to the Eomans in Greek,
and the names of the converts mentioned in the six
teenth chapter are n^ostly Greek. The early bishops
and divines of Eome were Greeks by descent or
education, or both. Pope Cornelius addressed the
churches in the Hellenic language in the middle of
the third century. The Apostles' Creed, even in
the Eoman form, was originally composed in Greek,
The Eoman liturgy (ascribed to Clement of Eome)
was Greek, The inscriptions in the oldest cata
combs, and the epitaphs of the popes down to the
raiddle of the third century, are Greek. The early

' Eom. i. 14, "EXX»ii'££ Kai jSapfiapoi ; ver. 16, 'low^aiof Kai "EXXiji/.

8 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
fathers of the Western Church — Clemens Eomanus,
Hermas,' Gajus, Irenseus, Hippolytus — wrote in
Greek. The old Latin version of the Bible was not
made for Italy (although improperly called " Itala"),
but for the prov'inces, especially for North Africa,
It was not till the close of the second century that
Christian theology assumed a Latin dress in the
writings of the African Minutius Felix and Tertul
lian, andeven Tertullian hesitated a while whether
he should not rather write in Greek,'
THE JEWS AND THE GEEEK LANGUAGE,
The Jews of the Dispersion were all more or less
familiar with Greek, and hence called Hellenists, in
distinction from the " Hebrews " in Palestine and
frora the " Hellenes," or native Greeks." They were
very numerous in all the cities of the empire, espe
cially in Alexandria, Antioch, and Eome, and en-
' On the use of the Greek language in imperial Eorae, see Friedlander,
Sittengesch. Rams, i. 142, 481 (4lh ed.) ; Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. des
Taufsymbols (with reference to the Eoraan Creed), iii. 267-466 ; Lightfoot,
Com. on Philippians, p. 20 ; De Eossi, Roma Solteran. ii. 27 sqq. (on the
Catacorab of St. Callistus) ; Eenan, Marc-A urele, p. 454 sqq. Eenan says
that even after the Latin language prevailed Greek letters were often
employed, and that the only Latin Church in the middle of the second
century was the Church of North Africa. On the origin of the Latin
Bible, see the editions and discussions of Vercellone, Eonsch, Eeusch, E.
Eanke, and especially Ziegler, Die lat. Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus,
Munchen, 1879.
" 'EWrivmrfie, Acts vi. 1 ; xi. 20, etc., must not be confounded with
"EXXj;r, comp. Acts xiv. 1; xviii. 4; Eom. i. 14, 16; ii. 9, 10; Gal. iii. 28,
etc. It is from eXXijviSw, to Helknize, i. e. to speak the Greek language
and to imitate Greek manners; as we use the term " to Eoraanize" of
those who lean to the Eoman Church,

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9
joyed, since the time of Julius Csesar, who favored
them as a wise and liberal statesraan, special protec
tion for the exercise of their religion. In Eorae
itself they nurabered from twenty to thirty thousand
souls, had seven synagogues and three ceraeteries
(with Greek and a few Latin inscriptions). They
were mostly descendants of slaves and captives of
Porapey, Cassius, and Antony, They occupied a
special quarter (the Fourteenth Eegion) beyond the
Tiber. They were the same people then as they are
now in all countries : they carried on their little
trades in old clothes, broken glass, sulphur matches ;
they observed their peculiar customs ; they emerged
occasionally from poverty and filth to wealth and
honor, as bankers, physicians, and astrologers ; and
they attracted the mingled wonder, contempt, and
ridicule of the Eoman historians and satirists. But
while heathen Eome only survives in the meraory
of history and the shapeless ruins of her teraples,
theatres, and triuraphal arches, that despised race
still lives : a burning bush which is never consumed,
an imperishable raonuraent of a history of thousands
of years — a history of divine revelations and blessings,
of human disobedience and ingratitude, of honor and
disgrace, of happiness and misery, of cruel persecu
tion and martyrdom ; a race without country, scat
tered among eneraies, yet unalterable in its creed,
alone in its recollections and hopes, miraculously
preserved for some iraportant action in the conclud
ing chapter of the history of Christianity.
As the Hellenists spoke Greek, we need not won
der that not only the Epistle to the Eomans, but

10 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
even the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of
James " to the twelve tribes which are of the Dis
persion," wei'e written in that language.
Even in Palestine and among the strict Hebrews
who preferred their native Aramaic, the Greek lan
guage was extensively known and spoken, especially
on the' western sea-coast, in Galilee, and Decapolis,
Gaza, Askalon, Csesarea Stratonis, Gadara, . Hippos,
Scythopolis (Bethshan), Sebaste, Csesarea Philippi
(Paneais) were Greek cities in which the Greek
was spoken' exclusively, or predominantly. The
northern part of Galilee, owing to its mixed popu
lation, was called Galilee of the Gentiles (Isa, ix, 1 ;
Matt, iv, 15), Palestine was, to a large extent, a
bilingual country, like some of the S'wiss cantons,
Alsace, Lorraine, Belgium, Holland, Posen, Wales,
Eastern Canada, the German counties of Pennsyl
vania, and other border regions in modern times.
Many Jews had Greek names, as the seven deacons
of the.' congregation at Jerusalem,'
This city was the stronghold of the Jewish faith
and language, of prejudice and bigotry," but could
not resist altogether the influence of the age. The
Herodian family had foreign tastes and habits.
Jerusalem had over four hundred synagogues, and
was inhabited and visited by Jews and proselytes
' Acts vi. 5 : Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas,
and Nicolas. They raay have been Hellenists, and elected in defer
ence to the complaints of the Grecian Jews, but they resided in Jeru
salem. ' This religious bigotry denounced all foreign learning as dangerous.
Eabbi Eliezer said: "He who teaches his sou Greek is like one who eate
pork."

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 11
"from every nation under heaven." ' The number
of Jews present at the Passover, according to Jose
phus, sometimes exceeded two millions." The Greek
translation of the Old Testament w^s as much used
as the Hebrew or Araraaic original. The Jewish
Apocrypha were written in Greek (though some of
them first in Hebrew). The two principal Jewish
scholars of the first century, Philo and Josephus,
wrote their works in Greek.^
, ' Acts ii. 5. The Jerusalem Talmud gives four hundred and eighty as
the nuraber of synagogues. See Lightfoot on Acts vi. 9.
" Josephus raentions even three millions as being present in Jerusalem
Under Cestius Gallus at the Passover, A.D. 65 (Bell. Jud. ii. 14, 3). He
also states (vi. 9, 3) that the number of paschal lambs slain at tbis Pass
over, as reported to Nero, was 266,500, which, allowing no more than ten
persons to each lamb, would give us 2,565,000 as the number of persons
present. He gives the number 2,700,200, which comes nearer his former
stateraent, and includes all others who could not partake of the sacrifice.
' Josephus, who was born and educated in Jerusalem, wrote his history
of the Jewish War first in Hebrew, " for the barbarians in the interior ;"
afterwards in Greek, for "those under Eoman dominion" {BeU. Jud.
prooem. 1). He concludes his Antiquities (xx. 11, § 2) with the following
passage, which is characteristic of his vanity, and shows the proud con
tempt of the Jews for foreign languages at that time : " Now, after having
corapleted the work, I venture to say that no other person, whether he
were a Jew or a foreigner, had he ever so .great an inclination to do it,
could so accurately (aKpifiHg) deliver this history to the Greeks. For
those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed thera in
learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to
acquire the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the
Greek language, although, on account of the habitual use of the paternal
tonguCj I cannot. pronounce Greek with sufficient accuracy {aKpi^uav).
For with us those are not encouraged who learn the languages of many
nations, and so adorn their discourses wi th the smoothness of their periods ;
because this sort of accomplishment is regarded as common, not only to
all sorts of freemen, bnt to as many of the servants as are inclined to
learn them. But wc give those only the testimony of being wise men

12-*' THE language; of the new TESTAMENT,
From these facts, as well as frora the nuraerous
Greek names of persons and places, Greek coins and
inscriptions, we may safely infer that during the first
two centuries of our era the higher classes in Pales
tine, especially in Samaria (Sebaste), were quite
farailiar with the Greek language, and that the peo
ple generally had a partial knowledge of it sufficient
for practical intercourse and commerce.'
CHEIST AND THE GEEEK LANGUAGE.
There are two extrerae views on the language
used by our Lord,. The one is that he spoke only
the Hebrew vernacular;" the other, that he spoke
Greek only, or more than Hebrew," The natural
view, which accords best with the facts already
stated, is fhat he used both languages — the vernacu
lar Aramaic in ordinary intercourse with his disci
ples and the Jewish people, the Greek occasionally
when dealing with strangers and Gentiles.*
who are fully acquainted with our laws, and areable to explain the sacred
books."
- ' For a thorough discussion of this subject, with references tp Josephns,
Cicero, Seneca, Pliny, Strabo, Appian, Diodorus, and other authorities,
see Hug, Einleit.in die Schr. des N. Test. (3d ed, 1826), ii. 30-60, translated
by Eobinson, " Bibl. Repository," Andover, 1831, p. 530-551. Schurer, in
his Neulestamenil. Zeitgesch., p. 376-385, comes to the same conclusion.
' So De Eossi (who wrote against Diodati), Pfannkuche, Mill, Michaelis,
Marsh, Kuinol, and others.
' So Isaac Vossius, Diodati, Alex. Eoberts, S. G. Green. The last states
(Grammar ofthe Gr. Test. p. 168) : " It was the Greek of the Septuagint,
in all probability, our Lord and his apostles generaUy spoke. The dialect
of Galilee was not a corrupt Hebrew, but a provincial Greek."
* So Hug, Binterim, Wiseman (Horce Syriacce, Eom. 1828, i. 69 sqq.),
Credner, Bleek, Eeuss, Thiersch, Eobinson (i.e. p. 316), Westcott, Hadley,

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 13
Christ was born in Judsea, but grew up in Naza
reth, and spent thirty years of his private life and
the greater part of his public ministry in Galilee,
All his apostles — with the exception of the traitor
— were Galilseans, and could be known by their pro
nunciation, " Thy speech bewrayeth thee," said the
servants of the high-priest in Jerusalem to Peter
when he denied his connection with "Jesus the
Galilsean," ' The woman of Samaria recognized
our Lord by his speech and dress as a Jew, and the
proud rulers conteraptuously called him a Galilsean,"
As he becarae like us in all things, sin only excepted,
-we have no reason to exempt him frora those inno
cent limitations which are inseparable from race
and nationality. He spoke, therefore, in all proba
bility the vernacular Araraaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, with
the provincialisms and the pronunciation of Galilee,"
Delitzsch, See the older literature on the subject in Hase, Leben Jesu,
p. 72 (5th ed.), and Eeuss, Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. Test. i. 30 (5th ed.).
'Matt. xxvi. 73, ij XtiXia aov SrjXov oe itoih; Mark xiv. 70 ; Luke
xxii. 59. See Wetstein, in loc, for examples of various provincial dialects
of Hebrew or Aramaic. The Galilseans (like the Saraaritans) confounded
the gutturals N, S, fi, and used n for IT. The Babylonian Talmud says
that they paid no attention to the correctness of speech. The word for
thunder, ragesh, in Boanerges (Mark iii. 17), and Rabbini (Mark x. 51 ;
John XX. 16) for Rabboni, or Ribboni, are said to be Galitean provincial
isms. See Grimm, s. v., and Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Naz. iii. 560 not^.
' John iv. 9 ; vii. 52 ; Luke xxiii. 6.
' Prof. Delitzsch, who is excellent authority on the languages of the
Bible and Jewish usages at the time of Christ, says, in an essay in the
"Daheim" (as quoted by Bohl, Die' Alttest. Ciiate im N. T. p. 543):
"Der Herr hatte auch schlechthin nur ihm eigenthiimliche Worte und Wen-
dungen, wie wenn er besonders feierliche A usspriiche mit amen, amena (bei
Johannes : Wahrlich, wahrlich, ich sage') zu beginnen pftegte, wesshaib er in
der Apokalypse als der treue und wahrhafiige Zeuge, 'der Amen' genarmt

14: THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The Evangelists haye preserved a few examples
of the speech of our Lord, and these isolated sounds
from his lips still re-echo in all language's. He raised
the daughter of Jairus with the words: TaUtha cumi
("Damsel, arise").' He opened the ears of the deaf
man with^^Aa^Aa (" Be opened")." He exclaira
ed on the Cross, in the language of the 22d Psalm :
£^li, Eli, lama sahachthani f (" My God, my God,
why hast Thou forsaken me ?")," He addressed Paul
onthe way to Damascus in the Hebrew tongue, which
reached the quick of his sensibilities: '"iShaul, Shaiil,
wird (iii. 14). A ber ihi-er Grundlage nach war seine Spi-ache die seines Volkes
und Landes. Das Christenthum ist ein galilaisches Getcdchs. ' Sehon' die
Namen, die wirfiihren, verraihen es; der Name Thomas ist griechisch-ara).
mdisch, der Name Simon ist eigmthUmlich paldstini^ch-aramdisch, Und der
Name Magdalena stammt aus Magdala in der schonen Landschaft am
galildischen Meere. Ja,wir alle reden, auch ohne es zu wissen, in ara-
mdischen, in palastinischen Worten. . Wenn wir Jesus als Messias belcermen,
wenn wir des Herrn MafU das neutestamentliche Passa nennen, wenn wir zu
Gott mit dem Idndliclien Abba beten, so sind dies die aramdischen Worte
MESCHICHA, pascha, ABBA, und wcnn wir den Namen Jesu aussprechen
und mit dem Mariaruf Rabbvsi ihm zu Fiissen fallen, so sind dies pdld-
stinisch-galildische Formen. Mit dem Friedensgrusse SchelSma eechSn !
begi-iisste auch noch der A uferstandene seine JUnger, und mil einem Zui-ufe
in dieser Sprache: Sohai>l, Schawl, lemS redaft jathi? (Saul, Saul,
warum verfolgst.Du mich f) brachte der Erhohete den Saulus vor Damask
zur Besinnung(Apg. xxvi. 14).. Wie Saulus Worte horte, ohne eine Gestalt
zu sehen, so miissen auch wir zufrieden sein; uns den Klang und der Art
seiner Rede ndher gebracht zu haben — Er selbst bleibt iiber die Moglichkeit
der Beschauung erhaben; nicht nur seine Herrlichkeilsgestalt, auch sehon
seine Knechtsgestalt hlendet uns, dass wir die A ugen abwenden miissen, ndm-
lich die Ihn sinnlichfixiren woUenden A ugen — wir werderi Ihn einst sehen von
A ngesicht,'aberdiesseits Idsst Er sich nur erschauen mit A ugen des Glaubens.''
' Mark v. 41 (TaXteSa Koip. in Westcott and Hort).
' Mark vii. 34. 'E^pa^d is a Greek corrupt transliteration of Ethpha-
thah, the Syriao iraperative Ethpael.
' Matt, xxvii. 46. Mark (xv. 34) gives the Aramaic form, Eloi, Eloi.'

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15
why persecutest thou me ?" ' In the sacred heart-
domain of religion the mother -tongue is always
more effective than any acquired speech, Paul
himself, when he wished to gain a rnore favorable
hearing frora the excited populace at Jerusalem,
appealed to them in their native Hebrew."
At the same time we cannot suppose that Jesus
was ignorant of a language which was familiar to
the educated classes eveu in the interior of Palestine,
and in which his own disciples, the unlearned fish
ermen of Galilee, preached and wrote. And, if he
understood Greek, he must have spoken it on all
proper occasions, as when he conversed with for
eigners, with the Syro-Phoenician woman," with the
heathen centurion,' with the Greeks who called on
hiin shortly before his passion,' arid especially at
the tribunal of Pontius Pilate and King Herod,
No interpreter is mentioned, and a Eoman governor
liable to be recalled at any time -was not likely to
acquire the knowledge of a difficult provincial lan
guage when he could get along with Greek,'
' Acts xxvi. 14, SaouX, ^aoi\: In all other passages the Greek form
Sat/Xo£ is given ; see ix. 1, etc.
" Acts xxi. 40 ; xxii. 2. Josephus did the same in the name of Titus,
as his interpreter, during the siege. Comp. BeU. Jud.v.9, § 2; vi. 2, § 1,5;
vi. 6, § 2. From these examples it appears that the common people either
knew no Greek, or at all events not as well as Aramaic.
' Who is called yuyi) "EXXijvi'f, Mark vii. 26.
* Matt. viii. 5. .
» John xii. 20. They are called " Hellenes " ('EWrives)., ""' Hellenists
('EXXjiviorai) or Grecian Jews, and were probably proselytes of the gate,
or heathens leaning to the Jewish religion.
' The provincial governors gave judgraent in Latin or Greek. Cicero,
Crassus, and Mucianus used Greek in Greece and Asia. The Greek was

16 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
THE APOSTLES AND THE GEEEK LANGUAGE.
As to the apostles, they grew up with a knowl
edge of both languages, although, of course, the
Hebrew was more natural to thera. Whatever may
have been the pentecostal gift of tongues, they
needed no miraculous endowraent with a knowl
edge of Greek.' They acquired and used it like
other people of their age and nation. They learned
the Hebrew at horae and in the synagogue; the
Greek on the street and from living intercourse
with Gentiles. They had no book knowledge of
Greek, and cared only for its practical use. As
Galilseans, they were brought into frequent contact
with heathen neighbors, Matthew, from his former
occupation as a tax-gatherer, would naturally be a
ho^mo bilinguis. Paul was of Hebrew parentage,
and brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gariia-
liel, so that he could call himself " a Hebrew of the
Hebrews ;" yet he was not only a master of the
Greek language as applied to Christian truths, but
had also, perhaps from his early youth, as a native
of Tarsus, which was faraous for Greek schools,
some knowledge of secular Greek literature, as his
quotations froih three poets show."
the court-language of the proconsuls of Asia and Syria. The procurators
of Palestine would not make an exception. See Hug, I. c.
' Eusebius, who as bishop (and probably a native) of Csesarea, was well
acquainted with Palestine, declares (Dem. Evang. lib. iii.) that the apos
tles, before the resurrection of Christ, knew only their vernacular Syriac
language. But this was merely his private opinion, and he himself wrote
all his books in Greek.
"Aratus, Acts xvil. 28; Menander, 1 Cor. xv. Bo; and Epimenides,
Tit. i. 12. See my Church History, revised ed. (1882), i. 285 sqq.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 17
The raost conclusive proof of the familiarity of
the apostles and eyan-g^lists with Greek is the fact
that they coraposed the Gospels and Epistles in that
language, and that they quote the Old Testaraent
usually from the current Greek version,
THE GEEEK AND THE ENGLISH. ,
Thus the language of a little peninsula, by its
heauty and elasticity, vigor and grace, the wealth of
its literature, and the providential course of events,
liad become at the time of Christ the language of
the civilized world, and conquered even the conquer
ing Eomans, The noblest mission of this noblest of
tongues was accomplished when it became the organ
of the everlasting gospel of the Saviour of raankind.
This fact secures to the Greek for all tirae to corae a
superiority over all the languages of the earth, and
the first claira an the attention ofthe biblical scholar.
Next to the Greek, no language has a nobler and
grander raission for the extension of Christianity
and Christian civilization than the English. It has
ali-eady spread much farther than the Greek or Latin
ever did. From its island horae in the Northern
Sea it has gone forth to lands and continents un
known to the apostles, fathers, and reforraers. It
carries with it the energy and enterprise of the
Saxon race, the treasures of the richest literature,
the love of home and freedom, and a profound
reverence for the Bible, It is predestinated and
adapted by its composition and history to becorae
more and more the cosmopolitan language of mod
ern times, 2

18 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
" Among all the rriodern languages," says a dis
tinguished German philologist, " none has, by giving
up and confounding all the laws of sound, and by
cutting off nearly all the inflections, acquired greater
strength and vigor than the English. Its fulness of
free middle sounds, which cannot be taught, but
oiily learned, is the cause of an essential force of
expression such as perhaps never stood at the com
mand of any, other language of. men.. Its entire,
highly intellectual, and wonderfully happy structure
and development are. the result of a surprisingly
intimate marriage of the two noblest languages in
modern Europe — the Germanic and the Eomance;
the former, as is well known, supplying in far larger
proportion tlie material groundwork, the latter the
intellectual conceptions. As to wealth, intellectual
ity, and closeness of structure, none of all the living
languages can be compared with.it. In trutli the
English language, which by no mere accident has
produced and upborne the greatest and most com
manding poet of modern times as distinguished
from the ancient classics — I can, of course, only
mean Shakespeare — may with full propriety be
called a world -language ;. 0.^^., like the -English
people, it seems destined hereafter to prevail even
more extensively than at present in all the ends of
the earth,'"
The English language is now the chief organ for
the, spread of the Word of God, This has been
strikingly, illustrated during the past year by the
' Jacob Grimm, Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache (Berlin,. 1852), p. 60. .

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 19
extraordinary success of the Eevised Version of the
New Testament, prepared by two co-operative com
mittees, in England and the United States. More
than a million of copies were ordered from the
British University presses before the day of publica^
tion (May 17, 1881), and more than twenty reprints
of different sizes and prices appeared in the United
States before the close of the year, so that within a
few months nearly three millions of copies were
sold.- This fact stands alone in the history of litera
ture, and furnishes the best proof that the old book
which we call the New Testament is raore popular
and powerful than ever, no matter what infidels may
say to the contrary. Among the two freest and most
progressive nations of the earth the Bible is revered
as the guardian angel of public and private virtue, the
pillar of freedom and civilization, the sacred ark of
every household, the written conscience of every soul.
THE MACEDONIAN DIALECT.
The Greek language has come down to us, like
the old Teutonic language, in a number of dialects
and sub-dialects. The literati]re is chiefly deposited
in four : 1. The .^olic dialect, known from in
scriptions and grammarians, and from remains of
Alcjeus, Sappho, and Erinna. 2. The Doeic, rough
but vigorous, immortalized by the odes of Pindar
and the idyls of Theocritus. 3. The Ionic, soft
and elastic, in which Homer sang the Iliad and
Odyssey, and Herodotus told his history. 4. The
Attic dialect diffe.rs little from the Ionic, unites
energy and dignity with grace and melody, and is

20 THE LANGUAGE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT,
represented by the largest literature, the tragedies
of ^schylus, Sophocles, Euripides, the comedies of
Aristophanes, the histories of Thucydides and Xen^
ophon, the philosophical dialogues of Plato, and the
orations of Demosthenes.'
The Attic dialect, owing to its literary wealth and
the military conquests of Alexander the Great, the
pupil of Aristotle, came to be the common spoken
and written language not only in Greece proper,
but over the Macedonian provinces of Syria. and
Egypt, By its diffusion it lost much of its peculiar
stamp, and absorbed a number of foreign words and
inflections, especially from the Orient, But what it
lost in purity it gained in popularity. It was eman
cipated from the trammels of nationality and intel
lectual aristocracy, and became cosmopolitan. It
grew less artistic, but more useful.
In this modified form, the Attic Greek received
the name of the Macedonian or Alexandeian, and
also the Common or Hellenic language (ji koivi}
SiaXiKTog or 'EXX»|i'tK?} ?taX£KToc). It was used by
Aristotle, who connects the classic Attic with the
Hellenic, Polybius, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Dio
Cassius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ^lian, Hero
dian, Arrian, and Lucian,
Examples of new words: aya^ovpytiv, aixfiaXwriZav, avriKvrpov,
aTTOKapaSoKeiv, iWoyiiv, ivKaipeiv, StKoioKpiaia, wx^ripepov, oXtyo-
' On the Greek dialects, compare the large work of Ahrens, De Grcecix
Lingual Dialectis (1839, 1843, 2 vols.) ; Merry, Specimens of Greek Dialects
(Oxford, 1875) ; the well-known grammars of Prof. G. Curtius of Leipzig,
and Kuhner ; and Gustav Meyer, Griech. Grammatik (Leipzig, 1880), the
introduction and the literature there indicated. Also Wilkins, in " Encycl.
Brit." xi. 131-135.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21
jTittToe, oiKoSeaTTorriQ, TrtTroiSriaig. From Egypt: irdjrupoc, wpafiie,
jiaiov, Frora Persia: dyyapog, yai^a, ftdyoi, wapaStiffoc, ridpa. From
the Latin : k/jvctoc, KovoroiSia, Xiynltv. From the Semitic : appafSuv,
i^iZdvwv, paPfiii. The Alexandrians had also a special orthography;
they exchanged letters — as ai and ti, e and ?), y and k — and they retained
the./i before i^ and ^ (as in \iiii\j/oiiat). See Moulton's Winer, p. 53.
These peculiarities are found in the best MSS. of the LXX. and Greek
Testament, and have been introduced into the text by Lachmann and
the recent critical editors.
Professor Immer (Hermeneutics ofthe N. T. p. 125) gives the following
description of the distinctive characteristics of the Macedonian Greek :
" Besides the Atticisms, lunicisms, Doricisms, and .£olicisms, the SidktKrog
Koivri shows still the following peculiarities : (a.) Words that occur seldom
or only in poetical discourse in the old Greek now become more common,
and pass over into plain prose, as, e. g., peaovvKriov, ScoarvyrjQ, Ppixw, to
moisten, loSru) for ia^iio, and others. (6.) Words in use receive another
form, as dvddepa for dvd^tifia, yevkaia for ytvidXia, iKvaXai for jroXni,
X^eS for ix^k, 'iKeaia for tKirela, /lurSnjroJoiria for purSroSoaia, povu^-
SaX/iOf for knpoip^aXjioQ, vov^ioia for vovhirriaiQ, oirraaia for o<f/if , r/
opKopoaia for rd bpK., 6 irXriaiov for o viXae, irorairos for n-oJaTrog, etc.
Especially frequent become verbal forms in -iZu), in -w pure instead of in
-/ll (e.g. e/tviui instead of Hfivvpi), formed from the perfect, as arliKia, sub
stantives in -pa. (c.) Words entirely new, mostly words formed through
composition, make their appearance, as dvriXvrpov, dXiKropoipiiiivia,
diroKeipaXitioi, dyaioiroikio, alxpaXiartvu), vvx^iipepov, mropirpiov, et al.
(rf.) Words long familiar and current receive new meanings, as dvaKXivav
and dvaviirriiv, to recline at table; diroKpiS^vai, to answer; dirorda-
atoSai, to take leave; Saipuiv or Saipoviov, evil spirit; eiixapiareiv, to
thank; ^iiXov, tree; vapaKaXtXv, to pray; ariyiiv, to endure, to bear up;
^uvtiv, to come, to arrive; xPVf^ariZuv, to be called; ^uipiZtiv, to eat,
to nourish, et al. In a grammatical point of view the foUowing.may be
observed ; (a.) Inflections of nouns and verbs occur which at an earlier
period were either entirely unknown or peculiar to a single dialect ; e. g.
the Doricism d^'%iavrai for dt^tivrai, the .lEolic optative ending in -ua,
the ending of the second person of the present and future passive and
middle in -tt instead of in -y, etc. (5.) Infrequency of the use of the
dual, as, e.g., Siiai instead of ^uoiy. (c.) Infrequency of the employment
of the optative (in the , Johannean writings it does not , occur at all).
(rf.) The construing of certain verbs with other cases, especially with the
accusative, as kvi^vpiiv rt instead of nviif , fojitlaSlai on-o instead of iiro

22 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
and accusative, et al.- (e.) The weakening of 'iva in the formulae S-tXai
'iva, Xiyw 'iva, a^iog 'iva, and many others. (/.) Use of the subjunctive
instead of the optative after preterites, etc. A slill greater degradation
of the language finds place in the construction of Wa with the indicative,
and not with the future only, but even with the present indicative, of avv
with the genitive, the confounding of the cases and tenses, etc. The
latter peculiarities do not occur, however, in authors of Greek nationality,
nor in educated authors." (The translation is by Albert H. Newman,
Andover, 1877.) THE HELLENISTIC DIALECT.
The Hellenic dialect assumed a strongly Hebrais-
ing character among the Grecian Jews or Hellenists,
and as spoken by them it is called the Helleiiistia
dialect. It was especially current in Alexandria,
where all nationalities mingled and adopted the
Greek as their medium of commercial and social
intercourse. This city, soon after its foundation by
Alexander the Great (B.C. 332), became the chief
seat of learning next to Athens, and the birthplace
of the language of the New Testament. Imraense
libraries were collected under the Ptolemies, and
every important work of dying Egypt and Oriental
learning was translated into Greek,
The literature of the Hellenistic dialect is all of
Jewish origin, and intimately connected with re
ligion. It embraces the Septuagint and the Jewish
Apocrypha, which are incorporated in the Septua
gint, and passed from it into the Latin Vulgate,
Philo (B,C, 20 to A.D. 40) and Josephus (A.D, 38-
103), who were well acquainted witli Greek litera
ture, aimed at a pure style, which would commend
their theological and historical writings to scholars
of classical taste; but, after all, they could not conceal

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23
the Hebrew spirit and coloi'ing. The Hellenistic
writings express Jewish ideas in Greek words, and
carried the religion of the East to the nations of the
West. THE SEPTUAGINT.
The Septuagint version of the Old Testainent
Scriptures was gradually made by Jewish scholars
in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy IL,
B.C. 285-247, and has survived the ravages of the
Moslem conquerors. It laid the foundation for the
Hellenistic idiom. It raade the Greek the vehicle
of Hebrew thought. It becarae the accepted Bible
of the Jews of the dispersion, spread the influence
of their religion among the Gentiles, and prepared
the way for the introduction of Christianity. Thus
an " altar was erected to Jehovah" not only " in the
midst of the land of Egypt," as the prophet foretold,'
but all over the Eoman erapire.
The Septuagint is the basis of the Christian
Greek. "It is a remarkable fact, not yet sufficientlj'-
explained, that the great majority of the direct cita- '
tions of the Old Testament in the New, which
amount to about 280," are taken from the Septua
gint, or at all events agree better with it than with
the Hebrew original.
Compare on this subject, David McCalraan Turple, The Old Testament
in the New (Lond. 1868) ; Ed. Bohl, Z>ie .4 . T. lichen Citate im N. T. (Wien,
' Isa. xix. 19, 20, 25. ,
" James Scott (Principles of New Testament Quotation, Edinb. 1875,
p. 17 sq.) says: "The whole number of repeated citations amounts to 290.
Seventeen only of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament contain
quotations from the Old. The single citations may be estimated at 226,
and their whole number by repetition at 284."

24. THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.'
1878), and his Forschingen nach einer -Volksbibtl zur Zeit Jesu vnd deren
Zusammenhang, mit der Septuaginta-Uebersetzung (ibid. 1873). These two
scholars haive very carefully examined all the quotations, Turpie states
the result (p. 266 sqq.) in five tables as follows :
A. 53 quotations agree with the original Hebrew and with the Septua
gint (correctly rendered).
B. 10 quotations agree with the Hebrew against the Septuagint (which
is here incorrect).
. C. 76 quotations differ from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint
(which has Covrectly rendered the passages).
D. 37'quotations differ from the Hebrew and agree with the Septuagint.
¦ E. 99 quotations differ both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, which
also differ frora each other.
Bohl does not sum up his results, but goes -carefiUly over the same
nuraber of passages^, giving the New Testament quotation, the Hebrew
original, and the Septuagint Version, with learned notes. He advances
tlie hftVel theory that Christ' and the apostles quoted from a popular
Aramaic Biljle (Vdlksbiiyel') which he -thinks was in common use at that'
tiime in Palestine,. and which was substantially the Septuagint Version, op
based on it : " Die Septuaginta Uebersetzung ist die paldstinensische Bibel
oder die Bibel im Vulgdi-dialect geworden, und daher schreibi sich die Be-
ntttzung der LXX. im- Neuen Testament." But there is no trace of an
Aramaic Targum before the time of Christ, nor of a Targum authorized
by the Sanhedrin; and if it was based on the Septuagint, why did, the
apostles use a translation of a translation ? The question still remains,
why did they not quote from the Hebrew original, and how are the de
partures of the Septuagint from the Hebrew to be accounted for? It
seems probable that they quoted mostly from memory, and that they
yrere more familiar with the Septuagint than the Hebrew. The whole.
subject requites further investigation, and a new critical edition of the
Septuagint on the basis of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. and all other
sources combined. Dr. Paul de Lagarde, of Gottingen, announces such
an edition (1882). An important contribution is furnished by E. Nestle,
Veteris Testamenti Greed Codices Vaticanus ei Sinaiticus cum textu receptb
collaii (Lips. 1880).
Jesus himself quotes from the Septuagint, accord
ing to the evangelists.' The apostles do it in their
' Comp. Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; ix. 13; xv. 9; xxi. 16,42; Mark vii. 6; x.
7; xii. 10, 11; Luke iii. 4-6; iv. 18, 19; xxii. 37. Luke's quotalions arc

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 25-
discourses,' and in their epistles," Even Paul, who
was educated at Jerusalem and thoroughly versed
in rabbinical lore, usually agrees with the Septua
gint, except when he freely quotes from memory,
or adapts the text to his argument,'
THE APOSTOLIC GEEEK.
We are now prepared to assign to the New Tes
tament idiom its peculiar position. It belongs to
the Hellenistic dialect, as distinct frora the classical
Greek, and it shares with the Septuagint its sacred
and Hebraizing character, as distinct from the secu
lar Hellenic literature; but it differs from all pre
vious dialects by its spirit and contents. It is the
Greek used for the first tirae for a new religion. In
this respect it stands alone, and belongs to but orie
period, the period of the first proclaraation and intro-
all from the Septuagint with th« exception of one, vii. 27. The same is
the case substantial^ with Mark, with the exception of i. 2, which is
from the Hebrew, and. embodies his reflection. Matthew departs from
the Septuagint and quotas from the Hebrew when he introduces a pro
phetic passage with his formula 'iva n-XiipuS-y, as i. 23; ii. 6, 15, 18; iv.
15; viii. 17; xii. 18-21; xiii. 35; xxi. 5. This remarkable difference has
been pointed out by Bleek (Beilrdge zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, p. 67), and
is confirmed by Holtzmann (Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, p. 259).
' Acts i. 20^ ii. 17-21, 25-28, 34, 35; iii. 22, 25; iv. 25, 26; vii. 42-50;
XV. 15-18; xxviii. 26, 27.
" James ii. 23; iv. 6; 1 Pet. i. 16; ii. 6, 22; iii. 10-12; iv. 18; v. 5.
'Gal. iii. 13; Eora. ii.24; iii. 4, 10-18; iv.3; ix. 27-29; x.ll, 21; xi.9,
10, 26, 27 ; 1 Cor. i. 19 ; vi. 16 ; Eph. v. 31 ; vi. 2. Specimens of correc
tions of the Sept. according to the Hebrew : ,1 Cor, iii. 19 ; xiv. 21 ; xv.
54, 55; Eom. ix. 17; Eph. iv. 8. Comp. Weiss, Theol. des N. T. 3d ed.
p. 275 ; Kautzsch, De Veteris Test, locis a Paulo ap. allegatis (Lips. 1869).
Kautzsch maintains that Paul never intentionally departs from the Septua
gint, although he seems to have in view sometimes both the Hebrew and
the Greek. Weiss allows a more frequent use of thc Hebrew,

26 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
duction of Christianity. It is' of itself a strong argu
ment for the genuineness of the New Testament,
The Greek of the Apostolic fathers, the Apolo
gists, and the ecclesiastical writers of the third and
fourth centuries generally, differs considerably from
that of the New Testament: it has much less of the
Hebrew eleraent, and gathered during the theologi
cal controversies a nuraber of new technical terms,
or infused new meaning into old words,'
The New Testament idiora consists of three ele
ments, which we may corapare with the three ele
ments of man^the awfia, '/'I'X'i* ^"^^ vovg or wivfia.
It has a Oreeh lod'y, animated by a Hebreijo soul, and
inspired and ruled by a Christian spirit. It grew
natufally out of the situation and mission of the
Apostolic Church, and was, and is still, admirably
suited for its purposes. It is more cosmopolitan
than anj'^ other Greek dialect. The New Testament
in classical Greek might have been understood and
appreciated . by the learned few, but not by the
masses of Jews and Gentiles, And the same applies
to translations. King James's and Luther's versions
reach the hearts and understandings of the common
' Especially in the Nicene age. Such terms are oiaia, viruaraaig,
irpoaiDTiOV (as appUed to the persons of the Trinity), opoovaiog, o/ioiou-
ciog, hepoovaiog (of the Son of God in his relation to the Father), ivaop-
KOKric, ivav^pw-TTijatg, iSi6rr]e, dyswrjaia, yevvriaia, iKjropevoiQ, irep\(iiQ
(of the Holy Spirit), ScoroKog (of the Virgin Mary), 'ivuimg viroarariKri,
Koivmvia ISiwpdnov, mpix'i'PV'ig (of the inner trinitarian relations), ¦
dwiroaraaia or ivviroaTatria (the impersonality of the human nature of
Christ), etc. For ecclesiastical Greek, see Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus
e Patribus Greeds, Amst. 2d ed. 1728, 2 vols. fol. ; C. du Fresne (du Cange),
Glossarium ad Scriptores Medice et Infima Grcedtatis, Lugd. 1688, 2 tom.
fol. ; and E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lex. ofthe Roman and Byzantine Periods,
Boston, 1870.

. .THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 27
people as no classical diction of Milton or Goethe
could do.
During the seventeenth century there was rauch
useless controversy between the " Purists," who de
fended the classical character of the New Testament
Greek, and the " Hebraists," who pointed out its
Hebraisms, Both parties ignored the necessity and
beauty of its coraposite character for its cosmopoli
tan mission.' HEBEAISMS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The Hebrew element is the connecting link be
tween the Mosaic and the Christian dispensation.
It pervades all the apostolic writings, but not in the
same degree. It is strongest in Matthew, Mark, the
first two chapters of Luke, and in the Apocalypse.
The hyrans of the Virgin Mary {Magn-ificat), of
Zacharias {Benedictus), and of Simeon {Nunc Di
mittis) are entirely Hebrew in spirit and tone, and
can be literally rendered so as to read like Hebrew
psalms. Otherwise Luke and the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews Hebraize least of all. Not
a few Hebrew words — as Amen, Eden, Messiah,
Manna, Hallelujah, Sabbath — have passed into mod
ern languages, and reraain as perpetual memorials
of the earliest revelations of God, The Hebraisms
are not grammatical blunders or blemishes, but neces
sary supplements of the defects of the secular Greek.
' See the literature on this controversy in Eeuss, p. 37. He says :
"Das neutestameiilliche Idiom ist nicht aus einer rohen Sprachenmischung
hervorgegangen, sondem stellt sich uns dar als der erste Schritt des im Osten
aufgegangenen Lichtes zur Bewdltigung und Durchdringung der abendldn-
dischen Gesitlung." Comp. also Tregelles, in Horne's Introd. iv. 21-23.

28 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
They represent new ideas which require new words.
They impart to the apostolic writings the charra of
the antiqueness and elevated simplicity of the Old
Testament, With the exception of a few pure or old Hebrew
words {Amen, Hallelujah, Hosanna, Sabbath, whieh
were borrowed from the temple service, and are
found in the Septuagint), the Hebraisms of the
New Testament belong to the later Hebrew or
Aramaic (Syro-Chaldaic) dialect which, after the
return from the Babylonian exile, had gradually
superseded the older as the living language of the
people.' The Hebrew still continued to be the
sacred language ( c'^pn "(iisi' ), a'nd the Scripture
lessons were read from the Hebrew text, but were
followed by Aramaic translations (Targumira) and
sermons (Midrashirn)."
I. Hebrew words for which the classicaV Greek
has no equivalent, I do not claim completeness fof
this and the following lists, but they embrace the
most iraportant words,
a/3/3a=»aK (Heb. ^^'),fiUlier, Mark xiv. 36; Eom. viii. 15;. Gal. iv. fi.
uKeXSapd (Westcott and Hort, aKtXdapdx) = KTS'l bjrn, jSeW of
blood, Acts i. 19.
aXXj/Xoum=i'I''"i:J?f1, hallelujah, praise ye Jehovah (Heb.), Eev. xix.
1,3,4,6. Comp. P9. civ. 35.
' The word i^pa'iari, hebraice, is used for chaldaice, John v. 2 ; xix. 13,
17,20; Acts ix. 11; xvi. 16; Eev. ix. 11; xvi. 16; and also in Josephus.
' The Talmud is written partly in Hebrew (the Mishna), partly in
Aramaic (the Gemara), but mixed with exotic words from various lan
guages — Greek, Latin, Coptic, Persian, Arabic — And disfigured by gram
matical irregularities and barbarous spelling. See Brill], Fremdsprachlich^
Redensarten in den Talmuden und Midrashirn (Leipz. 1869).

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29
¦ ofi»)j'=: "I'SX (Heb.), truly, verily. Matt. vi. 13 (?); Eom. i. 25; ix. 5;
Eev. iii. 14, etc.
dppafiiiiv = "I'SIS (Heb.), a pledge, eamest (a mercantile term of
Phoenician origin), 2 Cor. i. 22 ; v. 5 ; Eph. i. 14.
fidrog = na (Heb.), bath (a liquid raeasure of about 8 J gallons), Luke
xvi. 5, 6.
/SetX jE/3oiX := 313t ?i'S (Aram.), lord of dung (deus stercoris), and
peeXZefSov/i =: 2*iat ^S3 (Heb.), lo7-d of fiies, the narae of a god of the
Philistines at Ekron. The former is a contemptuous Jewish by-narae of
this idol, and was applied also to the prince of deraons, Matt. xii. 24, 27;
Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19.
fioavepyig = (1^".?'!1) '5^ "".Ja, Sons of Thunder, Mark iii. 17. A name
given to the sons of Zebedee (corap. Luke ix. 34).
/SuiTffoe = Via (Sept.),.^ne linen, Luke xvi. 19; Eev. xviii. 12. Also
pvoaivov, Eev. xix. 8.
ya/S/JaSazzSPaa (Gi.Xi3:6arpi))Tov),back, ridge, pavement; theplace
where Pilate gave sentence against Jesus, John xix. 13.
yeivva := CSH S'^S, Ihe valley of Hinnom, Josh. xv. 8 ; Gehenna, hell.
Matt. V. 22; Mark ix. 43; Luke xii. 5, etc. Not to be confounded with
Hades or Slieol, as is done in the A. V.
yoXyoSa (al. 5) ^ t<n5595 (Heb. flSSSS), skull (Kpaviov, calva, calva-
ria, whence our Calvary), the place of Christ's crucifixion, an elevation
(not a hill), so called from its conical form (not frora skulls), Matt, xxvii.
33; Mark xv. 22; John xix. 17,
f;3pa'(-(Tri, Westcott and Hort: efipa'iari (from ISS), Hebraice, in Hebrev;
(Araraaic), John v. 2 ; xix. 13, 17, 20 ; Eev. ix. 11 , xvi. 16.
kXiiii iXuii (or r/Xd jjXei, Heb. "'bs), Xepd oajiaxSiavel, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me. Quotation from Ps. xxii. 2. See Matt, xxvii.
46 ; Mark xv. 34. Mark gives the Syriac form, iXuji iXwi. In Matthew
there are variations, but Westcott and Hort give iXoti in the text and
^Xct in the margin.
tipipa^d (Aram. nPSPX), Siavqix^in, be opened, Mark vii. 34.
KdptiXog = ^'ai (Heb.), camel, Mark i. 6; Matt. iii. 4; xix. 24, etc.
(Sept. Gen. xii. 16; xxiv. 10).
Kivvdpdipov =: "("lOSp (Heb.), cinnamon (an aromatic bark used for
incense and perfume), Bev. xviii. 13.
iovSatZu) (from il'Tlil^ Judah), to Judaize, Gal. ii. 14; also 'lovBa'iopog,
'}. 13 ; and iovSa'iKiHg, ii. 14.
Kopfidv and Kopjiavag = )^'^'!^ (Heb.), Wallp (Aram.), an offering,
oblation, Mark vii. 1 1 ; Matt, xxvii. 6.

30 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Kvpivov = "{S^ (Heb.), cummin (Germ. Kiimmel), a low herb of the
fennel kind, which produces aromatic seeds.
Xi^dvog = nj'ab (Heb. from the verb "i?^, to be while), frankincense,
Matt. ii. 11 ; Eev. xviii< 13. r
papuivag = XJlaXr, "(ioX*, riches, Matt. vi. 24 ; Luke vi. 9. Comp.
the Heb. ilJinsN, Isa. xxxiii. 6 (Srriaavpoi, LXX.); Ps. xxxvii. 3 (frXoiiros).
Augustin savs : " Lucrum punice mammon dicitur."
pdwa (Heb. ']'0, in the Sept. rt) pdv), manna, the miraculous food of
the Israelites in the wilderness, John vi. 31, 49, 58; Heb. ix. 4; Kev.
ii. 17.
papdv dl^d = nns "(la, the Lord cometh, 1 Cor. xvi. 22.
ptdaiag ^ mn'i-a'a (Heb. n'^ttJB), the Anointed, the Messiah, John i.
42 ; iv. 26. In all other passages the Greek equivalent, Xpitrroc (from
Xpi,*^! to anoint), is used.
[^wp£= rr^.b (Heb.), rebel (?), Matt. v. 22.] ¦
TTOffxa =r SnpB (Heb. flSS), passover, Matt. xxvi. 17; John ii. 13;
vi. 4; xviii. 39, etc. Used in three different senses: (1) the paschal
lamb ; (2) the paschal meal ; (3) the paschal feast from the 14th to the
20th of Nisan. Mistranslated- £as/er in E. V., Acts xii. 4 ; correct in E. V.
pafijSi or po/3;8fi, pofijiovi or pal3l3ovvi = ^3'^ (Heb. from S'n, much,
greal), 'jia'l, 'ja^ (Chald.), mi/ great one, my master, great master, John
XX. 6 ; Mark x. 51 , etc. The salutation of Hebrew teachers or doctors
(SiodaKaXoi). Corap. the French Monsieur, Mohsdgneur. Rabboni or
Rabbruni, John xx. 16, is the GaUleean pronunciation for Ribboni.
pand (or paxa, Tischendorf ):= Spill (Heb. p^ll), empty, worthless.
Matt. V. 22.
aafiaw^ = mxaS (Heb.), hosts, armies (Kvpiog (Ta/JaiiS, niSSS fTilTp
Zoi-doZ-Zfosfa), Luke ii. 13; Eom. ix. 29; James V. 4.
ad^fiarov :=. nsia (Heb.), i-est, dag of rest, Mark ii. 27, etc. Also the
plural ad^^ara (Mark i. 21, etc.); oa^^artapog, a keeping of Sabbath,
Sabbath rest (Heb. iv. 9); ij ripipa roU aa^^drov (naCfl dii), the
Sabbath day (John xix. 31; Luke iv. 16); Moe oa^jSarov, a Sabbatli-
' This is usually considered as the vocative of the Greek pwp6g,fool.
The E. E. recognizes the Hebrew derivation in the raargin. The He
brew more means rebeUious, heretical (Nurab. xx. 10) ; but the Syriac moi-e
means Kvpioc, dominus. Dr. Fr. Field objects to the Hebrew derivation
on the ground that Christ used the Syriac. Otium Norvicense (Oxf. 1881),
p. 2. If the word is Greek we must put a Hebrew meaning into it, -n-ith
reference to Ps. xiv. 1, where the atheist is called a fool (^23, LXX. dfpiDv).

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 31
day's journey j i. e. 6 stadia or 750 Eoraan paces,cqual to about two thirds
ofan English mile (Acts i. 12) ; and TrpoadPfiaTov, fore-Sabbath, Sabbath-
eve (Mark xv. 42).
aardv, aarav-ag:='^tS (Heb.), adversary, devil (iidfioXog, 6 Trovt]p6g),
Matt. xvi. 23 ; Mark viii. 33 ; Luke xxii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7, etc.
adirfupog ^ I^SO (Heb.), sapphire (a precious stone, next in value to
the diaraond), Eev. xxi. 19 (Sept. Ex. xxiv. 10; xxviii. 18).
aiirov ¦=. SnXD (Heb. nxb), a seah (a dry measure of about a peck
and a half), Matt. xiii. 33.
aiKtpa (to, indecl.) = "I3"i (Heb.), sikera, strong drink, Luke i. 15.
avKapivog = nopia (Heb.), a sycamine Iree, Luke xvii. 6 (Sept. 1 Kings
X. 27, etc.).
raXiSid, Kovp := ""Sip snipa, maiden, arise, Mark v. 41.
ii(T(riun-o£ = 2itX (Heb.), hyssop, John xix. 29 ; Heb. i.K. 29 (1 Kings v.
3, etc.). XepouiSijit = 0131^3 (Heb. plural from 3113), cherubim, Heb. ix. 5.
Corap. the Greek ypii-^, ypvirig.
btaavvd = SS nyiljin (Ps, cxviii. 25), Hosanna, save now — a word of
joyful acclamation, Matt. xxi. 9, 15 ; Mark xi. 9, 10 ; John xii. 13.
Proper names of persons are very numerous':
-K-ijipag (Syr. SBi?, Greek HsTpoc), Mnpi'a (Aramaic for, the Hebrew
¦ a;iO), MdpSa (domina), MdXxoc ('H^'?' K'"g)i Xowja (Luke viii. 3 ; see
Westcott and Hort's text), Ta/3iSd (Greek Aopicdc, Acts ix. 36, 40);
'loKwjS or 'ldKw/3oe, 'IijeroBf, 'liadvvriQ, -MiXxiatSiK, SaouX or SaiJXo?,
and raany others. Also the naraes corapounded with 13, son, as Barabbas
(son of a father, or son of a rabbi), Bartholomew, Barjesus, Barjonas,
Bartiraaius, Barsabas, Barnabas.
Hebrew names of several places, as,
Armageddon (raount of MegiddO, Eev. xvi. 16), Bethlehem (House of
Bread), Bethany (House of Dates), Bethphage (House of Figs), Bethesda
(House of Mercj'), Bethsaida (Place of Fishing), Gethsemane (oil-press),
Jerusalem (Dwelling of Peace), Siloam (HblC, translated d-iriaraXpivog,
John ix. 7, by Eobinson, an aqueduct; by Grimm, ejfusio, Wasserguss), etc. '
II. Hebraizing phrases and modes of construction :
dn'o irpoamirov, 1.5Q13 or '''iyi):^,from the face or presence of any one,
from before, from, .\cts iii. 19; v. 41; vii. 45; 2 Thess. i. 9; Eev. vi. 16;
xii. 14; XX. 11.

32 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT^
PiunXevdv iiri (instead of gen. or idat.), SS Tj^O, to i-eign over, Luke
i. 33 ; xix. 14, 17 ; Matt. ii. 22, etc.
yivta&ai davdrov (.\ram.), to tasIA of death, to die. Matt. xvi. 28;
Mark ix. 1 ; John viii. 52, etc.
Slio Svo (bini, for dvd Sio or ilg Svo), pair-wise, by two and Iwo, Mark vi. 7.
ll (for ow), DS, in forms of oath, as Mark viii. 12, li So^ljatrai arjpAov,
no sign shall be given; Heb. iv. 5, d daiXevaovrai, ifthey shaU enter into
my rest (supply the apodosis, Ihen will I not live, or be Jehovah), i. e. they
shall not enter. Comp. Gen. xiv. 23; Deut. i. 35; and Thayer's Winer,
p. 500 (Moulton's Winer, p. 627).
fig dirdvrriaiv, nsipb, for meeting (instead of inf. djrarrai', to meet),
Matt. xxv. 1,6; Acts xxviii. 15.
tiiSoKiiv tv rivi, 3 ysn, to be well pleased wilh, to take pleasure in some
one. Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5; Mark i. II ; Luke iii. 22, etc.
Xoyi'Stir o'f (Sueaioavvriv), h 3U;n, to reckon unto, lo impute, Eom. iv. 3,
22 ; Gal. iii. 6 ; James ii. 23. Comp. Gen. xv. 6 (Sept.).
iipoXoydv iv rivi (comp. 53 "lllfl, Ps. x.xxii. 5, slightly differing),
io malce a confession on or respecting some one (in alicuius causa), Matt. x.
32 ; Luke xii. 8.
oir . , , irdg, ib W, for oiSelg, not one, none. Matt, xxiv, 22 ; Mark xiii.
20; Eom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. v. 5, etc.
irpoawirov irpbg irpoaoiirov, D^SSS SS fiijIB, face to face (nothing
intervening), 1 Cor. xiii. 12. See Sept. Gen. xxxii. 31.
irpoamirov XapjSdvuv, D^SS SiUJ, io accept ihe person of any one, lo
favor, io be partial. In the New Test, only in a bad sense, Luke xx.
21 ; Gal. ii. 6 (irpoamirov ^ibg dvSrpmirov ov Xapjidvu).
irpaaiai irpaaiai (adverbially and distributively, areolatim, for dvd
irpaaidg), in ranks, plat-wise, by plats (like beds in a garden), Mark vi. 40.
So also avpiroaia avpiroaia, bg table parties, by companies, in ver. 39.
Also dKoXov^iiv oiriam rivog, tivai (ig ri, cpvvuv iv rivi, irpoaKvviiv
ivmiriiv rivog, the frequent Kai iyivf.ro CiTil), etc.
wide, with the genitive in the sense of belonging to, or exposed to,
deserving of, as v'lbg Siavdrov (nia "iS), son of death; vioi roU vvppH-
vog, sons ofthe bridal chamber, bridemen; v'loi rrjg PaaiXeiag, sons ofthe
kingdom; v'loi roU irovripoH, subjecis and followers of Satan; v'wq rrjg
drroXiiag, son of perdition, i. e. doomed to perdition (John xvii. 12) ; utoi
rljg dvaardaimg, partakers ofthe resurrection (Luke xx. 36), etc.
Foreign derivatives in imitation of the vernacular, as dva^E/iori^u
(from dvdSitpa, Heb. Sill, devoted to God, Lev. xxvii. 28, 29; but also
devoted lo death, u, thing accursed, Josh. vi. 17; vii. 1, etc.), io anathe-.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33
matize, io lag nnder a curse (Mark xiv, 71;' Acts xxiii. 12, 14, 21);
'lyKaivi'Ctiv (from iyKaivia), to initiate, tq dedicate (Heb. ix. 18; x. 20;
in the Sept. for T^it^t ^eut. xx. 5) ; oKavSaXiZtiv (bl!i3, il?r'35, bi'^SII),
io make stumble, to lead to sin, and the passive aKavSaXlZioSai, to stumble,
lo be led'asiray (Matt. v. 29 ; xiii. 21, etc., frora oKovSaXov, a trap-slick,
a snare, a stumbling-block, in the Sept. for lap'lB) ; airXayxvii^taSiai (from
airXdyxva, D'^O'lli bowels), to have compassion (Matt. xx. 34, etc.).
The intensive adverbial use of the noun in the dative with the corre
sponding verb is counted araong the Hebraisras (although it occurs occa
sionally among classical writers, even in Plato'; see Thayer's Winer',
p. 466), as X"P? X^'PEi, he rejoiceth greatly (John iii. 29), imSvplif
iire^uprjaa, I have earnestly desired (Luke xxii. 15).
The particles 'iva and 'orav are constructed with the present and future
indicative, Luke xi. 2; Gal. vi. 12 (?); Mark iii. 2. 'iva in classical writers
denotes the purpose or intention (iVa rtXiKov, in order thai) ; but in later
Greek and in the New Test, sometimes simply the consequence or result
(j.va 'iK^TiKov, so Ihat). The ecbatic use has often been needlessly
pressed, but as needlessly denied by Fritzsche and Meyer. See Moulton's
Winer, p. 573 sqq., Thayer, 457 sqq., and Eobinson and Grimm sub 'iva.
III. Greek ^yords with Hebrew meanings :
dyyEXoe (a messenger), in the sense oi angel.
(rd) liyia dyimv (for the superlative,. f'Clp li-'lp), the holy of holies,
or the inner sanctuary of the temple, Heb. ix. 3.
almv ovTog and aiuiv p'eXXmv, fi'n dViS and San CSIS, for the
two ages or eras (dispensations) befvre and after ihe Messiah's advent,
modified in the New Test, the present and the future world. So also the
expressions taxarai r'lpipai, iaxarr] mpa, rd riXr) rOiv aimvmv, auvriXeia
roi atvivog, refer to the last times of the aimv oiirog, in the New Test.
to the interval between the first and second advent of Christ, more
particularly the apostolic period, Matt. xiii. 39; xxviii. 20; Acts ii. 17;
Heb. i. 1 ; James v. 3 ; 1 Cor. x. 11, etc.
al/ta tKxhiv or iKxvviiv (O'H '^^312), '" kUl, Luke xi. 50; Eom. iii. 15.
aprov fayeiv, to take food, lo eat (W)> ^SS), Mark iii. 20; Luke
xiv. 1. Also iaSriiiv dprov. Matt. xv. 2.
d^iivai dpapriag (or 6feiXfipaTa,irapairrmpaTa, etc.), lo forgive sins,
etc., lo pardon, Matt. vi. 12 ; ix. 6 ; Luke xi. 4, etc. Comp. the Heb.
1S3,Sept. Isa. xxii. 14; Sias, Gen. 1. 17. ' ,
PairriZiiv, jSairnapog, ^dirnapa, in the wider sense of ceremonial
washings, whether by pouring, or dipping, or immersion, Mark vii. 4;
Heb. vi. 2 ; ix. 10. Comp. Sept. 2 Kings v. 14.
3

34 THE LANGUAGE OF THE. NEW TESTAMENT.
yXwffffff, in the sense of «a/Jo« Ciilii^). Eev. v. 9; vii. 9, etc.
SaipoviZoptvog, possessed bg a demon or evil spirit. Often in the
Gospels. Sitiv and Xiiiv, to bind and to loose, in the rabbinical sense to forbid
and lo permit, Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18. Comp. John xx. 23, where the
same idea is expressed literally by KpanXv and dijiisvai.
SidjioXog (accuser, slanderer), for Satan, Matt. iv. 1 ; ix. 34, etc. Comp.
Jobi. 7, 12; Eev. xii. 9, 10.
Sivafiig and Svvdpeig, in the sense of miraculous powers (mssSJ,
Sept. Job xxxvii. 14), Matt. vii. 22, and very often. See Dictionaries.
t3:vri, in the sense of Gentiles, heathen (B'l'lS), as distinct from the Jew
ish nation (Xauf, D^), Luke ii. 32, etc.
eiiXoy'sm, to bless (^13), Luke i. 64; Matt. v. 44, etc.
iK KOiXiag pr]Tp6g,frem birth, frora infanc.v (IHS '(BaS), Gal. i. 15.
i,r]TCiv rbv ^eov, to seek God, i.e. to turn to him as a sincere worshipper,
Acts xvii. 27 ; Eora. x. 20. Quoted from Isa. Ixv. 1 (Sept.).
ZriTtiv ^l^xilVfto seek one's life, i. e. to seek to kill him (IIJS.5 t!|3a),
Matt. ii. 10 ; Eom. xi. 8. '
.iStiv, to see, in the sense to experience (to suffer, or to enjoy, like MSI),
Luke ii. 26 ; Heb. xi. 5. '
iSoc, manner of life (T\^']!), Matt. xxi. 32; Eom. iii. 17; Acts xviii. 25;
James v. 20.
' pijua; in the sense oi thing (as lo'i!), Luke ii. 15; Acts v. 32.
.ffdpl (liU-a,), in the. serise of man (mortal), or human nature, or natural
descent (/card acipea), or frailly, or the corrupt, carnal nature, in opposition
to irveiipa. Very often, especially in Paul's Epistles. See Dictionaries,
(rdpj Kai alpa, for men, with the accessory idea of weakness and frailty,
Matt. xvi. 17; Eph. vi. 12; Gal. i. 16.
arripfia, seed, in the sense of offspring, posterity (S'l.'I), Matt. xxii. 24,
25 ; Mark xii. 19-21 ; Luke i. 55 ; xx. 28 ; Eora. iv. 13, 18, etc.
aiivaymyfi, a Jewish synagogue (assembly), Luke viii. 41, etc.; a
Christian congregation, James ii. 2 ; synagogue of Satan, Eev. ii. 9 ; iii, 9.
xpiarog, anointed, in the sense of the Messiah.
IY. The Hebraizing style and construction shows
itself in the simplicity of the syntax, the absence
of "long and artificial periods, the rarity of oblique
and participial constructions, the monotony of form,
emphatic repetition, and the succession of sentences

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 35
by way of a constructive parallelism rather than by
logical sequence, Tlie Sermon on the Mount (es
pecially the Beatitudes), the parables, and even
Paul's Epistles have that correspondence of words
and thoughts vvhich is the characteristic feature and
charra of Hebrew poetry.
We may add (with Westcott), that " calm empha
sis, solemn repetition, grave simplicity, the gradual
accumulation of truths, give to the language of the
Holy Scripture a depth and permanence of effect
found -nowhere else, , , , The character of the style
lies in its total effect, and not in separate elements ;
it is seen in the spirit whicii informs the entire text
far more vividly than in the separate members," '
LATINISMS,
The Greek of the apostolic writings is Hebraizing,
but not Eomanizing, The Eomans imposed their
military rule, their polity, and their laws, but not
their speech, upon the conquered nations. The
greatest Eoman orator admitted that the Latin was
provincial, while the Greek was universal in the
empire." Yet a number of Latin terms — raostl.y
military, political, and monetary, and for sorae arti
cles of dress — have found their way into the com
mon speech with the Eoman conquest. They are
most frequent in Mark's Gospel, which was written
in Eome and for Eomans.
' In Smith's Bible Did. iii. 2141 (Hackett and Abbot's ed.). Comp.
Westcott's Introd. to Ihe Gospels, pp. 241-252.
"Cicero (Pro Arch. 10): "Gi-oeca legunlur in omnibus fere gentibus;
Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur"

36 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
daadpiov, as, a Eoman copper coin, worth three English farthings, or
li cent (one tenth of a denarius), Matt.x. 29; Luke xii. 6. Probably the
neuter form of the old Latin assarius, as Stjvdpiov is of denarius.
Srjvdpwv, denarius, a Eoman silver coin of the value of ten asses (as
the name indicates), and afterwards of sixteen asses (the as being re
duced), equivalent to the Attic drachma, or about sixteen cents. In the
New 'Test, it stands for a large sum, a day's wages ; hence the transla
tion penny, which creates the opposite impression, should have been
changed by the Eevisers into denarius, or dend-ry, or shilling, Matt.
xviii. 28 ; xx. 2, 9, 10, 13 ; xxii. 19 ; Mark vi. 37 ; John vi. 7 ; xii. 5 ; Eev.
vi. 6, etc.
Ksvrvpimv, centurio (originally a commander of a hundred foot-soldiers,
iKaruvrapxog), Mark xv. 39, 44, 45.
Krjvaog, census (Greek, diroypaifri) ; in the New Test, tribute, poll-tax,
Matt. xvii. 25; xxii. 17 ; Mark xii. 14 (Boijvai Krjvaov Kaiaapi).
KoSpdvrrig, quadrans (from quatuor), a small copper coin, the fourth
part of an as, a farthing Sj. e. fourthing), two fifths of one cent. Matt. v. 26 ;
Mark xii. 42.
, KoXmvia, colonia, a Eoman colony. Acts xvi. 22.
KovarmS'ia, custodia, custody, guard (of Euman soldiers), Matt, xxvii.
05, 66 ; xxviii. 11. Corresponds to the Greek ipvXaicrj.
KpapParog, or KpdfiarTog (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and
Hort), grabatus, a small couch or mattress, Mark ii. 4, etc.
Xsytiiv (Westcott and Hort, Xtyiu'iv), legio, legion, Mark v. 9, 15; Matt.
xxvi. 53; Luke viii. 30. Also in rabbinical Hebrew ('i'i''53). See Buxtorf.
Xivrtov, linteum, a linen cloth, a towel or apron, worn by servants, John
xiii. 4, 5. From the Greek Xivov, afiaxen cord.
Xi/3epni'og, libertinus, & freedman. Acts vi. 9.
XiVpa, from libi-a, the Eoman pound of twelve ounces, John xii. 3;
xix. 39.
fidicEXXov, macellum, meat-market, shambles, 1 Cor. x. 25.
/lepPpdva, membrana (from membrum), skin, parchment, 2 Tim. iv. 13.
piXiov, milliarium (for mille passuum), a thousand paces, a mUe, Matt.
V. 41.
puSiog, modius, a measure, the chief Eoman measure for things dry, and
equal to one third of the Eoraan amphora (nearly one peck). Matt. v. 15;
Mark iv. 21 ; Luke xi. 33.
tkarrjg, sextarius, in the New Test, a small measure, or vessel, pot, Mark
vii. 4, 8.
irpairmpiov, prcetorium, the general's tent in a camp; and also the resi-

THE LANGUAGE OF TIIE NEW TESTAMENT. 37
dence or palace of a provincial governor, Matt, xxvii. 27; Mark xv. 16;
John xviii. 28; xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35; Phil. i. 13.
pt^ij, rlieda, or raeda, reda (of Celtic origin), a travelling carriage with
four wheels, a chariot, Eev. xviii. 13.
aiKapiog, sicarius (from sica, dagger), assassin, robber. Acts xxi. 38.
aipiKiv^iov, semicinctium (from semi, half, and dngere, to gird), an apron,
Acts xix. 12. For r'jpilmviov.
aovSdpiov, sudarium (frora sudor, sweat), sweat-cloth, handkerchief, Luke
xix. 20; John xi. 44; xx. 7; Acts xix. 12.
aTTiKovXdrmp, speculator, a pikeman, a soldier of the body-guard em
ployed as watch and in messages, Mark vi. 27 ; also in later Hebrew. For
amparofvXa^. Ta^ipvri, taberna, tavern, Acts xxviii. 15.
rirXog, titulus, inscription, superscription, John xix. 19, 20. For ^tti-
ypafri. (jiaivuXrig (faiXovrig), pcenula, a woollen cloak, or mantle for travelling
(and also in rainy weather), 2 Tira. iv. 13.
f opov, forum, market; part of the narae of the village Appii forum,
Acts xxviii. 15.
^payiXXiov, fiagellum, a scourge, John ii. 15.
^payeXXoui, fiagello, lo fiagellate, to scourge, Matt, xxvii. 26 ; Mark
XV. 15.
Xaprrig, charta, paper, 2 John 12.
Xmpog, coi-us, or caurus, the northwest wind, Acts xxvii. 12.
Latin proper names of persons :
Agrippa, Amplias, Aquila, Caius, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens.
Crispus, DrusiUa, Felix, Festus, Fortunatus, Gallio, Julius, Julia, Junia,
Justus, Linus, Lucius, Luke (abridged from Lucanus), Marcus or Mark,
Niger, Paulus, Pilate, Priscilla or Prisca, Publius, Pudens, Quartus, Rufus,
Sergius, Silvanus (abridged Silas), Tertius, Tertullus, Titus, Urban.
Three names of Eoman emperors : Augustus ( Xefiaarog ), Tiberius,
Claudius. The generic name Cassar (Kaiaap) is applied to Augustus
(Luke ii. 1), to Tiberius (Luke iii. 1), to Claudius (Acts xi. 28), and to
Nero (Acts xxv. 8.; Phil. iv. 22).
Naraes of places :
Appii Forum, Csesarea, Italy, Rome, Spain, Tiberias, Tres Tabernse.

38 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
NUMBEE AND VALUE OF FOEEIGN WOEDS.
Professor Lemuel S. Potwin (of Western Eeserve
College, Hudson, Ohio) has made a list of native
words of the New Testament not found in classical
authors before Aristotle (who is included among the
classics, though his diction is on the boundary be
tween the Attic and the Common dialects), with the
following results : '
(1.) The total number of words in the Greek
Testament (according to Tischendorf's text) not
found in the classics is no less than 882 (nouns 392,
adjectives and adverbs 171, verbs 319) ; that is, nearly
one sixth of the entire vocabulary. But a consid
erable number of these words are found in the Sept
uagint, Josephus, Polybius, and Plutarch. In the
Septuagint 363 occur.
(2.) The new words are, with few exceptions,
derivatives or compounds from Greek roots, ' The
verbs are largely denominatives, but more largely
multiplied b}' composition with prepositions. The
adjectives arise mostly from composition, the alpha
pri'vativum being very frequent, as the English
compounds with 'un are constantly increasing.
(3.) The rhetorical value varies. Many of these
words are clear and full of meaning, as Si^vxoc,
^ See Bibliotheca. Sacra, Andover, July, 1880, pp. 503-527; and Oct.
1880, pp. 640-660. The results are stated on p. 652 Sqq. Prof. Potwin
has also previously published valuable lists of Latinisms in Bibl. Sacra for
Oct. 1875, p. 703 sqq., and of Hebraisms, iUd. >Ian. 1876, p. 52 sqq., to
which Dr. Abbot kindly directed my attention after my lists were already
ill type. I refer to them here for comparison. Potwin's lists are less
complete ; he gives only twenty-four Latinisms instead of thirty-one.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39
double-minded, wavering, Jas, i, 8; iv, 8; also in
Clemens Eom, Ad Cor. c, 23 ; avjinpvxoc, or crvv-^pv-
Xoe, concors,. like-minded, congenial, Phil. ii. 2;
Xojofiaxia, word - strife, 1 Tim, vi, 4 ; . fiaKpo^vjula,
longanimity, forbearance, Eom. ii. 4, etc.; S-toSiSa'
KToc, taught of God, 1 Thess. iv.. 9 ; and the com;
pounds with aya^o-, avn-, trepo-, and -iptvSo-.
(4,) The doctrinal and practical value is great in
proportion to the idea expressed. Such words as
a-yairt) {caritas, as distinct from ipusg, amor), airoKo.-
Au</itC> airoXvrpwaiQ, afiaprwXuQ, j3a;rr((TjUa, j3a7rrt<T/xoc,
|3a7rr«(Tri)c, iXairfiog, iraXtyytvcma, avvtiBrtaiQ, have a
definite theological significance, and cannot be re
placed by classical words.
THE CHRISTIAN ELEMENT.'
The language of the apostles and evangelists is
baptized with the spirit and fire of Christianity,
and'thus received a character altogether peculiar
and distinct from the secular Greek. The genius
of a new religion raust either create a new speech,
or inspire an old speech with a new raeaning. The
former would have concealed the religion from the
people, like" the glossolalia in the Corinthian Cliurch,
which required an interpreter. The Greek was flex
ible and elastic enough to admit of a transformation
under the inspiring influence of revealed truth. It
furnished the flesh and blood for the incarnation of
divine ideas. Words in common use among the
' Comp. Schleiermacher, Ilermen. 66, 138; Immer, Hermen. 129; Cremer,
Biblicd-Theol. Lexicon; 'I'tencti, Synonyms pf the N. Test. 

40 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT;
classics, or in popular intercourse, were clothed with
a deeper spiritual significance ; they were trans
planted from a lower to a higher sphere, from
mythology to revelation, from the order of nature
to the order of grace, from the realm of sense to
the realm of faith. . ^
This applies to those characteristic terms which
express the fundamental ideas of Christianity — as
gospel, faith, love, hope, mercy, peace, light, life,
repentance or conversion, regeneration, redemption,
justification, sanctification, grace, humility, apostle,
evangelist, baptisra, kingdom of heaven.
. Oospel {svay^/eXiov) to a Greek Gentile was either
revrard for good news (as in Homer), or good news
of any kind ; but to a Greek Christian it meant the
best of all neWs ever heard on earth, proclaimed by
angels frora heaven to all the people, that a Saviour
was born and lived, and died and rose again for a
sinful world. The word church (sKKArjcria, awa'ywyii)
has passed through a heathen, Jewish, and Christian
stage ; it denotes first a lawful assembly of free
Greek citizens, then a religious congregation of
Jews, and at last that grand comraon wealtli, of God
which Christ founded on a rock, and which is to
embrace the whole human faraily. Faith {rriarit;,
from TTfiS-ft), to persuade, Trtl^ofiai rivt, to trust in)
conveys the general idea of confidence in a person,
or belief in the truth of a report ; but in the New
Testaraent it is that gift of grace whereby we accept
Christ in unbounded trust as our Lord and Saviour,
and are urged to follow him in a life of holy obe
dience. Zove {aya-n-T) is not found in classical writ-

THE LANGUAGE OF THE. NEW TESTAMENT. 41
ers, but in its place ^iXi'a and rjiiXav^puyria, and the
verb ayairatt), which expresses regard and affection)
is much more than natural affection and philan
thropy; it is a heavenly flarae, kindled by God's
redeeming love, the crowning gift of the Spirit, the
surest test of Christian character, the fulfilling of
the law, the bond of perfectness, and the fountain
of bliss — a worthy theme for the seraphic descrip
tion of the inspired Paul. Hope (sXtt/c) i"ises from
the sphere of uncertain expectation and desire for
future prosperity to the certain assurance of the
final consummation of salvation and never-ending
happiness in heaven. The Greek terms for humility
(raTTftvof, Tarreivo^pdjv, rairuvo^poryvvr], raTt-iivoTijg,
TcfiTiivwaic;) designate to the proud heathen meanness
and baseness of mind, but in the New Testament a
fundamental Christian virtue. Conversion {puTavoia)
signifies not siraply a change of opinion, or even a
moral reforraation, but a radical transformation of
the heart, whereby, the sinner breaks away from his
former life and surrenders hiraself to the service of
God. The words hoii/ ^^^ holiness {ayioQ, ayia^ui,
ayiaafioQ, ayiwavvri), whether applied to God or man,
rise as far above the cognate terms of secular Greek
{ayvog, (Tifivoc, omog, hpog) as the God of the Bible
rises above the gods of Homer, and a Christian saint
above a Greek sage.
The purifying, spiritualizing, and elevating influ
ence of the genius of Christianity was exerted
through the Greek and Latin upon all other lan
guages into which the gospel is translated.' It per-
' For the influence of Christianity on the Teutonic language, see

42 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
vades the whole moral and religious vocabulary. It
meets us in every inscription and salutation of the
apostolic letters. The formula of greeting, " Mercy
and peace be unto you," transforms the idea of
physical health and temporal happiness, as conveyed
in the Greek x^'pttv and the Hebrew shalom techa,
into the idea of spiritual and eternal welfare, so that
Xaptq and tJp/fvj) comprehend the blessings, objec-^
tive and subjective, of the Christian salvation. Yet
Aristotle's definition of xap'C (which usually means
gracefulness in forrn or manner, also favor, good
will) is not far from the Christian eonception when
he lays tlie whole emphasis on the disinterested
motive of the giver without expectation or hope- of
return,' Language is in some measure prophetic,
and the first and lower meaning of words often-
points to a higher spiritual meaning ; as the whole
realm of nature points to the truths of the kingdom
of heaven. The parables of our Lord are based
upon this typical correspondence.
For the proper understanding of the New Testa
ment, in the fulness of its religious meaning, much
Rudolph von Eaumer, Die Einwirkung des Christenthums avfdie allhoch-
deulsche Sprache (Stuttgart, 1845), German and English words which
refer to the external aspect of the church are borrowed from the Greek or
Latin, as Kirche, churqh (KvpiaKov), Bischof, bishop (iiriaxoirog), Priesier,
priest (irpEoPiirepog), Almosen, alms (iXeripoavvri), Predigl, preaching
(prcedicalio); but terms which, express the inner life of religion are
originally Gerraan or Saxon, and impregnated with a far deeper meaning;
as Ileiland (Heliand), Heil, Erlosung, Bekehrung, Wiedergeburt, Glaube,-
Liebe, Hoffnung, Himmel: atonement, new hirth, love, hope, heaven.
' Rhet. ii. 7, quoted by Trench ^p. 252), who says, " the freeness of the
butcomings of God's love is the central point of x^P'Sj' comp. Eom. iii. 24
(Smptdv -ry avroi xapiri) and other passages.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 43
more is required than mere knowledge of the lan
guage. The most extensive and thorough familiar
ity with Greek, Hebrew, and Eoman literature is
unable to penetrate from the surface of the letter
to the depth of the spirit without sympathy with
the lofty and heavenly ideas of that book. Philo
logical exegesis is the necessary basis, but only the
basis, of theological and religious exposition which
requires faith and spiritual insight. The gram
matical sense is but one — definite, specific ; the
spiritual sense is as high and deep and infinite as
the truth which the word feebly indicates, and the
application of the truth is universal for all time.
It is as true to-day as it was in the days of Paul that
"the natural raan" {^vxtnog nvSr/jw^oc), who is guid
ed only by the light of reason (though he may not
be aapKiK'jg), "receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness unto hira ; and he
cannot know thera, because they are spiritually
judged." ' PECULIAEITIES OF STYLE."
The general unity of language , admits of great
variety of style. Every man has his style, and " the
' Or, examined, irvivpaTiKdg dvoKpivsrai, 1 Cor. ii. 14.
' On this subject the following works may be consulted : Christoph
Gotthelf Gersdorf, Beitrdge zur Sprach-Charakterisiik der Schriftiteller
des N. Test. (Leipz. 1816 ; only the first part published). This work was
suggested by Griesbach, and opened the way for this kind of investigation.
T. G. Seyffarth, Beitrag zur Spedal-Characteristik der Johann. Schriften
(Leipz. 1823). Credner, EinUit. in das N. T. vol. i. (Halle, 1836). Wilke,
Der UrevangeUst (Dresden and Leipzig, 1838), Neulestamenil. Rheiorik
(1843), and Hermeneutik des N. T. (Leipzig, 1843^4, 2 Farts). Luthardt,

44 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
style is the man." The apostolic writers were guided
by the same Spirit, but in accordance with their pe
culiarities of teraper, mode of thought, and speech.
Divine grace purifies, elevates, and sanctifies nature,
and is destructive only to sin and error. A gentle
man is the perfection of a man ; a Christian is the
perfection of a gentleman. No two human beings
are precisely alike ; every one is a microcosmos, has
his individuaUty more or less marked, and his special
work raore or less iraportant, though many, alas, fail
to perceive and to perform it. There are different
types of apostolic teaching, and different styles of
apostolic writing to suit different tastes, objects, and
classes of readers.
The idiosyncrasies of the sacred writers have been
more or less felt from the beginning, and incidentally
pointed out by Irenseus, Jerorae, Augustin, Chrys
ostom, Luther, Calvin, and other great biblical schol-
Das Johann. Evang. (revised cd. 1875; Engl, translation by Gregory,
Edinb. 1876, vol. i. pp. 20-63). Westcott, Introd. to the Study ofthe Gospels
(Lond. and Cambr. 1860; Oth ed. 1881; Amer. ed. by Hackett, Boston,
1862, pp. 264 sqq.). Holtzmann, Die Synopt. Evangelien (Leipz. 1863,
pp. 271-358). Holtzmann, on the Ephesians and Colossians (Leipz. 1872),
and on the Pastoral Epistles (ibid. 1880, pp. 84-117), where the linguistic
peculiarities and hepax legoraena of Ephesians and Pastoral Epistles are
investigated for the purpose of proving their un-Pauline character. The
two critical works of Weiss on Mark and Matthew (1872 and 1876). Im
mer, Hermeneutics ofthe N. Test., translated by A. H. Newraan (Andover,
1877, pp. 132-144). Scholten, Das Paulinische Evangelium, translated
from the Dutch by Eedepenning (Elberf. 1881, pp. 18, 31, 87, 188 sqq.).
Scholten is all wrong in ascribing Luke's Gospel and the Acts to two dif
ferent authors— the first to a polemical, the second to an irenical Paulinist
—and in assuming a proto-Luke which preceded the canonical Luke.
I have found Holtzmann on the Synoptists and Luthardt on John very
helpful.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 45
ars; but a mechanical theory of inspiration pre
vented an unbiased examination of the subject till
the nineteenth century. Our English version here
errs in two opposite directions : by its vicious prin
ciple of variation it unnecessarily increases the
verbal differences of the writers; while, on the other
hand, it obscures and obliterates characteristic pecu
liarities by using the same Englisli term for differ
ent Greek words. It is one of the chief merits of
the revision of 1881, that it introduces consistency
of rendering.
It is the strength and merit of rationalism (whether
German, Dutch, French, or English) to investigate
the human character and history of the Bible ; it is
its Aveakness and error to ignore or undervalue its
divine character and histor}'. It takes its stand
outside of the Bible, and treats it like any other
book of antiquity from a purely critical standpoint.
It denies its sanctity in order to subject it to a heart
less process of anatomical dissection. It handles
the disjointed merabers, but the life and spiiit has
escaped ; as Goethe says of the logician :
" Er hat die Theile in sdner Hand,
Felilt leider nur das geistige Band."
Eationalism has a keen eye for all the diversities
of thought and style of the apostles and evangelists,
but is blind to the underlying unity and harmony.
It stretches the differences between the Synoptists
and John, MattheAv and Luke, the fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse, Galatians and Acts, between
James and Paul, Peter and Paul, Paul and John,
into irreconcilable contradictions, and thus tends to

46 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
destroy air confidence in the divine origin and- au
thority of the New Testament,
But, fortunately, this is only the negative part of
.the process. Whether willing or unwilling, ration
alism contributes to a better understanding and
deeper appreciation of that old and ever new Book
of books, in which, as Heinrich Ewald once said, "is
contained the wisdom of the whole Avorld," Ex
treme theories and errors are refuted one after
another by the different schools of rationalism, and
the sacred writers corae out of the fire of critical
purgatory uUsinged, and with a stronger claim than
ever upon the intelligent reverence and faith of the
Christian Avorld. A profounder search from thfe
surface to the deep discovers unity in diversity,
concord in discord, a divine spirit animating the
human body, and sees in the very variety of the
sacred writers only the manifold wisdom and grace
of God,'
The sinless perfection of Christ's huraanity is the
best proof of his divinity, and brings his divinity
nearer and raakes it dearer to the lieart of the be
liever. What is true of the personal Word may be
applied to the written Avord,
" Jesus, divinest when Thou most art man."
MATTHEW,.
MatthcAv wrote a Gospel first in Hebrew for
Hebrews, But the Greek Gospel under his name
is a free reproduction and substitution rather than
' Eph. iii. 10, iroXviroiiciXog aofia roi Sieoi, 1 Pet. iv. 10, jroiKiXij
Xapig ^toi. Comp, Eom. xii.; 1 Cor.sii.-xiv.

THE LANGUAGE OF.THE NEW TESTAMENT, 47
a translation.' No indeJDendent author would liter
ally translate himself. The originality of the canon
ical Matthew is evident frora the discrimination in
Old Testaraent quotations which are freely taken
from the Septuagint in the course of the narrative,
but adapted to the Hebrew Avhen they contain im
portant Messianic prophecies.' It appears also frora
his use of words and phrases which have no equiva
lent in Hebrew, as the paronomasia of purest Demos-
thenian Greek: kokov^ kokwc {pesshnos pessime)
aiioXiau avroiic, " Those wretches he will wretchedly
destroy " (xxi. 41).'
Matthew's style is simple, calm, dignified, even
majestic. He Hebraizes, but less than Mark and
the first two chapters of Luke, He is less vivid and
picturesque than Mark, more even and uniform than
Luke, Avho varies in expression with his sources,
^ The ancient witnesses, from Papias to Eusebius and Jerome, agree
both in ascribing to Matthew a Hebrew gospel, and in accepting the
Greek Matthew of our canon whenever they mention it as the ivork of
an apostle without any doubt of its genuineness.
' This distinction has beeu first observed by Credner and Bleek, and
further examined and accepted bv Holtzmann (Die Synopt. Evang.
p. 259), Ritschl, and Westcott. From this fact we must infer tbat the
author was a Jew well acquainted both with the Hebrew Bible and the
Septuagint. " Or, as the E. Eev. renders the Greek, " He will miserably destroy
those miserable men." The E. V. obliterates the paronomasia which
brings out the agreement of the punishment with the deed. Other ren
derings: "The naughty men he will bring to naught" (Eheims V.)
malos male perdet (Vulgate) ; Hbel wird er die Ueblen vemichlen (Ewald)
schlimm wird er die Schlimmen umbringen (Lange). Other paronomasias
vi. 16, dipaviZovaiv rd irpoamira avrSiv ottwc favmaiv rolg dvSipm^
iroig vrtarevovng, " they disfigure their faces that they may figure as
men fasting;" vi. 7, jSarroXoyeiv and iroXvXoyia.

48 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
He has a preference for rubrical arrangement, prob
ably in accordance with his previous habits of book
keeping at the custom-house. He gives headings to
some of his sections, as B//3Xoc yivicreiiig 'Iijo-oi) Xpi
aroij (i. 1-18, corresponding to the Hebrew Sepher
tholedoth ; comp. Gen. v. 1; ii. 4), Twv SwSaKo utto-
(TToAtiiv ra hvofiara ianv ravra (x. 2). He pays most
attention to the discourses of our Lord, and strings
tliem together like so many precious jewels; one
weighty sentence follows another till the effect is
overwhelming.' His Gospel is eminently didactic,
and in this respect quite different from that of
Mark, which deals more with facts and incidents.
He alone uses the term "the kingdom of heaven"
{-fl fiaaiXda twv ohpavwv, thirty-two times); while
the other evangelists and Paul speak of " the king
dom of Ood " (ij (iaaiXaia rov Snoii). With this cor
responds his designation of God as " the heavenly
Father" (o irariip 6 ovpaviog,OV 6 iv T(HQ ovpavoig).
He lias a peculiar formula of citing Messianic pas
sages, 'iva (or ojTwe) irX-rtpw^-^ ro pr\^iv, or tote
t-irXripwiri to ptf^iv, Avhich occurs twelve times in his
Gospel,' but only once in Mark,^ seven tiraes in John,"
' Chs. v.-vii. ; x. ; xiii. ; xxiii. ; xxiv. ; and xxv.
" V. 16, 45, 48; vi. 1, 9, 14, 26, 32; vii. 11, 21; x. 32, 33; xv. 13; xvi.
17; xviii. 14, 19,35.
' i. 22; ii. 15, 17, 23; iv. 14; viii. 17; xii. 17; xiii. 35; xxi. 4; xxvi.
56 (in the plural, 'iva irXtipm&uiaiv ai ypa^ai) ; xxvii. 9.
* Mark xiv. 49, 'iva irXripm^Siaiv a'l ypaipai. The passage xv. 28,
iirXrjpmSri r'l ypaip-fj rj Xkyovaa, is omitted by critical editors on the author
ity of KBC", etc., as a probable insertion from Luke xxii. 37.
* xii. 38; xiii. 18; xv. 25; xvii. 12; xviii. 9; xix. 24, 26; besides a
passage without 'iva, xviii. 32,

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,

49

and nowhere in Luke,' He uses rore ninety-one
times (Mark only six times, Luke fdurteen times).
Matthew alone calls Jerusalem " the holy city," and
a " city of the Great King." ' This is one of the
indications that his Gospel was written before the
destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), which is fore
told in the eschatological discourses of our Lord
(ch. xxiv.) as & future, though fast-apjiroaching judg
ment, without the least hint of the evangelist at the
striking fulfilment ; while yet he is very particular
in marking the fulfilnient of the Old Testament
prophecies. WoEDs PECULiAE TO Matthew, aild uot found
elsewhere in the New Testament. They number
about seventy, as I collected thera from the con
cordances of Bruder and Hudson :

dyyi'iov, vessel, xxv. 4.
dyyoc (plur. dyyi\), vessel, xiii. 48
(Tisch., Treg., W. and H.).
ayKiarpov, hook, xvii. 27.
atpiriZm, to choose, xii. 18.
dKprjv, yet, xv. 16.
dvaPifidZm, to draw, xiii. 48.
dvaiTiog, guiltless, xii. 5, 7.
dirdyxopai, to hang one's self,
• xxvii. 5.
diroviirropai, to wash, xxvii. 24.
Papiripog, very precious, xxvi.
7.
fiaaaviarrig, tormentor, xviii. 34.

/3arroXoyso), to use vain repetitions,
vi. 7.
Piaarrjg, violent, xi. 12.
StXva, such a man, xxvi. 18.
SiaKiMiXvm, to hinder, iii. 14.
^loXXdrro^ai, to be reconciled, v. 24.
Siaaai/ikm, to explain, to tell, xiii.
36; xviii. 31.
Sii^oSog, with riov iiSiSiv, highway,
xxii. 9.
Sitrrig, two years old, ii. 16.
Siardl^m, to doubt, xiv. 31; xxviii.
17.
SivXi^m, to strain out, xxiii. 24. (To

" Except the somewhat similar phrase, ro yeypappivov Stt reXea&ijvai
iv ipoi, xxii. 37.
" r'l dyia iruXig, iv. 5; xxvii. 53; iroXig rov peydXov fiaaiXemc,v.35.
The temple or thc hill of Moriah is called roirog liyiog, x.\iv. 15.

50

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.'

strain at in the E. V. is a typo
graphical error perpetuated).
SixdZm, to set at variance, x. 35.
ifiSanrjKovrdKig, seventy times,
xviii. 22.
tyepaig, resurrection, xxvii. 53.
i^viKog, heathen, v. 47 (correct read
ing for TiXmvtig); vi. 7; xviii. 17
(the plural occurs once in 3 John,
ver. 7, and the adverb iS/vncHg iu
Gal. ii. 14). *
elptjvoiroiog, peacemaker, v. 9.
ixXdpirm, to shine forth, xiii. 43.
i^opKil^m, to adjure, xxvi. 63.
iiriyapfSptim, to intermarry, to mar
ry a brother's widow (with refer
ence to levirate marriage, accord
ing to Jewish law), xxii. 24.
iiriopKi'm,to forswear one's self, v. 33.
iiriaireipm, to sow among, xiii. 25.
iiivoim, to agree, v. 25.
ivvovxiKm, to make a eunuch, xix.
12; tiivouxiKeiv iavrov, to make
one's self a eUnuch, i. e. to. live in
voluntary celibacy and abstinence,
xix. 12.
cvpvxmpog, broad, vii. 13.
^avpdaiog, wonderful, xxi. 15.
dvpom, to be wroth, ii. 16.
I'wrn, jot, V. 18.
KaraSreiuiriZui, to curse, xxvi. 74.
Karapav^dvm, to consider, vl. 28.
KOrairovriZm, Mid. or Pass,, to sink,
xiv. 30 ; to be drowned, xviii. 6.
Kijrog, whale, xii. 40.
KovarmSia, watch, xxvii, 65, 66;
xxviii. 11.
Kiivwi//, gnat, xxiii. 24.
/taXn/cia, disease, iv. 23: i.^,35; x.l.
piXiov, mile, v. 41.
piaS'ow, to hire, xx. 1, 7.

pvXmv (pvXog), mill, xxiv. 41 (but
see Rev. xviii. 22, ^mvfi piXov).
ovSapmg, by no means, ii. 6.
irayiSEvm, entangle, xxii. 15.
iraXtyyevtata, restitution, xix. 28
(also iu Tit. iii. 5, hut in a differ
ent sense, regeneration of the in
dividual by the Holy Spirit).
irapaKoim, neglebt to hear, xviii. 17
(add Mark v. 36 for aKovm).
TfapopoidZm (opoidZm), to be like
unto, xxiii. 27.
irapotpig, platter, xxiii. 25, 26.
irXarvg, wide, vii. 13.
iroXvXoyia, much speaking, vi. 7.
irpoip^dvm, to anticipate, xvii. 25.
irvppdi^m, to be red, xvi. 2, 3.
parriZm, to smite with the palm of
the hand, v. 39 ; xxvi. 67.
aayiivT), net, xiii. 47.
aeXrividl^oiiai, to be lunatic (epilep
tic), iv. 24; xvii. 15.
airiarog (frora oiroc, grain), fatted,
. plur.' rd aiTiard, fallings, xxii. 4.
avvdvrrjaig, with iig, to meet, viii.
34. L., Tr.,W. and H. read ijrdv-
T^riaig, meeting; which occurs
also in xxv. 1 ; John xii. 13.
avvav^dvui (Mid.), to grow together;
xiii. 30.
rdXavrov, talent, xviii. 24; xxv.
15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28.
riXtvrri, death, ii. 15.
rp'airtZirrig, exchanger, xxv. 27.
rpiirrripa, eye of a needle (i. q. rpij-
pa, Luke xviii. 25), xix. 24.
ru^u (Pass.), to smoke, xii. 20.
fpdi^m, to declare, xiii. 30 (^toira-
0lw) ; XV. 15.
fvrda, plant, xv. 13.
xXapvg, robe, xxvii. 28, 31.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51

MAEK,
Mark's Greek is perhaps the poorest, judged by a
classical standard, but it has a peculiar vivacity and
freshness which prove his originality and indepen
dence. The judgment of St, Augustin, Griesbach,
and Baur, that he was a mere abbreviator of Matthew,
or of both Matthew and Luke, has been thoroughly
reversed by modern research,'
Mark, the companion and "interpreter" of Peter,
faithfully recorded, " without omission or misrepre
sentation " (as Papias says), the preaching of Peter,
and reflects his first observations and impressions.
There was a natural syrapathy between the teacher
and the pupil. Both had a sanguine temperament
and a gift of quick observation ; both were fresh
and enthusiastic, but liable to sudden changes ; both
erred and recoA'ered — Peter in denying, and again
laboring and dying for Christ; Mark in running
away in his j'outh at the betrayal, and leaving Paul
on his first mission tour, but returning to him as a
useful companion, and faithfully serving Peter, who
calls him his " son," Both had a restless energy
whicii urged them on to preach the Gospel from
place to place and land to land till they reached
Eome, the centre of the world. They were men of
action rather than thought, practical Avorkers rather
than contemplative divines.
Mark records few of the speeches of our Lord,
and dwells chiefly on his works, selecting those which
' Especially by Weisse, Wilke, Holtzmann, Ewald, Weiss.

§2 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
excite astonishment and amazement, and would ap
peal with peculiar force to' the Eoraan mind, so fond
of displays of conquering power. In this respect
Mark is the very reverse of Matthew.
Mark is brief and sketchy, but has a number of
graphic touches, not found in the other evangelists,
which give vividness to the scene, as i, 13 ("he was
with the wild beasts ") ; ii, 2 (" there was no longer
roora for them, no, not even about the door ") ; iii,
10 ("they pressed upon him"); iii, 20 ("they could
not so much as eat bread ") ; iv, 37; v, 3, 4. He is
fond of pictorial participles, as ava(iXi\pac;, f^j3Xti//ae,-
TTipi^Xi-ipafxevog, av.aTT-riS-fiaag, KV-ipag, i/Jt^pi/Miaa/itvoQ^
i-n-iarpat^etg, aTToareva^ag. He expresses the emo
tions of astonishment by a reduplication of the
questions and by exclamations. He quotes Avords
and phrases in the original Aramaic, as Talitha,kumiy
Ephphathah, and Eloi, -Eloi. He characterizes the
acting persons by_names, relations, company; or situ
ation. He repeats again and again the adverbytw^A-
'with,.st^aightwa'y {eii^iwQ, or £v^.vg), which is char
acteristic of the rapidity and rushing energy of his
moveraent. This word occurs more frequently in
his Gospel than in all the other Gospels corabined,
and may be. called his motto, like the American
" Go ahead !" With, this is connected his prefer
ence for the historical present. He loves affection
ate diminutives, as irat^lov (little child), Kopaaiov
(damsel), Kwapiov (little dog), ^vyarpiov (httle
daughter), Ix^iSiov (small fish), wTapiov (little ear))
He uses several Latin terms, as ^(arriQ {sextarius, a
measui'e), Ktvrvpiwv {centurio), KtjvaoQ {census),

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT,

53

(Tn-EKouXoT<ii|0 {speculator, a pikeraan), and the Latin
phrases iffx«Twc e'x""' {^''^ extremis esse, to be at the
point of death, v, 23), and to Ikuvov -koiuv {satisfa
cere, to raake satisfaction, xv, 15). This is all the
more natural if he Avrote in Eorae for Eomans, as
the ancient tradition uniforraly aflSrms; but raost
of these Latinisms occur also in Matthew and Luke,
and even in the Talraud,
Peculiae WOEDS OF Maek, Hot occurring else
where in the New Test, (forty-five) :

dypivav, to catch, xii. 13.
dXaXos, durab, vii. 37 ; ix. 17, 25.
dXeKropo^wvia, cockcrowing, xiii.
35.
dvaXog, saltless, insipid, ix. 50.
dvairrjSdm, to leap up, x. 50.
dvaarivdZiiv, to sigh deeply, viii.
12.
diri) paKpo^ev, from far, viii. 3.
airoSripog, going abroad, xiii. 34.
diroaTeyd^iiv, to uncover, ii. 4.
d^pi'Jetv, to foam, ix. 18, 20.
ya;«i'o-Keiv,togiveinmarriage,xii.25. (Tisch., W. and H. read yajiiZov-
rai for the text. rec. yafiiffKovroi.)
yvaipivg, fuller, ix. 3,
^uTxiXiot, two thousand, v. 13.
SvaKoXog, hard, x. 24. The adverb
SvoKoXiog (hardly, with difficulty)
occurs once in all the Synoptists,
in the discourse of Christ on the
difficulty for rich men to enter the
kingdom of God (Matt. xix. 23 ;
Mark x. 23 ; Luke xviii. 24).
davdaipog, deadly, xvi. 18.
£!£ Kard elf, one by one, xiv. 19.
(This occurs also in the disputed

passage, John viii. 9, and 'iv KaS'
'iv in Rev. iv. 8.)
tir£).',then, iv. 28.
tK^apliiia^ai, to be greatly amazed,
ix. 15 ; xiv. 33 ; xvi. 5, 6.
ivayKaXa^Ea^ai, to take in one's
arms, ix. 36 ; x. 16.
iveiXim, to wrap in, xv. 46.
evwxa, in the night, i. 85.
't^drrivd, suddenly, ix. 8.
i%ovSiv6ia,ta set at naught, ix. 12.
t^mS/tv, from without, vii. 15, 18.
iiriavvTpixeiv,to run together, ix. 25.
iirippdirrm, to sew on, 21.
KmpoiroXig, town, i. 38.
piSropla, border, vii. 24. (But Tisch.,
Treg., W. and H. read rd opia.)
poyiXdXog, having an impediment
in his speech, vii. 32.
j'otJj'EX<<'f , discreetly, xii. 34.
irpaaiai irpaaiai, in ranks, vi. 40.
irpopipipvav, to take thought be
forehand, xiii. 11.
irpqadfiparov, Sabbath-eve, xv. 42.
irpoirieiipdXaiov, cushion, iv. 38.
irpoaoppiKta^ai, to draw to the
shore, vi. 63.

54 THE LANGUAGE .OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

7ruy/iy,-VYith the fist (up to the elbow),
R. V. diligently, A. V. oft, vii. 3.
apLvpviUiv, mingle with myrrh, xv.
23.
. o-jrEKouXdrwp, a soldier ofthe guard,
vi. 27.
ariPdg, twig, xi. 8.
avv^Xi^uv, to throng, v. 24, 31.

rrjXavyiiig, clearly, viii. 25.
viripirepiaaCJg, beyond measure, vii.
37.
iiTToX^OTov, -wine-vat, the under-vat
of a wine-press, into which the
juice of the grapes flowed, xii, 1.
XaXKiov, brazen vessel, vii. 4.
mrdpiov, ear, xiv. 47.

LUKE.

Luke is the most literary among the evangelists." '
He was evidently a man of considerable education,
and a congenial companion of Paul, the scholar
among the apostles. He Avas as admirably suited
for Paul as Mark was for Peter. He pays regard
to contemporary secular history, refers to the mem
bers of the Herodian family, the emperors Augustus,
Tiberius, Claudius, the census of the Syrian gov
ernor Quirinius, the procurators Felix and Festus,
and furnishes us the key for several iraportant
chronological dates.
He was a physician (Col. iv, 14), His raedical
vocabulary in the accounts of rairacles of healing,
and throughout the general narrative, slioAvs famil
iarity with the ancient medical writers, or at all
events agrees with technical usage,"

' Reiian (Les Evangiles, p. 232) : " L'Evangile de Luc est le plus lilleraire
des Evangiles." He also calls it " leplus beau livre qu'il y ait" (p. 283). He
admires the. classic style, the joyful tone, and charming poetrj' of the book.
'^ Rev. W. K. Hobart, LL.D., of Trinity College, Dublin, has published a
work on The Medical Language of St. Luke (Dublin University Press, 1882,
305 pages), in which he proves, from internal evidence, that " the Gospel
according to St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the sarae
person, and that the ivriter -n-as a medical man." For this purpose over

_ THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55
He is equally familiar with nautical terras, Avhich
are correct without being strictly technical. His
account of the voyage and shipwreck of Paul in the
last two chapters of Acts, according to the testi
mony of experts, gives us fuller aud more accurate
inforraation about ancient navigation than any otiier
single document of antiquity.'
Luke's style varies considerably. Where he writes
independently, he uses the best language. The brief
historiographic preface to his Gospel — the only one
in the Gospels — is a period of purest Greek, and
admired for its grace, modesty, and dignity. It may
be favorably compared with the prefaces of Herod
otus and Thucydides. They excel alike in brevity,
tact, and point; but the anonymous preface of the
Evangelist is as striking for its modesty and love of
truth as the prefaces of the great heathen historians
are- 'for vanity and love of glory." In the second
four hundred words and phrases, for the most part peculiar to these two
books, are compared with the use of the same words and phrases in
Hippocrates, Aretseus, Dioscorides, and Galen.
' See Jaraes Smith, The -Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 4th ed. 1880
(revised by Walter E. Sraith, with a Preface by the Lord Bishop of
Carlisle) ; the respective chapters in the biographical works of Conybeare
and Howson, Lewin, and Farrar, on St. Paul; and the coraraentaries of
Hackett, Lechler, Howson and Spence; and others, on Acts, ch. xxvii. and
xxviii. James Smith, of Jordanhill, Scotland (b. 1782, d. 1867), was not
a professional theologian, but a commodore of the Eoyal Northern Yacht
Club, and familiar by long residence in Gibraltar and Malta with naviga
tion in the Mediterranean. His book is a classic in this department, and
has a permanent evidential value.
' The preface of Herodotus has nearly the same number of words (40)
as that of Luke (42), and is as follows: 'HpoSorov ' AXiKapvaaijog 'laropirig
dirooii^ig ijSi " mg prjre rd yivopiva (5 dv^pmiruiv riji XP^^V iiirrjXa
yivrjTai, pijre epya peyi'iXa re Kai S-avpaard, rd piv "EXXrjai rd Si

56 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, .
part of the Acts, where Luke writes as an eye-
Avitness, he likewise uses pure Greek. But Avhere
he translates from the Hebrew, as in the history of
the infancy, in tlie songs of Zachariah, Mary, and
Siraeon, his language has a strongly Hebraizing
and highly poetic coloring. This proves his con
scientious fidelity. The greater part of the -Gos
pel and the first part of the Acts occupy a mid
dle position between classic Greek and Hebrew
Greek, and show the frequent use of documentary
sources. -Among the minor peculiarities of Luke, as com
pared with Matthew and Mark, we may mention
the following. He has vopiKog or vojuoStSaaKaXoc
for ypafifjiaTivg, to Eipi/jutwv in quotations for prjS-eV,
vvv for apri, Xifivri of the lake of Galilee for SiaXaaaa,
ta-iripa for 6\pia. He frequently uses the attraction
of the relative pronoun and the participial construc
tion. He likes the word x"P«» ^^ accordance Avithj^
the spirit of cheerfulness which animates his books.'
He very often speaks of the Holy Spirit, especially
in the Acts, whicii may be called the History of tlie
Spirit in the apostolic age ; and he alone relates the
pentecostal miracle."
There is a striking resemblance between the spirit
and style of Luke and Paul. They agree in the re-
jiap^dpoiai diroSeix^ivra, dfcXed yivrjrai, rd re aXXa xai Si j/v airirjv
iiroXf'priaav dXXriXoiai.
' Lukei. 14; ii. 10 ; viii. 13 ; x. 17; xv.7, 10; xxiv. 41,62; Acts viii. 8;
xiii. 52 ; xv. 3.
^ irvivpa, either with or without ayior, occurs in the Acts no less than
fifty tiraes (if I counted right).

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

57

port of the words of institution of the Lord's Supper.
They are fond of such characteristic words as x"P'^>
cXfoe, iriaTig, ciKaioavvri, BiKaiog, irvtiifia ayiov, yvwatg,
SuVOjUtC KUjOl'oW,'
Luke has the richest vocabulary among the Sy
noptists, The total number of words in his Gospel
is 19,209 ; that of Matthew, 18,222 ; that of Mark,
11,158, The number of words peculiar to Luke,
and not found in Matthew and Mark, is 12,969, or
26f per cent, ; that of Matthew, 10,363, or 21^ per
cent, ; that of Mark, 4314, or 9 per cent," Luke's
Gospel has 55, and the Acts 135 awa^ Xtyofuva.
The number of Avords in the Gospel of Luke which
do not occur elsewhere in the Greek Testament is
about 180,
WoEDS PECULIAE TO THE GoSPEL OF LuKE, (It
would take too much space to add the peculiar
vocabulary of the Acts,)

dyicdXai, arms, ii. 28.
dypa, draught, liaul, v. 4, 9.
dypavXim, to abide in the field, ii. 8.
dymvia, agony, xxii. 44.
aiaSrdvopai, to perceive, ix. 45.
aixpdXmrog, captive, iv. 18 (19).
dXXoyevrig, stranger, xvii. 18.
dva/SXeifis, recovery of sight, iv.
18.
dvdSei^ig, showing, i. 80.
dvaSirjua, gift, xxi. 5 (dvd^tpa oc
curs several times in Paul).

dva'iSiia, importunit}', xi. 8.
dvdirrjpog, maimed, xiv. 13, 21.
dvairrvaam, to unroll, to open, iv. 17
(but the critical editors read
dvoi^ag).
dvardaaopai, to set forth in order,
i. 1.
dvaipmvim, to speak out, i. 42.
dvtKXtiirrog, unfailing, xii. 33.
dvivSiKTog, impossible, xvii. 1.
dv^opoXoyiopai, to give thanks, ii.
38.

' See a long list of parallel passages in Holtzmann, I. c. 316 sqq.
' The above estimate is made frora Tischendorrs Greek Testament, as
printed in Eushbrooke's Synopticon (1882). See my Church History,
revised ed. 1882, vol. i. p. 696.

58 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

dj/ri/3dXXw, to cast back and forth,
to exchange, xxiv. 17.
dvTiKaXim, to bid again, xiv. 12.
dirapriapog, completion, with eig, to
complete, xiv. 28.
direkirilm, hope for again, vi. 35.
diro^Xipm, to press, to crowd, viii.
45.
dTroKXti'iD, to shut, xiii. 25.
d7roX£i'x<" (imXelxm), to lick, xvi.
21.
diropdaaopai, to wipe off, x. 11.
diroirXivm, to wash, v. 2 ; but Tisch.
(ed. viii.) reads (with X) eirXv-
vav, Lachm. and W. and H. lirXv-
vov (with B). See Rev. vii. 14.
diroaropariZui, provoke to speak,
xi. 53.
dirorpvxm (expire), to leave off
breathing, to faint, xxi. 26 (comp.
matt vtKpoi, Matt, xxviii. 4).
dpxireXmvrjg, chief araong the pub
licans, xix. 2.
darpdirrm, to lighten, to flash, xvii.
24 ; to shine, xxiv. 4.
damrmg, riotously, xv. 13.
dreKvog, childless, xx. 28, 29.
avToirrrjg, eye-witness, i. 2.
aipavrog, with yivopai, to vanish
out of sight, xxiv. 31.
dippog, froth, foam, ix. 39.
dipvirvom, to fall asleep, viii. 23.
PaSvvm, to deepen, vi. 48.
jiaXXdvriov, purse, x. 4 ; xii. 33 ;
xxii. 35, 36.
Papuvopai, to be overcharged, xxi.
34.
liiXovri, needle, xviii. 25.
/3oXij, a oast, a throw, xxii. 41.
jiovvos, hill, iii. 5 ; xxiii. 30.
yeXdw, to laugh, vi, 21, 25.

SaKTvXiog, ring, xv. 22.
Siapkm (text. rec. and Lachmann),
to bind, viii. 29. Tisch., Treg.,
W. H. read Stapdim, which ia
also used by, Matthew (xxiii. 4),
and Luke in Acts xxii. 4.
SiayoyyvZm, to murmur, xv. 2 ; xix.
7.
SiaXdkim, to coramune, to converse,
i. 65; vi. 11.
SiaXtiirm, to cease, vii. 45.
Siaptpit,m, to divide, xi. 17, 18 ; xii.
52, 53 ; xxii. 17.
Siattepiapog, division, xii. 51.
Slav tim, to beckon, i. 22.
Siavorjpa, thought, xi. 17.
SiawKTcpevm, to continue all night,
vi. 12.
Siairpaypartvopai, to gain by trad
ing, xix. 15.
Siaatim, to shake throughout, to do
violence to, iii. 14.
Siarapdaam, to trouble, i. 29.
SiaipvXdaam, to keep, iv. 10.
SiaxmpiZopai, to depart, ix. 33,
Siliyrjaig, narration, i. 1.
^ox^, feast, V. 29 ; xiv. 13.
iyKd^crog, spy, xx. 20.
tyKuoe, great with child, ii. 5.
iSaipiKm, lay even with the ground,
xix. 44.
i^iZm, to accustom ; pass., to be cus
toraary, ii. 27.
iKKqpi'im, to carry out, vii. 12.
iKpvKrrjpilim, to deride, xvi. 14;
xxiii. 35.
iKreXim, to finish, xiv. 29, 30.
iKJidXXm, with eig, to cast into, xii,
5.
iKxmpkm, to depart out, xxi. 21.
ivviim, to make signs to, i. 62.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

59

iiraS'poiZopai, to be gathered thick
together, xi. 29.
iiretSrjirep, forasmuch as, i. 1.
iirtiSov, to look on, i. 25.
. iiriKpivm, to give sentence, xxiii. 24.
(iTTiXcixw, for d7roXetx<i>,tolick over,
xvi. 21 ; see drroXeixm.)
iiripaXmg, diligently, xv. 8.
iiriiroptiopai, with irpoe, to come
to, viii. 4.
iiriairiapog, victuals, ix. 12.
iiriaxvm, to be more fierce, xxiii. 6.
iairjaig, garment, xxiv. 4.
i^airiopai, to ask for, xxii. 31.
iSaarpdirrm, to glister, ix. 29.
evijiop'tm, to bring forth plentifully,
xii. 16.
ilpiSravrjg, half dead, x. 30.
SopopdZm (text. rec. rvppdi^m) , to
confuse by noise, to disturb, x. 41.
Srpavm, to bruise, iv. 18.
SrpopPog, large drop, xxii. 44.
5vfiidm, to burn incense, i. 9.
'iSpmg, sweat, xxii. 44.
KoSoTrXi'Jft), to arm, xi. 21.
KaraxprjpviZm, to cast down head
long, iv. 29.
KaraXiSrdZm, to stone, xx. 6.
Karavevm, to beckon unto, v. 7.
KarairXem, to arrive, viii. 26.
Karaavpm, to drag, xii. 58.
KaraafdZm, to slaughter down, to
slay, xix. 27.
Kara^j/vxm, to cool, xvi. 24.
Ktpapog, tiling, v. 19.
Ktpdriov, husk, carob-pod, xv. 16.
KXiviSioy, couch, v. 19, 24.
Kopa?, raven, xii. 24.
Kopof, a raeasure, xvi. 7.
KpaiirdXrj, surfeiting, xxi. 34.
XapirpUg, sumptuously, xvi. 19.

XaStvrog, hewn in stone, xxiii. 53.
Xtiog, smooth, iii. 5.
Xrjpog, idle tales, xxiv. 11.
paxpog, far, xv. 13 ; xix. 12.
ptpiarrjg, divider, xii. 14.
pia^iog, hired servant, xv. 17, 19.
poyig, hardly, ix. 39.
vpaaid, brood, xiii. 34.
oixovopim, to be steward, xvi. 2.
u/j/3pof,, shower, xii. 64.
^Trrdf , broiled, xxiv. 42.
opeivog, hilly, i. 39, 65.
of pig, brow, iv. 29.
irapirXrj^ti, all at once, xxiii. 18.
iravSoxiiov, inn, x. 34.
iravSoxtvg, host, x. 35.
irapaSo^og, strange thing (neut.),
V.26.
irapaKaXvirrii), to hide, ix. 45.
TrapdXioc, sea coast, vi. 17.
irapSrtvia, virginity, ii. 36.
irtStvog, with roirog, plain, vi. 17.
irtvixpog, poor, xxi. 2.
irsvrEKaiStKarog, fifteenth, iii. 1.
irepiKpiirrm, to hide, i. 24.
irepiKVKXom, to compass around, xix.
43.
iripioiKsm, to dwell round about, i.
65.
irtpioiKog, neighbor, i. 58.
iripiairdm, to distract, x. 40.
irivaKiSiov, writing-tablet, i. 63.
rrXrjppvpa, flood, vi. 48.
irpea^tia, embassy, raessage, xiv.
32 ; xix. 14.
irpoaavajiaivm, to go up, xiv. 10.
irpoaavaXiaKm, to spend, viii. 43.
irpoaSairavdm, to spend more, x. 35.
irpoaipydZopai, to gain, xix. 16.
irpofipm, to bring forth, vi. 45.
irrvaam, to roll up, iv. 20.

60 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

pijypa, ruin, vi. 49.
adXog, waves, xxi. 25.
aiKipa, strong drink, i. 15.
aividZm, to sift, xxii. 31.
aiTWTog, fatted, xv. 23, 27, 30.
airopirpiov, portion of meat, xii. 42.
aKdirrm,to dig, vi.48, xiii. 8 ; xvi. 3.
OKiprdm, to leap, i. 41, 44 ; vi. 23.
OKiXov, spoil, xi. 22.
aopog, bier (coffin), vii. 14.
airapyavom, to wrap in swaddling
clothes, ii. 7, 12.
avyyevigikins-woman (for avyytvrjg),
i.36.
avyKaXiirrm, to cover, xii. 2.
avyKarari^epat, to deposit together,
to consent to, xxiii. 51 (with dpi).
avyKiirrm, to be bowed together,
xiii. 11.
avyKvpia, chance, x. 31.
avKdpivog, sycamine tree, xvii. 6.
avKopmpia, or -opIa (the spelling
of W. and H. for -mpa'ia), syca
more tree, xix. 4.
avKofavriu), to accuse falsely, iii.
14 ; xix. 8.

avpfim (pass.), to spring up with,
viii. 7.
avpfmvia, music, xv. 25.
rerpapxii^! to be tetrarch, iii. 1.
rpaipa, wound, x. 34.
rp^pa, a hole, the eye of a needle,
xviii. 25 (the reading of Lachm,,
Tisch., Treg., W. and H. for the
text. rec. rpvpaXia).
rpvymv, turtle-dove, ii; 24.
(rvplidZm, see SropvjidZm.)
vypog, green, xxiii. 31.
vSpmiriKog, dropsical, xiv. 2.
viroKpivopai, to feign, xx. 20.
viroarpmvvvm, to spread, xix. 36.
viroxmpkm, to withdraw one's self,
V. 16 ; ix. 10.
vijiaivm, to weave, to spin, xii. 27.
0dpay|, valley, iii. 5.
fdrvr], manger, ii. 7, 12, 16; xiii. 15.
fiXrj (fem.), friend, xv. 9.
(^iXoviiKia, strife, xxii. 24.
ipo^rjTpov, fearful sight, xxi. 11.
fpovipmg, wisely, xvi. 8.
xdapa, gulf, xvi. 26.
i^ov, egg, xi. 12.

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

the LANGUAGE OF- THE NEW TESTAMENT,

61

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

irXem, to sail, Luke viii. 23; Acts
xxi. 3 ; xxvii. 6, 24.
diroirXim, to sail from, Acts xiii. 4 ;
xiv. 26; XX. 15; xxvii. 1.
jipaSvirXoim (from fipaSig, slow),
to sail slowly, Acts xxvii. 7.
^lairXlw, to sail through (not " over "
as in the A. V.), Acts xxvii. 5.
iKirXim, to sail away. Acts xv. 39;
xviii. 18 ; xx. 6.
KarairXiw, to arrive, Luke viii. 26.
viroirXim, to sail under the lee. Acts
xxvii. 4, 7.
irapairXim, to sail by, Acts xx.
16.

avayopat, to get under way, to put
to sea. Acts xxvii. 4.
Siairipdm, to sail over. Acts xxi. 2.
Siatpipopai, to be driven to and fro.
Acts xxvii. 27.
imKtXXm, to run the ship ashore,
Acts xxvii. 41.
•iv^vSpop'em, to make a straight
course. Acts xvi. 11; xxi. 1.
irapaXeyopai (middle), to sail by,
Acts xxvii. 8, 13.
virorpixm (aor. 2, iir'tSpapov), to
run under the lee. Acts xxvii. 16.'
ipepopai (pass.), to be driven. Acts
xxvii. 15, 17.

To these may be added the phrases for lightening
the ship: £k/3oXJ}v tTroiouiro, they began to throw
the freight overboard. Acts xxvii. 18; and ekoi'^j^ov
TO TrXoroi', they lightened the ship, Acts xxvii. 38.
Julius Pollux mentions £k:/3oX77v iroiriaaaSiai twv
^opriwv and Kov^iam ttjv vavv among the technical
terms for taking cargo out of a ship. See Smith,
I. c. pp. 114, 139.

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

62 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,'
PAUL,
The Apostle of the Gentiles had a cosmopolitan
preparation for his work, being a Hellenist by birth,
a Eoman citizen, and a Hebrew scholar. He is the
only apostle Avho enjoyed a regular rabbinical edu
cation, and Avas trained to logical reasoning. He
was also, to a limited extent, acquainted Avith classi
cal literature, and quotes from three heathen poets
(Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides) — the only ex
amples of the kind in the New Testament,' He is
the founder of Christian theology; he had to, create
a theological vocabulary by stamping a peculiar
meaning upon a number of words which express
fundamental Christian ideas, as BiKaioaivn, BiKaiwaig,
Trlarig, ayair-ri, aap^, irvtv/ia, aTToXvTpwaig, iXaafiog,
Ka'raXXayri, X'V'?' 'Xeoc, Hprivr).
.The style of Paul reflects the strongly marked
individuality of his nature purified and ennobled
by divine grace. Its chief characteristics are fire
and force. He is intensely in eai'nest, and throws
his whole soul into his epistles. His ideas overflow
the ordinary boundaries of speech. The pressure
of thought is so strong that it breaks through the
rules of grammar. Hence the anacolutha. His
style is dialectic and argumentative. He reasons
now from Scripture, now from premises, now from
analogy, or from experience, from effect, from objec-
' Jerome hit the proper medium between the two extremes of an undue
overestimate and an underestimate of Paul's Greek learning, when he
said, ad Gal. iv. 24, that Paul knew secular literature- (/ito-aa sceculares),
but imperfectly (licet non ad perfectum).

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63
tions, and ex absurdo. He frequently uses logical
particles and phrases, as ovv, apa, apa ovv {hine igi
tur, therefore then, so then, twelve times), yap, d yap,
u Si, ovKiTt, Tl' ovv, Tl OVV Epov/iai, iptig ovv, ov fXl'lVOV
Bi . . . dXXa. He introduces and answers objections,
and drives the opponent to the Avail by close argu
ment. He is fond of antitheses, paradoxes, oxymora,
and paronomasias. Farrar counts " upwards of fifty
specimens of npwards of thirty Greek rhetorical
figures " in Paul,'
Here are some of these antithetic and paradoxical
phrases : dg to dvai avrbv BiKaiov icai BiKaiovvra tov
fK niaTiwg 'Iriaov (Eom, iii, 26) : Bia vu/xov vofii^ airt-
^avov (Gal, ii, 19) : Zw Be ovKiri tyw, 2^ Se iv £juoi
Hpiarog (Gal, ii, 20) : (jt^ovog and (j)6vog : uavverog
and aavv^ETog : a<j>pwv and ^povifiog : avojiog and
tvvo)Xog : juj) virspippovdv irap" o Bu xjipovuv, oKXa
ippovtiv dg TO awfpovtiv (not to be high-minded
above what we ought to be minded, but to be so
minded as to be sober-minded, Eom, xii, 3): to
aojOOTo , , . Ka^oparai {invisibilia videntur, unseen
things are seen, Eora, i, 20) : Trap' iXwlBa i-jr iX-trlSi
(Eom, iv, 18) : to firj ofTa wc ovTa (Eora, iv, 17) :
TO fiwpov TOV Steov aoijiWTspov twv av^pwTTwv (1 Cor,
i, 25) : orav , . . aa^tvw, tots. Bvvarog dfii (2 Cor,
xii, 10), Specimens of cutting sarcasm: Kararofii)
(Phil, iii, 2, Avith reference to the mpironri of the
carnal Judaizers of the malignant type : concision,
circumcision); a-KOKo^ovrai (Gal, v, 12, with refer-

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

64 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
ence to the same Judaizing perverters of the Gos^
pel). _ :
Paul disclaims classic elegance, and calls himself
" rude in speech " (iBiwrng r<^ Xoytj)), though not in
knoAvledge (oii ry yvwati).' He knew that he. car
ried the heavenly treasure in earthen vessels, that
the power and grace of God might become more
manifest." His speech is at times rugged and irreg
ular, but always vigorous, bold, terse, expressive.
It rises now to lofty eloquence, as at the close
of the eighth chapter of Eomans, now to more
than poetic beauty, as in the description of love in
1 Cor. xiii., which lias no equal in all literature.
We may compare his style to a thunderstorm Avitli
zigzag flashes of lightning that, strike every project
ing point; or to a Swiss mountain torrent that now
rushes over precipices in foaming rapids, now rests
before taking a new leap, then calmly flows through
green meadows.
Longinus, a heathen rhetorician of the third cen
tury, counted IlaiJXoc o Tapasvg among the greatest
orators, and a master of dogmatic style, Jerome
charges him with using Cilician provincialisms
(solecisms), but felt when reading his epistles as if
he heard ^^non verba sed tonit'rua." . Erasraus com
pares Paul's style to thunder and lightning : " tonat,
fulgurat, meras fiammas loquitur PaulusP He
' 2 Cor. xi. 6. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ; ii. 1 sqq. ^We must remember that
he thus wrote to the Corinthians, who overestimated the arts of rhetoric.
Meyer quotes Xenophon, who describes himself as an ISiwnjg as com
pared with the Sophists (De Venat. 14, 3).
' 2 Cor. iv. 7.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 65
judged the closing verses of the eighth chapter of
Eomans to be equal iu eloquence to- any passage
in Cicero : " Quid unquam Cicero dixit grand'ilo-
quentius." Calvin says of his Avritings : "fulmina
sunt, non verba," but he properly adds, in the very
spirit of Paul and in view of his numerous anacolutha
and ellipses, that by a singular providence of God the
highest mysteries have been committed to us "sub
contemptibili verborum humilitate,^^ that our faith
may rest not on the power of human eloquence, but
solely on the efficacy of the divine Spirit. Baur
finds the peculiar starap of Paul's language in pre
cision and compression on the one hand, and in
harshness and roughness on the other, which sug
gests that the thought is far too weighty for the
expression, and can hardly find a fit forra for the
abundance of matter. He compares him to Thucyd
ides. Farrar does the sarae, and says that Paul has
the style of genius, if he has not the genius of style.'
Eenan, a good judge of rhetoric, but blinded by
prejudice against Paul's theology, speaks disparag
ingly of his prose, as Yoltaire did of the poetry of
Shakespeare, which he deemed semi-barbarous ; yet
Eenan is obliged to mix praise with censure. " The
> Z. t. i. 623. Farrar thinks, with Baur, that the style of Paul " more
closely reserables the style of Thucydides than that of any other great
writer of antiquity." The great historian of the Peloponnesian war is by
no means free from solecisms or barbarisms, obscurities, and rhetorical ar
tificialities. Jowett (Thuc. vol. i. Intr. p. xiv.) justly says : " The speeches
of Thucydides everywhere exhibit the antitheses, the climaxes, the plays
of words, the point which is no point, of the rhetorician, j-et retain amid
these defects of forra a weight of lihought to which succeeding historians
can scarcely show the like." 5

66 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT,
epistolary style of Paul," he says,' " is the raost per
sonal that ever existed. His language is, if I dare
call it so, hacUed {broyie), not a connected phrase.
It is irapossible to violate more boldly, I do not say
the genius of the Greek language, but the logic of
the human language. It is a rapid conversation,
stenographically reported, and reproduced without
correction, , , . With his wonderful warmth of soul,
Paul has a singular poverty of expression, , , , It is
not barrenness, it is the vehemence. of mind, and a
perfect, indifference as to the correctness of style,"
Another Frenchman, Pressense," judges more just
ly : " Paul's own moral life struggled for expres
sion in his doctrine ; and to give utterance to both
at once, Paul created a marvellous language, rough
and incorrect, but full of resource and invention,
following his rapid leaps of thought, and bending
to his sudden and sharp transitions. His ideas come
in such rich abundance that they cannot Avait for
orderly expression ; they throng upon each other,
and intermingle in seeming confusion ; but the con-
fu-sion is seeming only, for through it all a powerful
arguraent steadily sustains the mastery. The tongue
of Paul is, indeed, a tongue of fire,"
JOHN,
If Paul's style resembles a rushing, foaming,
storming Alpine torrent, John's style may be com
pared to a calm, clear, deep Alpine lake in which
' SairU Paul, ch, ix, p, 232,
' Apostolic Era, p. 254.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 67
the sun, raoon, and stars are reflected as in a mirror.
The one sounds like a trumpet of war, the other like
an anthem of peace. Simplicity and depth char
acterize the Gospel and the first Epistle of John.
He is " verbis faciUimus, sensu difficilUmuS."
He writes pure Greek as far as words and gram
raar are concerned, but he thinks in Hebrew ; the
Greek is, as it were, only the thin, transparent veil
over the face. Eenan, looking at the outside, says
correctly that the style of the fourth Gospel " has
nothing Hebrew, nothing Jewish, nothing Tal-
raudic ;" but Ewald, looking deeper into the inside,
is more correct when he affirms that "in its true
spirit and afflatus, no language can be raore genu
inely Hebrew than that of John." Keira speaks of
the reraarkable combination of genuine Greek facil
ity and ease with Hebrew simplicity and figurative-
ness.' Westcott thinks that it is " altogether mis
leading " to speak of John's Gospel as " written in
very pure Greek ;" that it is free frora solecisms
because it avoids all idioraatic expressions ; and that
its grararaar is coramon to all language. Godet

- Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. 116) : " Die Sprache des Buehs "
[the 4th Gospel] "ist ein merkwurdiges Gefiige achlgriechischer Leichlig-
keit und Gewandtheit und hebrdischer Ausdrucksweisen in ihrer ganzen
Schlichlheil, Kindlichkeit, BUdlichkeit und wohl auch Unbehqlfenheit. So
hat sich die Union der Gegensatze der Parteien selbst in der Sprache ver-
korpert." What follows in Keim is a strange mixture of truth and error,
owing to his want of sympathy with the spiritual character of this
Gospel, in which he must acknowledge the simplicity of nature, the
purest morality, and celestial glories (himmlische Herrlichkeiten), while
yet he discovers in it the hidden arts of a post-apostolic literary forger.
The contradiction is not in John, but in the judgraent of his critic.

68 THE LANGUAGE OF THB NEW TESTAMENT.
characterizes the style of John as altogether unique
in all literature, profane and religious, for childlike
simplicity, transparent profundity, holy sadness, and
holy vivacity, and calls it a Hebrew body with a
Greek dress,' Weiss, in his recently published
"Life pf Jesus," likewise emphasizes the Hebrew
genius which animates the pure Greek of the fourth
Gospel, and derives frora it an argument for its Jo
hannean origin,"
' "La langue de I'evangeliste n'a pas d? analogue dans toute la litterature
profane ou sacree : simplicite enfantine et transparente pi-ofondeur; sainte
melancolie et vivacite non moins sainte ; par dessus tout, suavile d'un amour
pur et doux. ... Dans la langue de Jean, U vetemeni seul est grec, le corps
est hSbreu ; ou, comme le dit Luthardt, ily a une ame hebraique dans le lan
gage grec."— Com. sur I'evang. de Saint Jean, 3d ed. thoroughly revised
(Paris, 1881), vol. i. pp. 226, 232.
" 'The passage is worth quoting in full as a contribution to the solution
of the Johannean problera : " Man hat einst wohl gemeint, das reine Grie
chisch des Evangeliums passe nicht zu dem Fischer vom Gennezaretsee.
Heute zweifelt Niemand mehr daran, dass gerade die niederen Stande Gali-
tda's im idglichen Verkehr mit dem umwohnenden und iiberaU bereils mitten
in das eigene l^olksthum eingedrungenen Griechenlhum sich des Versldnd-
nisses der griechischen Sprache gar nicht entrathen konnien. Hatte voUends
Johannes einige zwanzig Jahre bereits in griechischtr Umgebung gdebt, so
musste er sich eine gewisse Gewandtheit im Gebrauch der- griechischen
Sprache angeeignet haben. In der That aber blickt durch das griechische
Gewand dieses Evangeliums iiberall der- Siilcharahter des Paldstinensers
hindurch. Diese unperiodische Saizbildung, diese einfachste FerknUpfung
der Sdtze, die von dem reichen griechischen Partikelschatz zur Andeututig
ihrer logisclien Beziehung keinen Gebrauch macht, diese -Vorliebefur Anii-
thesen und Parallelismen, diese Umstdndlichkeit der Erzdhlungsweise und
Wortarmulh im Ausdruck, diese ganz hebrdisch-artige Wortstellung zeigen
mehr als einzelne 'P'erstosse gegen griechisches Sprachgefuhl, die doch auch
nicht ganz fehlen, dass das Evangelium wohl griechisch geschrieben, aber
hebr disch gedacht ist. Die mit -Vorliebe eingestreuten aramdischen Aui-
driicke, die etymologisirende Deutung mies hebraischen Namens (ix.7) lassen
deutlich den Paldstinenser erkennm, dem nach einigen seiner Citate selhst der

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 69
John's sentences are short and weighty — we may
say, the shorter the weightier. They are co-ordinat
ed, not subordinated. They follow each other by a
sort of constructive parallelisra, or symmetrical and
rhythmical progression, after the manner of HebrcAv
poetry. There is no dialectical process of argu
mentation, no syllogistic particles (like apa), no in
volved periods, as in Paul, but a succession of asser
tions which have the self-evidencing force of truth
as perceived by immediate intuitiom Hence he
often uses the words ^taa^ai, ^iwpiiv, iwpaKivat,
fiapTvpla. Sometimes he moves by contrasts, or
antithetic parallelisms, without connecting links :
" The laAV was given by Moses : grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ" (i, 17); "No one ever saw
God: the only begotten Son revealed him" (i,18);
" Ye are from beneath : I am from above" (viii, 23);
" I am the vine : ye are the branches " (xv, 5),
John's ideas and vocabulary are liraited ; but he
has a nuraber of key-words of unfathomable depth
and transcendent height, and repeats them again and
again— as "life," "light," "truth," "love."' He
Grundtext der heiligen Sehrift nicht ganz unbekannt gewesen zu sein scheinl."
Das Leben Jesu, Berlin, 1882, Bd. i. 90.
' Zmr) occurs 36 times in the Gospel (with the verb l^rjv 16 times), ipOf
23 times, dXij^tia 25 times, dXriS-ivog 9 times, So^a 20 times (with
So^dZta^ai 24 times), paprvpia 14 times (with paprvpeiv 33 times),
yivmoKm 55 times, iriareiuv 98 times (but rriang only in 1 John v. 4).
See Luthardt, i. 20 sq. (Gregory's translation) ; Godet, i. 227 (3d ed.).
Hase (Geschichte Jesu, 1876, p. 43) makes a striking remark on thia repe-
titiousness of John : "Er ist nicht ein beweglicher, der Rede mdchtiger Geist,
sondem still und tieffesthangend an Wenigem; aber dieses Wenige ist das
Gottliche selbst. dem sein Sinnen und seine Liebe gilt, ein Adler der still in
der Hohe schwebl."

70 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
kisses a divine and eternal meaning into these
terms, and hence he is never weary of them. God
himself, as revealed in Christ, is life, light, and love.
And what more can philosophy and theology say in
so few words ? . John likes grand antitheses, under
which he views the antagonistic forces of the world
— as life and death, light and darkness, truth and
falsehood, belief and unbelief, love and hatred,
Christ and Antichrist, God and the Devil, On the
other hand, we look in vain in his Gospel for some
of the most important terms, as iKKXiiaia, exjayyiXiov,
fisravoia, TrapajSoXri, aotjria, but the substance is there
in different form. He uses few particles, but uses
thera very often — namely, Kai, Bi, wg, tva, and espe
cially ovv, which with him is not syllogistic, but
marks simply the progress in the narrative or re
sumes the train of thought (like the German nun).'
He never employs the optative. He is fond of di
minutives (as 'TraiBapiov, 'TraiBla, TtKvia), and the last
word reported of him is the address, " Little . chil
dren, love one anotiier," He gives many circum
stantial details in his narratives, as in the healing of
the man born blind, whose character is drawn to the
life. He alone applies the significant term "Logos"
(which means reason and speech, ratio and oratio)
to Christ as the revealer and interpreter of God;'
he calls him the "only begotten Son," "the Light of
' The English Eevision renders ovv usually by " therefore," but this ia
heavy and pedantic in English, " So" and " then" would anawer as well
ill many cases, as in John iv. 5, 28 ; xiii. 6.
^ John i. 1, 14; 1 John i. 1 ; comp. Eev. xix. 13.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 71
the world," " the Bread of life," " the good Shep
herd," " the Vine " — figures Avhich have gu^ed the
Church ever since in her meditations on Christ, He
uses the double tijuijv (verily) in the speeches of our
Lord, He never calls the forerunner of Christ " the
Baptist," but simply " John," He represents the
Holy Spirit as the " Paraclete " or Advocate who
pleads the cause of the believer here on earth, while
Christ, who is also called " Paraclete," represents him
at the throne of God,'
Westcott calls the Gospel of John "the divine
Hebrew Epic," and says of his style : ' " The sim
plicity, the directness, the particularity, the emphasis
of St. John's style, give his writings a marvellous
power, which is not perhaps felt at first. Yet his
words seem to hang about the reader till he is forced
to remember them. Each great truth sounds like
the burden of a strain, ever falling upon the ear
Avith a calm persistency Avhicli secures attention.
And apart frora forras of expression Avith which all
are early familiarized, there is no book in the Bible
Avhich has furnished so many figures of the Person
and Work of Christ which have passed into the
coramon use of Christians as the Gospel of St. John."
Luthardt ' speaks of " the calmness and serenity "
which are spread over this marvellous book, and
reveal a soul that has reached peace and tranquil
lity at raature age after a long struggle with a fiery
" John xiv. 16, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7 ; 1 John ii. 1.
' In his Introduction to the Study of Ihe Gospels, p. 278. Comp. thc
remarks in his Com. on John, Introd. p. i.-iii.
' Com. on John, i. 62 (Gregory's translation).

72 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT;

and violent temper. " We can see his natural charf
acter in his short decisive sentences, his emphatic
Avay of building sentences, the want of connection
in his array of sentences, and in the use of contrasts
in his speech. His nature is not destroyed. It is
purified, brightened, raised to the truth, and so taken
into the service of the loved Master, It came to
rest on the bosom of Jesus, and found peace as his
own. The fire of youth has left its calm light and
its Avarm enthusiasm. It breathes .through the, most
quiet speech, and raises the language to the rhyth
mical beauty of Hebrew poetry and to a very hymn
of praise,"
Words peculiar to John {i. e., thc Gospel and
the Epistles; for the Apocalypse, see next para
graph):

dXitim, to fish (rendered in A, V.
and R. V. " to go a-fishing "'), xxi.
3.
dAXaxo&ev, from elsewhere, x. 1.
dXorj, aloe, aloe-wood (greatly prized
as a perfume), xix. 39.
[dvapdpnirog, sinless ("without
sin" in A. V. and R. V.), viii. 7.]
dvrXim, to draw, ii. 8 ; iv. 7, 15.
ivrXripa, haustrum, a bucket, iv.
IL
Spafog (dppaipog), seamless, xix.
23.
PippmoKm, to eat, vi. 13.
ytpmv, an old man (senex), iii. 4.
SaKpim, to weep, xi. 35.
SeiXidm, to be afraid, xiv. 27.
ifipa'iari (so AV. and Hort, but the
usual spelling is ijipdiari), He
brew, or ill the Hebrew tongue

(hebraice), v. 2; xix. 13, 17, 20;
XX. 16 (also in Bev, ix..ll; xvt
iKKivrim, to pierce, xix. 37 (also
Eev. i. 7).
ipiropiov, merchandise, ii. 16.
iiravroijimpifi, in the very act,'viii. 4
(in the disputed pericope).
^rjKti, sheath, xviii. 11.
^pkppa, cattle, iv. 12.
Kfppa, money, ii. 15.
Ktppanarrig, money-changer, ii. 14.
Kj/iroupdj, gardener, xx. 15.
KXijfui, branch, xv. 2, 4, 5, 6.
Koipijaig, taking rest, xL 13.
KoXvp^^pa, pool, v. 2, 4 (?), 7; is.
7,n.
Kpi^tvog, of barley (adj.), vi. 9, 13.
Xivriov, towel, xiii. 4, 5.
^^TKtt spear, xix. 34.

the language of the new TESTAMENT,

73

pil ng ; or pfjng ; any one ? iv, 33 ;
viu 48.
piypa, mixture, xix. 39.
(viVi), victory, 1 John v. 4.)
viirriip, basin, xiii. 5.
[vooTjpa, disease, v. 4.]
vvaam (virrm), to pierce, xix. 34.
u^u, to stink, xi. 39.
wopdicXijroe, advocate, xiv. 16, 26 ;
XV. 26 ; xvi. 7 (of the Holy Spir
it) ; 1 John ii. 1 (of Christ).
iTEvStpiif , father-in-law, xviii. 13.
vpoaKvvijrijg, worshipper, iv. 23.
rrriapa, spittle, ix. 6.
p&m, to flow, vii. 38.

iTKsXoe, leg, xix. 31, 32, 33.
aKtjvoiniyta, feast of tabernacles,
vii. 2.
rerpdprjvog, — vov, quadrimestris,
of four months, iv. 35.
riVXoc, title, xix. 19, 20.
^avog, lantern, xviii. 3.
^oiViJ, palm-treej xii. 13 (also Eev.
vii. 9).
^payiXXiov, scourge, ii. 15.
(xoprrig, paper, 2 John 12.)
Xtlpappog, brook, wady, xviii. 1.
XoXdio, to be angry, vii. 23. ,
(xpiapa, unction, 1 John ii. 20, 27.)
iprnpiov, sop, xiii. 26, 27,' 30.

John in Hebrew. The folloAving faithful and
idiomatic translation of the Prologue to John's
Gospel, by Professor Delitzsch, will illustrate the
HebrcAV genius of his Greek style. It is from the
Hebrew New Testaraent, published by the British
and Foreign Bible Society (1880),
John i, 1-18,
X ia':jni -.a^n n'^n n-'uxia

• -n T ~ T T
! "nann n^rt
T T - T T
2 nx n^cxia ' n-^n xvi
: a-in'sxii
3 mriaB^'iTi-iis n-^ns Van
T T : - ¦ T - T : ¦
:n;'n3 icx'^a n;n3 xV
4 lix.rn c^inn'! cii?n ii^n ia
smxn 133
6 ticnm Tirna s^ain lixm

sisijsn xb

'EN dpxy ^v o Xoyog, Kai 6 1
Xoyog fjV irpbg rbv Qeov, Kai
Qtbg rjv o Xoyog.
Ovrog ^v iv apxy irpbg riv 2
Qeov.
ndira Sl aiirov iyivero, Kai 3
Xmpig avroi iyivero oiiSi 'iv' 3
yeyovEV [or, 'ev. o yiyoviv iv].
'Ev avrifi Zi^V Vv, Kai r'l Zmrj rjV 4
rb fiag riHv dv^pmrrmv.
Kai ro 0(5f iv ry OKoriq, ipaivu, 5
Kai -tj aKoria avrb ov KariXa-
/3£V.

74 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

6 fi'^f/ixii fix^ niiii^ 1U1X ini.i
!-(3nii i^m
'r T ;
7 iisni n!iisi xa xm
Dba «iaxi isai -ii'xn-i? : iii-i» T —
8 -ex 13 nixn nin-xi x!in
iiixn-i3» nisnb
T - ¦ T J
9 -iab iixan inaxn lixn
:nViii'n-bx xa nin Crtx
T T T T T T T
10 nins iii-isi mn ab'isa
T ; ¦ T - : T r T T
! 1'iian xi bhism abirn
T T ; T T
11 nfex', ib iirx-bx xa x>in
:>inbap xb ib-i'jx
12 iai Tis>-in3 inx aisDxani
Vzb a'^fi'ixb aisa niinb
! iada bi3iaxHn
13 -^sna xb_i a^a xi iirx
laa vsna-xi ax lisan
I '¦¦ " " ' ~ T T —
m^is ain'ixa-BX 13
14 'j3irii liaa nin3 nanm
' :¦- TT t:- TT-:
iia=3 iniaa niini^ ii3Din3
non-ai iiaxi nini ia
; naxi

15 x^tssi liis iisa 'jsniii
ifflx x!in nt nsn na'xi

'EyEVtro dv5pmirog dirtardXp'c- 6
voc Trapd eeoS, ovopa avn}
'Imdvtig.
Ovrog rjXSitv eig paprvpiav, "tva 7
/laprvprjay irepi roi tjimrog,
"iva irdvreg irtarevamaiv Si
avrov.
Ouk ^v iKiivog rb tpOig, dXX' 'iva 8
paprvprjay irepi rou pmrog.
'Hj» TO 0i3s ro dXrjQivov, o ipmr'i- 9
Zu irdvra dv^pmirov, ipxo-
ptvov eig rbv Koapov.
'Ev rip Koapip yv, xai o Koapog 10
Sl aiiroi iyiviro,Kai 6 Koapog
airbv ovk iyvm.
Eig rd ISia yX^ev, Kal o't tSioi 11
airbv ov irapiXafiov.
"Oaoi Si tXa^ov avrov, iSmKiv 12
airolg i^ovaiav r'tKva Otoii
yeviaSrai, roig iriartiovaiv
tig TO ovopa avr,ov ¦
01 OUK i^ atpdrmv ovSi iK 13
^tXrjparog aapKog ovSi eK
^eXriparog dvSpog, dXX' e«
Qeov iyevvri&riaav.
Kal 0 Xoyog odp^ ly'tvero, koi 14
iaKTjvmaev iv rjpiv, Kai i^ta-
adpt^a rfjv So^av avroi,
So^av mg /toi'oyEvoue jrapd
irarpog, irXrjpijg xapirog KOt
dXij^tlag.
Imdvijg paprvpei irepi airov, 13
Kai KtKpayiv Xiymv " OJroj

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

75

iinx xan iiis iniax
_,. - J. - YY ,._Y
ii-Bi'p 13. 13 si nin
¦•¦' T t ; T T

16 nan wfea sisnpi ixiiaai
i ion-is
17 niBa-nia nsn? n'ninn 13
111-^? ixa naxni nanm
: mean siiri
18 aix nxi-xi ainixn nx
T T T T ¦ ¦.¦; T
iiax limn ian aiisa
i siiin xm axn pina

fjv 'ov liirov • [W. and H. : 6
siViiv] 6 oiriam pov ipxope-
vog epirpoa^iv pov yiyovev '
'on irpijjrog pov rjv.''
"On Ik roi irXtjpmparog avroi 16
¦liptig irdvreg iXd^optv, Kai
Xapiv dvri xapirog '
'on b vopog Std Mmiaimg iSoSrrj, 17
rj xapig Kai jj dX^Sfia ^td
'Irjaov Xpiarov iyivero.
Qttrv oiSeig impoK^v irmirore ' 18
u povoytv^g v'log [ W. and H. .
povoytvrjg Qebg], o on/ eig
rt)v KoXirov roi irarpog, ikei-
roE iiijyrjaaro.

THE APOCALTPSE,
The Apocalypse differs in teraper and style very
strikingly from the fourth Gospel and the first
Epistle of John, This fact has divided modern
critics who reject the traditional view of the iden
tity of authorship into two hostile camps — the one
contending for the genuineness of the Gospel,' the
other with equal force for that of the Apocalypse,"
' So Schleiermacher and his followers, Neander, LUcke, Bleek, De Wette,
Meyer, also Ewald and Diisterdieck. Most of them are disposed to assign
the Apocalypse to the mysterious "Presbyter" John, whose very existence
is doubtful. ' So Baur, Eenan, and the whole Tubingen and Leyden schools, and
their followers in England (Davidson, and the author of " Supernatural
Eeligion"), who defend the Apocalypse as the genuine work of one of the
three pillars of the Jewish Christian party described by Paul (Gal. ii.),
while they surrender the Gospel as an ideal poem of an anonymous genius
of the second centurv.

76 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The Apocalypse is as vehement and warlike as
the polemic Epistles of Paul. We hear the battle
cry and the shouts of victory.' It is the rolling of
thuilder from the Son of Thunder." But the Gospel
is as sharp and uncompromising in draAving the con
trast between Christ and his enemies. On the other
hand, the Apocalypse has pauses of repose and an
thems of peace. What can be more soothing and
calming than the description of the heavenly Jeru
salem ?
The Apocalypse, moreover, has a stronger HebrcAV
coloring, and departs further from classical Greek,
than any book of the New Testament.' But this
does not arise from ignorance ; on the contrary, with
all the irregularities and solecisms, the author shows
a remarkable command of the Greek vocabulary
and syntax." The Hebraizing character is the natn-
' The words " war " and " to make war," iroXepog and iroXipim, occur
more frequently in the Apocalypse than in any other book of the New
Test. See ii. 16 ; ix. 7, 9 ; xi. 7 ; xii. 7, 17 ; xiii. 5, 7 ; xvi. 14 ; xvii. 14 ;
xix. 11, 19; XX. 8.
' " Un eternal roulement de tonnerre sort du irone. . . . Une sorte de
liturgie divine sepoursuit sans fin" (Eenan, L'AntechrisI, p. 381).
° W. H. Guillemard (Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, 1879, p. 116)
says: "The deviations from grammatical correctness in the Apocalypse
are so violent and so astonishing as to defy explanation. Some few of
them may be traceable to Hebraic influences. The style of St. John in
the Gospel and Epistles is so remarkably pure— so comparatively free from
Hebraism, or non-classical words and forms ; so much more like the lan
guage of the best Greek authors— that these peculiarities are all the more
perplexing. They have given rise to innumerable speculations, ancient
and modern ; but no satisfactory explanation of them has hitherto been
found." Guillcmard's judgraent of the Greek of John's Gospel is incorrect
See above, p. 67.
* The most striking apparent irregularity occurs in i. 4 : airb '0 *DN

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 77
ral result of the prophetical contents and the close
affinity to the books of Daniel and Ezekiel. The
classical Greek offered no precedent to this species
of literature. On the other hand, the Greek of the
fourth Gospel, although much purer in form, is yet,
as we have already seen, profoundly Hebrew in
spirit, and the absence of solecisms arises from the
avoidance of idiomatic expressions.
The difference betAveen the two books, therefore,
lies more on the surface than in the deep. It is
largely neutralized by a striking agreement in lan
guage and thought, especially in the doctrine of
Christ, who is in both styled Logos, and represented'
as the atoning Larab and the conquering Lion,
corabining gentleness and strength, innocence and
majesty in perfect harmony. The resemblance is
admitted by the master of the Tiibingen school,
who calls the fourth Gospel the Apocalypse spir-

Kai 0 rjv Kal 6 ipxoptvog, "from Him who is and who was and who is to
come," But this is evidently a periphrasis of the divine name mni
(comp. Exod. iii. 14, Sept. : tyoi iipi '0 'QN, and in the same verse 'O "ON
diriaraXKe pe irpbg ipdg), and the nominative reflects his eternal un
changeableness ; hence we need neither insert rou with Erasmus and the
textus receptus (against the authority of X A C P), nor supply tou Xeyo-
p'ivov before 6 mv. The great cod. B (cod. Vat. 1209) does not contain
the Apoc. ; but B of the Apoc. (cod. Vat. 2066) has the passage, and reads
SeoS (OY) before 6 mv. Other Hebraisms are more easy, and not con
fined to the Apocalypse, as ovopara (names), for persons (iii. 4); iroXepeiv
perd (as Bni?), instead of Kard, to make war against (ii. 16) ; ^xn
Kmrjg (for i^^aa) = i1'^'n iaB3, "a living soul" (xvi. 3). Comp. for
further particulars the most recent discussion of this subject by Dr.
WiUiam Lee, in his Com. on the Revel. (1882, in Speaker's Com.), pp. 454-
464. Lee accepts the identity of authorship of the fourth Gospel and
the Apocalypse,'

78 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
itualized or transfigured." He thinks that only a
post-apostolic writer could rise to such a superior
height. But why not much rather John himself?
If we assume that nearly a generation intervened
between the composition of the Apocalypse (A,D, 68
or 69) and that of the Gospel (about A,D, 90), the
identity of authorship comes certainly within the
reach of literary possibilities, and is not without
analogies. What a difference between the first and
the second part of Goethe's Faust, the undoubted
productions of one and the same poet — the one
lieated by the fiery passions of his youth, the other
reflecting the calm serenity of his old age, Sirailar
differences in style may be noted in Isaiah, Dante,
Shakespeare, Milton, and nearly all writers of great
genius and long experience,
WoEDS PECULIAE TO THE ApOCALTPSE *,
'AfiaSSmy (Hebrew "(HaX, destruc- I the abyss, explained by the Greek
tion), the name of the angel of I diroXXvmv, the destroyer, ix. 11.
' Baur, Die Evangelien, p. 380 . " Man kann mit Recht sagen, das vierie
Evangelium sei die vergeisligte Apokalypse." And in his Gesch. der christi.
Kirche, vol. i. p. 147, he says: "Man kann nur die tiefe Gemalitdt und feine
Kunst beicundern, mit welcher- der Evangelist die Elemenie, v)elche vom Stand-
punkt der Apokalypie auf denfreiem und hSher-n des Evangeliums hiniiber-
leiteten, in sich aufgenommen hat, um die Apokalypse zum Evangelium zu
vergeisiigen. Nur vom Standpunkt des Evangeliums aus Idsst sich das -Ver
haltniss, in das sieh der Verfasser desselben zu der Apokalypse seizie, richlig
begreifen." Weiss turns this confession against Baur, and says most
admirably (Leben Jesu, i. 101) : " Ja, das Evangelium ist die vergeistigte
Apokalypse, aber nicht weil ein Oeistesheros des zweiten Jahrhunderts dem
Apokalyptiker gefolgt ist, sondem weil der Donnersohn der Apokalypse
miier der Leitung des Geisles und unier den gottlichen Fiihrungen zum
Mysliker verlddrt und herangerdft ist, in dem die Flammen der Jugend zur
Gluth einer heiligen Liebe herahgeddrnpft sind."

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 79

TO "AXfa Kai rl) 'Q (Westcott and
Hort; 7-6 dXijia Kal rb m, Tisch
endorf, cd. viii.), " The Alpha and
the Omega" (the first and the last
letters in the Greek alphabet), or
the Beginning and the End. A
name applied to God or Christ, as
a symbol of eternal divinity, three
times — i. 8; xxi. 6; xxii. 13 (in
the text. rec. also i. 11) ; comp. a
similar designation of Jehovah
(" the first and the last"), Isa. xli.
4; xliv. 6.
dXXijXoui'a, alleluia ( Hebrew
ni"liin), i.e. praise ye Jehovah,
xix. 1, 3, 4, 6. Comp. Ps. civ. 35.
diro-XXvmv, Apollyon (i. e. Destroy
er), ix. 11.
dfiKog (so Tischend., W. and Hort,
for dpKTog of the text, rec), a
bear, xiii. 2.
Paaaviapog, torment, ix. 5; xiv. 11 ;
xviii. 7, 10, 15.
pdrpaxog, frog, xvi. 13.
PfjpvXXoQ, beryl (a precious stone
of sea-green color), xxi. 20.
l3ip\apiSiov, a little book, x. 2, 8, 9,
10. In ver. 8, W. and H. read
PijiXiov.
$uTpvg, cluster (of grapes), xiv. 18.
^iaaivog, byssine, of fine linen, xviii.
12, 16 ; xix. 8 (jSvaaog, fine linen,
occurs xviii. 12 in text. rec. for
piaaivog, and also in Luke xvi.
19).
SpdKmv, dragon, xii. 3, 4, 7, 13, 16,
17 ; xiii. 2, 4, 11 ; xvi. 13 ; xx. 2.
iyXptm, to anoint, iii. 18.
iKKEvrim, to pierce, i. 7 ^also John
xix. 37).
IXtiivog, miserable, iii. 17 (the com

par. iXteir'OTcpoi in 1 Cor. xv.
ivSoprjaic, building, xxi. 18.
i^oKoaioi, six hundred, xiii. 18.
iaairig, jasper, iv. 3.
KardSiepa, a curse (for the texL rec.
Karavd^tpa), xxii. 8.
Karaafpayi^m, to seal, \-. 1.
Kaipa, heat, vii. 16 ; xvi. 9.
Kepdvwpi (Kipavvvm), to mi.x (wine
with water), to pour out, to fill (a
cup with the wine already pre
pared), xiv. 10; xviii. 6.
Kpi^rj, barley, vi. 6.
KpvaraXXi^m, to be as crystal, xxi.
II.
KpuffroXXoc, crystal, iv. 6 ; xxii. 1.
KUKXiiSer, round about, iv. 3, 4, 8 ; v,
IL
Xi^avmrug, censer, viii. 3, 5.
XiTrapog, dainty, xviii. 14.
paZog, breast (for paaroc), i. 13.
pdppapog, marble, xviii. 12.
paaadopai, to gnaw, xvi. 10.
prjpog, thigh, xix. 16.
'opCKog, company, xviii. 17.
'opprjpa, violence, xviii. 21.
opveov, bird, xviii. 2; xix. 17, 21.
oipd, tail, ix. 10, 19 ; xii. 4.
irdpSaXig, leopard, xiii. 2.
ireptSim, to bind about, xi. 44.
iroSijprjg, garment down to the foot
(Xtrmv), i. 13.
iroXep'tm, to make war, ii. 16 ; xii. 7 ;
xiii. 4; xvii. 14; xix. 11 (only
once besides in Jas. iv. 2).
irvptvog, of fire, ix. 17.
irvppog, red, vi. 4 ; xii. 3.
p'tSa, chariot, xviii. 13.
pvirapEvopai, to be filthy, xxii. 11.
aaXiriarfjg, trumpeter, xviii. 22.

80 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

aair^eipog, sapphire, xxi. 19.
adpSiog, adpSiov, sardius, iv. 3 (for
adpSivoi^ ; xxi. 20.
aapS6w%, sardonyx, xxi. 20.
atpiSaXig, fine flour, xviii. 13.
aiSrjpog, iron, xviii. 12.
apdpaySog, emerald, xxi. 19.
arprjvog, luxury, xviii. 3.
a^di^m, aiparrm, to slay, v. 6, 9, 12;
vi. 4, 9 ; xiii. 3, 8 ; xviii. 24 (also
3 John iii. 12).
raXavridiog (adj.), weighing a tal
ent, xvi. 21.
ro^ov, bow, vi. 2.
roirdZiov, .topaz, xxi. 20.
vaKivSiog, jacinth, xxi. 20.
vdXivog, of glass, iv. 6 ; xv. 2.
i;aXoc, glass, xxi. 18, 21,

fappaKiig, fappaKog, sorcerer, xxi,
8,15.
XaXKrjS'mv, chalcedony, xxi. 19.
xXiapoe, lukewarm, iii. 16.
xKg'^ii.aKoaioi i^fjKovra «'?, six
hundred and sixty-six, xiii. 18.
The mystical number of the
beast. Ireneeus already mentions
another reading, 616. It is re
markable that both numbers give
the name Ner-o (n) Ccesar (066=
the Hebrew "iDp "ii"?, 616=the
Latin Nero Ccesar).
XOivi^, measure, vi. 6.
Xpuo-oXt&of , chrysolite, xxi. 20.
Xpvaoirpaaig, chrysoprase, xxi. 20.
Xpvaom, to deck, xvii. 4 ; xviii. 16.
Q, Omega, i. 8 ; xxi. 6 ; xxii. 13.

THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
GEEEK TESTAMENT.
Tlie idiosyncrasies of the NeAv Testament Avriters
furnish a strong argument for the apostolic author
ship. They differ in vocabulary and style,' as well
as in the depth and power of thought, frora all the
preceding and all the succeeding authors. The
Christian Church has always felt this, and hence
has given to the New Testaraent a conspicuous
isolation among religious books.
The Apostolic Fathers, so called ( Clement of
Kome, Polycarp, Ignatius), and the Apologists of
the second century (Justin Martyr and others), be
long to another generation of Christians ; their
Greek has no more the inforraing Hebrew spirit
and coloring of men born and bred on the soil of

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 81
the old dispensation ; they allude to secular and
ecclesiastical surroundings which did not exist in
the apostolic age, and altogether they breathe a dif
ferent atmosphere. The epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians, and that of Polycarp to the Philippians,
come nearest to the epistles of Paul aud John, but
even they are separated from them by a very great
distance. Barnabas, Ignatius, Hermas, Papias, Jus
tin Martyr are still further off, and bear no com
parison with the apostles and evangelists. As to
the apocryphal, compared with the canonical. Gos
pels, the difference between thera is as between
night and day.
No transition in the history of the Church is so
sudden, abrupt, and radical as that frorn the apos
tolic to the, post-apostolic age. They are separated
by a clear and sharp line of demarcation. The Chris
tian spirit is the sarae in kind, yet with an astonish
ing difference in degree ; it is the difference betAveen
inspiration and illumination, betAveen creative genius
and faithful meraory, betAveen the original voice and
the distant echo, between the clear gushing fountain
frora the rock and the turbid stream, God himself
has established an impassable gulf between his oAvn
life-giving Avord and the writings of mortal men,
that future ages might have a certain guide and
standard in finding the Avay of salvation. The
apostolic age is the age of miracles, and tlie New
Testaraent is the life and light of all subsequent
ages of the church.

CHAPTER SECOND.
MANUSCBIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Literature m tlie So-urces of the Text and on Textual. Criticism
of the Neio Testament. ,
I. Peolegomena to the CKiricAL Editions.
Jo. Jac. Wetstein : 'H Kaivfj AiaSrjKrj. Novum Testamentum Grcecum
editionis recepta cum lectionibus varianlibus, etc. Amstel. 1751-52, 2 tom.
fol. Prolegomena in tom. i. pp. 1-222; tom. ii. pp. 3-15, 449-454, 741-
743. Jo. a AC. Griksbach; Novum Testamentum Greece, Ed. secunda. Halse
Sax. et Lond. 1796-1806, 2 vols., Svo. Ed. tertiam emend, et auctam cur.
David Schulz (vol. i. Berolini, 1827). Priefaiiones et Prolegomena (vol. i,
pp. iii.-lvi., i.-cxxvii.). Also his Symbolce CrilioB (1785-93), with his
Melelemata, and Commentarius Criticus in Textum Grcecum N. T. (1798
and 1811).
I. Makt. Augustin. Scholz : A'. T. Gr. Textum ad fidem lestium criti
corum recensuit, etc. Lips. 1830-36, 2 vols. 4to. Prqlegg. vol. i. pp. i.-clxxii, ;
vol. ii. pp. i.-lxiii. Also his Biblisch-Krilische Reise, Leipzig u. Sorau, 1823.
Cae. Lachmann: Novum Testamentum Grcece et Laline. Berolini,
1842 and 1850, Svo ; Prcefatio, vol. i. pp. v.-lvi. ; vol. ii. pp. iii.-xxvi.
Comp. also Lachmann's article in explanation and defence of his critical
system, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken for 1830, No. IV. pp. 817-845.
Aesoth. (Germ. Lobegott) Frid. Const. Tisch endokf: Novum
Testamentum Grace. A d antiquissimas testes denuo recensuit, apparatum
crilicum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem isagogicam pris-
texuit. Editio septima. Lips. 1859, 2 vols. 8vo. Prolegomena, vol. i.
pp. xiii.-cclxxviii. The text of this edition is superseded by the editio
octava critica maior (Lips. 1869-72, 2 vols.). The new Prolegomena, which
the author did not live to finish, have been prepared by Dr. Gregory, with
the aid of Dr. Ezra Abbot, and are now in course of publication at Leipsic.
When published, they will supersede the Prolegg. of the 7th ed.
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles : The Greek New Testament, edited
from Ancient Authorities, with the Latin Version of Jerome, from the Codex

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 83
Amiatinus. London, published in parts from 1857 to 1879, 1 vol. ito.
The 7th part (published in 1879, after the death of Dr. Tregelles) contains
the Prolegomena, with Addenda and Corrigenda, compiled and edited by
Eev. Dr. Hort and Eev. A. W. Streane. Other works of Tregelles, see
below, sub II.
Henry Alford : The Greek Testament. London, 6th ed. 1868, etc. ;
Prolegomena, vol. i. chs. vi. and vii. pp. 73-148. See also vols, ii.-iv.
Westcott and Hort : Introduction and Appendix to their New Testa
ment in Greek, forming a separate vol., Carabridge and London, 1881.
Amer. ed. (from English plates). New York (Harpers), 1882. Dr. Hort
prepared the Introd. and Append. They are of the greatest value.
II. Special Works on Textual Criticism.
Sa3I. Prid. Tregelles : An A ccount of the Printed Text of the Greek
New Testament, with Remarks on ils Revision vpon Critical Principles.
London (Bagster & Sons), 1854. By the same: Inir-oduction io the
Textual Criticism of Ihe New Test. London, 1860. This is a separate
reprint of the first part of the fourth volume of Horne's Introd., 10th ed.
London, 1856; with "Additions" and "Postscript" in the llth ed. 1860,
14th ed. 1877. Very valuable.
Samuel Davidson ; A Treatise on Biblical Criticism, Exhibiting a Sys
tematic View of that Science. Edinb. and London, 1852, 2 vols. The sec
ond vol. treats of the New Test.
J. Scott Porter: Principles of Text. Criticism. Lond. 1848 (pp. 515).
Ab. K.UENEN : Criiices et Hermeneutices N. T. Lineamenta. L. Bat. 1858.
Ed. Eeuss: Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Grad. Brunsvigse, 1872
(pp. 313). The raost condplete list of all the printed editions of the Greek
Testament, supplemented in this book. See below.
Fr. H. Ambrose Scrivener: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism
of the New Testainent, 1861 ; 2d ed., thoroughly revised, Cambridge and
London, 1874 (607 pages); 3d ed. in press (1882), Upon the whole the
best separate work on the subject in the English language, Comp, also
Scrivener's Six Lectures on the Text ofthe New Testament, Cambridge and
London, 1876 ; his Collation of about Twenty Greek MSS. of the Holy
Gospels, deposited in the British Museum, etc., with a Critical Introduction,
Cambridge, 1853; his Exact Transcript ofthe Codex Augiensis, to which
is added a Full Collation of Fifly Manuscripts, with a Critical Introduc
tion (the latter also issued separately), Cambridge, 1859, Svo ; and his
Collation of Ihe Codex Sinaiticus wilh ihe Recdoed Text ofthe Nem Testa
ment, Cambridge, 2d ed. 1867.

84 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Thomas Sheldon Green; A Course of Developed Criticism on Passaged
ofthe N. T. mater-ially affected by Various Readings, London (S. Bagster
& Sons), no date, but published in 1856.
C. E. H.vmmond : Outlines of Textual CriUdsm Applied to the Nea
Testament. Oxford, 1872; 2d ed. 1876; 3d ed. 1880.
Ed-ward C. Mitchell: Critical Handbook to ihe New Testament.
London and Andover, 1880 (the part on textual criticism, pp. 67-143,
revised by Ezra Abbot); French translation, Paris, 1881. Very brief,
but convenient.
George E. Merrill : The Slory of ihe Manuscripts. Boston, 1881,
3d ed. . Popular.
III. Critical Introductions to the New Testa.ment.
The Critical Introductions usually incorporate an account of the written
and printed text of the New Test., and discuss the principles of criticism.
So Eichhorn, Michaelis (ed. by Herbert Marsh, Lond. 1823, 6 vols.),
Hug, De Wette, Bleek (3d ed.), Eeuss (5th ed. 1874, ii. §§ 351-420),
and Horne (in the 14th ed. of the 4th vol., which was prepared by
Tregelles, 1856 and 1860 , see above, sub II.).
IV. Articles on Bible Text.
Tischendorf and Von Gebhardt, in Herzog's Real-Encyk. (new cd.
ii. 400-437); translated and revised by Dr. Ezra Abbot for Schaff's
" Eelig. Encycl." 1882, vol. i. 268 sqq.
Canon Westcott in Smith's Did. of the Bible (vol. iii. 2112-2139,
Amer. ed. by Hackett and Abbot).
Dr. Frederic Gardiner (Prof, in the Berkeley Divinity School,
Middletown, Conn.) : The Prindples of Textual Criticism, in the " Biblioth.
Sacra" of Andover for April, 1875, reprinted and revised as an Appendix
to his Harmony ofthe Four Gospels in Greek, Andover, 1876 and 1880.
Two essays of Dr. Ezra Abbot (Prof, iu Cambridge, Mass.) : one in
Anglo-American Bible Revision, Philadelphia, 2d ed. 1879 (pp. 86-98),
twice reprinted in London, 1880; and another in The New Revision and ils
iS^arfy (reprinted frora "The Sunday-School Times"), Phila. 1881 (pp. 5-37;
reprinted in part in Dr. B. H. Kennedy's Ely Lectures on the Revised Ver
sion ofthe N. T., London, 1882, pp. 91-100).
The Eevision of 1881 has called forth a large number of essays on the
subject in nearly all the leading English and American Eeviews; notably
among them the attacks of Dean Burgon in three articles in the London
" Quarterly Eeview " for Oct. 1881, and Jan. aud April, 1882 ; with replies

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT, 85
from Dr. W. Sanday in the " Contemporary Eeview" for Dec. 1881 ; Canon
Farrar, ibid. March, 1882; from an anonymous writer in "The Church
Quarterly Eeview," Landon, for Jan. 1882 ; from Prof. B. B. AVarfield in
the " Presbyterian Quarterly Eeview," N. York, for April, 1882 ; from two
members of the New Testament (English) Company (supposed to be
Bishop Ellicott and Archdeacon Palmer) iu The Revisers and the Greejc
Text of the New Testament, London, 1882, etc., etc.
SOUECES OF THE TEXT.
The text of the New Testament is derived from
three sources — Greek Manuscripts, ancient Transla
tions, and Quotations of the Fathers and other
ancient writers. The Manuscripts are the most di
rect, and hence the most important, source ; although
in special cases the other two may be of equal im
portance. The concurrent testimony of all three
sources is conclusive.
The original autographs' of the apostolic writers,
whether Avritten by themselves or dictated to clerks,'
are lost beyond all reasonable hope of discover3^
They are not even raentioned by the post-apostolic
authors as being extant anywhere, or as having beeh
seen by them." They perished probably before the
' Autqgrapha, dpxirvira, iSioxtipa.
' Notarii, amanuenses, raxpypaipot, KaXXiypaipoi. Such are mentioned
or implied, Eom. xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18 ; Gal. vi. 11 ; 2 Thess.
iii. 17. A distinction was made between the noiarius, or the rapid writer,
the librar-ius, or calligraphist, the beautiful writer, who carefully trans
cribed the first copy, and the corrector, who answered to our modern
proof-reader. ' Tertullian (De Preiser: Hmr. c. 36), with his usual rhetorical fervor,
points the heretics to " the apostolic churches in which the very thrones
of the apostles still preside in their places (cathedra apostolorum suis locis
prasident), in which thdr own authentic letters are read (apud quas ipsa
aulhentica litlera eorum redtantur), uttering the voice and representing

86 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
close of the first century, or soon after they were
published, that is, copied and distributed. The apos
tles and evangelists did not write on Babylonian
bricks, or Sinaitic rocks, or Egyptian AA'alls, or stones,
or tablets of wood or brass, but on paper, with the
reed-pen and ink.' The paper then in common use
Avas made of Egyptian papyrus (hence our word
paper), and very brittle and perishable." Jerome
the face of every one of them." These "authentic letters" or writings
may be either the autographs, or the Greek originals as distinct from
translations, or genuine and complete copies as opposed to the mutilated
copies of the heretics (e.g. Marcion's Luke); but in any case the testimony
is too isolated and rhetorical to be entitled to credit. Irenasus, who wrote
twenty years earlier (about A.D. 180), knew different copies with two dif
ferent readings of the mystical number in Apoc. xiii. 18, without being
able to appeal to John's autograph (Adv. Hmr. v. 30, 1); and Origen
knew no older text of the Gospel of Johii than the copy of Heracleon
(In Joh. tom. xiii. 11). The knowledge of the autographs seems to have
vanished with the autographs themselves. How few of the MSS. of moji-
ern books are preserved after they have been used by the printer. See
Tischendorf, in Herzog, ii. 400; Tregelles, in Horne, iv. 24; Scrivener,
p. 446. ¦ These three writing materials are mentioned in 2 John 12; 3 John 13;
2 Cor. iii. 3 : o x"p-''1C (I^*'- charta), a leaf of paper, made of the layers
of papyrus, o KaXapog (calamus), the reed-pen, and ro piXav (neuter
subst. from piXag, black), the ink (atramentum). The best qualities of
paper used for letter-writing were called by the Romans charta Augusta,
from their emperor; Liviana, from his wife; Saitica, etc. See Pliny's
Nat. Hist. xiii. 12 (23, 24).
= The papyrus (from the Egyptian papu) is a water-plant or reed
which was abundantly cultivated in the valley of the Nile, especially the
Delta (but not now), and which still grows freely in Sicily, on the Lake
of Merom in Palestine, the Niger, aud the Euphrates. The paper was
made of slices of its stem. All the Egyptian books, even of the earliest
Pharaonic times, are written on auch paper; in Europe it carae into
common use at the time of Alexander the Great, and prevailed till the
tenth century, when cotton and linen paper took its place.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 87
mentions that in his day the library of Pamphilus
of Csesarea, which then was not a century old, Avas
already partially destroyed. All ancient books
written on that material have perished, with the
exception of the papyrus rolls that were accidentally
preserved in Egyptian tombs and mummies, or uur
der the ashes of Mount Vesuvius at Herculaneum
(since T9).' Parchment,'' made frora the skin of
animals, is far more costly and durable, and was
used for the raanuscrijits of tlie Pentateuch in the
time of Josephus, but not for ordinary purposes ;
Ave have no MSS, of the- Hebrew Scriptures older
than the tenth century,' and no parchment copies
of the New Testament older than the fourth. The
"parchments" which Paul ordered Avere probably
sacred books of the Old Testament,''
God has not chosen to exerapt the Bible from the
fate of other books, but has wisely left room for the
' The papyri of Egypt are well preserved, and contain poems; novels,
prayers for the dead, etc. Those of Herculaneum have suffered much
from the eruption of Vesuvius, and are of little account if we judge from
the speciraens which have been unrolled, and published in 15 vols, foh
^ The name (Fr, parchemin, from Pergamena) is derived from the city
of Pergaraura in Asia Minor, and the invention is traced to Euraenes, King
of Pergamum, 197-159 B.C., but skins of animals were so used long before
that time. The common parchment is prepared frbm sheepskins ; the finer
Variety, called vellum, from the skins of young calves, goats, and antelopes.
? The oldest MS. known is the MS. of the Prophets with the Baby
lonian punctuation, from the year A.D, 916; the oldest complete MS. of
the Hebrew Bible, preserved in the library of St. Petersburg, dates from
A.D. 1009. Sce DiUraann, in Herzog, ii. 397.
* 1 Tim. iv. 13. Paul ordered his cloak (tpeXorrjv), and the books (ra
jSijSXia, probably papyrus rolls), and especially the parchments (rds
pipPpdvav).

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

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 89
considerations, as notably so in the famous passage
affecting the divinity of Christ, Kom, ix, 5, wliich
adraits of three, if not seven, different punctuations
and constructions,'
The first and second generation of Christians
must not be judged after our modern standard.
Twenty years elapsed before the first book of the
New Testament Avas written. The spoken word,
which carries with it the magnetic power of per
sonality, was the chief instruraent of promoting
Christianity (as it is to-day in heathen lands),"
The disciples of the apostles continued to live in
the eleraent of their living teaching and example.
Hence, there are but few literal quotations from the
New Testaraent in the scanty writings of the Apos
tolic Fathers and Apologists down to the middle of
the second century. They had no bibliographical
curiosity ; they cared raore for the substance than
the forra ; they expected, at least raost of them, the
speedy end of the world, Avhen Christ himself would
¦ Much has been written on this passage. The doctrinal question in
volved is whether Paul 'calls Christ God, or not; in other words, whether
Sitog refers to the precedhig o Xpiarog, or to God the Father. The A. V.
and the E. V. ( in text ) take the former view. The E. V., however,
recognizes the other construction in the margin. The whole subject has
been ably and exhaustively discussed on both sides by two members of
the American Eevision Comraittee, Dr. Dwight and Dr. Abbot, in tbe
Journal ofthe Society nf Biblical Lit. and Exegesis for 1881, Middletown,
¦Conn., 1882, pp. 22-55 and 87-154.
" Clement of Alexandria records the curious and almost incredible tradi
tion that when the Eoraans requested Mark to write his Gospel from the
.lips of the apostle Peter, he neither hindered nor encouraged it, as if in
his estiraation it was a.raatter of little importance. Euseb. H. E. vi. 14;
see the note of Heinichen, i. 279,

90 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
appear in glory ; their chief concern was to prove
the power of Christ's teaching by holy living and
dying. But this fact, of course, does not detract one iota
from the inestimable value of the primitive text
and the extreme importance of its restoration. For
us the written or printed New Testament is the
only reliable substitute for the personal teaching of
Christ and his apostles.
In the absence of the autographs, Ave raust depend
upon copies, or secondary sources. But these are,
fortunately, far raore nuraerous and trustworthy for
the Greek Testament than for any other book of
antiquity, "In the variety and fulness of the evi
dence on which it rests, the text of the New Testa
ment stands, absolutely and unapproachably alone
among ancient prose Avritings," ' " In all classical
literature," says Tischendorf, "there is nothing
which even distantly may be corapared in riches
Avith the textual sources of the New Testament,'"
Of some of the first Greek and Koman classics barely
half a dozen raanuscript copies have corae down to
us ; while of the Greek Testament we have hundreds
of copies, besides many ancient translations and
innumerable patristic quotations.
For all intents and purposes, then, the Ncav Testa
ment has been preserved to the Christian Avorld by
its own intrinsic value, and by a Providence which
is equal to a rairacle, Avithout violating the ordinary
laAVS of history or superseding human exertion,
' Westcott and Hort, Gr, Test, p, 661,
' Die Sinaibibel, p. 73,

Specimens of the Chief MSS. of the New Testament,
*?r A.eNejriONe<poEoYN

t

\It/f kohT^i*

Codex VA-riCANUs : Fourth Century, — Mark xvi. 8.
araaiQ Kai ovStm ov | Sev eiirov tipo^evv \ to yap : |
Kara \ papKOV.
f¥, (The accents and breathings are by a later hand.),
% V—r'N ApX*ttM NOXOrOCKAIOAorbCH
If 'n|*OCTONlQ"M'KA.!0CHb4OXOroC-
Codex Alexandrinus: Fifth Century, — John i. 1.
Ev apxTj rjvo Xoyog Kai o Xoyo£ q | Trpof rov &[eo]i' • Kai ^[eo]!; rjv o Xoyog.
OYAenoTeeKninrei ¥¦
Codex Claromontanus : Sixtii Century ; Greek Text. — 1 Cor. xiii. 8.
licifnqTLixnbGxcidleT
Codex Claromontanus : Sixth Century ; Latin Text.— 1 Cor. xiii. 8.
caritas | nnmquam excidet
TH"N eK l<AH CFAW
Toyicy
Codex Laudx.inus : Sixth Century ;* Greek Text, — Acts xx. 28.
rr)v tKkXriaiav | rov Klppwlv

Codex 'CoLBERTiNOS : Eleventh Century; the "Queen of the Cursives." — Luke i. 8, 9.
j£i rija iprjpepiaa dvrov ivavri rou K\vpio'^v Kara rb ISocr rija 'lepareiaa. tXaxtv rov Svpid
, Codex Letcestkensis : Fourteenth Century. — 1 Tim. iii. 16.
rrjg titaePt(7)iag pvarrjpiov' o S[£o]g ifavtpm^rj iv aap\ ki' .'iSiKaim^ij 'tv irviiparf m^i) dyyeXoic "
Codex PuRPuKEns : Sixth Century,— Joha *v, 20, ^odex Sinaiticus : Fourth Centuiy,— 1 Tim, iii, 16,
rou Xoyow ov „ j.,jg evae^aag \ ia>artjpiov{Sie late corr.] og i.

LocaTasesTXUTecnOS MoreNHcecept^
Codex' AMiATTNna, A.D. 541: the oldest known MS. of the Vulgate.— Codex Sinaiticus: Fourth Centurj'.— John i. 18.
Acts vii. 6. Locutus est autem d[cu]9 ¦ 'J voytvrte B{co]i; [p mv con.-^ eig rav

MANUSCKIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 93
GENEEAL CHAEACTEE OF MANUSCKIPTS.'
Before the invention of the art of printing — that
.is, before the raiddle of the fifteenth century — books
could be multiplied only by the laborious and costly
process of transcription. This was the work of
slaves, professional scribes, and raonks. For the
preservation of the priceless treasures of ancient
Greek and Eoraan literature, and the apostolic and
' The art of reading ancient MSS. and determining their age and value
is a special science, called diplomatics, and, in a wider sense, palaography.
The founder of it is Jean MabiUon, of the Benedictine order, in his De Re
Diplomatica, Paris, 1681, fol.; with a supplement, 1704; new ed. 1789, 2
vols. fol. The most important work on diplomatics is the Nouveau traite
de diplomatique, par deux religieux benedictins \ Toustain and Tassin],
Par. 1750-65, 6 vols. 4to. The principal works on Greek palsEography
are : Montfaucon, Palaographia Graca, sive de oiiu et progressu littera
rum Grmcarum, Par. 1708, fol.; Bast, Commenlalio Palm'ographica, ap
pended to G. H. Schaefer's edition of Gregorius Cprinthius De Dialectis,
Leipz. 1811; Silvestre, PaMographie universelle, Par. 1839, fol., tom. ii.
(splendid fac-similes) ; AVestwood, Palmographia Saci-a Pictoria, Lond.
1843; Wattenbach, Anldlung zur griech. Palmographie, 2d ed. Leipz.
1877, 4to, and 12 plates, fol.; id., Schrifttafeln zur Gesch. der griech.
Sehrift und zum Studium der griech. Palaogr., 2 vols., Berl. 1876-77, fol. ;
Wattenbach and A. von Velsen, Exempla Codicum Grmcorum litt. minusc.
scriptqrum, Heidelb. 1878, fol., 50 photogr. plates ; " Palseographical So
ciety of London," Fac-similes of Ancient MSS., edited by Bond and
Thompson, Parts i.-xi., Lond. 1873-81, fol., still continued; Wattenbach,
Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter, 2d ed. Leipz. 1875, 8vo (an excellent
work); Gardthausen, Griechische Palmogra))hie, Leipz. 1879, large Svo
(the most important recent treatise).
A good compendious introduction to Latin palaeography is Wattenbach's ¦
Anldtung zur lat. Palmogr., 3d ed. Leipz. 1878, 4to (90 pages). L. A.
Chassant's Diet, des abreviaiions lat. et frangaises, 3° ed. Par. 1866, 16mo,
is very helpful in reading Latin MSS. or early printed books. Comp. also
the great works of Wailly, Elements de paleogr-aphie ; Zangemeister and
Wattenbach's Exempla Codicum Latinor-um, etc.

94 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
patristic writings, the Avorld is chiefly indebted to
the raonks of the Middle Ages,
" The hand that wrote doth moulder in the tomb ;
The book abideth till the day of doom,"
The manuscripts of the Greek Testament have
corae down to us not in continuous rolls, like those
of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Egyptian and
Herculaneum papyri, but in ordinary book form of
folio, quarto, or octavo, or sraaller size, in sheets
folded and stitched together. Hence they are called
Codices^ The pages are nsually broken into two,
very rarely into three or four columns.
The number of MSS. now known is over seven
teen hundred, including all classes, and is gradually
increasing with discoveries in ancient libraries and
convents, especially in the East, But many of them
have not yet been properly exarained and utilized
for textual criticisra,"
They differ in age, extent, and value. They were
written between the fourth and sixteenth centuries;
' Codex, or caudex, means, originally, ihe trunk of a tree, stock, stem;
then a block of wood split or sawn into planks, leaves, or tablets (tabella),
and fastened together ; hence a look, as the ancients wrote on tablets of
wood smeared with wax, the leaves being laid one upon another. The
word was afterwards applied to books of paper and parchment,
= The total number of MSS. recorded by Dr. Scrivener, including
Lectionaries, is 158 uncials and 1605 cursives (Introduction; p. 269, corap.
p. X.). But his list is incomplete. He gives an Index of about 1277
separate Greek MSS. of the New Testament, arranged according to the
countries where they are now deposited (pp. 571-684). He assigns 3 to
Denmark, 293 to England, 238 to France, 96 to Germany, 6 to Holland,
3 to Ireland, 368 to Italy, 81 to Eussia, 8 to Scotland, 23 to Spain, 1 to
Sweden, 14 to Switzerland, 104 to Turkey, 39 unknown. See also Edward
C. Mitchell, Critical Handbook, Tables viii, ix. and x.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 95
the oldest date from the middle of the fourth cen
tury, and rest, of course, on still older copies, Fcav
manuscripts of Greek or Koman classics are older
than the ninth or tenth century. The Medicean
MS, of Vergilius (Virgil) is of the fourth century,
the Vatican MS, of Dion Cassius of the fifth. The
oldest MSS, of ^.schylus and Sophocles date from
the tenth, those of Euripides from the twelfth, those
of the Annals of Tacitus from the eleventh century
(Mediceus I, for the first half, and Mediceus II. for
the second half). The oldest complete copy of
Homer is from the thirteenth century, though con
siderable papyrus fragments have been recently dis
covered which may date from the fifth or sixth. Of
the Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius
only one complete MS. is known to exist, that in
fhe Vatican library, and it has no title, and no in
scriptions of the several books ; the other Vatican
and three Florentine MSS, contain only extracts of
the imperial book.
It is not impossible, though not very probable, that
MSS, of the New Testaraent raay yet be discovered
that are older than any now known. But we must
remember that the last and most cruel persecution
of the Church under Domitian in the beginning of
the fourth century was especially destructive of
Bibles, which were correctly supposed to be the
main feeders of the Christian religion,
Sorae MSS. cover the whole New Testaraent,
some only parts ; and hence they are divided into
five or six classes, according as they contain the
Gospels, or the Acts, or the Catholic Epistles, or the

96 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
Paulitie Epistles, or the Apocalypse, Or only the^
Scripture lessons from the Gospels or Acts and
Epistles (the lectionaries). Those which cover more
than one of these classes, or the whole New Testa
raent, are nurabered in the lists two, three, or more
times, Tlie Gospel MSS, are the most numerous,
those of the Apocalypse the least numerous. Some
MSS, are written with great care, some contain many'
errors of transcribers ; no one is free from error any
more than a printed book. Many of them are orna
mented with illustrations and pictures. Words of
frequent occurrence are usually abridged, as S'lr^
S'toe (God), Kcr=Kvpiog (Lord), v(j=vi6g (Son), 10=
'IjjtroDe (Jesus), T^o- — Xpiarog (Christ), nrip = ¦Trari'ip
(Father), •!rva = irviiiiiia (Spirit); also arip for aioTrip
(Saviour), avog for av^pwtrog (raan), and ovvoa for
ovpavog (heaven),' Most of thera give the Greek
text only, a few the Latin version also (hence called
codices hilingues or GrcBco-Latin'i), e. g. Cod, D (or
Bezse) for the Gospels and Acts, Cod, D (Claromon-
tanus) for the Pauline Epistles, and Cod, A (San-
gallensis) for the Gospels,
They were mostly Avritten in the East, where the
Greek continued to be a living language, chiefly in
Alexandria, Constantinople, and the convents of
Mount Athos, but the best have found their way to
the libraries of Eome, Paris, London, and St, Peters
burg, In Europe (with the exception of Greece,
Lower Italy, and Sicily) the knoAvledge of Greek dis
appeared after the fifth century till the revival of

' See ou these abbreviations Scrivener, pp. 46, 47.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 97
learning iu the fifteenth, and the Latin Vulgate sup
plied the place of the Greek and Hebrew Bible.
A few Greek Testaments may have been written in
Italy or Gaul, as the Codex Bezae ; perhaps also the
Codex Eogsanensis, which was discovered in Calabria
in 1879, but Von Gebhardt and Harnack date it
from the East as a gift of a Byzantine emperor.
"Westcott thinks it not unlikely that Codex B repre
sents the text preserved in the original Greek Church
at Eome.'
All the MSS., whether complete or defective, are
divided, according to the size of letters, into two
classes, itncial and cursive. The former are M-ritten
in large or capital letters (J.itierm unciales or inajus-
cuIcb), the latter in small letters (litterce min,uscul(B)
or in current hand." The uncial MSS. are older,
from the fourth to the tenth century, and hence
more valuable, but were discovered and used long
after the cursive. Tavo of them, the Sinaitic and
the Vatican, date from the raiddle of thc fourth
century. One only is complete, the Sinaitic.
Besides tlie distinct MSS., there are over four
hundred Lectionaries or service-books, Avhich contain
only the Scripture lessons read in public Avorship,
' Com. on SI. John, Introd. p. Ixxxix.
" Undalis (adj. from unda, the twelfth part of anything; hence the
English ounce and the German Unze) means containing a twelfth, and, as
a measure of length, the twelfth part of afoot, or an inch. It is not to be
taken as literally describing the size of the letters. Mujusculus (adj. dimin.
from major), somewhat greater or larger, when applied to letters, had the
same meaning, and was opposed to minusculus (from minus), rather small.
But there are also very small uncials, as on the papyrus rolls of Her
culaneum. 7

98 MANUSCEIPTS , OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT.
either from the Gospels alone (called Evangelistcmia
or Evangeliaria), or from the Acts and Epistles
{Praxapostoli), or from the Epistles {Epistolaria),
or from the Gospels and Epistles {Apostoloevangelia).
They are sometimes iraportant witnesses to the text
as far as they contaiu it.
A, UNCIAL MANUSCKIPTS,
The uncial MSS, are designated (sjnce "Wetstein,
1751), for the sake of brevity, by the capital letters
of the Latin alphabet (A, B, C, D, etc), with the help
of Greek letters for a feAV MSS, beyond Cod. Z, and
the Hebrew letter Aleph (x) for the Sinaitic MS.,
which was discovered last and precedes Cod. A.'
As there are different series according to the books
they contain, the same letter is soraetiraes used two
or three times, Tlius D designates Codex Bezse in
Cambridge for the Gospels and Acts, but also Codex
Claroniontanus in Paris for the Pauline Epistles,
E is used for three MSS., one for the Gospels (at
Basle),, one for the Acts (at Oxford), and one for the
Epistles of Paul (at St. Petersburg). To avoid con-

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

MANUSCKIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 99
fusion, it has been proposed to raark the difference
by adding a nuraber ; thus B is the famous Vatican
Codex whieh extends to Heb, ix, 14 ; but B (2) or
Bg is the Vatican MS, which contains the Apoca
lypse ; D is the Codex Bezee for the Gospels and
Acts, D (2) or Dj the Cod. Clareraont. for the Pauline
Epistles, The cursive MSS, are designated by Arabic
nuraerals, but with the same inconvenience of sev
eral series.
The uncials are written on costly and durable
vellum or parchment, on quarto or small folio pages
of one or two, very rarely of three or four, columns.
The older ones have no division of words or sen
tences except for paragraphs, no accents or orna
mented letters,' and but very few pause -raarks.
Hence it requires sorae practice to read them with
ease. The following would be a specimen in English
frora the Gospel of John (i. 1, 2) :
INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWOED
ANDTHE WOEDWASWITHGODAND
THEWOEDAVASGODTHESAMEWAS INTHEBEGINNINGWITHGODALL
The date and place, whicii were not marked on
MSS. earlier than the ninth century," can be only
approximately ascertained frora the material, the
» The arabesques at the end of the books in S B, etc., might be con
sidered ornaments.
' The earliest dated New Test, uncial seems to be P of the Gospels, with
the date 844 (according to Tischendorf's explanation ofthe inscription;
see Scrivener, p. 140), or 979 (according to Gardthausen, p. 159) ; S of the
Gospels is dated 949. The oldest dated cursives are Cod. 461 of the Gos
pels, dated A.D. 835, Cod. 429, A.D. 978, and Cod. 148 of the Acts, A.D.
984. See Scrivener, p. 39, and Gardthausen, pp. 181, 344.

100 , MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
form of letters, the style of writing, the presence or
absence of the Amraonian sections {KiijraXaia, capitu
la) in the Gospels, the Eusebian Canons (or tables
of references to the Ara.mo.nian sections, after' 340,
Avhen Eusebius died), the Euthalian sections in tlie
Acts and Epistles, and the stichometric divisions or
lines {arixoi) corresponding to sentences (both used,
if not first introduced, by.Euthalius, cir, A.D. 458,
in his editions of the Acts and Epistles),' marks
of punctuation (ninth century), etc. ' Sometimes a
second or third hand introduced punctuation and
accents or diflferent readings. Hence the distinc
tion of lectiones a prima mami, marked by a star (*);
. a secunda manu (**, or *, or ^) ; a tertia manu (**^,
or ^, or ''). In Cod. C Tischendorf used small figures
(C*, C^ C^), in Cod. x he used small letters (s*, x", s°).
The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected as late as
the tAvelfth century.
Some MSS. (as Codd. C, P, Q, E, Z, g) have been
written twice over, owing to the scarcity and costli
ness of parchment, and are called codices rescripU,
or palimpsests {iraXi/uxpritTToi) ; the ncAv book being
written between the lines, or across, or in place of
the old Bible text.
Constantine the Great ordered frora Eusebius,
for the churches of Constantinople, the prepara
tion of fifty MSS. of the Bible, to be written " on
artificially wrought skins by skilful calligraphists,"'
' Afterwards these stichometric divisions were abandoned as too costly,
and gave way to dots or other marks between the sentences,
' Eusebius, Vita Const, iv. 36, IlfvriJKoj/ra aupdria iv Sif&ipaK
iyxaraaKevoig . , . virb rtxviriiv KaXXiypapmv. , .

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 101
To judge frora this fact, the nuraber of uncials was
once very large, but most of them perished in tho
Middle Ages.
The whole nuraber noAv known is less than one
hundred. Scrivener reckons 56 for the Gospels
(raost of thera only fragraentary), 14 for the Acts,
6 for the Catholic Epistles, 15 for the Pauline Epis
tles, 5 for the Apocalypse, exclusive of the uncial
lectionaries, which are not raarked by capitals, but
by Arabic numerals, like cursive MSS. of all classes.'
Tischendorf and Von Gebhardt count 67 — namely, 2
of the fourth century, 7 of the fifth, 17 of the sixth,
6 of the seventh, 8 of the eighth, 23 of the ninth,
4 of the tenth (Cod. I being counted three times,
according to its diflferent parts).' The latest and
most complete list was kindly furnished to me in a
private letter by Dr. Ezra Abbot, of Cambridge, as
the result of his own careful researches. He states
the number of distinct uncial MSS. of the New
Testament (not including lectionaries) at present
known as 83. "We have for the Gospels 62 ; for the
Acts 15; for the Catholic Epistles 7; for the Pauline
Epistles 20; and for the Apocalypse 5. This in
cludes the Codex Eossanensis, the Sunderland pa
limpsest, and three or four small fragments not used
by Tischendorf. Dr. Abbot's list is as folloAvs :
Gospels: NABCDEFF'G H I'-^-^-'- Jb K L M N O O"'"**' P Q
R S T T*°' 'Y^'^^^ U'VAA'^''b*'^®^X YZ FA 0abcdefgh j^ gj
n 2 and the Sunderland MS. (Ws, Gregory) =62.
' Scrivener, Introd. p. 72 (2d ed. 1874).
" In Herzog, revised ed., ii. 410 sq. That art. was written in 1878. Dr.
Abbot revised it again in 1882 for Schaff's Rel. Encycl. and for this work.

102 MANUSCKIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Acts: X A B C D E(2) F" G(2) G" H(2) Is-^-s- L(5) P(2) = la.
Cath. : S A B C K(2) L(2) P(2) = 7.
Paul: X ABCD(2) E(3) F(0 F" GOO H(3) P- K(i) L(5) M(0 N(2)
O (2) 0 " (0 P (s) Q (0 K (2) = 20.
Apoc: N AB(2)CP = 5.
"Whole number of distinct. MSS. :
X A B B "P" C D ''^' »''' D P""' E E ""' E p""' F F P""' F " G G •"=' (G P°°')
QbCact) JJ JJnct JJ paul J 1. 2. 3.4.5.6. 7. J b J^ J^ cath. paul J^ L act. cath. paul JJ
JJ paul J^ J^paul Q Qahcdef Q paul Q h (paul) p p act. cath. paul apoc Q Q paul
KRP""1ST (orT")T''»'T''"'«U VAV'^^^^'XTZr A Q^^'i'te^
A S n S and the Sunderland MS. (Ws, Gregory) =83.
Gp""' and A are parts of the same MS., and are here
counted as one. The Codex Sunderlandianus, as
we may call it, consists of considerable palimpsest .
fragraents of all the four Gospels in uncial writing
of perhaps the ninth century, found in a JMencBum
belonging to the Sunderland Library (No. 3252 of
the Catalogue), and recently sold to the British Mu
seum (Add. MSS. 31, 919). They have been de
ciphered by Professors T. K. Abbott and J. P, Ma-
haflfy of Dublin. The text is not of great value.
1. PEIMAEY UNCIALS.
There are fdur uncial MSS. which for antiquity,
completeness, and value occupy the first rank — twd
of the fourth, two of the fifth century ; one complete
(n), two nearly complete (A and B), one defective (C).
To these is usually added Cod. D, as the fifth of the
great uncials, but it contains only the Gospels and.
Acts, and has strange peculiarities. In the Gospels
the text of C, L, T, Z, S, and of A in Mark, is better
than that of A, but in the rest of the New Testa-

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 103
merit A is undoubtedly, after k and B, the most im
portant MS, CODEX SINAITICUS,
'^ (Aleph,), Codex^SmAlTiciJS, formerly in the
Convent of Mount Sinai (hence its name), noAv in
the Iraperial Library at St, Petersburg, It dates
from the rniddle of the fourth century, is written
on fine parchment (13| inches wide by 14-|- high), in
large uncials, Avith four columns to a page (of 48 lines'
each). It has 346^ leaves. It Avas discovered and
secured by the indefatigable Prof, C, Tischendorf,
in the Convent of St, Catharine, at the foot of
Mount Sinai, from which the law of Jehovah Avas
proclaimed for all generations to come, and where
this precious docuraent had been providentially pre
served for raany centuries unknown and unused till-
the fourth of February, 1859, It was transferred first
to Cairo, then to Leipsic, and at last to St, Peters
burg, where it is sacredly kept. The text was printed
at Leipsic, and published at St, Petersburg at the
expense of the Czar, Alexander II,, in celebration bf
the first millenniura of the Eussian erapire, by typo
graphic iraitation from types specially cast, in four
folio volumes,' A photographic fac-simile edition
' Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis
Imperatoris Alexandri II. ex tenebris protraxit in Europam transtuUt ad
iuvandas atque illustrandas sacras litleras edidit Constastikus Tischen
dorf, Petropoli, MDCCCLXIL The first volume contains the dedica
tion to the Emperor (dated Lips, j-^^^; 1862), the Prolegomena, Notes on
the corrections by later hands, and twenty-one plates (in fac-simile);
vols. ii. and iii. contain the Septuagint ; vol. iv. the Greek Testament
(134i leaves), the Epistle of Barnabas (foil, 135-141), and a part of the

to

104; MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Avoiild be still better, but would have cost, over-,
$100,000, and presented many blurred pages.
The Ncav Testanient, together with the Epistle'
of Barnabas and the fragment of Hermas, was also
separately edited by Tiscliendorf in smaller type in
quarto (Leipsic, 1863), in four colurans; aud an
octavo edition in ordinary ty^e {ibid. 1865), He
issued a Collatio Critica of the Sinaitic with the
Elzevir and Vatican texts (Lips. pp. xxii. and 109).
Dr, Scrivener also published a " Full Collation of the
Sinaitic MS, Avith the E,eceived Text of the New
Testament" (Cambridge, 1864; 2d ed, 1867), '
Codex K is the most complete, and also (with the
exception, perhaps, of the "Vatican MS.) the oldest,
or, at all events, one of the two oldest MSS., although-
it Avas last found and used. Tischendorf calls it
"om-nium codicum uncialium solus integer omni-
urnque antiquissimus." . He assigns it to the middle
of the fourth century, or to the age of Eusebius, the
historian, who died in. 340. He thinks it not im
probable that it AA-as one of tlie fifty copies which
Constantine had ordered to be prepared for the
churches of Constantinople in 331, and that it was
sent by the Emperor Justinian to the Convent of
Pastor Hermffi (foil. 142-147J). Three hundred copies of this rare and
costly edition were printed and distributed among crowned heads and
large libraries, except one third of the number, which were placed at the
disposal of Prof. Tischendorf for his private use. There are probably
about a dozen copies of this edition in the United States— in the library
of the Am. Bible Society, in the libraries of the Theol. Seminaries at New
York (Union Sem.), Princeton, Andover, in the Astor Library, the Lenox
Library, in the University libraries of Harvard, Yale, Eochester, Auburn,
etc.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 105
Mount Sinai, Avhich he founded.' It contains large
portions of the Old Testament in the Septuagint
Version (199 leaves), and the whole New Testa
raent, Avithout any omission, together with the Epistle
of Barnabas, all in Greek, and a part of the Pastor
Hermae in Greek. (147^ leaves). It is much disfig
ured by numerous corrections made by the original
scribes or several later writers, especially one of the
fourth century (x*), Avliose emendations are very valu
able, and one of the seventli (x"). It often confirms
Cod. Vaticanus in characteristic readings (as juovoyei/jjc
S'Eoe for i)jo<7, in John i. 18; rrjv tKKXriaiav tov ^eoii
for Kvptov, in Acts xx. 28), and oraissions, as the dox
ology in Matt. vi. 13 ; the end of Mark (xvi. 9-20) ;
the passage of the woman taken in adultery (John
vii. 53-viii. 11) ; lv 'Efiat^, Eph. i. 1. It frequently
agrees, also, with tlie Old ' Latin Version ; but in
many and important cases it supports , other witness
es, and thereby proves its independence," In 1 Tim,

' See Tischendorfs edition of the English New Test., Leips. 1869,
p. xii., and Die Sinaibibel (1871), p. 77. After a more careful inspection of
the Vatican MS. in 1866, he somewhat modilfied his view of the priority
of the Sinaitic over the Vatican MS., and assigned them both to the middle
of the fourth century, maintaining even that one of the scribes of X (who
wrote six leaves, and whom he designates D) wrote the New Testament
pdrt of B. Compare the learned and able essay of Dr. Ezra Abbot
(against Dean Burgon ) : Comparative A nfiquity of the Sinaitic and
Vatican MSS., in the "Journal of the American Oriental Society," vol. x.
(1872), pp. 189-200, and p. 602. Von Gebhardt, in Herzog's Real-Ency-.
khpddie (new ed.), vol. ii. p. 414, pronounces Burgon's attempt to prove
the higher antiquity of the Vatican MS. by fifty to one hundred years
an entire failure.
, " Tischendorf says (Waffen der Finstemiss, etc., p. 22) : ".i thousand
readings of the Sinaiticus, among them exceedingly remarkable and im- ,

106 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
iii. 16 it supports the Alexandrian and Ephraem
MSS. in reading oc E^ttvfjowS'jj for ^eog, but in this
place all three MSS. have "been corrected by a later
hand. It has contributed very much towards the
settlement of the text, and stiraulated the progress
of the revision raoveraent in England, in connec
tion with Tischendorf's Tauchnitz edition of King
James's Version (1869), Avhich gives in foot-notes
the chief readings of the three great uncials x, B,
and A.
Tischendorf first copied the Sinaitic MS., Avith
the help of two German scribes (a physician and a
druggist), at Cairo in two months.' But afterwards,
Avhen he had secured its permanent possession forthe
Eussian government, the whole of the great edition
Avas printed, as Tischendorf assures us, from a copy
made by himself; and in the final revision of tlie.
proof-sheets he personally compared every line twice.
A\'ith the original manuscript." Tregelles inspected
portant ones (dusserst merkwiirdige und wichtige), which afe sustained by
the oldest fathers and versions, are found neither in the Vaticanus nor the
Alexandrinus." I Nov. Test. Greece ex Sinailico Codice ... erf. Lips. 1865, Prolegg. p. xii. ;
" Ut erat constitutum, sine mora suscepta est totius textus antiquissimi tran-
scriptio atque laboris sodis adsumpiis duobus popularibus, altera medicina
doctore, altera medicamentario, intra duo menses absoluta."
" He says (Vorwort zur Sin. Bibelhandschrifl, etc.. Lips. 1862, pp. 19,
20) : " In die Druckerd gelangte nichls anderes als A bschriften meiner
Hand, die bd emeuerter Vergleichung des Originals, das nie aus meinen
Hdnden kam, durch vielfache Zdchen fur das Versldndniss der Seller
dngerichiel wurden. Ilierzu kam dne andere nicht geringe A rbeit. Nachdem
die ersten Correkiurabziige von anderer Seite, besonders durch Dr. MiihU
mann, den Herausgeber eines Thesaurus der classischen Laiinitdt, nach
meiner A bschrift herichlet worden waren, blieb mir allein die A ufgabe,

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 107
the original at Leipsic in 1862 in Tischendorfs
house, and supposed hiraself to have discovered a
number of errors in the St. Petersburg edition ; but
Tischendorf maintains that the English critic (whose
eyesight had become seriously impaired), and Scriv
ener likewise, in,his proposed corrections in the first
edition of his Collation (1864), were wrong in every
instance.' Considerable portions of it have been
photographed, and real fac-similes are given in
KA.I O M OAoroyMe
N CO c H erAecTi n
TOTHceyceBerxc MYCTHpiONOCe
C|>AN ep GD e H € Ncxp
KT SAI KXIODOH 6 N
n N ICDC^O HXrPA?|c
eKHpyxsHeNee Neci N en i ctgt
OHeHKOCMCD*
ANexHM<|>eHeN
Specimen op the Codex Sinaiticus, contaistisg 1 Tim. iii. 16 :
Kai opoXoyovpe | vmg peya eanv | ro rrjQ tvatjSeiag \ pvarrjpiov og t\
^avtpmBrj tv aap \ ki ' eSiKaim^r] ev j irvl mip^rj ayytXoig | enrjpvx^il
tv £ I Sivtaiv eiriarw | ^i/ ev Koapm • \ aveXrip^Sri) ev \ So^rj.
' See Tischendorf's Nov. Test; Grace ex Sinaitico Codice (Lips. I860),
Prolegg. pp, xliii.-li.

108 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Tischendorf's tliree editions, and in Scrivener's In
troduction. Mr. Burgon, also, in his book on the
Last Twelve Verses of MarTc, gives an exact fac
simile of a page, taken at St. Petersburg, Avhich
shoAvs the last two columns of Mark (to xvi. 8) and
the first two columns of Luke.
Note on the Discoveky of Codex Sinaiticus. — The atory of this
great discoyerj', which made Dr. Tischendorf one of the happiest meu I
ever knew, reads lilie an heroic romance : his three journeys from Leipsic
to Mount Sinai, in pursuit of manuscript treasures, in 1844, 1853, and
1859 ; his first rescue of forty-three leaves of the Septuagint from a waste-
basket in the library of the Convent of St. Catharine in 1844 (pubhshed
as " Codex Friderico-Augustanus" in 1846) ; his fruitless journey in 1863;
his final discovery of the whole Cod. Sinaiticus in 1859, with the powerful
aid of the recommendation of the Eussian Czar, who met such a terrible
death at the hands of the Nihilists in 1881 ; his patient labor in transcrib-"
ing the priceless document first at Cairo, then at Leipsic, and in its pub
lication in four magnificent volumes, in connection with a great national
event of the Eussian empire (1862) ; his controversy with the Greek
Simonides, who impudently claimed to have written the codex on Mount
Athos in 1839 and 1840; his successful vindication; his two smaller edi'
tions of the New Testament with araple Prolegomena; and his thorough
utilization of the Codex and all other available sources in the eighth and
last critical edition of his Greek Testament (completed in 1872), so soon
followed by a stfoke of apoplexy and death (in 1874). All these advent
ures and incidents form one ofthe most remarkable chapters in the history
of biblical discoveries and scholarship. He has told the story repeatedly
and fully himself, not without some excusable vanitj-, in his Rdse in den
Orient (1845^6), and Aus dem heil. Lande (1862, sections 9, 10, 15, 25);
his Notitia Codicis Sinaitid (1860); the Prolegomena to his editions
(1862 and 1865); his two controversial pamphlets, Die Anfechtungen der
Sinaibibel (1863), and Waffen der Finstemiss wider die Sinaibibel (1863);
and most fully in his Die Sinaibibel, ihre Entdeckuiig, Herausgabe und
Erwerbung (Leipzig, 1871).
He thus describes his delight when, on his third journey, he discovered,
almost by an accident on the eve of his departure, the entire MS., and
was permitted to examine it in his room :
"Not till I reached my chamber did I give myself np to the over-

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 109
• powering impression of the reality ; my wildest hopes and dreams were
raore than accomplished. I knew that in my hands I held an incompar
able treasure for Christian learning. AVhile in the deepest emotion I now
recognized, too, on the leaves, before my eyes, in pale characters, the
superscription 'The Shepherd.' In fact, there lay before me not only the
entire Epistle of Barnabas, but also a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas.
Both these writings were regarded by many congregations before the
middle of the fourth century as constituent parta of the New Testament,
but had well-nigh disappeared after the Church had once declared them
apocryphal. The books of our New Testament were complete ; what an
immense advantage over our most renowned Bible manuscripts— the Vat
ican and the, Alexandrine! Of the Old Testament, not only were those
eighty-six leaves recovered, but — and how precious was every single
leaf— one hundred and twelve others besides, including all the poetical
books. "It was past eight in the evening; one lamp feebly lit ray chamber;
there was no means of warming, although in the morning it had been icy
cold in the convent. But in the presence of the found treasure it was not
possible for rae to sleep. I immediately set myself to work to copy off the
Epistle of Barnabas, whose first part was hitherto known only in a de
fective Latin translation. It was clear to me that I must copy the whole
manuscript, if I should not be able to get possession of the original." '

' Die Sinaibibel (1871), pp. 13, 14. As this book (one of the last from
his pen) may become very rare, I will add the original : "Erst avfmdnem
Zimmer gab ich mich dem iiberwdliigenden Eindruck dei- Thatsache hin;
meine kiihnsten Hoffnungen und Trdume waren iibertroffen. Ich wusste,
dass ich einen unvergleichlichen Schalz fiir die christliche -iVissenschoft in
meinen Hdnden liielt. Mitten in der tiefsten Riihrung erkannf ichjelzt auch
auf Bldttei-n vor meinen Augen in blassen Schriftziigen die Auf sehrift:
'Der Hirte.' In der That lag ausser dem vollstandigen Briefe des Barna
bas auch ein Theil vom Hirten des Hermas vor mir : beide Schriften wur
den vOr der Mille des 4. Jahrhunderts von vielen Seilen als Besfandlheile
des Neuen Testaments angesehen, waren dann aber, da sie die Kirche fiir
apokryph er-kldrie, fast verschwunden. Die Biicher unseres Neuen Testa
ments vmren vollstdndig: welch (lusserordenllicher Vorzug vor unseren
beruhmtesten Bibelhandschriflen, der Vaiikanischen und der A lexandrini-
schen. Vom A lien Testament waren nicht nurjene 86 Blatter wiedergefunden,
sonder-n — und wie kostbar war jedes einzelne Blatt — noch 112 andere. mit
sammtlichen poetischen Biichem.

110 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
He secured first the temporary loan of the Codex. It was carried by
Bedawln on camel's back from Mt. Sinai to Cairo. There he copied,
with the help of two of his countrymen, the 110,000 lines of the Codex,
and marked the changes by later hands, which amount in all to over
12,000. In October of the same year he was permitted to take it with
him to Europe as a conditional present to the Czar for the purpose of pub
lication. He showed it first to Emperor Francis Joseph at Vienna, then
to King John of Saxony, and to the King of Prussia (now Emperor of
Germany) in Berlin, and his minister of worship (Herr von Bethmann
Holweg, who recognized a special providence in the discovery of such a
treasure at the foot of Mt. Sinai by a German Professor of the Evangelical
Church). In November he laid it before Alexander II. and the Holy
Synod at St. Petersburg, where it was kept for a while in the Foreign
Office. Then it was used by Tischendorf in the preparation of his edition
in Leipsic,and at last (1869) permanently transferred to the imperial library.
Thus the four great Eastern uncials are distributed throughout Europe
— the Sinaitic is in St. Petersburg and the Greek Church, the Vatican in
Eoine and the Boman Church, the Alexandrian in London and the
Anglican Church, Codex Ephrffim in Paris and the Gallican Church.
Germany has none of these treasures, but has done more to secure and to
utilize them for the benefit of Christendom than any other countiy.
In March, 1877, it was my privilege to visit the Convent of St. Catherine
on Mount Sinai — that awfully sublime granite pulpit of Jehovah for the
proclamation of his holy law to all future generations. Two of the thirty
monks kindly showed me that curious building which unites the charac
teristics of a fort, a church, a mosque, and a monastic retreat, and calls to
mind some of the greatest events in the history of the race. I saw the
library of several hundred written and printed volumes, ascetic and homi
letic treatises, mostly in Greek, some in Arabic, some in Eussian, many
of them worm-eaten, soiled, and torn. On a dusty table lay Champollion's
Pictorial Egypt (presented to the Convent by the French government),
" Es war Abends nach acht, dne Lampe erleuchtele nur spdrlich mein
Zimmer ; ein Mittel zur Hdzung gab es nicht, obschon es am Morgen im
Kloster sogar Eis gefroren halie. Aber es war mir nicht moglich, gegeniiber
dem entdeckten Rdchthume zu schlafen, Ich seizie mich vielmehr sofoH
daran, den Brief des Barnabas, dessen ersler Theil nur erst aus einer
mangelhaften laleinischen Uebersetzung bekannt war, abzuschreiben, Es
war mir klar, dass ich die ganze Handschrift abschrdben musste, wenn ich
sie nicht im Original sollle erwerben konnen,"

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ill
a copy of Tischendorfs edition ofthe Septuagint (which was presented by
himself), and a copy of the imperial four-volume edition of the Codex
Sinaiticus (no doubt a present of the Czar). A beautiful, but rather late,
copy of an Evangelistary (the Codex Aureus), written in gold uncial
letters in double columns, with illuminated pictures of the Saviour, the
Virgin, and the Evangelists, is preserved in the chapel, and adorns a
reading-desk. When I inquired about the original Codex Sinaiticus,
and mentioned the name of Tischendorf, the sub -prior kindled up in
indignation and unceremoniously called him » thief, who had stolen
their greatest treasure on the pretext of a temporary loan. When I re
minded him of the large reward of the Emperor of Russia, who had fur
nished a new silver shrine for the coffin of St. Catherine, he adraitted it
reluctantly, but remarked that they did not want the silver, but the
manuscript — the manuscript, of which these ignorant monks had actually
, burned several leaves before Tischendorf came to the rescue of the rest in
1844. But the charge of theft is false. After long delays and Oriental
formalities the Codex was forraally presented (not sold) to the Czar in
1869 by the new prior, Archbishop Kallistratos, and the monks of the
. Convents of St. Catherine and Cairo, The usual Oriental expectation
of backsheesh was fulfilled, although perhaps not to the extent which
Dr. Tischendorf desired. So he assured me in 1871, and showed me, at
Leipsic, two letters of Kallistratos fuU of Oriental compliments and ex
pressions of gratitude to the German Professor, and stating that the Codex
was presented to the Autocrat of the Eussias as "a testimony of eternal
devotion " (tig ivSei^iv rrjg diSiov rjpiov Kal roi ^iva euyvmpoaivrjg).
See his own account of the final delivery in Die Sinaibibel, p. 91.

CODEX ALEXANDEINUS.
A. Codex Alexandeinus of the fifth century, in
quarto and two columns (12f inches high, lOJ broad),
given by Patriarch Cyril Lucar of Constantinople
(the unlucky Calvinistic reforraer, forraerly of Alex
andria) to King Charles I. (1628), now in the British
Museum, London, where the open volume of the
New Testament is exhibited in the MS. room. It
Avas probably Avritten in Alexandria. It contains
on 773 leaves the Old Testament, in the Septuagint

112 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
Version (edited by Baber, London, 1816-28), ahd the
New Testament ; but, unfortunately, with the omis
sion of Matt, i, 1-xxv, 6, John vi, 50-viii, 52, and
2 Cor, iv, 13-xii, 6, It has also at the end the Greek
Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,
with a fragment of a second epistle, or rather homily.
This was the only MS, extant of Clement before
the discovery by Philotheos Bryennios of the copy
at Constantinople (1875), Tlie Ncav Testainent of

e

H^pxi lenoiHceNoocT-oMov
P^NONKXIT-H KITHN HA.erHhlNAO
PATOC I<^IArcA-rA.CI<€VACn OC.
KAtc Ko'TOcenAMco-TMcxayccoy.

TTO

oc ex6-T-e exVTO i c ka i-rrxNjrrv
I lv«^4 ICUGMCOVKIAC-TCrrrHKro
vr I o M e © e -no eiTi c I ccrtTO YC-
TTOlKfAl iNiei rviTTHlNieKKAHCrXN
TOVK YM M-rrePI eTTOl HC XTQA-l*.
TTOYVI MIX-TOCT'OVlA.IOY-
Speclmess of the Codex Alexandrisus.
The first is in bright red, with breathings and accents, and contains
Gen. i. 1, 2, Sept. (Ev dpxrj iirotrjatv 6 ^a rbv ov | pavuv Kat Trjv
yijv ri Si yrj r)v do | paroa xdi aKaraaKiiaaroa • | koi o-Kuroff iirdvu
rija alivaaov,). The second specimen is in common ink, and contains
Acts XX. 28 (Upoaixtrt eavroia Kai iravri rm \ irotpvim • ev a vpaa
to irva to | ayiov e^tro tiriaKoirova' | iroipaivtiv rrjv SKKXrjatav \ ro«
Kv rjv ireptiirotrjaarq Sia i rov aiparog rov iSiov.y A favors Kvpiov
versus S^eov.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 113
the Alexandrian MS. was published by Charles G.
Wpide in uncial type (London, 1786), and by B. H.
Cowper, in common type (ibid. 1860). We have it
now in a raost beautiful photographic fac-simile,
issued by the Triistees of the British Museura, Lon
don, 1879. The Old Testaraent part is in course of
publication in the sarae style (1882). . ¦
Cod. A is the first uncial MS. that.Avas used hj-
biblical scholars (although Codi D Avas known be
fore to Beza). It stands in the third or fourth
rank of the large uncials. It presents a text which
in the Gospels occupies an intermediate position be
tween the oldest uncial and the latter cursive text,
and whicii seems to have been most circulated in
¦the fourth century; but in the rest of the Ncav Test.
it stands next to k and B. In several books it agrees
with the Latin Vulgate in many peculiar readings-
which are not, attested by.the jolder Latin; hence'
Dr. Hort (ii. 152) infers that Jerome, in his revision,
m:ust have used to a great extent'a common original
with A. CODEX VATICANUS.
B. Codex Vaticanus, of the middle of the fourth
century, on very fine thin vellum, in small but clear
and neat uncial letters, in three columns (of 42 lines
each) to a quarto page (10 inches by 10^), preserved
in the Vatican Library at Rorae (No. 1209). It is
the raost valuable of the raany valuable treasures of
this great repository of ecclesiastipal learning and
literature., ¦ It is more accurately ^.Written than the
Sinaitic MS., and probably a little older, but not so
8

piv rbv Xi^ov tK rijff
I bipaa rou pvij-
/ieTov I Kit dva
pxi^aaai Siemlpov-
aiv 'on dvaKtKV !
^lorai 0 Xi5oa ijv
yap I piyaa aipo-
Spa Kit iX I ^ivaai
iia rb pvtjptt I ov
ilSov veaviaKov \
Ka^rjpevov iv roia
I Stasia irepifit-
pXrjpi I vov aroXrjv
Xevxrjv | Kai i^t-
dap^rj^rjaav \ !> Si
Xlyei dvrdia pfj I
iK&apfiiia^t 'iv Kl-
Tti I rt rbv vaZ,a-
prjvbv TO- I iarav-
pmpsvov iriyrpl^rj
6vK tariv OiSe iSe
! 6 roiroa 'orrov
i^rjKd ' dvrov dXXa
iiirdytre | iirrare
Toia pa^rjrdia \
dwroO KOI rw ire-
rpm I on irpodyti
rjpda 'tia \ rrjv ya-
XiXdiav ixu dv
I rbv oi^EoSt Ka-
^ma il j irtv vpiv
Kai i^tX^bv I aai
ifjivyov dirb rov \
pvrjpitov iix^u
ydp I dvrda rpo-
poa Kai CK I araata
Kai SnStvi iv | Siv
'liirov i^ojSovv | ro
ydp: KaraMdpKov.

-*"

M / M -T^ M /wf O O N e KTHt
e Vf ^c t-oy M w H Meloy
K X I A. N X B A.e *<p A C M e JE^ut
p6ycrw6VrAMA^K6K"f
AlCTXldAlOOCJ^Mrif M e'rxc c<i> oikjA Ki^i^ A
edycxiEicxoMNHMtf ON e*rAONN€i>>«ir'c»<CN
A€3l6rcnGpi€KAHM« NON^CTO XH N A^eyKPiKI
ICA I 6 5.<6d AM K H e H CAM
6 A^ AeVej iyTAlCrM f*
^ K s f M ft e I ce ^1 MJ-ZHT^r
Te -rd N N A-Z A.|» H N dNTr"
€C-rAyra>MeNONrtj?f e H oy K*ec-r\ Kic£r>eU«^
o -ro'n o CO no yee h k*.
*Ly-r<iN i.AAAry'n'CreT?
^'in ATe-ro »c m abht*i;
icf t3 Y *< * ' T"J n cTfw
OTinfOA'j'er'f Mfc€ic
-r^NrA/viA/rANei<6ij^yx6 N o4'" ec O 6 KAOtU<^ej|
n 6 N^.M I N K A 1 6 xe^^jt^r
CAI 6<i>yraNj<Cnb"Toy
M ri H w 6 1 o-^ elx e N rAf
iyTAC-TPOMOCKAjfl^Ct:-«^cic K^A i^y^eN,i6y
Ai^N e I n OM€<po&oyi»<

t

>y

Specimen of the Codex Vaticanus, containing Mabk xvi. 3-8.
[Reduced from Dean Burgon's photograph of the whole page. By permiaiaaiii.

MANUSCKIPTS OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 115
complete." It was apparently copied in Egypt by
two or thvee skilful scribes. Tischendorf has ob
served the fact that the scribe of the Ncav Test, was
the same who wrote a foAV pages in the New Test.
of K, together with the opening verses of the Apoc
alypse, besides corrections. This fact seeras to point
to the sarae age and country of the two MSS. ; while
on the other hand the corrections, the remarlcable
difference in the order of the books of the New Test.,''
and other peculiarities, as clearly indicate different
and independent sources from which they were de
rived. This makes their united testimony all the
stronger. The corrections in both enable us to
sorae extent to follow the history of the text.
Cod. B was brought to Rome shortly after the
establishraent of the Vatican Library by Pope Nich
olas V. in 1448; perhaps (as Dr. Scrivener and
others conjecture) by the learned Cardinal Bes
sarion, forraerly archbishop of Nicaea, who labored
at the Council of Ferrara- Florence with great zeal,
but in vain, for the reunion of the Greek and Latin
churches (d. 1472). It was entered in the earliest
catalogue of that library, raade in 1475. It contains
' Dr. Tregelles was so much impressed with the antiquity of B that
he thought it was written before the Council of Nicsea (325). He so
informed Dr. Scrivener (Six Lect. p. 28). The Eoman editors contend,
of course, for the primacy of the Vatican against tlie Sinaitic MS., but
admit that they are not far apart, "non magnam intercedere mtatem inter
utriusque libri editionem." See Tom. vi. p. vii.
" In Cod. S the Pauline Epistles precede the Acts, and the Hebrews
are placed between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy. In Cod. B tbe Catholic
Epistles are between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles, and the Hebrews
precede the Pastoral Epistles (which are lost). Both differ from the order
of the Vulgate.

116 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT;
the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with
some gaps,' and the New Testament as far as Heb.
ix. 14 (inclusive), and breaks off in the middle of the
verse and of the word ko^u | pu'i. The Pastoral
Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), Philemon, and
the Apocalypse are lost. Cod. B for the Apocalypse
(likewise in the Vatican, as No. 2066) is a different
MS., of the eighth century, and is marked Q by
Tregelles. Cod. B became first known about 1533," when
Sepulveda directed the attention of Erasraus to it,
but it Avas Avatched with jealous care by the papal
authorities, and kept from public use till the middle
of the nineteenth century. It was first partially
ahd imperfectly collated, under considerable restric
tions, by Bartolocci, librarian of the Vatican (1669);
then by the Abbate Mico for Richard Bentley (about
1720, published 1799), and by Andrew Birch of
Copenhagen (1781, published 1788, 1798, 1801).
When the MS. was transferred to Paris during the
empire of the first Napoleon, Dr. Hug, a Eoman
Catholic scholar, inspected it in 1809, and first fully
recognized its paramount value (1810).
After the MS. Avas restored to Rome, it was for a
long time alraost inaccessible, even to famous schol- '
ars. Dr. Tregelles was not even permitted to use
pen and ink, although he was armed with a letter
from Cardinal Wiseman. The MS. was nevertheless
' Gen. i. 1-xlvi. 28 is wanting, and supplied by small type in the
Boman edition ; also Ps. c v. (cvi.) 27 - cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) 6, and the
Books of Maccabees.
' If not already in 1522, as Tregelles thinks, Horne's Intr. iv. 107.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117
examined to some extent by Muralt (1844), more
thoroughly by Tischendorf (1843, 1844, 1866), Tre
gelles (1845), Dressel (1855), Burgon (1860), Alford
(1861), and his secretary, Mr. Cure (in 1862). It was
at last printed under the supervision of the celebrat
ed Cardinal Angelo Mai (d. 1854), Rome, 1828-38,
but not published till 1857 (in 5 vols., the fifth con
taining the New Testament) ; and so inaccurately
that this edition is critically Avorthlcss. The NeAv
Testament was again published separately,.with sdme
iraprovements, by Vercellone, Rome, 1859; more
critically by Tischendorf, Leipsic, 1867, from a par
tial inspection of fourteen days (three hours each
day) in 1866 under the constant supervision of C.
Vercellone, who learned from the German expert
some useful lessons in editorial work.' Now, at last,
we have a complete and critical, though by no means
infallible, quasi fac-simile edition of the whole Vat
ican MS. by Vercellone (d. 1869), Jos. Cozza, and
Gaeteno Sergio (who was associated for a short time
Avitli Cozza after Vercellone's death), Rorae, 1868-81,
in six stately folio volumes. The type used Avas cast
in Leipsic, at the expense of the Propaganda, from
the same moulds as that employed for Tischendorf's
edition of the Codex Sinaiticus, although the Vatican
Codex is written in much smaller letters. Tischen
dorf complained of the bad use whicii the Roman
printers made of his tj'pe. A real fac-simile, like
' Novum Testamentum Vaticanum . . . ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1867, with
Prolegomena. Comp. his Appendix N. Ti Vaticani, 1869, and his Responsa
ad calumnias Romanas, 1870 (in refutation of the charges of the " Civilta
cattolica ").

118 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
the one Avhich the British Museum published of
Cod. A, would be far preferable. Nevertheless, it is
a magnificent publication, for which the papal gov
ernment deserves the thanks of the whole Church.'
The Vatican is upon the whole the best as well .
as the oldest of MSS. now known, but raust be used
with proper regard to all other sources of evidence.
In this judgment most modern critics agree. Lach
mann and Tregelles made it the chief basis of their
text as far as they then knew it. Westcott and Hort
have used it more thoroughly and systematically since
it has been published in full. Tischendorf pays the
greatest attention to it throughout, although, in his
last critical edition, he shoAvs in many conflicting
cases a natural preference for the Sinaitic Codex of
his own discovery. B has numerous corrections by
a conteraporaneous hand, and was supplied with
' The full -title of the Eoman quasi fac-simile edition reads : "Bibliorum
Sacrqrum Grmcus Codex Vaticanus auspice Pio IX. Pontifice Maxim/)
collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis BamaUta et Josephi Cozza
Monachi Basiliani editus. Rom», typis et impensis S. Congregationis de
Propaganda Fide." 1868 to 1881. Beautifully printed on vellum paper,
Four volumes contain the Septuagint (i. Pentateuch and Jos.; ii. Judges,
etc. ; iii. The Psalras, etc. ; iv. Esther, etc.) ; one volume the New Testa
ment, which appeared in 1868 as tom. v. It gives the original MS. dowii
to Heb. ix. 14, in 284 large pages, 3 columns. The rest of the Epistle tO'
the Hebrews and the Apocalypse (from pp. 285 to 302) are supplied from
a later text (recentiori manu) in ordinary Greek type, and have therefore
less critical value. The Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to Philemon are
wanting altogether. The sixth volume, which was published in 1881,
"auspice Leone XIII.," contains xxxvi. and 170 pages, prolegomena and
commentaries by Canon Fabiani and Jos. Cozza, together with four plates
of fac-similes selected from the Septuagint. I used the copy in the A^r
Librarj'. The last volume is disappointing. Tischendorf would 1
made much more thorough work.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 119
accents and breathings by a third hand in the tenth
century or later." It is raore free frora Western or
Alexandrian readings than x. It presents on the
Avhole, with «, the siraplest, shortest, and concisest
text. The charge of omissions of raany words and
whole clauses is founded on the false assumption
that the Elzevir text is the standard. Westcott and
Hort say (p. 557) : " The fondness for omissions,
Avhich has sometimes been attributed to the scribe
of the Vatican, is iraaginary, except, perhaps, single
petty words." The agreeraent of B and n is (with
few exceptions) a strong presuraptive evidence for
the genuineness of a reading, and, when supported by
other ante-Nicene testiraony, it is conclusive. Their
concurrent testimony from independent sources
gives us the oldest attainable text, Avhich may be
traced to the early part of the second century, or the
generation next to that of the autographs.
Note.— We need not be surprised that B, as well as X, should have
incurred the special hostility of the admirers of the common text, from
which it so often departs. Dr. Dobbin, as quoted by Scrivener (p. 108),
calculated that B'leaves out 2556 words or clauses. Dean Burgon (in the
" Quarterly Keview " for Oct. 1881, p. 164) asserts that, in the Gospels
alone, B omits at least 2877 words, adds 536, substitutes 935, transposes
2098, -modifies 1132 (total changes, 7578) ; the corresponding figures in X
being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). This is one of
the reasons for which the Dean, in defiance of the best judges, condemns
X and B as the most corrupt of MSS., and of course all the critical
editions based on them. His list of departures is indeed formidable, but
all the worse for the common text which is his standard ; for in nine cases
' Tischendorf says "not earlier than the tenth or eleventh century."
The Eoman editors think they have identified the man (a certain monk,
Clfinens or KXijprjg), and assign his date (conjecturally) as " about the
beginning of the fifteenth century."

120 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
out of ten it'is easier to account for additions and interpolations than for
omissions. Dean Burgon often refers to Dr. Scriveneri the conservative,
editor of the textus receptus, as an authority; but eveii Scrivener accords
"to Cod. B .it least as much weight as to any single document in existence"
(^Introd. p. 108), and calls it, " in common with our [his J opponents, the
most weighty single authority we possess" (p. 471). For a true estitnate
of the comparative value of united testimony, see the convincing exposi
tion of Dr. Hort's Introduction, pp. 212^224. He arrives at the conclusion
that, with some specitied exceptions, the united readings "of these two
oldest MSS. shonld 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, though it is sometimes right to place them
only on an alternative footing, especially where they receive no support
from Versions or Fathers. •' i
•: On.this line the greatbattle for the purest text of the New Testametit
must beifpught out. The question i9 between' the oldest MSS. andthe
latest, between the- uncial textand the Stephanie or Elzevir text. The
conflict haS fairly begiiii'jii'the Eevisioii year 1881, wilh a rare amblim
Of learning and zea^ori .both side6,andibefore a-?ar lafgtr audience- in lw3
hemispheres 'than ever listened to a discussion on a dry and -intricate)
yet very important, department of biblical scholarship. We accept the
alternative put by the Dean of Chichester, whose learning is only equalled
by his dogmatism, but we come to the opposite conclusion. " Codices B and
X," he says,' " are either among the purest of manuscripts, or else they
are among the very foulest. The text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is
either the very best which has ever appeared, or else it is the very worst;
the nearest to the sacred autographs, or the furthest from them. There
is no room for both opinions ; and there cannot exist anj' middle view,
The question will have to be fought out, and it must be fought out fairly."
Magna est Veritas et pravaleUt.

CODEX EPHE^MI.
C. Codex Regius, or Ephe^mi Syei, in the Nation
al Library at Paris, is a codex rescriptus, and has its
name from the fact that the works of the Syrian
 :  tf-t.,
' See his third article on the New Test. Bevision in "The Quartftly
Eeview " for April, 1882, at the close, p. 377.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

121

father, Ephrgem ( d. 372 ), Avere
Avritten over the original Bible
text, which is scarcely legible.'
It dates frora the fifth century,
and probably from A.lexandria.
Tischendorf regards C as older
than A, and in the Gospels it has
a rauch better text. Unfortunate
ly it is very defective, and con
tains only 64 leaves of the Old
Test, and about three fifths of
the New Test. (145 out of 238
leaves), one or raore sheets having
perished out of almost every quire
of four sheets. It was first collated
by Wetstein (1716), and edited by
Tischendorf (Leipsic, 1843-45, 2
vols.). Its text "seems to stand
ilearly midway between A and B,
soraewhat inclining .to the latter"
(Scrivener). Two Correctors, one
of the sixth, the other of the ninth
century (designated by Tischendorf
as C**, C***, or C^ C^), have been
at work on the MS. (e. g., in 1 Tira.
iii. 16) to the perplexity of the
critical collator.
, ' The owner of that MS. must have had a very
low idea of the Bible to replace it by the writings
of Ephroem. It was making void the AVord of
God by the traditions ' of men. Comp. Matt.
XV. 6.

e :i

S» R

122 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CODEX BEZ^.
D, for the Gospels and Acts, is Codex Bezj;, or
Cantabeigiensis, in the Library of the University
at Cambridge (to which Beza presented it in 1581).
It dates from the sixth century, and was written in
the Occident, probably in Gaul, by a transcriber
ignorant of Greek. It contains only the Gospels
and Acts, with a Latin version ; edited in fac-simile
type by Thomas Kipling, Cambridge, 1793, 2 vols.
fol., and more accurately by Dr. Scrivener, in com
raon type, with a copious introduction and valuable
critical notes, Cambridge, 1864.
Cod. D is the second of the uncial MSS. which
was known to scholars (B being the first). ¦ Beza
procured it from the monastery of St. Irenaeus at
Lyons in 1562, but did not use it on account of its
many departures from other MSS; It is generally
ranked with the great uncials, but is the least valu-,
able and trustworthy of them. Its text is very
peculiar and puzzling. It has raany bold and ex
tensive interpolations, e. g., a paragraph after Luke
vi. 4 (which is found nowhere else) : " On the same
day he [Jesus] beheld a certain raan working on the
Sabbath, and said unto him, Man, blessed art thou
if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou know
est not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the
law." It differs more than any other from the re
ceived Greek text, but it often agrees in remarkable
readings Avith the ancient Latin and Syriac versions.
Dr. Tregelles reraarks that "its evidence, when
alone, especially in additions, is of scarcely any value

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 123
as to the genuine text ; but of the very greatest
Avhen corroborated by other very ancient author-
ity." Dr. Hort attaches great importance to this singu
lar MS. as a means of tracing textual corruptions up
to the fourth, and even the second century. He
says (ii. 149) : " In spite of the prodigious amount
of error which D contains, these readings, in Avliich
it sustains and is sustained by other documents de
rived from very ancient texts of other types, render
it often invaluable for the secure recovery of the
true text ; and, apart from this direct applicability,
ho other single source of evidence, except the quota
tions of Origen, surpasses it in value on the equally
important ground of historical or indirect instruc-
tiveness. To what extent its unique readings are
due to license on the part of the scribe, rather than
to faithful reproduction of an antecedent text noAv
otherwise lost, it is irapossible to say ; but it is re
markable hoAV frequently the discovery of fresh
evidence, especially Old Latin evidence, supplies a
second authority for readings in which D had hith
erto stood alone. At all events, when every allow
ance has been made for, possible individual license,
the text of D presents a truer image of the form in
which the Gospels and Acts were most widely read
in the third and probably a great part of the second
century than any other extant Greek MS."
The sarae reraarks apply with little deduction to
Cod. D (2) for the Pauline Epistles, which deserves
a place among the primary uncials, but is usually
ranked Avith the secondary. It likewise gives the

124 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Western text, which ih the Epistles of Panl is of
inferior value. (See beloAv.)
2. SECONDAET TJNCIALS.
The secondary uncial MSS. are defective and of
later date — from the fifth century (Q and T) to the
ninth and tenth centuries. Most of them contain
the Gospels, only five the Apocalypse. "None of
them show signs of having forraed part of a com
plete Bible, and it is even doubtful whether any of
thera belonged to a complete New Testament. Six
alone are known to have contained more than one
of the groups of books, if we count the Acts and
the Apocalypse as though they were each a group."'
In giving a brief account of these secondary
uncials I follow chiefly the latest descriptive list of
Tischendorf, as revised by Dr. Gebhardt (1878), and
again revised and completed by Dr. Abbot (1882).",'
B (2), for the Apocalypse : Codex Vaticaxus 2066 (formerly Basilian
Codex 105); eighth century. Edited by Tischendorf, imperfectly 1846;
carefully 1869, after a fresh collation made in 1866, Cozza published a
few unimportant corrections to this latest edition in Ad editionem Apoca-
lypseos S. Johannis juxta vetustissimum codicem Basil. Vat. 2066 Lips, anno
1869 evulgalam animadversiones, Eom. 1869. Tregelles marked this MS.
with the letter Q, to distinguish it from the far more valuable and famoua
Cod. B.
D (2), for the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews) : Codex Clako-
mostakus; tif th,e second half of the sixth century; slightly defective,
but very valuable ; in the National Library at Paris. Collated by TregeUes,
1849 and 1860. Edited by Tischendorf,. Leipsic, 1852. Beza procured it
' Westcott and Hort, ii. 75.
^ For Schaff's Relig. Encyclopadia, vol. i. 271-273 (published in New
Tork and Edinburgh, Nov. 1882). The additions of Dr. Abbot are marked
by his initials in brackets.

MANUSCEIPTS, OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, 125
from the monastery of Clermont (hence the name), and made some use
of it (1582). It is Greek and Latin, stichometric, with accents by a later
hand, but no division of words. It was retouched at different times.
The Latin text represents the oldest version (ofthe second century).
E (1), for the Gospels: Codex Basileensis ; eighth century; in the
library at Basle ; defective in Luke. Erasmus overlooked it. Collated
by Tischendorf and Muller (1843), and by Tregelles (1846). It is belter
than most of the second-class uncials. It approaches to the Textus Re
ceptus. E (2), for the Acts: Codex LaudianUs; in the Bodleian Library at
Oxford; a present from Archbishop Laud in 1636 (hence the name); with
a close Latin version on the left column ; of the end of the sixth century;
probably brought from Tarsus to England by Theodore of Canterbury
(d. 690), and used by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) ; newly published by
Tischendorf, in the ninth vol. of his Monumenta Sacra, 1870. Very valu
able for the Greek-Latin text of the Acts.
E (3), for the Pauline Epistles : Codex Sangeemanensis ; Grseco-
Latin ; formerly at Saint-Germain des Pres (hence the name), near Paris;
now at St. Petersburg. In the Greek a mere copy of D (Claromont.)
after it had been altered by several hands. Ninth or tenth centurj'. Of
no critical value except for the Latin text.
F (1), for the Gospels : Codex Bokeei.ianus ; once possessed by John
Boreel (d. 1629), Dutch ambassador in London under James I. ; now in
the library of the University at Utrecht. Not important.
F (2), for the Pauline Epistles : Codex Augiensis (named from A vgia
Dives or Major, a monastery at Eeichenau in Switzerland); bought by
Eichard Bentley at Heidelberg,, and bequeathed by his nephew to Trinity
Cj9llege, Cambridge; Grjeco-Latin (but the Latin no translation of the
Greek) ; collated by Tischendorf, 1842, by Tregelles, 1845 ; carefully edited
by Dr. Scrivener, 1869, in common type. Ninth century.
F" : designates those passages of the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles
found copied on the margin of the Coislin Octateuch in Paris, dating from
the beginning of the seventh centurj'. Printed by Tischendorf in 1846
(Monum. s. ined.).
G (1), for the Gospels : Codex Hauleianus ; collated by Wetstein,
Tischendorf, and Tregelles. Ninth or tenth centurj-. It has many breaks.
Now in the British Museum.
G (2), for the Acts (ii. 45-iii. 8); seventh century; now in St. Peters
burg, taken there by Tischendorf in 1850. It has a few rare and valu
able readings.

126 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT;
G ^, for the Acts (fragments df chapters xvi., xvii., xviii.) ; ninth century
or earlier; now called Codex Vaticanus 9671, forraerly Cryptoferrateusis.
Edited by Cozza, 1877.
G (3), for the Pauline Epistles : Codex Boeknebianus ; was either
copied from F (Hort), or from the same archetype (Tischendorf, Scriv
ener). Ninth century. It is a part of the same MS. as A of the Gospels.
Purchased by Prof. C. F. Boerner at Leipsic, 1705 ; in the Koyal Library
at Dresden.
H (1), for the Gospels: Codex Seidei.ii; tenth century; beginning
Matt. XV. 30, and defective in all the Gospels. Now in the Public Library
of Hamburg. Collated by TregeUes, 1850, and examined in 1854 by
Tischendorf. H (2), for the -4cts: Codex Mutineksis; ninth century; lacks about
seven chapters. Now at Modena. Carefully coUated by Tischendorf,
1843j and by Tregelles, 1845.
H (3), for the Pauline Epistles: Codex Coislejianus ; sixth century;
fragments of the Pauline Epistles in thirty-one leaves, aU found in the
binding of manuscripts at or from the Monasterj' of St. Athanasius at
Mount Athos. Twelve of these leaves are in the National Library at
Paris ; and two formerly there are now at St. Petersburg. These fourteen
leaves, containing fragments of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy, Titus,
and Hebrews, were published by Montfaucon in 1715, in his Bibliotheca
Coisliniana. Two more leaves at Moscow (Bibl. S. Syn. 61), contaming
parts of Heb. x., were first described and collated by Matthsei (1784), and
have been edited in fac-simile by Sabas (Spedm. palceogr., Moscow, 1863).
Thej' are designated as N ° in Tischendorf's Greek Testament, seventh
edition (1859). Four more leaves, belonging to Archbishop Porfiri and
the Archimandrite Antony, ai'e cited bj' Tischendorf in his last (eighth)
critical edition on 2 Cor. iv. 4-6 ; Col. iii. 5-8 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9-13, iv. 6-10.
Still more recently nine new leaves have been discovered at Mount Athos,
Their text, containing parts of 2 Corinthians and Galatians, has been
published by Duchesne in the A rchives des missions scient. et lit., S° sen,
tom. iii. p. 420 sqq., Paris, 1876. Two more leaves, containing 1 Tira. vL
9-13, and 2 Tim. ii. 1-9, have been found attached to a MS. in the National
Library at Turin in 1881. [E. A.]
I, for the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles: Codex Tischendokfi-
ANUS II., at St. Petersburg, designates a manuscript in which, under latet
Georgian writing, there are twenty-eight palimpsest leaves of seven dif
ferent codices, containing fragments of the New Testament, as foUows:
I', of John xi., xii., xv., xvi., xix. I", of 1 Cor. xv., xvi.; Tit. i.; Acta

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127
xxviii. I', of Matt, xiv., xxiv., xxv., xxvi. ; Mark ix., xiv. I', of Matt.
xvii.-xix. ; Luke xviii. ; John iv., v., xx. I', of Acts ii., xxvi. I', of
Acts xiii. I ', of Lnke vii., xxiv. I '• '¦ " are of the fifth century ; I *• ' of
the sixth ; !'¦ ' of the seventh. The text of I '¦ '¦ ' *• ' has a close affinity
with S A B C D L. PubUshed by Tischendorf in his Mon. saa: ined. N. C,
vol. i. (1855).
I •", for John's Gospel, formerlj- N ^ ; beginning of fifth centurj' ; four
palimpsest leaves in the British Museum, containing, uuder two layers
of Syriac writing, fragments of seventeen verses of John xiii. and xvi.
Deciphered by Tischendorf and Tregelles, and published by the former
in his Mon. saer. ined. N. C, vol. ii. (1857). [E. A.]
K (1), for the Gospels: Codex Cypkius; complete; middle or end of
ninth century; now in Paris. Text somewhat remarkable. CoUated by
Tischendorf (1842) and TregeUes (1849 and 1850).
K (2), for the Pauline and CathoUc Epistles : Codex . Mosquensis ;
ninth century ; brought from Mount Athos to Moscow. Lacks a part of
Eomans and 1 Corinthians. Collated bj' Matthiei.
L (1), for the Gospels : Codex Eegius ; published by Tischendorf, 1846 ;
written in the eighth centurj-; full of errors in spelling, but very remark
able for its agreement with X, B, and Origen; now in Paris.
L (2), for the Acts, Pauline and Catholic Epistles : Codex Angelicus,
or Passionei (formerly G and I) ; ninth century ; now in the Angelica
Librarj- of the Augustinian monks at Eome. Contains Acts vii. 10 to
Heb. xiii. 10. CoUated by Tischendorf (1843) and Tregelles (1845).
M (1), for the Gospels : Codex Campianus ; complete ; end of ninth
century ; now in Paris. Copied and used by Tischendorf (1849).
M (2), for the Pauline Epistles: Codex Euber; ninth centurj'. Two
folio leaves at Hamburg ( Heb. i. 1-iv. 3, xii. 20-xiii. 25 ), and two at
London (1 Cor. xv. 52-2 Cor. i. 15 ; 2 Cor. x. 13-xii. 5). Written in red.
Edited by Tischendorf in Anecdof. saer: et prof., 1855, and, with a few
corrections, 1861.
N (1), for the Gospels: Codex Poepureus; end of the sixth century;
a beautiful manuscript written on the thinnest vellum, dyed purple, with
silver letters (the abbreviations eC=S'(of, KG=Kvpiog, etc., in gold);
four leaves in London, two in Vienna, six in the Vatican, and thirty-
three in the Monastery of St. John in Patmos. Tischendorf used in his
eighth edition of the New Testament the readings of the thirty-three
Patmos leaves transcribed by John Sakkelion, containing Mark vi. 53-xv.
23, with some gaps. These have since been published by Duchesne in
the Archives des missions scieniifques, S' ser., tom. iii. 1876.

123 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
N (2), for Galatians and Hebrews : two leaves ; ninth century ; con
taining Gal. V. 12-vi. 4 and Heb. v. 8-vi, 10. Brought by Tischendorf to
St. Petersburg.
N ''. The manuscript now marked bj' Tischendorf I ''.
O (1), for John's Gospel; eight leaves; ninth century; containing a
part of John i. and xx., with scholia ; now in Moscow (S. Syn. 120).
Edited by Matthaei (1786), and, after him, by Tregelles, Cod. Zacynihius
(1861), Appendix. Text valuable.
0 (2), for 2 Corinthians: two leaves; sixth century; containing 2 Cor,
i. 20-ii. 12. Brought from the East to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf in
1859. O* C" (1) 0'= O'' 0' 0': Psalters or other manuscripts, containing
sorae or all of the hymns of Luke's Gospel (i. 46 sqq., 68 sqq., ii. 29 sqq.),
0 * is at Wolfenbiittel (ed. Tischendorf, Anecd. saa: etprof, 1855). O' at
Oxford. O ' at Verona, the Greek text in Eoraan letters (ed. Bianchini,
1740). O '' at Zurich, on purple vellum in silver letters (ed. Tischen
dorf, Mon. saer. ined. N. C, vol. iv.). O' and O' at St. Gall and St. Peters
burg (coUated by Tischendorf). O '^ is of the sixth century ; 0 ¦¦ of the
seventh ; 0 » '' = ' of the ninth.
0''(2), for the Pauline Epistles : sixth century; a leaf, which imperfect-
Ij' presents Eph. iv. 1-18. Collated by Tischendorf at Moscow in 1868.
P (1), for the Gospels: Codex Guelpheeeytanus I.; sixth century;
a palimpsest at Wolfenbuttel, containing portions of all the Gospels (518
verses). Edited by Tischendorf (Mon. saer. ined. N. C. vol. vi. 1869).
P (2), for the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, with some defects : Codex
POKFIBIANUS, a palimpsest of the ninth century, in possession of Archr
bishop Porfiri at St. Petersburg (now at Kiev) ; the text is particularly
good in the Revelation. Edited by Tischendorf, 1865 and 1869. It gen
eraUy confirms A and C, but often X against all the rest.
Q (1), for Luke and John : Codex Guelpheeeytanus II. ; fifth centurj';
a palimpsest containing fragments (247 verses) of Luke and John; now
at Wolfenbuttel. Edited by Tischendorf, Mon. saer. ined. N. C, iii. I860.
Q (2) : PoEFiEiANUS, fifth century ; papyrus fragments of 1 Cor. i. 17-
20 ; vi. 13-18 ; vii. 3, 4, 10-14. Collated by Tischendorf.
E, for Luke : Codex Nitriensis ; sixth century ; a fragmentary pal
impsest of Luke from a Coptic Monastery of the Nitrian Desert; nftw iu
the British Museum. Collated by Tregelles (1854), and edited by Tischfen-
dorf (Mon. saer. ined. N. C, vol. i. 1855).-
E (2), a palimpsest leaf of about the seventh century, containing 2 Cor,
xi, 1-9 ; convent of Grotta Ferrata, near Rome ; published by Cozza iu 1867,

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129
S, for the Gospels: Codex A'aticanus 354 (A.D. 949); a complete
raanuscript of the Gospels. CoUated bj' Tischendorf for the eighth edi
tion of his Greek Testament.
T, for Luke and John : Codex Borgianus I. ; fifth centurj'; now in the
CoUege ofthe Propaganda in Eome; fragments of Luke xxii., xxiii., and
John vi.-viii., the Greek text accompanied by a Sahidic or Thebaic ver
sion. The fragments of John were published by Giorgi ih 1789. Those
of Luke were first coUated by B. H. Alford.
Xwoi . fragments of Luke xii. 15 -xiii. 32, John vui. 23-32, formerly
owned bj' Woide, and published by Ford in his Append. Cod. Alex. (1799).
Similar to the preceding, but shown by Lightfoot to belong to a different
manuscript. T •¦ : fragments of the first four chapters of John ; sixth century ; now
at St. Petersburg.
T ° : a fragment of Matthew (xiv^. 19-xv. 8), resembling the above.
T"": fragments of a Greek - Sahidic Evangelistary (seventh centurj-)
found by Tischendorf (1866) iu the Borgian Library at Eome. Con
tains Matt. xvi. 13-20 ; Mark i. 3-8 ; xii. 35-37 ; John xix. 23-27 ; xx.
BO, 31.
T ' : a bit of an Evangelistary, of about the sixth century, from Upper
Egj-pt ; now in the Library of the Universitj' of Cambridge, England. It
contains Matt. iii. 13-16. Eeadings given in the Postscript to Tregelles's
Greek Testament, p. 1070. [E. A.] /
U, for the Gospels : Codex Nanianus ; end of ninth or beginning of
tenth century ; now in Library of St. Mark, A'enice. Contains the Gospels
complete. Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles.
V, for the Gospels : Codex Mosquensis, of the Gospels to John vii. 39 ;
ninth century; almost complete. Written at Mount Athos. Matthaei
collated and described it in 1779.
AV* and AV": tbe former designates two leaves, with fragments of
Luke ix., x., in the National Library at Paris; probably of the eighth
centurj'; edited by Tischendorf in his Mon. saa: ined., 1846. The latter
is a palimpsest of fourteen leaves found by Tischendorf at Naples, and
fully deciphered by him in 1866.
W: three leaves (ninth centurj'), containing Mark ii. 8-16; Luke i.
20-32, 64-79; now at St. GaU. Edited by Tischendorf, Mon. saer. ined.,
N. C, vol. iii. (1860).
W: fragments of Mark vii., viii., ix. (ninth century), found in the
binding of a volume in the Librarj' of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge. Tha
readings are remarkable. 9

130 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
W ^ : a fragment containing John iv. 9-14, discovered in 1865 in the
Library of Christ Church College at Oxford. Closely resembles 0, and is
perhaps a part of the same manuscript. Alford calls it Frag. Ath. b ; and
his Frag. Ath. a, containing John ii. 17-iii. 8, found by P. E. Pusey in the
cover of a raanuscript at Mount Athos, probably belongs to the same Codex.
W^: so we may designate a palimpsest leaf (ninth century), contain
ing Mark v. 16-40, found by Mr. Vansittart in Cod. 192 ofthe Acts.
W e : the Sunderland palimpsest, ninth centnry ; see above, p. 102.
X, for the Gospels: Codex Monacensxs; fragmentary; end of ninth
or beginning of tenth century ; now in the Munich University Library.
Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles.
T, for the Gospel of John: Codex Bareerisi; fragmentary; eighth
century ; now in the Library of the Prince Barberini at Eome. Tischen
dorf published it in Mon. saer. ined., 1846.
Z, for Matthew: Codex Dublinensis; rescriptus; sixth century; one
of the chief palimpsests; text in value next to N and B. Edited by
Barrett, 1801, in faulty fac-simile; TregeUes supplemented his edition in
1863 ; re-edited with great care by T. K. Abbott, Lond. 1880. See notice
by Dr. Gregory in SchUrer's " Theologische Literaturzeitung," Leips. 1881,
col. 228 sq.
r, for the Gospels: Codex Tisciiendorfiakus IV.; ninth or tenth
century ; discovered by Tischendorf in an Eastern monastery ; sold to the
Bodleian Librarj' in 1855. Another portion of the same MS. was discovered
by Tischendorf in 1869, and taken to St. Petersburg. The two together
make a nearlj' complete copj' of the Gospels. An inscription at the close
of John fixes the date probably at Nov. 27, 844 (according to Tischendorf),
or 979 (according to Gardthausen).
A, for the Gospels: Codex Sakgallensis (St. GaU) ; ninth century;
probably written by Irish monks at St. Gall. Complete, lacking one leaf,
with a Latin interlinear translation, somewhat conformed to the Vulgate.
PubUshed by Eettig in lithographed fac-simile, Zurich, 1836.
9', for Matthew: Codex Tischendorfianus I.; seventh century;
now in the Leipsic University Library; containing fragments of Matt,
xiii., xiv., XV. Found by Tischendorf in the East in 1844, and published
in his Mon. saer. ined., 1846, with a few lines of Matt, xii., published by
Tischendorf in Mon. saa: ined., N. C, vol. ii. (1857).
e"": six leaves (sixth or seventh century), fragments of Matt. x.xii.,
xxiii., and Mark iv., v. Brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg in
1859. 6": two fulio leaves (sixth century), wilh Matt. xxi. 19-24, aud

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 131
John xviii. 29-35, Tischendorf brought tbe first, and Archbishop Porfiri
the second, to St. Petersburg.
O'l: a fragment (eighth century) of Luke xi. 37-45. Brought to
St. Petersburg by Tischendorf.
e ' : a fragment (sixth century) of Matt. xxvi. 2-4, 7-9.
e': fragments (sixth century) of Matt, xxvi,, xxvii., and Mark i,, ii.
e s ; a fragment (sixth century) of John (vi. 13, 14, 22-24), like 0 (2).
G"": Graeco- Arabic fragraents (ninth century) of Matt. xiv. and xxv.,
which, together with 0 ° 's, belong to the collection of Archbishop Porfiri
formerlj- at St. Petersburg (novv at Kiev ?).
A, for Luke and John : Codex Tischendorfianus III.; ninth century;
now in the Bodleian Librarv; collated by Tischendorf (who brought it
from the East) and Tregelles. The portion of this MS. containing
Matthew and Mark is written in cursive characters, and was brought bj-
Tischendorf to St. Petersburg in 1859.
!3, for Luke i. 1-xi. 33 (witb some gaps) : Codex Zacynthius ; a pal
impsest of the eighth centnry; formerly at the island of Zante; presented
in 1821 to the British and Foreign Bible Society in London ; deciphered
and published by TregeUes, 1861.' The text is very valuable, and is sur
rounded by a commentarj'.
n, for the Gospels: Codex Petropolitanus; ninth century; brought
by Tischendorf from Smyrna ; coUated by him, 1864 and 1865. The MS.
is nearly complete, lacking 77 verses.
S, for Matthew and Mark : Codex Eossanensis ; found bj' two German
scholars, Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt, of Gottingen, and Dr. Adolf Harnack,
of Giessen, in March, 1879, at Eossano, in Calabria, in possession of the
archbishop, who got it from the library of the former convent. It is
beautifuUy written, in silver letters, on very fine purple-colored vellum,
with the three first lines in both columns, at the beginning of each
Gospel, in gold (very rare among Greek MSS.). It is also richly orna
mented with eighteen reraarkable pictures in water-colors, representing
scenes in the gospel historj'; hence important for the history of early
Christian art. Its miniatures bear a striking resemblance to those of the
celebrated Vienna purple MS. of Genesis. It consists of 188 leaves of two
columns of twenty lines each, and contains the Gospels of Matthew and
Mark (Luke and John are lost). The Gospel of Matthew ends with the
words, ETArrEAION KATA MATOAION. Gebhardt and Harnack
assign it to the sixth centurj'. The text shows a departure from the
oldest MSS. (X and B), and an approach to the amended text of A A IT.
It frequently agrees with D and the old Latin against the mass of later

4-yxpoyM yR :ze r^

XTOkjhpoyOT^' coyec^iHHB^

QA^1 rA P'^xJmiTC
?^ T^o I Caw o r C'T^'»<

Speoijien of the Codex Eossanensis, containing Matt, vl 13, 14,
irovrjpov on | aov tartv rj /3a | atXtia Kat ij Sv | vaptg Kai rj So\i,a eic
rout,' aim \ vag aprjv, | Eai/ yap aiprjre | ro(£ a)'[&pw!r]ot£ ra \ irapair-
rmpara.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT, 133
MSS. It contains, however, the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi.
13, which is omitted in the old Latin and Vulgate, as weU as in S B D Z,
Origen, TertuUian, and Cyprian, and originated in liturgical use in Syria.
It accords most remarkably with N of the Gospels (Cod. Purpureas). •
See Evangeliorum Codex argenieus puipureus Rossanensis (2), lilleris
argenteis sexto ut videtur saculo scriptus picturisque omalus, by 0. von
Gebhardt and Adolf Harnack, Leipsic, 1880; with fac-siraUes of portions
of the text and outline sketches of the pictures. A full edition of the
codex is promised.
AVe give a fac-simUe from this work on the preceding page.

B. THE- CUESIVE MANUSCEIPTS.
The cursive MSS. are indicated by Arabic numer
als. They were written in current hand on vellum
or parchment {memlrana) ; or on cotton paper
( charta hombycina, also charta Damascena, from
the place of manufacture), which came into use in
the ninth and tenth centuries; or on linen paper
{charta proper), which was employed first in the
tAvelfth century. Some are richly illuminated.
They date from the ninth to the middle of the fif
teenth century, when the invention of the art of
printing substituted a much easier and cheaper
mode of multiplying books. A few, however, were
Avritten in the sixteenth century.
They are much more numerqu,a_lhaii__the uncials,
and'aiFohnt in all, in round sum, to about 1000..'
'About 30 of them contain the whole New Testa
ment, others two or more groups of books. We
have, in round figures, more than 600 cursive MSS.
ofthe Gospels; over 200 of the Acts and Catholic
' Dr. Hort (ii. 76) saj's: "If each MS. is counted as one, irrespectively
of the books contained, the total number is between 900 and 1000."

134 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Epistles; nearly 300 of the Pauline Epistles; arid
about 100 of Eevelation.'
To these should be added over 400 catalogued
Lectionaries — namely, about 350 Evangelistaries
and 80 Praxapostoli, Avhicli contain only the Script
ure lessons for public service, and were Avritten
raostly between the tenth and twelfth centuries.
About YO of these Lectionaries are uncials, the rest
are cursives. None of them, however, are believed
to be older than the seventh or eighth century.
Uncial writing continued to be used for Lectiona
ries some time after it had become obsolete for
ordinary copies of the New Testament or parts
thereof. Of the cursive MSS. a considerable number have
been collated , in Avhole or in part by Mill, Wet
stein, Griesbach, Birch, Alter, Scholz, Matthsei, Mu
ralt, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Scrivener. Many
others are entirely unknown, bnt Avould not be
likely to affect present conclusions or the ascer
tained relations between the existing documents."
The critical value of the cursives is, of course, not
near so great as that of the uncials, because they are
' See the art. of Tischendorf in Herzog (i. 272). In this last reckoning
the sarae MS. may be counted more than once.
^ Dr. Scrivener gives a careful description of 469 cursive MSS. for the
Gospels (pp. 164-209), and of a large number of MSS. for the other books
of the New Testament (pp. 209-249). Then follows a section on the
lectionaries or raanuscript service-books of the Greek Church (250-269),
which have as j-et received little attention from Biblical critics. Dean
Alford gives also a list of 469 cursive MSS. of the Gospels in convenient
columns (Pr-olegg. i. 120-137). Compare Table IX. in Mitchell, pp, 119-
132, Tischendorf, /, c, and Westcott and Hort, u, 76 sqq.

MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

135

much further removed from the primiti\'-e source.
But some tAventy or thirty of them are very im
portant for their agreement Avith the oldest authori
ties, or for some other peculiarity.
The following are the most valuable cursive MSS. :
1, for the Gospels: Codex Basileensis; of the tenth century; in the
University Library at Basle ; known to Erasmus, but little used by him ;
collated bj- AVetstein, C. L, Eoth, and Tregelles,

Specimen of the Codex Basileensis, of the Tenth Century, con
taining Luke i, 1, 2, nearly as in all Greek Testaments.
'tvayy't\Xiov\ Kard Xovkclv:
tireiSrjirep TroXXot iirextiprjaav dvard^aa^ai \ Sirjyrjaiv irspt rOiv irt-
irXrjpo^oprjpivmv \ iv rjpiv irpayparmv. Ka^mg irapkSoaav r/pl \ i)i
dirapxrja airoirrat Kal virrjptrat yevopivoi.
13, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles; identical with No. 33 of the
Gospels (see below).
17, for the PauUne Epistles; identical with No. 33 of the Gospels,
31, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles ; identical with No, 69 of the
Gospels, 33, for the Go.spels (the sarae as No. 13 for Acts and Cath. Epp., and
No. 17 for Pauline Epp.) : Codex Colbertinus ; in the National Library
at Paris (Eegius 14, Colbertinus 2844); of the eleventh century; caUed
" the queen of the cursive MSS.," or by TregeUes, " the most important
of the Biblical MSS. iu cursive letters extant," aud, as Scrivener says,

136 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
" deserving the utmost attention." It contains the whole New Testament
except the Apocalypse, but has suffered much "from damp and decay"
(Horne, iv. 209). CoUated by Griesbach, Scholz (cursorily), and especially
by Tregelles in 1850. It agrees raost with B, D, and L. " It has an
unusual proportion of pre-Syrian readings, chiefly non- Western " (Hort,
ii. 154).
37, for the PauUne Epistles ; identical with No. 69 of the Gospels.
47, for the Pauline Epistles : Codex Bodl. Eoe 16 ; eleventh or twelfth
century. Collated by Tregelles.
61, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles: Codex Tischendorf.; in the
British Museum ; dated April 20, 1044. CoUated by Tischendorf, who
discovered it, Tregelles, and Scrivener. Formerly called lo'', that is, Londi-
nensis Tischendorfianus. Dr. Hort says (ii. 154): It "contains a very
ancient text, often Alexandrian, rarely AVestern, with a trifling Syrian
element, probably of late introduction."
69, for the Gospels (Acts 31, Paul 37) : Codex Leicesteensis; eleventh
century; coUated by Tregelles (1862) and Scrivener (1856). " This manu
script, together with 13, 124, 346 of the Gospels, are regarded as derived ,
from an uncial archet\-pe resembling Codex D."
81, for the Gospels; at St. Petersbprg; called 2i" by Tischendorf, as ,'
standing second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It is pronounced
by Dr. Hort (ii. 154) " the most valuable cursive for the preservation of
Western readings in the Gospels."
95, for the Apocalypse : Codex Parh.vm 17 ; twelfth or thirteenth cen
tury ; collated by Scrivener.
209 : Codex Venetus, a vellum MS. of the fifteenth centurj-, forraerly
the property of Cardinal Bessarion, containing the Gospels; perhaps
copied from the Vatican MS. It contains also the Acts and Catholic
Epistles (No. 95), PauVs Epistles (No. 108), and Eevelation (No. 46), but
by different hands, and of no special value.
Other cursives deserving raention are :
For the Gospels: 22, 28, 59, 66, 102, 118, 124, 157, 201; for the Acts
and Catholic Epistles : 15, 18, 36, 40, 73, 180 ; for the Pauline Epistles: 46,
67'**, 73, 109; for the Apocalypse: 7, 14, 38, 47, 51, 82.
•
One more cursive MS. must be raentioned for
its historical and dogmatic interest. This is the
Codex MoNTFOETiANUs, probably written in Eng
land during the sixteenth century (certainly not

MANUSCEIPTS . OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137
before 1500), formerly the property of Dr. Mont
fort, then of Archbishop Ussher, now in the Trinity
College Library at Dublin, numbered 61 in the
Gospels, 34 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 40 in
Paul's Epistles, and 92 in Tregelles's edition of tlie
Apocalypse. It has no intrinsic importance, but is
celebrated in the controversy on the spurious passage
1 John V. 7, whicii it contains on a glazed page to
protect it. From this codex the three heavenly
witnesses passed into the third edition of Erasmus
(1522), who had promised to insert them, if any
Greek MS. Avere found containing them, and so be
came part of the textus receptus and all the transla
tions made from it. Erasmus, however, was not
convinced of its genuineness, and suspected that it
Avas interpolated by translation from the Latin
Vulgate. Luther did not translate the passage.
See a full account by Tregelles in Horne, iv. 213-
217, with a fac-simile. The only other Greek MSS.
which contain the passage in any form are No. 162,
the Codex Ottobonianus, a Grseco-Latin MS. in
the Yatican Library (No. 298) of the fifteenth or
sixteenth century, and No. 173, the Codex Regius
Neapolitanus, Avhicli contains the passage on the
margin by a hand of the seventeenth century.
Other MSS. Avhicli were formerly quoted in favor
of the passage are only transcripts from some print
ed Greek Testament. The Codex Eavianus at Ber-
lin is a literary forgery, being almost entirely a mod
ern transcript from the Complutensian Polyglot,
Avith a few readings from the text of Erasmus. See
Tregelles, I. c. iv. 218, also 356 sqq. On the con-

138 MANUSCEIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
troversy concerning this passage, see particularly
the Memoir of the Controversy respecting the Three
Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, including Critical
Notices ofthe Principal Writers on Both Sides ofthe
Discussion, hy Criticus [i. e., Eev. William Orme].
A Neio Edition, with Notes and an Appendix, hy
Ezra Allot. New York, 1866, 12mo (xii. and 213
pages). Also the note of Dr. Hort, N. 2\ in Greek,
vol. ii. App. p. 103 sqq.

PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCEIPTS.

139

LIST OF PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCKIPTS.
Bt Pkofessor Isaac H. Hall, Ph.D.

P^OTE. — This list is intended to include only those puhUcatlons which give ac
curately the whole contents of Uncial Manuscripts of the N. T., whether in fac
simile or not ; together with certain editions of the N. T. based ou a single MS.
and containing it completely in text and notes.
The SMALL CAPITALS added to the large ono which designates the MS. denote,
respectively: A, Acts ; P, Paul's Epistles ; R, Eevelation. Where no small capi
tal is attached, the MS. contains the Gospels, or a part thereof, and sometimes
much more. I. contains palimpsest fragments of seven different MSS. Capitals
with small superior letters designate small fragments. — Ev.]

Date of MS. Name of MS.
Cent. IV. X. Sinaiticus.

Date of Publication, aud Editor.
1862. Tischendorf, St. Petersburg,
fol. {Facsimile type.)
1863. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to.
1865 (1864). Tischendorf, Leipzig,
Svo ; Addenda, etc., 1869.
B.VATiCANns(n. 1209). 1857. Mai, Rome, 4to. Reprinted
(1859) in Leipzig (London,
New York) in Svo, aud
I860. Kuenen & Cobet (with cor
rections), Leyden, small 8 vo.
1859. Vercellone, Rome, Svo.
1867. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to.
Appendix, 1869, fol.
1868-1881. Vercellone & Cozza
(and Sergio), Rome, fol.
Quasi facsimile type.)
1786. Woide, London, fol. [Fac
simile type.)
1860. Cowper, London, Svo.
1S79. Brit. Mus., Lond. (Autotype.)
1843. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to.
Q. GuELPHERBYTANUsB. (1762.) Knittel, Brunswick, 4to.
1860. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined.
vol. iii.), Leipzig, 4to.

Cent. V. A. Alexandrinus.

C. Ephraemi.

140 PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCEIPTS.
EateofMS. NameofMS. Date of Publication, and Editor.
Cent.V. T. Borgianus L 1789. Giorgi, Rome, 4to.
T>™i " 1799. Ford (App. Cod. Alex,), Ox
ford, fol.
I. Tischendorfianus II. 1855. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined,
vol. 1.), Leipzig, 4to.
I"". MuSEi Britankici. 1857. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined,
vol. ii.), Leipzig, 4to.
Cent. VL D. Bez.e. 1798. Kipling, Cambridge, fol, (^ac-
simile type.)
1864. Scrivener, Cambridge, 4to.
P. GuELPHEKBTTANUS A. (1762.) Knittel, Brunswick, 4to.
1869. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined.
vol. vi.), Leipzig, 4to.
R. Nitriensis. 1857. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined.
vol. ii.), Leipzig, 4to.
¦ Z. Dublinensis. 1801. Barrett, Dublin, 4to. (Sup
plement, Tregelles, Londoii,
1863, 4to.)
1880. Abbott, Dublin, 4to.
I. Tischesdoefianus II. 1855. Tischendorf (Jfo«. Sac.Ined.
vol. i.), Leipzig, 4to.
N. PuRPUREUS. (Portions scattered.) 1846. Tischendorf
(Mon. Sac. Ined.), Leipzig,
4to.
1876. Archives des Missions Sden-
iif. etc., Paris. (Patmos
Fragments.)
e^ Tischendorfianus L 1846. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac.
Ined.), Leipzig, 4to.
1857. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac.Ined.
vol. ii.), Leipzig, 4to.
E-^. Latjdianus, 35. 1715. Hearne, Oxford, Svo. *
1870. Tischendorf {Mon. Sac. Ined.
vol. ix.), Leipzig, 4to.
D"" . Claromontanus. 1852. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 4to.
H'f . CoiSLiNiANUS. a, J. 1716. Montfaucon (Bibliotheca
Coislin.), Paris, fol.
(a, b, c, d, e,f are c 1863. Sabas (Spedmina Palceogr.),
scattered portions.) Moscow, 4to.
e. 1876. Archives dei Missions Sden-
tif. et. Litter., Paris.

PUBLISHED UNCIAL MANUSCEIPTS.

lil

Dale of MS. Name of MS. Date of Publication, and Editor.
Cent. VIL F». Coislinianus L Wi6.Tischeiidori(Mon.Sac.Ined.), Leipzig, 4to.
L. Regius. 1S46. Tischendori (Mon.Sac.Ined.),
Leipzig, 4to.
I. Tischendorfianus II. 1855. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac.Ined.
vol. i.), Leipzig, 4to.
R'' . Ceyptoferratensis. (1867.) Cozza (Sacror. Bibl. Vetust.
Frag., pars 2), Eome.
Cent.VIII. S. Zacynthius. 1861. Tregelles, London, sm. fol.
F. Rheno-Trajectincs (Boreeli). 1843. Vinke, Utrecht, 4to.
y. Barberini. 1846. Tischendorf(ifon.jSac./?if(/.), Leipzig, 4to.
W. Regius, 314. 1846. T\schendorl(Mon.Sac.Ined.), Leipzig, 4to.
W°. " I860. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac. Ined.
vol. iii.),' Leipzig, 4to.
G^^. Vaticanus, 9671. 1877. Cozza (Sacror: Bibl. Vetust.
Frag, pars 3), Rome, Svo.
B". Vaticanus, 2066. 1846. Tischendorf (Jfcwt./Sac.Jnerf.),
Leipzig, ito.
1869. Tischendorf (J^/). Co;/. Vat.),
Leipzig, 4to.
1836. Rettig, Ziirich. (Facsimile.)
1785. Matthaei (Epp. Pauli ad
Thess., etc., and facsimile
in Joannis Apoc. etc. ),
Riga, Svo.
1*861. Tregelles (App. to Cod. Za-
cynth.), London, 4to.
W"". (Trinity Coll., Cambridge.) ? Photographs by Brad
shaw.
1791. Matthaei, Meissen, 4to.
1859. Scrivener, Cambridge, 4to.
1865-69. Tischendorf (Mon. Sac.
Ined. vols. v. & vi.), Leipzig,
4to.
1800. Henke, Progr. Helmstadt,
4to.
1855. (ed. alt.. 1861). Tischendorf
(Anecd. Sac. et Prof), Leip
zig, 4to.

Cent. IX. A. Sangallensis.
0. Mosquensis, 120.

G'" . Boernerianus.
F^. Augiensis.
pAPR; PoKFIRIANUS.

MP. Ruber.

CHAPTEE THIED.
THE ANCIENT VERSIONS.
VALUE OF VEESIONS.
Next to the study of the MSS., the most impor
tant aids in textual criticism are the ancient versions,
or translations of the New Testament from the
Greek into vernacular languages. They are, how
ever, only indirect sources, as we must translate
them back into the original, except in omissions and
additions, whicii are apparent at once. If, for in
stance, the Latin versions in Luke ii. 14 read homini-
lus Ionce vohmtatis, it is evident that the translators
found in their Greek copy the genitive £iiSoK('ae,aiid
not the nominative tvSoKi'a {voMntas). Tlie transla
tion unigenitus Filius, in John i. 18, supports v'wq
instead of Sraop {Deus). The translation haleamus
pacem, in Eom. v. 1, presupposes the reading of the
subjunctive e'xwyufv (J.et us have), and not the indica
tive txofiiv {halemus, we have). '
In point of age, some versions, being made in the
second century, antedate our oldest Greek MSS.,
which are not earlier than the fourth. But they
have undergone similar textual corruptions, and no
MS. copy of a version is earlier than the fourth cen
tury. ,Yet in general tliey represent the Greek text
from which they were made. Some of them are as
yet imperfectly edited. Even a satisfactory critical

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 143
edition of the Vulgate is still a desideratum. Eut,
notwithstanding these drawbacks, the ancient ver
sions are more important to the textual critic than
to the exegete. As Dr. Westcott says, "While the
interpreter of the New Testament will be fully
justified in setting aside without scruple the author
ity of early versions, tliere are sometimes ambiguous
passages in which a version may preserve the tradi
tional sense (Jolm i. 3, 9 ; viii. 25, etc.), or indicate
an early difference of translation ; and then its evi
dence may be of the highest value. But even here
the judgment must be free. Versions supply au
thority for the text, and opinion only for the ren
dering." ' It matters comparatively little whether
they be elegant or wretched, so long as they reflect
with accuracy the original text. One service of
great importance thoy can be manifestly depended
upon to, render — to tell where insertions or omis
sions occur in the original text before the translator.
It is therefore very weighty evidence against the
genuineness of any particular passage that it is not
found in the most ancient versions, representing as
they do the text current in widely separated regions
of the Christian world.
The most important of these versions are the
Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian, the .Ethiopic, the
Gothic, and the Armenian.
The Vulgate was the first version made use of as
a collateral witness in the printed editions of Eras
mus and the scholars of Complutum.
' Smith's Did. ofthe Bible, Amer. ed., vol. iv. p. 3479, art. " Vulgate."

144 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS.

LATIN VEESIONS.
1. The Old Latin (Itala). This version is not
found complete ; but from the quotations of the
Latin faWers, especially those in Tertullian, Cyprian,
Lucifer of Cagliari, Hilary of Poitiers, Hilary the
deacon or Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Vjctorinus, Je
rome, Eufinus, Augustin, Pelagius, and in the
Apocalypse Primasius, its text can be in large meas
ure restored. See Hermann Eonsch, Das N. T. Ter
tullian! s, aus den Schriften des letzteren mUglichst
vollstandig reconstruirt, Leipsic, 1871 (731 pages).
The version is nearest in age to the earliest fonn
of the Peshito, and may be assigned to the middle
or latter half of the second century. It was not the
work of one man, nor suffered to go uncorrected by
many. Hence the different accounts of it by differ
ent scholars ; some holding that there were many
versions before Jerome, in proof of which statement
they quote Augustin, De Doctr. Christ, ii. 11 ; oth
ers holding that there was only one version, aud
citing in proof Jerome. But by the simple and
natural explanation that tliere were many revisions
of the one old translation, Augustin and Jerome can
be reconciled.
The version is made from the Septuagint in the
Old Testament ; is verbal, rough, and clumsy ; the
language is the degenerate Latin of the second cen
tury, with admixture of colloquial and provincial
forms. In the .New Testament it underwent many
changes in different provinces ; partly made to im
prove the style, partly to bring it into conforraity

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 145
with Greek manuscripts. The great want of uni
formity in the copies current in the latter part of
the fourth century led to the revision undertaken
by Jerome, which now bears the name of the Latin
Vulgate. The balance of probability is in favor of North
Africa as the place of its origin, because there,
rather than in Italy, there was an immediate. demand
for a Latin translation ; while in the Eoman Church
the Greek language prevailed during the first and
second centuries. Hence the name "Italic" or
" Vetus Itala " is incorrect. Augustin {De Doctr.
Christ, ii. 15) speaks of a translation which he calls
the Itala, and whicii he preferred to all the others.
This was manifestly a recension of the same Old
Latin version, made or used in Ital}'.
The Old Latin version never attained to much
authority ; the Greek being regarded as the authen
tic text, even in the early Latin Chnrch. At the
same time, the version is one of the most significant
monuments of Christian antiquity, the medium of
divine truth unto the Latin peoples for centuries,
and of great value to the Bible critic by reason of
its antiquity and literalness. The Apocryphal books
of . Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Ba
ruch, Prayer of Manasseh, and 4 Ezra (2 Esdras)
were, in a substantially unchanged form, embodied
in the Vulgate. In the Old Testainent the Psalms
were similarly transferred. Jerome's translation of
the Psalms from the original Hebrew could not
force its way.
There is still lacking a really trustworthy edition
10

146 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS.
of tiie existing portions of the Old Latin version.
For the New Testament there exist, however, more
than twenty very ancient but fragmentary MSS. of
the Gospels, and some (imperfect) of the Acts and
the Pauline Epistles ; while there is only one com
plete MS. yet known of the Apocalypse, and of the
Catholic Epistles but few fragments remain. The
codices of this version are cited by small Latin let
ters, but there is more variation in the use of these
letters than in the use of the capital letters for the
Greek codices. The principal MSS. of the Gospels
generally regarded as representing the African text
are —
Codex Vebcellensis (a), supposed to have been written by Eusebius,
Bishop of Vercelli, cir. A.D. 365.
Veuosknsis (b), of the fourth or fifth century.
ColbeutinCs (c), at Paris, of the eleventh century, the only complete
MS.
Codex Brixiasus (f ), at Brescia, of the sixth century, represents a later
revision, probably Augustine's Itala.
' Codex BoBBiENSls (k)J now in Turin, of the fourth or fifth century,
collated by Tiscliendorf, has a remarkable and valuable text; and the
same is true of Code.x Palatinus (e), at Vienna, fifth century.
The last two MSS. agree in a striking manner with
the quotations of Cyprian, and Dr. Hort therefore
regards them as the best representatives of the
African text; the type of text fonnd in abc he
wonld designate ias European, while f and q are
classed as Italian.
The most complete edition of the Old Latin ver
sion is Peter Sabatier's Billiorum Sacrorum Latinos
Versiones Antiqum, seu Vetus Italica et cceierm quce-
cunque in Codd. MSS. el Antiquorum Lilris reperiri

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 147
potuerunt (Eemis, *'. e. Eheims, 1743-49, 3 tom. fol. ;
new title-page, Paris, 1751). But many parts of
each. Testament have been carefully collated or
edited subsequently. Worthy of special mention,
for the Gospels, are Bianchini's Evangeliarium
Quadruples Latinoe Versionis Antiques, seu Veteris
ItaliccB, editum ex Codidhus Manuscriptis, Eomse,
1749, 2 tom. fol. ; Scrivener's Codex BezK, Cam
bridge, 1864; Tischendorf's Evangelium Palatinum,
Lips. 1847 ; and Haase's Codex Itehdigeranus, Bres
lau, 1865-66. For the Acts, see Scrivener's Codex
Bezoe, and Belsheim's Die Apostelgeschichte und die
Offenbarung Johannis in einer alten lat. Uebersetzung
aus dem Oigas Librorum, Chrlstiania, 1879. For the
Pauline Epistles, Tischendorf's Codex Claromonta
nus, 1852 ; Matthsei's Codex Boernerianus, Misense,
1791; and Scrivener's Codex Augiensis, Cambridge,
1859. For the Catholic and Pauline Epistles (mere
ly fragments), see Ziegler's Italafragmente, Marburg,
1876. For the Apocalypse, see Belsheira, as above.
Belsheim's Codex Aureus of the Gospels ( Chrls
tiania, 1878) is rather a MS. of the Vulgate than of
the Old Latin, though the text is mixed, as it is in
not a few other MSS. The Grseco-Latin MSS.
J)ewact J) paul gact Qpaul ^paul (mostly Vulgatc), have
no independent authority except where the Latin
differs from the Greek.
The Codex Lugdunensis, published by Ulysse
Eobert, Paris, 1881, contains a version apparently
of African origin (comp. Eenan, Marc AurUe, p. 456,
note 2), This, however, is a MS. of the Pentateuch.
On the whole subject, consult Hermann Eonsch,

148 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS.
Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchrist-
lichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata, 2d ed.,
revised, Marburg, 1875 ; L. Ziegler, Die Idteih.Bi-
belvhersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des
J.w^wsfe'nw, Munchen, 1879 (he maintains the exist
ence of several Latin versions or revisions before
Jerome) ; O. F. Fritzsche, Lutein. Bibelubersetzun
gen, in the new ed. of Herzog, vol. viii. 1881, pp. 433-
472 ; Westcott's art. " Vulgate," in Smith's Diet, of
the Bible; and Westcott and Hort's Oreek Testa
ment, vol.ii., Introd., pp. 78-84. There is a good con-
, densed account, revised by Dr. Abbot, in Mitchell's
Critical Handbook (1880), p. 133 sq.
2. The Lati nJVuLG ATE. In the course of tirae
the texf of the Old Latin becaine so corrupt that a
thorough revision was imperative, and was intrusted
by Pope, Damasus, in 383, to Jerome (d. 419), the
most learned scholar of his day, and of all the Latin
fathers best qualified, by genius, taste, and knowl
edge of Hebrew and Greek, for this diflScult task.
' He began upon the New Testament, and proceeded
i cautiously, making as few changes as possible, so as
' riot to arouse the opposition of those who, as he
says, " thought that ignorance was holiness." But .
his scholarly instincts, no less tlian his convictions '
of duty towards the Divine Word, impelled hitn to
go beyond his instructions, and make a new version
pf the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, of
which, however, it does not concern us at present
to speak. In the New Testament he used "old"
Greek MSS., and made no alterations except such
as were required by the sense. He removed numer-

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 149
ous interpolations of parallel passages in the Gos
pels. " Internal evidence shows that the Latin MSS.
which he took as a basis for his corrections contained
an already revised text, chiefly, if not wholly, Italian
in character " (Hort, ii. 80).
Jerome's revision and new translation (finished
405) encountered much opposition, which greatly
irritated his temper and betrayed hira into con
temptuous abuse of his opponents, whom he styled
" bipedes asellos." But, by inherent virtues, rather
than by external authority, it passed into such cur
rent use that in the eighth century it was the Vul
gate, the common version, in the Western churches.
It became much corrupted by frequent copying.
Alcuin, at the instance of Charlemagne, revised it
circa 802, by the collation of various good MSS., and
substantially in this form it passed down to the time
of the invention of printing.
The first book printed was the Vulgate — the so-
called Mazaria.^Bible (Gutenberg and Fust, Mayence,
1455). Printing, however, fixed errors and gave
them wider currency, and revision was felt once
more to be imperative.
In the Council qf Trent (Dec. 13, 1545, to Dec. 4,
1563) the matter was introduced Feb. 4, 1546, and
the recommendation of revision passed on April 8 ;
but it was not until 1590, in the pontificate of Six
tus v., that the revised edition of the Vulgate ap
peared. The scholarly pope took active interest in
the work, riejecting or confirming" the suggestions of
the board of revisers, and corrected the proof-sheets
with his own hand. It was prefaced by the famous,

150 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS.
and, as the event showed, by no means infallible,
constitution ^ternus ille (dated March 1, 1589), in
which the pope said, " By the fulness of apostolical
power, we decree and declare that this edition of the
sacred Latin Vulgate of the Old and New Testa
ments, which has been received as authentic by the
Council of Trent, ... be received and held as true,
legitimate, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public
and private disputation, reading, preaching, and ex
planation." He further forbade any alteration what
ever; ordered this text, and none other, henceforth
to be printed ; and hurled anathemas against every
one disobeying the constitution. But, alas for the
pope ! the immaculate edition was full of errors and
blunders; and no sooner was he dead (Aug. 27,
1590) than the demand for a new edition arose.
Bellarmine suggested an ingenious though dishon
orable escape from the awkward predicament in
which Sixtus had placed the Church — viz., that a
corrected edition should be hastily printed under
the name of Sixtus, in which the blarae of the errors
should be thrown upon the printer! His recom
mendation was adopted, but it was not until 1592,
under Clement VIIL, that the revised edition ap
peared. The Clementine edition is the standard in
the Eoman Catholic Church, in which this Latin
translation takes precedence of the Hebrew and
Greek originals, as the support of doctrine and guide
of life.
The materials for a more critical edition of the
Vulgate than the Clementine are very abundant
There are numerous MSS., and much labor has al-

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 151
ready been expended upon the work. The most
famous of these MSS. are —
(a) Codex Amiatinus, from the Cistercian Monastery of Monte Amia-
tino, in Tuscany, now in the Laurentian Library at Florence ; it contains
the Old and New Testaments almost complete, dates from 541, and is the
oldest and best MS. , Tbe New Testament was edited by Tischendorf,
Leipsic, 1850, 2d e<l. 1854, and by Tregelles (in his edition of the Greek
Testament, with the variations of the Clementine text).
(6) Codex Fuldensis, in the Abbey of Fulda, Hesse-Cassel ; contains
the New Testament; dates from 546. Collated by Lachmann for his
large edition of the Greek Testament, and edited by E. Eanke, Marburg
and Leipsic, 1868.
(c) Codex FoROJULiENSis (sixth century), at Friuli; Matthew, Luke,
and John published by Bianchini, Evang. Quadruplex, Appendix. Part
of the same MS. is at Prague (Pragknsis).
(J) Codex H arleian. 1775 (seventh century), of the Gospels, partially
collated by Griesbach, Symh. Crit. vol. i.
(e) Codex Tolet anus, at Toledo; written in Gothic letters in the
eighth century ; collated by the Sixtine correctors and by Vercellone. It
contains both Testaments. Its readings are given by Bianchini, Vindicice
Canon. Scripturarum, Eome, 1740.
The best edition of the variations is that of Carlo
Vercellone, Varioe Lectiones Vulg. Lat. Billiorum
Editionis, Eom. tom. i. 1860 ; tom. ii. pars 1, 1862;
pars 2, 1864. Unfinished. A very important work,
but, unfortunately, without, eitiier the authorized or
the corrected text. Fritzsche says {loc. cit. p. 458),
" Even to-day there is wanting a text winch answers
the demands of science ; and Protestantism alone
can and ought to accomplish this work, already too
long neglected."

152 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS,

SYEIAC VEESIONS."
1. The Peshito (or PESHrrro, PEsnrrTA, as spelled
by many Syriac scholars), the " siraple " — so called
because of its simple Syriac style, or its simple form,
in distinction frora the Grecized versions replete
with asterisks and obeli derived from Origen — in its
present, shape, dates from the fourth or third cen
tury. It supplied the wants of the Syrian Chris
tians before the nnhappy schism in that church
(fifth century),. and by its use. in common has always
been a bond of union between the different sects,
who still read it in tiieir church services and as a
sacred classic, though its language is no longer the
vernacular. . The. Peshito has been justly called
" the queen of (ancient) versions," since, while it
yields to none in accuracy and . faithfulness: it is
idiomatic, and as unfettered as an original composi
tion in Syriac. Its genius is strikingly like that of
Luther's matchless German ; generally close and
literal, but not shrinking from a paraphrase when
necessary. It was first used for critical purposes by
Beza, but only occasionally and indirectly (through
the Latin version of Tremellius), more fully by Wal
ton, MiU, Wetstein, and with great care by Tregel
les. The text connects it in sundry places with D
and the Latin versions, though in more with A. Its
critical value is very great, but has been somewhat
diminished since the discovery of the still older
Curetonian Syriac. It had undergone a revision be-
' See especially Tregelles, in Horne's Introd. (Uth ed. 1877), vol. iv.
258-284, and on the Syrian text, Westcott and Hort, ii. 132-146.

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 153
fore it assumed its present shape, like that of the
Old Latin by Jerome. According to the investiga
tions of Westcott and Hort, the revision took place
ih thc fourth century or sooner (between 250 and
350), adapting it to tlie Greek copies current at An
tioch.' Notwithstanding its age and value, the Peshito
was not known to Europe until 1552; and in 1555,
at Vienna, the first edition appeared, at the expense
of the emperor, Ferdinand I., edited by Albert Wid-
manstadt, the imperial chancellor. This edition is
the basis of all its European successors, and is not
inferior to any. It contained all that is now known
of the Peshito version — that is, all of tlie New Test.
except 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, Jude, and the
Apocalypse. There is testimony, however, to the
fact that these books existed in a Syriac translation
before the fourth century, and were used by Syrian
fathers who quoted the Peshito. The missing epis
tles were supplied in the raodern editions from an
other version (otherwise unknown), first brought to
light by Pococke, and published at Leyden in 1630.
The Apocalypse, likewise of unknown origin, was
first published by De Dieu, at Leyden in 1627, from
a late Indian MS. owned by Scaliger. Its text is
not of great value. The best European editions of
the Peshito, with the additions just specified, are
those of Lee, published by'the British and Foreign
Bible Society, and of Greenfield, published by Bag-
' Gr. Test., p. 552 ; comp. Introd. p. 135 sqq. Dr. Hort's view has been
independently confirmed by Dr. Schiirer in the "Theol. Literaturzeitung"
' for 1881, No. 25, p. 594.

154 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS.
ster, iu the Polyglot and separately. Eather better
than either are the American editions, one edited
by Dr. Justus Perkins at TJrmiah, or Ooroomeyah, in
Persia, 1841, and its reprint iri New York in 1874,
both in Nestorian type, and both by the American
Bible Society. Dr. Murdock has published a "Lit
eral Translation from the Syriac Peshito Version "
(New York, 1851). A translation of the Acts and
Epistles from the Peshito, by J. W. Etheridge, apr
peared in Loudon, 1849. Better than either is the
familiar Latin translation by Tremellius. In Schaaf
and Leusden's edition, Leyden, l708 (also -with.tiiler
pages dated 1709, 1717, but no other change), the
Syrian text is accorapanied with a close Latin vei'r
sion, and an appendix of various readings, Schaaf's
Lexicon Syriacwm Concm'dd'n.tiale, published as a
corapanion volume, is an invaluable help to the stu
dent. 2. The Philoxenian or Haeclean version, so
called from its patron Philoxenus, Monophysite
bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis), in Eastern Syria
(488-518), and from Thoraas of Harkel, a subsequent
reviser, who was probably likewise a Monophysite
bishop of Mabug. Scrivener calls it " the most
servile version of Scripture ever made." It may be
compared in this respect to the literal English ver
sion of Eobert Ypung, It is based upon the Peshi
to, and forces it into rigorous conformity with the
letter of the Greek, even to the linguistic phenome
na. It dates frora A.D, 508, and was revised by
Thomas of Harkel, or Heraclea, A,D. 616, who com
pared it with several ancient Greek MSS. belonging

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 155
to a library at Alexandria, the readings of which he
often notes in his margin. These are as important
as the t^xt itself. It contains the whole New
Testament, except the Apocalypse, and is therefore
more complete than the" Peshito, The only edi
tion of the Harclean (improperly called the Philox
enian) is that of Joseph White, printed by the
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1778-1803, 4 vols. 4to.
Bernstein has published the Gospel of John (Leips.
1853). This version was chiefly used by the Jacobites.
The unrevised Philoxenian was thought by Adler '
to exist in a Florence Codex (in the Medicean
Library) of the eighth century ; but this opinion is
disputed by Bernstein," who thought the claims of
the Vatican Codex Angelicus (twelfth to fourteenth
century) to be superior. But a Jacobite MS. of the
ninth century, originally from Mardin, at present
belonging to the Syrian Protestant College at Beirut,
brought to light by Prof, Isaac H. Hall in 1876, pos
sesses claims superior to either, and is the nearest
representative of the unrevised Pliiloxenian thus far
known, if indeed it is not identical with it. This
MS. originally consisted of the Gospels in that ver
sion, with the other books in the Peshito, so far as
the latter contained them. At present the MS. con
tains nearly the entire Gospels from Matt. xii. 20 ;
and of the rest of the New Test, lacks all of Phile
mon and Hebrews, with large portions of the Pas-

' A'^ T. Versiones Syriacce, p. 55.
' Das hdlige Ev. d. Johannes, pp. 25-30,

156 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS.
toral Epistles, besides a few other lacunce where a
leaf is lost,"
3,. The CuEETONiAN Syriac is a mere fragment of
the Gospels (consisting of 82^ leaves), but very old
and valuable ; though overestimated by Canon Cure
ton, who thought it "retained, to a great extent, the
identical terms and expressions of St. Matthew's
Hebrew Gospel." It is regarded by most scholars—
as Cureton, Payne Smith, HermansenJ Ewald, Crow
foot, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort^as the oldest
f orni of the Syriac version ; the " Peshito " in its
present form holding a relation to it similar to that
of the Vulgate to the Old Latin, Dean Alford calls
it "perhaps the earliest and most iraportant of all
versions." Dr. Scrivener, however, places it decid
edly below the Peshito. It was found by Archdeacon
Tattara in 1842, with 550 other MSS., in a convent
of the Nitrian Desert (seventy miles northwest of
Cairo), and brought to the British Museum ; and
was published by Cureton in 1858, with a literal
English translation. It agrees remarkably with D
and the Old Latin, while the Peshito mostly favors
A, It. contains large portions of Matthew, Luke,
and John, and the last four verses of Mark.
Dr. Brugsch, the celebrated Egyptologist, after
wards discovered three additional leaves in the UntU
ing of a MS. of the Peshito which came from the
Nitrian convent (1871). They were published by
' Professor Hall read a carefully prepared paper on this MS. before the
Am. Society of Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis at its ineeting in New Haven,
June, 1882. It will be published in the Jour-nal, vol. ii. 1883,

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 157
Eod'iger in the Monatslericht of the Berlin Acaderay
of Sciences for Julj', 1872 ; and also by Prof. Wright,
as an appendix to Cureton's volume. The leaves
contain Luke xv. 22-xvi. 12 ; xvii. 1-23 ; John vii.
37- viii. 19, not including, however, the disputed
passage respecting the woraan taken in adultery
(vii. 53-viii. 11). The Curetonian Syriac, including
these new leaves, has been translated into Greek by
J. E. Crowfoot in his Fragmenta Evangelica, 2 parts,
London, 1870-71[72].
4. The Jeeusalem Syriac. The principal MS.
known is an Evangelistary in the Vatican, dated
A.D. 1030. This has been published at Verona
(1861-64, 2 vols. 4to) by Count Francesco Miniscalchi
Erizzo, Fragments of two other MSS. are in the
British Museum, and of two more at St. Petersburg,
The text of these has been published by Land,
Anecdota Syriaca, vol. iv. (1875). The version is
quite independent of the Peshito, and is referred by
Tischendorf to the fifth century. It is in a peculiar
dialect, and seems to have been little used.
OLD EGYPTIAN, OE COPTIC, VEESIONS.'
There are three Egyptian translations in three
different dialects — the Thebaic or Sahidic, the
' Copt (comp. Arabic Kehf) is supposed to be of the same origin as the
Greek .Mi-yvirr-OQ (Kahi Ptah, "country of Ptah"). Another derivation
is from the city KoTrn'f or Koirrog in Upper Egypt, a city of so vast
importance as to give its name to most articles of Egyptian commerce,
to the Egyptian numeral system, and (as many not unreasonablj' think)
even to Aiyvirrog itself. See the authorities collected in Athanasius
Kircher's Prodromus Coptus (EomiB, 1636), cap. I., De Etyrno Copies,
pp, 7-15, The name Copt (KoTrnVqs, Latin Copliles) is far older than

158 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS,
MEMPHrtic or BAfiiEic, arid the Bashmue'ic. The'
Thebaic and Memphitic versions are, as Bishop
Lightfoot declares,' " entirely independent ;" the
former is "rougher, less polished,, and less faithful
to the original " than the latter. Both contain many.
Greek words, and are of great textual value, as they
independently preserve a very ancient text froni
different manuscripts, with the adoptiori of many
•Greek words. Schwartze and Lightfoot infer from
historical notices that the greatest part of the New
Testaraent, if not all, was translated into these
Egyptian dialects in the second century. We have
no satisfactory edition of either version, .
1, The editio princeps of the Memphitic Version
for Lower Egypt is that of Wilkins (Oxford, 1716),
based upon copious materials, but not carried out
with much critical sagacity. Still, nothing better
thau his work has yet appeared, except an edition
of the four Gospels by M, G, Schwartze (Leips, 1846
and 1847, 2 vols.), and of the Acts ajid Epistles by
P. Boetticher, alias P, A, de Lagarde, of Gottingen
(Halle, 1852). The Apocalypse is omitted (but is
contained in Wilkins's ed.). The New Testament
in Coptic (Memphitic) and Arabic was published
by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
(1847-52), under the editorial care of " Henry Tat
tara, the presbyter of the Anglican Church for the
the Arabian dominion of Egypt. It is now applied to the descendants
of the ancient Egyptians, mostly Christians, who inherited the old Egyp
tian (demotic) language, together with their religion.
' In the chapter on the Egyptian Versions, which he prepared for
Pr. Scrivener's Introduction, pp. 319-357.

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 159
Holy Patriarch and the Churchof Christ in Egypt."
It is beautifully printed, but of no critical value,
because no various readings are recorded. The
basis of this edition is a copy belonging to the Cop
tic Patriarcli.
2. The editio princeps of the Thebaic Version
for Upper Egypt is that of C. G. Woide, completed
by Ford (Oxford, 1799). The version is yet in a
very fragmentary condition, and there is need of an
edition in whicii the fragments shall all be collected.
The Thebaic Version is less valuable than the Mem
phitic ; its text is less pure, and shows a certain in
fusion of those readings which are called Western,
though to nothing like the same extent as the Old
Latin and the Old Syriac,
3, Of the Bashmueic or Eleaechian Version
(end of third centnry?) we. have a fragment of
John's Gospel (iv. 28-53), and some portions of the
Pauline Epistles published from MSS. in the Borgian
Museura at Eome by Zoega {Catdlogus, 1810) and
Erigelbreth {Fragmenta Basmwrico-Coptica Vet. et
Nov. Test., Havniae, 1811). It is a secondary ver
sion made from the Thebaic, but useful in passages
where that is defective. ethiopic veesion.
TJiere must have been a call for a translation of
the New Testament very shortly after Christianity
entered Abyssinia, So, although the tradition which
assigns it to Abba Salaraa (Frumentius), the first
bishop, be unreliable, the version probably dates
from the fourth century, as Dillmann asserts. This

160 THE ancient VEESIONS.
scholar likewise praises the version, for its fidelity
and general smoothness.
The text in Walton's Polyglot is taken from the
first edition of this version, printed at Eome, 1548-
49. The MS. used for it was defective in the larger,
part of the Acts, and its gaps were supplied by the
Abyssinian editors from the Latin Vulgate or the
Greek. Bode's Latin translation (1753) of Walton's
text is the only accurate one. The New Testament
has been better edited by Thomas Pell Platt for the
British and Foreign Bible Society (18S6-30); bnt
a really critical edition is still a desideratum. There
are considerable differences in the Ethiopic MSS.,
but they are all comparatively raodern. Gilde-
meister. Professor in Marburg, collated some por
tions of tbe .(Ethiopic New Testaraent for Tischen
dorf's edition of 1859, ,
GOTHIC VEESION,
It is the work of Ulphilas, Vulfila, or Wnlfila
(311-381, or 313-383),' the apostle of Christianity
to the Goths, who in the fourth century translated
thfe Old Testament from the Septuagint and the
New Testament from the Greek into Gothic, and
founded the Gothic alpliabet (resembling partly the
Greek, partly the Eunic letters). It is uncertain
whether he translated the whole Bible or only por
tions ; the ancient report that he omitted the books
C|f Kings, because they wonld excite the warhke
' The true spelling is Wulfila, i. e. Wolfidn, Liltle Wolf. The date
318-388 is exploded; but it is not certain whether we should adopt
311-381 (Stamm, Bernhardt) or 313-383 (Krafft in Herzog, Davidson). ¦

THE ANCIENT VEESIONS. 161
passions of the Gotlis, sounds like a myth. Bishop
Wulfila was a semi-Arian, and all the Germanic
tribes, except the Franks, received Christianity first
in that form duriug the Arian ascendency in the
East. His Bible accompanied the Goths on their
migrations from the lower Danube to the West.
The Gothic language and people have perished, but
this version has been fortunately recovered in mod
ern times. It is the earliest specimen of Teutonic
literature, and the starting-point of comparative
Teutonic philology, for which it is even more im
portant than for biblical learning. Comp. J. Esberg :
Ulfilas, Gothorij.m Episcopus (Holm. 1700); G.
Waitz : Ueber das Lelen und die Lehre des Ulfila.
Brvchstucke aus dem vierten Jahrh. (Hann. 1840) ;
W. L. Krafft : De FontllusUlfiUe, Arianismi (Bonn,
1860) ; W. Bessell : Das Lelen des Ulfilas und die
Bekehrung der Oothen zum Christenthum {Gottingen,
1860); Edinl. Review for October, 1877.
There are seven famous codices of this version :
{a) Codex Argenteus, beautifully written on pur
ple vellum in gold and silver letters, containing
fragments of.the Gospels; it dates from the earlier
part of the sixth century, was discovered in the
library of the Benedictine abbey of Werderi, on
the Euhr, in 1597, and, after changing hands, trans
ferred in 1648 from Prague to the University Library
at Upsala. in Sweden,
(b) Codex Carolinus, in the library at Wolfen
biittel, discovered by Knittel in a palimpsest, 1756,
published 1762 and 1763 ; contains forty verses of
the Epistle to the Eomans. 11

162 THE ANCIENT VEESIONS.
(c) Palimpsest fragments of five codices in the
Ambrosian Library at Milan, discovered and pub
lished by Angelo Mai and Castiglione, Milan, 1819-
39 ; portions of Esther, Nehemiah, the Gospels, and
Paul's Epistles.
The best editions of all these fragments are by
H. C. von der Gabelentz and J. Loebe : Ulfilas. Vet.
et N. Test. Versionis Oothicce Fragmenta quce super
sunt (Leipsic, 1836-46), with a Latin version, and a
very copious grammar and lexicon; and by E. Bern
hardt (Halle, 1875), in which the Gothic is accom
panied by the Greek, with full critical notes.
Stamm's Ulfilas, 7th ed. by Moritz Heyne, with
grammar and lexicon (Paderborn, 1878), is the most
convenient manual edition for the student of the
language, Bernhardt's is the best for text-critical
purposes, Massmann's edition (1855-1857) deserves
honorable mention.
The Swedish scholar, Andreas Uppstrora (d. 1865),
has published the text of all the Gothic MSS. line
for line, with the most painstaking accuracy, cor
recting many errors of his predecessors, in his Codex
Argenteus, Upsala, 1854 ; Decern. Cod. Argentei re-
diviva folia, ibid. 1857 ; Fragmenta Oothica selecta,
1861; and Codices Ootid Ambrosiani, Stockholra
and Leipsic, 1864-68. Compare also The Oothic and
Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns with the
Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, by Jos. Bos-
woETH, assisted by Geoege Waeing, 2d ed. Lond.
1874, with a fac-simile of the Codex Argenteus.
Dr. E. Miiller and Dr. H. Hoeppe have published
the Gothic Gospel of Mark with a grammatical com-

THE ancient VEESIONS. 163
mentary : Ulfilas : Evangelium Marci grarnmatisch
erlautert, Berlin, 1881 (pp, 72), unfortunately dis
figured not only by typographical errors, but by
gross mistakes in the notes. On the other hand,
W. W. Skeat's The Oospel of Saint Mark in Oothic,
with gramraar, notes, and glossary (Oxford, 1882), is
excellent. AEMENIAN VEESION.
It belongs to the fifth centur}', and is the work
of Miesrob and Moses Chorenensis. It was based
on Greek MSS. probably obtained from Cappadocia,
the mother of Armenian Christianity. It has con
siderable critical value, though the existing MSS.
are not very ancient, and there are wide differences
among them ; some modern copies contain corrup
tions from the Latin Vulgate. The version em
braces the entire Bible. The first edition appeared
at Amsterdara, 1666, under the care of Bishop Uscan
of Erivan ; in this the text has been more or less
conformed to the Latin Vulgate. The best edition,
founded on manuscripts, is by Zohrab — New Testa
ment, 1789 ; whole Bible, 1805, and again 1816. It
is now published by the British and Foreign Bible
Society. On the Armenian Version, see Tregelles in
Smith's Bible Diet., Am. ed., vol. iv. p. 3374.
We pass by the Slavonic, Arabic, Persic, and sevt
eral other versions, which are of too late a date to
be of value for the restoration of the primitive text.
Most of them are derived frora other versions, chief
ly the Latin and Syriac, The Slavonic bears traces
of ancient texts.

CHAPTEE FOUETH.
PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS.
VALUE OF THE FATHEES AS WITNESSES OF THE TEXT.
The third source of textual criticism is furnished
by the quotations in the early Christian writers,
from which the greater part of the New Testament
might be reconstructed. The Greek fathers give
direct, the Latin (and Syriac) fathers indirect, testi
mony, to the original text. The former rank with
the Greek MSS. ; the latter with the Versions,
Some of them — as Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian — are
older than our oldest MSS., and therefore of the
greatest value. Soraetiraes their silence furnishes
negative evidence pf the absence of a passage in
their copies.
But the fathers raust be used with great care and
discrimination. They were theologians and Chris
tians rather than critics. They often quote very
loosely, simply from memory, and more for doctri
nal, polemical, and practical than critical purposes.
They had no concordances and other modern con
veniences which facilitate the finding of passages.
Their testimony is fragraentary, and fails us where
we most wish and need information. Besides, their
editors have so frequently thought they were doing
a service when they corrected their quotations that

PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS. 165
it is often difiicult to tell just what was the text be-
I fore them. The chief benefit of patristic quotations*
consists not so much in their independent value as
in their corroborative force, by establishing a reading
which rests on goqd authority of MSS. or versions. ,
When they are single and unsupported, they defeerve
little or no credit.'
Origen, Eusebius, and Chrysostom are the most
learned biblical scholars among the earlier Greek
fathers, and have more weight than all the rest as
witnesses of the text. They note occasionally that
" some " or " many " or " the most accurate " " copies "
contain or omit a certain reading, or tiiat the true
reading has been perverted by heretics or for some
special purpose.
The most valuable works for critical purposes are
commentaries and homilies which explain the text
consecutively. They are scanty in the ante-Nicene
age. The first commentator and the father of
Christian exegesis is the great Origen, from whom
we have expositions of several chapters of Matthew,
Luke, and John in the original Greek (partly in a
condensed Latin translation), of Eomans in the
abridged and altered version of Eufinus, and of
many scattered verses of the Epistles. Theodore
of Mopsuestia commented on the Minor Epistles of
Paul (extant only in a Latin translation) ; Chrysos
tora preached Homilies on Matthew, John, Acts, and

' See the judicious remarks of Tregelles, in Horne's Introduction (14th
ed. London, 1877), vol. iv. pp. 329-342. Comp. also Eeuss, Gesch. der h.
Schr. N. T. ii. p. 125 (5th ed.).

166 PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS,
all the Epistles of Paul; Theodoret wrote notes on
the Epistles of Paul, based chiefly on Theodore and
Chrysostom ; frora Cyril of Alexandria we have
Homilies on Luke (partly in Greek, partly in a
Syriac translation) and on John. Fragments of
other Greek commentators are contained in the
Catena, Patrum, which are chiefly compiled from
Chrysostom and Theodoret.
Of the Latin fathers, Tertullian is the richest
source for quotations from the old Latin (African)
Version, and Jerome for the whole New Testament
as retranslated by him (the Vulgate), besides m:uch
valuable information scattered through his exegetical
and other writings, Jerorae was a born linguist and
critic, and tlioroiighly at home in the Hebrew and
Greek Scriptures and in Bible Lands, but somewhat
fettered by orthodox and ascetic prejudices. Angus-
tin was a profounder theologian, and had more spir
itual insight into the meaning of the Scriptures than
Jerome or any of the fathers ; but he was neither a
Greek scholar nor a textual critic, and relied on the
old Latin version with all its imperfections and
errors. Primasius, an African writer of the sixth
century, has preserved to us, in a comraentary, al
raost the entire text of the Apocalypse in an old
African Latin version. " Thus, singularly enough,
the Apocalypse possesses the unique advantage of
having been preserved in a Latin text at once con
tinuous and purely African." '
The number of ecclesiastical writers that liave
' Hort, ii. 84.

PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS. * 167
been consulted by various critics considerably ex
ceeds one hundred, but, with the exception of those
we have mentioned, only a few yield substantial
results.' A, GEEEK FATHEES,
Fiest. Centuet till the middle of the Second:
The apostolic fathers, so called — ClemenlofJiojiie,
Barnabas, Polycarp, Ignatius, also Hermas and
Papias.  'p^S^, "1'^ <
These writers, as pupils of the apostles, would be
the oldest and most important witnesses; but they
still lived in the element of oral tradition within the
hearing of the apostles, and hence they quote few
passages from the New Testament. The first literal
quotation frora the New Testament with the solemn
formula, " It is written," occurs in the Greek Epistle
of Barnabas — naraely, the passage in Matt. xxii. 14 :
" Many are called, but few are chosen." ' Clement
and Polycarp^have allusions to Epistles. Papias,
who is aisoraiiked with the apostolic fathers, gives
us valuable testimonies of the Gospels of Matthew
and Mark, preserved by Eusebius, but no quotations.
His work on the Oracles of the Lord is lost. ^ /
Second Centuet: Jusfai Martyr (d. 167) comes
next in tlie order of timeTand iiialjes mucli~use of
' Alford (i. 140-143) gives an alphabetical list of over one hundred and
fifty ancient writers. See also the lists in Scholz, Tischendorf, Scrivener
(p. 372 sq.), and Mitchell (Tables XI. and XIL).
" Ep. Bam. c. 4: irpoatx'»pev prjirori, mg yiypairrai, iroXXoi
KXrjrol, oXiyoi Si iKXeKroi tiiptSiUptv. In ch. 5 Barnabas
quotes also from Matt. ix. 13 (but without naming the writer or the book):
"He came not to call righteous men, biit sinners."

168 PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS.,
the four Gospels, particularly of Matthew and Luke
(also from John iii. 5, the passage on regeneration),-
but in a very free and loose way, Irenaeus of Lyons
(d. 202) is the raost important witn'ess of tile second
century, and his great work against the Gnostic
heresies is replete with quotations from the New
Testament, but exists for the most part only in a
Latin version.' s
Thied Centuey : Clemens Alexandrinus (d. 220),J^
and still more Origen (184^254). Seep.i6£ Next
to thera HippoiyTus (disciple of Irenseus, about 220),
Gregory Thaumaturgus (disciple of Origen, 243),Dio-
nysius Alexandrinus (265), and Methodius (d. 311).
In the FouETH and Fifth Centueies: Eusebius
the historian (d. 340, rauch used by Tischendorf and
Tregelles), Athanasius (d. 373), Basilius . Magnus
(d. 379), Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389), Gregory Nys
sen (d. 371), Ephraem Syrus (d. 373), Cyril of Jeru
salem (d. 386), Didymus of Alexandria (d. 395),
Chrysostom (d. 407), Epiphanius (d. 403), Theodore
of Mopsuestia (d. 428), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444),
and Theodoret (d. 468).
About the Sixth Centuet (or perhaps later) we
have the commentary of Andreas, bishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, on the Apocalypse, which he divided
into twenty-four chapters and seventy-two sections.

' He testifies, e. g., to the last twelve verses of Mark, and to the existr
ence of two readings of.the mystic number in Eev. xiii. 18: the one is
666, which he found in the best copies, and explains to mean Laldnos
(while several modern exegetes make it out to raean, in Hebrew letters,
Neron Ccesar) ; the other 616, which is the numerical value of Nero
(without the final »») Ceesar. i

PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS. 169
With him is • closely connected a later bishop of
Caesarea, Arethas, who likewise wrote a full com
mentary on the Apocalypse, based in part on the
former ; but his age is uncertain (probably the tenth
century).' In. the Seventh Centuet the most important
writer is Maximus the Confessor (d. 662).
In the Middle Ages : John of Damascus (about
750, see his Parallela Sacra), and the later com
mentators, (Ecumenius (bishop of Tricca in Thessa
ly, end of the tenth century), Theopliylact (arch
bishop of Bulgaria, 1071), Euthymius Zygadenus or
Zigabenus (d. after 1118). ,. .., r ," -
B. LATIN FATHEES.' ¦ ^ ^ ' u ^2.-
Second Centuey : Tertullian__(about 200), impor
tant for the Old LatTn~Veim)n, though lie often
translates independently, or quotes loosely.
Thied Centuet: Cyprian (d. 258), whose numer
ous quotations (in his Testimonia, etc.) are in gen
eral carefully made from the African Old Latin
current in his time, Novatian (fl. 251), Lactantius
(306), and the anonymous writer of the treatise De
Relaptismate, printed with the writings of Cyprian.
' Rettig (Die Zeugnisse des A ndreas und A rethas, in the " Studien und
Kritiken" for 1831) assigns him to the close of the fifth or early part of
the sixth centurj-. But Dr. Otto (in Corpus Apol. iii. p. xi., and more
recently in his Des Patriarchen Gennadios Confession, nebst einem Excurs
iiber Arethas' Zeitalter, Wien, 1864) quotes a MS. which states that it was
written by Baanes, vordpioc of Arethas, archbishop of Caesarea, in the year
ofthe world 6422 (A.D. 914). See the article Arethas in Smith and Wace,
Dictionary of Christian Biography, i. 154 sq., and especially Harnack, Die
Uberlieferung der griech. Apologeten u. s. w., Leipz. 1882, p. 36 sqq.

170 PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS,
Foueth and Fifth Centueies: Hilary of Poitiers
(354), Lucifer of Cagliari (d. cir. 370), Victorinus
Afer (d. cir. 370), Ambrose (d. 379), Ambrosiaster
or Pseudo- Ambrose, probably to be identified with
Hilary the deacon (about 384), Pelagius (417),
Augustin (d. 430), and, most of all, Jerome, the
translator of the Latin Bible from the original
Hebrew and Greek (d. 419),
Sixth Centuet: Primasius, already mentioned as
important for the text of the Ap.ocalypse,
The Medieval commentators ofthe Latin Church
depend almost exclusively on the Latin Vulgate, aud
have therefore no value for, textual criticism.

CHAPTEE FIFTH.
TEXTUj\.L CEITICISM.
NATUEE AND OBJECT OF TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
The variety of documentary sources, from which
the original text of the New Testament must be
derived, calls for a special branch of biblical learn
mg, called Textual or Veebal Ceiticism. Its ob-
jecTis fo ascertain and restore, as far as possible, the
yery text of the apostolic writers, and thns to furnish
a TaTtlifur substitute" for the lost autographs. iFis
distinct frblri " higher criticism," which deals with
questions concerning the origin, authenticity, and
theology of these writings, and their organic place
in the history of the apostolic age. It does not
enter into the province of hermeneutics and inter
pretation, but furnishes a solid basis for the com
mentator. It is confined to the original form and
integrity of the text, as far as it can be established
by documentary evidence. It aims to show, not
what the apostles, and evangelists might have writ
ten or ought to have written, but simply what they
actually did write. It has nothing to do with secta
rian notions and tenets, or subjective likes and dis
likes, bnt only with facts.
Criticism is a dry study, and requires an unusual
amdumrt' "of -patience and attention to the minutest
details, A good critic must have full command of

172 TEXTUAL CEITICISM,
all sources of evidence, an acute mind, and a clear,
sound judgment. He must combine microscopic ac
curacy and judicial impartiality. In the nature of
the case the number of real critics is very limited.
The science of textual criticism is of compara
tively recent origin. It was matured with the dis
covery and collection of the material during the
eighteenth century, and reached its height within
the last fifty years. It has been cultivated mostly
by Protestant scholars — Swiss, German, Dutch, and
English, It has received a mighty impulse by the
recent discovery and publication of the most ancient
manuscripts, and by tlie Anglo-American Eevision
of 1881, and is beginning to excite the interest of
the Christian laity, who have a right to know the
results of learned investigation, especially if they
affect the vernacular versions of the Word of God,
A few Catholics — like Hug and Scholz, Vercellone
and Cozza — have nobly taken part in the work; but,
upon the whole, the Eoman Church cares more for
tradition and the living church than for the Bible,
and is satisfied with the Latin Vulgate sanctioned
by the Council of Trent, Protestant Bible Societies
have been denounced as dangerous and pestiferous
by several Popes,
The importance of this branch of biblical learn
ing can hardly be overestimated ; for a pure text is
the basis of exegesis, and exegesis is the basis of
dogmatics and ethics, Protestant theology niakes
the New Testament the supreme and only infallible
rule of the Christian faith and practice, and must
stand or fall with this final test.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 173
OEIGIN OF VAEIATIONS.
The necessity of criticism arises, as has just been
stated, from the vast nuraber of variations in the
docuraentary sources of the New Testaraent text.
It would have required a perpetual miracle to keep
the transcribers from error. No MS., either of the
Greek original or of any translation, is faultless any
more than any printed book. The errors are even
more numerous, since the MSS. had not the benefit
of repeated proof-readings ; many of them, however,
have the marks of one or more correctors of a later
date. The variations of the Greek text are partly unin
tentional or accidental, partly intentional or designed.
Errors of the first class proceed either from misread
ing, or from mishearing (in case of dictation), or
from fault of memory. Errors of the second class
are due either to misjudgment, or to an innocent
desire to correct supposed mistakes, to supply de
fects, to harraonize apparent discrepancies, or to
wilful corruption for sectarian or ascetic purposes.
Examples of wilful mutilation or corruption of the
text are, however, exceedingly rare. Transcribers
had too much reverence for the words of Christ
and his inspired apostles to be guilty of it, though
in making their choice between conflicting readings
they would naturally be biassed by their theological
opinions. The wide diffusion of MSS. and versions
was a safeguard against the reception of corruptions,
whether heretical or orthodox. The case of Marcion,
who mutilated the Gospel of Luke to suit it to his

174 TEXTUAL CEITICISM,
Gnostic notions, is exceptional, and M-as generally-
understood in its true character. The mutual charges
of corruption made by the orthodox and heretical
parties in times of heated controversy were mostly
unfounded.' The variations began very early, with the first
copies, and continued to increase till the art of
printing superseded the necessity of transcribing,
and substituted typographical errors for errors of
copyists. Origen (d. 254) complained of the great
corruption of the text about the middle of the third
century. Jerome, the greatest scholar of the last
quarter of the fourth century (d. 419), says that in
his days there were nearly as many distinct forms
of the text as codices of the Latin Testament {f,ot
ptxne exemplaria quot codices), and that the text of
' Examples of possible changes in the interest of dogma: the omission
or insertion of irpmroroKog in Matt. i. 25 (the best authorities omit it) ; of
ovii 6 v'wg, Mark xiii. 32 (which Ambrosius charged the Arians with
having inserted, De Fide, v. 7); of the tears of Christ and his drops of
blood in Gethsemane, Luke xix. 41; xxii. 43, 44 (comp. Epiphanius,
Anoor. 31); the substitution of "Joseph" for "father" (irarrjp), Luke ii.
33. Dr. Abbot writes on this subject (in a private letter) : " The charges
against the heretics of wilful corruption of the text (setting aside avowed
excision like that of Marcion) rest on no good foundation. In the definite
instances alleged by ancient writers (John i. 13 ; iii. 6 ; Mark xiii. 32) the
' heretical ' reading turns out to be the true one. Epiphanius charges the
orthodox with omitting Luke xxii. 43, 44, to remove a difficulty. This
is the most plausible case of alleged wilful corruption. But Westcott and
Hort, with Mr. Norton and Granville Penn (comp. Weiss), regard the
passage as a later addition, and I am disposed to fcgree with them. No
case of deliberate, wilful corruption, affecting any considerable nurnber of
MSS., on the part cither of the heretics or the orthodox, can be anywhere
made out. Eash attempts to correct supposed error must not be con
founded with wilful corruption."

TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 175
the Gospels especially was in confusion {ap^id nos
rnixta sunt omnia). The further up we go, the
greater were the freedom and carelessness of the
transcribers. Copies were made first for private
use ; ecclesiastical copies were written with greater
care, and tended to settle the text, until it becaine
stationary, or, as it were, stereotyped. The changes
date nearly all from the first four centuries, as
we may infer from patristic quotations. Varia
tions of later origin are mostly unimportant, and
changes in the distribution of existing readings
rather than new readings. A text agreeing in
great raeasure with that which Erasmus first print
ed, was already current in Antioch at the close of
the fourth century, and is virtually identical with the
text used by Chrysostom (d. 407). This Antiochian
or Syrian text stands out in opposition to the text
of older date. The Gospel and Epistles of John
have suffered least, the Acts and the Apocalypse
most, from textual corruption.
Attempts for a restoration of the pure text were
made by learned fathers as early as the third cen
tury, especially by Origen, Hesychius (an Egyptian
bishop), and Lucian (a presbyter of Antioch) ; but
we are not well informed as to the character and
result of their labors, which were looked upon witli
suspicion. Jerorae knew beforehand that he would
be abused as a falsarius and sacrileg-us for his ira
provement of the Latin text.
It was natural that the copies prepared in the
same city or district — as Antioch, Alexandria, Con
stantinople — sbould assume a local coloring or cer-

176 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
tain textual peculiarities. Hence we 'are justified
in dividing the authorities into different families,
and to speak of an Alexandrian or Egyptian, a Con-
stantinopolitan or Byzantine (also called Antiochian
or Syrian), a Western, and a neutral text (chiefiy
represented by B and next by «, and presumably the
-oldest extant). Bengel flrst suggested the division
into families or recensions ; Griesbach carried it fur
ther, and with some excesses which created a reac
tion in Germany against it ; Westcott and Hort
modified and completed it. This classification is
an essential prerequisite for a just estimate of tlie
value of documents according to their representative
weight rather than their number.
NUMBEE OF VAEIATIONS,
The variations were gradually found out as the
collection and examination of the sources progressed,'
The first editors had no idea, of the number, but it
accuraulated with every standard edition. Dr. John
Mill, in 1707, roughly estimated" the number at
30,000. Since that time it has risen to "at least
fourfold that quantity," as Dr. Scrivener wrote in
1874, and now cannot fall much short of 150,000, if
we include the variations in the order of words, the
mode of spelling, and other trifles which are ignored
even in the most extensive critical editions.
This nTimber far exceeds that of any ancient
book, for the simple reason that the New Testa
ment was far more frequently copied, translated,
and quoted than the most celebrated works of Greek
and Eoman genius. While we have but a few copies

TEXTUAL CEITICISM.' 177
of the Greek and Eoman classics, on which we must
rely for the text, we have hundreds of copies of the
Greek Testament, and these are only a remnant of
many thousand copies which were destroyed durino-
the early persecutions (especially that of Diocletian),
or perished by use or neglect. Moreover, our old
est copies of the Greek Testament are by several
hundred j'ears nearer the original autographs than
the oldest copies of the Greek classics are to their
originals. VALUE OF VAEIATIONS.
This multitude of various readings of the Greek
text need not puzzle or alarm any Cliristian. It is
the natural result of the great wealth of our docu
mentary resources; it is a testiraony to the immense
•importance of the New Testament; it does not af
fect, but it rather insures, the integrity of the text;
and it is a useful stimulus to study.
Only about 400 of the 100,000 or 150,000 varia
tions materially affect the sense. Of these, again,
not more than about fifty are really important for
some reason or other; and even of tliese fifty not
one affects an article of faith or a precept of duty
which is not abundantly sustained by other and un
doubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture
teaching. The Textus Receptus of Stephens, Beza,
and Elzevir, and of our English Version, teach pre
cisely the same Christianity as the uncial text of
the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., the oldest versions,
and the Anglo-American Eevision.
Eichard Bentley, the ablest and boldest of classi-
12

178 TEXTUAL ' CEITICISM.
cal critics of England, affirms that even the worst of
MSS. does not pervert or set aside " one article of
faith or moral precept."
Dr. Ezra Abbot, who ranks aniong the first textual
critics, and is not hampered by orthodox bias (being
a Unitarian), asserts that " no Christian doctrine or
duty rests on those portions of the text whicii are
affected by difierences in the manuscripts ; still less
is anything essential in Christianity touched by the
various readings. They do, to be sure, affect the
bearing of a few passages on the doctrine of the
Trinity ; but the truth or falsity of the doctrine by
no means depends upon the reading of those pas
sages." ' The same scholar speaks on the subject
more fully with special reference to the English
Eevision : " This host of various readings may startle
one who is not acquainted with the subject, and he
may imagine that the whole text of the New Testa
ment is thus rendered uncertain. But a careful
analysis will show that nineteen twentieths of these
are of no more consequence than the palpable errata
in the first proof of a raodern printer ; they have so
little authority, or are so manifestly false, that they
may be at once dismissed from consideration. Of
those which remain, probably nine tenths are of no
importance as regards the sense ; the differences
either cannot be represented in a translation, or af
fect the form of expression merely, not the essential
meaning of the sentence. Though the corrections
made by the revisers in the Greek text of the New
¦ Anglo-American Bible Revision, p. 92.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 179
Testament followed by our translators probably ex
ceed two thousand, hardly one tentli of them, per
haps not one twentieth, will be noticed by the ordinary
reader. Of the sraall residue, many are indeed of
sufficient interest and iraportance to constitute one
of the strongest reasons for making a new revision,
which should no longer suffer the known errors of
copyists to take the place of the words of the evan
gelists and apostles. But the chief value of the
work accomplished by the self-denying scholars who
have spent so much time and labor in the search for
manuscripts, and in their collation or publication,
does not consist, after all, in the corrections of the
text which have resulted frora their researches.
These corrections raay affect a few of the passages
which have been relied on for the support of certain
doctrines, but not to such an extent as essentially to
alter the state of the argument. Still less is any
question of Christian duty touched by the multitude
of various readings. The greatest service which the
scholars who have devoted themselves to critical
studies and the collection of critical materials have
rendered has been the establishment of the fact that,
on the whole, the New Testament writings have
come down to us in a text remarkably free from
important corruptions, even in the late and inferior
manuscripts on which the so-called 'received text'
was founded ; while the helps which we now possess
for restoring it to its primitiye purity far exceed
those which we enjoy in the ease of any eminent
classical author whose works have come down to us.
The multitude of ' various readings,' which to the

180 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
thoughtless or ignorant seems so alarming, is siraply
the result of the extraordinary richness and variety
of our critical resources." '
Moreover, the large number of various readings
is a positive advantage in ascertaining the true text.
The word of the wise man may be applied here:
"In the multitude of counsellors there is safety"
(Prov. xi. 14). The original reading is sure to be
preserved in one or more of these sources. Hence
we need not, as in' the case of the ancient classics,
resort to subjective conjectural criticism, which never
leads to absolute certainty.
The very multitude of readings is the best guar
antee of the essential integrity of the New Testa
raent. This fact was long ago clearly stated by Eichard
Bentley, when the resources of the text were not
nearly so abundant as now. Fertile and ingenious
as he was in his conjectural emendations of classical
authors, he yet declares, in his Prospectus for a new
edition of the Greek Testanient (1720), that " in the
sacred writings there is no place for conjectures and
emendations. Diligence and fidelity, with some
judgment and experience, are the characters here
requisite." And in another place : " "If there had
been but one MS. of the Greek Testament at the
restoration of learning, about two centuries ago, then
' See " Sunday-school Times," Philadelphia, May 28, 1881.
' In his reply, under the pseudonym of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, to the
deist Anthony Collins, who, in his Discourse of Free -thinking (171B),
represented the 30,000 variations of Mill as fatal to the authority of the
New Testament,

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 181
we had had no various readings at all. And would
the text be in a better condition then than now we
have 30,000? So far from that, that in the best
single copy extant we should have some hundreds
of faults and some omissions irreparable. Besides
that, the suspicions of fraud and foul play. would
have been increased imraensely. It is good, there
fore, to have raore anchors thau one. ... It is a
good providence and a great blessing that so many
manuscripts of the New Testament are still amongst
us ; some procured from Egypt, others from Asia,
others found in the Western churches. For the
very distances of. places, as well as numbers of the
books, demonstrate that there could be no collusion,
no altering, nor interpolating one copy by another,
nor all by any of thera. In profane authors whereof
one manuscript only had the luck to be preserved,
as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesy
chius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes
are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond
all redress, that, notwithstanding the pains of the
learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centu
ries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a
mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the
copies of any author are. numerous, though the vari
ous readings always increase in proportion, there
the text, by an accurate collation of them, made by
skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct,
and comes nearer to the true words of the author."
And again: "Make your 30,000 (variations) as
many more — if numbers of copies can ever reach
that sum— all the better to a knowing and a serious

182 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to
select what he sees genuine. But even put them
into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with
the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not
extinguish the liglit of any one chapter, nor so dis
guise Christianity but that every feature of it will
still be the same."
Modern editors are almost unanimous on the in
applicability of subjective conjectural criticism in the
forraation of the Greek text of the New Testaraent,'
" We possess," says Dr. Tregelles, " so many MSS.,
and we are aided by so many versions, that we are
never left to the need of conjecture as the means of
removing errata." ' " So far," says Dr. Scrivener,*
" is the copiousness of our stores from causing doubt
or perplexity to the genuine student of Holy Script
ure, that it leads hira to recognize the more fully its
general integrity in the midst of partial variation.
What would the thoughtful reader of .^schylus
give for the like guidance through the obscurities
which vex his patience and mar his enjoyment of
that sublime poet?" Dr. Hort,* however, thinks
that the evidence for corruption of texts antecedent
to extant authorities is " often, irresistible," and im
poses on an editor the duty of indicating the pre
sumed unsoundness of the existing text, although
' Comp. Tischendorf's popular tract : Haben wir den achten Schrifttext
der Evang. und Apostel ? Leipzig, 1873. Dr. O. vou Gebhardt (Nov. Test.
Gr. p. viii.) mentions two special Dutch essays on the subject, by W. H.
van de Sande Bakhuyzen and W. C. van Manen, Haarlem, 1880.
* Gr: N. Test., Prolegomena, p. x.
^ Introd., p. 4. * Vol. ii. p. 71.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 183
he may be wholly unable to propose any endurable
way of correcting it, or have to offer only suggestions
in which he cannot place full confidence.

CLASSES OF VAEIATIONS.
Tlie variations which really involve the sense
may, with Dr. Tregelles, be reduced to three classes
— omissions, or additions, or substitutions, of words
or phrases. 1. OMISSIONS.
Omissions occur frequently from like endings
called homoeoteleuton {ofioioriXcvrov). When two
lines or sentences end with the same word, the in
tervening words were often unconsciously overlooked
and omitted. A very important case of this kind
is the sentence in 1 John ii. 23 : 6 ofioXoyCov rov vlov
Kal TOV TTUTfpa s'xfi (the same ending as in the pre
ceding clause), which is not found in the Textus
Receptus, and is italicized in the English Version ;
but sustained by s. A, B, C, P, and other authori
ties, and properly restored in the English Eevision.
Here the older text restores what the later lost.
2. ADDITIONS.
Additions are very numerous in the later MSS.
and in the Textus Receptus, and must be elimina
ted according to the oldest and best authorities.
They may be divided into several classes.
(«.) Additions caused by ti'Ansferring a genuine
word or passage from one book to another; first on
the margin or between the lines, and then into the

184 TEXTUAL CEITICISM,
text. These cases are most frequent in the parallel
sections of the Gospels.' They began probably
with tlie Gospel Harmonies, the oldest of which is
Tatian's Diatessaron, from the second century. By
such interpolations the idiosyncrasy of style and
manner is more or less obliterated.
For examples, see in the Text. Rec, Matt. i. 25
(supplemented from Luke ii. 7) ; Matt. v. 44 (from
Luke vi. 27, 28) ; Matt. ix. la (from Luke v. 32) ;
Matt. xvii. 21 (from Mark ix. 29) ; Matt, xviii, 11
(from Luke xix. 10) ; Matt. xix. 16, 17 (corap. Mark
X. 17, 18; Luke xviii. 18, 19); Matt. xix. 20 (from
Mark x. 20 and Luke xviii. 21 ) ; Matt. xxi. 44
(from Luke xx. 18); Mark iii. 5 and Luke vi. 10
(from Matt. xii. 13); Mark vi. 11 (from Matt. x. 15);
Mark xiii. 14 (from Matt, xxiv. 15) ; Mark xv. 28
(from Luke xxii. 37); Luke iv. 2, 4, 5, 8 (comp.
Matt. iv. 2, 4, 8, 10); Luke xi. 2, 4 (frora Matt. vi. 9,
10, 13) ; John vi. 69 (from Matt. xvi. 16) ; Acts ix.
5, 6 (frora xxvi. 14, 15; xxii. 10), etc. By removing
these interpolations of words and clauses, otherwise
genuine, we lose nothing and gain a better insight
into the individuality of each Gospel,
(5.) Amplifications of quotations from the Old
Testament, as in Matt. ii. 18; xv. 8; Luke iv. 18,

' As was observed by Jerome in his Preface to the Gospels (.1 d Dama-
sum) : "Magnus in nostris codioibus eiTor inolevit dum, quod in eadem re
alius evangelista plus dixit, in alio quia minus puiaverinl addiderunt; vel
dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum
legerat ad ejus exemplar cceteros quoque exislimaverit emendandos: unde
acddit ut apud nos mixta sunt omnia ei in Marco plura Lucce atque Mat-
thai, rursus in Mallhceo plura Joannis et Mard . . . invepaniur."

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 185
19 ; Eom. xiii. 9 ; Heb. ii. 7; xii. 20, etc. These are
all right in the Septuagint.
(c.) Insertions of words and proper names (instead
of pronouns) from Lectionaries for the Church ser
vice, especially those of the Gospels (Evangelistaria
or Evangeliaria). Hence the frequent interpolation
or changed position of 'IjjcroDe {e. g.. Matt. iv. 18 ;
viii. 5 ; xiv. 22 ; John i. 44). Comp. also Luke vii.
31 (the prefix Hire St 6 kv/ko?), and x. 22 (k«( arpaipi)!;
irpoQ roiiQ /naSntraQ iJrre, omitted by Tregelles, West
cott and Hort, but retained by Tischendorf and
Von Gebhardt).
{d.) Additions from a love of paraphrase, which
characterizes all the sources embraced by Westcott
and Hort under the designation of the "Western"
text, of whicii the bilingual Codex Bezae (D) and
Codex Claromontanus (D(2)) are the best known
representatives. " The chief and most constant
characteristic of tlie Western readings," says Dr.
Hort, "is' a love of paraplirase. Words, clauses,
and even whole sentences were changed, omitted,
and inserted with astonishing freedom, wherever it
seemed that the meaning could be brought out with
greater force and definiteness." ' Examples of this
paraphrastic tendency are found in the enlarged
readings in Matt. xx. 28; xxv. 1 {kuI rrig vv/x^rig,
after rov vvfxrpiov); Luke iii. 22; xx. 34; Eph. v. 30;
in many curious interpolations in the Acts ; and in
John V. 3, 4, and viii. 1 sqq., which will be considered
separately under the next head.
' Vol. ii. p. 122.

186 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
In this love for explanatory expansion of the
sacred text, as if the Holy Spirit was too brief and
terse for the common understanding, the authors of
the Authorized English Version have imitated the
old Western copyists and translators, but have acted
more honestly by printing their numerous, mostly
useless, and sometimes misleading, interpolations in
italics.' {e.) Additions from oral tradition, ancient litur
gies, and explanatory glosses. They were usually
noted on the margin and then incorporated with
the text. Jerome expressed his wonder at the large
number of such interpolations by the temerity of
transcribers in his day.' But in many cases it was
done ignorantly and innocently.
Under this head we may place the most impor
tant and serious interpolations, which are rejected
by the severer class of critics, although some may
be defended with solid arguments. They are as
follows :
1, The doxology in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi. 13,
which was unknown to Origen, Tertullian, and Cyp
rian (in their commentaries on the Lord's Prayer),
' This method has been retained, but on a greatly reduced scale, in the
Eevision. It is open to objection, as conflicting with modern usage of
italicizing for the purpose of emphasizing. Smaller type or brackets
would obviate misunderstanding. I heard of a famous sensation preacher
taking two words in italics for his text, as if they contained the gist of
the passage.
"Ad Suniam et Fretelam: "Miror quomodo e latere annotalionem no
stram nesdo quis temerarius scribendam in corpore pvtaverit quam nos pro
er-udiiione legenlis scripsimus, , . , Si quid pro studio ex latere additum est,
non debet poni in corpore."

TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 187
and is missing in the oldest MSS. (x, B, D, Z), in the
Itala and. Vulgate.' It probably came in from 1
Chron. xxix. 11, and from ancient liturgical usage
in Syria, as a response of the congregation. It is
found in the Syriac Version, and thence passed into
the Greek text at the time of Chrysostom, who has
the doxology. The Jewish response to the prayers
in the temple is said to have been : " Blessed be the
name of the glory of his kingdom forever and ever."
In the Liturgy of St. James the doxology of the
Lord's Prayer is expanded into a trinitarian shape :
OTI aov iOT^v -t\ (iatJtXiia koi 17 ^vvafxig, koi 17 Bo^a,
TOV TrarpoQ icai tov vlov kcxi tov ayiov 'KViVfiaroq, vvv
Kai aii. But in all the extant Latin liturgies the
doxology is omitted."
2. The passage on the periodical descent of the
angel of the Lord, troubling the pool of Bethesda
for the liealing of the sick, John v. 3, 4 (frora IkSe-
Xo/jiivbjv, ver. 3, to Kard^sTo vocrfifxari, ver. 4), is un
doubtedly an interpolation (at least ver. 4), probably

' Cod. A cannot be quoted for or against, as the first twenty-four
chapters of Matthew are lost. The newly discovered Codex Eossanensis
has the doxology, but belongs to the sixth century. See p. 131.
' The English Bevision puts the doxology in the margin. It was a
case of honesty versus prudence. No change seems to have given wider
dissatisfaction than this, and the substitution of "the evil one" (the
tempter) for "evil," in the same prayer hallowed by daily use. The
doxology is very appropriate, and will always be used ; but this, of course,
does not affect the critical question, which is simply one of evidence.
Its insertion from liturgical usage is far more easily accounted for than its
omission. The internal evidence also is rather against it; for our Lord
immediately proceeds with "for" (idv ydp) in ver. 14. His object was
to suggest proper topics for prayer rather than to give a complete formula.

188 -TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
of Syrian and Western origin, and expresses a popu
lar superstition, for which John cannot be held re
sponsible. The first Greek father who shows any
knowledge of the interpolation is Chrysostom (d,
407), but" it is wanting in n, B, C*, (D), 33, and other
authorities, and omitted by the critical editors, and
the Eevisers of 1881.'
3. The section on the woman taken in adultery,
John vii. 53-viii. 11, in ten cursive MSS. at the end
of the Gospel of John, in four (13, 69, 124, 346) at
the end of Luke xxi. It no doubt rests on a primi
tive and authentic tradition, but was not written by
John. It is omitted by n and B, and other Greek
MSS. ; there is no room for it in A and C, which
are here defective; it was unknown to the Greek
and older Latin fatliers, but widely current in Latin
Gospels of the fourth century. It interrupts the
context, departs from the style of John, and. pre
sents an unusual number of variations in the MSS,
Nevertheless, the story itself is eminently Christ
like, and found its way into the Gospels of John
and Luke frora apostolic teaching, perhaps from the
lost work of Papias of Hierapolis, who collected from
priraitive disciples various traditional discourses of
our Lord with coraments, and who (according to
Eusebius iii. 39) set forth " a narrative concerning a
woman maliciously accused before the Lord touch-
' The Eevision relegates it to the margin with this note : " Many
ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, waiting for Ihe moving ofthe
water: ifor an angel ofthe 'Lord went down at certain seasons into ihe
pool, and troubled the water : whosoever ihen first after the troubling ofthe
.water stepped in was made whole, with whatsoever disease he was hqlden,"

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 189
ing' many sins,' which is contained in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews." The English Eevision
properly retains the section, but in brackets, with a
marginal note, and with space between it and the
genuine part. The Christian world will never lose
it. Its best place would be at the end of the Gospel
of John as an appendix.''
4. The concluding twelve verses of Mark (xvi. 9-
20) present a peculiar case. The section is wanting in
the two oldest MSS. (it and B), and, according to tho
testimony of Eusebius and Jerorae, in almost all the
Greek MSS. of their day ; it contains seventeen un
usual words or phrases not elsewhere found in Mark
or not in that sense ; and there is a shorter conclu
sion in L and in the important old Latin MS.k, whieh
presupposes the sarae defect in older MSS. On the
other hand, the section is found in raost of the uncial
^ iirl rroXXaiQ dpapriaiQ, not one dpapria, as in the text.
° For the details the reader may consult the critical editions (Tregelles,
p. 236-243 ; Tischendorf, ed. viii. ; Hort, ii. Notes, ii. 82-88), and the com
mentaries of Ltlcke, Meyer (6th ed. by Weiss), Lange, Alford, Wordsworth,
Godet, and Westcott. In my annotations to Lange's Com. on John (1872) ,
pp. 267 sqq., I arrived at the same conclusion— namely, that " the critical
evidence, especially from the Eastern church, Is against the section, the
moral evidence ybr it; in other words, it is no original part of John's
written Gospel, but the record of an actual event, which probably hap
pened about the time indicated by its position in John viii. The story
could not have been invented, as it runs contrary to the ascetic and
legalistic tendency of the ancient church. It is full of comfort to penitent
outcasts. It breathes the Saviour's spirit of holy mercy which condemns
the sin and saves the sinner. It is a parallel to the parable of the prodi
gal, the story of Mary Magdalene, and that of the Samaritan woman, and
agrees with many express declarations of Christ that he came not to con
demn, but to save the lost (John iii. 17 ; xii. 47 ; Luke ix. 56 ; xix. 10 ;
comp. John v. 14; Luke vii. 37 sqq,)."

190 TEXTUAL CEITICISM,
and in all the cursive MSS., in most of the ancient
versions, in all the existing Greek and Syriac lection
aries as far as exarained ; and Irenagus, who is a much
older witness than any of our existing MSS., quotes
ver. 19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark {Adv. Hoer.
iii. 10, 6). A strong intrinsic argunient for the
genuineness is also derived from the extreme im
probability (we may say impossibility) that the
evangelist shonld have intentionally closed his Gos
pel with t0oj3o5vro yap, "for they were afraid"
(ver. 8).
These facts leave us two alternatives: (1) The
conclusion is frora the pen of Mark, but was not in
his first draft, which raay have been published before
he corapleted the work, or it was lost frora some
very early copy (being written, perhaps, on a separate
leaf), which was transcribed in this incomplete form,
(2) Mark was prevented by some accident (perhaps
the Neronian persecution of 64) from concluding
his Gospel, and the twelve verses were supplied by
the friendly hand of the last editor, perhaps from
the Gospel of Luke, or from one of his Gospel frag
ments (comp, i. 1), or from oral teaching, I take
the second alternative, and regard the conclusion as
authentic or historically true, but not as genuine.
The critical editors (and the English Eevisers) prop
erly retain the section, but include it in brackets, or
leave some space between vers. 8 and 9, to indicate
the uncertainty of its origin.'
' For full information on this interesting case we refer to the critical
apparatus of Tischendorf and Tregelles, to the monograph of Weiss on

TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 191
5. Tlie baptismal confession of the eunuch. Acts
viii: 37, came in from very ancient ecclesiastical use.
It supplies Philip's answer to the eunuch's question,
" What doth hinder me to be baptized ?" It appears
in Western sources (Greek, Latin, and Arm.) and
in some good cursives, but is absent from the best
Greek MSS. and the Vulgate, though it soon found
its way from the Old Latin into the later text of the
Vulgate. Erasmus transferred it from the margin
Mai-k (Das Marcusevang. pp. 512-515), and especially to the exhaustive
discussion of Westcott and Hort in the second volume (Append, pp. 29-51).
All these eminent critics, as well as Griesbach and Lachmann, reject the
genuineness of the section, though they retain it in the text. The chief
defenders of the genuineness are Bleek, Lange, Ebrard, Hilgenfeld,
Broadus ( " Baptist Quarterly," Phila. 1869 ), Wordsworth, McClellan,
Scrivener (Introd. pp. 507-613), Morison (Com. on Mark, pp. 446 and
463 sqq.), Canon Cook (in the Speaker's Com. on Mark, pp. 301-808), and
especially Dean Burgon of Chichester, in his very learned and very dog
matic raonograph. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to
8. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objections and Established,
Oxf. and Lond. 1871 (334 pages),; comp. his article in the " Quarterly
Eeview " for Oct. 1881. Burgon lays great stress on the Lectionaries,
and on the fact that Cod. B (which he othenvise hates with a personal
animosity) leaves a blank coluran between ver. 8 and the Gospel of Luke,
which seems to imply the scribe's knowledge of a fuller conclusion of the
Gospel. But it is the last (third) column, and the second has the sub
scription, after ver. 8, KATA MAPKON, which indicates the close. Nor
is it the only blank column in the whole MS., as Burgon asserts; for (as
Dr. Abbot has first pointed out) two columns are left blank at the end of
Nehemiah, and a column and a half at the end of Tobit. There are
similar blanks in the Alexandrian and Sinaitic^MSS. In the " Quarterly
Eeview," Burgon makes a savage attack upon Westcott and Hort and the
English Eevisers for daring (in common with the ablest critics) to dissent
from what he regards his unanswerable "demonstration" and infallible
jftdgment. He calls the marginal note of the Eevisers in Mark xvi. 8,
which simply states a fact, "the gravest blot of all." Then the other
blots must be very slight indeed.

192 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.'
of one of his Greek MSS., as " having been omitted
by the carelessness of scribes." The Eevision rele
gates it to the margin with the note : " Some ancient
authorities insert, wholly or in part, ver. 37, And
Philip said. If thou believest with all thy heart,
thou mayest. And he ans'wered and said, I believe
that Jesus is the Son of Ood."
6. The passage of the three heavenly witnesses,
1 John V. 7, 8, is wanting in all the Greek MSS.,
uncial and cursive, written before the fifteenth cen
tury, in all the ancient versions (including the best
MSS. of the Vulgate), and in all the Greek fathers,
who in the Nicene age, during the Arian and semi-
Arian controversies, quoted every available proof-
text of the Bible from Genesis to Eevelation for
the dogma of the Trinity, and conld not possibly
have overlooked this, had they known it or found it
in any MS. It first appeared in Latin copies, and
from them passed into two very late Greek MSS.,
of no authority. The internal evidence alone is con
clusive against it; for John would not have written
" the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit," but
either " the Father, the Son,'' or " Ood, tlie Word,"
etc. Moreover, there is no real correspondence be
tween "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit"
in heaven, and " the Spirit, the water, and the blood"
on earth ; the supposed analogy originated in the
fancy of some African father of the fifth century
(possibly Cyprian in the tliird century), and was put
on the margin by some copyist of the Latin text.
For these reasons the passage is now given up by
all critical editors and commentators. Erasmus at

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 193
first omitted it; Luther did not translate it, though
it crept afterwards into his German Bible.' Truth,
honesty, and piety demand its expulsion- frora the
Word of God. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity
does not need the support of a spurious interpola
tion ; it rests on the whole tenor of the Bible doc
trine of a God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.^ 3. SUBSTITUTIONS.
Very often one word is substituted for another
sirailar in spelling or sound, or apparent!}' better
suited to the context. The most remarkable varia
tions under this head are the following :
1. John i. 18: 6 nnvoyivi)Q v'u'q (abridged YC),
" Strange to say, it is retained in the recent authoritative revision of
Luther's text, though in brackets and with the note: "Die dngeklammer-
len Worte fehlen in der Uebersetzung Luihers und sind ihr er-st spaler
beigpfSgt worden." The English Eevision very properly ignores the inter
polation altogether, reading simply, with John: "For there are three who
bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood : and the three agree
in one." All the rest from " iu heaven," ver. 7, to " on. earth," ver. 8, is
spurious. ' See above, p. 136 sq. More than fifty volumes and pamphlets have
been written for and against the three witnesses. It was once considered
a sure mark of heresy to doubt the genuineness of the passage; now it is
difiicult to summon a corporal's guard of old fogies for its defence. Even
Dr. Scrivener, one of the most conservative critics, says ( p. 561 ), " To
maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible." It is a
wonder that Dean Burgon has not come up to the defence of this forlorn
post. He might summon any number of Latin witnesses. Many sermons
cn the Trinity, good, bad, and indifferent, have been preached from this
text. A high American dignitary an^ scholar (?) honestly believes that
the passage was written by St. John, and will yet be dug up from the dust
of some Egyptian convent. 0 sancta dmplidlas! O for another Tischen
dorf or Simonides ! 13

194 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
the orily-begotten Soii (text, rec), or fiovoyeviig ^tog
(abridged ec)) «'«¦ Only-begotten One who is Ood. (A
third reading,, o fiovoytvrjg ^log, " the only-begotten
God," found in x"', i. e., x as corrected by the third
hand, and in No. 33, arose siraply frora a combination
of the two readings, the article being improperly trans
ferred frora the first to the second.) The two readings
are of equal antiquity : &£oe is supported by the old
est Greek MSS., nearly all Alexandrian or Egyptian
(x*, i. e., the original or uncorrected x, B, C*, L, also
the Peshito Syr.) ; vl6q by the oldest versions (Itala,
Vulg., Curet. Syr., also by the secondary uncials,
and all known cursives except 33). The patristic
evidence is uncertain and confiicting. The usual
abbreviations in the uncial MS., 0 C and Y C, may
easily be confounded. The connection oi fiovoyivrtg
with ^loQ is less natural than with vlog, although
John undoubtedly could call the Son 5«oc, and did
so in ver. 1. Movoyivfit; Stop siraply combines the
two attributes of tlie Logos, S-£oe, ver. 1, and juoi^o-
jEvriQ, ver. 14.
For a learned and ingenious defence of vtoc, see
Hort's T'wo Dissertations (Cambridge, 1877), West
cott in the Speaker's Commentary on John (p. 71),
and Westcott and Hort's Or. Test. vol. ii. {Notes,
p. 74); also Weiss in the 6th ed. of Meyer's Com. oti
John (1880).' It is urged that the substitution of
vioQ for Sfof is easily explained as being suggested
' Weiss renders the passage (p. 86) thus: "Gottliches -Wesen hat
niemand je gesehen; ein Eingeborenr gottlichen Wesens . . . hat davon
Kunde gebracht," i. e., " the Divine Being no one has ever seen ; an Only-
begotten One of Divine essence . . . has brought knowledge of it."

TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 195
by the primary meaning of fiovoyiviw, while tlie
converse substitution is inexplicable by any ordi
nary motive likely to affect transcribers,. But vto?
in connection with fxovoysvijg is not sustained by
an}' parallel passage in the New Test., and sounds
strange. Tischendorf adopts vluc;, and Dr, Abbot
ably defended this reading in two essays — one in
the " Bibliotheca Sacra" for 1861, pp. 840-872, and
one printed for the American Eevision Committee
(and afterwards published in the " Unitarian Ee
view" for June, 1875, at Boston). The Westmin
ster Eevisers first adopted " God " in the text, but
afterwards put it on the margin, as the American
Committee suggested. Both readings give essential
ly the same sense, but the cornraon reading is more
natural and free from objection. MovoyEvj)? does
not necessarily convey the Nicene idea of eternal
generation, but siraply the unique character and
superiority of the eternal and uncreated sonship of
Christ over the sonship of believers, which is a gift
of grace. It shoM's his intiraate relation to the
Father, as the Pauline irpwTOTOKoc (Col. i. 15) his
sovereign relation to the world.
2. Luke ii. 14 : tvBoKia (nominative), or tvBoKiug
(genitive), in the Gloria in Excelsis. The textus
receptus gives us an anthem with three clauses, or a
triple parallelism, the third being a substantial repe
tition of the second :
" Glory be to God in the highest.
And on eartli peace.
Good pleasure among men." '
' iv dv^piinroig tvloKta. The A. V. is certainly wrong in ignoring

196 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
The other reading gives us a double parallelisra
of somewhat unequal length (as often in the Psalms):
" Glory be to God in the highest.
And ou earth peace among men of (his) good pleasure," '
with three corresponding ideas — glory and peace,
God and men, in the highest (heaven) and on earth,"
Intrinsically this reading is preferable, the parallel
ism being complete without a repetition. It is sup
ported by X*, A, B, D, all the Latin copies (lonoe,
voluntatis), the Gothic Version {godis viljins, " of
good will "), Origen, Jerome; while the nominative
ivZoKia is sustained by tbe cursive MSS., the Syriac,
Coptic, and other versions, and many Greek fathers,
and the Greek Gloria in Excelds, as appended to
Cod. A (which, however, in Luke ii. 14 reads the
genitive), and in the Apost. Constitutions. Tischen
dorf adopts iiidoKiag, so also Westcott and Hort, and
the Eevisers, but with the other reading on the
margin,'the preposition (as the Vulgate and Luther do), and translating "Good
will towards men," as if it were the dative.
' eiiSoKiag, bonce voluntatis, not as a predicate of men, but raen of God's
good will, raen in whom he takes delight, to whom his favor, his benevo
lent purpose, is shown by the birth of the Saviour. A ll men are meant,
not a particular class (comp. John iii. 16; Tit. ii. 11). This relieves the
passage of a great difficulty. Corap. tiSoxia in Phil. i. 15 ; ii. 13 ; Eph. i.
5, 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 11 ; and evSoKtm in Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5; Mark 1. 11;
Luke iii. 22.
" Dr. Hort (Notes on Select Readings, ii. p. 56) suggests a more equal
division, by connecting " and on earth " with the first clause :
Ao^a iv v^iaroiQ ^etf Kai iiri yijg,
elprjvrj 'tv dv^pmiroig wSoKiag.
' The famous "Quarterly Eeviewer" (Oct. 1881), of course, denounces

TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 197
3. Eom. V. 1 : txo/x£v,we have {habemus), ilprivrtv,
peace, or i'xwjuEv (the hortative), let us have {habea
mus), peace. Here the intrinsic evidence rather
favors the received text, since the apostle states the
result of justification by faith ; raoreover, it is re
spectably supported by »% B*, F, G, P, Didymus,
Epiphanius, etc. ; and o and to may easily be con
founded. Hence Lachmann in his ed. major, and
Tischendorf in his former editions, favored txofiiv,
and the American Committee decided to retain " we
have" in the text, and to put "let us have" in the
margin. But the English Coramittee decided the oth
er way, following Lachmann in his ed. rainor, Tisch
endorf in his last edition, and Westcott and Hort.
In his Critical Notes Hort does not even mention
this variation. It must be admitted that t'xw/ifi/ is,
upon the whole, better supported by x* (uncorrect
ed), A, B*, C, D, Itala, Vulgata, and other versions ;
and it gives also good sense, since peace, like every
other gift, must be held fast and regained ever anew
to be fully possessed and enjoyed. Anxious and
timid Christians must be exhorted to realize the
benefit of the merits of Christ whicii are theirs by
faith. 4. Acts XX. 28 : " to feed the church of Ood" {rfjv

the reading o( eliSoKtag as a "grievous perversion ofthe truth of Scrip
ture," and holds the evidence for iliSoKia to be " absolutely decisive."
Canon Cook, the editor of the Speaker's Commentarrj, agrees with Dean
Burgon's general position, but admits at least that "the Revisers have
manuscript authority sufficient to prove that their reading was known and
adopted by many churches at a very early time." (The Revised Version
ofthe First Tliree Gospels, Lond. 1882, p. 27.)

198 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
iKKXticrtav rou 3- e o u), or " the church of the Zo?'*^ "
{tov Kvpiov). The difference derives doctrinal
importance from the addition: " whicii he purchased
with his own blood" {^v irepie-n-oificraTo dta tov a'ifiaTog
tov iSlov), The reading S'eoD would furnish a strong
argument for the divinity of Christ, but also an al
most patripassian or monophysitic view of his death.'
The two Eevision Companies are divided here — the
English put " God " in the text, and " the Lord " in
the margin; the Americans reverse the order. The
critical editors are also divided — Westcott and Hort
adopt TOV Siiov, Tischendorf tov Kvplov. The former
is supported by x, B, a number of cursives, Vulg. ;
the latter by A, C*, D, E, 13, and other cursives,
and by the Old Latin, Coptic, and Sahidic versions.
The testimony of the fathers is divided.'' The ablest
arguments ou the two sides of the question are by
Dr. Hort, in favor of ^eov, in Notes on Select Read
ings, pp. 98-100, and by Dr. Ezra Abbot, in favor
of Kvpiov, in the " Bibliotheca Sacra," Andover, for
1876, pp. 313 sqq.' Dr, Hort suggests at the end of
his note that possibly utoi) may have dropped out

' Comp. 'Watts's " When God the mighty Maker died ;" and the old
German hy mn, " 0 welohe Noth ! Gott selbst ist todl."
" Chrysostom is quoted on both sides ; but Dr. Abbot writes me the
following note; "The case in regard to Chrysostom must be considered
clear. He not only reads Kvpiov without variation among the MSS. in
his Hom. on Eph. iv. 11, but (what I did not know when I wrote my arti
cle) the best MSS. of Chrysostom read xvpiov in his homily on this passage
ofthe Acts, and that reading is accordingly adopted in the translation of
his Homilies on ihe A els in the Oxford Library of the Fathers."
' The essay was first privately printed for the use of the Am. Bevision
Committee.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 199
after tov l^lov at some very early transcription, af
fecting all existing documents. This conjecture
would relieve the passage of all diflacult}', and make
it conform to the apostolic doctrine that God pur
chased to himself a universal church by the precious
blood of his dear Son. But since conjecture cannot
be allowed a place in view of the multitude of read
ings, except in an extreme case, which does not exist
here, I prefer the reading Kvpiov. Paul often speaks
of " the church of God " (1 Cor. i. 1 ; xi. 22 ; 2 Cor.
i. 1 ; Gal. i. 13 ; 1 Tim. iii. 5), but nowhere of the
blood of God. On the other hand, the Church is
usually represented as the institution of Christ, as
his bod}', and his bride for which he shed his blood
(Matt. xvi. 18 ; 1 Cor. iii. n_; Eph. i. 22, etc.).
5. 1 Tim. iii. 16 : S-to'e (GC), or '6g (O C), " Ood was
raanifested in the flesh," or "ZTe who [i. e., Christ]
was manifested in the flesh." Here the weight of
external and internal evidence is decidedly in favor
of oc, and this reading has beeu adopted by all the
critical editors (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles,
Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), critical commenta
tors (including Alford and Ellicott), and by the
English and American Eevisers.' The arguments
¦ Dean Burgon's dictatorial protest against the nearly unanimous con
sensus of scholars is mere brutum fulmen, and can only have weight with
ignoramuses. Even Bishop Wordsworth, the most conservative of English
commentators, adopts the reading oj. So does the Bishop of London iu
the Speaker's Commentary (which is Ukewise very conservative, yet ad
mits that " the evidence, external and internal, seems to require the
admission of oe into th^ text instead of ^tog or i;,'' New Test. iii. 780) ;
also Canon Spence; in EUicott's Com., and Dean Plumptre, in SchafPs
Popular Com. vol, iii. (1882), p. 570.

200 TEXTUAL CEITICISM,
are : (1) The best MSS. (s. A* C* F, G) read Hg,
although some have been corrected by later hands.
In K the letters &£ were added above the line, in the
twelfth century. The correction in 0 is older. A
is defaced, but has been examined by Bishop Ellicott
and other scholars with the aid of the microscope,
and found to have had originally O C without a bar
above and without a transverse stroke in O, though
both were added in comparatively recent times.'
B cannot be quoted here, as it does not contain the
Pastoral Epistles.' (2) All. the ancient. versions of
any weight have a relative pronoun here, (3) The
Western o, quod, which is a manifest correction
of og and adaptation to the preceding pvarripiov.
(4) The oldest fathers: Origen {qui mamfestatus
est), Epiphanius, Cyril, Tlieodore of Mopsuestia,
Jerome, The reading ^c6g seems not to have been
kuQwn before the last third of the fourth century;
and even Chrysostom is here doubtful, though in one
place he probably read ^eog, as certainly did Theo
doret. (5) It is much easier to account for the
change of the difficult o^ into the easy ^tog, than
vice versa, although the mechanical resemblance of
OC and 0C made the other change more easy.
(6) While ^tog well suits the first of the six verbs.

' Dean Burgon boldly perverts this testimony of experts, and asserts
without a shadow of proof: "A and C exhibited 6 0 until ink, dirt, and
the injurious use of chemicals obliterated what once was patent." He
does not tell us whern and lo whom it was patent.
'^ Not " because the jealousy of Rome has prevented accurate collation,"
as the Speaker's Com. (iii. 780) strangely remarked in the year 1881,
thirteen years after the publication of the fac-simile edition of Vercellone 1

TEXTUAL ; CEITICISM. 201
it does not naturally harmonize with the other five.
We raay say that God " was manifested in tlie
flesh," but not that he was "justified in the spirit,"
"seen of angels," " received up in glory." All this,
however, can be said with perfect propriety of
Christ as the. God -man. And he is undoubtedly
meant by the relative pronoun. And even the first
verb suits better to the language of John, who does
not say " Ood was made flesh,'' but " the Word was
made flesh." We have in this passage no doubt a
quotation from a primitive creed or hymn in praise
of Christ, and this accounts not only for the rela
tive og, but also for the rhythmical structure of the
whole passage, which can be arranged in three par
allel pairs : "Og i^avtpm^rj iv aapKi,
iSiKatm^rj tv irvevpan,
m(p5rj dyy'tXoig,
inrjpvx^rj iv i^vtaiv,
iiriarev^rj iv Koapip,
dvtXrjp^^rj iv So^y.
The doctrinal importance of this variation has
been much overrated. The divinity of Christ loses
nothing by the change. It implies in any case his
pre-existence. He is the personal embodiment of
the mystery of godliness.'

' Comp. a sermon of Dr. Vaughan (Master of the Temple), Authorized
or Revised? Lond. 1882, p. 17 : " The Revised Version of the New Testa-
raentsays Ihis to us — and if it were its only change, it would have been
worth ten years of labor: The mystery of godliness, the revealed secret
which has in it 'reverence,' the right feeling and attitude of the soul
towards God its Author and Object of being, is a Person — incarnate,
justified, attested, heralded, believed, glorified — a Person whom to know

202 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
6. Apoc. xvii. 8 : Ka'nrep 'ianv, or koi Ttapiarai. Here
the textus receptus, by the fault of a transcriber,
gives nonsense: " The beast that was, and is not, and
yet is"^while the true reading adopted by all the
modern editprs makes it quite clear: " The beast was,
and is not, and shall come " (lit., shall be present).
Other substitutions are due to the aim of harmon
izing passages, or of correcting a supposed error, as
iv Tolg ¦Trpo^i'iraig for iv Ttji 'Hffo'/'^ T(j> irpoipi'iry, in
Mark i. 2; Bri^ajiapa for Btt^avia, in John i. 28
(due, perhaps, to the conjecture of -Origen).
^ CEITICAL EULES.
Since Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach, the critical
process has been reduced to certain rules, but there
is considerable diversity in the mode and extent of
their application. It is not a mechanical process,
and does not lead to mathematical certainty. The
critic has often to reason upon mere probabilities,
and to ascertain what hypothesis best explains all
the phenomena. Here the judgment may vary, and
absolute unanimity cannot be expected in every case.
The following rules may be regarded as being
sound, and more or less accepted by the best mod
ern critics :
(1.) Knowledge of documentary evidence must
precede the choice of readings,
(2.) All kinds of evidence, external and internal,
mnst be taken into account, according to their in
trinsic value,
is life, whom to serve is freedom. He is not a doctrine, nor a book, nor a
creed, nor a church — He is a Person."

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 203
(3.) The sources of the text raust be carefully
sifted and classified, and the authorities raust be
weighed rather than nurabered. One independent
raanuscript may be worth more than a hundred
copies whicii are derived from the same original.
On closer inspection, the witnesses are found to
fall into certain groups, and to represent certain
tendencies, Westcott and Hort have revived, modi
fied, and perfected Griesbach's systera of families or
recensions. They distinguish between the Western,
the Alexandrian, the Syrian, and the neutral texts,
and enter minutely iuto the genealogical relations
of the ancient documents. The Western text is
specially represented by D, the Old Latin versions,
the Greek copies on which they were based, and in
part by the Curetonian Syriac, and is characterized
by a tendency to paraphrase and to interpolate frora
parallel passages or other sources. The Alexandrian
or Egyptian text is much purer, but betrays a ten
dency to polish the language; it is found in Origen,
Cyril of Alexandria, and other Alexandrian fathers,
and in the two principal Egyptian versions, especially
the Memphitic, The Syrian text is mixed, and the
result of a recension of editors M'ho borrowed from
all sources and were anxious to remove stumbling-
blocks, and to present the New Testament in a
smooth and attractive form. The neutral (pre-
Syrian) text is best represented by B and largely
by X, and comes nearest to the apostolic original.
From a careful coraparative examination, Westcott
and-Hort have come to the conclusion that these
two oldest extant MSS., the Vatican and tlie Sinaitic,

204 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
are derived from ancestries which " diverged from
apoint near the autographs, and never came into
contact subsequently; so that the coincidence of k
and B marks those portions of text in which two
primitive and entirely separate lines of transmis
sion had not come to differ from each other through
independent corruption in the one or the other." '
They pay supreme respect to the Vatican MS., while
Tischendorf, in his last edition, often gives the pref
erence to the Sinaitic readings.
(4.) The restoration of the pure text is founded
on the history and genealogy of the textual corrup
tions. : See the special discussion of the genealogical
method below, p. 208 sqq.
(5.) The older reading is preferable to the later,
because it is presuraably nearer the source. In ex
ceptional cases later copies may represent a more
ancient reading. Mere antiquity is no certain test
of superiority, since the corruption of the text be
gan at a very early date.
(6.) The shorter reading is preferable to the
longer, because insertions and additions are raore
probable than omissions. ^^ Brevior lectio prmf eren-
da est verbosiori" (Griesbach). Person regarded
this as the " surest canon of criticism." Transcrib
ers were intent upon complete copies, and often
inserted glosses on the margin or between the lines,
and others put them into the text,
(7.) The more difficult reading is preferable to
the easier. " Lectio difficilior principatum tenet,"
' Gi: Test. i. 550 sq.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 205
or " ProcUvi scriptioni prcestai ardua." This was
Bengel's first rule. It is always easier to account
for the change of a really or apparently difficult and
obscure reading into an easy and clear one, than
vice versa. Transcribers would not intentionally
substitute a harsh, ungraramatical, or unusual read
ing for one that was unobjectionable.
(8.) The reading which best explains the origin
of the other variattons is preferable. This rule is
emphasized by Tischendorf.
(9.) " That reading is preferable which best suits
the peculiar style, manner, and habits of thought of
the author; it being the tendency of copyists to over
look the idiosyncrasies of the writer " (Scrivener).
(10.) That reading is preferable which shows no
doctrinal bias, whether orthodox or heretical.
(11.) The agreement of the most ancient witness
es of all classes decides the true reading against all
mediaeval copies and printed editions.
(12.) The primary uncials, x, B, C, and A — espe
cially N and B — if sustained b}' other ancient Greek
uncials (as D, L, T, S, Z) and first-class cursives (as
33), by ancient versions, and ante-Nicene citations,
outweigh all later authorities, and give us presuma
bly the original text of the sacred writers.
APPLICATION OF THE EULES.
The application of these critical canons decides,
in the main, again'st the Textus Receptus, so called,
from which the Protestant versions were made, and
in favor of an older uncial text. The fonner rests
on a few and late, mostly cursive MSS., which have

206 TEXTUAL CEITICISM;
very little or no authority when compared with much
older authorities which have since been brought to
light. It abounds in later additions, harmless as
they may be. It is essentially the Byzantine, or
Constantinopolitan, text which almost exclusively
prevailed in the Greek state - church. It is the
mixed text of tiie Syrian fathers of the fourth cen
tury, especially of Chrysostom, who spent the greater
part of his life in Antioch, and the last ten years as
patriarch at Constantinople (d. 407). This text was
almost exclusively copied during the ascendency of
Constantinople in the East, while the West confined
itself to the Latin version, and remained ignorant
of the Greek Testament till the fall of Constantino
ple and the revival of letters. This text was intro
duced in the West in printed form by Erasmus in
1516, with some additions frora the Latin version.
It passed with many changes into the editions of
Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir, before the material for
the science of criticism was collected and examined,
Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza were good scholars;
but could accomplish little with the scanty resources
at their command. Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles,
Tischendorf , Westcott and Hort have the advantage
over them in the possession of an iramense critical
apparatus whicii has been accumulating for three
hundred years. This apparatus includes not only
the oldest Greek MSS:, but also the oldest versions
¦ — Syriac, Latin, Egyptian — and nuraerous quota
tions of ante-Nicene and Nicene fathers (older than
Chrysostom) ; and among these various sources there
is a very remarkable agreement and departure from

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 207
the received text, though mostly of a verbal charac
ter, and seldom touching a doctrine. We are now
able to go back from the printed text of the fifteenth
century and its basis, the Byz;antine text of the fifth
century, to a text of the ante-Nicene age up to the
tirae of Irenaeus or the middle of the second century.
It has taken a long tirae for scholars to become
emancipated from the tyranny of the Textus Recep
tus, and it will be a long tirae before the people can
be weaned from the authority of the vernacular ver
sions based upon it. The German Version of Luther
and the English Version of 1611 are so idiomatic
and classical, and so full of faith and tlie Holy
Spirit, that they have deservedly a most powerful
hold on the popular mind and heart ; and every
serious departure frora them is apt to disturb asso
ciations and cherished recollections of the dearest
and most sacred character. Bnt the truth must pre
vail at last over tradition and habit. Amicus Eras
mus, amicus StepJianUs, amicus Beza, sed magis
arnica Veritas.
The loss of the traditional text is more than made
up by the gain. Tlie substance remains, the form
only is changed. The trne text is shorter, but it is
also older, 'purer, and stronger.
By that we must abide until new discoveries bring
us still nearer to tlie inspired original. If we can
not have the very best, let us have at least the next
best. If the apostolic autographs should ever be
discovered, which is extremely improbable, it would
create a new epoch in biblical learning, but it would
scarcely alter the text, whicii no doubt has been

208 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
providentially preserved from all essential altera
tions, THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD.
[This section was kindly contributed to this work by Professor Besj.
B. Warfield, D.D., of the Theological Seminary at Allegheny, Pa. He
has made textual criticism a special study, and prepared a careful review
of Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament in the "Presbyterian Eeview"
for April, 1882.— P. S.]
In atterapting to recover the original form of any
ancient text, the first step must always be to gather
the testimony, which in the New Testament is found
in the MSS., citations and versions. . Just as inevita
bly the next step must be the sifting, weighing, and
classifying of the testimony. It is, indeed, conceiv
able that all witnesses might be equally iraportant ;
but rnost certainly this is not apriori probable. It
is altogether likely prior to examination, rather, that
one witness is more weighty than another; it is far
from improbable that many apparently important
witnesses may prove simply a body of repeaters.
Suppose, for instance, that printed as well as manu
script copies were included in the collected material :
one edition may have comprised ten thousand im
pressions ; another, equally good or better, only one
hundred ; and it would be clearly unfair, raerely on
account of this accident of the nuraber of impres
sions, to allow one hundred times more weight to
the one edition than to the other. Similarly, frora
one MS. there may have been made a thousand
copies; from another, equally good or better, only
ten ; and it would be equally unfair, merely on ac-
count of this accident of the number of copies taken.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 209
to allow one hundred times more weight to the one
gl'oup than to the other. Unless, however, before
using our testimony at all, we begin by sifting and
classifying it, we run continual and unavoidable
risk of perpetrating this gross injustice.
An imaginary case, illustrated by a diagram, raay
make these results more apparent:
Autograph.
 I 
I I I
ABC
 J  I
I I IIIII
w X y z a t v

I I I I I I I I I
1234 56 789
Suppose three copies. A, B, C, are made of the auto
graph, which is then destroyed. Suppose, further,
that C remains uncopied ; of B three copies, s, t, v,
are made ; and of A four, w, x, y, z, of which, again,
X, y, z become theraselves the parents of the further
copies represented by nuraerals in the diagram.
We have now nineteen representatives of the auto
graph from whicii we are to reconstruct it. Shall
we allow equal weight to each ? Clearly A and 9,
say, for instance, stand in very different relations to
the autograph, and it would be manifestly unfair to
allow them equal weight. Clearly, again, in the
presence of A, all its copies — sons and grandsons
alike — are useless to us ; they cOntain legitimately
nothing not already in. A, and therefore, both in the
cases where they are like it and in those where they
are unlike it, must be absolutely neglected. The
14

210 ¦ TEXTUAL CEITICISM,
same is, of course, true of the relation of s, t, v to B, '
In other words, the fourteen MSS., A, w, x, y, z, 1-9,
can rank in combination as only one witness; the
four, B, s, t, V, again as only one ; and, although we
possess nineteen documents, we have at last only
three witnesses.
Let us take another step, and suppose that as well
as the autograph, A, B, x, y, z are lost, so that we
possess only the fourteen MSS., C, s, t, v, w, 1-9 :
how wonld the case be altered ? We certainly do
not, iu thus decreasing the number of our copies,
increase the nuraber of our witnesses, s, t, v would
still represent only three repeating witnesses of
what was in the one witness B ; w, 1-9 would be
still, in all their divergencies frora one another, only
corruptions frora A, and hence worthless — in all
their agreements with one another only witnesses
to what was in A, and hence only one witness.
There are thns still only ^Awe witnesses to consider.
And it would be still manifestly misleading to treat
our documents as together constituting more wit
nesses than three. We could not, indeed, now as in
the former case neglect the testimony of s, t, v, or
of w, 1-9 ; but we should not be able to treat each
of them as a direct witness to the autograph co-or
dinate with the others or with C. The true method
of procedure would be to corapare the various copies
among themselves, noting their affiliations, and thus
discovering that s, t, v constituted one group, while
1, 2, 3, 4, — 5, 6, — 7, 8, 9, each formed a sub-group,
which then united with each other and with w to
frame another group, while C stood alone. Tims,

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 211
working backward on the simple and almost self-
evident principle that community in readings means
coramunity in origin, we would discover by the irre
fragable evidence of the mutual resemblances and
divergences of documents what we know from the
diagram — namely, that we have three witnesses only
to consider, and that the whole group w, 1-9 is, in
point of originality, equal only to the one MS. C in
value. The qualifying phrase, "in point of original
ity," has been designedly inserted ; for, although
this grouping of the documents is decisive as to
the question " how many witnesses have we ?" and
necessarily reduces them to tliree, it says not one
word- as to the relative values of those three witness
ing groups. A, represented by the extant w, 1-9,
raay be far better than, or it may be far worse than
C, represented by itself alone. The relative values
of the various witnesses cannot be determined until
after tho grouping has been thoroughly done, and
then must be sought by testing the groups as wholes
by internal and transcriptional evidence.
By means of our diagram we have thus obtained
the two first and most important rules of critical
procedure: 1, First classif}'^ the witnesses by raeans
of a careful study of the affiliation of the documents,
thus discovering how raany rmZ witnesses there are;
and, 2, Then determine the relative values of these
witnesses through the use of the only applicable
evidence — i. e., intrinsic and transcriptional. Thus
alone can we mount to the autographic form of any
ancient text by secure steps.
The application of this method — universally in

212 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
use elsewhere — to the text of the New Testament
was first hinted at by Mill and Bentley, and first
actually made by Bengel, followed especially by
Griesbach. It has been reserved, however, to our
own day and to Dr. Hort to perfect it. Dr. Hort
has pointed out that the extant MSS. of the New
Testament fall naturally into four great groups,
which he names Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and
Neutral. The Syrian is, however, demonstrably of
late origin, and the result of a combination bf the
other three. And therefore, just as in our imagi
nary case all derivative evidence was to be rejected
in the presence of its sources, so also here the whole
Syrian group is of no value as testimony to us in
the presence of the groups out of which it was
made. In the reconstruction of the autographic
text we are concerned thus only with the three co
ordinate groups, called Western, Alexandrian, and
Neutral, We have but to distribute the various
documents whicii have come down to us, each to its
proper gi'oup, in order to lay beneath us an impreg
nable basis for our reconstruction of the autographic
text of the New Testainent,
This task of distribution proves in the New Tes
tament to be a very difficult and complicated one.
The different portions of the volume — Gospels, Acts,
Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Eevelation —
must be treated separately. Allowance must be
made for progressive growth of corruption within
the bounds Of each class. And, above all, the prob
lera is to an unparalleled degree complicated by
mixture between the groups, so that in many pas-

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 213
sages it is exceedingly difficult, and sometimes im
ppssible, to classify the readings with any certainty.
These difficulties and complications limit the appli
cation of the genealogical method, as it is called,
so far, but cannot affect it in general, and do not
throw doubt upon it wherever it is applicable.
They force us to call to our aid other methods to
decide between readings in special passages and to
test our results in all passages; but in the main
portion of the New Testaraent, genealogical evi
dence is thoroughly applicable and entirely decisive.
The vast majority of the extant documents — all
those of the later or cursive type — are assigned
definitively to the Syrian class, and hence are con
victed as of secondary value as witnesses, and of no
value at all in the presence of the primary sources.
Only five MSS. are found to be throughout pre-
Syrian — viz., B, X, D, D2, G3 — of whicii B seems
purely Neutral in the Gospels, and D, D2, G3 purely
Western throughout. In the rest of the New Testa
raent B has a Western element ; and x, though large
ly Neutral, has Western and Alexandrian elements
throughout. Such MSS. as A, C, L, P, Q, E, T, Z, r,
A, and sorae few cursives, contain a larger or smaller
pre-Syrian element. The Old Latin Version seems
purely, the Curetonian Syriac predominatingly,
Western. The Memphitic was originally in all
probability purely pre-Syrian, and predominatingly
non -Western; the Thebaic is similar, but with a
larger Western element. The pre-Syrian element
araong citations is largest in those frora Origen,
Didymus, and Cyril of Alexandria. The following

214 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
very rough and ideal genealogical diagriairi may
perhaps exhibit the above facts to the eye, as con
cerning some of the cliief documents in the Gospels,
Autograph."
 I 
I I I
a n w
I I  I

I I I I I.. I. I. . I.. I.. I.
ju jjiii „i „ii „m niT wi=a' w" w>" w'"
a" a'"' n""' 11'^ ii" n'' = wa' wa w"' w'
a" wan'^a'' B n^ n''''=:wan wan' wa" w"'' w"'

a" waan = ii"' N waaann=wa''' w'^ D
I  I  I

1.1 I 1 .
a"' := waann Memph. waann\

j, I
C waaann ^ wa"

[L] Old Latin.
The Alexandrian, Western, and Neutral groups —
whicii each originated in a single document — are
represented by the letters a, w, and n, respectively ;
the pure or mixed" representatives of each being
' This diagram is meant to represent the kind, not the degree, of rela
tionship between documents. The reader must avoid being led to suppose,
for instance, that C, L, and Memph. are as closely related to one another
as the diagram represents them to be.
^ The usual genealogical sign of marriage (=:) is used iu the diagram
to denote mixture.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 215
designated by the primed or combined letters. If
a reading now, for instance, is attested by D, x. Old
Latin — seeing that D and the Old Latin are pure
descendaiits of w, and x a mixed one, their common
inheritance of this reading may be accounted for as
coming from w, and they may therefore constitute
but a single witness for it. On the other band, if
a reading is supported by B, x, D, it necessarily has
the support of both n and w — two out of three.
On the hypothesis that a, n, and w are of equal
value, the latter reading would be probably right,
and the former probably wrong.
Of course, however, the three original sources^
w, n, and a — are not of equal value. On. testing the
groups that represent them by intrinsic and tran
scriptional evidence — which, we must remember, is
the only applicable evidence — w betrays itself as
most painfully corrupt, and a as quite so, while n
approves itself as unusually pure. In cases of ter
nary variation between the groups, that reading
which represents n is probably, therefore, correct,
and is usually supported as such by internal evi
dence ; in cases of binary variation tliat reading for
which the group representing n throws its weight
is almost certainly correct, and is almost uniformly
proved to be such by internal evidence. (The ex
ception consists mainly of those few passages classed
as Western non-interpolations.) The relative diver
gence from the autograph of the several groups may
be roughly represented to the eye by the following
diagram, in which also we may observe anew the
value of certain combinations in the Gospels.

216 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
ikBt  T^vxJssf...

If X y represents the line of absolutely true de
scent, z q, along the course of which tlie various
Western documents raay be ranged in growing cor
ruption, will roughly represent the Western diver
gence, t s the Neutral, and k v the Alexandrian ; w p
represents the Syrian. Now, it is evident that B,
placed at a point between k and t, or just beyond t
on the line t s, is the nearest to the originals of any
MS. B s will carry us back to a point on s t x, or to
a point at, or prior to, k or z. B D will take us to,
or prior to, z. x D, on the contrary, may be equal
to B D, and so land us on z x; or inay be equal to
D alone, and so carry us only amid the abounding
corruption of z q. And so on through the list.
In putting the genealogical method to practical
use in determining the text in individual passages,
tlie central problem is to translate testimony ex
pressed in terms of individual manuscripts into
testimony expressed in terms of classes of raanu-
scripts. It wonld be a great help to have in our
hands a trusty edition of the New Testament pre
senting in parallel columns the four great classes of
text, each with it« own various readings. In such

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 217
case we should have only to turn to the passage in
our Testament and see the testimony marshalled
in order. Such an edition is, however, still a de
sideratum,' and, indeed, is by no raeans a necessitj'.
The information given in any good digest of read
ings is sufficient to enable us to deal with most
passages at the expense of a little trouble and
thought, as if they had place in such an edition and
we could turn to them there and see at a glance the
readings of each class. Let us suppose, for instance,
that we wished to deal with a passage in the Gospels
in which one reading was supported by B, x, C, L,
Memph. ,.Tlieb., Orig., and its rival by the reraainder
of the witnesses : it is easy to see that in our desid
erated edition the former reading, supported as it is
by the t^-.pical Neutral and Alexandrian documents,
would stand in those ^columns, and the latter, for the
sarae reason, in the Western and Syrian columns.
By simply noting the grouping of the documents
we can proceed, therefore, jnst as if all this pre
liminary work had been already done to our hand
by soraebody else.
The proper procedure is something like this :
First, let the Syrian testimony — which as collusive
testimony is no testimony — be sifted out. This
may be dono roughly by confining our attention
for the moment to the pre-Syrian documents— that
is, to the earlier versions, the fathers before 250 A. D.,
and to such MSS. as B, x, C, L, D, T, S, A, Z, E, Q, 33
' Its place is, especially in the Gospels, supplied for many purposes in a
general way by Mr. E. H. Hansen's parallel edition of the four great
MSS.,A,B,C,b.

218 TEXTUAL CEITICISM,
in the Gospels ; B, x, A, C, D, E, 13, 61 in Acts ; B,
Si, A, C, 13 in the Catholic Epistles ; B, x. A, C, D^
G, P, 17, 67** in Paul ; and x. A, C, P,.95, in Eev
elation, Very frequently the reading will be found
to be already settled on the completion of this first
step ; on sifting out the Syrian testimony the varia
tion is sifted out too. As this amounts to proving
the non-existence of the variation before A.D. 250,
the text thus acquired is very certain. An example
may be seen in John v. 8, where the received text
reads tyeipai with support whicii disappears entirely
with the Syrian documents, while its rival, 'iycipe, is
left with the support of B, x, C, D, L, etc. A like
case is Mark i. 2, where '^ the prophets" is read only
by documents which sift out by this process, leaving
its rival, ^^ Isaiah, the prophet," still testified to by
B, X, D, L, A, 33, Latt., Memph., and Syrr. Pst., Hic.
mg. and Hier. We add three further examples
from Mark : iv. 24, where B, x, C, D, L, A, Latt.,
Memph. omit " that hear," against Syrian witness
only; xv. 28, where the whole verse. is omitted by
B, X, A, C, D, Theb., against Syrian (and late West
ern), witness; iii. 29, where "sm" is read instead of
"Judgment " by B, x, L, A, 33 (C, D), Latt., Memph.,
against purely Syrian opposition. In such cases,
our procedure cannot be doubtful.
Often, however, after this first step has been
taken, we seem hardly nearer our goal than at the
outset ; there are still rival readings — two or sorae
tiraes three — among which we are to find the orig
inal one. The next step in such case is to assign
these remaining readings to their own proper classes.

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 219
This is done by noting carefully the attestation of
each, with a view to determining the class to which
the group supporting each belongs. This is not
always an easy task, but it is usually a possible
one. Suppose, for instance, we have before us at
this stage two readings in a passage of the Gos
pels — the one supported by D, Old Lat., Cur. Syr.,
and the other by B, x, C, L — it is very easy to see
that the forraer would stand in our wished-for
edition in the Western column, and the latter in
the Neutral and Alexandrian columns ; or, in other
words, that the forraer would take us in our diagram
only somewhere on the line z q, while the latter
would carry us to the point of juncture of the
Neutral and Alexandrian lines. So, also, if the at
testation were divided rather thus : B, x, D, Old Lat.,
Vulg., Memph., Theb., against C,L, it would be easy
to see that the former was Neutral and Western, and
the latter Alexandrian ; or, in other words, that the
former would take us to point z on the diagram, the
latter only soraewhere on the line t v. Our pro
cedure in such cases, again, could not be doubtful.
The following are examples of such cases : In John
i. 4, ianv is read by x,D, Codd. mentioned by Origen,
Old Lat., Cur. Syr., Theb. ; that is, by documents typi
cally Western in conjunction with others containing
larger or sraaller Western elements: it belongs on the
line z q. Its rival, »>, is read by B, C, L, r, Memph.,
Vulg., Syrr. ; or, in other words, by documents Neu
tral, or Neutral aud Alexandrian : to it, therefore,
the genealogical argument points as probably the
correct reading, . The interesting reading of Mark

220 TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
ix. 23, adopted by the Eevisers of the English New
Testament, is another case in point — restoring the
yivid form of the original, as it does, against the
fiatter corruption supported by D, 33, Old Lat.,
Vulg., Syrr., i. e., by the Western class. Other ex
amples from Mark are : Mark ix. 44, last clause of 45,
and 46, omitted by B, x, C, L, A, Memph. =Neutral
and Alexandrian, inserted by D, Old Lat., Vulg.,
Syrr. = Western; Mark ix. 49, last clause, omitted by
B, X, L, A, and inserted by C, D, Latt., Syrr., where
the defection of C to the Western side introduces
no complication, seeing that C has a Western ele
ment ; Mark xi. 26, omitted by B, x, L, A, and insert
ed by C, D, Latt., Syrr. Other exainples raay be
found in all the clauses omitted by the Eevised
English Version frora the Lord's Prayer as recorded
by Luke.
It is not asserted, of course, that the genealogical
method will do everything; or that there are no
passages in which it leaves the true reading in doubt
or in darkness. But it is asserted, as is illustrated
by the foregoing examples, that it is easy to apply
it in the great majority of cases, and that it is sound
wherever applicable. Its results ought to be always
tested by other methods — by internal evidence of
groups first, and internal evidence of readings after
wards. From this testing the method emerges tri
umphant ; although in a few rare cases we are
preserved by it from a wrong application of the
genealogical argument. Extreme and very interest
ing instances of this may be found in those passages
which arc technically called by Dr. Hort " Western

TEXTUAL CEITICISM. 221
non -interpolations." There are only some half-
dozen of these, but they are very instructive.
Matt, xxvii. 49 is a fair sample. Here B, x, C, L,
(U), r, etc., unite in inserting the sentence, " But an
other, ttiking a spear, pierced his side, and there came
foi'th water and blood," against the opposition of
Western (and Syrian) documents only. Now it is
quite impossible to accept this sentence: it looks
strange in this context; it has the appearance of
coming frotn Jolm xix. 34, and it is very surprising
that the Western class, the chief characteristic of
which is insertion, should here be the sole omittef.
Both intrinsic evidence and transcriptional evidence
speak so strongly against the sentence, indeed, that
the editors unanimously reject it. Is the genealog
ical method here at fault ? No ; our application
of it only is corrected. We must remember that
genealogical investigation does not itself determine
for us the relative values of the different classes; it
merel}' distributes the documents into these classes,
and leaves to internal evidence the other task (see
p. 210). And internal evidence determines general
and usual relations, not invariable ones. It tells us
that, the documents having been distributed into
the Neutral, Alexandrian, and Western classes on
genealogical considerations, the Neutral class is the
best, and hence is usnally to be trusted — the West
ern the worst, and hence is usually to be distrusted.
It does not tell us that the Western reading is neces
sarily always wrong. The signiflcance of such ex
ceptions as the one under discussion is simply this:
in a few rare cases the stem from which the classes

222

TEXTUAL CEITICISM.

diverge received corrnption after the Western diver
gence, and before the Neutral or Alexandrian diver
gence; in other words, between z and k on the
diagram. A glance at the diagram will show how
consistent this result is with the method ; it informs
us only that B D takes us to an earlier point than
B plus non-Western C, and warns us never to be
satisfied with a mechanical application of a rule,
however generally valid it may appear. So far
from such exceptions to the ordinary application
of genealogical evidence proving destructive of its
principle, therefore, they form one of the best and
strongest confirmations of it. They are the jags in
the papers' edges, the fitting of which proves that
we are on the right track,
A list of the chief variations in one chapter of
the Gospels is added below for the examination of
the student.

Readings of tiik Fifth
(1) Ver. 1 irpoaijXSrav irpoaijX^ov
(2) " i, 5 order of verses (5, 4)

(3) " 9
(4) " 11

li It It
add avToi
orait "
add p^pa
orait "

(4,6)

Chapter op St. Matthew.'
W.,T.,Tr. B, S.
C,D,r, &—Weste>-n.
T., Tr. D, 38, Old Lat.,Vulg., Cur.
Syr. — -iVestei-n.
W. B,X,C,r,A,Memph.,Syrr.
[ W., Tr. ] B, r, A, Cur. Syr., Memph.
T. X, C, D, Latt., Vst.— West
ern.
C, r, 4, Syrr., Orig.— j4 lex-
andrian.
W., Tr., T. B, X, D, Latt., Memph.

¦ In this list the third coluran gives the editors who have accepted
each reading— W. standing for Westcott and Hort, T. for Tischendorf
(latest text), and Tr. for Tregelles. The fourth column gives the wit
nesses for each reading.

(5) Ver

.11

(6) "

13

(7) "

22

(8) "

ll

(9) "

23

(10) "

25

(11) "

27

TEXTUAL CEITICISM.
add jpevSopcvoi

223

(12) "

28

(13) "

30

(14) "

32

(15) "

((

(16) "

37

(17) "

39

omit "
PXrj&iv i^m Kar.
PXrj^ijvai e|<u Kal Kar.
omit eiKrj
insert "

paxa paKdKdKtXKai iKit
orait ae irapaSip
insert " "

omit roig dpx-
add " "
omit avrrjV (1st)
insert "
t. y. diriX^y
liXrj&y E. y.
irag. 6 diroX.
Off idv diroX.
poixtv&ijvai
poixda&ai tarm
iarai
pairiZti eie
pairiaet iiri

W.,T.,Tr. [Tr.rag.]
W.,Tr.,T.
W.,Tr.rag T. [Tr.]

W., Tr.
W.,T.,Tr. Tr. rag.
W.,T. [Tr.J

W., T., Tr.

T.
[W.],Tr.
W.. Tr., T.

Tr., T.
[VV]
W.,T.,Tr.W., T., Tr.
W. mg.
W.,T.,Tr. Tr. mg.

B, X, C, r, A, Vulg., Cur.
Syr., Pst., Memph.
D, Old Lat., Origen.—
Western.
B, X,C,33, Syr.Hcl.,Orig.
D, r, A (l,ntt.)—Weslein.
B,X, Vulg., Orig.
D, L, r, A, 33, Old Lat.,
Cur. Syr., Syrr., Memph.
— Western.
X, D, Old Lat., etc.— West
ern.
B, etc.
B, X, L, r, 33, Orig.
D, A, etc. — Western.
B, X.
(D),L,r, A,33, OldLat.,
Vulg., Cur. Syr., Theb.,
Memph., Pst  Wester-n.
B, X, D, F, Old Lat.,
Memph., Pst.
L, A, 33, Cur. Syr., Hel.,
Vulg. — A lexandrian ?
X, A, Clems., Orig. 3 times.
B, D, L, r.
B, X, 33, Old Lat., Vulg.,
Cur. Syr., Memph.
L, r, A, Syrr. — Alexan-
Irian.
B, X, L,A,33,Vulg., Syrr.
D, Old Lat., Cur. Syr.,
Memph. — Western.
B, X, D, 33, Orig.
L, A — A lexandrian ?
X,D,L,A,01dLat.,Vulg., Clems, (once).
B, Clems, (once).
B, X (33).
D, L, A — Western.

224

TEXTUAL CEITICISM.

(18) Ver

.39

(19) "

41

(20) "

42

(21) "

44

(22) "

46

(23) "

47

(24) "

tl

(25) "

ll

(26) "

48

(27) "

((

omit aov
add "
dyyapivaii dyyaptvaySogdlSovomit clauses
add clauses
TO avT&
ovrmgdStXip.ipi'XovQ
idviKoi TtXHjvai rb aiiro
ovrmgtirg mairtpo ovpdvtog
iv r. ovpavoig

T.
[W.] Tr.
W.,Tr.,T.W.,Tr.,T.W.,Tr.,T.

W., T.
W.mg.,Tr. W.,T.,Tr. W.,Tr.,T.
W.,Tr.,T.W.,Tr.,T. W.,Tr.,T.

X, 33, Orig.
B, D, L, A, Latt.
B,L,(D). ^, A, S5— Western?
B, X, D.
L, A — Alexandrian?
B, X, Latt., Memph., Cur.
Syr., Orig.
D, L, A, 38, etc.— West
ern.
B, X, L, A, Syrr., (Latt.).
D, Z,33, Cur. Syr., Memph.
— Westei-n.
B, X, D, Latt., Cur. Syr.,
Pst., Memph.
L, ^^Alexandrian?
B, X, D, Latt., Memph.,
Cur. Syr.
L, A, Pst. — Alexandrian?
B, X, D, 33, Pst., (Latt.).
L, A, Memph., Cur. Syr. —
A lexandrian ?
B, X, L, Z, 33, Clems., Orig.
D, A — Western.
B, N, L, Z, 33,Vulg., Syr.
Hel.
(D), A, Old Lat., Pst., Cur.
Syr. — Weslem.

CHAPTEE SIXTH.
HISTOEY OF THE FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TES
TAMENT.
The history of the printed text of the Greek
Testaraent raay be divided into three periods :
(1.) The period of the unlimited reign of the
Eeceived Text, so called, frora 1516 to 1750 or 1770.
(2.) The transition period frora the Eeceived Text
to the older Uncial Text, 1770 to 1830.
(3.) The restoration of the oldest and puresj; text,
1830 to 1881.
More than half a century elapsed after the inven
tion of the art of printing before the New Testaraent
was published in the original Greek.' The honor
' I mean the whole Greek Testament. For the celebrated printer, Aldo
Manuzio (the elder, 1447-1515), had previously published the first si.x
chapters of the Gospel of John at Venice in 1504; and the Magnificat of
Mary, Luke i. 46-55, and the Benedictus of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-79, were
added to a beautiful Greek Psalter in the year 1486. The Latin Vulgate
was first published at Mayence, in 1455 (the Mazarin Bible), before any
other book. The German Bible was also printed before the Greek and
Hebrew original. No less than fourteen editions of the German Bible in
the High-German dialect were printed before 1518 (at Mayence, 1462 ; at
Strassburg, 1466 ; at Augsburg, 1475 ; at NUrnberg or Basle, 1470, etc.),
and four in the Low-German dialect from 1480 to 1622 (at Cologne, 1480;
at Liibeck, 1494, etc.). See Fritzsche's art. Deutsche Bibeliibers. in Herzog
(new ed.), iii. 545 sqq., and Kehrein, Gesch. der deutschen Bibeliiberselzung
vor Luther; Stuttg. 1851. England, which now far surpasses all otiier
countries in the publication and circulation af the Scriptures, was far
behind the Continent in the sixteenth centurv. Wiclif's version existed
15

226 PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
of pioneership in this great enterprise is divided
between a Eoman Catholic cardinal of Spain and a
semi -Protestant scholar of Switzerland (originally
of Holland). The former began first, with a nurn
ber of helpers and boundless resources of money;
but the latter, single-handed and poor, overtook him
by superior learning and enterprise. The sarae
pope, Leo X., who personally cared raore for letters
and arts than for religion, authorized the publica
tion of both editions, and thus unconsciously pro
moted the cause of Protestantisra, which appeals to
the Greek Testaraent as the highest and only infalli
ble authority in raatters of faith, and which claims
the right and owns the duty to print and spread the
Word of God in every language on earth. The
Jews had anticipated the Christians by publishing
the Hebrew Bible several years before (in 1488 at
Soncino in Lorabardy, and again at Brescia, 1494).
Dr. Eeuss, of Strassburg, who is in possession
of the largest private collection of editions of the
then only in manuscript. The first edition of William Tyndale's English
New Testament was printed on the Continent (partly at Cologne, partly
at Worms) in 1526, secretly smuggled into England, and burned by order
cf the bishop of London (Tunstall) in St. PauVs churchyard, not far from
the Oxford Bible Warehouse in Paternoster Eow and the Bible House of
the British and Foreign Bible Society on the banks of the Thames, from
which thousands and millions of Bibles in all languages are now sent to
the ends of the earth. The archbishop of Canterbury (Warham) bought
a large number of copies at an expense of nearh' a thousand pounds sterling
for destruction, but thereby furnished the translator the means for printing
a new edition. Hence the scarcity of the first edition, of which only two
copies and a fragment survive. Tyndale " caused the boy who driveth
the plough to know more of the Scriptures than did all the priests" of his
day. See Eadie, History ofthe English Bible, i. 129, 161, 173 sq., 184.

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 227
Greek Testament, gives a chronological list of 584
distinct and 151 title editions of the Greek Testa
ment (501 and 139 being complete), which were
printed frora 1514 to 1870. He divides them into
twenty-seven families.' This list has been enlarged
in 1882 to the number of 919 by Professor Hall (see
First Appendix). He estimates the total number of
printed copies of the entire Greek Testaraent, as far
as he can trace thera, on the basis of 1000 to each
edition, to be over one million. A large number,
and yet very small as compared with that of the
English New Testaraent, of which the American
Bible Society alone issues nearly half a million of
copies every year."
' See his Bibliotheca Novi Test. Greed (1872), and Appendix I. Eeuss
classifies his editions as follows:
I. Editio Complutensis ; II. Editiones Erasraicoe; III. Editio Compluto-
Erasmica ; IV. Editio Colintei ; V. Editiones Stephanicee ; VI. Editiones
Erasmo-Stephanicse; VIL Editiones Compluto-Stephanicae ; VIIL Edi
tiones Bezanae; IX. Editiones Stephano-Bezanse ; X. Editiones Stephano-
PlantmianiB; XL Editiones Elzevirianee ; XII. Editiones Stephano-
Elzevirianse ; XIH. Editiones Elzeviro - Plantiniana; ; XIV. Editiones
criticiB ante-GriesbachiauHi; XV. Editiones Griesbachianse ; XVL Edi
tiones Matthsianffi ; XVII. Editiones Griesbachio-Elzeviriante; XVIII.
Editiones Knappianee; XIX. Editiones criticse minores post -Gries
bachianse; XX. Editiones Scbolzianse (including the Bloomfield and the
Bagster editions, London); XXI. Editiones Lachmanniante; XXIL Edi
tiones Griesbachio-Lachmanniana!; XXIII. Editiones Tischendorfiana; ;
XXIV. Editiones mixtse recentiores (Theile, Muralt, Eeithmayr, Anger,
Wordsworth, Hahn) ; XXV. Editiones nondum coUatee ; XXVL Editi
ones dubiaj; XXVII. Editiones spuria;. To tbese should be added the
Tregelles editions; the Westcott and Hort editions; the Oxford and
Cambridge editions of the Eevisers' text. The American editions (over
eighty) are reprints of European families, mostly of the textus receptus
and its derivatives.
» The issues of the New Testament In English from the Bible House

228 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
I confine myself here to the standard editions,
which mark an epoch in the history of textual crit
icism. Compare the full titles and specimen pages
in the Second Appendix,

I. The Peeiod of the Textus Eeceptus : feom
Eeasmus and Stephens to Bengel and Wet
stein.— A.D. 1516-1750.
¦ THE TEXTUS EECEPTUS.
This period extends from the Eeformation to the
middle of the eighteenth century. The text of
Erasraus, with various changes aud improvements
of Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs, assumed a stere
otyped character, and acquired absolute dominion
among scholars. No two editions are precisely
alike, any more than the editions of the Authorized
English Yersion ; but all present substantially the
same text. The changes are nuraerous, but rarely
afEect the sense. The Greek Testaments printed in
England are usually based on Stephens and Beza;
those on the Continent, on the Elzevirs.
The Protestant versions of the sixteenth and sev
enteenth centuries (German, French, Dutch, English)
in comraon use were raade from this Erasrao-Elze-

at New York, by sale and donation, for successive years ending with the
31st of March (according to information kindly furnished by Dr. Gilman,,
one of the secretaries) are as follows :
12 months, to March 31, 1879, 458,385 copies.
" " " 1880, 540,065 "
" " " 1881, 491,105 "
" " " 1882, 424,642 «

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 229
virian text, and gained the sarae authority among
tlie laity which the former enjoyed among scholars.
Both were practically considered to be the inspired
Word of God, and every departure from them was
looked upon with distrust. This pious superstition,
although gradually undermined during the present
century, still lingers, and will die very reluctantly ;
for religious prejudices and habits are exceedingly
tenacious. The Eoraan Catholic Church is not bognd to a
particular Greek text, but holds instead with even
greater tenacity to Jerome's Vulgate, which, as a
translation, is still further reraoved frora the foun
tain of inspiration, though based in part on an older
text than the textus receptus. The Council of Trent
has put this defective version even on a par with,
and virtually above, the sacred original, and thus
checked all serious progress in biblical criticisra and
exegesis. Eoraan Catholic editions of the Greek
Testament are behind the age, and mostly mere re
prints of the Complutensian text, either alone or
corabined with the Erasraian, both having the quasi-
sanction of the pope (Leo X.). The edition of the
Eoman Catholic scholar, Scholz, contains a vast crit
ical apparatus, but has no ecclesiastical sanction.
The only duly and fully authorized Eoman Catholic
Bible is the Clementine Vulgate, and that needs a
thorough critical revision. EEASMUS.
The first published (not printed) edition of the
Greek Testament is that of the faraous Desideeius

230 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
Eeasmus (urged by his enterprising publisher, Fro-
benius, who offered to pay hira as much " as any
body "), at Basle, Switzerland, 1516, fol.
It was a most timely publication, just one year
before the Eeformation, Erasmus was the best
classical scholar of his age (a better Latinist than
Hellenist), and one of the forerunners of the Eefor
mation, although he afterwards withdrew from it,
and died on the division line between two ages and
two churches (1536), He furnished Luther and
Tyndale the text for their vernacular versions, which
became the most powerful levers of the Eeforma
tion in Germany and England,'
The first edition was taken chiefly from two in
ferior Basle MSS., one of the GoSpels and one of
the Acts and the Epistles : they are still preserved
in the University library at Basle, and have the
corrections of Erasmus and the marks of the print
er's pages (as I myself observed on a visit in 1879).
They date from the fourteenth or fifteenth centurj',
Erasmus compared thera with two or three others
on the same books. For the Apocalypse he had
only one MS., of the twelfth century, borrowed from
Eeuehlin, then lost sight of, but found again in
' The Sorbonne in 1527 condemned thirty-two articles of Erasmus
extracted from his works, after having previously forbidden the circula
tion of his Colloquia in France. But he enjoyed the pope's friendship to
the last, and was even offered a cardinal's hat, which he declined on
account of old age. He died without a priest, but invoking the mercy
of Christ, and lies buried in the Protestant Minster of Basle. Comp. on
Erasmus the monographs of Muller (1828), Drummond (1873), Gilly (1879),
and the article "Erasmus" by Stahelin in Herzog's "Encykl."' vol. iv.
278-290, new ed. (abridged in Schaff's "Encycl." i.753).

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 231
1861 ; ' defective on the last leaf (containing the
last six verses, which he retranslated from the Vul
gate into poor Greek). Made in great haste, in less
than six months, and full of errors. Elegant Latin
version, differing in many respects from the Vulgate,
with brief annotations. Dedicated to Pope Leo X.,
who is rerainded of his duty to " raake known to
the Christians again the coraraandraents of their
Master out of the evangelical and apostolic writings
themselves." Erasmus prepared, with the aid of CEcolampadius
(the friend of Zwingli and reformer of Basle), in
all five successive editions, with improvements, all
Grseco-Latin. Second edition, 1519 (the basis of
Luther's translation); third, 1522; fourth, much im
proved, 1527 ; fifth, 1535. Besides, more than thirty
unauthorized reprints are said to have appeared at
Venice, Strassburg, Basle, Paris, etc.
The entire apparatus of Erasmus never exceeded
eight MSS. The oldest and best of them he used
least, because he was afraid of it — naraely, a cursive
of the tentli century, numbered 1, which agrees
better with the uncial than with the received text.
He also took the liberty of occasionally correcting
or supplementing bis text from the Vulgate ; and
hence iu more than twenty places his Greek text is
not supported by any known Greek MS.
Note. — Beuss gives the titles of the five Erasmian editions, and says
(Biblioth. p. 26) that they vary in sixty-two out of a thousand places
which he compared. Mill's estimate of the variations (four hundred in
' By Dr. Delitzsch, in the library of the princely house of Oettingen.
Wallerstein. See his Ilandscfiriftliche Funde, Heft i. and ii., 1861 and 1862.

232 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
tbe second edition) is far below the mark ; see Scrivener, Introd. p. 385.
Of the first edition, Erasmus himself says that it was prepared with head
long haste (" prcedpitatum fuit verius quam editum "), in order that his
publisher might anticipate the publication of the Complutensian Polyglot,
There was therefore some rivalry and speculation at work. The second
editioii is more correct, but even this (as Dr. O. von Gebhardt, in his Gr.
Germ. Test., p. xvi., says) contains several pages of errors, some of vvhich
have affected Luther's German version. The third edition first inserted
the spurious passage of the three witnesses (1 John v. 7), " e codice Britan
nico," i. e., from the Codex Montfortianus of the sixteenth century ; but
Erasmus did not consider it genuine, and admitted it only from policy,
"ne cui foret ansa calumniandi." The Complutensian Polyglot had it
with two slight variations. The fourth edition of Erasmus adds, in a
third parallel column, the Latin Vulgate, besides the Greek and his own
version ; it has also raany changes and iraprovements from tbe Complu
tensian Polyglot, especially in Eevelation. The fifth edition oraits the
Vulgate, but otherwise hardly differs froni the fourth ; and from these
two, in the main, the Textus Eeceptus is ultimately derived.
THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT.
The Complutensian New Testament is a part of
the Polyglot Bible of Complutum, or Alcala de
Henares, in Spain. This opus magnum, the great
est of the kind since the Hexapla of Origen, was
prepared under the direction and at the expense of
Cardinal Feancis Ximenes de Cisneeos, Archbishop
of Toledo, Great Inquisitor, and Prime-rainister of
Spain, and published in 1520, with papal approba
tion, in 6 vols, fol.' The work was begun in 1502, in
celebration of the birth of Charles V., and the New
Testaraent was completed Jan. 10, 1514 (two years
' See a full account of the University of Alcaic, founded by the cardinal
(1508), in Hefele's Der Cardinal Ximenes, Tubingen, 1844, pp. 101 sqq.,
and of the Polyglot, pp. 120 sqq. Also in Tregelles, A ccount ofthe Printed
Text, etc., pp. 1-19.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 233
before the issue of the edition of Erasraus); the
fourth volurae July 10, 1517 (the year of the Eefor-
matiOn), but not published till 1520 or 1521 (four
years after the first edition of Erasmus, who did not
see the Polyglot till 1522), and three years after the
cardinal's death (who died 1517, at the age of eighty-
one). Pope Leo would not give his approbation till
March 22, 1520 ; ' even then there was some delay,
and the work did not get into general circulation
before 1522.
The cardinal desired by this herculean work to
revive the study of the Bible, which was so deplora
bly neglected before the Eeformation. Every the
ologian, he says, should draw the water of life from
the fountain of the original text. He was willing
to give up all his knowledge of civil law for the
explanation of a single passage of the Bible. He
acquired some knowledge of Hebrew and Chaldee
in his ripe years. He employed for the Polyglot
the best scholars he could get, at a high salary;
among them three converted Jews. The most emi
nent were Lopez de Zuniga (Stunica, or Astunga,
known from his controversies with Erasmus), De
metrius Dukas of Crete, and Nunez de Guzman.
They again employed pupils and scribes. The cost
of the work for manuscripts, salaries, and printing
expenses exceeded the enormous sum of 50,000
ducats, or about $150,000. But this was only
one fourth of the cardinal's annual income. "He

' This is the correct date ; not March 20, 1521 (as Hug gives it). See
Hefele, I. c. p. 142.

234 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
had the income of a king and the wants of a
monk." ¦
Only six hundred copies were printed, and sold
at 6f ducats per copy ; so that the total sale would
not have refunded the twelfth part of the cost.
Copies are exceedingly rare and dear, (See the fac
simile in Append, II.)
The New Testament forras vol. v., and gives the
Greek and the Latin Vulgate in two columns (the
Greek being broader), with parallel passages and
quotations on the Latin margin. The chapters are
marked, but no verses (whicli were not known be
fore 1551). Several prefaces of Jerome and other
additions are appended, among them five Greek and
Latin poems in praise of Ximenes. The second,
third, and fourth volumes contain the Old Testa
ment with the Apocrypha. The canonical books
of.the Old Testaraent are given in three languages:
the Latin Vulgate characteristically holds the place
of honor in the middle, between the Greek Septua
gint and the Hebrew original. This signifies, ac
cording to the Prolegomena, that Christ, i. e., the
Eoman or Latin Church, was crucified between two
robbers, *'. e., the Jewish Synagogue and the schis
matical Greek Church ! ' The sixth volume contains
lexica, indexes, etc.
The text of the New Testainent is mostly derived
' Hefele, p. 126.
'^ Some have denied that Ximenes wrote this preface, since he elsewhere
gave the preference to the original text. Hefele (p. 136) vindicates it to
the cardinal, but thinks that he raeant only to disparage the Synagogue
and the Greek Church, but not the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint.

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 235
from late and inferior MSS. not specified, and not de
scribed except in the vague and exaggerated terms
"very ancient and correct " {ant-iquiss-lma et emenda-
iissima),a.nd procured from Eome, for which Leo X.
is thanked in the Preface.'
The Complutensian text was reprinted, though
not without sorae changes, by Christopher Plantin
at Antwerp (1564? 1573, 1574, 1584, 1590, etc.), at
Geneva (1609, 1619, 1620, 1628, 1632), in the Ant
werp Polyglot (edited by Spaniards under Philip IL,
1571 and 1572), in the great Paris Polyglot (1630-33,
in the ninth and tenth volumes), and by Goldhagen
at .Mayence (1753). More recently it was carefully
re-edited by P. A. Gratz (Eoman Catholic Professor
at Tiibingen, afterwards at Bonn), with changes in
the orthography and punctuation, and with the Clem
entine Vulgate (Tiibingen, 1821 ; 2d ed. Mayence,
1827; 3d ed. 1851, in 2 vols.), and by Leander van
Ess (1827), who, however, incorporated the text of
Erasmus with it." By the third edition of Stephens
it is to some extent connected with the textus re-
' On the textual sources of the Complutensian Polyglot, see Tregelles,
I. c. pp. 12-18. Hefele (p. 132) says, the Greek text of the Polyglot
stands there without any authority, as if it were fallen from heaven.
Reuss (Biblioth. pp. 16-24) gives a list of the readings peculiar to this
Greek Testament. Thc great Vati«;an MS. (B) w?s not used.
' The title of this editio Compluto-Erasmica is Novum Test. Gr: ei Lat.
expr-essum ad binas editiones a Leone X. P.M. adprobatus Complutensem
sdlicet et Erasmi Roterod., with the Clementine text of the Vulgate in
parallel columns, and readings frora Stephens, Matthiei, and Griesbach in
foot-notes. Tubingfe, 1827. Leander van Ess was a zealous promoter of
the study of the Bible among Eoman Catholics. His invjiluable library
was acquired for the library of the Union Theological Seminary in New
Tork through the agency of Dr. Edward Eobinson.

236 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
ceptus, of Protestants ; but in its original shape it
may be called the Eoman Catholic text, as far as
•there is such a text. COLINyEUS.
Simon Colin^us (Simon de Colines), a printer at
Paris, and step -father of Eobert Stephanus, pub
lished at Paris, 1534, a Greek Testament, which is
in part an eclectic mixture of the Erasmian and
Complutensian texts, but contains many readings in
troduced for the first time on manuscript authority.'
STEPHANUS.
The editions of the great printer and scholar,
EoBEET Stephanus, or Stephens" (1503-59), were
published at Paris in 1546 and 1549, 16mo (called,
frora the first words of the preface, the 0 mirificam
editions) ; 1550, in folio ; and at Geneva, in 1551,
16mo. His son Henry (1528-98) collated the MSS.
eraployed for these editions, whicii were greatly ad
mired for their excellent type, cast at the expense
of the French government.
Stephens's " royal edition " {editio regia) of 1550
is the most celebrated, and the nearest source of the
textus receptus, especially for England." The text
was mainly taken from Erasmus (the editions of
' See Eeuss, p. 46, who indicates the sources of Colinieus. His edition
was not reprinted, and was superseded by the editions of Stephanus.
" This is the usiial English spelling. Stephen or Stephanus would be
more correct. His French name was Eslienne.
' Eeuss (p. 53) i " Est hcec ipsa editio ex qua derivatur quem nostri
textum receptum vulgo vacant, nomine rd minus bene aptalq."

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 237
1527 and 1535), with marginal readings from the
Complutensian edition, and fifteen MSS. of the
Paris library, two of them valuable (D(2) and L), but
least used. It was republished by F. H. Scrivener,
1859, at Cambridge; new edition 1877, with the
variations of Beza (1565), Elzevir (1624), Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Tregelles.'
The edition of 1551, which was published at
Geneva (where Eobert Stephens spent his last years
as a professed Protestant), though chiefiy a reprint
of the Eoyal edition of 1550 in inferior style, is re
markable for the versicular division which here ap
pears for the first time, and which Eobert Stephens
is said to have made on horseback on a journey
from Paris to Lyons.' Tlie edition contains the
Greek text in the middle of the page, with the
Latin Vulgate on the inner side, and the Erasmian
version on the outer. The versicular division is
injudicious, and breaks up the text, sometimes in
the middle of the sentence, into fragments, instead
of presenting it in natural sections ; but it is con
venient for reference, and has become indispensable
by long use. The English Eevision judiciously
combines both methods. BEZA.
Theodoee de Beze (Beza, 1519-1605), Calvin's
friend and successor in Geneva, and the surviving
' Nov. Test, texiris Stephanid A.D. 1550. Accedunt variw lectiones
editionum- BezfB, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii. Ed. nova
et emend. Cantabr. et Lond. 1877, 16mo.
' He first introduced the present verse-division into his edition of the
Latin Vulgate of the whole Bible, in 1555 (not 1548).

238 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
patriarch of the Eeformation, prepared four folio
editions of Stephens's Greek text, with some changes
and a Latin translation of his own, Geneva, 1565,
1582, 1588 (many copies dated 1589), 1598 (reprint
ed in Cambridge, 1642). He also issued several
octa.vo editions with his Latin version and brief
marginal notes .(1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604).' He
came into possession of two bilingual (Graeco-Latin)
uncials of great value, D (i) and D (2) (Cod. Bezae, or
Cantabrigiensis, for the Gospels and Acts, and Cod.
Claromontanus for the Pauline Epistles), but made
very little use of them, because they differed very
much from the Erasmian and Stephanie texts. The
time had not yet come for the safe operation of the
art of textual criticism.
Beza was an eminent classical and biblical schol
ar, and enjoj'ed, next to Calvin and BuUinger, the
greatest respect and authority iu the Church of
England during the- reigns of Elizabeth and James
I, He presented Codex D to the University of
Cambridge (1581), and received in return a letter of
.thanks with the highest compliments,"

' Beza called the edition of 1565 the second; but his flrst, 1557, was
only his Latin version with annotations, for which he cared more than
for the Greek text. Scrivener (Introd. 2d ed. p. 390) gives 1559 as the
date of the first edition ; but this is an error; see Eeuss, BiWto/A. pp. 72 sqq.
Others speak of an edition of 1576 ; but this was edited by Henry Stephens.
For a description, see Masch's Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, pars i. pp. 307-316.
' " Nam hoc sdio, post unicce Saiplurw sacralissimam cognitionem, nullos
unquam ex omni memoria temporum scriptores exiitisse, quos memm-abili
viro Johanni Cahino tibique praferamus.'' Dr. Scrivener, the editor of
Cod. D, in quoting this passage (Introd. p. 112), raakes the strange re
mark that this veneration for Calvin and Beza " boded ill for the peace of

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 239
His editions were chiefly used for the Authorized
Version of 1611, in connection with the two last
editions of Stephens. This fact gives to them a
peculiar historical value.
Note. — Beza had already, by his Latin version and notes, suggested
several improved renderings to the authors of the Geneva Version (1557
and 1560), from which they passed into King James's (as in Mark xiv.
72; Luke xi. 17; Acts xxiii. 27; xxvii. 9; James i. 13); but also some
arbitrary explanatory or harmonistic corrections of the text (as in Luke
ii. 22, " Mary's purification," or " her purification," for " Iheir purification ;"
Mark xvi. 2, " when the sun was yet rising" or "at the rising of the sun,"
for " when the sun was risen ;" Eev. xi. 1, " and Ihe angel stood saying,"
Kai b ayytXog e'tarrjKti, for "one said," Xiymv or Xiyei). A more serious
charge bas been inferred, though unjustly, from the probable infiuence of his
predestinarianism in the rendering of some passages, as Matt. xx. 23 (the
insertion, but it shall be given); Acts ii. 47 ("such as should be saved,"
which cannot be the raeaning of rovg aml^opivovg, but it is the rendering
from Tyndale down, and the Ehemish Version gives likewise the future,
" them that should be saved ") ; Heb. x. 38 (" if any man draw back,"
" siQUis se abduxerit," for idv viroartiXrjrai). This charge is nol well
founded, as has been shown by Archbishop Trench in bis treatise on
Revision. Beza was undoubtedly the best exegetical scholar on the
Continent at the tirae the Authorized Version was made, and his in
fluence upon it was, upon the whole, very beneflcial. " In the interpreta
tion of thc te.xt," says Westcott, "he was singularly clear-sighted; in
the criticisra of the text he was more rash than his conteraporaries in
proportion as his self-reliance was greater. But though it is a far more
grievous raatter to corrupt the text than to misinterpret it, the cases in
the English Church." But the University of Cambridge could not have
bestowed Its respect on worthier raen at tbat time. Even Hooker, who
led the way in the high-church reaction against the Eeformation, speaks
in raost appreciative terms of John Calvin as being "incomparably the
wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy" (Laws of Ecclesias
tical Polity, vol. i. pp. 158 sqq., ed. Keble). On the life and labors of
Beza, see the works of La Faye (Gen. 1606), Schlosser (Heidelb. 1809),
Baum (Leipsic, 1843 and 1851), and Heppe (Elberfeld, 1861) ; also the art.
" Beza " in Schaff's Herzog, vol. i. pp, 255-257.

240. FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
which Beza has corrected the renderings of former translators are incom
parably more numerous than those in which he has introduced false
readings ; and, on the whole, his version is far superior to those which
had been raade before, and so, consequently, the Genevan revisions which
follow it " (Hist, ofthe English Bible, pp. 296, 297). A work on the precise
Greek text of the Authorized Version, as far as it can be ascertained, was
recently edited by Dr. Scrivener (The New Testament in the Original Greek,
according lo the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with Ihe
Variations adopted in the Revised Version, Cambridge, 1881). The Ap
pendix, pp. 648-656, gives a list of the passages wherein the Authorized
Version departs from the readings of Beza's New Test. (1598). This list
is more complete and more correct than that published by Dr. Scrivener
in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873), Introd., Appendix E.
ELZEVIE.
The brothers Bonaventuee and Abeaham Elze-
viE, enterprising publishers in Holland, issued, with
the aid of unknown editors, several editions at Ley
den, 1624, 1633, 1641 ; originally taken (not from
Stephens, but) from Beza's smaller edition of 1565,
with a few changes frora his later editions. Neatly
printed, and of handy size, they were popular and
authoritative for a long period. The preface to
the second edition boldly proclairas : " Textum ergo
habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum : in quo nihil im
mutatum aut corruptum damus." Hence the narae
textus receptus, or commonly received standard text,
which became a part of orthodoxy on the Con
tinent; while in England Stephens's edition of 1550
acquired this authoritj' ; but both agree substantial
ly.' Erasmus is the first, Elzevirs' editor the last

' Mill observed but twelve variations. Tischendorf (p. Ixxxv. Proleg.
Vth ed.) gives a list of 150 changes;' Scrivener (p. 392) states tbe number
as 287. Most of these variations, however, are as unimportant as the

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. -241
author, so to say, of the textus receptus. All the
Holland editions wore scrupulously copied from the
Elzevir text, and Wetstein could not get authority
to print his faraous Greek Testament (1751-52) ex
cept on condition of following it.'
Walton's polyglot.
Beian Walton's Polyglot Bible, Lond. 1657, 6
tora. fol. The New Testaraent (tom. v.) gives the
variations of the different editions of King James's English Version,
which number over 20,000.
' For a history of the Elzevir family and a list of their publications, see
Les Elzevier. Histoire el Annales lypographiques, par Ai,FiiO-ssE Willems,
Brux. et Paris, 1880, 2 vols. The titles of the first two editions (1624 and
1633) are as follows ;
H' K«ii'^ AiaS^KTj. Novum Testamentvm, ex Regijs alijsque optimis
editionibus cum curd expressum. Lvgdvni Batavorvm, ex Oflncina Elze-
viriana. do Io c xxiv. 12mo, or 24mo.
(" Cette edition du N. T. est ripuiee ccri-ecle, mais elle a ele effacee par
celle de 1633." Willems, i. 98.)
H' Kaivrj Aia^rjKr). Novum Testamentum. Ex Regiis aliisque optimis
editionibus, hae nova expressum: cui quidaccesserit, Prafutio docebit. Lvgd.
Batavorvm, ex Oificina Elzeviriorum. do Io c xxxiii. 12mo, or 24mo.
The second is the most beautiful and correct edition. An edition was
printed by the Elzevirs for Whittaker of London in 1633, 8vo, with notes
of Robert Stephens, Joseph Scaliger, Isaac Casaubon, etc. It was also is
sued at Leyden with a new title-page dated 1641. Four later editions (1656,
1662, 1670, 1678) were printed at Amsterdam. Dr. Abbot says (in Schaff's
"Eel. Encycl." i. 274): "The text of the seven Elzevir editions, among
which there are a few slight differences, is made up almost wholly from
Beza's smaller editions of 1565 and 1580 (Reuss) : its editor is unknown.
The textus receptus, slavishly followed, with slight diversities, in hun
dreds of editions, and substantially represented in all the principal modern
Protestant translations prior to the present century, thus resolves itself
essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few
modern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, in the
infancy of biblical criticism." 16

242 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
Greek text of Stephens, 1550, with the Latin Vul
gate, the Peshito Syriac, the -Ethiopic, and Arabic
versions. In the Gospels a Persic version is added,
and it has the later Syriac version of the five books
not contained in the Peshito. Each Oriental ver
sion has a collateral Latin translation. At the foot
of the Greek text are given the readings of Cod. A.
The sixtii or Supplementary volume furnishes a crit
ical apparatus gather^ed from sixteen authorities (in
cluding D(i) and D(2) cited as "Cant." and "Clar."),
by the care of the celebrated Archbishop Ussher
(1580-1656), who had been appointed a meraber of
the Westrainster Assembly of Divines, but never
attended. Walton (1600-1661) was a royalist, dur
ing the civil war, and chaplain to Charles I., and after
the Eestoration consecrated bisliop of Chester (1661).
But the Polyglot was published under the patronage
of Cromwell, who allowed the paper to be imported
free of duty. This patronage was afterwards dis
owned ; hence there are two kinds of copies — the
one called "republican" (with compliments to Crom
well in the preface, but no dedication), the other
"loyal," and dedicated to Charles IL'
' "Twelve copies ^^•e^e struck off on large paper. By CromweU's per
mission the paper for this work was allowed to be imported free of duty,
and honorable mention is made of him in the Prefact. On the Restora
tion this courtesy was dishonorably withdrawn, and the usual Bible
dedication sycophancy transferred to Charles II. at the expense of several
cancels; and iu this, the 'Loyal' copy, so called in contradistinction to
the 'Republican,' Cromwell is spoken of as 'Maximus ille Draco.' This
is said to have been the first work printed by subscription in England."
(Henry Stevens, The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, London, 1877,
pp. 119 sq.) Comp. H. J. Todd's Memoirs of ihe Life and Writings of

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 243
Brian Walton was involved in a controversy with
Dr. John Owen, the famous Puritan divine, who
labored to defend, from purely dogmatic premises,
without regard to stubborn facts, the scholastic the
ory that inspiration involved not only the religious
doctrines and moral precepts, but "every tittle and
iota," including the Hebrew vocalization, and that
"the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were
immediately and entirely given out by God himself,
his mind being in them represented unto us without
the least interveniency of such mediums and ways
as were capable of giving change or alteration to
the least iota or syllable." ' To this Walton re
plied, forcibly and conclusively, in The Considerator
Considered, London, 1659. He maintained that the
authority of the Scriptures, as a certain and sufficient
rule of faith, does not depend upon any human au
thority or any human theory of inspiration, and that
Owen's view was contrary to undeniable facts, and
contrary to the judgment of the Eeformers and the
chief Protestant divines and linguists from Luther
and Calvin down to Grotius and Cappellus. " The
truth needs not the patronage of an untruth."
Walton's Polyglot is less magnificent than the
Brian Walton, together with the Bishop's Vindication of the London Poly
glott Bible, London, 1821, 2 vols.
¦ Ofthe Integrity hnd Purity ofthe Heh-ew Text ofthe Scriptures, wilh
Considerations on ihe Prolegomena and Appendix to the late "Biblia Poly-
glotta," Oxford, 1659. See Owen's Works, edited by Goold and Quick,
vol. ix. pp. 63-139. His theory was held by eminent Lutheran and
Reformed divines in the seventeenth century, including the learned
Buxtorfs (father and son), and was even symbolically endorsed by the
"Formula Consensus Helvetici," 1675.

244 PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
Antwerp Polyglot (Plantin. 1569-1673, in 9 vols.),
and-the Paris Polyglot (Paris, 1628-1645, in 10 vols.),
but more ample, commodious, and critical.
MILL.
John Mill's Novum Testamentum Groecum, Oxon.
1707, fol. ; often reprinted, especially in England.
The fruit of thirty years' labor. The text is from
Stephens, 1550. A vastly increased critical appa
ratus, gathered from manuscripts, versions, and espe
cially frora patristic quotations.'
It had been preceded by the New Testaraent of
Bishop John Fell, Oxford, 1675; an edition "raore
valuable for the impulse it gave to subsequent in
vestigators than for the richness of its own stores
of fresh materials" (Scrivener, p. 395).
Mill may be regarded as the founder of textual
criticism. He did not construct a new text, but
provided a large apparatus of about 30,000 various
readings for the use of others. He expressed the
hope, in his very learned Prolegomena (p. clxvii. b),
that the stock of evidence at the foot of his pages
would enable the reader to discover the true read
ing in almost every passage. BENTLEY.
Proposed edition, 1720. Dr, Eichard Bentley
(1662-1742), the illustrious classical scholar and
¦ See the list of Mill's MSS. in Scrivener, p. 398. Kiister's reprint of
Mill, with additions and improvements, Amsterdam and Leipsic, also
Rotterdam, 1710, deserves to he raentioned. Some copies are dated 1723
and 174G. See on Mill and KUster the Proleg. of Wetstein, vol, i. pp, 176 sq.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 245
critic, made extensive and expensive preparations
for a new edition of the Greek and Latin Testa
ment. He, unfortunately, failed to execute his de
sign ; but he discovered the true principle which, a
century afterwards, was reasserted and executed by
the critical genius of Lachmann.
Bentley proposed to go back from the textus re
ceptus to the oldest text of the first five centuries,
hoping that " by taking 2000 errors out of the
Pope's Vulgate and as many out of the Protestant
Pope Stephens's," he could " set out an edition of
each in columns, without using any book under 900
years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word,
and order for order, that no two tallies, nor two in
dentures, can agree better."
He issued his Proposals for such an edition in
1720, with the last chapter of Eevelation in Greek
and Latin as a specimen. The scheme was frustrated
by an angry controversy between him and Conyers
Middleton, and other contentions in which he was
involved, by his unruly teraper, at Cambridge. The
money paid in advance (two thousand guineas) was
returned to the subscribers by his nephew, whom
he made his literary executor. All that is left is a
mass of critical material in the library of Trinity
College, Cambridge, including the collation of the
Codex Vaticanus, which was transcribed by Woide
and edited by Ford in 1799.
Bentley was too sanguine in his expectations, and
too confident and hasty in his conclusions; but his
edition, as Tregelles says, " would have been a valu
able contribution towards the establishment of a

246 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
settled text : it would at least have shaken the
foundations of the textus receptus ; and it might
well have formed the basis of further labors."
After Bentley's death active interest in Biblical
criticisra in England ceased for nearly a century, and
the work was carried on mainly by German scholars.
BENGEL.
Johann Albeecht Bengel (1687-1752), " Pral-
at," or Superintendent, of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Wtirtembe'rg, M'as a most original, pro
found, pregnant, and devout coraraentator, and au
thor of the invaluable Gnomon, which is a marvel of
multum in parvo. He edited a Greek Testament
at Tiibingen, 1734, 4to, together with an Apparatus
Criticus, containing in three parts critical disserta
tions.' Bengel bdcame a critic from conscientious scru
ples, but was confirmed in his faith by thorough
research. When he studied theology at Tiibingen,
his inherited faith in the plenary inspiration of the
Bible was disturbed by the thirty thousand varia
tions in Mill's Greek Testament, and he determined
to devote several years to the study of the text, and
at last to prepare a new edition. He found that the

^ A small octavo edition appeared in the sarae year at Stuttgart with
out the critical apparatus. For an account of his biblical labors, see the
biography written by his great-grandson, J. Chr. Fr. Burk, Dr. Johann
Albrecht Bengel's Leben und Wirken, Stuttgart, 1831, pp. 19 sqq. and 200
sqq. Corap. also Oskar Wachter, Bengel's Lebensabriss, 1865 ; and a good
article by Hartraann and Burk in Herzog's " Encykl." vol. ii. pp. 295-301
(abridged in Schaff's " Rel. Encycl.").

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 247
variations leave the evangelical faith intact. His
excellent motto in biblical criticism and exegesis
was : " Te totum appliea ad textum,
Eem totam appliea ad te."
He retained the received text except in the Apoc
alypse (his favorite study), but noted the value of
the variations in the margin. He always preferred
the more diificult reading. Most of his cautious
changes have been approved. ¦ He first divided the
textual witnesses into families ; facilitated the meth
od of comparing and weighing the readings ; sug
gested true principles of criticism ; and set the ex
araple of recording the testimonies for and against
the received reading, but he did it only in. rare in
stances. " The peculiar importance of Bengel's
New Testament," says Scrivener,' "is due to the
critical principles developed therein. Not only was
his native acuteness of great service to him when
weighing the conflicting probabilities of internal
evidence, but in his fertile mind sprang up the
germ of that theory oi families or recensions which
was afterwards expanded by J. S. Semler, and grew
to such formidable dimensions in the skilful hands
of Griesbach." WETSTEIN.
Jo. Jac. Wetstein (1693-1754) : Novum Testa
mentum Grcecum Editionis Receptee cum Lectioni
bus, etc., Amstel. 1751-52, 2 tom. fol." A herculean
' Introd. p. 403.
" His family name was Wetfslein, but he signed himself in Latin Wet-
ttenius; and hence English, Dutch, and most German writers spell the

248 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
and magnificent work of forty years. The text is
mainly from the Elzevir editions, with some read
ings from Fell ; but he gives his critical judgment
in the margin and the notes. He made large addi
tions to the apparatus, and carefully described the
MSS. and other sources in the copious Prolegomena,
i. 1-222; ii. 3-15, 449-454, 741-743. His edition
contains also a learned comraentary, with, illustra
tions of the language and sentiment frora Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin authors.
Wetstein was far inferior to Bengel in judgment,
but far surpassed him in the extent of his resources
and collations. He was neither a sound theologian
nor a safe critic, but a most industrious worker and
collator. He had a natural passion for the study of
MSS. ; made extensive literary journeys ; collated
about 102 MSS. (among them A, C, and D) with

name Wetstein. He was a native of Basle, in Switzerland, and for some
time assistant pastor of his father at St. Leonhard's; but, being suspected
of Arian and Socinian heresy, he was deposed and exiled from his native
city (1730). His departure frora the textus receptus in 1 Tim, iii. 16
(^tog), in'favor of the reading '6, was made one of the grounds of this
charge. In the inquisitorial process his former teachers, Iselin and Frey,
who compared the Basle MSS. for Bengel, figured as his accusers. The
Acta were published at Basle, 1730 (466 pages, 4to, besides preface). He
obtained a professorship at the Arminian College at Amsterdam (1733),
where he died, March 2'2, 1754, at the age of sixty-one. His colleague,
J. Krighout, published a memorial discourse (Sermo funebris), which pro
voked his old antagonist, Frey, to a new attack (Epistola ad J. Krighout,
Bas. 1754), whereupon Krighout vindicated his memory (Memoria Wei-
steniana Vindicata,. Amst. 1755). See Hagenbach, J.J. Wettstein der
Kritiker und seine Gegner; in lUgen's " Zeitschrift filr die hist. Theologie,"
for 1839, No. 1, pp. 13 sqq., and his article in the first edition of Herzog's
"Encykl." vol. xviii. pp. 74-76.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 249
greater care than had been done before, and intro
duced the present system of citing the uncials by
Latin capitals and the cursives and lectionaries by
Arabic numerals. His Prolegomena are disfigured
by the long and painful history of his controversy
with his narrow and intolerant orthodox opponents,
Iselin and Frey ; he depreciated the merits of Ben
gel ; his text is superseded, but his New Testament
is still indispensable to the scholar as a storehouse
of parallel passages from the ancient classics and
the rabbinical writers. Bishop Marsh calls it " the
invaluable book."
During the next twenty years little was done for
textual criticism. Johann Salomo Semlee, the
father of German rationalism (1725-91), but, in
what he called " Privat -Frdmmigkeit " (personal
piety), a pietist and an earnest opponent of deism,
re -edited Wetstein's Prolegomena with valuable
suggestions (Halle, 1764), and stimulated the zeal
of his great pupil Griesbach.

II. Second Period : Transition feom the Textus
Eeceptus to the Uncial Text. Feom Geies-
bach to Lachmann. — A.D. 1770-1830.
This period shows enlarged comparison of the
three sources of the text, the discovery of critical
canons, a gradual improveraent of the textus recep
tus, and approach to an older and better text ; but
the forraer was still retained as a basis on a pre
scriptive right.

250 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.

GEIESBACH.
The period is introduced by the honored name of
Johann Jacob Geiesbach (1745-1812), Professor of
Divinity at Halle and then at Jena.' He made the
study of textual criticism of the Greek Testament
his life-work, and combined all the necessary quali
fications of accurate learning, patient industry, and
sound judgment. His editions (from 1775 to 1807)
and critical dissertations {Symboloe Criticoe, 1785-93;
CorHmentarius Criticus, and Meletemata Critica,
1798-1811) mark the beginning of a really critical
text, based upon fixed rules. Among these are,
that a reading must be supported by ancient testi-

' Griesbach was the son of a Protestant pastor in Hesse-Darmstadt ;
educated in Tubingen, Leipsic, and Halle, where he became an ardent
disciple of Semler. He travelled in France, Holland, and England ; was
appointed professor in Halle, 1773, and called to Jena in 1775, where he
spent the remainder of his life in usefulness and well-deserved honor.
Besides his critical works on the Greek Testament, he published little of
importance. His Opuscula, edited by Gabler, Jena, 1824-25, in 2 vols., con
sist chiefly of university programmes and addresses. See Augusti, Ueber
Griesbach's Verdienste, Breslau, 1812 ; Reuss, Biblioth. pp. 193-204, and his
article "Griesbach" in Herzog, new ed. vol. v. pp, 430-432. Dr. Hort
(Gr. Test. ii.. 185) venerates his name " above that of every other textual
critic of the New Testaraent," and pays him the following tribute (ii. 181) :
"What Bengel had sketched tentatively was verified and worked out
with admirable patience, sagacity, and candor by Griesbach, who was
equally great in independent investigation and in his power of estimating
the results arrived at by others. . . . Unfortunately he often followed
Semler in designating the ancient texts by the term ' recension,' and thus
gave occasion to a not yet extinct confusion between his historical analysis
of the text of existing documents and the conjectural theory of his con
temporary, Hug, a biblical scholar of considerable merit, but wanting in
sobriety of judgment."

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 251
mony ; that the shorter reading is preferable to the
longer, the more diflScult to the easy, the unusual to
the usual. He sifted Wetstein's apparatus with
scrupulous care ; enlarged it by collecting the cita
tions of Origen, and utilizing the Old Latin texts,
published by Bianchini and Sabatier ; improved and
developed Bengel's system of families, classifying
the authorities under three heads — the Western (D,
Latin versions, fathers), the Alexandrian (B, C, L,
etc., a recension of the corrupt Western text), and
the Constantinopolitan or Byzantine (A, fiowing
frora both, and the raass of later and inferior manu
scripts); but recognized also mixed and transitional
texts, decided for the readings of the largest relative
extent, but departed from the Elzevir text only for
clear and urgent reasons. His critical canons are
well-considered and sound ; but he was too much
fettered by his recension theory, whicii was criticised
and modified, but not improved, by Hug, a Eoman
Catholic scholar (1765-1846).
Principal editions, Halle, 1775-77; Halle and
London, 1796-1806, 2 tom. 8vo; Leipsic, 1803-1807,
4 tom. fol. (called by Eeuss, p. 200, "editio omnium
quae exstant speciosissima " ) ; reprinted, London,
1809 and 1818 (a very fine edition) ; an improved
third edition of the Gospels by David Schulz, 1827,
with Prolegomena and an enlarged apparatus (but
differing from Griesbach's text, as Eeuss says, p. 200,
only in two places. Matt, xviii. 19 and Mark iv. 18).
Griesbach's text is the basis of many manual
editions by Schott, Knapp, Tittmajsn, Hahn (re
published at New York by Dr. Edward Eobinson,

252' FEINTED 'I'EXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
1842), Theile (llth ed. Leipz. 1875), and of several
English and American editions.'
While Griesbach was engaged in his work, several
scholars made valuable additions to the critical ap
paratus, the results of which he incorporated in his
last edition. MATTH.EI.
C. F. MATTH.EI (Professor at Wittenberg, then at
Moscow; d. 1811), Griesbach's opponent, ridiculed
the system of recensions, despised the most ancient
authorities, and furnished a text from about a hun
dred Moscow MSS., all of Constantinopolitan origin,
to whicii he attributed too great a value. The re
sult by no means justified his pretensions and pas
sionate attacks upon others. His Novum Test. Greece
et Latine (Vulg.) was published at Eiga, 1782-88,
12 vols. Svo; an edition with the Greek text only,
in 3 vols. 8vo (1803-7). "Matthsei was a careful
collator, but a very poor critic ; and his manuscripts
were of inferior quality " (Abbot).
The Danish scholars Biech, Adlee, and Mol-
DENHAUEE Collected, at the expense of the King of
Denmark, a large and valuable araount of new crit
ical material in Italy and Spain, including the read
ings of the Vatican MS., published by Birch, 1788-
1801. During the same period Codd. A, D, and
other important MSS. were published.

' Bloomfield's editions, London, 1832, 9th ed. 1855, are only in part based
on Griesbach and in part on Scholz, but mostly on Mill. He censures
Griesbach for "his perpetual and needless cancellings," etc.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK 'TESTAMENT. 253
F. C. Altee, in bis Greek Testament (Vienna,
1786-87, Svo), gave the readings of twenty -two
Vienna MSS., and also of four MSS. of the Slavonic
version. The new discoveries of these scholars went far to
confirm Griesbach's critical judgment,
SCHOLZ.
J. M. A. Scholz (a pupil of Hug, and Eoman
Catholic Professor in Bonn ; d. 1852): Novum Testa
mentum Greece, etc., 1830-36, 2 vols. 4to; the text
reprinted by Bagster, London, with the English
version. Scholz was a poor critic, but an extensive traveller
and collator. He examined many new Greek MSS.,
written after the tenth century, in different coun
tries, though not very accurately, and gave the
preference to the Byzantine family, as distinct from
the Alexandrian. He frequently departed frora the
received text, yet, upon the whole, preserved it in
preference to that of the Vulgate (which is remark
able for a Eoman Catholic). His judgment and
ability were not equal to his zeal and industry,
and all the critics who have examined his collations
(Tischendorf, Bleek, Tregelles, and Scrivener) charge
him with a great want of accuracy.
His edition has found much more favor in England
than in Germany, and was republished by Bagster
in London.' It marks no advance upon Griesbach.

' In several editions, including The English Hexapla (which gives, with
Scholz's Greek Testament, the versions of Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Gene-

254 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
At a later date (1845) Scholz retracted his prefer
ence for the Byzantine text, and said that if a new
edition of his Greek Testament were called for, he
should receive into the text most of the " Alexan
drian " readings which he had placed in his margin.

III. Thied Peeiod : the Eestoeation of the Peim-
iTivE Text. Feom Lachmann and Tischen-
DOEF to Westcott and Hoet. — A.D. 1830-81.
lachmann.'
Cael Lachmann (Professor of Classical Philology
in Berlin ; b. 1793, d. 1851): Novum Testamentum
Greece et Latine, Berol. 1842-50, 2 vols. Compare his
article in the Studien und Kritilcen, 1830, No. 4,
pp. 817-845. Lachmann had previously published
a small edition in 1831, with the variations of the
textus receptus (Elz. 1624) at the end. In the larger
edition he was aided by the younger Philip Butt
mann, who added the critical apparatus of the Greek
text, and published also another sraall edition based
on the Vatican MS., 1856, 1862, and 1865. The
Latiu text of the Vulgate is derived from Codd.
Fuldensis, Amiatinus, and other manuscripts.
Lachmann was not a professional theologian, and
not hampered by traditional prejudice. He was a
van, Ehemish, and King James's), and a pocket ed. of the Greek Test.
with the Authorized Version and a dictionary. See on Bagster's and
Bloomfield's editions the lists in the flrst Appendix, and in Eeuss, Bib
liotheca, 235-238.
' See his Biography, by Hertz, Berlin, 1851 ; also the article Bibeltext
des N. T., by O. von Gebhardt in Herzog, Encykl. (ed. ii.), ii. 425 sqq.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 255
classical and Teutonic philologist, and gifted with a
rare faculty for textual criticism. He distinguished
himself by critical editions of Propertius, Catullus,
Tibullus, Lucretius, Gaius, the NiebelungenUed,'W a\-
ther YOU der Vogelweide, and Wolfram von Eschen-
bach, and edited Lessing's complete works. He was
a friend of Schleiermacher, Liicke, Bleek, and other
eminent theologians. He approached the task of
biblical criticism, like Eichard Bentley, with the
principles and experience of a master in classical
criticism. His object was purely historical or diplo
matic — namely, to restore the oldest attainable text,
i. e. the text of the fourth century, as found in the
oldest sources then known (especially in Codd. A., B,
C, D, P, Q, T, Z, Itala, Vulgate, ante-Nicene fathers,
especially Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Hilary of Poi
tiers); yet not as a, final text, but siraply as a sure
historical basis for further operations of internal
criticism, whicii might lead us in some cases still
nearer to the primitive text. He therefore ignored
the printed text and cursive manuscripts, and went
directly to the oldest documentary sources as far as
they were made accessible at his time. He went
also beyond the Latin Vulgate to the Old Latin.
He ranged the Greek Western uncials on the Latin
or Western side. He distinguished only tvVo types
of text— tlie Oriental (A, B, C, Origen), and the Occi
dental (D, E, G, oldest Lat. Verss., a, b, c, Vulg., and
Western fathers from Irenseus down to Primasius
for the Apocalypse) — and took no notice of the
Byzantine authorities. As his text was intended to
be preparatory rather than final, he gave, with diplo-

256 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
matic accuracy, even palpable writing errors if suf
ficiently attested ; not as proceeding from the orig
inal writers, but as parts of the textus traditus of the
fourth century.
His range and selection of authorities were lim
ited. When he issued his large edition, the Sinaitic
manuscript had not yet been discovered, and Cod. B
and other uncials not critically edited. But to him
belongs the credit of having broken a new path, and
established, with the genius and experience of a mas
ter critic, the true basis. His judgment was clear,
sound, and strong, but at tiraes too rigid. He car
ried out the hint of Bentley and Bengel, and had the
boldness to destroy the tyranny of the textus receptus,
and to substitute for it the uncial text of the Nicene
or ante-Nicene age. His chief authority is B.
Lachraann met with much opposition from the
professional theologians, even from such a liberal
critic as De Wette, who thought that he had wasted
his time and strength. Such is the power of habit
and prejudice that every inch of ground iri the
march of progress is disputed, and must be fairly
conquered. But his principles are now pretty gen
erally acknowledged as correct. Tischendorf, Tre
gelles, Westcott and Hort, build on his foundation,
but with vastly increased resources and facilities.'

' TregeUes says (p. 99) : " Lachmann led the way in casting aside the
so-called textus receptus, and boldly placing the New Testament wholly
and entirely on the basis of actual authority." Beuss calls hira (Biblioth.
p. 239) " vir doctissimus et KpiriKiirarog." The conservative Dr. Scrivener
(p. 422 sqq.) depreciates his merits, for he defends as far as possible the
traditional text. But Dr. Hort (Gr. Test. ii. 13) does VuU justice to his

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 257

TISCHENDORF.
Constantin von Tischendoef (Professor of The
ology at Leipsic ; b. 1815, d. 1874) : Novum Testa
mentum Greece, etc., ed. octava critica maior. Lips. ;
issued at intervals, in eleven parts, from 1864 to
1872, 2 vols., with a full critical apparatus. , A
smaller edition {ed. critica minor) in one vol. givea
the same text with the principal readings. The
best manual edition of Tjschendorf, with the read
ings of Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, is by Oscae
VON Gebhaedt : Novum Testamentum Greece Recen-
sionis Tischendorfianoe. ultimee Textwm cum Tre-
gellesiano et Westcottio - Hortiano contulit et brevi
adnotatione critica additisque locis paralleUs illus
travit O. DE G. Ed. stereot. Lipsise, 1881. The
same text appeared also with Luther's revised Ger
man version, Leipz. 1881 (Bernh. Tauchnitz).
Tischendorf is by far the raost industrious, enter
prising, and successful textual critic of the nineteenth
century. He may be called the Columbus of the
textual department in the New Testaraent litera-
raeraory : "A new period began in 1831, when for the flrst tirae a text
was constructed directly from the ancient documents without the inter
vention of any printed edition, and when the first systeraatic atterapt was
made to' substitute scientific method for arbitrary choice in the discrimina
tion of various readings. In both respects the editor, Lachmann, rejoiced
to declare that he was carrying out the principlea and unfulfilled inten
tions of Bentley, as set forth in 1716 and 1720." Abbot says of Lach
mann (in Schaff's Relig. Encycl. i. 275) : " He was the flrst to found a
text wholly on ancient evidence ; and his editions, to which his eminent
reputation as a critic gave wide currency, especially in Germany, did
much toward breaking down the superstitious reverence for the textus
receptus." 17

258 peintSd text of the geeek testament.
ture. His working power, based on vigorous health
and a hopeful temperament, was amazing. He had
the advantage of tbe liberal support of the Saxon,
and afterwards of the Eussian, government in his
expensive journeys and publications. He began his
preparations for a critical edition of the Greek text
of the New Testament in 1839 arid 1840, and was
.appointed to a chair of theology in the University
of Leipsic in 1843. He was stiriaulated by the in
dustry of Scholz and by the principles of Lachmann,
and aimed at a text based on the oldest authorities
from the fourth to the sixth century. He visited
the principal libraries of Europe in search of docu
ments; raade repeated journeys to France, England,
Turkey, and three to the Orient (1844, 1853, and
1859) ; discovered, collated, copied, and edited many
most important MSS, (especially st, B, B (2), C, D (2),
E(2), L); and published, between 18'41 and 1873, no
less than twenty-four editions of the Greek Testa
ment (including the reissues of his stereotyped editio
academica). Four of these — issued 1841, 1849, 1859
{editio septima critica major), and 1872 {ed. octava)
— mark a progress in the acquisition of new mate
rial. His editions of the texts of biblical manuscripts
(including sorae of the Septuagint) embrace no less
than seventeen large quarto and five folio volumes,
besides the Anecdota Sacra et Prof dna (1855, new ed,
1861), etc, and the catalogue of his publications, most
of them relating to biblical criticism, covers more
than twelve octavo pages in Gregory's Prolegomena.^
¦ Statement of Dr. Abbot in Schaff's Relig. Encycl. i. 276.

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 259
Tischendorf started from the basis of Lachmann,
but with a less rigorous application of his principle,
and with a much larger number of authorities. He
intended to give not only the oldest, but also the
best, text, with the aid of all authorities. His judg
ment was influenced by subjective considerations and
a very impulsive temper ; hence frequent changes in
his many editions, which he honestly confessed, quot
ing Tischendorf versus Tischendorf, but they mark
the progress in the range of his resources and
knowledge. In the first volurae of his seventh
critical edition (1859) he showed a more favorable
leaning towards the received text as represented by
the cursives and later uncials ; but he soon found
out his mistake, and returned in the second volume '
to the older uncial text. Soon afterwards followed
his crowning discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript
at the foot of the Mount of Legislation (1859), a
closer examination of the Vatican manuscript (1866),
and the acquisition of other valuable material. His
resources far exceeded those at the disposal of
any former editor, and were all utilized in his
eighth and last critical edition, completed in 1872.
Here he shows a decided, though by no means
blind, preference for his favorite Sinaitic and other
uncial manuscripts of the oldest date. His crit
ical apparatus and digest below the text is the
richest now extant, and will not soon be super
seded. The edition of 1859 differs from that of
1849 in 1296 places, 595 of them being misim-
proveraents in favor of the textus receptus; the
edition of 1872 differs frora the one of 1859 in

260 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
3369 places, raostly iu favor of the oldest uncial
text.' Unfortunately he. did not live to prepare the in
dispensable Prolegomena to his edition, which were
to give a full description of his critical material
and a key to the multitudinous and at times almost
hieroglyphic abbreviations, together with such a list
oi Addenda and Emendanda as might be suggested
by his own further researches and the labors of other
scholars. For in such a vast forest of quotations
numerous errors must be expected. A stroke of
apoplexy (May 5, 1873), followed by paralysis and
death (Dec. 7, 1874), arrested his labors, and termi
nated a career of indomitable industry and great
usefulness. The preparation of the critical Prolegomena was,
after some delay, intrusted in 1876 to an American
scholar residing at Leipsic, Dr. Casfae Eene Geeg
oey, who with the efficient aid of Dr. Ezea Abbot,
of Cambridge, Mass., has nearly finished this delicate
and diflBcult task of completing the noblest monu
ment of Gernian scholarship in the line of textual
criticism." Thus America, which has none of the ancient
manuscript treasures of the Bible, is permitted to

' Scrivener, Introd. p. 470, made the last calculation to the disparage
ment of Tischendorf; O. von Gebhardt, I. u. vol. ii. 431 sq., gives both
figures to his credit as showing his willingness to progress iu the right
elirection and to learn from new sources of inforraation.
" The Prolegomena will be published probably early in the year 1883.
I regret that I could make no use of them for this work. I have only seen
a few proof-sheets.

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 261
take a share in the great and noble work of restor
ing the oldest and purest text of the Book of books.
Note — Compare, on the discovery of Cod. Sinaiticus, p. 108 sqq.; and
on the life and labors pf Tischendorf, besides his own numerous works,
the following publications : J. E. Volbeding, Constantin Tischendorf in
sdner ^o-jdhrigen schriftslellerischen Wirksamkeit, Leips. 1862 ; Dr. Abbot's
article on Tischendorf in the Unitarian Review for March, 1875; Dr. Greg
ory's article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1876 ; Dr. Von Gebhardt
in Herzog's Encykl. (new ed. 1878), vol. ii. 429 sqq.; and for his moral
and religious character, the addresses of his pastor. Dr. Ahlfeld, and his
colleagues, Drs. Kahnis and Luthardt, A m Sarge und Grabe Tiscliendorf s,
with a list of his writings, Leips. 1874. These addresses bring into prom
inence his noble qualities, which were soraewhat concealed to the superficial
observer by a skin disease — his personal vanity and overfondness for his
raany and well-earned titles (covering ten lines on the title-pages of some
of his books), and twenty or more decorations from sovereigns which
were displayed in his parlor. He was a sincere believer in the truth of
the Bible and the Lutheran creed. He regarded himself as an instrument
in the hands of Providence for the discovery and publication of docu
mentary proofs for the vindication of the original text of the New Testa
raent, and to God he ascribed the glory. " Bd attem"—'he says, in self-
defence against a malignant attack ( Waffen der Finstemiss, p. 28) — " was
mir gelungen in der Fremde wie in der Ildmalh, bdm unermiidlichen ent-
behrungsvollen Wandem durch Lander und Viilker; Wiislen und Meere, unter
den marmigfalligsten Erfahrungen und Gefahren, unter A rbeilen bd Tag
und Nacht, war ich frdlich von ganzer Seele gliicklich mich des Herrn
riihmen zu konnen, des Herm der in dem Schwachen machtig gewesen. Und
dieses Riihmen, tr-olz Neider, Spotter und Verleumder, soil mir denn auch
bleiben mein Lebelang, bis an des Lebens letzten A themzug. ' 0 dass ich
tausend Zungen hatte und einen tausendfachen Mund: so stimmt ich damit
in die Wette vom allertiefsten Herzensgrund dn LoUied nach dem andern
an, von dem was Gott an mir gethan.' "
Tischendorf did good service to the cause of evangelical truth by his
able vindication of the genuineness of our canonical Gospels against the
attacks of modern scepticisra (especially Strauss and Eenan), in his tract.
When were our Gospels written? (1865). It was translated into all the
languages of Europe, and had an immense circulation and considerable
weight as coming from one who had the most extensive knowledge of the
oldest documentary sources of the New Testament, which he summoned

262 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
as witnesses for the apostolic origin cf the Gospels. One of his last
public acts was the noble part he took in the united deputations of the
Evangelical Alliance to the Russian Czar and Prince Gortschakoff, at
Friedrichshafen, in behalf of the persecuted Lutherans in the Baltic
provinces, in 1871. I was brought into close personal contact with him
on that occasion, and I know his zeal for the cause at the risk of his
popularity at the Russian court. The Archduke Constantine, who was
with the emperor, expressed his great surprise that he should have joined
the deputation and remonstrance. (See Report ofthe Alliance Deputation
iu behalf of Religious Liberiy in Russia, New York, 1871.) In view of this
participation, and his eminent services to the cause of biblical learning, the
Evangelical Alliance of the United States invited Dr. Tischendorf to the
General Conference at New York in 1873, and sent him free tickets for the
voyage, which he gratefully accepted. He offered to prepare and read a
paper on the " Influence of the Apocryphal Gospels on the Formation of
the Eoman Catholic Mariology and Mariolatrj-." He had already engaged
passage fur himself and one of his sons in a Brenien steamer, when a fatal
stroke of apoplexy conflned him to his home. He would have been treated
with great respect and kindness in America, and I had to decline a number
of corapeting invitations for his hospitable entertainment during the con
ference. I may also mention, as a raark of his interest in America, that
he had promised to prepare a special American Grseco-Latin edition cf his
last recension of the Greek Testaraent, with a liraited critical apparatus
such as I thought would best answer the wants of the American student.
He actually began the work in 1872, and flnished about fifty pages, which
were set in type. It was probably his last literary work. His death
prevented the execution.

TREGELLES.
Samuel Prideaux Teegelles (b. Jan. 30, 1813,
d. April 24, 1875): The Greek New Testament,
edited from Ancient Authorities, with the Latin Yer
sion of Jerome from the Codex Amiatinus, London ;
issued in parts from 1857 to 1879; 4to. He had
previously edited The Book of Revelation in Greek,
with a New English Version and Various Readings,
London, 1844, and issued a Prospectus for his Greek

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 263
Testament in 1848.' He was of Quaker descent, and
associated for a time with the "Plymouth Brethren.".
He was very poor, but in his later years he received
a pension of £200. from the civil list. His Greek
Testament was published by subscription.
Dr. Tregelles has devoted his whole life to this
useful and herculean task, with a reverent and de
vout spirit similar to that of Bengel, and with a
perseverance and success which rank hira next to
Tischendorf araong the textual critics of the present
century. He entered upon his work with the con
viction, as he says," that " the New Testament is not
given us merely for the exercise of our intellectual
faculties," but " as the revelation of God, inspired
by the Holy Ghost, to teach the way of salvation
through faith in Christ crucified." His belief in
verbal inspiration made him a verbal critic. He
visited many libraries in Europe (in 1845, 1849, and
1862), collated tlie most important uncial and cursive
MSS., and published (1861) the palimpsest Codex
Zacynthius ( S on Luke ). He was far behind
Tischendorf in the extent of his resources, but
more scrupulously accurate in the use of them.'
' Dr. Tregelles (pronounced Tre-ghel'les) wrote also An Account of tlie
Prinled Text of the Gr. New Test. (1854), and an Introd. to the Textual
Criticism ofthe New Test., for the 10th edition of Horne's Introd. (vol. iv.,
also issued separately). These two excellent works supply to some extent
the place of his Prolegomena. He contributed 'many articles for Kitto's
Journal of Sacr-ed LiteraMre, mad« a translation of Gesenius's.ffeiiero and
Chaldee Lexicon (1847), and aided in several useful biblical publications.
' See his Preface to 10th edition of Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. xiii., dated
Plyraouth, Sept. 18, 1856.
' Dr. Scrivener remarks (p. 431) : " Where Tischendorf and TregeUes

264 FEINTED TEXT OF THB GEEEK TESTAMENT.;
He followed Lachmann's principle, but gives a full
er critical apparatus. He ignores the received text
and the great mass of cursive MSS. (except a, few),
and bases his text on the oldest uncial MSS., the
Versions down to the seventh century, and the early
fathers, including Eusebius. Within these limits he
airiis at completeness and accuracy iri the exhibition
of evidence.
He left behind him a monumental work of pains
taking, conscientious, and devout scholarship. But
it needs to be corrected and supplemented from the
Codex Sinaiticus, aud the critical edition of the
Codex Vaticanus, which he was not permitted to
collate in Eome by the jealous authorities,' Like
Tischendorf^ he was prevented from completing his
work, and was struck down by paral^'sis while en
gaged, in concluding the last chapters of Eevelation
(in 1870), He never recovered, and could not take
part in the labors of the English Eevision Commit
tee, of which he was appointed a member. The
Prolegomena with Addenda and Corrigenda Were
differ " (in collation), " the latter is seldom in the wrong," Dr. Abbot
(in Schaff's "Encycl." i. 277): "In many cases Tregelles compared his
collations With those of Tischendorf, and settled the differences by a re
examination of the manuscript." See Dr. Hort's notice of Tischendorf
and Tregelles in the '.'Journal of Philology" for March, 1858.
. ¦ The Gospels were printed 1857 and I860, before the publication of X
(which he first inspected in Tischendorf's house at Leipsic in 1862), and
the printing of.the.Pauline Epistles had begun in 1865, before Vercel
lone's edition of B (whioh appeared in 1868). Tregelles retained a number
of traditional misreadings of B. O. von Gebhardt mentions as exaraples,
Mark iii. 1, ^v (which B does not omit) ; xiii. 7, aKovtre (B, aKovrjrt) ;
xiii. 21, Eiirrj vpiv (B has vpiv tiirrj). See the long list of corrections in
the Appendix.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 265
compiled and edited in a supplementary volume
four years after his death by Dr. Hort and Eev. A
W, Streane, 1879,
Note.— Tkegelles and Tischesdorf. The relation of these two
eminent critics to each other is very well stated by Dr. O. von Gebhardt
in his article Bibeltext (in the new edition of Herzog's "Encykl." vol. ii.
p. 428 sq.) : " The justly censured want, in the labors of Lachmann and his
predecessors, of a secure basis for the settlement of the New I'estament
text, must first of all be supplied ; the familiar ancient witnesses must bc ex
amined in a far more conscientious method than had hitherto been done,
before any further progress could be thought of. To this problem, during
the last decades, two men of chief prominence have applied their whole
strength— Tischendorf and Tregelles. Both were in like measure equipped
with the requisite qualities — sharp-sightedness and an accuracy that gave
heed to the smallest particulars; and both, with their whole soul, fixed
their eyes upon the goal set before thera, and strove with like zeal to
reach it. That it was not their lot to attain equal success, lay in the fact
that Tischendorf was much more enterprising, more keen-eyed for new
discoveries, and far better favored by fortune. But the success which
each of them reached, at the same time, is so great that they leave far
behind them everything that had been hitherto done in this realm. In
the toilsome work of collating manuscripts and deciphering palimpsests,
both Tischendorf and Tregelles spent many years of their life, being
thoroughly persuaded that the restoration of the New Testament text
could be striven for with success only upon the basis of a diplomatically
accurate investigation of the oldest documents. But while it was Tischen
dorf's peculiarity to publish in rapid succession the swiftly ripened fruits
ofhls restless activity, and so to permit his last result to comc into exist
ence, so to speak, before the cyes of the public, Tregelles loved to fix his
full energj' undisturbed upon the attainment of the one great aim, and to
come into publicity only with the completest which he had to offer. So
we see Tischendorf editing the New Testament twenty tiraes within the
space of thirty years, not to mention his other numerous publications;
while Tregelles did not believe that he could venture on the publication
of the only edition of the New Testament which we possess from him, until
after a twenty years' preparation. It is, however, a tragic fate, and an
irreparable loss for science, that to neither the one nor the other was it
vouchsafed to crown the toilsome work of many years with its capstone.

266 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
As Tischendorf bequeathed to us the Editio VIII. Critica Major of his
Greek Testament, without Prolegomena, so also did Tregelles."
Dr. Hort says (The N. T. in Gr. ii. 13) : " Lachmann's two distingui.shed
successors, Tischendorf and Tregelles, have produced texts substantially
free from the later corruptions, though neither of them can be said to
have dealt consistently, or, on the whole, successfully, with the difficulties
presented by the variations between the most ancient texts. On the
other hand, their indefatigable labors in the discovery and exhibition of
fresh evidence, aided by similar researches on the part of others, provide
all who corae after them with invaluable resources not available half a
century ago."
Dean Burgon, of Chichester (forraerly Vicar of S. Marj'-the-Virgin's
at Oxford), who is diametrically opposed to the principles of Tregelles
and Tischendorf, nevertheless acknowledges their great merits. In his
learned vindication of the genuineness of The Last Twelve Verses of Ihe
Gospel according to St. Mark (Oxford, 1871, Pref. pp. viii., ix.), he says:
" Though it is impossible to deny that the published texts of Drs. Tisch
endorf and Tregelles as texts are wholly inadmissible [?], yet is it equally
certain that by the conscientiousdiligance with which those distinguished
scholars have respectively labored, they have erected monuments of their
learning and ability which will endure foreVer. Their editions of the
New Testament will not be superseded by any new discoveries, bj' any
future advances in the science of textual criticisra. The MSS. which
they have edited will remain among the most precious materials for future
study. All honor to thera ! If in the warmth of controversy I shall ap
pear to have spoken of thera sometimes without becoming deference, let
me here once for all confess that I am to blame, and express my regret.
When they have publicly begged St. Mark's pardon for the grievou^
wrong they have done him, I will very hurably beg their pardon also."
More recently (in the "London Quarterly Eeview" for Oct. 1881, American
edition, p. 167) he says of Tregelles: " Lachmann's leading fallacy has per
force proved fatal to the value of the text put forth by Dr. Tregelles. Of
the scrupulous accuracy, the indefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that
estimable and devoted scholar, we speak not. All honor to his raeraory !
As a speciraen of conscientious labor, his edition of the New Testament
(1857-72) passes praise, and will never lose its value."
ALFOED.
Among the recent English commentators on the
New Testament ¦who embody the Greek text, Dr,

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT, 267
Heney Alfoed, the genial, many-sided, evangelical,
and liberal-minded Dean of Canterbury (1810-1871),
deserves honorable mention as a textual critic and
most zealous promoter of the revision of the English
Version, in which, as a member of the Committee of
the Canterbury Convocation, he took an active part
till his death,. eight months after its organization,'
In his Oreek Testament (London, 1849, 6th ed,
1868) he gives a critically revised text with a digest
of various readings, and improved it in successive
editions. At first he paid too much attention to
the traditional text and to internal and subjective
considerations. But in the fifth edition he nearly
rewrote the text and digest, chiefly on the basis of
the labors of Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in the
sixth he collated also the Codex Sinaiticus and in
corporated its readings. He praises Lachmann and
Tregelles for " the bold and uncompromising demoli
tion of that unworthy and pedantic reverence for
' He issued a revised translation of the New Testament (1869), and was
the first among the four Anglican clergymen (with Moberly, Humphry,
and Ellicott) who prepared a tentative revision several years before the
appointment of the Canterbury Committee. Dean Stanley, shortly be
fore his death (July, 1881), in a letter on Eevision to the "London Times,"
paid the following handsome and well-deserved tribute to the memory
of his fello\y-Eeviser : " If there is any one name which must be especially
connected with this Eevision, it is that of Dean Alford. Henry Alford,
while Dean of Canterbury, by incessant writing and preaching on the
defects of the existing version, as well as by his well-known labors on the
New Testament, had constantly kept the need and the possibility of such
a revision before the eyes of the public, and, by a happy coincidence, he
was also deeply interested in aU attempts at more friendly communion in
all raatters with Protestant Nonconformists." See Alford's Life, by his
widow, London, 1873.

268 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
the received, text which stood in the way of all
chance of discovering the genuine word of God ;
and the clear indication of the direction which all
future sound criticism must take, viz., a return to
the evidence of the most ancient witnesses." He
becarae " disposed, as research and comparison went
on, to lay raore and more weight on the evidence
of our few raOst ancient MSS. and versions, and less
on that of the great array of later MSS. which are
so often paraded in digests as supporting or impugn
ing the commonly received text." His confidence
in subjective considerations was shaken, because
" in very many cases they may be made to tell with
equal force either way. One critic adopts a reading
because it is in accord with the usage of the sacred
writer; another holds it, for this very reason, to
have been a subsequent conformation of the text.
One believes a particle to have been inserted to give
completeness ; another, to have been omitted as ap
pearing superfluous." '
WESTCOTT AND HOET.
Westcott and Hoet : The New Testament in the
O'riginal Greek, Cambridge and London (Macmillan
& Co.), 1881, 2 vols. The first volume contains
the text (580 pages), the second the Introduction
(324 pages) and Appendix {i. e., Notes on Select
Eeadings, 140 pages, and Notes on Orthography
and Quotations from the Old Testament which are
marked by uncial type in the text, pp. 141-188).

' Gr. Test. vol. i. pp. 76, 85, 87, f

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 269
Both volumes are republished frora duplicate Eng
lish plates. New York (Harper & Brothers), 1881.'
The same American firm has also published, in
superior style, with large margin, a very convenient
diglot edition of Westcott and Hort's Greek text
and the English revision in exactly corresponding
pages, with a list of noteworthy variations between
the two texts, under the title : The Revised Greek-
English New Testament, New York, 1882. Dr. Oscar
von Gebhardt has issued a similar diglot edition
which presents Tischendorf's last text and the recent
revision of Luther's German version {Novum Testa-
mentum Greece et Oermanice. Das N. Test, griechisch
und deutsch, Leipzig, 1881). These two diglot edi
tions are exceedingly helpful for the comparative
study of the two best Greek texts with the two
most important raodern versions revised.
The Greek Testament of Westcott and Hort pre
sents the oldest and purest text which can be attained
with the means of information at the command of
the present generation. It cannot, indeed, supersede
the editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles, which will
long continue to be indispensable for their critical
' The flrst volume of the American edition (as also the American diglot
edition) contains an Introduction of 87 pages by Philip Schaff, whioh was
prepared in May and June, 1881, by previous arrangement with the
editors and publishers, before the second volume appeared, but it doea not
interfere with it, still less supersede it. It contains preliminary inforraa
tion applicable to every Greek Testaraent; while Westcott and Hort's
second volume is an elaborate exposition and vindication of their system
of textual criticism, and indispensable to the advanced student, but pre
supposes most of tbe elementary information contained in the shorter
Introduction prefixed to the first volume of the American edition.

270 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
apparatus, and may deserve preference in a number
of readings, but, upDu the whole, it is a decided ad
vance towards a final text on which scholars, it is
hoped, may before long unite as a new textus recep
tus. It is the joint work of two biblical scholars arid
theological professors in the University of Cam
bridge, who have devoted to it nearly twenty-eight
years (from 1853 to 1881), and who corabine in an
erainent degree the critical faculty with profound
learning and reverence for the word of God. Their
mode of co-operation was first independent study,
and then conference, oral and written. This com
bination gives a higher degree of security to the
results. The second volurae. was prepared by Dr.
Hort, with the concurrence of his colleague, and
occasional dissent in minor details is always indicat
ed by brackets and the initials H. or W. It speaks
from the summit of scientific criticism to professional
students. The Introduction would be raore intel
ligible and helpful if its statements were oftener
illustrated by exaraples.
¦ The aira of the editors is not only to restore the
Nicene text as a basis for further operations (as
Lachmann did), but to reproduce at once (with
Tischendorf and Tregelles) the autograph text, that
is, " tlie original words of the New Testament so far
as they now can be determined from surviving docu
ments." They rely for this purpose exclusively on
documentary evidence, without regard to printed
editions. They make no material addition to the
critical apparatus (like Wetstein, Scholz, Tischen
dorf, and Tregelles), but they mark a decided prog-

FEfNTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 271
ress in the science of criticism (like Bentley, Bengel,
Griesbach, and Lachmann). They follow with in
dependent judgment and sound tact in the path of
Lachmann in the pursuit of the oldest text, but go
beyond the Nicene age and as near the apostolic
age as the docuraents will carry them with the use
of the critical material of Tregelles and Tiscliendorf;
they build on Griesbach's classification and estimate
of documents ; they advance upon all their predeces
sors in tracing the transcriptional history of the text
and in the application of the genealogical method as
the only way to rise up to the autograph fountain-
head. This prominent feature of their work has
been already discussed and tested in a special sec
tion, and need not be explained again.'
Westcott and Hort distinguish four types of text
in the surviving documents : "
(1.) The Syeian or Antiochian.' It was matured
by the Greek and Syrian fathers in the latter part
of the fourth century. It is best represented by the
uncial Cod. A in the Gospels (but not in the Acts
and Epistles), arid by the Syriac Peshito (in its re
vised shape, as distinct from the older Curetonian
Syriac) ; it is found in Chrysostom (who was first
' See pp. 208-224.
' The classification of thc documentary sourcea was begun by Bengel,
who divided them into two families — the Asiatic and the African; it was
enlarged and improved by Griesbach, who distinguished three recensions —
the Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, and Western ; it is perfected up to
this tirae by Westcott and Hort. On the older system of recensions, see
Tregelles in Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 66-107 (Wth edition, 1877).
¦ ^ Bengel called it "Asiatic," Griesbach and Scholz " Constantinopolitan,"
or " Byzantine." The best term would bo " Gra:co-Syrian."

272 PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
presbyter at Antioch till 398, and then patriarch of
Constantinople till his death, 407),' in the.later Greek
fathers, and the raass of the cursive MSS. (raost of
whicii were written in Constantinople); and it is
in the main identical with the printed textus recep
tus. It is an eclectic text, which absorbs and com
bines readings frora the early texts of different lands.
It seeras to be the result of an authoritative "recen
sion," or rather two recensions (between 250 and
350), i. e., an atterapted criticism pei'forraed by edi
tors who wished to harmonize at least three confiict
ing texts in the same region and to secure lucidity
and completeness ; hence the reraoval of obscurities,
the frequent harraonistic . interpolations, and the
large number of what are called "conflate" readings
selected from the three principal texts. " Entirely
blameless on either literary or religious grounds as
regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet show
ing no marks of either critical or spiritual insight,
it presents the New Testament in a form sraooth
and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in
sense and force, more fitted for cursory. perusal or
recitation than for repeated and diligent study " (ii,
135), The distinctively Syrian readings must at once
be rejected and give way to " Pre-Syrian " readings.
It should be remarked, however, that the assump
tion of a deliberate and authoritative Grgeco-Syrian
' We may add his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 429). See the re
cent edition of his Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles by Dr. H. B. Swete
(Cambridge, 1880-82), and the Excursus on the text, vol. ii. pp, 340-345,
Compare SchUrer's review iu the " Theol, Lit, Zeitung," 1882, No. 19,
col. 444.

FEINTED. TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 273
recension ¦ is based Upon a critical conjecture of
Westcott and Hort rather than historical evidence.
The only trace of it is an obscure remark of Jerome
concerning Lucianus, a presbyter and reputed foun
der of the Antiochian school (martyred A.D. 312),
and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, that certain
copies of the New Testament with questionable
readings were called after them.' An authoritative
recension by the learned fathers of the Nicene arid
post-Nicene age, who had access to much older man
uscripts than we now possess, would enhance rather
than diminish the value of the textus receptus, unless
it is counterbalanced by internal and other document
ary evidence. This, hovrever, is strongly against it.
A careful comparison shows that the Pre-Syrian
readings are preferable, and best explain the Syrian
readings. Tischendorf emphasizes the rule that the
reading which explains the variations is presumably
the original.
It is very natural that the Antiochian or Constan
tinopolitan text became the ruling text, Constariti-
nople was the heiress of Antioch, the centre of the

' Epist. ad Damasumt "Hoc certe cum in nostra sermone discordat et in
diver-SOS rivulorum iramites ducit, uno de fonte qucerendum est. Prceler-
milto eos codices quos a Lucianq et Hesychio nuncupates paucorum hominum
adserit per-versa contentio, quibus utique nec in toto Veteri Instrumento post
LXX interpretes emendare quid licuit nec in Novo profuil emendasse, cum
multarum gentium Unguis Scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quce
addita sunt." In De Viris illustr. 77, Jerome says : " Ludanus, vir doc
tissimus, Antiochence ecclesice presbyter, tantum in Scripturarum studio
laboravii, ut risque nunc qucedam exemplaria Scriptur-arum Zudariea
nuncupenlur." Comp. Decret. Gelas. vi. 14 ; " Evangelia quce falsavit
Ludanus apocr-ypha." 18

274 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
Eastern Church, and the guardian of Greek learning,
which after the migration of nations died out in the
West; and the capture of Constantinople by the
Turks was overruled by Providence for the revival
of Greek learning by fugitive scholars and the im
portation of biblical and classical manuscripts to
Europe, (2.) The Westeen text. It is most easily recog
nized in the Old Latin version, and in the^few extant
bilingual uncials which were written in the West (in
Italy and Gaul), as D(i) of the Gospels and Acts, and
D(2) of the Epistles, It spread very rapidly, and
diverged from tbe original standard before the mid
dle of the second century. The text of the ante-
Nicene fathers not connected with Alexandria is
substantially Western (Justin, Irenseus, Hippolytus,
Methodius, even Eusebius). Its prevailing charac
teristics are a love of paraphrase (as Matt. xxv. 1 ;
Luke XX. 34; Eph. v. 30), and a disposition to enrich
the text by parallel passages in the Gospels and ad
ditions from traditional (and perhaps apocryphal)
sources (as in John v. 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; Matt. xx.
28). " Words, clauses, and even whole sentences
were changed, omitted, and inserted with astonish
ing freedom, wherever it seeriied that the meaning
could be brought out with greater force and definite
ness" (ii. 122), Jerome's Vulgate removed some of
these defects, wliich was one of the motives of his
revision. We find analogous phenomena in some
of the Apocrypha of the Old Testanient, whicii
exist in two texts, the one being an amplified and
interpolated modification of the other ; also in some

PRINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 275
post-apostolic writings, as the Epistle of Barnabas,
the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Ignatian Epistles.
(3.) The Alexandeian or Egyptian text.' It is
found in the abundant quotations of the Alexandrian
fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius,
Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, partly, also, Eusebius
of Csesarea, and in the Egyptian versions (especially
the Memphitic). It is characterized by the absence
of "extraneous matter and a delicate philological tact
in changes of language. " We often find the Alex
andrian group opposed to all other documents, often
the Alexandrian and Syrian groups combined in op
position to the others, implying an adoption of an
Alexandrian reading by the Syrian text " (ii. 132).
(4.) The Neuteal text. This is most free from
later corruption and mixture, and comes nearest the
autographs., It is best representedbyB (which, is
coriiplete except the Pastoral Epistles, the Apoca
lypse, and the last four chapters of Hebrews), and
next by x (which contains the whole New Testa
ment without a gap). These two MSS., the oldest
and most important of all, though fully known only
in our day, seem to be independently derived from
a common original not far frora the autographs, and
their concurrence is conclusive in determining the
text when not contravened by strong internal evi
dence. Dr. Hort surmises (ii. 267) that both were
written in the West, probably at Eome (where the
Greek language prevailed in the Church during the
first two centuries), that the ancestors of B were
' Called tbe African text by Bentley and Bengel.

276 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT,
wholly Western (iri the geographical, not the textual
sense), and the ancestors of « partly Alexandrian.'
Tbe later corrections of clerical errors and textual
readings in these MSS. by different hands (especially
those of 8% sc"', and »") furnish at the same time
important contributions to the history of the text.
Next to them in authority are C, L,P, T, D, g, A (in
the Acts and Epistles, but not in the Gospels), Z, 33,
and in Mark A. Araong these, C and L have the
largest Alexandrian element. Many Pre-Syrian
readings are supported by ancient versions or fa
thers, and commended by internal evidence, though
not contained in Greek MSS. Among the fathers
the Pre-Syrian and Neutral element is strongest in.
Origen, Didyraus, to a Considerable extent in Euse
bius, and in Cyril of Alexandria,
FrOm these various types the apostolic text is to
be restored, not by raechanical adjustment, but by
the genealogical method or the careful study of the
history of the written text and the relations of de
scent and affinity which connect .tbe sevei^al witnesses.
Not any of them can be exclusively and implicitly
trusted. All the extant documents are more or less
mixed, and embody a certain number of departures
from the autographs, which began to be corrupted
in the first generation after the apostles. The vast
majority of changes date from the first and second
' The Roraan origin of B would most naturally account for its being in
the Vatican Library from its very beginning, and the absence of any trace
of its being imported. But if N was Ukewise written in Rome, it is not
easy to explain how it ever was transported to the Convent at Mount
Sinai.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 277
centuries, and were current iu the fourth, when the
text began to assume a stereotyped form in the East
through the controlling influence of Constantinople.
Patristic quotations, being definitely chronological,
are the oldest witnesses, going up to the third and
secoud centuries, but they are often free and loose,
and poorly edited ; next, those versions (Syriac, Latin,
Egyptian) which go back to the same date, but they
have undergone revisions ; and lastly, Greek MSS.,
a few of which date from the middle of the fourth
century, but are based again upon older copies, prob
ably from the second century, and hence they are
in fact as old witnesses as the oldest fathers and
versions, besides being more complete and direct.
The process of restoration is very complicated and
diflScult, and much reraains confused or doubtful.
Bitt in the majority of cases the true reading can be
fixed with certainty, as is shown by the increasing
consensus of the most comptetcnt critics and com
mentators. With all the variations, the texts of
Lachmann, Tischendorf (his eighth and last edition),
Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, are substantially
one and the same. If Westcott and Hort have
¦failed^ it is by an overestimate of the Vatican Codex,
to whicii (like Lachmann and Tregelles) they assign
the supremacy, while Tiscliendorf may have given
too much weight to the Sinaitic Codex. Absolute
unanimity in cases where the evidence is almost
equally divided cannot be expected among scholars
of independent judgment, nor is it at all necessary
for the practical purposes of the New Testament.
In the absence of the apostolic autographs, and J;he

278 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
extreme improbability of their recovery, we must
be content with an approximation to the original
text. Future discovery and future criticisra may
diminish the doubts concerning alternative readings,
but will not materially alter the text.
, Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament derives an
additional interest from its close connection and
simultaneous publication with the Anglo-American
Eevision of the English Testament. Both editors
were prominent members of the British New Tes
tament Company of Eevisers, and Dr. Hort took a
leading part in the discussion of all textual ques
tions, which were always settled before the transla
tion. The method pursued was to hear first Dr.
Scrivener, as the champion of the traditional text,
and then Dr. Hort for additional remarks and in
favor of any changes that seemed desirable. The
task could not have been intrusted to more corape
tent hands. Dr. Hort advocated his side with con
sumraate skill and complete mastery of the whole
field, yet he was never followed slavishly by the
Eevisers, several of whom are experienced textual
critics as well as exegetes, and were thoroughly pre
pared for each meeting. The American Corapany
likewise devoted many days and hours to discussions
of various readings, and sent a few elaborate papers
to their English brethren. Parts of the Greek text
were printed for private and confidential use of the
English and American Eevisers — the Gospels, with
a temporary preface, in 1871, the Acts and Catholic
Epistles in 1873, the Pauline Epistles in 1875, the
Apocalypse in 1876; but the second volume was

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.. 279.
withheld till the Eevision was completed. The
editors, while thus materially aiding the two Com
panies of Eevisers, received in turn the benefit of
their criticism, whicii enabled them to introduce
into the stereotype plates "many corrections deal
ing with punctuation or otherwise of a minute kind,
together with oxjcasional modifications of reading"
(ii. 18), The result is that in typographical accuracj-
the Greek Testament of Westcott and Hort is prob
ably unsurpassed,' and that it harmonizes essentially
with the text adopted by the Eevisers ; for, although
they differ in about two hundred places, nearly all
these variations are recognized in the margin either
of the Greek text or the English Eevision as alter
nate readings," It is one of the chief raerits of the
Eevised Version that it puts the English reader in
possession of an older and purer text than any otiier
version, ancient or modern. It is the first, and so
far the only, popular version which embodies the
results of the latest discoveries and investigations
of the original form of the Greek Testament.
Note. — Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott was born m 1825; educated at
Trinity College, Cambridge ; appointed Canon at Peterborough in 1869,
and Regius Professor of Divinity at Carabridge in 1870. He has written
' A few insignificant errors of the first edition, as mpiiv for vpCiv in
Matt. X. 9 (p. 23), have since been corrected.
' E.g., Westcott and Hort read in John i. 18, povoytvrjg Seoe in the
text, o povoyevijg viog on the margin ; while the Revisers read " the only
begotten Son " in the text, and " God only begotten " on the margin. In
Acts xvi. 32, Westcott and Hort: row &£o5, text, Kvplov, margin; Revis
ers : " of the Lord," margin " God." See thc convenient list of noteworthy
variations in Har|iers' diglot edition, pp. xci.-cii.

280- FEINTED Text of the geeek testament..
a nnmber ^f able and useful works, as a History of Ihe English BiUe, u
History of ihe Canon of Ihe New Testament, an Introduction to ihe Study^
ofthe Gospels, (republished by H. B. Hackett, Boston), a Commentary on
the Gospel of St. John (which ranks among the very best parts in tbe
"Speaker's Commentary," and is also Separately, printed), and valuable
contributions to Smith's "Bible Dictionary." Dr. Fenton John Aijthosy
Hokt was educated at Eugby School, and at Trinity College, CambridgCj
and appointed Hulsean Professor of Divinity in the University of Cam
bridge in 1878. He wrote Two Dissertations on povoytvrjg Gtoj and on
the Constantinopolitan Creed (a singularly able and acute plea for the read
ing " only begotten God," in John i. 18), the Introduction and Appendix to
the Greek Testament (a masterpiece of critical learning and sagacity),
and a nuraber of valuable articles in Smith and Cheetham's " Dictionary
of Christian Antiquities," and Smith and Wace's " Dictionary of Christian
Bic^raphy." • Both belong to what may be called the Evangelical Cath
olic School of Anglican Divines, but they take no part in lhe ecclesiastical
party controversies of the age.
The Greek Testament of W^estcott and Hort was well received by
copipeteht scholar's in England and other countries. It was virtually
(not formally) endorsed even before its publication by the English Ee
vision Company, which includes some of the ablest bibUcal critics and
exegetes of the age. This is the highest commendation. Bishop Light
foot acknowledged the beneflt of" their assistance in the revision of the
text of his Comraentary on Galaiians (p. viii.) as early as 1805. When
the work was at last given to the public, the somewhat captious and
fault-finding "Saturday Eeview" for May 21, 1881, greeted it as "prob
ably the most important contribution to biblical learning in our genera
tion." " The Church Quarterly Review " (for Jan. 1882, pp. 419-450),
and other leading organs of public opinion iu England too numerous
to mention, with one signal exception (" The Quarterly Eeview," of
which we shall speak in the next section), contained highly appre
ciative notices. In America, it met likewise a warm welcome. Dr. Ezra
Abbot (a mpst competent judge) says : " It can hardly be doubted that
their [Westcott and Hort's] work is the most important contribution to
the scientific criticism of the New Testaraent text which has yet been
made" (Schaff's "Eel. Encycl." i. 277). Prof. Benj. B. Warfleld con
cludes a lengthy notice, which betrays a thorough mastery of the sub
ject, with the judgment that the text, of Westcott and Hort is "the
best and purest that has ever passed through the press, and, for the
future, raust be recognized as the best basis for further work" ("The

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 281
Presbyterian Review " of New Tork for April, 1882, p. 355). The new
text has already secured a recognized status on the Continent. It was
hailed as an " epoch-making " work by the most competent textual critic
of Gerraany, since the death of Tischendorf, and his successor in this
department. Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt. He has incorporated Westcott and
Hort's readings in his recent issue of Tischendorf's latest text (both the
Greek and the Grseco-German edition. Lips. 1881),- and pays them this
weighty tribute (Nov. Test. Gr. et Germ,, Introd. p. vii.) : " Wie Tregellesj
so huldigen auch Westcott und Hort im wesentlichen-den Grundsdizen, welche
in die Kritik des Neuen Testaments eingejiihri zu haben, das bleibende Ver-
dienst Lachmanns ist. Was aber die neuste englische A usgabe vor alien ihren
Vorgdngerinnen avszeichnel, ist die sysfematische, in solchern Uirifang bisher
unerreichie Verwerihung der Textesgeschichie zur Classifidrung und Ab-
schdtzung der verschiedenen Zeugen, und die consequente Eandhabung der so
gewonnenen Grundsaize bd A usfiihrung der kritischen Operation." Dr. Carl
Bertheau notices Westcott and Hort most favorably in Harnack and
SchUrer's "Theologische Literatur-Zeitung " for Oct. 21, 1882, col. 487,
and places their text not only on a par with those of Tregelles and
Tischendorf (ed. viii,), but even above them in regard to inethod and
extraordinary accuracy ("wegen der angewandlen Methode und der aus-
sei-ordenllichen Genauigkdt der Arbdt"). The same critic (col. 494) ex
presses his amazement at the vehement attack of Dean Burgon in the
"Quarterly Eeview," which he thinks needs no refutation. I may add
that Professor Bernhard Wsiss, of Berlin, one of the ablest living com
mentators, and editor of the new editions of Meyer on the Gospels and on
Eomans, not only agrees with the uncial text as a whole, but frequently
sides with Cod. B and Westcott and Hort versus Cod. K and Tischendorf,
e.g., in John i. 18 (povoytvrjg Sitoc) ; Eom. i. 27, 29; ii. 2, IG; iii. 28.
' These are Protestant judgments. But what is even raore remarkable,
is the equally favorable judgment of Roman Catholic scholars. Dr. Hund-
hsi\ise.n,oi-^&im,&ec\iires\ath&" Liferarischer Handweiser fiir das Katho
lische Deutschland," Miinster, 1882, No. 19, col. 590 : " Unier alien Usher
•auf dem Gebiete der neutestamentlichen Texth-ilik erschienenen Werken
gebuhrt dem Westcoli-Hortschen unstreiiig die Palme." The same intel
ligent writer says (col. 585): "Die dnfachen undklaren Grundprincipien
Lachrnann's in Verbindung mit den verhesserlen und richlig angewandlen
Ideen Griesbach's, die umfassenden und zuverldssigen documenlarischer^
Forschungen Tischendorfs, Tregelles' u. A. und die dndringenden krit
ischen Operationen der beiden Cambridger Professoren haben sich verdnigf,
um in den VorliegMden zwei Bduden dn Werk von grosser Vollendungzu

282 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
schaffen." He objects, as a Catholic, to the critical treatment of Mark
xvi. 9-20, and John vii. 53-viii. 11, but adds (col. 586) that, as to the
rest, Westcott and Hort present the New Testament text " in a purity
and primitiveness (in dner Rdnhdt urui Urspriinglichkeit) as no other
critical edition which has as yet appeared." The same opinion has been
expressed by an erainent French Catholic scholar. Louis Duchesne opens
a review of Westcott and Hort in the " Bulletin Critique " of Paris for
Jan. 15, 1882 (as quoted by Hundhausen), with the words: " Void un
livre destine afaire epoque dans la critice du Nouveau-Testament."
SCEIVENEE AND PALMEE.
Simultaneously with the edition of Westcott and
Hort there appeared two other editions of the Greek
Testament, which make no claim to be independent
critical recensions of the text, bnt have a special
interest and value in connection with the English
Eevision, and supplement each other. They were
carefully prepared by two members of the New
Testament Company of the Canterbury Eevisers ;
but it is distinctly stated that " the Eevisers are not
responsible" for the publication. They were under
taken by the English University Presses,
The first is by Dr, F, H, A, Sceivenee (Prebenda
ry of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon), and is published
by the University Press of Cambridge under the
title : The New Testament in the Original Oreek,
according to the Text followed in the Authorised
Version [i, e., the textus receptus oi Beza's edition
of 1598], together with the Variations adopted in the
Revised Version. He puts the new readings at the
foot of the page, and prints the displaced readings
of the text in heavier type. In an Appendix
(pp, 648-656), he gives a list of the passages where
in the Authorized Version departs from Beza's text

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT, 283
of 1598, and agrees with certain earlier editions of
the Greek Testament, The departures of King
James's Version frora Beza are only about a hun
dred and ninety in all, and of comparatively little
importance ; while the departures of the Eevision
from the textus receptus are said to number over
five thousand,'
Dr, Scrivener is favorably known from his pre
vious edition of the Eeceived Text with the varia
tions of modern editors, and from valuable contribu
tions to the material as well as the science of textual
criticism, to which we have often referred. He is
the most learned representative of the conservative
school of textual criticism, but is gradually and stead
ily approaching the position of the modern critics in
exchanging the textus receptus- ior the older uncial
text. He frankly confesses " that there was a time
when he believed that the inconveniences and dan
gers attending a formal revision of the Bible of 1611
exceeded in weight any advantages which, might ac
crue from it ;" that " his judgment has beeu influ-

' I have not seen an authentic estimate of the whole number of textual
changes ; but the following are two specimens :. in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt, v.-vii.), which contains 111 verses, the Eevisers have made
44 changes of text, in 38 of which they agree with Lachmann, Tischen
dorf, and Tregelles ; in the First Epistle to Timothy, they have raade in
about the same number of verses nearly the same number of changes — viz.,
48, of which 41 had been previously adopted by the three eminent critics
named. See The Revisers and the Greek Text ofthe New Testament, Lond.
1882,p.38sq. Dean Burgon asserts ("Quarterly Eeview," No.304,Oct.l881,
p. 307) that " the textus receptus has been departed from (by the Eevisers)
far more than 5000 times, almost invariably for the worse." According to Dr.
Scrivener and Canon Cook.the whole number of textual changes is 5788.

28.4 FEINTED TEXT OF THE .GREEK TESTAMENT.
enced, though slowly and with some reluctance, hy
the growing necessity for a change imposed by the
rapid enlargement of the field of biblical knowledge
within the last forty years ;" ahd that " his new
opinion has been not a little confirmed by the ex
perience he has gained while actually engaged upon
the execution of the work." ' And as regards the
text, he says, after enumerating the recent discov
eries of MSS. : " When these and a flood of other
documents, including the more ancient Syriac, Latin,
and Coptic versions, are taken into account, many
alterations in the Greek text cannot but be made,
unless we please to close our eyes to the raanifest
truth. Of these changes sorae will not infiuence
the English version at all, many others very slight
ly; some are of .considerable, a few of great, im
portance ; yet not dne of them sufficient to disturb
a single article of the common faith of Christen
dom.'""' '

' In an article written for the " Sunday-School Times" of Philadelphia,
1880, and reprinted iu The Bible and ils Study, Philadelphia (725 Chestnut
Street), p. 29.
; ' L. C. p. 33 sq. His Six Leciur-es on the Text of the New Testament,
published in 1875, raark a little progress beyond the second edition of his
Introduction to ilie Critidsm of the New Testament, 1874, and the third
edition, now in course of preparation, will probably mark a still greater
advance. He gives up the spurious interpolation of the three witnesses
as hopelessly untenable, and on the disputed reading in 1 Tira. iii. 16,
where his friend. Dean Burgon, so strenuously insists on 5tog, Scrivener,
in bis Lectures, p. 192 sq., makes the following admission : "On the whole,
if Codd. A, C, be kept out of sight (and we know not how more light can
be thrown on their testimony), this is one of the controversies which the
discovery of Cod. N ought to have closed, since it adds a first-rate uncial
lyitness to a case already very strong through the support of version.?.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 285
The other edition is edited 'by Dr. E. Palmee
(Archdeacon of Oxford), and published by the Clar
endon Press under the title: H KAINH AL'VGHKH.
The Geeek I-e.&ta-wesi with the' Readings adopted
ly the Revisers of the Authorised Version, Oxford,
1881.' Palmer pursues the opposite method from that
of Scrivener: he presents the Greek text followed
by the Eevisers, and puts the discarded readings of
the textus receptus {i. e., the edition of Stephens,
1550)° and of the version of 1611 iu foot-notes.
The Eevisers state, in the Preface from the Jerusa
lem Chamber (p. xiii., royal-octavo edition), that they
did not esteem it within their province " to construct
a continuous and complete Greek text. In many
cases the English rendering was considered to repre
sent correctly either of two competing readings in
the Greek, and then the question of the text was

Slowly and deUberately, yet in full confidence that God in other passages
of his written word has sufficiently assured us of the Proper Divinity of
Ills Incarnate Son, we have yielded np this clause as no longer tenable
against the accumulated force of external evidence which has been
brought against it." And yet Dean Burgon discharges bis heaviest guns
of five pages against the reading of the Eevisers in this famous passage.
' The University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge have also published
The Parallel New Testament, Greek and- English, giving the Authorised
Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Greek text, and the Readings
displaced by the Revisers, in parallel columns (with space for MS. notes),
Nov. 1882. Very elegant and useful editions.
' The text of Stephens, as reprinted by Mill in 1707, formed the basis
of all Oxford editions down to Scrivener's edition (1877), of wbich Palmer
has made free use. But the Authorized Version of 1611 follows Beza's
text (1598) rather than that of Stephens, although the difference is not
very great.

286 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
usually not raised." Palmer, with the aid of lists
of readings prepared by the Eevisers in the progress
of their work, has constructed a continuous text,
taking for the basis the third edition of Stephens
(1550), and following it closely in all cases in which
the Eevisers did not express a preference for other
readings; even the orthography, the spelling of
proper names, and the typographical peculiarities
or errors of Stephens are, with a few exceptions, re
tained. The chapters are marked as in Stephens's
edition, the distribution into verses accords with
that in the Authorized Version, and the division into
paragraphs is conformed to the English Eevision,

The year 1881 has been fruitful above any other
in editions of the New Testament in Greek and the
Eevised English Version ; and the demand for the
latter in Great Britain and the United States has
been beyond all precedent in the history of litera
ture. We may well call it the year of the repub
lication of the Gospel, The immense stimulus thus
given to a careful and coraparative study of the
words of Christ and his apostles must bear rich
fruit. The first printed edition of the Greek Testament
in 1516 was followed by the great Eeformation of
1517, May the numerous editions of 1881 lead to a
deeper understanding and wider spread of the Chris
tianity of Christ !

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT, 287

EETEOSFECT AND FEOSFECT,
The history of the printed text frora Erasmus
down to the Westminster Eevision is a gradual re
covery of the original text. It follows the stream
of tradition from late copies of the Middle Ages up
to Nicene and ante-Nicene copies, and as near as pos
sible to the very fountain of the autographs, as fast
as ancient documents come to light and as the science
of textual criticism advances. But every inch of
progress had to be conquered against stubborn op
position. The story of the crucifixion and resurrec
tion is repeated again and again in the history of
the Bible, which is the standard-bearer of the Church
militant. Every new truth, every discovery and in
vention, has to fight its way through hostile prejudice
and ignorance, and pass the ordeal of martyrdom be
fore it is recognized, "No cross, no crown." The
word, " Blood is the seed of Christians," ' was liter
ally or figuratively true' in all ages. Persecution
may proceed from priest or people, from the San
hedrin or the Sorbonne or the mob ; it may be
orthodox or heretical, bloody or unbloody, accord
ing to circumstances and the spirit of the times.
The persecution of the Bible and Bible versions has
been oi all kinds.
The" first edition of the Greek Testament was
deprecated by the crowd of monks as a great calam
ity, and Erasmus was violently assailed by the arro
gant ignorance of Archbishop Lee of York and the
' This is the literal rendering of Tertullian's well-known " Semen est
sanguis Christianorum " (.ipologelicus, last chapter).

288 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
envious traditional learning of the Complutensian
rival editor, Stunica, who charged him with the
crime of omitting the spurious Witnesses in 1 John
V. 7, and even with intentionar insult to Spain foi-
misspelling ^irdvia for. 'Icnravia in Eom. xv. 28.
Eobert Stephanus had to flee from the wrath of
the. doctors of the Sorbonne to Protestant Geneva,
Walton's critical apparatus roused the orthodox op
position of the great Puritan, Dr, Owen, Mill was
assailed after his death, which soon followed the
issue of bis Greek Testament with 30,000 various
readings, by the distinguished commentator Whit
by ; Bentley by Conyers Middleton ; Bengel: by
Wetstein (who eould not appreciate the elassifica'
tion of authorities into families); Wetstein, in turn
by Frey and Iselin, who charged hira with heresy
and drove him from Basle to Amsterdam, GrieS"
bach was overwhelmed with abusive epitliets by his
rival, Matthsei, Lachmann was scornfully criticised
by the learned rationalist, C. F. A. Fritzsche, who
called hira " the ape of Bentley." Tregelles was
long ignored and allpwed almost to starve in rich
England, till he lost his eyesight in deciphering
old MSS. for his Greek Testament. Tischendorf
was annoyed and slandered by Simonides, who im
pudently claimed to have written the Codex Sinaiti
cus with his own hand.
Translations of the Bible made for public use
have fared still worse in proportion to the number
of their judges. Jerome's irritable temper was
sorely tried by the braying of " the two-legged don
keys" {lipedes aselli), as he rather coarsely called

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 289
his ignorant oppoiients'; even the great arid good
St. Augustin feared raore harra than good from liis
friend's attempt to revise the Latin Bible after the
Helraica Veritas, and continued to use .the old ver-;
sion with all its blunders, which he had hot Greek
or Hebrew learning enough to correct.' . He was
highly offended at Jerome's substituting hederd
{ivy) iov cuG-urlita (gourd) in the Book of Joiiali
(iv. 6) ; and a certain bishop nearly lost his charge
for venturing to defend the new rendering. For
two hundred years the old Itala was quoted, even
by popes. But eleven centuries after Jeroma's death
(419), tbe Council of Trent (April 8, 1546) raised his
Vulgate to equal dignity with the original (which,
of course, was a most serious blunder in the opposite
direction). ' ' T -
John Wiclif of Oxford, "the Morning Star of the
Eeformation," arid the chief author of the .first com
plete vei"siori of the whole Bible into the English
tongue (though only frora the Latin Vulgate), was
denounced' by tlie Archbishop of Canterbury and
High Chancellor of England (Arundel) as "that
pestilent wretch of damnable memory, son of the
old serpent, yea the forerunner and disciple of anti
christ, who, as the complement of his wickedness,
invented a new translation of the Scriptures into
his mother tongue." The Council of Constance
(1415), which burned John Hus and Jerome of-
Prague, condemned both the writings and the bones
of Wiclif to the flaraes ; and in 1428 his remains
were solemnly ungraved, burned to ashes, and cast,
into the brook Swift, which, as Fuller says, " cou--!
19

290 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
veyed them into the Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn
into tlie narrow seas, they into the main ocean; and
thus the ashes of Wiclif are the emblem of his doc
trine, which now is dispersed all the world over."
In 1880, five hundred years after the completion of
his English Bible, Wiclif's memory was celebrated
in five continents.
The first edition of William Tyndale's translation
of the Greek Testament from the newly published
text of Erasmus had to be smuggled into England,
and was publicly burned by order of the Bishop of
London (Tunstall), in St. Paul's Church-yard ; the
next five editions which were printed before 1530
fared not much better; hence there reraain of the
first edition only one fragment, of the second one
copy, wanting the title-page, and another very im
perfect, and of the other four two or three copies.'
Tyndale himself was strangled and then burned at
the stake in Antwerp (Oct. 1536), praying, " Lord !
open the King of England's eyes." Yet he is now
universally revered as the chief author of the idiom
¦ See Westcott, Tlist. nfthe E. Bible, p. 45. The final edition of Tyndale's
translation of the New Testament hailed from his prison (1535). Luther's
German Version raet with extraordinary success in Germany. Yet it
was forbidden in the Duchy of Saxony (by Duke George), in Bavaria,
Austria, Brandenburg, and other countries. The theological faculty of the
University of Leipsic pronounced unfavorable judgment; and the Eoman
Catholic, Eraser, wrote a book against it in 1523, in which he charged it
with no less than 1400 errors and heresies (mostly departures from the
Latin Vulgate on the ground of the Greek original). Afterwards Eraser
published a translation of his own, in which he copied whole pages of
Luther's version, adapting it only to the Latin Vulgate. The very enemies
of Lnther when writing in German were forced to use his language. See
Kostlin, Marlin Luther, i. 607.

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 291
of our English Bible, and as the man who " caused a
boy that driveth the plough to know more of the
Scripture" than the priest and the pope of his day.
And from the banks of the Thames, near the very
spot where his English Testaraent went up in a fiery
chariot, like Ehjah, more Bibles are now sent to all
parts of the globe in one year than were copied in
the first fifteen centuries of our era.
The authors of the Geneva Version were fugitives
from persecution ; but their great improvements
upon the preceding, versions passed into our Au
thorized Version, notwithstanding the prejudice and
hatred of King Jaraes, who thought it the worst
translation ever made.
The Authorized Version itself was received with
indifference from churchmen and violent opposition
from all quarters, as the translators predicted in the
first sentence of their Preface ; it was charged with
bad theology, bad scholarship, and bad English; for
fiftyyears it had to fight its way into general recog
nition ; and Hugh Broughton, the greatest Hebraist
of his day, but a bad-tempered and " unclubbable "
man, and hence oraitted in the selection of the
Translators, attacked it with the tomahawk, and
sent word to King James that he " had rather be
rent in pieces with wild horses " than help to bring
such a mistranslation into public use.' And yet
' Westcott (Hist, ofthe English Bible, p. 160, note 2) says : " The labors
of Hugh Broughton on the English Bible ought not to be passed over
without notice. This great Hebraist violently attacked the Bishops'
Bible, and sketched a plan for a new version which his own arrogance
was sufficient to make irapracticable. He afterwards published transla-

292 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
this same version is riow universally recognized as
one of the best, if not the very best, ever made, and
has proved for more than two hundred years the
greatest blessing which Providence lias bestowed
upon the English-speaking race.
It would, be a bad omen for the revised text and
version of 1881 if they had escaped the fate of their
predecessors and been received without opposition.
The days of bloody persecution are over, but. the
human passions which instigated tbem survive.

tions of Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Laraentations, and Job, and offered his help
towards the execution of the royal version. His overbearing teraper, as
it appears, caused hira to be excluded from the work; but his printed
renderings were not without influence upon the Eevisers— e.p'., Dan. iii. 5."
I have examined (in the Astor Library) the works of Hugh Broughton
which were published in London, 1662, in one folio volume of 732 pages,
under the high-sounding title : " The Works ofthe Great A Ibionean Divine,
Renown'd in Many Nations for Rare Skill iii Salems and A thens Tongues,
and Familiar A cquaintance with all Rabbinical Learning." John Light
foot says of him, in the preface, that " araong his friends he was of a very
sweet, affable, and loving carriage," but "sharp, severe, and exceeding
bold against error, and impiety." His judgment of King James's Bible is
given on p. 661. It is addressed to the King's attendant, and begins as
follows: "The late Bible (Right Worshipf ull) was sent to me io censure,
which bred in me a sadnesse that ivill grieve me while I breath. It is so ill
done. Tell his Majestie ihat I had rather be reni in pieces with wild horses,
than any such translation, hy my consent, should be urged upqnpoor churches."
Then follow .various objections, and the first reveals at once the motive
and animus of the critic, namely: "My advisement Ihey regarded nol, but
still make Selh a fool, to narae his son sorrowful! Enosh [Gen. iv. 26]."
He even charges the translators with leaving " atheism in the text."
He protests (p. 663) : " I will suffer no scholar in the world to cross me in
Ebrew or Greek, when I ara sure I have the truth." Broiighton's criticism
vfsia a. brutum fulmen, and is only reraembered now as a cui-iosity in the
history of the odium theologicum, which is not likely to die out until
human riature is transformed.

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.^ 293
There are many lineal descendants of those priests
who, in the reign of Henry VIIL, preferred their
old-fashioned Mumpsimus, Domine, to the new
fangled Sumpsimus ; even in the enlightened State
of Massachusetts a pious deacon is reported to have
opposed the revision of 1881 with the conclusive
argument, " If St. James's Version was good enough
for St. Paul, it is good enough for me." There are
also not a few heirs of the spirit of Archbishop
Arundel and Bishop Tunstall who, if they had the
power, would gladly commit the Westminster Ee
vision, Greek and English, to the fiames ad majorem
Dei gloriam, and shout a Te Deum.
Foremost among the learned opponents of the
latest progress in biblical science is the anonymous
author of three famous articles on " New Testament
Eevision " in the London " Quarterly Eeview." '

" For Oct. 1881, Jan. and April, 1882— Nos. 304, 305, 306. The articles
are understood to be from the pen of John W. Burgon, B.D., formerly
Vicar of S. Mary-the- Virgin's, Oxford, now Dean of Chichester. He has
acknowledged the authorship, and- will shortly reissue them in one vol
ume. " The Academy," Oct. 28, 1882, in giving this notice, adds that
they will not depreciate the value of Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa
ment. Burgon is the author of the most elaborate vindication of the
genuineness of The Last Twelve Verses ofthe Gospel according to S. Mark,
O-xford, 1871 (334 and xv. pages). In this work he clearly foreshadowed
his animus towards the revision movement on p. 264, where he says : " I
cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the times as to close
this note without the further suggestion (sure therein of the approval of
our trans-Atlantic brethren [i. e., Episcopalian churchmen]) that, for a
Eevision of the Authorized Version to enjoy the confidence of the nation,
and to procure for itself acceptance at the hands of the Church — it will be
found necessary that the work should be confided to Churchmen. The
Church raay never abdicate her function of being ' a Witness and a

294 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT.
Tliey abound in patristic quotations, oracular asser
tions, abusive epithets, and sarcastic thrusts, and
form a signal exception to the rule that modesty
marks the true scholar. The modern Broughton
smelled the battle afar off, and rushed into the
arena, like Job's war-horse, with extended nostrils,
rejoicing in his strength, mocking at fear, swallow
ing the ground with fierceness and rage, and saying
among the trumpets. Ha, ha ! He boldly denounces
the oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the
Greek Testament, including the Sinaitic and the
Vatican, as "a handful of suspicious documents,"
and condemns the Greek text of Westcott and Hort
and of the Eevisers (for he regards the two as iden
tical) as "utterly untrustworthy," "entirely undeserv
ing of confidence," and " demonstrably more remote
from the Evangelic verity than any which has ever
yet seen the light." And as to the English Eevision
(which he characteristically calls a version " of the
Church and the sects"), he denounces it as " a prodig
ious blunder," as a translation "which, for the most
part, reads like a first-rate school-boy's cril — tasteless.

Keeper of Holy Writ.' Neither can she, without flagrant inconsistency
and scandalous consequence, ally herself in tbe work of Eevision with the
Sects. Least of all may she associate with herself in the sacred under
taking an Unitarian teacher. . . . What else is this but to offer a deliberate
insult to the Majesty of Heaven in the Divine Person of Him who is alike
the Object of the everlasting Gospel and its Author?" When it appeared,
ten years afterwards, that not only the one "Unitarian teacher" (Dr.
George Vance Smith), but such orthodox churchmen as Westcott and
Hort, and the whole body of Revi.sers, decided tbe question of the closing
verses of Mark against the "demonstration" of this Doctor irrefutabilis,
he regarded this as " a deUberate insult " to himself, Hine illae laci-ymm.

PEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 295
unlovely, harsh, unidioraatic; — servile without being
really faithful, pedantic without being really learned ;
— an unreadable translation, in short ; the result of
a vast amount of labor, indeed, but wondrous little
judgment,"' He wantonly charges the Eevisionists
with having violated their instructions by revising
the received text (when they were expressly directed
by their rules to do so), and made themselves " the
dupes ofan ingenious theory-monger" (Dr, Hort), un
der whose manipulations they decided textual ques
tions "at a moment's notice" (when, as the writer
might have learned or taken for granted, they spent
days and weeks and months on their consideration).
Such intemperance stands self-condemned. Over
done is undone. It requires an amazing amount of
self-confidence to indulge in a wholesale condemna
tion of the joint work of such veteran and renowned
scholars as Archbishop Trench, Bishops Ellicott,
Lightfoot, and Moberly, Deans Alford, Stanlej', and
Scott, Archdeacons Lee and Palmer, and Drs, West
cott, Hort, Scrivener, Kennedy, Humphry, etc, not
to mention any of the eminent divines who have the
misfortune to belong to the uncovenanted "sects"
of England, Scotland, and the United States, But
worse than this, the "Eeviewer" expressly involves
in his condemnation Tischendorf, Tregelles, Lach
mann, Griesbach, Bengel, and Bentley fully as much
as Westcott and Hort and the Eevisionists, and
' See No. 304, p. 368; No. 306, pp. 312, 313. An American Bishop of
considerable rhetorical culture has taken inspiration as well as comfort
from the English Dean, and pronounced the style of the Revision to be
" wilful Greek and woful English."

296: PRINTED TEXT. OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT,
would turn the wheels of biblical learning back for
at least fifty, if not a hundred, years,' For among
the readings of the revised text which he rules out
as utterly untenable by his. ipse dixit and a string
of post-Nicene quotations, there is. scarcely one wbich
has riot the unanimous support of these great editors
and the best raodern commentators — Continental,
English, and American,. His criticism, therefore, is
not only a sad exhibition of the odiutn theologicum,
but a glaring anachronism. He seems to feel that.he
is doing hiinself injustice, for he upsetshis own dish
by two reluctant admissions — first, that the tradition
al text. for which hc fights "cries aloud for revision
inrespeet of many of its subordinate details ;" ° and,
secondly, that the revised translation which he so
sweepingly condemns, after all " bears marks of an
ainount of conscientious labor which those only can
f Wily' appreciate wko have made the same province
offetudy.to some extent their own,'" It is a pity
that he was not for his own benefit taken into the
company of Eevisers, The discipline and expe-,.
rience of ten years could not have been without a
wholesome effect.

. ' He summons all his rhetoric to denounce the critical method of
Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf. ."Anything more unscientific,"
he says, " anything more unphilosophical, more transparently /oo&A than
such a raethod, can scarcely be conceived ; but it has prevailed for fifty
years, and is now at last raore hotly than ever advocated by Drs. Westcott
and Hort " (No. 306, p. 332). Contrast with this isolated conderanation,
which can only condemn itself, the unanimous commendations of impartial
and thoroughly corapetent critics — English, German, French, American,
Catholic, and Protestant— on p. 280 sq.
« " Quarterly Review," 'No. 306, p. 331. » No. 305, p. 63.

FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT. 297
Westcott and Hort, having anticipated in their
second volume a full vindication of their method,
can afford to preserve a dignified silence. The
"Quarterly Eeviewer'' mayi-construe this into an
ackiiowledgment of defeat, after the fashion of the
great Heinrich Ewald who, in an open letter to
Pius IX., "demonstrated" to him that it was high
time to resign his triple crown, and, on being asked
why th« pope took no notice of his advice, coolly
replied, " He dare not {Er wagt es nicht) !"
But two of the learned Eevisers (Bishop Ellicott
and Archdeacon Palmer) have calmly, soberly, and
convincingly vindicated the disputed readings of
the New 'Version against this vehement assault,
without noticing "flouts and gibes," and conclude
with these words : ' "It is true that the articles of
the Cliristian faith do not depend on such variations
of the Greek text as are in controversy between
critics of different schools. The ancient manu
scripts and the manuscripts of the Middle Ages,
the printed editions of the sixteenth and the nine
teenth centuries, bear witness to the same gospel,
to the same creed. But nothing is insignificant
which concerns the truth of Holy Scripture. There
are grave interpolations in the Eeceived Text which
it would have been worth eleven years of toil to
remove, if nothing else had been done. There are
innuraerable bleraishes and corruptions of less im
portance which have becorae known during the last

' The Revisers and the Greek Text ofthe New Testament, by Two Revisers
ofthe Ne-v Testament Conipany (London, 1882, 78 pages).

298 FEINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK TESTAMENT,
century to all careful students. In great things
alike and small it has been the desire of the Eevis
ers to bring' back the text to its original shape.
They do not claim the title of discoverers. They
have done little more than verify and register the
most certain conclusions of modern textual criticism.
In this, as in other respects, they have endeavored
to make knowledge which has hitherto been accessi
ble only to the learned a part of the common heritage
of Englishmen,"

CHAPTEE SEVENTH.
THE AUTHOEIZED VERSION.
Literature.
The literature is immense. We give only a selec
tion, including, however, works which cover the
whole ground of English Bible Versions.
I. Geker.vl Histoky of the English Biblk.
John Lewis, A.M. (Minister of Margate in Kent, Church of England) :
A Complete Ilistor-y of ihe Several Translations ofthe Holy Bible and New
Testament into English, hoth in MS. and in Print, etc. London, 1731, fol.
(of which only 140 copies were printed); 2d ed. 1739, Svo; 3d ed. 1818
(415 pages). The last edition contains extracts frora Bishop Newcome's
"Historical View of English Biblical Translations." Westcott (1st ed.,
p. 415, note) says : " Lewis's was an admirable work for the time when it
was written ; but his materials for the early history of the Bible were
wholly inadequate." Eadie (Pref. p. vii.) : " Lewis has many merits, . . .
but its blunders have led some noted historians far astray."
Bagstek's Hexapla, wilh an A ccount of Ihe Principal English Transla
tions. London, 1841. Introduction: Historical Account of the English
Versions ofthe Scrijrtures [by S. P. TregeUes], pp. 1-160. "Independent
and valuable " (Westcott). In a later, undated issue of the Hexapla, a
different account (ascribed to Mr. Anderson) was substituted (112 pages).
Chkistopher Anderson (Baptist ) : A nnals of Ihe English Bible.
English ed. 1845, 2 vols.; new and revised ed. Lond, 1862. Eadie (in his
work, vol. i. p. viii.) calls this book " the friiit of independent investiga
tion, . . . but wholly external, filled to overflowing with extraneous or
collateral matter." Arber (in his reprint of Tyndale, p. 69) says: "Ander
son errs as often as he is right ;" but adds : " One excuse is the difficulty
of the search." The American edition by Dr. Samuel Ieen..eus Prime,
New York (Carter & Brothers), 1849, is much abridged, and brought
down to 1844 in one volume of 549 pages.
Mrs. H. C. Conant (Baptist): The Popular History ofthe Translation

300 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
of the Holy Scriptures. New York, 1856 ; now edition, revised by Dr.
Thomas J. Conant (a member of the Old Testament Revision Company),
New York (Funk & Wagnalls), 1881, A condensed and popular account,
continued to the publication of the Revised New Testament (282 pages),
Brooke Foss Westcott (Episcopalian, and member of tbe New Tes
tament Revision Company) : A Gener-al View ofthe History ofthe English
Bible. London and Cambridge (Macmillan & Co.), 1868, (527 pages);
2d ed. 1872 (359 pages). Very .scholarly aud accurate; the first attempt
of an internal and critical history.
John Stoughton, D.D. (Independent) : Our English BiUe. London
(Religious Tract Society), no date, but about 1878. A popular account,
^yith interesting illustrations (310 pages).
W. F. Moulton (Wesleyan, and member of the New Testament Ee
vision Company): History ofthe English Bible. London (Cassell, Petter,
& Galpin), 1878. Chiefly a reprint of the author's articles in Professor
Plumptre's " Bible Educator." The result of careful comparative study
of the characteristics of the several versions (232 pages).
John Eadie, D.D., LL.D. (United Presbyterian, and member of the
New Testament Revision Company, d. 1876) : The English Bible. London
(Macmillan & Co.), 1876, 2 vols. (444 and 540 pages). Full of valuable
and, upon the whole, reliable inforraation.
Blackford Coxdit (Presbyterian, Terre Haute, Ind.) : The History
of the English Bible : Extending from tlie Earliest Saxon Translations to
Ihe Present Anglo-American Revision; with Special Reference to the
Protestant Religion and the English Language. New York and Chicago,
1882 (469 pages). Comes down to the Revision of 1881, is written in good
spirit, but disfigured by many errors in facts, dates, and spelling (e. g.,
Wittemburgh. for Wittenberg, Ximines for Ximenes).
J. I. Mombert, D.D. (Episcopalian): A Hand-Book of ihe English Ver
sions ofthe Bible. New York (Randolph & Co.) and London (Bagsters),
1883 (509 pages). The result of independent research, to be followed by
a history of all other versions made directly from the original. Compare
the author's article on English Bible Versions in SchafTs " Eel. Encycl."
vol. i. 731-739. II. BiBLioGRArmcAL Works on the English Bible.
Rev. Henry Cotton (Archdeacon of Cashel) : Editions ofthe Bible and
Parts thereof in English (from 1525 to 1850). Oxford (University Press),
2d ed. corrected and enlarged, .1852 (Svo, 420 pages). By the same
author: Rhemes and Doway. An Attempt to show what has been done.by

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION, 301
Romari Catholics for the Diffusion ofthe Holy Sci-iptUres. Oxford (Uni
versity Press), 1855 (8vo, 410 pages),
W, J. Loftie, B.A., F.S.A. ; A Century of Bibles ofthe A nihorized Ver
sion fi-omlGlllo I'll. London (Basil Montague Pickering, 196 Piccadilly),
1872 (249 pages).
The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition MDCCCLXXVIL, or a Bibliograph
ical Description of nearly One Thousand Representative Bibles in Various
Languages Chronologically A rranged,from Ihe First Bible Printed hy Guten
berg in 1450-1456 lo the Last Bible Printed at the Oxford University Press
the SOlh June, 1877. By Henby Stevens (an American residing in Lon
don). London (Henry Stevens, 4 Trafalgar Square), 1878.
For fac-similes of the first editions of the Authorized and earlier English
versions see: A Description ofthe Greal Bible, 1539, and Ihe Six Editions
of Cranmer's Bible, 1540 and 1541, Printed by Grafton and Whitchurch:
also ofthe Editions, in Large Folio, ofthe Authorized Version ofthe Holy
Scriptures, Printed in the Years 1611, 1613, 1017, 1634, 1640. By Francis
Fry, F.S.A. Illustrated wifh Titles, and with Passages from the Editions,
the Genealogies, and ihe Maps, Copied in Fac-simile ; also wilh an Identifi
cation of Ever-y Leaf of Ihe First Seven, and of Many Leaves of tlie Other
Editions ; on Fifty-one Plates. Together with an Original Leaf of Each
ofthe Editions Described. London (Willis and Sotheran) and Bristol (Las-
bury), 1865. With a picture of Cranmer. A copy of this superb book is
in the library of the American Bible Society.
For American editions of the Bible see the following two works:
E. B. O'Callaghan (d. 1880) : A List of Editions ofthe Holy Scriptures
and Parts thereof, Prinled in Amkric A previous to 1860 : wilh Introduction
and Bibliographical Notes. Albany (Munsell & Eowland), 1861 (415
pages, royal Svo).
John Gilmary She.v : A Bibliographical A ccount of Catholic Bibles,
Testaments, and other Portions ofthe Scripture Translations from the Latin
Vulgate, andprinted in the United States. New York, 1859 (12mo, 48 pages).
III. Standard Editions of the Chief English Versions.
1. Anglo-Saxon.
Benjamin Thorpe, F.S.A. : Da Ilalgan Godspel on Englisc. The Anglo-
Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels. London and Oxford (Parker), 1842.
The first edition of the Saxon Gospels was by Archbishop Parker, 1571,
the second by Dr. Marshall, Dortrecht, 1665.
Joseph Bosworth (Professor of Anglo-Saxon, Oxford, assisted by
George Waring) -^ The Qbthic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel
Columns with theyersiqns of Wycliffe and Tyndale. 2d ed., London, 1874.

302 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
Anglo-Saxon and Northumberland versions of the Gospels, published
by the Syndics of the University Press, Cambridge : St. Matthew, by
Kemble and Hardwick, 1858 ; St. Mark, by Walter W. Skeat, 1871 ;
Sl. Luke, by the sarae, 1874 ; St. John, by the same, 1878. This is the
standard edition.
2. Anglo-Norman : Wiclif, Hereford, and Purvey.
Eev. Josiah Forshall, F.E.S. (late Fellow of Exeter College), and
Sir Frederic Madden, K.H., F.R.S. (Keeper of the MSS. in the British
Museum) : The Holy Bible, Containing ihe Old and New Testaments, wilh
the Apocryphal Books, in ihe Earliest English Versions made from ihe Latin
Vulgate hy John Wycliffe and his Followers. Oxford (at the University
Press), 1850. In 4 vols., royal 4to. This is the first complete and relia
ble print of this great work, begun by Wiclif and his friends, completed
and improved by Purvey. It is based upon a careful coraparison of MSS.
The earlier editions, including that in Bagster's Hexapla, 1841 (which is
a reprint of Baber's edition of the New Testament, 1810, as this is of that
of Lewis, 1731), are incorrect and misleading. The Oxford editors have
spent a considerable portion of their time during twenty-two years in
accomplishing this laborious task. In the first volume they give a list
of 770 MSS. (pp. xxxix.-Lxiv.).
3. Modern English : Tyndale.
New Testament. Tyndale's First Edition, supposed lo hare been Printed
at Woi-ms by Peter Schaeffer in 1526 ; a Fac-simile on Vellum, Illumined,
Reprinted fr-om Ihe Copy in ihe Baptist College, Bristol. With an Intro
duction hy Francis Fry. 1862. " Mr. Fry has rendered a great service in
reproducing this rare volurae with so much care and fidelity" (Stevens).
The First Printed English New Testament. Translated by William
Tyndale. Photo - lithographed from Ihe Unique Fragment, now in the
GrenviUe Collection, British Museum. Edited by Edward Arber, F.E.G.S.
(Associate, King's College, London). London (5 Queen Square, Blooms
bury), Feb. 15, 1871. This is a reprint of the quarto -fragment of the
first edition of 1525. It contains also an account of Tyndale's antecedent
career, of the printing at Cologne and Worms, and other iraportant in
formation. The photo-lithographed text contains only the prologue, a
list of the books contained in the New Testament, a wood-cut, and the
Gospel of St. Matthew frotn ch. i. to xxii. 12, with marginal notes. The
title-page is lost. The inner marginal references, several glosses, and a
portion of the preface are taken from Luther's German Testament, 1522
(see p. 67 ). This would seem to settle the disputed question of Tyndale's
relation to Luther.

•THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION, 303
Francis Fry, F.E.S. : A Bibliographical Description of Ihe Editions
ofthe New Testament, Tyndale's Version in English [1525-1566], a-tVA
Numerous Readings, Comparisons of Texts, and Historical Notices, the Notes
in full of ihe Edition of 1534. . . . Illustrated wilh Seventy-three Plaies,
Titles, Colophons, Pages, Capitals. London (Henry Sotheran & Co., 36
Piccadilly), 1878, 4to. A raagnificent work. (American Bible Society.)
4. Then followed : Coverdale's Bible (1535, etc.) ; Matthew's Bible
(Grafton and Whitchurch, 1537, etc.) ; Taveener's (1539) ; "The Great
Bible" (1539; the second edition, 1540, contains Preface by Archbishop
Cranmer, and is hence called also " Cranmer's Bible ") ; Tbe Geneva Bible
(New Testament, Geneva, 1557 ; the Old and New Testaments, Geneva,
1560, very often reprinted in London and on the Continent) ; The Bishops'
Bible (" The Holie Bible, containing the Old Testaraent and the New : The
NewTestaraent of our Saviour Jesus Christe. 1568. Eichard Jugge. Cum
Privilegio Regiie Majestatis "). See for full titles and descriptions of these
versions the bibliographical works above quoted, especially Stevens,
pp. 68 sqq.
5. The Authorized Version (King James's).
(a) The editio princeps, 1611. — The \ Holy \ Bible, | Conteyning the Old
Testa- I ment, and tlie New: \ Newly Translated out of \ Ihe Originall
Tongues : and wilh | the former Tr-apslalions diligently \ compared and
reuised, hy his \ Maiesties speciall Commandement. | Appointed to be read
in Churches. | Imprinted ( al London by Rober-t \ Barker, Printer to the \
Kings most Excellent Maieslie. | Anno Dom. 1611. Fol. The title-page is
a wood-cut which had done duty before, especially in the Bishops' Bible
of 1602. It represents the four Evangelists with their emblems (Matthew
with the winged angel and Mark with the Lion above, Luke with the ox
and John with the eagle below), the Twelve Tribes with tents and armorial
bearings on the left, the Twelve Apostles on the right of the letter-press,
the Paschal Lamb slain on the altar beneath tbe title, and at the top of
the page the Lamb triuraphant and the narae Jehovah (flirri).
In some copies the title-page is an elegant copperplate engraving (repro
duced by Mr. Fry), which represents Moses eomulus on the left, Aaron on
the right of the letter-press title, the Apostles and Evangelists above and
below, and other ornaments. It was executed, as the subscription shows,
by Cornelius Boel of Antwerp, then working at Richraond in Surrey.
Perhaps this plate was not ready when the earliest copies were printed.
It is worthy of notice that the special title to the New Testament of
1611 omits the line "Appointed to be read in Clmrches" (printed in very
small italics), and reads thus : " The | Newe | Testament of | our Lor-d and

301 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
Sauiour \ Je'svs Christ. | Newly Translated out of \ the Originall Greeke:
and with | the former Translations diligently | compared and reuised, by
his I Maiesties spedall Com- \ mandemenl. | Imprinted \ at London by
Robert | Barker, Printer io ihe | Kings mpst Excellent \ Maieslie. \ Anno
Dom. 1611." ' I have also seen (in the library of the American Bible So
ciety) two quarto editions of 1613, which orait said line in the New Testa
ment title, and one even in the general title. There is, therefore, no uni
formity in this matter.
There are two editions of 1611, differing in every signature, but it is
unknown which is the first. See Francis Fry, A Description ofthe Great,
Bible, etc. (Lond. 1865), and Scrivener, Paragraph Bible, p. xi. sqq. and
Ixxxvi.-xc. Besides the folio edition, there was published in 1611 a
12mo edition (in black-letter) of the New Testament, the only known
copy of which is in the Lenox Library of New York (see Loftie, p. 57).
¦ (6) The Oxford Reprint, 1833.— The fplio edition of 1611 was reprinted
from an Oxford copy, page for page, in quasi fac-simile, bj' the Oxford
University Press, 1833. It gives the Dedication and the Preface, anda
list of variations between the editions of 1611 and 1613. But the follow
ing preliminary matter of the original edition is omitted : (1) an Almanac
for thirty-nine years ; (2) a Table of Psalms and Lessons for Morning and
Evening Prayer; (3) the Genealogies of Holy Scripture (with curious
illustrations), ending with an account of the Holy Family.
(c) The Cambridge Edition, 1873. — The best (not to say the only)
critical edition of. King James's Version is by Dr. Scrivener, but with
modern spelling, under the following title :
The I Cambridge Paragraph Bible | ofthe \ A uthorized English Version, |
wilh the text revised by a collation ofits early and other | prindpal editions, \
the use ofthe italic type made uniform, \ the marginal references remodelled, |
and a critical introduclion prefixed \ hy \ tlie Rev. F. H. Scrivener, J1/..4 .,
LL.D., I Rector of St. Gerrans, Editor of the Greek Testament, Codex
A ugiensis, etc. | one of the New Testament Company of Revisers of the
A uthorized Version. | Edited for Ihe Syndics cf the University Pr-ess.
Cambridge (at the University Press), 1873, 4to.
¦ Loftie observes the sarae fact (I. c. p. 45), and regards it as " an addi
tional and valuable proof, although apparently unknown to Mr. Westcott,
that he is right in saying the present version was .never in reality sepa
rately sanctioned by Council,' Convocation, or Parliament. In the strict
sense of the word, the only version ever author-ized was the Great Bible
referred to especially in a proclamation of Henry VIIL, dated in 1538."

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 305
This edition is based upon a coraparison of the editions df 1611, 1612,
1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, 1638, 1701, etc., and the revisions of Dr. Paris (1762)
and Dr. Blayney (1769), also the edition of the American Bible Society
of 1867. The Introduction and Appendices give information on the history
of the text of the Authorized Version, punctuation, orthography. The
text is arranged in paragraphs accommodated to the sense, the poetry is
printed according to the structure of Hebrew poetry, auid ibi thargiri is
filled with a revised list of the traditional parallel references. The edition
was undertaken before, and completed during, the Eevision of King James's
Version, in prospect of " a race of generous and friendly rivalry " between
the two versions " for the space of at least one generation before the elder
of the two shall be superseded."
(d) The standard edition of the American Bible Society is the imperial
octavo of 1882, which is based upon the Society's final revision of 1860.
THE BIBLE AND CHEISTIANITT.
We have no intention of writing a history of the
Bible in general, or of the English Bible in particu
lar, but only to add two chapters on the Authorized
and on the Eevised Version in their relation to the
Greek New Testament, and thereby to make the
preceding chapters practically useful to the English
reader. The history of the Bible is to a large extent a
history of revealed religion and of the Christian
Church. Its estimate and neglect mark the degrees
of temperature in the thermoraeter of piety and
virtue. The Church of God, the Book of God, ahd
the Day of God are a sacred trinity on earth, the
chief pillars of Christian society and national pros
perity. Without them Europe and America would
soon relapse into heathenism and barbarism. The
Bible occupies a conspicuous isolation among books,
and is more indispensable to the moral welfare of
mankind than all the libraries of genius and learn-
20

306 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
ing. It is not a boOk simply, but an institution, an
all-pervading and perennial force in the Church ; it
is the voice of the living God ; it is the message of
Christ, whose divine-human nature it reflects; it is
the chief agency of the Holy Spirit in illuminating,
converting, warning, and cheering men. It rules
from the pulpit, it presides at the family altar, it
touches human life at every point from the cradle
to the grave, and guides the soul on its lonely jour
ney to the unseen world. It has moulded the lan
guages, laws, habits, and home-life of the nations of
Europe, and inspired the noblest works of literature
and art. The Bible retains with advancing age the
dew and freshness of youth, and readapts itself in
ever improving versions to every age in every civil
ized land. It is now more extensively studied than
ever before, and it will be the standard-bearer of
true progress in all, time to come.
The Bible was originally intended for all the peo
ple tbat could hear and read, and was multiplied in
the early centuries by translations into tlie Greek,
Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Gothic, and other languages,
as the demand arose. But during the Middle Ages
the ruling hierarchy, fearing abuse and loss of power,
withheld the book from the people, except the lessons
and texts in the public service. Vernacular versions
werfi discouraged or even forbidden. The result
was the spread of ignorance and superstition.
The Eeformers of the sixteenth century kindled
an incredible enthusiasm for the word of the living
God. They first fully appreciated its universal des
tination, and, with the aid of the art of printing and

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 307
the general education of the people, this destination
is carried out more and more. Even in Eome, since
18Y0, the book rnay be freely sold and bought and
preached in spite of papal denunciations of Bible
Societies. The Eeformers declared the Scriptures
to be the supreme and infallible rule of the Chris
tian faith and life, which must guide the individual
and the Churcb at large. They went to the fountain-
head of truth, and removed the obstructions which
prevent a direct access of the believer to the word
of God and the grace of Christ. They reconquered
the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and
more martyrs died for the cause of evangelical free
dom in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than
for the Christian faith in the first three centuries.
The Christians of the present age are as near to
Christ as the Christians of the first generation. He
stands in the centre, and all his disciples in the cir
cumference. He does not recede as the ages advance,
but has promised his unbroken presence to his peo
ple to the end of the world, even where only two
or three are assembled in his name. In the Gospels
he speaks to us now as ho spoke to the Twelve, and
in the Acts and Epistles his inspired apostles teach
us the same truths with the same authority and
force as they did on the day of Pentecost. This
unspeakable privilege of direct communion with
Christ and his Word can never be wrested from
the Christian people.
To the Eeformation we owe the best translations
of the Bible ; not mechanical transfers, but fresh re
productions made under the influence of a secondary

308 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION,
inspiration. The sixteenth century was an age of
the republication of the gospel. Foremost among
the popular model versions are the German, the
Dutch, and the English, They have gained such a
hold on the people that it is difficult to replace them
by any new one, however superior it may be in
accuracy. The English race has never been entirely without
the Bible since the time when Augustine, with his
thirty Benedictine monks from Eome, landed at the
Isle of Thanet and preached the Gospel to King
Ethelbert (597), And the different versions mark
the different epochs of the English language and
literature. Csedmon's Metrical Paraphrase (680), the
Durham Book (parts of the Gospels), the Venerable
Bede's Version of John (735), and several Psalters,
represent the Anglo-Saxon ; the Version of Wiclif
and his followers (1380), the Norman-English ; the
several versions of the sixteenth century, the modern
English ; and the Authorized Version of 1611 still
occupies the first place among the English classicSj
though many of its words and phrases are antiquated.
But the Anglo-Saxon versions covered only por
tions of the Scriptures, and never attained a popu
lar circulation, Wiclif and the Lollards were con
demned by the Eoman Church, and his version,
which was derived from the Latin Vulgate, passed
out of sight, England was slow in adopting the
new light of the Eeforraation in the sixteenth cen
tury ; but, once reforraed, she took the lead in zeal
for the Bible, One effort after another was made
to Anglicize it, William Tyndale, one of the cap-

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION, 309
tains in " the noble army of martyrs," opened the
new Bible era under much persecution (1525), and
was followed by Miles Coverdale (1535), Thomas
Matthew {alias John Eogers, the martyr, 1537),
Eichard Taverner (1539), the authors of the Great
Bible (1540, with a preface by Archbishop Cranmer ;
hence often called Cranmer's Bible), the Genevan
Bible (1560), the Bishops' Bible (1568 and 1572),
and King James's Version (1611),
NOTES,
The following testimonies to the value of the
Scriptures from different schools of thought are
worth comparing.
From the Preface of King James's Translators (now rarely printed) :
" The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect,
how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study thera, of
curiosity, if we be not content with them 1 Men talk much of tiptatmvrj,
how many sweet and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philoso
pher's stone, that it turneth copper into gold ; of Coriiu-copia, that it had
all things necessary for food iri it; of Panaces the herb, that it was good
for all diseases ; of Catholicon the drug, that it is instead of all purges ;
of Vulcan's Armor, that it was an armor of proof against all thrusts, and
all blows, etc. Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these
things, for bodily good, we may justly and witb full measure ascribe unto
the Scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a whole
armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive ; whereby we may save
ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is uot an herb, but a tree, or
rather a whole paradise of trees of life, wbich bring forth fruit every
month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine.
It is not a pot of manna or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or
for a mears meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly bread
sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great, and as it were a whole
cellar full of oil-vessels ; whereby all our necessities may be provided for,
and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a Panary of wholesorae food

310 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
against fenowed ' traditions ; a Physician's shop (St. Basil calleth it) of
preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws
agaiiist rebellious spirits ; a treasury of most costly jewels against beg
garly rudiraents; finally, a fountain of most pure water springing up unto
everlasting life. And what marvel? the original thereof being from
heaven, not from earth ; the Author being God, not raan ; the Enditer, the
Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles or prophets ; the penmen, such as
i^ere sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of
God's Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form,
God's Word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word
of .salvation, etc. ; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persua
sion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in
the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellow
ship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an
inheritance imraortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away. Happy
is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that medi-
tateth in it day and night."
Dr. Christopher Wordsworth (Bishop of Lincoln), who represents
the reverent, devout, patristic, high-Anglican tj-pe of exegesis, closes the
Preface to his Commentary on the New Testament thus : " Some have dis
paraged the style of Scripture as barbarous, and others have apologized
for it as the work of illiterate and unlearned men. But surely these
notions concerning it are very erroneous. The diction of Scripture, it is
true, is not the language of any other coraposition in the world. The
Greek of the New Testament is not the Greek of Xenophon, Plato, or
Deraosthenes. It is a language of its own. And we need not scruple to
afiSrm that, in precision of expression, in pure and native simplicity, in
delicacy of handling, in the grouping of words and phrases, iu dignified
and majestic sublimity, it has no rival in the world.
" The more carefully it is studied, the more clearly will this appear.
'Nihil qiiosum in Sacra Scriptura' (Origen, in Epist. ad Roman, c. 1).
'Nihil vacuum, neque sine signo, apud Deum' (Irenaeus, iv. 21). Every
sentence — we might almost say every phrase — is fraught with meaning.
As it is in the book of Nature, so is it in the pages of Holy Writ. Both
are from the same Divine Hand. And ifwe apply to the language of
Holy Scripture the same microscopic process which we use in scrutinizing
the beauties of the natural world, and which reveals to us exquisite colors
and the most graceful texture in the petals of a flower, the fibres of a
' /. e., mouldy.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 311
plant, the plumage of a bird, or the wings of an insect, we shall discover
new sources of delight and admiration in the least portions of Holy Writ,
and believe that it may be one of tbe employments of angels and beati
fied saints, in another state of existence, to gaze on the glorious mysteries
of God's Holy Word."
Rev. F. W. Robertson, the genial and eloquent preacher of Blighton,
of broad and liberal sympathies, pays this tribute to the Bible (in his sermon
on Inspiration) : " This collection of books has been to the world what
no other book has ever been to a nation. States bave been founded on
its principles. Kings rule by a compact based on it. Men hold the Bible
in their hands when they give solemn evidence affecting life, death, or
property : the sick man is almost afraid to die unless the Book be within
reach of his hands; the battle-ship goes into action with one on board
whose office is to expound it; its prayers, its Psalms, are the language we
use when we speak to God;-eighteen centuries have found no holier, no
diviner language. If ever tbere has been a praj-er or a hymn enshrined
in the heart of a nation, you are sure to find its basis in the Bible. Tliere
is no new religious idea given to the world, but it is merely the develop
ment of something given in the Bible. The very translation of it has
fixed the language and settled the idioras of speech. Germany and Eng
land speak as they speak because the Bible was translated. It has made
the most illiterate peasant raore familiar with the historv, customs, and
geography of ancient Palestine than with the localities of his own country.
Men who know nothing of the Grampians, of Snowdon, or of Skiddaw, are
at home in Zion, the Lake of Genesareth, or among the rills of Carmel.
People who know little about London, know by heart the places in
Jerusalem where those blessed feet trod which were nailed to the cross.
Men, who know nothing of the architecture of a Christian cathedral, can
yet tell you about the pattern of the Holy Temple. Even this shows us
the influence of the Bible. The orator holds a thousand men for half an
hour breathless — a thousand men as ohe, listening to his single word.
But this Word of God has held a thousand years spell-bound ; held thera
by an abiding power, even the universality of its truth ; and we feel it to
be no more a collection of books, but the Book.''
Dr. Wayl.\nd (Baptist, late President of Brown University, Rhode
Island) : " That the truths of the Bible have the power of awakening an
intense moral feeling in man under every variety of character, learned or
ignorant, civilized or savage ; that they make bad men good, and send a
pulse of healthful feeling through all the domestic, civil, and social rela
tions; that they teach men to love right, to hate wrong, and to seek each

312 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
other's welfare, as the children of one coraraon Parent; that they control
the baleful passions of the huraan heart, and thus make men proficient in
the science of self-government ; and, finally, that they teach him to aspire
after a conformity to a Being of infinite holiness, and fill him with hopes
infinitely more purifying, more exalted, more suited to his nature, than
any other which this world has ever known, are facts as incontrovertible
as the laws of philosophy or the deraonstration of raatheraatics."
Goethe: "I am convinced that the Bible grows in beauty the more
we understand it, i. e., the more we see that every word to which we give
a general meaning and a particular application to ourselves has had a
specific and direct reference to definite conditions of time and place." Ill
another place the great poet says (in the Gesprache mit Eckermann, shortly
before his death) : " We cannot estimate the debt of thanks we owe to
Luther and the Eeformation. No matter how much intellectual culture
may progress, how rauch the natural sciences in ever-growing expansion
and depth may grow, and the human mind expand to its utmcst capacity,
it will never be able to exceed the height and moral culture of Christian
ity as it shines in the Gospels."
Heinrich Ewald, the great Hebrew scholar, and one of the boldest
and raost independent critics and coraraentators, when Dean Stanley, then
a student from Oxford, called on hira, grasped a sraall Greek Testament
and said with intense earnestness : " In this little book is contained all the
wisdom of the world." Stanlej' never forgot the deep impression which
this remark raade upon him (see Preface to the third volume of his
Lectures on the History ofthe Jewish Church, p. x.).
OEIGIN OF THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
King James's Version is the last and the best of
the English versions of the Eeformation period, and
hence it finally superseded all its predecessors. It
is the mature fruit of three generations of Bible
students and translators, and embodies the best ele
ments of the older versions.
It originated in the Hampton Court Conference,
in January, A.D. 1604.' When King James I., the

' Old style, January, 1003.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 313
son of Mary Stuart, by the death of Queen Elizabeth
was raised from the throne of Presbyterian Scotland
to that of Episcopal England, he summoned the lead
ers of the conservative or Conformist and the radi
cal or Puritan parties to his presence, that he might
act as umpire on the points of dispute between thera.
Dr. Eeynolds, President of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, as the spokesman of the Puritans, proposed
among other reforms a new translation of the Bible.
The Bishop of London (Bancroft) objected ; but the
king — moved, as it seems, chiefly by theological
vanity and intense dislike of the popular Geneva
Version — accepted the proposition, and afterwards
appointed the translators and prescribed the rules,
though he took good care that the enterprise should
not cost him a penny. By granting the request for
a new version he pleased the Puritans, and hoped
to stop their complaints ; while by abusing the
Geneva Version, with its alleged " seditious and
traitorous notes," he conciliated the Churchmen and
allayed their suspicion. Both parties heartily ac
quiesced and united in what proved to be a most
useful work. It is the only result of the Hampton
Court Conference, and the greatest event, we ma}"-
say, the only redeeming feature, of the inglorious
reign of the monarch whose name it bears. It pre
sents a striking instance of the wisdom of Providence
in overruling even the weakness and folly of men
for the general good.
The following is the report of the characteristic
discussion which led to so great a result:

314: THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
"Dr. Reynolds.— May your Majesty be pleased that there might be
a new translation of the Bible, such as are extant being corrupt, and not
answering the original.
"And he instanced three particulars: Gal. iv. 25, in the original,
avaroixii, is ill translated, ' hordereth.' Psa. cv. 28, in the original, ' They
were not disobedient,' is ill translated, ' They were not obedient.' Psa. cvi.
30, in the original, 'Phinehas executed judgment,' is ill translated,
'Phinehas stood up and prayed.'
" Bishop of London. — If every raan's humour raight be followed, there
would be no end of translating.
" His Majesty. — I profess I could never yet see a Bible well translated
in English ; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish,
some special pains were taken fur a uniforra translation; which* should be
done by the best learned iu both Universities, theh reviewed by the Bish
ops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly, ratified by Eoyal Authority, to
be read in the whole Church, and no other.
" Bishop op London. — But it is fit that no marginal notes should be
added thereunto.
" His Majesty  That caveat is well put in ; for in the Geneva trans
lation (given me by an English lady), some notes are partial, untrue,
seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits.
As, for example, in Exod. i. 19, disobedience to kings is allowed in a
marginal note ; and, 2 Chron. xv. 16, King Asa is taxed in the note for
only deposing his mother for idolatn,', and not killing her. To conclude
this point: let errors in matters of faith be amended, and indifferent
things be interpreted, and a gloss added unto them. For as Bartolus de
Regno saith, that 'a king with sorae weakness is better than still a change;'
so rather a cliurch with some faults than an innovation. And surely if
these were the greatest matters that gricA'ed you, I need not have been
troubled with such iraportunities and coraplaints.
"And withal, looking upon the lords, his Majesty shook his head,
smiling." NOTES.
1. The connection of King James with the Authorized Version fortu
nately did not go beyond the permission and the initial arrangements.
It was very natural and necessary at a time when the king was the
spiritual as well as the teraporal ruler ofEngland. Jaraes I. was shrewd,
quick-witted, and well-read in all the raysteries of kingcraft, priestcraft,
witchcraft, and the tobacco controversy, but destitute of personal dignity,

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 315
as ugly as his mother was beautiful, pedantic, despotic, cowardly, and
contemptibly mean. His motto in church polity was, " No bishop, no
king;" and his short method with Dissenters, "Just hang thera, that's
all." penry IV., of France, called hira " the wisest fool in Christendora."
Macaulay remarks that England " owes more to the weaknesses and mean
nesses of James than to the wisdom and courage of much better sovereigns,"
and tbat this monarch exhibited to the world English royalty " stammer
ing, slobbering, shedding unmanly tears, trembling at a drawn sword, and
talking in the style alternately of a buffoon and a pedagogue." And yet
his courtiers and bishops thought him as wise as Solomon, and the trans
lators of the Bible, in the dedication which used to be printed in front
of every copy, salute his appearance as the rising "of the Sun in his
strength," call him "a most tender and loving nursing father" of the
Church, humbly crave his "approbation and patronage' for their work,
and wish that, being endowed " with many singular and extraordinary
graces," he " may be the wonder of the world in this latter age."
It IS a great advantage of the Revision of 1881 that it owes notbing to
royal favor, and is independent of Erastian theories. The days of royal
supremacy in raatters of religion are gone forever.
2. There are two accounts of the conference at Hampton Court, both flat
tering to James and unfavorable to the Puritans : (1) one in a Letter from
Court by Toby Matthew, Bishop of Durham, to Archbishop Hutton, of York,
printed in Strype, Whitgift, vol. iii. pp. 402-407, and in Edward Cardwell,
A History of Conferences . . .from 1558 to 1690 (Oxford, 1841), pp. 161-
166; and (2) one much fuller, by William Barlow, D.D., Dean of Chester,
under the title : The Summe and Substance ofthe Conference which il Pleased
his Excellent Majestie lo have wilh Ihe Lords, Bishops, and Others of his
Clergie ...in his Majesties Privie-chamher, at Hampton Court, Jan. 14, 1603,
reprinted in Cardwell, I. c, pp. 167-212. Barlow was one of the translators,
and was employed by Archbishop Whitgift to draw up the account.
Besides, we have a short letter of King James to some person unknown,
in Scotland (Cardwell, pp. 160, 161), in which he boasts that he had "pep
pered the Puritans here" (in England) "as soundly as ye have done the
Papists there " (in Scotland), and adds : " It were no reason, that those
that will refuse the airy sign of the Cross after baptism should have their
purses stuffed with any raore solid and substantial crosses." Thomas
Fuller, in his charming Church Hislm-y of Britain (1656), book x. sect. 1,
gives a good abridgment from Barlow's account, with which I have com
pared it, inserting a few words from the same (see Cardwell, pp. 187, 188).
Barlow was so impressed with the "admirable speeches of his excellent

316 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
Majestie," that he compared them to Solomon's " apples of gold, with
pictures of silver" (p. 169). " His Majestie's gracious conclusion was so
piercing, as tbat it fetched tears from some on both sides" (p. 212). The
translators, in their Preface, give a brief and unsatisfactory account of thc
origin of their work, as follows (Scrivener's edition, p. cxii. sq.) : " The
very historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puri
tans at his Majesty's coraing to this crown, the conference at Hampton
Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints, when by force
of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the
last to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to
the Communion-book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there trans
lated, which was, as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although
this was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift, yet even hereupon
did his Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by
a new translation, and presently after gave order for this translation,
which is now presented unto thee. Thus rauch to satisfy our scrupulous
brethren." 3. Of Dr. Reynolds, the originator of the Authorized Version, Dr. Thomas
Fuller gives the following interesting account (Church History of Britain,
bk. X. sect. 3) : " In the translating of the Bible, one of the eminent persons
employed therein was translated Into a better life^ May 21st — namely. Dr.
John Reynolds, King's Professor in Oxford, born in Devonshire with Bishop
Jewel and Mr. Hooker, and all three bred in Corpus Christi College in
Oxford. No one county in England bare three such raen (contemporary
at large), in what college soever they were bred; no college in England
bred such three men, in what county soever they were born.
"This John Reynolds at the first was a zealous Papist, whilst Williara,
his brother, was as earnest a Protestant; and afterwards Providence so
ordered it, tbat by their mutual disputation, John Reynolds turned an
eminent Protestant, and William an inveterate Papist, in which persuasion
he died.
" This gave the occasion to an excellent couplet of verses, concluding
with tbis distich :
' Quod genus hoc pugnce ? ubi victus gaudet uterque,
Et simul alteruler se superasse dolet.'
' What war is this ? when conquer'd both are glad.
And eitiier to have conquer'd other sad.'
" Daniel saith, ' Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be
increased,' Dan. xii. 4. But here, indeed, was a strange transcursion, and
remarkable the efFects thereof.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 317
"His memory was little less than miraculous, he himself being the
truest table to the multitude of volurainous books [works?] he had read
over ; whereby he could readily turn to all material passages in every leaf,
page, volurae, paragraph — not to descend lower, to lines and letters. As
his memory was a faithful index, so his reason was a soViii judex of what he
read ; his humility set a lustre on all (admirably that the whole should
be so low, whose several parts were so high) ; communicative of what he
knew to any that desired inforraation herein, like a tree loaden with fruit,
bowing down its branches to all that desired to ease it of the burden
thereof; deserving this epitaph : ' Incertum est utrum dociior an melior.'
" His disaffection to the discipline established in England was not so
great as some bishops did suspect, or as more nonconformists did believe.
No doubt, he desired the abolishing of some ceremonies for the ease of the
conscience of others, to which in his own practice he did willingly submit,
constantly weaHng hood and surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament. On
his deathbed he earnestly desired absolution, according to the forra of the
Church of England, and received it from Dr. Holland, whose hand he
affectionately kissed, iii expression of the joy he received thereby. Dr.
Featley made his funeral oration in the college ; Sir Isaac Wake in the
university," INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TEANSLATOES.
The rules for the execution of the translation, or
revision, rather, were drawn up by an unknown
hand, probably under the direction of Bancroft, in
the name of the King, and are as follows : '
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops'
Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will
permit. 2. The naraes of the prophets and the holj' writers, with the other
names of the text, to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they
were vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be liept. viz., the word Church, not to
be translated Congregation, etc.
' The text varies in different books. The English delegates to the
Synod of Dort reduced the final number of the rules to seven. See West
cott, pp. 150 sqq. ; Eadie, ii. 191 sqq.

318 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
4. When a word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath
been most commonly used by the most of the ancient fathers, being agree
able to the propriety of the place and the analogy of the faith.
5. The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all or as
little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation
cf the Hebrew or Greek words wbich cannot, without seme circumlocu
tion, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve
for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular raan of each company to take the same chapter or
chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself
where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done,
and agree for their parts what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner,
they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously ;
for his raajesty is very careful in this point.
10. If any company, upon tbe review of the book so sent, doubt or differ
upon any place, to send them word thereof, note the place, and withall
send the reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be com
pounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of
each company at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be
directed by authority to send to auy learned man in the land for his judg
ment of such a place.
1 2. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergj-, ad
monishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as
many as being skillful in the tongues and having taken pains in that
kind, to send his particular observations to the company, either at West
minster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster
and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew or
Greek in the two universities.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text
than the Bishops' Bible : Tyndale^s, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's
[Cranmer's], Geneva.
15. Besides the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the
most ancient and grave divines in either of the universities, not employed
in translating, to be assigned by the vice-chancellor, npon conference with
the rest of the heads, to be overseers of the translations, as well Hebrew
as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule above specified.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 319

PEOGEESS OF THE WORK.
Six months after the Hampton Court Conference
the king commissioned fifty-four dignitaries and
scholars who had been selected by some competent,
though unknown, authority (probably the Universi
ties), as translators, and directed Bancroft, who in
the meantime had become Archbishop of Canter
bury,' to make provision for their compensation by
church preferments. Instead of setting a good ex
ample by a liberal subscription, he requested the
bishops and chapters to subscribe, which was not
done. The translators " received nothing but free
entertaineinent in the colleges till some of them met
in London for the final revision of the work." ' The
necessary expenses were mostly borne by the printer
and publisher, Eobert Barker, to the extent of £3500-°
But several of the translators were indirectl}' reward
ed by being promoted to deaneries or bishoprics, dur
ing or after the completion of their labors.*
' The translators, in their Preface, call him "the chief overseer and
ipyoSimKTrjg under his Majesty, to whom not only we, but also our whole
Church, was [were] much bound." Bancroft was not one of them, but is
said to have " altered the translation in fourteen places to make it speak
prelatical language" (Westcott, p. 146). He showed a violent temper at
the Hampton Court Confereuce, so that even the king rebuked him. He
died Nov. 'i, 1610.
" Anderson, ii. 381 ; Westcott, 145 sq.
° Eadie, ii. 201. Matthew Barker (the son of Robert, citizen and
stationer of London) paid afterwards £600 for a reversionary right of the
monopoly of printing the Bible in 1635.
* Eadie (ii. 190 sq.) gives an account of these ecclesiastical preferments.
Those rewarded by bishoprics are Andrewes, Overall, Miles Smith, Raris,
Abbot, Torason, Barlow. Henrj- Savile was knighted.

320 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
The actual nuraber of scholars engaged in the
work was only forty-seven ; the reraaining seven
may have declined, or resigned, or died before the
work began. The translators embraced many of
the best Hebrew and Greek scholars of England at
the time. Dr. Eeynolds, the real raover of the
enterprise, is described by Anthony Wood as a
prodigious man, who " had turned over all writers,
profane, ecclesiastical, and divine, all the councils,
fathers, and histories of the Church." He was
assigned to the company which had in charge the
prophetical books of the Old Testament; but he
died in May, 1607, four years before the publication
of the work, and his place was supplied by Dr. John
Harding, Eegius Professor of Hebrew. Dr. An
drewes, Deau of Westminster, afterwards Bishop of
Winchester (d. 1618), who acted as head of the cora
pany intrusted with the translation of Genesis to
2 Kings, was distinguished for learning and piety,
and his sermons and Preces Privates (in Greek and
Latin, translated by Dean Stanhope, 1826) are still
read with protit. Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, and ¦
afterwards Bishop of Norwich (d. 1619), compiled
the " Convocation Book," and wrote the sacramental
part of the Church Catechism. Sir Henry Savile,
Provost of Eton, was an eminent Greek and Latin
scholar. Bedwell was master of Arabic. Dr. Saravia,
Prebendary of Westminster, of Spanish descent, a
Belgian by birth, the bosom friend of Eichard
Hooker, was well versed in modern languages.
Miles Smith, of the first Oxford Company, elect
ed Bishop of Gloucester in 1612 (d. 1624), had

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 321
" Hebrew at his finger ends," was " well versed
in patristic writings and rabbinical ..glosses," but
is best known as the final editor and reputed au
thor of the Preface ( " The Translators to the
Eeader").' Thomas Wilson, Bishop of Winchester^
was, along with Miles Smith, appointed final reviser,
and prepared the summary of contents or chapter
headings. Most of the other members are now for
gotten ; but they live in their work, which is more
important than the workmen.
The translators were divided into six companies —
two of them met at Westminster (London), two at
Cambridge, and two at Oxford. The Scriptures,
including the Apocrypha, were in like raanner di
vided into six portions, and one portion assigned to
each company. In this respect the arrangement of
the modern revisers, who were divided into two
companies only, one for the Old and one for the
New Testament, was wiser, and secured greater unity
and consistency of translation.
Of the raethod of work we know very little. The
translators left no record of their labors. " Never,"
says Dr. Scrivener, " was a great enterprise, like the
production of our Authorized Version, carried out
with less knowledge handed down to posterity of
the laborers, their raethod and order of working."
If the author of the Preface, instead of a heap of
' It is a noteworthy coincidence that his succetsor in the see of Gloucester,
as chairman of the New Testament Company, prepared the first draft of
the Preface to the Bevision of 1881. It makes no show of irrelevant
learning, and is much shorter, but far more to the point than the old
Preface. ,
21

322 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION,
quotations from the fathers, had given a clear ac
count of the mpde of, procedure, he would have done
better service to posterity. He mentions, however,
the time of work^Viz,, " twice, soven times seventy-
two days" (with reference to the seventy-two days'
work on the Septuagint), and the use of " Chaldee,
Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French,
Italian, and Dutch [German] . translators or cora
raentators," John Selden, who was about twenty-
five years old when the translation appeared, has
preserved a significant hint. He says, in his " Table-
Talk:" "The English translation of the Bible is
the best translation in the world, and renders the
sense of the original best, taking in for the English
translation the Bishops' Bible as well as King
Jaraes's, The translation in King James's time took
an excellent way. That p^rt of the Bible was given
to him who was most excellent in, such, a tongue (as
the Apocrypha to Aiidrew Downs), and then they
met together, and one read; the translation, the rest
holding in their hands some Bible, either of the
learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc, ;
if they found any fault, they spoke ; if not, he read
on," '
The enumeration of these translations agrees with
the Translators' Preface, The French version was
probably that of Olivetan (1535) as revised by the
Pastors of Geneva (1588) ; the Spanish those of De
Eeyna (1569) and De Valera (1602) ; the Italian that
' Published after his death (1654) byhis amanuensis, Richard Milward,
in 1689. I quote from tbe edition of Edward Arber, London, 1862, p. 20,
Selden represented the University of Oxford in the Long Parliament.

THE AUTHORIZED VEESION, S23
of Diodati (1607); the «Dut6h" (omitted by Selden,
but mentioned by the Translators) thoseof Leo Judae
(in the Swiss-German dialect, Zurich, 1524-29, 1531,
1536, 1540), and of Luther (1522-1534, last edition
by Luther hiraself, 1545), both of which had already
been used in previous versions.
The new version was completed seven years after
the Harapton Court Conference, but, owing to sorae
delay, it was not actually undertaken till 1607, and
did not occupy more than two years and three
quarters. It was published in a large folio volume
at London, 1611, with a dedication " To the Most
High and Mighty Prince James, by the Grace of
God King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, etc," and with a very long
and learned, but pedantic and tedious, preface by
Dr, Miles Sraith, Two folio editions were printed
in that year, and also a duodecimo edition of the
New Testaraent ; Iiow many copies 9f each is not
known (probably less than ten thousand), nor is it
known which of the two folio editions is the first.
They differ in a great many places,' and the folio edi
tion of 1613 again differs from both.' All three are
disfigured by numerous and serious typographical
errors. Translators, editors, and printers are not in
fallible," lest any should boast. The Bible is not an
' See the list of variations between the two editions of 1611 in Scrivener,
Appendix B, Ixxxvi. sqq.
' The Oxford fac-simile reprint of the edition of 1611 gives a list cover
ing sixteen colurans of variations between one ofthe editions of 161l/and
the one of 1613.
' Not even thePope of Eome, when he undertakes to edit the Scriptures,
as Sixtus V. did. See p. 150. ) -
J

324 " THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION,
idoL to be worshipped, but a book of life, to be
studied again aud again by every generation to the
end of time.
Note. — Dr. Scrivener speaks of the " shameful " editing of the first two
editions, and charges both with "innumerable errors of the press, some
peculiar to a single issue, not a few (including nearly all the false textual
references in the margin) common to both " (p. xii.). Among the typo
graphical errors are such as "Judas" for "Jesus" (in Matt. xxvi. 36);
" serve thee " for " serve me " (Exod. ix. 13) ; " hoopis " for " hooks " (Exod.
xxxviii. 11); "plaine" for "plague" (Lev. xiii. 56); "ye shall not eat"
for "ye shall eat " (Lev. xvii. 14) ; " he went into the citie " for " she went "
(Ruth iii. 15, where "sh^" is preferred by Jerome in tbe Vulgate, ingressa
est, but the Hebrew verb is masculine, X3*!); "shewed" for "hewed"
(Hos. vi. 5), etc.
The folio edition of 1618 varies from tbe one of i611 in more than four
hundred places; and, while correcting sorae of the old errors, it has a
larger number of new ones as bad as the old — e.g., " t\\efast of the beast"
for " the fat of the beast " (Lev. vii. 25) ; " water " for " matter " (1 Sam.
X. 16); "vjere" for "year" (2 Kings xxii. 3); "in the throne of David"
for "in the room of David" (2 Chron. vi.'lO); "we would not leave" for
" we would leave " (Neb. x . 31) ; " shined through darkness " for " walked "
(Job xxix. 3); "she delighted herself" for "she defiled herself" (Ezek.
xxiii. 7) ; "I praiseyou " for " I praise you not " (1 Cor. xi. 17) ; " doings'"
for "things" (1 Cor. xvi. 14); "continue your love" for "confirra your
love" (2 Cor. ii. 8); "selves" for "souls" (1 Pet. i. 22); "may be laid
to tbeir charge" for "may not be laid" (1 Tim. iv. 16). In many edi
tions " enticed " is substituted for " enriched," " eject " for " elect," " leadetJi
them nol " for " leadeth them out." See the long lists of errors in the
Oxford reprint of the first edition ; in Loftie, I. c. 53 sqq. ; in Scrivener, I. n.
pp. Ixviii. sqq. ; and in Eadie, The English Bible, ii. 291 sqq.
Later editors made some improvements which have held the ground :
as "help thou mine unbelief" for "h'elp my nnbelief" (Mark ix. 24);
"let us run with patience the race set before us" for "let us runne with
patience unto the race" (Heb. xii. 1) ; " DrusiUa which was a Jewess" for
" Jew " (Acts xxiv. 24) ; " appointed to death " for " approved to death "
(1 Cor. iv. 9), On the other hand, they introduced many new typograph
ical blunders, some of wbich are both curious and ominous, and have
given nicknames to the copies containing them. Everybody has heard
of the "Vinegar Bible" ("the raost sumptuous of all Oxford Bibles,'.'

THE AUTHORIZED VEESION. 325
printed by J. Baskett, Oxford, 1717, in 1 vol., imperial fob; also called
" a Baskett-Ml of printer's errors "), which has " vinegar " for " vineyard "
in the heading of the coluran containing tbe parable of the vineyard
(Luke XX.). The worst error is in the " Wicked Bible," printed by Robert
Barker and John Bill, London, 1631, Svo, which omits, perhaps from sheer
deviltry of the printer, the " not " in the seventh commandment (Exod.
XX. 14). The printer was fined £300 by Archbishop Laud for changing
the prohibition of adultery into a coramand, and the money was used for
the purchase of a font of Greek type for the Oxford Universitj-. Four
copies of this Bible are left, one in the Lenox Library, New York. There
is a Gerraan edition of the Bible in Wolfenbuttel of 1731, with the same
extraordinary omission. (See Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, p. 114 sq.)
We have a standard translation, but not a standard text. There are no
two editions alike, unless those printed from the same stereotype plates,
and there is no absolute standard edition. A committee of the American
Bible Society, in examining six different editions of the Authorized Ver
sion, discovered nearly 24,000 variations in the text and punctuation. See
" Report of the History and Recent Collation of the English Version of the
Bible, presented by the Coramittee on Versions to the Board of Managers
of the American Bible Society, and adopted May 1st, 1851 " (printed in
the American Bible House, p. 31). Dr. Blayney's revision (1769) is the
standard of the Oxford University Press, but has undergone various modi
fications and corrections (see Eadie, ii. 305). Eyre and Strahan's quarto
edition of 1812 was adopted as the standard by tbe Protestant Episcopal
Church of the United States, but it has several errors — e.g., "about" for
"above" (2 Cor. xii. 2); "holy body" for "whole body" (Eadie, ii. 306).
Dr. Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible is no doubt the most critical
edition, but his text is eclectic, and his departures frora the editions of 1611
and 1613 are very nuraerous. See the lists in his Appendix A, pp. Ixviii.-
Ixxxvi. EECEPTION OF THE NEW VEESION.
The new version was received with cold indiffer
ence by some, and with violent opposition by others.'
' Compare here Trench, On ihe Authorized Version ofthe New Testa-
merit, chap. xi. (p. 163 sqq. in Harpers' edition), and Eadie, The English
Bible, ii. 264 sqq. Archbishop Trench shows that the charges of Eoman
ists and Arminians are mostly unfounded.

326 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
This is just what the translators expected. They
begin their Preface to the Eeader with this sentence:
"Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any
thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, de-
serveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold enter
tainraent in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love,
and with emulation instead of thanks : and if there be any hole left for
cavil to enter (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, wiU make one), it is sure
to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This wiU easily be
granted by as many as know story, or have any experience. For was
there ever any thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or re
newing, but the same'endured many a storm of gainsaying or opposition ?"
The first attack came from the famous Hebraist,
Dr. Broughton, and was an unqualified condemnation
inspired by personal animosity, which neutralized
its effect.' Yet John Lightfoot, who edited his
works, and had no superior in his age for Hebrew
and Eabbinical lore, seems to have sympathized
with him in his low estimate of the version ; for in a
serraon preached before the House of Commons in
August, 1645, he urged them " to think of a review
and survey of the translation of the Bible," which
should be " exact, vigorous, and lively." "
Most of the objections in that polemical age were
raised against the theology of the version rather
than its scholarship. Eoman Catholics accused it
of falsifying the Scriptures in, favor of Protestant
heresy,' Arminians discovered in it a Calvinistic
' See above, pp. 291, 292.
' Works, vol. i. p. xv., quoted by Eadie, ii. 344.
' Gregory Martin had made a most elaborate attack against the older
English versions in 1582. Afterwards Thomas Ward, a convert to Rorae,
and at last a soldief in the Papal Guards, wrote Errata ofthe Protestant

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 327
bias, owing to the great influence whicii Beza's Greek
Testaraent and Latin, notes had upOn the transla
tors. Dr, Eobert Gell, a decided Arrainian, who
had been chaplain to Archbishop Abbot of Canter
bury, wrote as late as 1659 a folio volurae of raore
than eight hundred pages to disparage the version,'
Puritans agreed with its theology, but found fault
with its Church polity and ritual, on the ground of
retaining such terras as " church," " bishop," " or
dain," " Easter," ^ Arians and Socinians of a later
Bible, in 1683; 2d ed. 1688; reprinted in Dublin, 1807; with a Preface
by Lingard, 1810; and with a letter by Milner, 1841. Ward calls his
work an abridgraent, but exceeds Martin in ferocitj-. He "accuses King
James's translators of blasphemy, most damnable corruptions, intolerable
deceit, and vile imposture" (Eadie, ii. '267). Tbe bcstanswerto such
cilumnies is the eidogy of the Authorized Version by such a fervent con
vert as Dr, Faber.
' Essay towards the A mendment of Ihe Last English Translation of the
Bible, London, 1659. Gell charged the translators with deliberate mis
translation in favor of Calvinism,, for inserting the words it shall be given,
in Matt. xx. 23. Dr. Trench says of Gell that he was "a really learned
raan, but cross-grained, ill-terapered, and in his reaction against Calvinistic
excesses runinng.into dangerous extremes on the other side; and his
work? have their bushels of chaff with scarcely their grains of wheat."
Dr. Eadie (ii. 266): "Some of his [Cell's] accusations are very trivial,
and raany of his Stateraents are drawn out into prolix allegorical sermons.
He objects to their inversion of the order of words, to their undue use of
supplemental terms, and to their translation, as being moulded to suit their.
own opinions, whilethey put the better and truer rendering in the margin.
Especially does he censure their Bible as obscuring on purpose the doctrine
of perfection, for he regarded such a' state as attainable in the present
life."  " ¦ ,...---
' "Easter" for "Passover" (Acts xii. 4) was inherited frora Tyndale's
first edition, and has been corrected in the Bevision. "Bishop" ought
to have been used throughout, including Acts xx. 28, where it is identical
with "presbyter" or "elder" (ver. 18), but rendered "overseer" in the
old version. This inconsistency is likewise removed in the Revision^^

328 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION,'
date would naturally object to the retention, without
italics, of the three heavenly witnesses in .1 John v,
7 (which is justly dropped in the Eevision), One
of the most. curious objections is that the transliators
introduced the terms "familiar spirit," " witch," and'
"wizard" into the Bible in order to flatter King
James's notions about witchcraft and demonology,
on which he wrote a treatise; but all these terms
occur also in the older versions,' With the same
right republicans might charge them with having
flattered his high monarchical notions by turning
every Oriental sheikh or chief into a "duke" or
" prince," King James's Version had a powerful rival in the
Geneva BiWe, which was never authorized, but had
taken strong hold on the affections of the people be
cause it Avas made by the English exiles in times of
fierce persecution, and under the eyes of the great
Eeformers, Calvin and Beza, and was accompanied
with convenient explanatory notes. It continued to
be reprinted, even " cum privilegio Regim majesta
tis^'' till after the raiddle of the seventeenth cen
tury, and many copies were brought to America by
the early immigrants. It passed in all tlirougli about
one bundred and sixty editions, and when it finally
disappeared, the people, accoi-'ding to Fuller, com
plained that " they could not see into the sense of
" Church " (probably derived frora the Greek KvpiaKov, belonging to the
Lord) has been retained, although " congregation " is a better translation
of ecclesia. ' See Bishop Hutchinson, Historical Essay on Witchcraft, and Eadie,
ii, 268 sq.

TIIE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 329
the Scripture for lack of the spectacles of those
Genevan annotators." '
' The Long Parliament seriously thought of a
new revision. A bill was introduced in April,
1653, to the effect that a coraraittee, consisting of
Drs. Owen, Cudworth, and several, other scholars,
be appointed to revise King James's Version un
der the supervision of Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr.
Tuckney, and Mr. Joseph Caryl. But the project
' Eadie (ii. 37) : " The Bishops' Bible was not issued beyond 1606, five
years before the date of the publication of the Authorized Version, though
its New Testainent was printed in 1608, 1614, 1615, 1617, 1618. But the
Genevan Bible continued to be printed after 1611. Nay, in that very year
it was issued in folio by Barker himself, tbe king's printer. Besides four
editions of the New Testament, the Bible was reprinted in quarto in 1613,
both at London and Edinburgh; again at London in 1614; with two edi
tions in 1615, and a last issue in fulio in 1616; it appeared in quarto,
Amsterdam, in 1633 ; in folio, 1640; with two more editions in 1644. In
1649 the Authorized Version was printed in quarto, with the Genevan
notes, as if to promote the circulation. An edition of this nature was
published in 1679 in folio,>and as late as 1708 and 1715; but the one of
1679 and the other two tell a falsehood on their title-page — 'which notes
have never been before set forth with this new translation.' " Dr. Eadie
mentions also an American edition of 1743, without stating the place of
publication (ii. 310). But this is. a mistake; tbe book referred to is a
German Bible, printed by Christoph Saur, a native of Germany, who set
tled in Gerraantown, Pa., near Philadelphia. The work was printed in
Germantown. See O'Callaghan, A List of Editions ofthe Holy Scriptures
Printed in A merica (Albany, 1861), p. xii. sq. and p. 22. No English Bible
was printed in America until after the Eevolution, in 1782 (Philadelphia,
printed and sold by E. Aitken, at Pope's Head, in Market Street, witb a rec
ommendation of Congress, dated Sept. 12, 1782). Before that time the Eng;
lish copyright prevented the reprint; and, in the judgment of Mr. Bancroft
and others, the story is not worthy of credit that a copy was secretly
printed in Boston about 1752 with the London imprint. See O'CaUagban,
p. xiii. sqq. John Eliot's Indian Bible was printed in Cambridge, 1663,
preceded by the New Testament in 1661.

3Q0 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
failed because of the dissolution of the Parlia
ment.' With the Eestoration of the Stuarts the opposition
passed away, and the Version of 1611 quietly super
seded all its predecessors and rivals in the family
and the Church. It owes its authority and popular
ity not to royal favor or legal enactments, but, what
is far better, to its intrinsic merits and the verdict
of the English-spealiing race.
One of the earliest and most potent voices in its
favor was that of Thomas Fuller, who, in his quaint,
charming style, thus welcomed it in 1658:''
" And now, after long expectation and great desire, came forth the new
translation of the Bible (raost beautifully printed), by a select and com
petent number of divines, appointed for that purpose ; not being too many,
lest one should trouble another , and yet many, lest, in anj', things might
haply escape them : who, neither coveting praise for expedition, rior fear
ing reproach for slackness (seeing, in a business of moment, none deserve
blame for convenient slowness), had expended almost three years in the
work, not only examining the channels by the fountain, translations with
the original, which was absolutely necessary ; but also coraparing channels
with channels, which was abundantly useful, in the Spanish, Italian,
French, and Dutch languages. So that their industry, skilfulness, piety,
and discretion, have herein bound the Church unto them in a debt of
special remerabrance and thankfulness. These, with Jacob, ' rolled away
the stone from the mouth of the well ' of life. Gen. xxix. 10 ; so that now
even Rachels, weak women, may freely come, both to drink themselves,
and water the flocks of their families at the same."
WAS KING JAMES's VERSION EVER AUTHOEIZED?
This question has recently been raised after the
issue of the Eevision in 1881. The title-page of
King James's Version announces it as " appointed
' See the bill in Eadie, ii. 344-346.
" Church Histqry of Britain, iii. 274.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 331
to be read in churches," aiid it goes universally by
the name of " the Authorized Version," But no
tracfe of such authorization can be found in the rec
ords, ecclesiastical or civil, of the year 1611, Neither
Parliament, nor convocation, nor privy council, nor
king have given it public sanction as far as is
known,' The present Lord Chancellor of England (Lord
Selborne) defends the popular opinion by the fol
lowing consideratious : (1) that the authorizatioli
raay have been by order of Council ; (2) that, if so,
the record of the order probably perished in the fire
at Whitehall," Jan, 12, 1618; (3) that the king's
printer would not have inserted on the title-page
the words " appointed to be read in churches," with
out good reason to do"so,°
But this is mere assertion based upon probabili
ties, whicli appear very improbable in view of the
following facts :
(1,) The words " appointed to be read in churches"
are absent from the special title of the New Testa-^
ment in the first edition of 1611, and in tho general
title-page of at least eight editions of the first five
years after the publication of James's Version,'
Moreover, it is not stated, by whora and how the
version was "appointed;" nor does the word seem
' Dr. Lightfoot states positively that King James's Version was never
authorized (Fresh Revision, p. 30 in Harpers' edition). I was told by the
late Dean Stanley that a clergyman in England might be prosecuted for
using in public worship King James's Bible instead of the Bishops' Bible.
" See his letter lo Bishop Wordsworth in Notes below.
' See ante, p. 303 sq.

332 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
to be equivalent to " authorized," which came into
use in 1574.'
(2.) The Genevan Version was used in England
more than twenty, years after 1611, not only in
private, but in public, worship. Of fifty sermons
preached between 1611 and 1630, and exarained by
the Eev. Eandall T. Davidson,' the text is taken
frora the Genevan Version in 27, frora the Bishops'
Bible in 5, and from other sources in 11. Among
those who preached frora the Genevan Version were
Bishop Andrewes (one of King James's translators).
Bishop Laud, Bishop Carleton, Bishop Hall. Sorae
of these serraons were preached on soleran public
occasions, even in the presence of the king, by bish
ops "ready above all things to uphold the king's
coraraandraent." In Scotland the Genevan Version
was likewise used on important public occasions in
1628 and 1638, and printed in part (the Psalms) at
Edinburgh in 1640.'
(3.) In more than a hundred official documents of
bishops and archdeacons of the first half of the sev
enteenth century, containing the usual inquiiy as to
the Bible, King Jaraes's Version is not mentioned,
but only "the whole Bible," or a "Bible of the
largest volume," or " the latest edition." *
' The phrase "Appoynted to the use of the churches" occurs for tho
first time in the second edition of the " Great Bible," 1540, and seems to
refer to the Scripture lessons pointed out in the almanac for every day in
the year. The " Bishops' Bible," after 1572, bore both the words " author
ized" and "appointed," but never was the word "authorized" so used
before 1574. See The Bibles in Ihe Caxton Exhibition, p. 20 sq.
' See h is article in " Macmillan's Magazine " for October, 1 88 1 , pp. 440 sqq.
' Eadie, ii. 51. * So stated by E. T. Davidson, I. c.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 333
(4.) The long-continued opposition to King James's
Bible, whicii is an undoubted fact,' cannot be easily
explained if it had received the formal sanction of
the governinent.
When, at the restoration of the Stuart dynasty,
the Book of Comraon Prayer was revised and re
introduced in 1661, the Ten Coraraandraents, the
evangelic hymns (the Magnificat, the Benedictus,
and the Nunc dimittis), and especially the Psalter
of the earlier version of Covei'dale, kept their place,
and are used to this day in America as well as in
England in public worship. Tho Presbyterians re
quested " that the new translation of the Bible should
alone be used in the portions selected in the Prayer-
book." But their proposition was rejected. Only
the introductory sentences . and the Gospel and
Epistle lessons were taken from King James's Ver
sion, So far it may be said to be legally authorized
in England, but no further."
The American Episcopal Church, however, took
a step beyond this partial endorsement, and com
mitted itself, by action of the General Convention,
to a particular edition of King James's Version.
In both houses of the General Convention in 1823
a report was presented by a joint committee appoint
ed three years before, recommending the adoption
' See preceding section, p. 328 sq.
" See Arch. J. Stephens : The Book of Common Prayer (Lond. 1849),
Introd. p. clxix. ; and Fr. Procter : A History of the Book of Common
Prayer (llth ed. Lond. 1874), 116. The Black-letter Prayer-book (1636)
which contains the MS. alterations and additions made in 1661 was after
long search discovered in the Library of the House of Lords, and photo-
zincographed, London, 1871.

334 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
as a standard Bible of an edition printed by Eyre
and Strahan in 1812. The report was accepted,
and a canon was passed providing for the appoint
ment of suitable persons to " correct all new editions
of the Bible by the standard edition agreed upon by
the General Convention." '
Note. — The correspondence between the Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. Words
worth) and Lord Selborne was published in the London Times, June 10,
1881, and is as follows: " EiSEHOLME, LiNCOLx, May 25. (1881.)
"My deau Lord, — The question which Lord Carnarvon has given
notice of, to be put to your Lordship in the House of Lords on Fridaj' —
(viz., whether it is legal for a clergyman to read the Lessons from the new
Revised Version in a church) — is one of great iraportance, both to the
clergy and laity. May I be allowed to subrait a few remarks upon it ?
"There seems to be a presumption against such a practice ab incon
venienti. " The new Revised Version, however valuable in itself, is not distin
guishable as to authority from any private venture of the kind. It has
received no sanction frora the Crown, from the Church, or frora Parliament.
If a clergyraan raay use it in the public services of the Churcb, why might
he not Use any other revised version, such as Archbishop Newcome's or
Dean Alford's, or the revised version put forth not long ago by ' Five
clergj-men,' or even a revised version framed by himself? And so, in
fine, might we not have alraost as many 'revised versions' as clergymen
or churches?
" That .the Crown and Church of England contemplated the use of one
uniform translation of the Bible in churches is, I think, clear from Koyal
Proclaraation in Henry VIII.'s time, and from Eoyal Injunctions in thc
reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, and from Canons ofthe Church
in 1571 (Wilkins's Condlia, iv. 266) and in 1603 (Can. 80, see Bishop
Gibson's Codex, p. 201, Oxford ed. 1761). Also, Archbishop Whitgift, in
his letter to the Bishop of Lincoln in 1587, 'About Bibles,' speaks of 'the
translation of the Bible authorized by the Sj'uods of Bishops,' and desires
him to take care that 'every one ofthe churches in his diocese is provided
with one or more copies of the translation of the Bible allowed as afore-
' See Perry's Jour-nals of General Conventions, vol. ii. pp. 54, 58, 73, 95.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 335
said ' (WUkins's Condlia, iv. 328 ; Cardwell, ' Documentary Annals,'
No. cv.),
"As to our present Authorized Versiion of the Bible, which was first
printed in 1611 at Londoii bj- Robert Barker, ' Printer to the King's Most
Excellent Majesty,'. the words in itstitle, 'Appointed to be read in
churches,' appear to show that the public reading of it rests upon some
authority which appointed it, and the universal reception of that transla
tion in our churches for two hundred and seventy years is confirmatory
of that opinion, and corroborates that appointment,
" The special exception also (in the preface of our Prayer-book), in
favour of reading the Psalms in churches from the older version, seems to
point to the use of some other translation as authorized for the rest of the
service of the Church ; and universal usage proves that this other version
can be no other than the Authorized Version of 1611,
"Accordingly, at tbe last revision of the Book of Common Prayer, at
the Eestoration, the older version of the Epistles and Go,spels in the Prayer-
book was displaced, and the translation of them in the Authorized Version
of 1611 was substituted for it. And the public use of this version of the
Epistles And Gospels is required by the Act of Uniforraity and by the recent
Act on the Declarations of Conformity to be raade by the clergy,
" As to the legal bearing of the question, I would not venture to pro
nounce an opinion. But I see it stated in some books on copyright, not,
however, without some hesitation, that 'the Sovereign, by a prerogative
vested in the Crown, has the exclusive privilege of printing inter alia the
Holy Bible for public use in the divine service of the Church ' (Godson on
Copj'right, p. 432, 437, 441, 454), and that tbe Queen's printer and the two
ancient Universities now exercise that right by virtue of patents from the
Crown. " The copj-rlgbt of the new Revised Version of the New Testament has,
I believe, been purchased from the Revisers by the two Universities exclu
sively. The Queen's printer Has, I think, taken no part in the transaction.
" If, therefore, the new Revised Version is to supplant the Authorized
Version and take its place in our churches without anj- grant from the
Crown, or any authorization from the Church, this might be regarded as
an invasion of the prerogative and as a contravention of the Church's
authority, and also perhaps as an injury to the Queen's printer, who now,
concurrently with the two Universities, enjoys the exclusive right of sup
plying all copies of the Bible (in the Authorized Version of 1611) for
general use in the public service of the Church.
" I am, mj' dear Lord, very faithfully yours,
" C. Lincoln.
" To the Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor."

336 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
"30 Poktlakd-place W., May 27, 1881.
"My dear Lord,— Lord Carnarvon, finding that the facts were not
exactly as he understood them to be, decided not to put the question to
me of which he had given notice.
" I agree, generaUy, with what you say. • If any clergyman reads in his
church the lessons, appointed for the Sunday and other services from the
'Eevised! Version, before it has been recommended or authorized by sorae
sufficient public authority, he will, I think, incur a serious risk of being
held to be an offender against law.
"It is, I dare saj', true that no docuraentary proof of the authoritj' of
the version commonly reputed to be authorized is now forthcoming. But
this proves verj- little. If (for example) it was 'appointed to be read in
churches' (as is expressly stated on the title-page of 1611), at the time
of its first publication, nothing is more probable than that this may have
been done by Order in Council. If so, tbe authentic record of that order
would now be lost, because all tbe Council books and registers from the
year 1600 to 1613 inclusive were destroyed by a fire at Whitehall on the
i2th of January, 1018 (O. S.).
"Nothing, in my opinion, is less likely than that the King's printer
should have taken upon himself (whether with a view to his own profit
or otherwise) to issue the book (being what it was, a translation unques-
tionablj' made bj' the King's coraraandraent, to correct defects in earlier
versions, of which the use had been authorized bj' Eoj-al injunctions, etc.,
in preceding reigns), witb a title-page asserting that it was 'appointed to
be read in churches,' if the fact were not really so. That this should have
been acquiesced in by all the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of the
Church and realm, instead of being visited with the punishment which
(in those daj's of the Star Charaber and the High Commission Court) was
so readily inflicted upon the despisers of authoritj-, is to my mind absolutely
incredible upon any hypothesis except that of the use of the book being
really commanded.
"At tbe Savoy Conference, the eighth 'general exception' ofthe Pu
ritan divines related to the use in certain parts of the Liturgy of the
' Great Bible ' version. They desired that, instead thereof, the new trans
lation 'allowed by authority' might 'alone be used.' The Bishops an
swered, 'We are willing that all the Epistles and Gospel.', etc., be used
according to the last, translation;' and this promise thej', performed,
stating, in the preface to the book established by the Act of Uniformity,
that 'for a more perfect rendering' the Epistles and Gospels, and other
portions of Holy Scripture, inserted 'in sundry other places' ofthe Liturgy,

TIIE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 337
were 'now ordered to be read according to the last translation;' while as
to the Psalter, thej- ' noted ' that it followed ' the translation of the Great
Efiglish Bible set forth and used in the time of King Henry VIII. and
Edward VI.'
"The calendar of 'Lessons' in this book of 1661-2 raust, I suppose, be
admitted to refer to some English Bible. The question is, what English
Bible ? Unifcrmitj- in the order of public worship was the purpose of the
whole book ; therefore, it caunot have been meant to leave everj- clergj--
raan to translate for himself, or to select for himself among any existing
translations at his discretion. The same lessons.were to be read in all
churches. It is not, on the other hand, conceivable that any version
earlier than that of 1611, and confessedly less accurate (else wherefore
adopt the ' last translation ' for the Epistles and Gospels?), can have been
intended. The question has practically been answered by the subsequent
reception, understanding, and use of above two hundred years. During
all that time the version of 1611 has been universally treated as being
what it purported to be when first issued in 1611 and ever since — i. e,,
' appointed to be read in churches.' It is one of the best established and
soundest maxims in law that, for a usage of this kind, a legal origin is to
be presumed when the facts will admit of it. It is no argument to tbe
contrarj' that som6 divines, accustomed to the use of earliest versions, maj-
have continued to use them in their sermons or other writings after 1611.
The appointment that this version only should be 'read in churches'
would not take away that libertv.
" There maj', of course, be other arguments whicb I do not know or
have not considered. My object in saying so much has been only to
point out tbe fallacy of the assumption (if there are raany who make it)
tbat tbe English Bible of 1611 is to be regarded as without authority
unless some Eoyal injunction, proclamation, or order, appointing it to be
read in churches can be produced.
"Believe me ever, ray dear Lord, yours faitbfuUv, " Selborne.
" The Eight Bev. the Lord Bishop of Lincoln."

THE MEEITS OF THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
1. The aim of the Eevisers is clearly stated in the
Preface. It was not to make " a new translation,
nor yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but
22

338 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
to make a good one better, or out of many good
ones one principal good one." Although usually
called a translation, it is in fact merely a revision of
the Bishops' Bible, as this itself was a revision of
the Great Bible, and the Great Bible a revision of
Coverdale and Tyndale. A great deal of praise,
therefore, which is given to it, belongs to its prede
cessors. The Eevisers made good use of all available
sources, even the Eoman Catholic New Testament
of Eheims, which appeared in 1582, and is not men
tioned in the king's instruction, but furnished a num
ber of happy Latin terras, derived frora the Vulgate.'
For the idiora and vocabulaiy Tyndale deserves
the greatest credit, for the melody and harmony
Coverdale, for scholarship and accuracy the Geneva
Version." King James hated the last as " the worst
of all," but the translators showed their superior
learning and judgment by following it very often
in preference to the Bishops' Bible. The examples
' Such as hymn (Matt. xxvi. 30), blessed (ver. 26), decease (Luke ix.
31), reprobate (Rom. i. 28), impenitent (ii. 5), unction (1 John ii. 20), rays
tery (1 Cor. ix. 7), contemptible (2 Cor. x. 10), confess, propitiation, seduce
(all in 1 John). Other Latin terms, as concupiscence, lucre, salute, super-
fluitj-, tradition, tribulation, etc., were in tbe older Protestant versions.
The Old Testament of the Roraan Catholic Version, though prepared
before the New, was for lack of means ^not published till 1609 and 1010
at Douay, under the title: The Holie Bible Faithfully Translated into
English out ofthe .4 ulhenticall Latin, etc., 2 vols.
" Eadie, i. 302,: " Tyndale gave us the first great outline distinctly aud
wonderfully etched; but Coverdale added those minuter touches which
soften and harraonize it. The characteristic features are Tyndale's in all
their boldness of form and expression; tbe raore delicate lines and shadin"-s
are the contribution of his successor, both in his own version and in the
Great Bible, revised and edited by him."

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 339
of mistranslations, which Dr. Eeynolds quoted at
the Hampton Court Conference as arguments for
the need of a new version, are all taken from, the
Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, and were cor
rected in the Geneva Bible.'
2. The merits are not the same in all the books.
Frora the division of the work among six indepen
dent companies, there arose naturally a considerable
inequality in the execution. In the Old Testament
the historical books are much better translated than
the prophetical books, which present greater difficul
ties. The Book of Job is the most defective, and
in many places unintelligible. The rendering of
Isaiah, especially in the earlier portions, contains
many errors and obscurities. The version of the
Psalms is, upon the whole, less musical and rhythmi
cal, though much more accurate, than Coverdale's,
which still holds its place in the Book of Common
Prayer. In the New Testament the Gospels and
Acts, and even the Apocalypse, are far better done

' " It is obvious," says Dr. Moulton (History ofthe English Bible, p. 207),
" that the Genevan and Rhemish versions have exercised much greater
influence than the Great and the Bishops' Bible." He gives as a specimen
a passage frora Isa. Iiv. 11-17, which contains 182 words; of these, 86
words are the sarae in five or six English versions ; 96 vary, and among
these variations more than 60 are taken from the Genevan Bible, and onlj'
12 from the Bishops' Bible (pp. 201-206). In the famUiar fifty-third chap
ter of Isaiah seven eighths of the variations are due to the Genevan,
according to Westcott (p. 845). No authority was more frequently fol
lowed, both for text and interpretation, than Beza of Geneva, whose Greek
Testament (the fourth edition, 1588, and the fifth edition, 1598) was the
chief basis of the Authorized Version. See ante, pp. 238 sqq. ; Westcott,
I. c. 294 sqq. ; Eadie, ii. 16 sqq.

340 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
than the Epistles, notably Eomans and Corinthians,
which abound in minor inaccuracies.
3. The style of the Authorized Version is uni
versally admired, and secures to it the first rank
among English classics. It resembles in this respect
the version of Luther, which is the purest and strong
est expression of the German language, and, forced
even his papal enemies to imitate it in their rival
translations. The English Bible hails from the gold
en age of English literature. It coincides in time
with the greatest and almost inspired poet of human
nature in all its phases, but rises above Shakespeare
as grace rises above nature, and religion above poetry.
It is elevated, venerable, and sacred, like the Anglican
Liturgy as reproduced by Cranmer and his associates,
in their hours of devotion. The Bible is beautiful
in any language, but it is pre-eminently beautiful in
the English, the most cosmopolitan of all languages.
The translators called to their aid with easy mastery
all its marvellous resources of Saxon strength, Nor
man grace, and Latin majest}', and blended these
elements in melodious harmony. Their language
is popular without being vulgar, and dignified with
out being stiff. It reads like poetry and sounds
like music. It is thoroughly idioraatic, and free
frora Latin barbarisms.' It is as true to the genius
' So frequent in the Eoman Catholic Version, owing to its slavish
conformity to the Latin Vulgate— f. ^., "impudioity" (Gal. v. 19), "coin-
quination" (2 Pet. ii. 18, 20), "contristate" (to make sad, Eph. iv. 30),
" exinanite" (Phil. li. 7), " domestical" (1 Tim. v. 8), " repropitiate " (Heb.
ii. 17), "zealatours" (Acts xxi. 20), "azymes," "dorainator," "pasche,"
"prepuce," "pupiUe-V " scenopegia," " supersubstantial bread" (Matt. vi.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 341
of the English as to the genius of the Hebrew and
Greek. We hear in our Bible Moses and the proph
ets, Christ and the apostles, speaking to us in our
own mother-tongue. From this "well of English
pure and undefiled" poets, orators and historians
have drunk inspiration for more than two hundred
and fifty years. It has done more than any great
writer, not excluding Shakespeare and Milton, to
fix the character of the language beyond the possi
bility of essential change, and the idiom of this ver
sion will always remain the favorite organ for the
oracles of God to the English-speaking race.
At the same time it is necessary to modify the
praise in minor particulars. The Authorized Ver
sion occasionally sacrifices the truth of the original
to the beauty of the English, as in Eoin. xii. 2, "Be
not conformed to this world : but be ye transformed
by the renewing of your mind " (where the Greek
requires : " Be not fashioried . . . but be ye trans
formed," luj (7i;(r\r|^ar(^f(T9'f . . . iiKXa fieraf.iop<poiicT^i),
and in Acts xxvi. 28, "Almost thou persuadest me to
be a Christian" (which cannot be the meaning of
iv oXiyij), but would require dXljov or irap' oXiyov
or oXi'you Sa). More serious are blemishes in the
opposite direction, as unseeraly phrases in the Old

11, for daUj' or needful bread in the Lord's Praj-er). Fuller says that the
Eheims and Doiiay translation " needs to be translated ;" and Trench says
that the Eoraan Catholic translators "seem to have put off their loyalty
to the EngUsh language with their loyalty to the English crown." The
Douay Bible has, however, undergone in the course of time so many
transformations, that, in the language of Cardinal Wiseman, " scarcely any
verse remains as it was originally published." (See his Essays, vol. i. 73-75.)

342 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
Testament (1 Sara. xxv. 22, 34 ; 1 Kings xiv. 10 ; 2
Kings ix. 8; xviii. 27; Isa. xxxvi. 12, etc.), which
can scarcely be read in the pulpit or the family, and
might have been avoided by the use of the same
liberty which the translators claimed in so many
passages. We meet with an almost profane use of
the name of God in the phrases " Would God " and
"Would to God" (1 Cor. iv. 8; Deut. xxviii, 67;
Josh, vii, 7, etc), for which there is no equivalent in
the original, and in the unwarrantable rendering,
" God forbid " for ;uj) jivoiTo (" may it not be," or
" never happen," " far from it," Luke xx, 16 ; Eom,
iii, 4, 6, 31 ; vi, 2, 15 ; vii, 7, 13 ; ix, 14; xi, 1, 11 ;
1 Cor, vi, 15 ; Gal, ii, 17 ; iii, 21 ; vi, 14), There are
occasional violations of English grammar, as the
double plurals " cherubims," " seraphim*," " ana
kims;" the Latinizing "whom [for "who"] say ye
that I am " (Matt, xvi, 15 ; Mark viii, 27, 29) ; the
archaic " Ms " for " its " (Matt, v, 13 ; Mark ix, 50 ;
Luke xiv,.34, etc) ; and the connection of the singu
lar verb with a plural noun, as " This people who
knowe^A not," for "know not" (John vii, 49), A con
siderable number of words and phrases have become
obsolete and unintelligible — as "to fetch a com
pass" (for " to make a circuit"), "shamefastness" (for
"shamefacedness"),' "bosses" ("knobs"), "clouts"

'Fast in "shamefast" (=bashful, modest, Eccles, xxvi, 15), and in
" shamefastness " (1 Tim. ii. 9), has the same raeaning as the German /fs^,
and as in " steadfastness." The Eevised Version has returned to " shame-
/astaess" of the Authorized Version of 1611. But "modesty" would be
as good a rendering of aidiiig in 1 Tim. ii. 9, and far more inteUigible, at
least in America.

THE AUTIIORIZED VEESION. 343
("patches"), "daysman" ("arbitrator"), "dulcimer"
(a musical instrument), " earing " (" ploughing "),
" habergeon " (" coat of mail "), " kine " (the old
plural of "cow"), "knop" ("bud," compare the
German Knospe), " ouches " (" sockets "), " sackbut "
(a wind instrument), " swaddle" (" bandage"), " tab-
ret " (a small drum), " tache " (a fastening or catch
= tack), "ware" (for "aware"), etc. Other words
have changed their meaning — as " to let " (for " to
hinder "), " to prevent " (for " to precede "), " to wit "
(for " to know ")," atonement " (for " reconciliation "),
" by and bj"^ " (for " immediately "), " careful " (for
" anxious "), " carriage " (for " baggage "), " charger "
(for " dish "), " coast " (for " border "), " conversa
tion " (for "conduct"), "damnation" (for "con
demnation "), " lucre " (for " gain "), " nephews "
(for " grandchildren " or " descendants "), " room "
(for "place").'
Such and similar changes, which are inevitable in
a living language, would alonie be sufficient to de
mand a revision.: For the Bible is not an antiquarian
curiosity-shop, but a book of life for the benefit of
the people. The German, French, and Dutch lan
guages have undergone similar changes.
4. The Anlhorized Version is a truly national
work, and has even an cecumenical character for
the English-speaking world. It resembles in this
respect the Apostles' and the Nicene creeds, which
cannot be traced to any > individual authorship.
' See The Bible Word-Book : A Glossar-y qf Old English Bible Words,
by J. Eastwood and W. Aldis Wright, 1866. Also the article of Dr,
Crosbj" on A rchaisms, in " Anglo- Amer. Bible Eev." p. 144 sqq.

344 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
Nearly all the Continental versions were the pro
duction of a single mind — as Luther, Leo Judse,
Olivetan, Diodati — and bear more or less the linea
ments of the translatoi'. But the English Bible is
not the version of Wiclif, or PuVvey, or Tyndale, or
Matthews, or Eogers, or Coverdale, or Cranmer, or
the Elizabethan Bishops, or King James's forty-
seven Translators. It is the work of the' English
Church in the period of the greatest revival of prim
itive Christianity. The sacred memories of three
generations of raartyrs and confessors are treasured
up iri its pages. Tyndale, who devoted his life to
the single task of Anglicizing the Word of God,
and was strangled and burned for it at Vilvorde;
Eogers,-. who, like;him, left the world in' a chariot of
fire as the protomartyr of the bloody reign of Mary ;
Coverdale, who a fortnight later escaped the same
fate by flight to Denmark; Cranmer, who, after five
humiliating recantations, triumphed over his weak
ness and sealed his faith at the stake in Oxford ;
the Marian confessors, who found a hospitable ref
uge in the city of Calvin and Beza; the leaders in
the Elizabethan restoration of the Eeformation, and
their learned and pious successors in the following
reign— all speak to us through the English Bible, to
which they have contributed their share of devout
labor. No version has such a halo of glory around
it, none is the child of so many prayers, none has
passed through severer trials, none is so' deeply root
ed in the affections of the people that use it, and
none has exerted so great an influence upon the
progress of the Christian religion and true civiliza-

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 345
tion at home and abroad. It is interwoven with all
that is most precious in the history and literature
of two mighty nations which have sprung from the
Saxon stock. It is used day by day and hour by
hour in five continents, and carries to every mission
station in heathen lands the unspeakable blessings
of the gospel of peace. NOTES.
The beauty of the English style of the Authorized Version is well
nigh unanimously, conceded by corapetent scholars, though not without
some qualifications. . The following judgments represent diflerent schools
of thought :
Henrt Hallaji : " The style of this translation is in general so en-
thusiasticallj- praised, that no one is permitted either to qualify or even
explain the grounds of his approbation. It is held to be the perfection
of our English language. I shall not dispute this proposition ; but one
remark as to a matter of fact cannot reasonably be censured, that, in con
sequence ofthe principle of adherence to the original versions which had
been kept up ever since the time of Henrj- VIIL, it is not the language
of the reign of James I. It raaj-, in the ej-es of manj-, be a better English,
but it is not the EngUsh of Daniel or Raleigh or Bacon, as any one may
easily perceive. It abounds, in fact, especialh' in the Old Testaraent, with
obsolete ¦ phraseologj'i and with single words long since abandoned, or
retained onlj' in provincial use. On tbe more iraportant question, whether
this translation is entirely, or with very trifling exceptions, conformable
to the original text, it seeras unfit to enter" (Introduction io the Litei-aiure
of Europe, etc., vol. ii. 445, New York edition, 1880).
George P. Marsh calls tbe Authorized Version "an anthology of all
the beauties developed in tbe language during its wbole historical exist
ence " (Lectures on the English Language, p. 630, New York, 1860).
Archbishop Trench has a special chapter on the English of the
Authorized Version (ch. iii.), and praises' its vocabularj', which he deeras
to be " nearlj' as perfect as possible," but finds " frequent flaws and faults "
in its grammar. "In respect to words," he saj'S, " we everywhere recog
nize in it that true delectus verborum on which Cicero insists so earnestly,
and in which so rauch of the charra of style consists. All the words used
are of the noblest stamp, alike removed from vulgarity and pedantry;

346 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
they are neither too familiar, nor, on the other side, not familiar enough;
they never crawl on the ground, as little are they stilted and far-fetched.
And then how happily raixed and tempered are the Anglo-Saxon and
Latin vocables ! No undue preponderance of the latter makes the language
reraote from the understanding of siraple and unlearned men."
F. WiLLi.vM Faber. This glowing hymnist, who passed frora Oxford
Tractarianism to tbe Cburch of Eorae, felt keenly that he had gained
nothing by the change as far as the English Bible was concerned, and
pronounced a most eloquent eulogj' on the Authorized Version, which
is all the more forcible as coming from an opponent. It first appeared in
1853, in bis essaj' on The Iniei-est and Characteristics ofthe Lives ofthe
Saints, p. 116 (prefixed to a Life of St. Francis of Asdsi, which forms
vol. xxv. of the Oratorj' series of the Lives of Modern Saints), then in the
" Dublin Review " for June, 1853, p. 466, and has often been quoted since,
sometimes under the name of John H. Newman. It is as follows:
"Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marveUous' English of
the Protestant Bible is not one of tbe great strongholds of heresy in this
country? It lives on the ear like a music that can never be forgotten,
like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he
can forego. Its felicities often seem to be alraost things rather than raere
words. It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national serious
ness. Nay, it is worshipped with a positive idolatrj', in extenuation of
whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with
the man of letters and the scholar. The memory of the dead passes into
it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses.
The power of all the griefs and trials of a man is hidden beneath its
words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there
has been about him uf soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good,
speaks to hira forever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing,^
which doubt has never diraraed, and controversy never soiled. It has
been to him all along as the silent, but oh, how intelligible voice of his
guardian angel, and in the length and breadth of the land there is not a
Protestant, with one spark of religiousness about him, whose spiritual
biography is not in his Saxon Bible. And all this is an unhallowed
power !" (How lame and inconsistent such an objection, which is suflS-
ciently refuted by the preceding praise. For if the Protestant translators
produced such a marvellous work, they must have been in full sympathy
with the Bible and its divine Source ; and where tho Bible is, there is the
truth.) Dr. Eadie (ii. 226) : " The English style is above aU praise. . . . While

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 347
it has the fulness of the Bishops' without its frequent literalism or its
repeated supplements, it has the graceful vigor of the Genevan, the quiet
grandeur of the Great Bible, tbe clearness of Tyndale, the harmonies of
Coverdale, and the stately theological vocabulary of the Eheims."
John Stoughton: "As a specimen of English style this Bible has
received enthusiastic praise; and here, perhaps, admiration for its sacred
contents, and tbe delightful associations with its very phraseology which
piety and devotion cannot fail to form, may warp our judgment on the
question of its literary- merits ; yet, after all that can be said against it in
this point of view (and that it has literary defects as well as exceUences
it were uncandid to deny-), we must surely be struck with the fact that
while our Bible possesses numberless specimens of English diction, full
of rhj'thm, beaut)', and grandeur, there are to be found in it so few words
and modes of expression which the lapse of between two and three cen
turies has rendered obsolete or dubious" (Our English Bible, p. 252 sq.).
The nuraber of words in the Authorized Version, either obsolete or
changed in sense, is variously estimated, but seems to exceed two bundred
and fiftj'. This is less in proportion than the corresponding number of
obsolete words in Shakespeare, Bacon, and Milton. Booker, in his
Scripture and Prayer-book Glossai-y (as quoted by George P. Marsh,
Lectures on the English Language, p. 630, note), states the number of such
words in the Authorized Version, including the Apocrypha, to be three
hundred and eighty-eight. Of these, more than one hundred belong to
the Apocrypha and the Prayer-book. According to Marsh (p. 264), more
than five or six hundred words of Shakespeare's vocabulary of fifteen
thousand words, and about one hundred of Milton's vocabulary of eight
thousand, have gone out of use. The Authorized Version inherited a
number of obsolete or obsolescent words from previous versions. It
represents not the language of 1611 in its integritj-, but the collective
language of the three preceding generations.
DEFECTS OF THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
No perfect work can be expected from imperfect
men. The translators made the best use of the
materials at their disposal, as well as their knowl
edge of biblical philology and exegesis, and they
were in the main led by sound principles ; but their
materials were scanty, their knowledge limited, and

348 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
among their principles was one which is now uni
versally rejected as vicious. Hence, while actual
and serious mistranslations arc comparatively few,
and these mostly derived from the Latin Vulgate,
the minor errors and inaccuracies are innumerable.
Tested by the standard of general faithfulness, idio
matic style, and practical usefulness, the Authorized
Version is admirable ; but tested by the standard of
modern scholarship it is exceedingly defective, and
imperatively calls for a revision.
1. As regards the material for the text, the trans
lators used no documentary sources as far as is
known, and were confined to a icw printed editions
of the Greek Testament, which present a text de
rived from comparatively late cursive MSS. of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They relied
chiefly on the text of Beza (fourth or fifth edition,
1598), from which they departed only in about one
hundred and ninety places, and these departures are
nearly all unimportant.'
The science of textual criticism was not yet born
in the seventeenth century, because the material was
not yet discovered or accessible. Ofthe oldest uncial
manuscripts onlj' two — the Codex Bezae for the Gos
pels and Acts, and the Codex Claromontanus for the

' See above, pp. 239, 283 ; the detailed statement of Dr. Abbot in SchafTs
Introduction to the Revision Essays, p. xxix. ; and Scrivener's New Testa
ment in Greek, pp. 648-656. According to Dr. Abbot's investigations, the
Authorized Version agrees with Beza's text (fourth edition) against that
of Stephens in about ninety places, with Stephens against Beza in about
fortj', and differs from both in thirty or forty places, where the variations
are mostly triviak

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 349
Epistles — were known, and even they were scarcely
used by Beza, who came into possession of them.
The Alexandrian MS. (A) did not reach England
till seventeen years after the publication of the
Authorized Version ; and the still older and more
iraportant Codex of Ephraera, the Vatican, and the
Sinaitic were entirely unknown, having come to
light or been made properly available only in the
nineteenth century. As to ancient versions, the
translators were, of course, very familiar with 'Je
rome's Vulgate, which they used as ranch as the
original Hebrew and Greek (often copying its er
rors).' They were also acquainted to some extent
with the Peshito, first published in 1555 (and with
its Latin version by Tremellius, which appeared in
1569), not to speak of many modern versions which
have no textual authority. But no critical edition
of the ancient versions existed before Walton's Lon
don Polyglot (1657), and even this left a great deal
of work for future discoveries and researches. The
ancient fathers were known, but their critical exam
ination for textual purposes did not begin till the
' The Translators' Preface makes very honorable mention of Jerome :
" They [the old Latin Versions] were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we
speak of the Latin translations of the Old Testament), but out of the
Greek .stream ; therefore, the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin
derived frora it must needs be muddj-. This moved S. Hierome, a most
learned Father, and tbe best linguist, without controversy, of his age or of
any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testa
ment out of the very fountains themselves ; which he performed wilh that
evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he
hath forever bound the Church unto him in a debt of special remembrance
and thankfulness."

350 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
time of Mill (1707), whose labors were carried on
much further by Wetstein, Griesbach, and the mod
ern editors.
With such a defective apparatus we need not be
surprised at the large number of false readings and
interpolations which obscure or mar the beauty and
weaken the force of the primitive text.'
2. The Greek and Hebrew learning of the trans
lators was sufficient to enable them to read the orig
inal Scriptures with ease ; while with the Latin
Vulgate they were probably more familiar than
with the earlier English versions. But the more
delicate shades of the Greek and Hebrew syntax
were unknown in their age, and the gramraars, dic
tionaries, and concordances very iraperfect. Hence
the innumerable arbitrary and capricious violations
of the article,tenses, prepositions, and little particles.
The impression often forces itself upon the student
that they translated from the Latin Vulgate, where
there is no article and no aorist, rather than frora
the Hebrew and Greek. Their inaccuracy increases
in proportion as the Greek departs frora the Latin.
And yet the English (at least the Saxon-English) has
greater affinity with the Greek than with the Latin.
{a) The article. — The mass of English readers
will hardly notice the difference between a virgin
and the virgin, a mountain and the mountain, a feast
" For a convenient comparison of the authorized and critical texts, see
C. E. Stuart : Textual Criticism of Ihe New Testament for English Bible
Students ; being a succinct comparison of the A uthorized Version with fhe
Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendo.rf Tregelles, A l-
ford, and the Undal MSS. Second edition, London (Bagster & Sons), n. d.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION, 351
and the feast, a falling away and the falling away,
a confession and the confession, a fight and the fight,
a crown and the crown ; the Son of God and a Son
of God, the woman and a woman, the root of all evil
aud a root. But the careful student, looking into
his Greek Testament, or comparing the Authorized
Version with the Eevised Version, will feel at once
the force of the presence or absence of the definite
article, and the unaccountable carelessness with which
it is now omitted, now inserted, by the translators.
As a rule, the definite article in all languages indi
cates, as Winer says, " that the object is conceived
as definite, either from its nature, or from the con
text, or by reference to a circle of ideas whicii is
assumed to be familiar to the reader's mind,"
A few examples will illustrate the difference,
" The Christ" is an official title, meaning the prom
ised and expected Messiah (the Anointed), and is so
used generally in the Gospels ; while " Christ," with
or without " Jesus," is a proper name of our Saviour,
as very often' in the Epistles, Thus, Herod asked
where " the Christ " should be born (Matt, ii. 4), and
John wrote his Gospel that his readers might be
lieve that "Jesus is the Christ" (John xx. 31, where
the English Version correctly gives the article) ;
while Paul calls himself a servant or apostle of
" Jesus Christ " (Eom. i. 1, 3 ; Gal. i. 1, etc.). " A
law " is a rule or principle, natural or revealed ; M-hile
" the law" is the written law of Moses. " The many "
(ot TToXXoi) is used by Paul in Eom. v. repeatedly in
the sense of "all," as distinct from "the one" (6 sTc,
Adam or Christ) ; M-hile " many," in the Authorized

352 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
Version, conveys the wrong idea of a limitation, or
of a large number simply, as distinct from a " few."
The love of money is " a root of all kinds of evil,"
but not "^Ae" only root (1 Tim. vi. 10); pride (as
in the case of Satan) is also a root of all evil.
Compare as examples of omissions of the definite
article where the sense is weakened or changed :
Matt. i. 23 ; iv. 5 ; v. 1, 15 ; vii. 25 ; viii. 23 ; ix. 11 ;
xii. 41; xiii. 42; xix. 14; xxiii. 24; xxiv. 12; Mark
iv. 21; Luke vii. 5; viii. 6, 7; xvii. 17; xviii. 11, 15;
John iii. 10; vi. 4; xii. 36, 46 ; xviii. 3, 5, 15 ; Acts
i. 13, 17 ; iv. 12 ; Eom. v. 2, 9, 15, 17, 19 {o\ ttoWoi) ;
1 Cor. V. 9; -vii. 17; ix.5; 2 Cor. vii. 8: x.9; Col. i.
19; 2Thess.ii.3; 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8;
Heb. xi.lO; Eev. vii. 14.
Examples of M'rong insertion of the definite arti
cle, giving eraphasis to a noun Mdiich the writer did
not intend: Matt.i. 20 ("Md Angel" for "an angel");
ix. 13 (and the parallel passages, SikuIovc:); xxvi. 74;
xxvii. 54; John iv. 27 {fitra ywaiKoc;, the wonder of
the disciples M-as that Christ shonld, contrary to
Eabbinical custom, converse not with that particu
lar woman of Samaria, but M'ith a M'oman or any
woman); xvii. 19; Acts xxvi. 2; Eom. ii. 14 {tSrvri,
Gentiles, some, not all); 1 Thess. iv. 17; 1 Tira. vi.
10; Eev. XX. 12.
There are, of course, idiomatic uses of the Greek
article u-hicli are not admissible in English — e.g.,
M'here the article is generic, as 17 apLaprla and 6 ^ava-
roc, " sin " and " deatli," as a principle or poM'er, in
Eom. V. 12. Here the English idiom requires the
absence (the German, like the Greek, the presence)

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION, 353
of the definite article. Matt, vii, 6 belongs to the
same category, although the English Eevision re
tains the article (" the dogs " and " the swine "), In
connection with proper names the Greek admits of
the definite article M'hen the person is known, or
has been previously raentioned (as 6 'IijctoSc, o DaD-
Aoc) ; while the English and German require the
omission. In Greek, countries (and cities) have the
article {r\ Vukaria, 17 'l7aX('a),but not in English, except
when the place is qualified by an adjective {e.g., "the
New Jerusalem "). Names of rivers have always the
article in Greek and in English ; but the Authorized
Version makes an exception with the Jordan, which
occurs always without the article. The English Ee
visers have corrected this inconsistenc}', but retained
it in the compound phrases " beyond Jordan,"
"round about Jordan."
(&) The verb. — The Greek language is unusually
rich in verbal forras, having three voices (Active,
Passive, and Middle), five modes(Indicative, Conjunc
tive, Optative, Iraperative, Infinitive ; the Participle
being a verbal adjective), and seven tenses (Present,
Future, Future perfect, Aorist, Imperfect, Perfect,
and Pluperfect). The tenses are carried also into par
ticipial forras. The English has no Middle voice, no
Optative mode, and only five tenses ; but the Middle
voice can be rendered by adding the personal pro
noun, the Optative mode by may or might, and the
Imperfect tense by the aid of the auxiliary verb.
Absolute accuracy is impossible; and no raodern
version can ever supersede the study of the Greek
Testament. Not unfrequently euphony and rhythm
23

354 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
require the English Perfect for the Greek Aorist.
Yet we should conform to the Greek as far as Eng
lish usage and rhetoric will permit.
Considering that the writers of the New Testa
ment, with the single exception of Luke, were Jews,
and brought, up in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue,
which is very poor in verbal forms, their precision
in the use of the Greek tenses, especially the dis
tinction betM-een the Aorist and Imperfect, is very
remarkable. The Greek has, it is well known, four
tenses to express the past time — namely, (1) the
Aorist^ or narrative tense, whicii expresses a mo
mentary and completed act or event ; (2) the Im
perfect, a descriptive and relative tense, denoting
an action which is either contemporaneous, or con
tinuous, or incoraplete, or attempted ; (3) the Perfect,
M-hicli combines the past with the present, and ex
presses an act or event which continues in its effect;
(4) the Pluperfect, which is relative, like the imper
fect, but refei'S to subordinate actions or events as
having already passed before the principal action.
In English the difference can be easily reproduced :
the Aorist is best rendered by the simple Past or
Preterite (/ went, 1 wrote), the Perfect by the Per
fect (/ have gone, I have written), the Imperfect by
the use of the auxiliary verb (/ was going, 1 was
writing), the Pluperfect by the Pliiperfect (/ had
gone, I had written).
Justice requires that this distinction should be re
produced at least ih all cases where the sense is affect-
' Aorist, i. e., indefinite, is properly a misnomer, unless it signifies the
indefinite relation of this tense to the other tenses.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION, 855
ed. But the translators of King James M-ere either
ignorant or careless of these distinctions, for they
indiscriminately confound the tenses in every chap
ter. We give some illustrations.
The Greek Present is often misren dered by the
English Perfect, 'e. g., Matt. xxv. 8, al Xa^jrogf ? -rjuCv
ofiivvvvTm, " our lamps are going out," not " are gone
out;" 2 Cor. iv. 3, lv to'iq airo\\vp.ivoiq, " in those
who- are perishing," not "are lost."
The Present mistranslated by the simple Past:
Heb. ii. 16, iTri\afi(5av(Tai, " he takes hold," not "took
on him ;" Eev. xii. 2, KpaZn, " she cries," not "cried."
So often in the Gospel of Mark, who is fond of the
present tense to give vivacity to his narrative.
The Perfect misrendered by the Present: Matt.
V. 10, SiSiwjfiivot, " they that have leen persecuted,"
not "are persecuted ;" Gal. ii. 20, avviaravpwfiat, "I
have leen crucified with Christ," not " I am cruci
fied." The Aorist misrendered by the Present : Matt. xv.
24, aTrEffroXjii-, " I was sent," not " I am sent;" 1 Cor.
xii. 13, i^airrta^tjfiev, "we were baptized," not "are
baptized;" Eom. vi. 2, o'lTivtq a-wi^avofxtv r^ a/naprlq,
"we who died to sin" (at our conversion and bap
tism), not " are dead ;" so also ver. 7 and 8 ; Gal. ii.
19, Bta vofiov vi'ifiiji) a-TTiStavov, " through the law I
died to the law," not " am dead ;" so also Col. ii. 20 ;
iii. 1, 3. The Authorized Version substitutes the
state of death for the act of dying.
The Perfect raistaken for the Aorist: John vi. 65,
HpvKa, "I have said," not "said."
The Aorist misrendered by the Perfect : Matt. ii.

356 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
2, iiSofisv, " we saw," not "have seen ;" Luke vii. 5,
(j)KoSojUi)(T£v, " he luilt us our synagogue," not " he
hath built ;" John i. 16, iXafiofiiv, " we received," not
"have received;" iii. 33, itrtppajiaiv, "he sealed;"
ver. 34, a-irianiXsv, " he sent ;" viii. .52, ani^avi, " he
died;" Eom. ii. 12; iii. 23; v. 12, fnnaprov, "they
sinned," not " hav« sinned ;" vii. 6, a-iro^avovn^,
" having died," not " being dead ;" 2 Cor. v. 14, eIc
virep TravTwv a-KiSfaviv, apa ol iravrtg oTTi^avov, " one
died for all, therefore all died," not " then M'ere all
dead." In the sacerdotal prayer there are several
eraphatic aorists whicii are exchanged for the per
fect in the Authorized Version, but are restored in
the Eevised Version, John xvii. 4, 6, 12, 18, 23, 25, 26.
The Imperfect misrendered by the simple Past :
Luke i. 59, iKaXovv, " they were calling," not " called ;"
V. 6, Bieprjaaero ra BiKrva aiirwv, " their nets were
Ireahing," not " brake ;" viii. 23, avverrX-iipovvTo,
" they wei'e filling with -water," for " they were
filled ;" xviii. 3, T!jp-)(iTo, " she kept coming," or " she
came oft," to the unjust judge, for "she came;"
ver. 13, irvTiTt to (rrij^oc uvtov, " he kept smiting his
breast," for "smote" (retained in the Eevised Ver
sion) ; John vi. 17, rip^ovro, "they were going," for
"they went;" Gal. i. 13, l-^op^ovv, " I was destroy
ing" (attempted to destroy), not "destroj-ed" or
" wasted ;" so also ver. 23.
(c) The prepositions are often confounded or mis
translated. Thus tv is indiscriminately rendered
"in," "within," "among," "through," "with,"
" by," " at," " under," " info," " unto," " toward,"
etc. ; and often raistaken in the instrumental (He-

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 357
braistic) sense, " by," " through," M'here it signifies
the life-element, the vital union M'ith Christ, " in "
(as Eom. vi. 11, tv XpiaTi[t 'Irja. ; xiv. 14, iv Kvpio^ 'Ir|-
aov ; XV. 17 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3, 9, 13) ; while in other pas
sages it is correctly rendered (as Eom. viii. 1, 2 ; ix. 1 ;
xii. 5, etc.). Eie is variously translated " into," " to,"
" unto," " toward," " upon," " among," " through
out," "by," "with," "against," ftill," "until."
Both prepositions, the one expressing rest in, the
other motion into, are sometimes confounded, as in
Luke ii. 14, " towards men" for "among men" {iv
av^ptviroig), and vice versa, as in the baptismal for
mula. Matt, xxviii. 19, " in the name," instead of
"into" (sir; "TO (ivo/jia) ; Luke xvi. 8 ; xxiii. 42. The
omission of the preposition in 2 Pet. i. 5-7 {iv rii
Ttiarti — iv ry yvwaei), turns the organic development
of the Christian graces and their causal dependence
one upon another into a mechanical accumulation.
In 1 Pet. ii. 12 and iii. 16, iv ^ is rendered "M'here-
as," instead of " wherein." Eom. xi. 2, M-e have
" of Elias," instead of " in (the history of) Elijah "
(ei' 'HX/g). The instrumental Bia with the Genitive,
" through," and the causal Bia with the Accusative,
"because of" or "on account of," are likeM'ise con
founded — e. g.. Gal. iv. 13 {Bi aadeveiav, the infirmity
of the flesh being the cause of Paul's detention and
preaching in Galatia, not his condition during his
preaching) ; compare also John vi. 57 ; Eom. iii. 25
(8<a Tj/v Ticipeaiv, because of the pretermission or
passing by) ; 1 Cor. vii. 5. The distinction between
(Wo, " away from" { = al), ek, "out of," v-n-6, "from
under," " by," -n-apa, " from beside," is often disre-

358 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
garded. The same is true of the difference between
VTTO, which signifies the reraote agency or source,
and Bia, which. designates the instrumental agency
or channel, as in quotations from the Old Testa
ment, M'hich are always traced bj' the evangelists
and apostles to God or the Holy Spirit through
Moses and the prophets — e. g., Matt. i. 22 (to prt^iv
VTTO TOV Kvpiov Bia roil ttjoo^jjtou) ; ii. 5, 17, 23-; iii. 3 ;
iv. 14, etc. In 2 Cor. v. 20, virsp Xpiarov, " in behalf
of Christ," is falsely rendered "in Christ's stead"
(as if it were avrl).
{d) The same inaccuracy meets us in the render
ing of pronouns, conjunctions, and adverbs. " But "
is used indiscriminately for aXXa, yap, eav, u pij,
EKToc, hr fiivToi, eav pij, povov, ovv, TrXijv. The con
nective St {and and but) is rendered indifferently by
" and," " now," " but," " then," " nevertheless,"
" moreover," ". notwithstanding," or dropped alto
gether. In Gal, ii. 20, the Greek Zw Bi ovke'tj iyw
requires the rendering: "It is no longer I that live,
but Christ liveth in rae;" but the Authorized Ver
sion reads : " Nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but
Christ liveth in rae." In Paul's Epistles the whole
arguraent soraetiraes turns on the proper distinction
betweeri the logical and illative apa, apa ovv (so then),
the adversative aXXa (but), and the simple continua
tive or retrospective ovv (then). The last is John's
favorite narrative, particle, and denotes the natural
or providential sequence of events ; but the English
Version indiscriminately uses for it " and," " and
so," "then," "so then," "so," "now then," "there
fore," " wherefore," " truly," " verily," " but." Eu-

TUE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 359
iewg, which is Mark's favorite adverb, and M'ell
expresses the rapidity of his motion, is variously
rendered " straightway," " irainediately," " forth-
witli," "as soon as," "anon," " by and by," "shortly."
{e) Not only has biblical philology made enormous
progress, and been carried alraost to a state of per
fection in the nineteentb century, all other depart
raents of biblical learning — geography, natural his
tory, archaeology, critical introduction, and exegesis
proper — have advanced in proportion, and shed new
light on many a passage which could but obscurely
be rendered in the seventeenth centuiy.
3. King James's translators adopted and professed
the false principle qf variation, by M'hich a large
number of artificial distinctions are introduced;
The first and last duty of a translator is faithfully
and idiomatically to reproduce the original, especial
ly in dealing with the Word of God. Moreover,
the Greek language is rich enough to give ample
margin for every style of composition. Many of
the useless or misleading variations of the Author
ized Version no doubt arose from the separation of
the translators into half a dozen separate companies.
The final revising coramittee failed to harraonize
thera, and attempted to justify the result in the
Preface, without saying a M'ord about their error in
the opposite direction.'
¦ "Another thing," saj-s Dr. Smith, towards the close, "we think good
to admonish thee of, gentle Eeader, that we have not tied ourselves to au
uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure
would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned
men somewhere have been as exact as they could that waj'. Trulj-, that

360 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
Within proper liraits variation is justifiable. We
do not advocate a mechanical uniformity of render-
we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before,
if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some
words that be not of the same sense everywhere), we were especially care
ful, and made a conscience according to our duty. But that we should
express the same notion in the same particular word — as, for example, if
we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it
intent ; if one where journeying, never travelling ; if one where think, never
suppose; if one where ^ain, never ache; if one where yoy, never gladness,
etc. — thus to mince tbe raatter, we thought to savour more of curiosity
than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than
bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become
words or syllables? Whj- should we be in bondage to them ifwe may
be free? use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as com
modiously? A godly Father in the priraitive time shewed himself greatlj'
raoved, that one of newfangleness called Kpa^fiarov oKip-rrovg, though
the difference be little or none ; and another reporteth that he was much
abused for turning cucurbita (to wbich reading the people had been used)
into hedera. Now, if this happen in better times, and upon so small occa
sions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make
verbal and unnecessary changings. M'^e raight also be charged (by scoff
ers) with sorae unequal dealing towards a great nuraber of good English
words. For as it is written ofa certain great philosopher, that he should
say, that tbose logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped ;
for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire . so if we
should say, as it were, unto certain words. Stand up higher, have a place
in the Bible always, and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be ban
ished for ever, we migbt be taxed peradventure with St. James his words
— namely. To be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts. Add here
unto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,
and so was to he curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a
better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he, using divers
words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature, we, ifwe
will not be superstitious, may use the sarae liberty in our English versions
out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us.
Lastly, we have on one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who
leave the old ecclesiastical words and betake them to other, as when thev
put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation instead of Church , as also ou

THE AUTHORIZED VEESION, 361
ing, but M'ould allow considerable freedom in the use
of the cosmopolitan M'ealth of the English language,
especially of synonyms, in M'hich it abounds. Where
we have a Latin and a Saxon term for the same idea,
M'C may alternate as rhetoric and rhythm suggest —
e. g., between " act " and " deed," " chief " and
"head," "justice" and "righteousness," "liberty"
and " freedom," " power " and " might," " remis
sion" and "forgiveness," "celestial" and "heaven
ly," "mature" and "ripe," "omnipotent" and
"alraighty," "priestly" and "sacerdotal," "royal"
and " kingly," " terrestrial " and " earthly " — though
even in these exaraples usage has established slight
shades of difference.
But the Authorized Version varies siraply for the
sake of variation in a gi'eat raany cases M'here faith
fulness to the original absolutely requires the sarae
word. Thus alwvwq is rendered " eternal " and
"everlasting" in one and the same verse (Matt. xxv.
46) ; i-KioKo-KOQ is " bishop " in Phil. i. 1 and the
Pastoral Epistles, but " overseer " in Acts xx. 28,
where it designates the same office, and proves the
identity M'ith that of presbyter or elder (comp. ver.
the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their
Azymes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Prapuce, Pasche, and, a number of
such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken
the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the lan
guage thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that
the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it
may be understood even of the very vulgar."
The thrust at the " Puritans " and thc " Papists " is ungenerous and
unjust ; for the Puritan Eeynolds was the prirae raover of the Authorized
Version, and the Eheims Version was of great use to the translators.

362 .THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
17) ; ¦n-aaxa is correctly translated " Passover," but
in Acts xii. 4 "Easter" (which did not exist in .the
apostolic age); KuraXXayi) is now "atonement"
(Eora. V. 11), now " reconciling " (xi. 15), now " rec
onciliation " (2 Cor. V. 18, 19) ; TrojoaKXij-oe, when
used of the Holy Spirit, is "comforter" (John xiv.
16, 26 ; XV. 26 ; xvi. 7), but when used of Christ,
" advocate " (1 John ii. 1) ; "EXXtiv is now " Greek,"
now "Gentile;" awoKaXv\fjic; is "revelation," "raan
ifestation," "coming," and "appearing;" Stpovot; is
"throne" and "seat:" npuaKoppa is "offence,"
"stumbling," "stumbling-block," and "stumbling-
stone." AoyoQ has no'less than twenty-three ren
derings in the English Version, rinrog eight, 6)(Xoq
six, rraiBlaKri five, TroXtjuoe three, xpela nine, ^i(\»}
four, Karapyew seventeen, pevw ten, napiar-mpi six
teen, ^epw sixteen.
The principle of variation, M'ith its inevitable con
fusions, is carried even into proper names of persons,
countries, and places. Thus — if m'o include the
Old Testament — we have Agar and Hagar, Elijah
and Elias, Elisha and Eliseus, Gedeon and Gideon,
Isaiah, Esaias, and Esay, Jeremiah, Jereraias, and
Jeremy, Hosea and Osee, Jonah and Jonas, Judas,
Judah, and Jude, Korah and Core, Noah and Noe,
Zechariah and Zacharias. Jesus is substituted for
Joshua in Acts vii. 45 and Heb. iv. 8. Sometimes
the Latin or Greek, soraetiraes the English, termi
nation is used ; so that we have for one and the
same person both Marcus and Mark, Lucas and
Luke, Judas and Jude, Tiraotheus and Timothy.
As to countries and places, the English Version

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 363
varies between Grecia and Greece, Judea and Jewry,
Tyrus and Tyre, Sodom and Sodoraa.
4. On the other hand, the Authorized Version
fails in the opposite direction, and obscures or de
stroys important distinctions by using one and the
sarae M'ord for tw'o or raore Greek and Hebrew
words which convey different meanings.
Thus the M'ords " Hades " {i. e., the spirit-world)
and "Gehenna" (the place of the lost) are both
translated by "hell," which occurs twice as often
in the English New Testament as it ought. Every
little " demon " (Sa/juwv, Baipoviov) or evil spirit is
raised to the dignity of a " devil," although there is
but one StfjjSoXof. In like manner the difference
betM'een "the living creatures" M'orshipping before
the throne of God and " the,beasts " from the abj'ss
M'arring against Christ (the ^wa and ^npia oi the
Apocalypse, both rendered " beasts " ), between a
" crown " and a " diadem " {arecjiavoQ and BiaBripa),
"servants" and "bondmen" {Biokovoi and SoDXot, iu
the parable Matt. xxii. 1-14:, where the former are
angels, the latter men) is obliterated. The word
"child" is used for no less than seven Greek words
{(5pe(pog, babe, vjjttioc, infant, nali;, boy, slave, iraiBlov,
little child, TratSojotoi', little boy, rtKvov, child, vloc;,
son), "conversation" for three {avaarpo^ij, rpo-jrog,
TToXlrevpa), " world " for two {Koapoc and alwv, age),
"Godhead" for three {^eiorrig, to ^t'lov, S-eotijc),
" people" for four (Xaoc, Bfipog, e^voc, oxXog), " tem
ple " for three (vao'c, iejOoi', oIkoc), " light " for six
( (j>o)Q, ^e'770(;, Xii-xvog, Xa/nrag, (jiwaryp, ^wnappg ),
" repent " for two verbs {pieravoew, to change one's

364 THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION.
mind, and peTapiXop,ai, to regret, used of Judas,
Matt, xxvii. 3), " worship" for six {evaejSiw, Ssepairevw,
Xarpevw, TrpoaKvvew, aef5aZopai, aifiopai), " command"
for eight, " declare" for fourteen, "desire" for thir
teen, " depart " for twenty -one, "finish " for seven,
"mighty" for seven, "raiment" for five, "perceive"
for eleven, " receive " for eighteen, " servant " for
seven, "shame" for six, "take" for twenty-one,
" think" for twelve, "yet" for ten, "at" for eleven,
" by " for eleven, " even " for six, " even as " for
six, "afterward" for six, " wherefore" for twelve,
"therefore" for thirteen, "as" for tM'enty, "come"
for no less than thirty-two. We cannot plead the
poverty of the English language, which furnishes
equivalents for nearly all these varieties. The M'orst
effect of this carelessness is the obliteration of real
distinctions, some of thera quite iraportant and even
involving doctrine, and the obscuring of the idiosjm-
crasies of the sacred writers, every one of M'hom has
a style of his own, and has a claim to be correctly
represented bj' the translator.
PEEPAEATIONS FOE EEVISION.
The defects of the English Bible became raore
and rnore, apparent as biblical scholarship progressed
in the nineteenth century. First, an older and purer
text was brought to light by the discovery and pub
lication of manuscripts, and the critical researches
and editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, Westcott and Hort. Secondly, the Greek
and Hebrew graramars and dictionaries of Winer,
Buttmann, Gesenius, EM'ald, and the multiplying

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 365
philological commentaries of De Wette, Liicke,
Bleek, Meyer, Lange, Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Light
foot, and many others, furnished accurate render
ings, some of them being accompanied M'ith full
translations.' These textual, grammatical, and exegetical im
provements greatly stimulated the zeal for aew
translations of the whole Bible or the New Testa
ment in all Protestant countries. Among German
versions we mention those of Joh. Fr. von Meyer,
Stier, De Wette, H. A. W. Meyer, Weizsacker, and
the official revision of Luther's Version (New Testa-
' Canon Cook, the editor of The Speaker's Commentary (London, 10
vols., 1871-1882) claims for his contributors to bave "anticipated, both
iu conception and execution, the purpose of tbe Eevised Version now in
progress" (see Preface to the last volume, p. iv.). The resemblance is
naturally raost striking in those parts whicb were prepared by members
of the Revision Committee (John, Hebrews, James, Revelation). The
fortj' contributors to the English edition of Lange's Commentary (New
York and Edinburgh, 1864-1881, 25 vols.) rajght set up the same claim,
without any reflection upon the Revisers, and furnish ample proof.
Dr. Eiddle, a raember of the American New Testament Company, and a
contributor to Lange's Commentary, after a careful coraparison, arrived
at the conclusion that on an average more than one half (from fifty to
seventy-five per cent.) of the changes in the Eevised New Testament were
anticipated in the English translation and adaptation of that Coraraen
tary, which was nearly corapleted (in the New Testament part) before
the Revision began. The percentage increased as the Commentary went
on. In the Gospel of Matthew (published N.Y. 1864) it is about one
half; in the Gospel of John (published 1871) two thirds to three fourths;
in Eomans (1869), Galatians, and Ephesians (1870), more than two thirds.
See Dr. Riddle's detailed statement in the American edition of Dr. Rob
erts's Companion to the Revised Version, p. 190. I arrived at the same con
clusion by comparison during the progress of Revision. But while the two
Eevision Com mittees have carefidly used all available helps, they had to go,
like all conscientious scholars, through the whole process of investigation,
and to act on each change according to their own independent judgment.

366 THE AUTHOEIZED VERSION,
ment, 1876), The number of English versions is
much larger, and began as early as the last century
with Carapbell (the Gospels, 1788), Macknight (the
Epistles, 1795), Archbishop Newcome (1796). From
the present century we liave several translations
of widely differing merits, by Charles Thomson
(1808), John Bellamy (1818), Noah Webster (New
Haven, 1833), Nathan Hale (Boston, 1836, from
Griesbach's text), Granville Penn (London, 1836),
Edgar Taylor (London, 1840), Andrews Norton
(the Gospels, Boston, 1855), Eobert Young (Edin
burgh, 1863, very literal), Samuel Sharpe (1840,
6th ed. London, 1870, from Griesbach's text)^ L. A.
Sawyer (Boston, 1858), J. Nelson Darby (published
anonyraously, London, 2d ed. 1872), T. S. Green (Lon
don, 1865), G. E. Noyes (Professor in Harvard Uni
versity, Boston, 1869; 4th ed. 1870, published. by
the Araerican Unitarian ' Association ; a very good
translation frora the eighth edition of Tischendorf
in Matthew, Mark, and part of Luke ; Dr. Ezra Abbot
added a list of Tischendorf's readings from Luke
xviii. 10 to John vi. 2, 3, and critically revised the
proofs), Alf ord (London, 1869), Joseph B.Eotherhani
(London, 1872, text of Tregelles), Samuel Davidson
(prepared at the suggestion of Tischendorf from his
last Greek text, London, 1875), John BroM'u Mc
Clellan (the Gospels, London, 1875, on the basis of
the Authorized Version, but M'ith a " critically re
vised" text), the "Eevised English Bible," prepared
by four English divines (London, 1877),' the Gospel
' The Old Testament was translated by Dr. F. W. Gotch and Dr. Benja
min Davies ; the New Testament by Dr. G. A. Jacob and Dr. Samuel G.

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 367
of John and the Pauline Epistles, by Five Anglican
Clergymen (Dean Henry Alford, Bishop George
Moberly, Eev. Williara G. Humphry, Bishop Chas.
J. Ellicott, and Dr. John BarroM^ 1857, 1861). Nor
were these attempts confined to individuals. "The
American Bible Union," a Baptist association in
Araerica, spent for nearly twenty years a vast amount
of money, zeal, and labor on an improved version,
and published the New Testament in full (second
revision. New York and London, 1869, with " im
merse," "iraraersion," and "John the Immerser"),
and the Old Testament in part (with learned com
ments, the best of them by Dr. Conant, on Job,
Psalms, and Proverbs). Last, though not least, m'c
must mention The Variorum Bible for Bille Teach
ers, prepared by five Anglican scholars (T. K.
Cheyne, E. L. Clarke, S. E. Driver, Alfred Good
win, and W. Sanday), and published by Eyre and
SpottisM'oode, London, 1880 (in very small print) ;
it contains a judicious selection of various readings
and renderings frora the best critical and exegetical
authorities — we may say a full apparatus for the
reader of the English Version.
Of these translators. Dean Alford and the five An
glican clergymen came nearest to the Canterbury
Eevisers, as far as the idiora and the reverential
handling of the Authorized Version is concerned.'
Green. The work was published by the Queen's Printers, Ej-re and
Spottiswoode, London, 1877. The first two scholars are Baptists, and
members of the Old Testament Company of Revisers, but were engaged
in this work long before. Dr. Davies died 1875.
' The London Times, iu a semi-official article of May 20, 1881, saj'S of

3,68 THE AUTHOEIZED VERSION.
It may M'ell be said, without the least disparage
ment of the merits of the Eevising Committees, that
the great majority of the changes of text and version
(probably more than four fifths) which they finally
adopted had been anticipated by previous translators
and commentators, and had become the comraon
property of biblical scholars before the year 1870.
But these iraprovements M'ere scattered araong
raany books, and lacked public recognition. They
had literary worth, but no ecclesiastical authority.
They were the M'ork of individuals, not of the
Church. A translator may please hiinself, but not
many others M'ho are equally competent. " If there
was one lesson," says Dean Alford, "which the Five
Clergymen " (he being one of them) " learned from

this tentative effort of the Five (afterwards Four) Episcopal clergymen:
"The work was very favorably received both in England and America.
It received the commendation of Archbishop Trench, and was spoken of
in America by Mr. Marsh, in his Lectures on the English Language, as 'by
far the most judicious modern recension' that was known to hira. It
pasiied through several editions, and, though now almost forgotten, must
certainlj' be considered as thc germ of the present Revision. It showed
clearly two things — first, that a revision could be made witbout seriously
interfering with either the diction or rhythm of the Authorized Version ;
secondly, that a revision, if made at all, must be made bj' a similar co-op
eration of independent minds and by corporate and collegiate discussion.
A third fact also was disclosed, wbich hpd a salutary effect in checking
preraature efforts — viz., that, as these Revisiers themselves said, the work
was 'one of extrerae difficultj-,' and a difficultj- which thej- believed was
'scarcelv capable of being entirely surraounted.' And tbey were right.
The present Revision, good in the main as we certainly believe it will be
found to be, confirms the correctness of their experience. As we shall
hereafter see, there are difiiculties connected with a conservative revision
of the existing translation of thc Greek Testament tbat are practically
insuperable."

THE AUTHOEIZED VEESION. 369
their sessions, it M'as that no new rendering is safe
until it has gone through many brains, and been
thoroughly sifted by differing perceptions and
tastes." ' Ministers without number — learned, half-
learned, and illiterate, especially tho last class — un
dertook to mend King James's Version in the pul
pit, and to display a little Greek and less Hebrew,
at the risk of disturbing the devotion of their hear
ers and unsettling their belief in verbal inspiration.
The conservative and timid held back and feared to
touch the sacred ark. A very moderate attempt of
the American Bible Society to purify and unify the
text of the old version M'as defeated (1858), though
sorae improvements M'ere saved. Nevertheless, the
demand for an authorized emendation of the popu
lar versions steadily increased in all Protestant coun
tries, especially in England and the United States,
where the Bible is most deeply lodged in the affec
tions of the people. The subject of an authoritative
revision was discussed with great ability by W. Sel
wyn (1856), Trench (1858), Alford, Ellicott, Light
foot, and many others. Different opinions prevailed
as to the extent of the changes, but the vast majority
deprecated a new version, and desired siraply such
a revision of the time-honored old version as would
purge it of acknowledged errors and blemishes,
conform it raore fully to the original Greek and
Hebrew, adapt it to the language and scholarship of
the present age, and be a new bond of union and
strength among all English-speaking churches.
' Prefiice to his Revised Version of the New Testament, p. vi.
24

370 THE EEVISED VEESION.
This is the object of the Anglo- American Eevision
movement, whicii began iu 1870, and M'ill be com
pleted' in the present year (1883), or, at all events, in
the year 1884.
King James's Version can never recover its for
mer authority, for revolutions never go backward.
It is slowly but surely declining, and doomed to a
peaceful death and honorable burial; but it will rise
to a new life of usefulness in the Eevision that is, or
that is to come. Its imperfections will disappear,
its beauties and excellences M'ill remain.

CHAPTEE EIGHTH.
THE EEVISED VEESION.
Literature.
I. English Editions.
The I New Testament | of | our Lord and Saviour \ Jesus Christ | trans
lated out ofthe Greek: | being the Version set forth A.D. 1611 | compared
wilh the most andent authorities and revised | A.D. 188K | Printed for the
Universities of \ Oxford and Cambridge \ Oxford | at tim University Press \
1881. The same issued under the same title frora the Cambridge Univer
sity Press.
The work was published Maj' 17, 1881, in various styles and at various
prices, from sixteen dollars down to fifteen cents, and sold in enormous
quantities. The University editions are copj'righted in the British do
minions and have the approval of the American Coramittee, which im
ported a memorial edition in the best style of paper and binding, for dis
tribution amoug subscribers.
The University Presses have also issued, in various sizes. The Parallel
Neio Testament, giving the Authorized Version and the Eevised Version
in parallel columns, and " The Parallel New Testament, Greek and English
(188'2)." The last is the most convenient for the student of the Greek
Testaraent. The Oxford edition gives the Greek text of the Eevised
Version, by Archdeacon Palmer ; the Cambridge edition gives the Greek
text (Beza's) of the Authorized Version, by Dr. Scrivener, on one page,
with one column blank for readings ; and both give on tbe opposite page .
the Authorized Version and the Revised Version in parallel columns.
II. American Editions.
In the absence of an authorized American edition and an international
copyright there appeared in rapid succession over thirty reprints, one (by
photographic process) even a few hours after the publication of the Eng
lish edition. Some of these reprints are exact reproductions of the Uni
versity editions ; some are Americanized, and reverse the Appendix ; some

372 THE EEVISED VEESION.
have introduction and notes ; some have the Old Version in parallel col
umns or on corresponding pages; some are remarkably correct; some
full of blunders. I mention the following editions from rtiy collection :
Harper & Brothers, New York, 1881. Three editions ia different sizes,
one in Pica, Demy Svo (pp. 652), which precisely corresponds to the
Oxford edition except that the American, renderings of specific passages
are printed as foot-notes, and the fourteen changes of classes of passages
are printed on the page preceding the text. (The Harpers have also
published from English plates the two voluraes of Westcott and Hort's
Greek Testament, and a Greek-English Testament, giving the Greek text
with the Revised Version on opposite pages.)
FoBDS, Howard, & Hulbert, New York, 1881 (Long Primer, crown
Bvo). Edited by Rev. Roswell D.Hitchcock, D.D., with a Preface. The
readings and renderings, both general and specific, of the American Cora
mittee are incorporated with the text, and " while " is twice substituted
for " whiles." The first edition was defective and cancelled ; the second
is carefully done. The editor saj'S in the Preface (p. x.): " Probably this
Revision will not be accepted just as it is, in either form. But in all the
essentials of close and faithful rendering, it will be recognized as an im
mense improveraent upon the King James Revision of nearly three hun
dred years ago, which must now begin to be laid aside. And as to the
points of difference between the two Companies of Revisers, the renderings
preferred by the American Revisers will, in most cases, be considered more
exact and self-consistent than those preferred by their Anglican brethren."
Rufus Wendell ("Minister of the Gospel"), Albany, N. Y., 1882
(pp. 616). Called " Student's Edition." It has several ingenious and
convenient peculiarities, showing what is common to the Revision and
Authorized Version, and, bj' diacritical marks and foot-notes, what is
peculiar to each. At the end is given a Numerical Suraraarj', showing the
number of chapters, paragraphs, verses, and words in each book of tbe
Authorized Version and Eevised Version.
. HuBBABO Brothers, Philadelphia, 1881. With Introduction of 119
pages. The same publishers issued an Americanized edition by Rev. Dr.
Henry G. Weston and Bishop William R. Nicholson, who state in the Pref
ace : " It is certain that the Araerican suggestions have received the almost
universal approval of Araerican Christians. There can be no question that
if the Revision comes into general use in this country, it will be in the^
form preferred by the Araerican Coraraittee."
American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1881. Witb
tliis prefatory notice ; " In this edition the changes suggested by the

THE REVISED VERSION. 373
American Committee have been incorporated into the text. The English
preferences will be found in the Appendix. No other changes have been
made, except that the spelling of a few worda, such as 'judgement,'
' cloke,' etc., have been conformed to tbe American usage."
People's Edition. The Revised New Testament, Emhradng the Com
plete Text of Ihe Revised Verdon ; also, a Condse History of this Revision
und of previous Versions and Translations. Edited hy Frands S. Hoyt,
D.D., American Editor of Angus's Handbook ofthe Bible. With more
than one hundred engravings. New York : Phillips & Hunt, 1881
(Methodist Episcopal Book Concern).
PoRrER & Coatks, Philadelphia, 1881 and 1882. Comparative Edition.
The Authorized Version and the Revised Version in parallel columns.
Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1882. Teachers' Edition. The read
ings of the American Appendix introduced into the raargin, and the
parallel passages (selected from Bagster's Reference Bible and Scripture
Treasury) printed in full. Edited by W. F. Crafts.
Dodd, Mead, & Co., New York, 1881. Two editions, one with the
Authorized Version and the Revised Version on opposite pages.
American Tract Society, New York, 1881. Same as Dodd and
Mead's. Other editions by Lee & Shepard (Boston) ; Lothrop & Co. (Bos
ton) ; Henry Bill Publishing Company (Norwich, Conn.) ; A. J. Hol
man & Co. (Philadelphia, several editions) ; Ziegler & Co. (Philadelphia
and Chicago) ; Scammell & Co. (St. Louis) ; Leggo Brothers & Co.
(New York} ; George Ml'xro (in the " Seaside Library," New York,
1881, with Tischendorf's Tauchnitz edition of the Authorized Version);
E. Worthington (New York) ; American Book E.\change (New York,
'defunct) ; Call, Calkins, & Co. (Chicago)) etc., etc.
III. Concordances of the Revised Version.
A Complete Concordance to ihe Revised Version of llie New Testament,
embracing ihe Marginal Readings of llie English Revisers as well as those
ofthe American Commitiee. By John Alexander Thoms. London (W.
H. Allen & Co., 13 Waterloo Place), 1882. (Small 4to, pp. 532.) Repub
lished from English plates by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1883.
This Concordance is " published under the authorization of Oxford and
Cambridge' Universities." It contains a brief Preface with tbe following
reraark (p. vi. sq.) : " I have included the more iraportant of the marginal
readings of the English Revisers as well as those of the American Com
raittee. And here I raay venture to regret that the Revisers, while alter-

374 THE EEVISED VEESION.
ing so much, have not gone a little further, many of the marginal read
ings being manifestly superior to those of the accepted text. The Ameri
can notes are also, most of them, very valuable, and deserve far better
treatment than to be relegated to the end of the book without so much as
a reference mark in the text to indicate their existence." But this re
flection is unjust. The English Eevisers are not to be blamed for carrying
out an arrangement with the American Committee.
The Student's Concordance to the Revised Version 1881, of ihe New Tes
tament ofour Lord and. Saviour Jesus Christ. Compiled upon an Original
Plan, shewing the changes in all words referred to. London and Derby
(Bemrose and Son. 441 pages). Eepublished frora English plates by
D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1882.
The compilers say in the Preface that they " began this work, conscious
of the defects of the Authorized Version, yet with a predilection for it in
the raain," but came to " a growing appreciation of the value " of the
Revised Version, " as carrying within itself the evidence that it is a
translation of a purer text, by the hands of a company of devout and
more able men than has ever before been joined together for a like pur
pose." The Concordance includes a Genealogical Table of the principal
early editions of the Greek Testament and their connection with the
Version of 1611, a list of oraitted words of the Authorized Version, and of
new words in the Revised Version. A convenient feature of this edition
is the addition of the corresponding words of the Authorized Version,
whicb facilitates the comparison, showing the superior consistency of the
Revised Version. The American Appendix is entirely ignored, but the
Appletons have properly added it at the close of their edition.
What is still needed in this line is a Critical Gr-eek and Comparative
English Concordance ofthe New Testament (or a revised and enlarged edir
tion of Hudson— Abbot). Such a work should give, in the alphabetical
order of the Greek words, the rendering of both the Authorized Version
and the Revised Version. IV. Books on the Revision.
The Eevision literature is very large, and constantly growing.
A. Works published before the publication of the Eevised Version,
but with reference to the Eevision :
The essays of Archbishop Trench (The Authorized Version of the
Neiv Testament in Connection with some Recent Proposals for ils Revision,
revised ed. Lond. 1859), Bishop Ellicott (Considerations on the Revision
of the English Version of the New Testament, Lond. 1870), and Dr. (now

THE EEVISED VEESION: 375
Bishop) Lightfoot (On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, 2d ed.
Lond. 1871); authorized American edition, in 1 vol., with introduction
by Philip Schaff, New York (Harpers), 1873. AU tbese authors are
members of tbe Eevision Committee. The Introduction of the Araerican
editor was several times separately published by the American Revision
Comraittee as a programme of their work.
William Millig.vn (Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism irt
Aberdeen, Member of tbe N. T. Revision Company-) and Alex. EoEEins
(Professor of Ilumanitj', St. Andrews ; Member of the N. T. Revision Com
pany-) : The Words ofthe New Testament as A llered by Transmission and
Ascertained by Modem Criticism. Edinburgh, 1873 (262 pages).
W. Millar Nicolson, M.A., D.S.C. (Edinb.) : Classical Revision ofthe
Greek New Testament Tested and Applied on Uniform Prindples, wilh
Suggested Alterations ofthe English Version. London (Williams and
Norgate), 1878 (149 pages).
A nglo-A merican Bible Revision, by merabers of the American Revision
CoMMrrTEE. Philadelphia (American Sundaj--School Union) and New
York (42 and 44 Bible -House), 1879. Second ed., revised, 192 pages.
Contains nineteen short essays by as raany American Revisers on various
aspects of the Eevision then going on. It was twice republished in
England, bj' Nisbet & Co., and by the " London Sunday-School Union,"
under the title : Biblical Revision, its Necessity and Purpose. London (56
Old Bailey), 1879 (186 pages).
B. Works published after the publication of, the Revision (1881).
(a) Friendly criticisms by members of the Eevision Companies and
others. Alex. Eobeicts, D.D. (Professor of Humani tj', St. Andrews; Member
of the N. T. Revision Corapany) : Companion to the Revised Version of
the New Testament. London, 1881 (Cassell, Petter, Galpin, & Co.). With
Suppleraent by a Member of the American Committee of Revision
[P. Schaff]. New York (published by Cassell, Petter, Galpin, & Co.,
and jointly by Funk & Wagnalls), 1881 (213 pages).
FP.EDERICK Field, M.A., LL.D. (Member of tbe O. T. Revision Cora
pany): Otium Norvicense. Notes, on Select Passages ofthe Gr-eek Testa
ment. Oxford, 1881. Scholarly and able.
The New Revision and its Study. By Members of Ihe A merican Revision
Commitiee (Drs. Abbot, Riddle, Dwight, Thayer, Kendrick, Crosby).
Reprinted from " Sundaj'-School Times," Philadelphia, 1881 (107 pages).
Dr. Samuel Nejvth (Princ. New College) : Lectures on Bible Revision,
London, 1881.

376

THE EEVISED VEESION.

B. H. Kennedy (Canon of Ely; Hon. Fellow of St. John's Cullege,
Cambridge; Member of the N. T. Eevision Company) : The Ely Lectures
OH the Revised Version ofthe New Testament. Lond. 1882 (xxi. and 165
pages). Three Sermons on the Interpretation of the Bible, on the Ee
vised Text, and on the Revised Version, with three Appendices, a prefa
tory Letter to Dr. Scrivener, and a Postscript against the attack of tbe
" Quarterly Reviewer." " The furor theologicus," says Canoii Kenned v
(p. 155), " never amuses, it only saddens rae. I know what it has done
in the ages ; I see what it is doing in the present day ; I dread what it
may do in the tiraes that are coming."
The Revisers and the Greek Text ofthe New Testament. By Two Mem
bers of the New Testament Company [Bishop Ellicott and Archdeacon
Palmeis]. London (Macmillan & Co.), 1882 (79 pages). A semi-official
vindication of the Greek text of tbe Revisers against the assault of the
" Quarterly Review." Calra, dignified, and convincing.
. Edwaud Byron Nicholson, M.A.: Our Nevr New Testament. .An
Explanation ofthe Need and a Criticism ofthe Fulfilment. London (Riv-
ingtons), 1881 (80 pages). Favorable, but advocates further revision.
Bishop Alfred Lee (of the Diocese of Delaware, Member of the N. T.
Revision Corapanj-) : Co-operative Revision of Ihe New Testament. New
York, 1882. Contains a valuable list of changes due to the American
Coramittee. Dr. Charles Short (Professor in Colurabia College, New York, and
Member of the N. T. Revision Companj') : The New Revision of King
.lames' Revision ofthe New Testament. Several articles in " The Ameri
can Journal of Philologj'," edited by Gildersleeve, Baltimore, 1881 and
1882. The second paper is a careful and rainute examination of the re
vision of St. Matthew.
C. J. Vaughan, D.D. (Dean of Llandaff, and Master of the Temple,
Meraber of the N. T. Revision Corapany) : A uthorized or Revised ? Ser--
mons on Some of tlie Texts in which the Revised Version Diff'ers from ihe
A uthorized. London (Macmillan & Co.), 1882 (xviii. and 335 pages).
The passages discussed in these sermons are 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; John v. 35,
36, 39, 40 ; xvii. 2, 11, 24 ; Luke xxi. 16-19 ; Col. ii. 18, 23 ; Phil. ii. 5-10 ;
Heb. X. 19-22; Rom.v.18,19; Col. iii. 1-4; John vi. 12; lPet.i.lS;
Heb. xii. 17 ; Eph. v. 1 ; John v. 44 ; Matt. xxv. 8 ; Acts ii. 24 ; Rev. xxii.
14; Eph. iii. 14, 15. The distinguished author advocates favorable action
of the Anglican Churcb before the Revision is adopted by Dissenters and
Americans. " There are not wanting indications " (he says. Preface, p.
xvii.) " of n probable acceptance by the American people on the one

THE REVISED VEESION. 377
hand, and by the great English Nonconformist bodies on the other, of
the Revised Version, in the formatiou of which, by au act of simple jus
tice, they have been admitted to an honorable participation. No rais
fortune could be raore lamentable, no catastrophe is more earnestlj' to be
deprecated, than that which should destroy the one link of union which
has hitherto bound together the English-speaking race, amidst whatever
varieties of place or thought, of government or doctrine — the possession
of a common Bible. Hitherto there has been one intelligible sense, at
all events, in which we could speak of transatlantic or even of non-con
forming merabers of the one Church of England. A heavy blow will
have been struck at this unity of feeling and worship, if unhappily the
time should ever arrive when the race shall have its two Bibles— more
especially if it shall corae to be known that the Bible of America and of
the Nonconformist is far nearer in accuracy, however it may be in beautj',
to tbe original Word itself, than the Bible teiiaciou.sly clung to by the
English Episcopalian."
Rev. W. A. Osborne (Rector of Dodington) : The Revised Version ofthe
New Testament. A Critical Commentary with Notes upon the Text. Lon
don (Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co.), 1882 (200 pages). Mostly favorable.
"I was struck, as all candid critics must be, with the greater accuracj' of
the text and tbe wonderful fidelity of many of the renderings, and felt
proud of the triumph of English scholarship, notablj- in the Epistles to
the Eomans and Corinthians. . . . While, with others, I was startled at
first by the great number of minor alterations and transpositions, I found
that in most cases the Revisers were justified by the concurrent testi
mony of MSS., versions, and Fathers, and that in many of the attacks
made upon tbem, there was either gross exaggeration, or a curious igno
rance of the idioms of the Greek and Hebrew languages" (Preface, v. aud
vi.). Then the author goes on to object to "light inaccuracies or incon
sistencies." W. G. Hu.MPHRY, B.D. (Vicar of St. Martin-in-tbe-Fields, Prebendary
of St. Paul's Cathedral, and Member of the N. T. Revision Company) :
A Commentary on the Revised Version of ihc New Testament. Lon
don and New York (Cassell, Petter, & Co.), 1882 (xxi. and 474 pages).
Notes, stating briefly and clearly the reasons for the changes that have
been made iu the Authorized Version frora Matthew to Revelation, with
constant reference to the renderings of the earlier English versions. A
useful book, but the Preface contains sorae curious raistakes — e. g., that
Tischendorf "presented the Sinaitic Bible", (which he never owned) " to
the Czar of Russia" (p. xi.). The Araerican Appendix is ignored.

378 THE EEVISED VEESION.
(6) In opposition to the Revision.
[Dean John W. Burgon, B.D.] : Three Articles on New Testament
Revision in the London "Quarterly Eeview" (John Murray) for October,
1881, January and April, 1882. Announced for separate publication
under the author's name. A sweeping condemnation of the latest critical
scholarship, as well as of the oldest MSS. of the Greek Testament. By
far the most vigorous and unsparing attack on the Eevised Version.
See above, pp. 119 sq. and 293 sqq.
Sir Edmund Beckett: Should the Revised New Testament be A uthorized?
London (John Murray), 1882 (194 pages). Condemns without raercy the
English style of the R. V., and prefers the " beasts," Rev. iv. 6.
G. Washington Moos, F.R.S.L. : The Reviser^ English. With Photo
graphs ofthe Revisers. A Series of Criticisms, Showing ihe Revisers' Fio-
lations of the Laws of ihe Language. London (Hatchards, Piccadilly),
1882 (145 pages). Republished, New York (Funk & Wagnalls), 1882.
Mr. Moon is tbe author of The Dean's English versus Dean Alford's Essays
on The Queen's English, and was answered by Alford in Mr. Moon's English,
to whicii Mr. Moon again replied. He severely criticises the Revision
according to the strict rules of modern grammar; but raost of the de
partures which he conderans are found in the old version and sustained
by classical usage. The book is arausing, and not without some good
points. F. C. CooK, M.A. (Canon of Exeter, and Editor of The Speaker's Com-
mentary) -. The Revised Version of ihe First Three Gospels Considered in
its Bearings upon the Record of our Lordes Words and of Incidents in his
Life. London (John Murray), 1882 (250 pages). Moderately and re
spectfully opposed. Canon Cook wrote also A Protest Against the Change
in the Last Petition ofthe Lords Prayer (London, 1881 ; 3d ed. 1882) ; to
which Bishop Lightfoot replied in defense of the masculine rendering of
roD wovrjpov ("the evil One"), in "The Guardian," London; Nos. 1866-
1868 (September, 1881). Canon Cook rejoined in A Second Letter to the
Lord Bishop of London, London, 1882 (107 pages).
T. H. L. Leaky (D.C.L., Oxford) : A Critical Examination of Bishop
Lightfoot's Defence ofthe Last Petition in the Lord's Prayer. London (11
Southampton Street), 1882 (23 pages).
Robert Youkg, LL.D. (author of the A nalytical Concordance of the
Bible) : Contributions io a New Revision, or A Critical Companion to the
New Testament. Edinburgh (G. A. Young & Co.), 1881 (390 pages). He
notices the alterations of the Revisers and the American Appendix, but
gives more literal and uniform renderings as " a help to a future Eevision."

THE EEVISED VEESION. 379
Dr. S.C. Malan: Seven Chapters ofthe Revision of 188i revised; and
Select Readings, etc., revised. London, 1881-82.
Dr. G. W. Samson : The English Revisers' Greek Text Shown io he
Unauthorized Except by Egyptian Copies Discarded by Greeks, and to be
Opposed to the Historic Text of all Ages and Churches. Cambridge, Mass.
(132 pages). A curious anachronisra. The learned author advocates
"the true light" of Hug, "the master watchman," and opposes "the
false lights" of the "misleading Tregelles and the arabitious Tischen
dorf" (whose narae is invariably misspelled with ff).
(c) Friendly and unfriendly criticisms, mostly by divines of the Church
of England, appeared in two weekly periodicals :
Public Opinion, London (11 Southampton Street, Strand), from May 21
to December, 1881.
Christian Opinion and Revisionist (edited by Leary), London (Hatchards,
Publisher, etc., 187 Piccadilly), frora Jan. 7, 1882, to June 17, 188-2.
Besides, almost every religious newspaper and quarterly- review in the
English language for 1881 and 1882 had critical notices of the Revised
Version; notably so "The Quarterly Review," "The Church Quarterly
Review," " The Contemporary Review," " The Nineteenth Century,"
" The British Quarterly," " The Edinburgh Review," " Tbe Expositor,"
" The Homiletic Quarterly," " The Catholic Presbyterian," " The Presbj--
terian Quarterly Eeview," " The Bibliotheca Sacra," " The North Ameri
can Review," " The New-Englander," " The American Church Review,"
" The Baptist Quarterly," " The Methodist Quarterly Review," etc., etc.
Some of these review articles are by Sanday, Farrar, Newth, Angus,
Perowne, Stanley, Plumptre, Evans, G. Vance Smith, M. R. Vincent, War-
field, Gardiner, Daniel R. Goodwin, and other able scholars.
V. Historical.
Documentar-y History ofthe American Committee on Revision, Prepared
hy Order of the A merican Committee. In course of preparation. Not to
be published till after the completion of the work (New York, 1884).
A valuable (semi-official) contribution to the history of the English
Revision Committee is found in the London Times for May 20, 1881.

380 THE EEVISED VEESION.

TIIE ACTION OF THE CONVOCATION OF CANTEEBUET.
A new version of the Holy Scriptures for public
use was a rauch easier task in the days of King
James than in our age. Then English Christendom
was confined to one Church in a little island, and
under the sovereign rule of the crown ; now it is
spread over five continents, and divided into many
independent organizations. Then the rival versions
were but of recent date; now the version to be re
placed is hallowed by the memories of nearly three
centuries, and interwoven with the literature of two -
nations. To bring a new version within tlie reach
of possible success, it must not only be far better
than the old, but the joint •work of representative
scholars from the various churches of Great Britain
and the United States. In other words,^ it must
have an interdenominational, international, and in
tercontinental character and weiffht.
The obstacles in the way of such an undertaking
seeraed to be irremovable before the year 1870.
Nothing but a special providence could level tlie
mountains of old traditions and prejudices, of raod
ern rivalries and jealousies. But in that year the
Spirit of God emboldened the most conservative of
tlie English churches to venture upon the uncertain
sea of Eevision, inspired that Church with a large-
hearted and far-sighted liberality towards the other
branches of English-speaking Cliristendom at home
and across the ocean, and brought about a combina
tion of men and means such as had never existed
before in the history of the Bible, and as is not

THE EEVISED VERSION. 381
likely to be repeated for a long tirae to come. A
calra retrospect presents the origin of this raove
raent almost in the light of a raoral miracle.
The new Eevision was boru in tlie mother Church
of English Christendom. She made the Authorized
Version, and had an hereditary right to take the lead
in its improvement and displacement. She still
represents the largest membership, the strongest in
stitutions, the richest literature, among those eccle
siastical organizations which have sprung frora the
Anglo-Saxon stock. She would never accept a Ee
vision from any otiier denomination. She has all
the necessary qualifications of learning and piety to
produce as good a version for our age as King
James's Eevisers produced for their generation. It
is to be regretted that the Cliurch of England could
not act as a unit in this matter, and that the Con
vocation of York refused to co-operate. But the
movement had to begin somewhere, and it did begin
in the strongest and most influential quarter, and
with as much authority as can be expected in the
present state of that Church. No royal decree, no
act of Parliament, could nowadays inaugurate such
a work of Christian scholarship, which is destined
to be used as far as the dominion of the English
language extends.
The Upper House of the Convocation of Canter
bury, under the impulse of some of the ablest and
wisest divines, started tlie long- desired Eevision
raovement on the 10th of February, 1870, by adopt
ing a cautious resolution oflfered by tiie late Dr. S.
Wilberforce (Bishop, first of Oxford, then of Win-

382 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Chester), and seconded by Dr. Ellicott (Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol), to the eifect —
"That a Committee of both Houses be appointed to report on the
desirableness of a Eevision of the Authorised Version of the Old and New
Testaments, whether by raarginal notes or otherwise, in those passages
where plain arui clear errors, whether in tbe Hebrew or Greek text
originally adopted by the translators, or in the translations made frora
the same, shall on due investigation be found to exist."
In accordance with this resolution a report was
laid before the Convocation of Canterbury ^at its
session in May, 1870, and was accepted unanimously
by the Upper House and by a large majority of the
Lower House. The report is as follows :
" 1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version of
the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.
"2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal
renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessaiy to insert
in the text of the Authorised Version.
"3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new
translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except where,
iu the judgraent of the most corapetent scholars, such change is necessarj-.
" 4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language eraployed
in the existing version be closely followed.
" 5. That it is desirable that Convocation should norainate a body of
its own merabers to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at
libertj' to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to what
ever nation or religious body they may belong."
OEGANIZATION AND EULES OF THE BEITISH COMMITTEE.
These are "the fundamental resolutions" adopted
by Convocation. The work now passed entirely
into the hands of the Commission which was appoint
ed by that body, and consisted of eight Bishops' and
' The Revisers appointed by the Upper House, May 8, 1870, were the
Bishops of Winchester (Samuel Wilberforce), St. David's (Connop Thirl-

THE EEVISED VEESION. 383
eight Presbyters,' witb power to enlarge. They held
the first meeting a few weeks afterwards. May 25
(the Bishop of Winchester presiding), effected an or
ganization, and took the following act/on :
"Eesolved: I. That the committee, appointed by the Convocation
of Canterbury at its last session, separate itself into two companies, the
one for the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament, the
other for the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament.
"II. That the company for the revision of the Authorised Version of
thc Old Testament consist of the Bishops of St. David's, Llandaff, Ely, and
Bath and Wells, and of the following members from the Lower House —
Archdeacon Eose, Canon Sehvyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr, Kaj-.
"III. That the companj' for the revision ofthe Authorised Version of
the New Testament consist of the Bishops of Winchester,'' Gloucester and
Bristol,' and Salisbury,'' and of the following members from the Lower
House, the Prolocutor," the Deans of Canterbury'' and Westminster,' and
Canon Blakesley.
" IV. That tbe first portion of the work to be undertaken by the Old
Testament Company be tbe revision of the Authorised Version of the
Pentateuch. "V. That the first fortion nf the work to be undertaken by the New
Testament Company Le the revision of the Authorised Version of the
Synoptical Gospels. ,
"VI. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join the
Old Testament Company :

wall), Llandaff (Alfred OUivant), Gloucester and Bristol (Charles John
Ellicott), Salisbury (George Moberly), Elj' (Edward Harold Browne, af
terwards successor of Wilberforce in the See of Winchester), Lincoln
(Christopher Wordsworth, who soon afterwards withdrew), Bath and Wells
(Lord Arthur Charles Hervej-).
' Appointed by the Lower >House : The Prolocutor (Edward Henry
Bickersteth), the Deans of Canterbury (Alford) and Westminster (Stan
ley), the Archdeacon of Bedford (Henry John Rose), Canons Selwyn
and Blakesley, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kav.
' Dr. Wilberforce. ^ Dr. Ellicott. * Dr. Moberlj-.
' The Very Eev. Edward Henry Bickersteth. ' Dean Alford.
' Dean Stanley.

38i

THE EEVISED VEESION.

Alexander, Dr. W.
L.
Chenery, Professor.
Cook, Canon.
Davidson, Professor A.
B.
Davies, Dr. B.
Fairbairn, Professor.

Field, Eev. F,
Ginsburg, Dr.
GoTCH, Dr.
Harrison, Archdea
con.
Leathes, Professor.
McGill, Professor.
Payne Smith, Canon.'

Perowne, Professor J.
H.
Plumptre, Professor.
Pusey, Canon.
Wright, Dr. (British
Museum).
Wright, W. A. (Cam
bridge).'

Angus, Dr.
Brown, Dr. David.
Dublin, Archbishop of.
Eadie, Dr.
Hort, Eev. F.J. A.
Humphry, Rev. W. G.
Kennedy, Canon.
Leb, Archdeacon.

( Balliol

"VII. That tbe following scholars and divines be invited to join the
New Testament Company :
Lightfoot, Dr.
Milligan, Professor.
Moulton, Professor.
Newman, Dr. J. H.
Newth, Professor.
Roberts, Dr. A.
Smith, Rev. G.Vance.

Sco'i'T, Dr.
College).
Scrivener, Rev. F. H.
S'T. AxDREw's, Bishop
of.
Tregelles, Dr.
Vaughan, Dr.
WestCott, Canon.'

' Afterwards Dean of Canterburv.
" Principal Douglas, of tbe Free College of Glasgow, Professor Weir, of
tbe University of Glasgow, Professor W. Robertson Smith, of the Free Col
lege of Aberdeen, and Professor J. D. Geden,of the Wesleyan Institute of.
Didsbury, were subsequently added to the Old Testament Company.
Bishops Thirlwall and Ollivant, Canon Selwyn, Archdeacon Rose, Drs.
Fairbairn, McGill, Weir, and Davies died during tbe progress of the work.
Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Plumptre resigned.
Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook decUned the invitation.
^ Cardinal Newtnan declined. Dr. Tregelles (d. 1875) was prevented
by feeble health from attending, but was present in spirit by bis critical
edition of the Greek Testaraent, to whicii he had devoted the strength'
of bis life. Dean Alford died a few months after the beginning of the
work (Januarj', 1871) which lay so near his heart, and which be did' so
much to set iu motion ; his place was supplied by Dean Merivale (the
historian of the Roman empire), who, after attending a few sessions, re
signed, and was succeeded bj' Professor (afterwards Archdeacon) Palmer, ¦
of Oxford. Bishop Wilberforce attended only once, and died in 1873.
Dr. Eadie attended regularlv, but spoke seldom, and died in 1876, after
completing his History of the English Bible. The total nuraber of work-

THE EEVISED VEESION. 385
"VIII. That the general principles to be followed' by both companies
be as follows :
" 1. To introduce as few alterations as possible in the text of the Au
thorised Version, consistently with faithfulness.
" 2. To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the
language of the Authorised and earlier English versions.
"3. Each company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once
provisionally, the second tirae finallj-, and on principles of voting as here
inafter is provided.
"4. That the text to be adopted be that for wbich the evidence is
decidedly preponderating; and that when the text so adopted diilfers
from that frora which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be
indicated in the margin.
" 5. To make or retain no change in the text on the second final revision
by each corapanj', except iwo thh-ds of those present approve of the same,
but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities.
" 6. In every case of proposed alteration that maj' have .given rise to
discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next meeting, when
soever the same shall be required by one third of those present at the
meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the next
raeeting. "' 7. To revise the headings of chapters and pages, paragraphs, itajios,
and punctuation.
"8. To refer, on the part of each company, when considered desirable,
to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or abroad, for
tbeir opinions.
" IX. That the work of each company be coramunicated to the other
as it is corapleted, in order that there may be as little deviation from
luiiformity in language as possible.
"X. That the special or by rules for each company be as follows:
" 1. To make all corrections in writing previous to the meeting.
"2. To place all the corrections due to textual considerations on the
left-hand raargin, and all other corrections on the right-hand margin.
"3. To transmit to the chairman, in case of being unable to attend, the
corrections proposed in the portion agreed upon for consideration.
" May 25tli, 1870. S. Winton., Chairman." '
ing raembers of the New Testament Company varied from twenty-four
to twentj'-eight.
' Sarauel Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester. The general and special
25

386 THE REVISED VEESION.
These resolutions vvere faithfully carried out, with
the exception of the revision of the chapter-head
ings (viii. 7), which were omitted, as involving too
much direct and indirect interpretation. They will
probably be supplied in future editions by the Uni
versity Presses.
Frora the list of names, it will be seen that the
Coraraittee, in enlarging its raerabership, has shown
good judgment and eminent impartiality and catho-
Ticity. Under the fifth resolution of the Convoca
tion of Canterbury it was erapowered " to invite
the co-operation of any erainent for scholarship,
to whatever nation or religious lody they may le-
long." The Committee accordingly solicited the
co-operation of some of the ablest and best-known
biblical scholars, not only from all schools and par
ties. of the Church of England, but also from the
other religious denominations of England and Scot
land. There is a comraonwealth — we raay say, an
apostolic succession — of Christian life and Christian
scholarship which transcends all sectarian boundaries,
however useful and necessary these may be in their
place. The Committee proved to be reraarkably
harraonious. , The raerabers bo-operated on terms
of equality, but the Episcopalians had, of course,
the majority, and a bishop presided over each of the
two companies. The whole number of Eevisers in
1880 amounted to fifty-two (27 in the Old Testa
ment Company, 24 in the New Testaraent Com
pany). Of these thirty-six were Episcopalians (18
rules had been previouslj' prepared in draft bj' Bishop Ellicott, and were
accepted with but slight modifications.

¦THE EEVISED VEESION. 387
in the Old Testament Companj', 18 in the New Tes
tament Company), seven Presbyterians, four Inde
pendents (or Congregationalists), two Baptists, two
Wesleyans (or Methodists) and one Unitarian;'
THE WOEK OF THE BEITISH COMMITTEE.
The British Committee, thus enlarged and organ
ized, began its work after an act of divine worship
in Westminster Abbey (in the Chapel of Henry
VII.) on the 22d of June, 1870. Every session was
opened with united prayer. The two corapanies
worked independently, except for occasional con
ference on matters of comraon interest. They
did not divide the books among sub - committees,
but each Corapany assuraed its whole share, thus
securing greater uniforraity and consistency than
could be attained under the less judicious plan of
the version of King James. The New Testament
Company met in the historic Jerusalem Chamber,
the Old Testament Company likewise, unless the
meetings were held simultaneously, when it assem
bled in the Chapter Library of the same venerable
deanery, under the shadow of Westminster Abbey.
The New Testament Company held regular
monthly raeetings of four days each (except in
August and September) for ten years and a half.
The first Eevision occupied about six years; the
second, about two years and a half ; the remaining
time was spent " in the consideration of the sugges
tions frora America on the second Eevision, and of
' See the list in Appendix III.

388 THE EEVISED VEESION.
many details and reserved questions." The Com
pany held in all one hundred and three monthly
sessions, embracing four hundred and seven days,
with an average daily attendance of sixteen out
of twenty-eight (afterwards of tvventy-four), mera
bers. Four of the original nuraber were reraoved
by death before 1880.' The chairman (Bishop Elli
cott) was tlie most faithful attendant, being absent
only for two days — a veiy rare instance of con
scientious devotion to a long and laborious work.
The last meeting was held at tlie Church of St. Mar-
tin-in-the-Fields, on St. Martin's day, November 11,
1880, and, as Dr. Scrivener says, " will be one of the
most cherished remembrances of those who were
privileged thus to bring to its end a purpose on
which their hearts were fondly set." The Preface
is dated from " Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster
Abbey, llth November, 1880."
There is a special poetic and historic fitness in
the assembly-room where this important work was
done. " What place more proper for the building
of Sion," we may ask with Thomas Fuller, wlien
speaking of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,"
" than the Chamber of Jerusalem, the fairest iu the
Dean's lodgings, where King Henry IV. died, and
where these divines did daily meet together?" The
Jerusalem Chamber is a large hall in the Deanery,
plainly furnished with a long table and chairs, and
ornamented with tapestry (pictures of the Circum-
' Wilberforce, Alford, Tregelles, Eadie. Dean Stanley died a few
months after the publication (July, 1881).
-^ Church Iliitoi-y of Britain, book xi., cent, xvii., A.D. IG'IS.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 389
cision, the Adoration of the Magi, and the Passage
through the Wilderness). It was originally the with
drawing room of the abbot, and has become famous
in romance and history as the cradle of many
memorable schemes and events, from the Eefor
mation down to the present time. There, before
the fire of the hearth — then a rare luxury in Eng
land — King Henry IV., who intended to make a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem, died March 20, 1413.
When informed of the name of the chamber, he
exclaimed, "... Bear me to that chamber; there I'll lie;
In that Jerusalem shall Harry die."
There, under the genial warmth of the fire which
had attracted the dying king, the grave Puritan
Assembly prepared, during the Long Parliament,
its standards of doctrine, worship, and discipline, to
be disowned by England, but honored to this day by
the Presbyterian churches of Scotland and America.
There the most distinguished biblical scholars of
the Church of England, in fraternal co-operation
with scholars of Dissenting denominations, both
nobly forgetting old feuds and jealousies, •were en
gaged month after inonth, for more than ten years,
in the truly catholic and peaceful work of revising
the comraon version of the Bible for the general
benefit of English-speaking Christendom.'
¦ I venture to insert an interesting incident connected witb that room.
At the kind invitation of the late Dean Stanley, the delegates to the
International Council of Presbyterian Churches, then meeting in London
for the formation of a Presbyterian Alliance, repaired to the Jerusalem
Chamber ou Thursday afternoon, July 22, 1875, and, standing around the

390 THE EEVISED VEESION.
The Eevision of the New Testament was finished
just five hundred years after the first complete trans
lation of the whole Bible into English by Wiclif,
whose meraory was celebrated in that year. The
Eevision of the Old Testament is -still in progress
on both sides of.the Atlantic, and will probably be
completed during the present year, or certainly
before the close of 1884.
The Eevision of the Apocrypha was not in the
original scheme, but was afterwards intrusted by
the University Presses to a special company, com
posed of members from the two British Companies,
who are now engaged in the work. " It is well
known," says Dr. Scrivener,' " to biblical scholars
that the Apocrypha received very inadequate atten
tion from the Eevisers of 1611 and their predeces
sors, so that whole passages remain unaltered from
long table, were Instructed and entertained by the Dean, who, modestly-
taking " the Moderator's chair," gave them a graphic historical description
of the chamber, interspersed with humorous remarks and extracts from
Baillie. He dwelt raainly on the Westrainster Assembly, promising, in
his broad-church liberality, at sorae future tirae to honor that Asserably
by a picture on the northern wall. Dr. McCosh, of Princeton, as Modera
tor of the Presbyterian Council, proposed a vote of thanks for the courtesy
and kindness of the Dean, which waa, of course, unaniraously and heartily
given. The writer of this expressed the hope that tbe Jerusalem Cham
ber may yet serve a still nobler purpose than any in the past: — namelj-,
the reunion of Christendom on the basis of God's revealed truth in the
Bible; and he alluded to the fact that the Dean had recently (in the
Contemporary Review, and in an address at St. Andrew's) paid a high
compliment to the Westminster Confession by declaring its first chapter,
on the Holy Scriptures, to be one of the best, if not the very best, sym
bolical statement ever made. — From Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, i.
749 sq.
' In the Homiletic Quarterly for October, 1881, p. 612.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 391
the racy, spirited, rhythmical, but hasty, loose, and
most inaccurate version (being the first published
in England) made by Coverdale for his Bible of
1536." ¦ ¦ a'meeican co-opeeation.
Soon after the organization of the English Com
raittee an invitation was extended to Araerican
scholars to co-operate with them in this work of
comraon interest. The first suggestion of Amer
ican co-operation was made in the Canterbury Con
vocation before the work began, and was favorably
received.' The' invitation was unsolicited, and was
no doubt prompted by genuine feelings of kind
ness and courtesy, whicii characterized all the sub
sequent correspondence.'' It was at the same tirae
good policy. For the American churches have
too much self-respect and sense of independence to
' a well-inforraed writer in the London Times, May 20, 1881, says : " On
July 7, 1870, it was moved in the Lower House of Convocation by the
present Prolocutor (Lord Alwvne Compton) that thc Upper House should
be requested to instruct the Committee of Convocation ' to invite the co
operation of some American divines.' This was at once assented to by
the Upper House. It was, we believe, afterwards unofficially agreed
tbat Bishop Wilberforce and the Dean of Westrainster should undertake
to act for the Coraraittee in opehing coraraunications — the Bishop with
tbe Episcppal Church, the Dean with the leading raembers of other com
munions. The result of this was that towards the close of 1871, two com
mittees were formed in America to communicate with the two English
Companies on the rules that had been already laid down in this countrj'."
" An eminent prelate, a member of the Old Testament Companj', wrote,
in a letter dated Julj' 22, 1873 (published after his death) : " I do not ex
pect a great deal from the American Committee." Perhaps the majority
of his colleagues shared in this sentiraent at the time. But the English
estimate of Araerican scholarship increased as the work advanced, and
seven years later was handsomely acknowledged in the Preface.

392 THE EEVISED VEESION.
accept for public use a new version of the Bible in
which they had no lot or share.
The correspondence was opened by a letter frora
Bishop Ellicott, chairraan of the IS'ew Testament
Company, who authorized the Eev. Dr. Angus, oije
of the Eevisers, on his visit to the United States in
August, 1870, to prepare the way for official action.
Dr. Angus conferred with American scholars, and
asked one of them to draw up a plan of co-operation
and to suggest a list of names. This plan, together
with a list that contained neariy all the Araerican Ee
visers and a few others, was in due time subraitted to
and approved by the Britisli Cpmmittee. In view
of the great distance, it was deemed best to organize
a separate committee, that should fairly represent
the biblical scholarship of the leading churches and
literary institutions of the United States. Such a
Committee, consisting of about thirty members, was
forraally organized, December 7, 1871, and entered
upon active work on October 4, 1872, after the First
Eevision of the Synoptical Gospels was received from
England. It was likewise divided into two Com
panies, which met every raonth (except in July and
August) in two adjoining rooras rented for the pur-.
pose in the Bible House at New York (but without
any connection with the Araerican Bible Society),'
and co-operated with their English brethren on the
same principles and with the intention of bringing
' The American Bible Society is by its constitution forbidden to circu
late any other English Bible except the Authorized Version. This con
stitution, however, may be changed by the Society whenever the Ee
vision becomes authorized by the action of the churches.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 393
out one and the same Eevision for both countries.
Ex -president Dr. Woolsey, of New Haven, was
elected permanent chairman of the New Testament
Company, Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, chair
man of the Old Testament Corapany. Dr. Schaff,
of New York, was chosen president, and Dr. Day, of
New Haven, secretary, of the whole Committee, and
they were charged with the management of the
general interests of the two Corapanies, which lield
joint meetings from time to tirae. The former was
to conduct the foreign correspondence. The Araeri
can and British Coraraittees exchanged the resnlts
of their labors in confidential communications. The
Preface, which hails frora the Jerusalem Chamber,
thus describes the mode of co-operation :
"Our communications with the Araerican Committee have been ofthe
following nature. We transmitted to them from time to time each
several portion of our First Eevision, and received from them in re
turn their criticisras and suggestions. These we considered with much
care and attention during the tirae we were engaged on our Second Ee
vision. We then sent over to thera the various portions of the Second
Revision as they were completed, and received further suggestions, which,'
like the former, were closely and carefully considered. Last of all, we
forwarded to them the Revised Version in its final form ; and a list of
those passages in which they desire to place on record their preference of
other readings and renderings will be found at the end of the volume.
We gratefully acknowledge their care, vigilance, and accuracy ; and we
humbly pray that their labors and our own, thus happilj- united, may be
permitted to bear a blessing to both countries, and to all English-speaking
people throughout the world."
If it be asked, then, by what authorit}- the Araeri
can Committee was appointed, we can only say,
by the authority of the British Comraittee, vested
in it from the beginning by the Convocation of

394 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Canterbury, under the fifth resolution. The Ameri
can churches were not consulted, except the Prot
estant Episcopal Church, which, for reasons not
stated, declined to act officially." The selection was
carefully made from expert biblical scholars (mostly
Professors of Greek and Hebrew), and with an eye
to a fair representation of the leading denomina
tions and theological institutions of the country,
within the necessary limits of convenience for
united work. As there is no established or national
Church in America, and all denorainations are equal
before the law, it was impossible to give the Epis
copal Church, whicii is far outnumbered by several
other churches, the same preponderance as it has in
the English Comraittee, but several bishops were in
vited to take part, one of whora accepted, and proved
one of the most faithful and valuable members.
To secure the co-operation of scholars frora the
far East, West, and South, who could not be ex-
' Bishop Wilberforce, as chairman of tbe Revision Coramittee of the
Convocation of Canterburj', addressed a letter, dated August 7, 1871, to
the senior bishop, requesting the American bishops to take part in the
Revision ; but the House of Bishops, at the triennial convention held in
Baltiraore, October, 1871, passed the resolution offered by the Bishop of
New York, that " this House, having had no part in originating or or
ganizing the said work of Revision, is not at present in a condition to
deliver any judgraent respecting it," etc. (See Jour-nal of the General
Convention for 1871, pp. 358 and 615 sq.) The Bishop of New Tork was
afterwards requested to propose Episcopal divines for the Committee, but
he likewise declined; whereupon the whole task of organizing the Ameri
can Comraittee was intrusted by the English Committee to the gentleman
who had previously, at the request of Dr. Angus, drawn up a plan of co
operation and suggested a list of naraes. The Documentary History, to be
issued by the Araerican Coraraittee after the completion of the whole
work, will contain the ofiicial correspondence in full.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 395
pected to make monthly journeys to NewYork, the
American Committee wished also to elect a nuraber
of corresponding merabers, but the British Com
mittee declined .to furnish confidential copies for
the purpose.
With this exception the Comraittee is as large
and representative as could well be secured. Ex
perience and public sentiraent have fully approved
the choice.'
There never was a more faithful and harmonious
body of competent scholars engaged in a more im
portant, work on the American Continent. Eepre
sentatives of nine different denominations — Episco
palians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists,
Methodists, Eeformed, also one Lutheran, one Uni
tarian, and one Friend — have met from raonth to
month and year to year, at great personal incon
venience and without prospect of reward, to dis
cuss innumerable questions of text and rendering.
They never raised a sectarian issue. Their simple
purpose was to give to the people in idiomatic
English the nearest equivalent for the Greek and
Hebrew Scriptures, on the basis of the idiom and
vocabulary of the Authorized Version. Christian
courtesy, kindness, and genuine catholicity of spirit
have characterized all their proceedings. They will
ever look back upon these raonthly raeetings in the
Bible House with unraingled satisfaction and thanks
to God, who gave them health and grace to go
through such a difficult and laborious task with un-
' See the list of members in Appendix III.

396 THE EEVISED VEESION.
broken and ever-deepening friendship. After con
cluding their work (October 22, 1880), the members
of the New Testament Company parted with min
gled feelings of joy and sadness. Four of their
number (the Eev. Drs. Horatio B. Hackett, Henry
B. Sraith, Charles Hodge, and Professor Jaraes Had
ley) had died before tbe work was corapleted ; two
(the Eev. Dr. Washburn and the Eev. Dr. Burr)
died soon afterwards; others are near the end of
their earthly journey, and will soon join their cora
panions where faith is changed into vision and
earthly discords are lost in the harmony of the one
kingdom that has no end.
The funds for the necessary expenses of travel
ling, printing, room-rent, books, and clerical aid were
cheerfully contributed by liberal donors, who re
ceived in return a handsome inscribed memorial
copy of the first and best University edition of the
Eevised Version. The financial manageraent was in
the hands of well-known Christian layraen of New
York, whose final account will be a part of the Docu
mentary History now in course of preparation.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE.
The Constitution of the American Committee
was first submitted in draft by its president to
several leading merabers of the English Comraittee,
in the suraraer of 1871, and adopted, with some
modifications, at the raeeting for organization on
Deceraber 7, 1871. It is as follows :
" I. The Araerican Coraraittee, invited by the British Committee en
gaged in the Revision of the Authorized English Version of the Holy

THE EEVISED VEESION. 397
Scriptures to co-operate with them, shall be composed of biblical scholars
and divines in the United States.
" II. This Committee shall have the power to elect its officers, to add
to its number, and to fill its own vacancies.
" III, The officers shall consist of a President, a Corresponding Secre
tary, and- a Treasurer.' The President shall conduct the official corre
spondence with the British Revisers. The Secretary shall conduct the
horae correspondence.
"IV. New members of the coraraittee and corresponding raembers
must be nominated at a previous meeting, and elected unanimously by
ballot." " V. The American Committee shall co-operate with the British Cora
panies on the basis of the principles and rules of Revision adopted by the
British Coraraittee.
"VI. The American Committee shall consist of two Companies, the
one for the Eevision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, the
other for the Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testaraent.
"VII. Each Company shall elect its own Chairman and Recording
Secretary. " VIII. The British Companies will submit to the Araerican Com
panies, from time to time, such portions of their work as have passed the
First Revision, and the American Corapanies will transmit their criticisms
and suggestions to the British Companies before the Second Eevision.
" IX, A joint meeting of the Araerican and British Companies shall
be held, if possible, in London, before final action.
" X. The Araerican Coraraittee to pay their own expenses, and to bave
the ownership and control of the copj'right of the Eevised Version in the
United States of America." '
' The first treasurer was one of the Revisers, Professor Short; but
after the organization of a Finance Committee of laj'men, tbey elected oue
of their nuraber, Mr. Andrew L. Taj'lor, who has acted as treasurer evei
since. He is also treasurer of the Araerican Bible Society.
" No corresponding merabers were norainated, owing to the adverse
action of the British Committee, above alluded to (p. 395).
' The last article, as far as it refers to the publication of the Revision,
was abandoned by tbe American Coraraittee in the course of negotiations
with the British Universities, as will be shown below.

398 THE EEVISED VEESION.
THE EELATION OF THE AMEEICAN AND ENGLISH COM
MITTEES, AN^D THE AGEEEMENT WITH THE UNIVEE-
SITT PEESSES.
The Americans, as may be inferred frora the pre
ceding Constitution, accepted the invitation and
entered upon the work with the understanding on
their part that they were to be not simply advisers,
but fellow-revisers, like the new meinbers of the
English Committee who had been appointed by the
original commission. May 25, 1870, under the fifth
resolution of Convocation. No respectable scholars,
abundantly engaged in useful work, would have been
willing to bestow ten years' labor on any other
terms; nor would the American churches, repre
senting a larger population than that of England,
ever accept a Eevision of their Bible in whicii they
had no positive share and influence. The friends of
Eevision contributed towards the expenses, expect
ing it to be in some way a joint work of both Com
mittees. The whole American comraunity seeras to
have been under the sarae irapression, and this ex
plains the enorraous demand for the Eevised New
Testament in this country, which has no parallel
in the histoVy of the book trade.
The natural mode of exercising the full right of
membership is by a vote on the changes to be
adopted. But absent merabers have no vote in the
British Comraittee, and the intervening ocean made
it irapossible for the two Coraraittees to meet jointly.
The ninth article of the American Constitution con
templates "a joint meeting" to be held in London

THE EEVISED VEESION. 399
before final action, " if possible." But such a meet
ing was found impracticablxj, and was superseded by
another and better arrangement.
Here, then, was a difficulty, which made itself felt
at an early stage of tho work. It led to delicate
negotiations with the British Coramittee, and the
Delegates and Syndics of the University Presses of
Oxford and Cambridge, who in the meantime had
acquired from the British Eevisers the sole right of
publication, in consideration of paying all their ex
penses. The British Companies declared, in July,
1873, that they would " attach great weight and
importance to all the suggestions of the Araerican
Comraittee," and give thera " the raost careful con
sideration," but that " they are precluded by the
fundaraental rules of their Constitntion as well as
by the terras of their agreeraent with the University
Presses frora admitting any persons, not merabers
of their body, to take part in their decisions."
The Araericans were unwilling to proceed on that
basis, and sent one of their members to London to
advocate their literary rights as fellow-Eevisers, and
to represent to the English brethren that much of
the success of the enterprise with the American
public depended upon a clear understanding of this
point. After a full and manly exchange of views
in the Jerusalem Chamber, the British Companies
proposed a plan (July 15, 1875) to consolidate the
English and the American Committees into one
corporation, by the appointment of four American
Eevisers as merabers of the English Eevision Com
panies, and vice versa.

400 THE EEVISED VEESION.
This plan was certainly all that the Americans
could ask or wish, and more than they could expect,
considering that the English began the work and
had the larger share of responsibility. The pro
posal of the British Companies is the best evidence
of their sincere desire to continue the connection
on the most honorable and liberal terms.
The University Presses, which have sovereign
control over all questions involving the publication,
agreed to ratify the proposed plan, but made a cora
raercial condition whicii the Americans were, unable
to accept at the time, and so the plan fell through.
For several months coraraunication was suspended,
and the American Comniittee went on independent
ly (revising Isaiah and the Epistle to the Hebrews).
But in July, 1876, the University Presses of their
own accord courteously reopened correspondence,
and invited the Americans to make any proposal,
promising to take it into respectful consideration.
The negotiations resulted at last in an agreement,
dated August 3, 1877, which is probably the best
comproraise that could be made in justice to all the
parties concerned. It is in substance as follows :
The English Eevisers promise to send confiden
tially their Eevision in its various stages to the
American Eevisers, to take all the American sug
gestions into special consideration before the con
clusion of their labors, to furnish them before pub
lication with copies of the Eevision in its final forra,
and to allow them to present, in an Appendix to the
Eevised Scriptures, all the reraaining differences of
reading and rendering of importance, which the

THE EEVISED VEESION. 401
English Committee should decline to adopt ; while,
on the other hand, the American Eevisers pledge
themselves to give their moral support to the author
ized editions of the Universitj' Presses, with a view
to their freest circulation within the United States,
and not to issue an edition of their own, for a term
of fourteen years.
By this arrangement the Americans secured the
full recognition of their riglits as fellow-Eevisers.
In a joint meeting in London the changes proposed
in the Appendix would probably all be voted down,
for the English Committee is much more numerous,
and knows best what public opinion and taste in
England require and can bear. On the other hand,
thc Americans may claim the same advantage as
regards the views of their countrymen. In consid
eration of this honorable concession, .they were quite
willing to forego any other advantage.
The American Committee at one time, as the last
article in the Constitution shows, considered the
expediency of securing a copyright for the purpose
of protecting the purity and integrity of the text
against irresponsible reprints, and also as a means
of defraying the necessary expenses of the M-ork, in
the expectation of making an arrangeraent with an
Araerican publisher sirailar to that which the Eng
lish Coraraittee raade with the University Presses,
instead of relying on voluntary contributions of
friends. Beyond this they had no interest in the
question of copyright. But after careful discus-
sion the Araerican Eevisers concluded to abandon
the plan of legal protection, even for the Appendix,
26

402 THE EEVISED VEESION.
(which is exclusively their own literary property),
and to give the Eevised Scriptures free to the
American public. The University Presses, vyliich
are the authorized publishers of King James's Ver
sion in Great Britain, have the best possible facil
ities of publication, and have issued the Eevised
New Testament in a variety of forms and with the
greatest typograpliical accuracy. They have, more
over, a claim on the public patronage, in view of
their large outlay, not only for printing and pub
lishing, but also for the payment of the expenses
($100,000) of the British Coraraittee, which they
assumed at a time when the success of the enter
prise was altogether uncertain. The American Ee
visers, having paid their own expenses from volun
tary contributions, are under no obligation to any
publishing firra.
The new version, then, as to copyright, stands
precisely on the same footing with the Authorized
Version ; it is protected by law in England, it is free
in America.
The American Eevisers have been blamed in sorae
quarters for abstaining from the publication of an
authorized American edition, and exposing even their
own Appendix to inevitable piracy and mutilation.
But would they not be still more blamed if they
had given any publisher, even for a very short term,
a monopoly over all the rest? The plan adopted
is undoubtedly the best for the widest and cheap
est possible circulation of the Eevised Scriptures
throughout America and the world. The only in
convenience is the confusion which arises frora the

THE EEVISED VEESION. 403
unliraited license of unauthorized publications in
America; but the Authorized Version is exposed
to the sarae danger, and the success of any edition
depends ultimately on its accuracy. Before many
years the American Bible Society may issue a stand
ard edition of the new version for those who prefer
it to the old. In the meantime the University edi
tions of Oxford and Cambridge, which cannot be
surpasfeed in accuracy and beauty, are the only au
thorized standards sanctioned by the British and
Araerican Coraraittees. PUBLICATION.
Tuesday, the 17th of May, and Friday, the 20th
of May, of the year 1881, deserve to be reraerabered
as the publication days of the Eevised English New
Testament — the first in England, the second in the
United States. They forra an epoch in the history
of the Bible, and furnish a valuable testimony to its
absolute sovereignty among literary productions.
In those days the Gospel was republished to the
whole English-reading world with the aid of all the
modern facilities which the printing-press and the
telegraph could afford. The eagerness of the pub
lic to secure the Eevision, and the rapidity and ex
tent of its sale, surpassed all expectations, and are
without a parallel in the history of the book trade.
In the year 30 of our era the Great Teacher ad
dressed twelve disciples and a few thousand hearers
on the hills of Galilee and in the temple court at
Jerusalem, while the Greek and Eoman world out
side of Palestine were ignorant of His very exist-

404 THE EEVISED VEESION.
ence; in the year 1881, He addressed the sarae
words of truth and life in a fresh version to mill
ions of readers in both heraispheres. Who will
doubt that the New Testaraent has a stronger hold
upon mankind now than ever before, and is be
yond all comparison the raost popular book araong
the two raost civilized nations of the earth ?
On the 17th of May, the Bishop of Gloucester
and Bristol laid the first copy of the Eevised New
Testaraent before the two houses of the Convoca
tion of Canterbury asserabled in Westminster, and
then, in an address to the House of Bishops, gave a
succinct history of the Eevision.
On the same day the sale began, but it was im
possible to supply the demand. " Orders for a mill
ion Oxford copies " ( including tbe orders frora
America) had been received before publication.'
Probably the same number was ordered from the
Cambridge University Press ; for a telegram from
London, May 21, 1881, reported the sale of " two
million copies of the Eevised New Testament" in
that city. In the United States the sale of the
University editions began on the 20th of May be
fore day-break, and the pressure to the salesrooms
in New York and Philadelphia was without a prec
edent. The New York agent of the Clarendon
Press sold 365,000 copies of the Oxford edition
before the close of the year, raostly during the first

' This I learned from Mr. Henry Frowde, the London agent of the
Clarendon Press. After the appearance of American reprints the demand
ftir EngUsh copies greatly diminished.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 405
few days.' Messrs. Lippincott & Co., the agents
of the Cambridge Press, sold about 80,000 copies
in Philadelphia, and Messrs. A. J. Holman & Co.
about 30,000 in the same city (besides 20,000 of
their own issue).
To this sale of the English editions must be added
the sale of the American reprints. A few days
after publication the book was reproduced in differ
ent shapes. Edition followed edition, and before
the close of 1881 thirty or raore American reprints,
good, bad, and indifferent, were in the market. One
firm sold during the summer over 100,000 copies,
another 65,000 copies.
It is probably not too much to say that within
less than one year three million copies of the book,
in all editions, -were actually bought and more or
less read in Great Britain and America.
This estiraate does not include the immense cir
culation through the periodical papers of the United
States, which published the Eevised New Testament
in whole or in part, and did for two or three weeks
the work of as many Bible Societies. Two daily
papers in Chicago {The Tribune and The Times) had
the book telegraphed to them from New York, and
sent it to their readers two days after publication, at
a distance of nine hundred and seventy-eight miles."
' So the agent informed rae. His annual sales of the Oxford editions
of the Authorized Version average 150,000.
' The Tribune eraployed for the purpose ninety-two compositors aud
five correctors, and the whole work was completed in twelve hours. The
Times boastfully says of its own issue : " Such a publication as this is
entirely withcut precedent. It indicates on the one hand the wide-spread
desire to see the Eevised Version, and on the other tbe ability of The

406 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Such facts stand isolated and alone in the whole
history of literature, and furnish the best answer to
the attacks and sneers of modern infidelity, which
would fain raake the world believe that the Bible
is antiquated. All the ancient and modern classics
together, if they were reissued in improved. editions
and translations, could not awaken such an interest
and enthusiasm. England and America have hon
ored theraselves by thus honoring the Bible, and
proved its inseparable connection with true freedom
and progress. NOTES.
The following extracts from New York papers give a lively impression
of the extraordinary sensation caused by the publication of the Eevised
New Testament. Making due allowance for the unpleasant, but inevita
ble, admixture of the commercial aspect, there still remains an unusual
araount of religious interest, which even the most secular papers had to
acknowledge. Curiosity had been raised to the highest pitch by the
silence of the Eevisers. With the exception of the premature publica
tion of the principal changes, by the indiscretion of a London newspaper
(Jan. 7, 1881), the public were kept ignorant of the character of the Revi
sion, in spite of repeated attempts of enterprising reporters in London and
New York to secure a copy. One such reporter ingeniously approached
the President of the American Comraittee by special raessenger from one
of the first hotels in New York, under the assumed name of Mr. Henry
Frowde, the London agent of the Oxford Press, who pretended to have
just arrived to superintend the sale, and requested the loan of a copy for
a few minutes before he could get access to his boxes on the steamer !
Times to supply the public with what is wanted. The Four Gospels, the
Acts of the Apostles, aud the Epistle to the Romans were telegraphed
from New Y^ork. This portion of tbe New Testament contains about oue
hundred and eighteen thousand words, and constitutes by manyfold the
largest dispatch ever sent over the wires. The remainder of the work was
printed from the copies of the Revised Testament received here last night."
See The Tribune and The Times, of Chicago, for May 22, 1881.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 407
Mr. Frowde was invited to tea, but failed to raake his appearance, and left
for unknown parts. From The N. Y. Herald, May 21, 1881.
"The publishing house of Thomas Nelson & Sons, corner of Mulberry
and Bleecker streets, was the scene of unusual excitement yesterday morn
ing. The firm are the agents in this country for the Oxford Bibles, and,
as raight naturally be inferred; their business is ordinarily decorous and
solemn. To say tbat this was reversed yesterday is saying very little.
Long before daylight the doors were opened for the delivery of the Ee
vised Testaraent, and at four o'clock the scene about the building was an
aniraated one. Trucks of all sizes and character were backed up around
the place, and truckmen discussed the situation in language that would
not have been, it is safe to say, entirely pleasing to the biblical revisers
had they heard it. Huge boxes were rolled out and carted away, the
vacancy left by each departing wagon to be filled at once by a new one.
This went on for hours with little or no abatement. The members of the
firra and the clerks and porters were utterly fagged out before noun ; but
the work went on until late in the day, when a rest was had by shutting
the doors, and letting all hands go horae until this morning.
"'THE BIBLE BY WHOLESALE.
" The orders yesterday aggregated about 175,000 copies, of various styles
and prices, and these were for the most part large orders, it being abso
lutely impossible to find time to attend to the smaller ones. The retail
prices of the hooks range from 15 cents to $16 ; and the firm state that
they were surprised at the unusual demand for the higher-priced and
finer bindings. So great was this demand that the first supply of tbese
finer books received from England was almost exhausted. The deraand
from city dealers was large, and included all of the various styles. Many
thousands of the books were shipped to the West, but the greatest num
ber of orders were received from the Eastern States. These orders were
mostly for a limited nuraber, at the lower prices, and it appears as if the
New England dealers intended to first satisfy themselves of the. selling
quality of the hooks before investing largelj'. The styles of the books
purchased were as follows: Nonpareil 32mo, paper cover, retails for 15
cents per copy; cloth, limp, cut flush, red edges, retailed for 20 cents.
Nonpareil 32mo, French morocco, gilt edges, 65 cents ; Venetian morocco,
limp, gilt edges, 80 cents; Turkey morocco, lirap, gilt edges, $1 75; Tur
key morocco, circuit, gilt edges, $2 50 ; Levant, $4. Brevier, 16mo, cloth,

408 THE EEVISED VERSION.
limp, red edges, 50 cents ; Levant, $5 25. Long primer, Svo, cloth, boards,
red edges, $1 ; Levant, $7 50. Pica, demy Svo, cloth, bevelled boards, red
edges, $2 50; Levant, $10. Pica, royal Svo, cloth, bevelled boards, red
edges, $4 ; Levant, $16. The largest order was for 15,000 copies and thc
sraallest one copj'.
"Almost with the break of day came men who wanted to buy single cop
ies. None were sold, and the demand, after a time, became so great that
the following sign was posted on the door : '
NO GOODS AT RETAIL,
" Even this did not have the desired effect in individual cases, though
it succeeded in keeping away the larger number of would-be purchasers.
The clerks raanaged to keep their tempers, though sorely tried by the
thousand and one questions put to tbem about tbe Testament and its
revision. . . . "the bible in w.vll street.
" It was certainly ari unaccustomed if not an unprecedented sight whicii
was Avitnessed iu Wall street yesterday morning, when a half-dozen enter
prising street venders appeared, carrying trays loaded with small and
neatly bound volumes, and shouting, ' Bibles, only a quarter !' ' The Re
vised New Testament for only twentj'-five cents !' The pedlers, who were
mostly active young men, were apparently very successful. The sidewalk
merchant who first took his stand at the corner of Wall aud Broad streets
was speedily surrounded by a crowd. Passers-by stopped first to investi
gate and then to invest ; and scores of brokers and bankers, young clerks
aud Stock Exchange operators, were seen to walk away witb a copy of the
book in their hands or bulging from their pockets. Some of the dealers
sold out all they had on their trays, and went away to return with a fresh
supply. Altogether, several hundred New Testaments must have been
disposed of in the neighborhood of the Stock Exchange during the daj'.
In fact, the book went off at such a rapid rate as to inspire one with the
suspicion that perhaps the brokers were about to get up a ' corner ' in the
Scriptures. "The novelty ofthe scene excited much comment. One old gen
tleraan, as he alighted from a cab in front of his banker's office, ex
claimed :
" ' Well, the millennium raust be at hand, sure enough ! I never ex
pectcd to live to see the Bible sold in Wall street. They need it here
badly enough. Lord knows ! Here, young man, I'll take two copies, just
to set a good example.' "

THE EEVISED .VEESION. 409
From The N. Y. Tribune, May 21, 1881.
"The sales ofthe Eevised Testaraent yesterday exceeded 300,000 cop
ies, and great eagerness was shown, by clergyraen in particular, to obtain
thera. The fact that a number of preachers propose to use the new ver
sion in their services to-morrow, proves that there is a strong disposition
to accept it promptly. It remaius to he seen, however, whether this dis
position will be general, or whether the revised text must win its way
slowly into the affections ofthe Chrisliau world, which has learned to re
gard the King James translation with almost as much reverence as if it
were itself inspired." From The N. Y. Times, May 22, 1881,
"The demand for the revised edition of the New Testaraent continued
with unabated activity all day yesterday. The street venders did a ,
thriving business in the cheap styles of binding, and the principal book
stores were thronged with purchasers. Mr. Thomas Nelson,' of Thomas
Nelson & Son, Bleecker Street, said that orders continued to fiow in on
pretty rauch the same scale as on Friday. He had been compelled to
decline new orders unless the persons ordering consented to wait tbeir
turns. He was constantly receiving telegraphic orders from all parts of
the country. One honse in Philadelphia telegraphed for five thousand
copies of one style, besides copies of other styles. ... In speaking of the
extraordinary demand for the book, he said that the efforts of publishers
and newspapers to obtain advance copies bordered on the ludicrous. It
was his belief that he could have got $5000 for a single copy as late as
twelve o'clock on Thursday night.
" The store of I. K. Funk & Co., Nos. 10 and 12 Dey Street, was crowded
all day yesterdaj'. Mr. Funk said that the retail trade and the demand
for job lots were even greater than on Friday. Especially reraarkable
was tbe demand of street venders. Some of these men had sold as mauj'
as five hundred copies of the twentj--cent style up to two o'clock Saturday
afternoon." From The (New York) Independent, May 26, 1881.
"'Here's yer New Testament, jist out,' is the cry of the newsboy on
the street. This is the first time in the history of the world that the
Holy Scriptures were sold in this waj'. The deraand for tbe Revised
¦ [Mr. Nelson, who resides in Edinburgh, was represented by Mr. Garvin
Houston. — Ed.-]

410 THE REVISED VEESION;
Version, though not greater than was expected, is very great ; people
who had scarcely read a chapter in the King James Version buying copies
of the new book, 'jist out,' to examine it for themselves. Everywhere —
on the cars, on the ferry-boats, and in other public conveyances and
places— attentive readers of the revised book are to be seen ; and the
raost frequent question, when two friends raeet, is, ' Have you seen the
New Testament? How do j-ou like it ?' In church, and particularly in
the Sunday-school, copies of the new book were to be seen last Sundaj',
and a number of rainisters gave their views of it frora the pulpit. One
of the New York dailies says it will take the place of the dime novel for
a while on the news-stands."
From The New York Observer-, May 26, 1881.
"No event of raodern times has excited more universal interest among
the English-speaking nations than the publication of the Eevised New
Testament. The number of copies sold in England and in the United
States witbin a few days has been unprecedented in the historj' of books,
araounting in England to two millions, and in this countrj' to the extent
of the edition imported, whicii was 350,000. Already the book has been
reprinted, and various editions will be sold by tbe hundred thousand. In
addition to the sales at the book-stores and book-stands, the strange
spectacle was seen, on Friday and Saturday, of the New Testaraent, beau
tifully printed and handsomely bound, sold by volunteer colporteurs by
the hundred on Broadway and Wall Street, and in other marts of business.
The araount of attention it has received in private reading and in conver
sation is equally amazing. Whatever shall be the fate of the New Re
vision, it forms a new era in the history of tbe Bible, and shows the
universal and intense hold which the book of God has upon the minds, if
not the hearts, of the people."
From The American Bookseller, June 1, 1881.
" Philadelphia, May 26, 1881.
" The publication of the New Revision of the New Testament has been
attended witb more interest in this city than that of any other work ever
published. Tbe consignment to Messrs. J. B. Lippincott, who were the
agents of the Cambridge University Press, came in two lots, one by the
steamer Montreal into New York, and the other by the Lord Clive to the
port of Philadelphia. Those by tbe New Y'ork boat were not put on the
wharf till after twelve o'clock the morning of the 20th, and were delivered
at sunrise to New York parties by their brokers. Those by Philadelphia

THE EEVISED VEESION. 411
steamer arrived at their warehouse at noon on the 19th, and gave them
just tirae enough with their large force to pack and ship before eight
o'clock on the morning of the 20th. There was not much time to spare,
and some anxiety was felt that thej' would be too late for the day fi.xed
for publication.
" The reporters of the newspapers seeraed to vie with each other in
gathering the facts and fancies in relation to its publication. And in
these reports there is much to amuse, believe, and to be largely dis
counted. . . .
"Next in interest to the publication and sale of the Testament priuted
by the Universitj' is the enterprise among publishers and electrotj-pers in
the production of reprints. Fagan is raaking thirteen sets cf plates;
Fergusson, successor to S. A. George & Co., is making seven sets ; A. J.
Holman & Co. inform us that they will have three different repriut.s, and
will also issue it in quarto form with the Old Testament. The National
Publishing Company, Hubbard Bros., and Potter & Co. announce editions
to be sold only bj' subscription. Porter & Coates have ready The Com
parative Edition, embracing the New Revision and the King James
Version." It is proper to add that after this immense rush the sale of the Uni
versity editions and of all American editions fell off rapidly, and a reaction
took place in favor of the old version. This is due in part to the un
favorable criticisms on tbe Revision, and in part, as I ara inforraed by ono
of the leading Bible publishers, to " the great change in the tj'pographical
appearance and the substitution of paragraphs for the familiar verses."
He thinks "that the people would have accepted the changes in the
translation much more readily had the general appearance of the old
Bible been adhered to."
EECEPTION, CEITICISM, AND PEOSPECT.
The Eevisers, familiar with tbe history of pre
vious revisions . from Jerome's Vulgate down to
King James's Version, were prepared for a great
deal of opposition, though hopeful of ultiraate suc
cess. They well knew that their work was iraper
fect, and that it is irapossible to please all. They
themselves had to sacrifice their individual prefer-

412 THE EEVISED VEESION.
ences to the will of the majority.' A product of so
many minds and intended for so many churches
must necessarily be a comproraise, but for this very
reason is more likely to satisfy the general wants
and demands.
The extraordinary interest of the Anglo-Amer
ican public in the Eevision showed itself at once in
the nuraber and diversity of criticisms. Never was
any book, within so short a time, so much discussed,
reviewed, praised, and condemned by the press, from
the pulpit, in private circles, and public meetings.
In the language of a British scholar, " there never
was a time when the attention of so great a variety
of well-qualified critics has been concentrated on
the problem of the relation between the Greek text
and the English version, and the best way of repre
senting the one by the other." °
The tirst and the prevailing impression was one
of disappointment and disapproval, especially in
England. The expectations of the public were un
reasonable and conflicting. Many were in hopes
that the revision would supersede coraraentaries,
and clear up all the difficulties ; instead of that, they
found the sarae obscurities, and a perplexing nuraber
of raarginal notes, raising as raany questions of read
ing or rendering. The liberals looked for raore,
the conservatives for fewer, departures from the old
' The Bishop of Salisburj-, hiraself one of the Revisers, says (ifi his
Charge, 1882, p. 18): "The Version as it stands does not exhibit tlje real
judgment of any of the Revisers. Each one was, many times, outvoted in
points which he greatly valued."
' From " The Church Qiiarterly Eeview," London, Jannary, 1883, p. 345.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 413
version. Some wanted the language modernized,
others preferred even the antiquated words and
phrases, including the " whiches " and the " devils."
A few would prefer a raore literal rendering; but
a much greater number of critics, inclnding some
warm friends and even members of the Committee,
charge the Eevision with sacrificing grace and ease,
poetry and rhythm, to pedantic fidelity. The same
objection is made by literary critics who care more
for classical English than the homely Hebraistic
Greek of the Apostles and Evangelists. The only
point in which the adverse critics agree is opposition
to the new version as wholly unfit to displace the
old. The strongest condemnation and the most formi
dable assaults have come from conservative admirers
of the received Greek text and tlie Authorized Ver
sion. Most of thera had previously resisted all at
tempts at revision as a sort of sacrilege, and found
their worst fears realized. They were amazed and
shocked at the havoc made with their favorite notions
and pet texts. How many sacred associations, they
said, are ruthlessly disturbed ! How many edifying
sermons spoiled ! Even the Lord's Prayer has been
tampered with, and a discord thrown into the daily
devotions. The inspired text is changed and un
settled, the faith of the people in God's holy Word
is undermined, and aid and comfort given to the
enemy of all religion. We need not be surprised
at such talk, for to the great raass of English readers
King James's Version is virtually the inspired Word
of God. So for Eoman Catholics, the Vulgate of

414 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Jerorae, with all its blunders, occupies the place of
the original, and the voice of the infallible Church
or Pope is to them the very voice of God. Eeligious
prejudices are the deepest of all prejudices, and re
ligious conservatism is the most conservative of all
conservatisms. It may take a whole generation to
emancipate the mass of the people from the tyranny
of ignorance and prejudice. In all this opposition
we should not forget that its extent and intensity
reveal a praiseworthy attachment to the Bible. In
no other nation would a new version have met with
so many and such earnest protests as among the
English and Americans, for the simple reason that
there is not among any other people the same de
gree of interest in the book.
In the meantime, however, the Eevision has been
steadily gaining ground among scholars and thought
ful laymen who take the trouble to compare the
rival versions with the Greek original. This, of
course, is the only prOper test. With a few con
spicuous exceptions, the verdict of competent judges
has been favorable, and the force of the exceptions
is broken by the interaperance and bitterness of the
opposition. Whatever be the defects of the Ee
vision — and they are not a few — it is admitted to be
the most faithful and accurate version ever made for
popular use, and that it brings the English reader
far nearer to the spirit and words of Christ and his
Apostles than any other version. This is its chief
merit, and it alone is sufficient compensation for all
the labor and expense devoted to it. An able writer
frora the Church of England, after reviewing the

THE REVISED VEESION. 415
short history and large literature of tho Eevision
during the last eighteen months, emphatically de
clares his " unshaken conviction that, after all rea
sonable deductions have been made, the Eevisers
have earned the deep respect and gratitude of all
who can appreciate the iraportance of supplying the
English reader with an exact interpretation of tho
Word of God." '
Upon the whole, the Eevision is raore popular in
America than in England, although it is more an
English woric. Many ministers (especially among
Congregationalists and Baptists, who are not ham
pered by church authority) use it already in the
pulpit, either alone or alongside of the old ver
sion. The rising generation is familiarized with it
in Sunday-schools, Bible-classes, and through popular
comments. Eeligious periodicals present from week
to week the international lessons in both versions
in parallel columns; and the coraparison of the two
' In the Eeview above quoted, p. 345 ; compare the conclusion, p. 368,
where the critic protests "against the absolute indecorum of assaying the
work of these distinguished scholars with words of disrespect and con
tumely," and adds: " In all the qualities that are most requisite for such
an undertaking, they tower high above the heads of all but a very small
number among tbeir assailants. Fot their protracted, patient, generous
labors, they deserve the gratitude of all to whom God's Word is precious,
and who wish the Gospel to be proclaimed in England with the utmost
clearness which the most exact translation of the message can irapart."
To this may be added the judgment of Canon F.W. Farrar, who says
(in the "Contemp. Review" for March, 1882, p. 380) : "In spite of the
bitter attacks wbich have been made upon the version, it will come to
be regarded by ever-increasing numbers as one of the best boons which
has been bestowed upon them by the learning, the fearlessness, and the
faithfulness of the ripest scholars and divines whom the nineteenth
' century can boast."

416 THE REVISED VEESION.
is found stimulating and profitable. Even opponents
use the Eevision, and admit its value as a commentary.
It would be premature to predict the course of
the Convocation of Canterbury. It will not act. on
the Eevision before the Old Testament is completed.
Then three ways will be open — to reject, to recom
rait, to adopt. The Convocation is not likely to
disown and destroy her own child. A revision of
the Eevision, by recommitment to the old, or by the
appointment of a new. Committee, is surrounded by
alinost as many difficulties as the original moveraent.
If the adverse critics could agree among themselves
about a limited nnmber of changes backward or
forward, it would be an easy matter for the old
Committee to reconvene and vote on these specific
changes; but there is no such agreeraent. A new
Coramittee (which would have to be composed, like
the old, of scholars of all theological schools and
denominations), to do justice to themselves and to
the work, M'ould have to go through the whole
laborious and expensive process of ten or more
years, and could at best only produce another com
proraise between conflicting principles and opinions.
The adoption of the Eevision as it is will be strongly
opposed by an able and influential party. But it
would be sufficient, and perhaps the wisest course
(we speak with becoming modesty, as an outsider),
if Convocation would authorize the optional use of
the Eevised Version, and leave the ultimate result
to the future, as in the case of King James's Version,
which gradually and slowly superseded the Bishops'
Bible and the Geneva Bible.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 417
Acknowledged inconsistencies and other rainor
blemishes ought to be corrected by the Eevisers
themselves before the Eevision is finally acted
upon and placed beyond their control. Such edit
ing would require no additional authority.
The non-episcopal denominations are raore free
to use the Eevision, even without special legislation.
They Iiad no share in King James's Version, though
strongly attached to it by long habit ; they are not
bound by canons and rubrics, and an obligatory
liturgy. Some may formally authorize the Ee
vision, others will leave its use to the option of
pastors and congregations. It will certainly be used
more and more in public and private as the highest
standard of accuracy and fidelity, until it shall be
superseded by a better one at some future genera
tion. It might be well to revise the Bible everj'^
fifty years, to induce the people to read it.
The Anglo-American Eevision is not the best
possible, but the best existing version, and as good
as the present generation of scholars hailing frora
different churches and countries can produce. If
we cannot have the very best, let ns prefer the bet
ter to the good.
THE MEEITS OF THE EEVISION AS COMPAEED WITII
THE OLD VEESION.
The changes which distinguish the Eevised Eng
lish Testament frora the Authorized Version raay
be classified as follows :
1. An older and purer text in the place of the
traditional text.  ,
27

418 THE EEVISED VEESION.
2. Correction of acknowledged errors of transla
tion. 3. Accuracy and consistency in the rendering of
the article, modes, voices, tenses, prepositions, and
particles, etc.
4. Eemoval of artificial distinctions caused by
needless variations in words and proper names.
5. Eiestoration of real distinctions, which are ob
literated by rendering two or more distinct terms in
the same way.
6. Intelligible words and phrases in place of mis
leading and obsolete archaisms.
7. Eevision and reduction of words supplied in
italics ; rectification of punctuation.
8. Sectional arrangeraent corabined with the ar
bitrary capitular and versicular division, which is
put in the margin.
9. Poetical quotations from the Old Testament
arranged metrically according to the parallelism of
Hebrew poetry.
10. An increased number of alternate marginal
•readings and renderings in cases where evidence
and arguraent are nearly equally balanced.
These iraprovements occur in every chapter, and
almost in every verse. It is stated that there are in
all over 36,000 departures from King Jaraes's Ver
sion in the English text, and (probably included in
the former) nearly 6000 changes in the Greek text.
This seems a forraidable number, apt to fill an in
experienced reader with misgiving and distrust.
Upon examination, however, the importance of
the alterations falls far below their number. They'

THE EEVISED VEESION. 419
do not unsettle a single article of the Christian faith
or precept of Christian duty. They will hardly be
observed by the raajority of readers. Very few
affect the sense raaterially. They may be compared
to the 150,000 variations in the textual sources and
critical editions of the Greek Testament whicii do
not affect the integrity of the book, and only increase
the facility and stimulate the zeal for ascertaining
the original text. But, nevertheless, in the Word of
God even the "jots" and "tittles" are important,
and every effort to bring the English Bible nearer
the original is thankworthy. In this respect the
Eevisers are not behind any of their predecessors.
Note. — I have stated the number of alterations in round figures on the
ground of actual calculations made in England. A correspondent of " The
Guardian" (aleading journal of the Church of England) for Aug. 10, 1881,
p. 1136, and again p. 1675, estimated the nuraber of changes in the English
text at, 36,191, or an average of four and a half changes in every one of
the 7960 verses. The alterations of the Greek text are 5788, according
to Dr. Scrivener's notes (as stated by Canon Cook, The Revised Version
of the First Three Gospels, p. 222, or 6000 on p. 230). A correspondent
of " The Expositor," iii. 435, has discovered that not one vcrse out of ten
has escaped correction, that sixteen entire verses disappear, that one hun
dred and twenty-two sentences or parts of sentences are omitted, and that
only ten new passages, mostly very brief, are added. Dean Burgon found
that in 2 Pet. i. 5-7 the Eevisers have "introduced thirty changes into
thirty-eight words ;" and the Bishop of Salisbury (one of the Eevisers)
mentions one verse in which " not fewer than eight changes are made,"
but he adds that "only one of thera would be discovered in reading the
verse aloud or hearing it." See all these facts and figures apparently
endorsed by a friendlj' critic in "The Church Quarterlj' Review" for
Januarj', 1883, p. 348 sq. If these figures are correct, the venerable chair
raan of the New Testament Companj', in his address to Convocation,
underestimated the changes " at least one half," but he was correct in
adding that " the effect to the general hearer or reader will really hardly
be perceptible."

420 THE EEVISED VEESION.
The Rev. Rufus Wendell, editor of the "Student's Edition" of the
Eevised New Testament (Albany, N. Y., 1882), has counted the words
of the Revised New Testament, and states their number to be 179,914,
of which 154,526 are retained from the Authorized Version. The 25,388
words thus shown to have been introduced by the Revisers are by the
sarae writer classified as follows :
18,358 are substituted renderings ofthe Received Greek Text;
1604 are substituted renderings of tbe Critical Greek Text ;
4654 are added renderings of the Received Greek Text ;
550 are added renderings of the Critical Greek Text ; and
222 are renderings adopted from the Margin of the Authorized Version.
In Mr. Wendell's work, The Speeches of ihe New Testament (Albany,
1876), p. 573 compared with p. xi,, tbe number of words in the Old Ver
sion of the N. T. (the count being based upon the American Bible So
ciety's pica octavo edition of 1870) is given as 180,373 — an excess of 359
words over the Revised Version.

THE GEEEK TEXT OF THE EEVISED VEESION.
This subject has been so fully discussed in previ
ous chapters that a summary of the chief points of
difference between the traditional text of the Author
ized Version and the critical text of the Eevised
Version will be sufficient.'
1. An infallible text is irapossible ; for the apos
tolic autographs are lost, and most of the variations
date from early transcription in tho first two cen
turies. Dogmatism may ignore, but cannot, deny
the fact. Even if we had an infallible text, it would
not be available without an infallible interpretation.
We must therefore be content with an approximate
approach to the original by means of the most care
ful and conscientious study of the existing doOu-
ments — ¦». e., Manuscripts, Versions, and Patristic

' See chapters ii.-vi., and especially pp. 253-298.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 421
Quotations. It is best that it is so ; for such study
keeps Christian scholarship in constant motion, and
prevents stagnation, and the idolatry of the letter
that kills, while the spirit alone makes alive. The
Apostles themselves dealt very freely with the Old
Testament quotations, and yet had the profoundest
reverence for the Word of God.
2. The history of textual criticism is a gradual
ascent frora the i-iver to the fountain, from the
mediaeval to the Nicene, from the Nicene to the
ante-Nicene, and from the ante-Nicene to the Apos
tolic text. This movement began with Bentley and
Bengel, and has been steadily pursued by their suc
cessors, with a corresponding accumulation, classifi
cation, and sifting of material. It is analogous to
the Eeforraation, which went back from the school
men to the fathers, from the fathers to the apostles;
in other words, from mediaeval traditions and cor
ruptions to the primitive sources of Christianity.
3. The traditional text is derived from Beza and
other printed editions of the sixteenth century, as
these again were derived from a few cursive manu
scripts of the Middle Ages which happened to fall'
into the hands of Erasmus and his successors.
The critical text is derived frora the corabined
use of all the docuraentary sources which have been
brought to light within the last three hundred years,
and especially in the present century.
4. The traditional text can be traced through the
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) family of manu
scripts to the raiddle of the fourth century, or the
Nicene age.

422 THE EEVISED VEESION.
The critical text can be traced to the third and sec
ond centuries, or the ante-Nicene age; that is, as near
the apostolic source as the docuraents enable us to go.
5. The traditional text is supported, {a) among
manuscripts, by Cod. A (Alexandrinus) of the fifth
century (but only in the Gospels), several of the later
uncials, and the great mass of the mediaeval cursives,
With sorae very weighty exceptions; {b) among ver
sions, by the Syriac Peshito in its present revised
shape (whose authority, however, has been weakened
by recent discoveries and researches) ; and (c) araong
the fathers, by St. Chrysostora (d. 407) and most of
the later Greek fathers, who drew from the same
Syrian and Byzantine MSS., and therefore cannot
be counted as independent witnesses.
The critical text is supported, {a) by the two old
est MSS., naraely, B (Vaticanus) and.N (Sinaiticus),
both of the fourth century ; also by Cod. A and the
oldest uncials generally, in the Acts, Epistles, and
Apocalypse ; and very often in the Gospels by L, T,
S, Z (A in Mark), D, C, Q, P, E, X (and even by A
in many cases, especially in John) ; (5) by the pre
vailing testimony of the oldest Versions, viz., the
Curetonian Syriac (partly also by the Peshito), the
Coptic or Egyptian (especially the Memphitic), the
Old Latin, and Jerome's Vulgate ; and (c) by the
ante-Nicene fathers, especially Eusebius ("the father
of church historj'," d. 340) and Origen (the father
of exegesis, d. 254), who were the most learned men
of their age.''

' Canon Cook (p. 145) admits that both the Memphitic and Thebaic

THE EEVISED VEESION. 423
6. The traditional text is abandoned, and the crit
ical, text accepted, by all the standard editors of the
present century, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Von Gebhardt,Tregelles, Alford,Westcott and Hort.'
7. The traditional text is longer on account of
interpolations from parallel passages (especially in
Versions (whicb are among the most ancient) most closely agree with B,
but accounts for it by deriving them frora " the same school " aud " the
same recension," without any proof. He also admits that the MSS. of the
Old Latin Version "agree with B raore frequently than with A" (p. 144),
and that even the rauch-lauded Peshito "agrees with B sufficiently often
to prove that both the translator and the transcriber had before them
ancient docuraents of the sarae general character " (p. 143).
' To these raay be added such writers on textual criticism as Thomas
Sheldon Green (in his Developed Criticism), Samuel Davidson (Biblical
Crilicism), the two American scholars Abbot and Gregorj- (see the forth
coming Prolegoniena to the eighth edition of Tischendorf, prepared by the
latter with the constant co-operation of the forraer), and the ablest critical
coraraentators, as Meyer (prevailingly), Bernhard Weiss (in the new edi
tions of Meyer on the Gospels and on Eomans, and in his critical mono
graphs on the Matthceusevangelium and the MarcusevangeUum), Dean
Alford (in the last editions of his Commentary), Bishop EUicott (Commen
taries on the Minor Pauline Epistles), and Bishop Lightfoot (Commentaries
on Galaiians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). ,Dean Burgon and
Canon Cook claim Dr. Scrivener on their side; but he is identified with
the cause of the Eevision, and we raust wait for the third edition of his
Introduclion. In the second edition (1874), and still more in his latet
Six Lectures on the Text ofthe New Testament (1875), be already departs
in some very important cases from the textus receptus, as in 1 Tim. iii.
16; 1 John v. 7, 8; Matt. xvii. 21; xix. 17; Mark vi. 20; xv.28; Luke
xi. 2, 4; John v. 4, 5; vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts xvi. 7; Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Pet.
iii. 15 ; Heb. iv. 2. Even the doxology of the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 13)
he now thinks " can hardly he upheld any longer as a portion ofthe sacred
text" (Lectures, p.l24; corapare his hesitating judgraent in /nitrorf, p. 495).
As far as known from his publications. Dr. Scrivener stands about mid
way between Burgon and Cook on the one side, and Westcott and Hort
on the other. It must be taken for granted that, like all other Revisers,
he has learned a good deal by ten years' counsel witb eminent scholars.

424 THE EEVISED VEESION.'
the Gospels), supplements of abridged quotations
from the Septuagint, liturgical usage, and explana
tory glosses.
. The critical text is shorter from the absence of
these interjjolations. Ahd this is a strong internal
evidence of its priority. For additions once made
would not be easily omitted : scribes and purchasers
being naturally zealous for complete copies. But
what is lost in spurious additions is more than made
up by greater purity, simplicity, and force.
The number of textual critics who are corapetent
to judge of the principles and complicated details is
exceedingly small, even in Germany and England.
It takes many years of the most minute and patient
Study to master the iramense apparatus.
Of the opponents of the Greek text of the Ee
visers, only two or three have shown the requisite
learning and ability to entitle them to a respectful
hearing on such questions; but they occupy a reac
tionary standpoint, and place theraselves in opposi
tion to all the authoritative critics of the present
century. They swim against the stream, and kick
against the pricks. They take the same antagonistic
attitude towards the modern school of criticism
which Dr. Owen took towards Walton's Polyglot,
Dr. Whitby towards Mill's Greek Testament, Frey
and Iselin towards Wetstein, Matthaei towards Gries
bach ; and the result of the opposition will be the
same. The Council of Trent anathematized all the
doctrines of the Eeformation, and the Inquisition
condemned the science of Galileo Galilei; but Prot
estantism still lives, and the earth still raoves. The

THE EEVISED VEESION. 425
reactionary critics and anti-Eevisionists labor under
a delusion. They profess to defend the old fort,
'but there is an older fort still. They appeal to the
fathers of the dark ages, but not to the grandfathers
of the Apostolic age. If they proceed a little fur
ther in the search for the " evangelic verity," they
will arrive at last at the same conclusion as the Ee
visers, and will shake hands with them over the
oldest and purest attainable text, which they equal
ly revere and love as the infallible standard of the
Christian faith and practice.
" Es kommt der dursl'ge Geist auf Wegen der Erfahrung
Durch Ueberliefr-ungsgr-und zum Quell der Offenbarung."
Note. — The champions of the textus receptus make special efforts to
undermine tbe value of Codd. B and X, which are the most weighty
witnesses against it. They feel that they are the very best sources of tbe
text unless tbey can be proven iq be the very worst (as Dean Burgon puts
the case). K and B are admitted to be the oldest known MSS,, as well
as the most coraplete; !!< being the only complete MS, ofthe New Testa
ment araong the uncials, and B complete as far as Heb. ix. 14, including
the Catholic Epistles, which follow the Acts, though not the Pastoral
Epistles. But both are also remarkable for brevity. Now tbe question
arises: Is this brevity due, in the great raajority of cases, to non-interpo
lations (and hence a proof of greater purity), or to oraissions and mutila
tions? All the critical editors from Griesbach to Hort take the former
view ; the opponents of the Eevisers' text take the latter.
The most recent attack upon these MSS. hails from the scholarly pen
of Canon F.- C. Cook (editor of The Speaker-'s Commentary), who follows
in the track of Dean Burgon (without his dash aud audacity, but with
raore raoderation and courtesy). In his book. The Revised Version ofthe
First Three Gospels, London, 188-2, he derives the oraissions of N aud B
partly from " extreme haste," partly (and this was never done before) even
from heretical bias. He conjectures that N and B are the only remain
ing survivors of the fifty MSS. of the Holy Scriptures which Constan
tine the Great requested Eusebius to provide " on carefully prepared
parchments or vellum, in easily legible characters, and in portable and
convenient form," for the rapidly growing churches of Constantinople or

426 THE EEVISED VEESION.
New Eome (Eusebius, Vila Const, iv. 36, 37). This would definitely fix
the date of these MSS. between the year 330, when Constantinople was
founded, and the year 340, when Eusebius died. (Cook here differs widely
from Dean Burgon, who, in his The Last Twelve Verses ofS. Mark, 1871,
p. 293 sq., had categorically denied the Eusebian origin of B, and asserted
on what he considered " infallible " notes of antiquitj', that X was written
frora fifty to one hundred years later. "I am fully persuaded," he says,
" that an interval of at least half a century, if not of a far greater span of
years, is absolutely required to account for the raarked dissimilarity be
tween them.") But Canon Cook further assuraes (p. 161 sqq.) that the
MSS. were not only hastily, but " carelessly," prepared, under the direc
tion of Eusebius and under the infiuence of the Arian heresy to which
Eusebius leaned, and which was in the ascendency in the later years of
Constantine (who, it is well known, was baptized by an Arian bishop).
In reply to this hypothesis of Canon Cook we offer the following objec
tions :
1. There is no evidence whatever of a Eusebian recension of the text,
much less than for a Syrian recension (which Dr. Hort makes extremely-
plausible, but which Canon Cook, with Dean Burgon, utterly denies).
2. Eusebius was, we may say, a latitudinarian in his age, but no
doctrinal Arian, although after tbe Nicene Council he connected himself
witb the Arian party ; and he certainly would not have dared to pervert
the sacred text in the interest of dogma. See the exhaustive article of
Bishop Lightfoot in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography,
ii. 308-348, especially p. 347, where he says : " If we except the works
Avritten before the Council of Nicaea, in which there is occasionally rauch
looseness of expression, his language is for the most part strictly orthodox,
or at least capable of explanation in an orthodox sense."
3. N and B, in the two strongest passages which bear on the divinity
of Christ, favor the more orthodox reading — namely, John i. 18 (povoyiv^e
S' £ o t', instead of o povo-y^vrJQ v'log), and Acts xx. 28 (rijv EKKXrjoiav rov
^eoii, rjv irspierroirjoaro did rov a'iparoQ rov idiov, instead of . . . roU
Kvpiov .. .). In the first passage a subsequent corrector of S put v'log
above Btog. It is very surprising, bj' the by, that such a scholar as Canon
Cook should suppose that " the asterisks" after S and B, which mark the
first hand, " mean that the reading in the text was noted as incorrect by
a critical scholar at the time when ihe manusaipt was written " (p. 27).
In the particular case of which he is treating, as is pointed out in " The
Church Quarterly Eeview " for October, 1882, p. 136, they mean that the
reading liiSoKias in Luke ii. 14 was changed to liSoKia iu S by a cor-

THE EEVISED VEESION. 427. '^
rector of the seventh centurv, and in B by a corrector of the tenth or
eleventh century at tbe earliest (so Tischendorf), or rather of the fifteenth,
according to the Eoman editors.
4. The haste with which, according to the order of Constantine, the
fifty .copies were to be prepared does not necessarily imply culpable care
lessness; on the contrary, it is incompatible with the express direction
of Constantine to employ " calligraphers thoroughly acquainted with their
art," as also with the costliness and beauty of the materials used, the care
and grace of tbo handwriting, by which N and B confessedly excel all
other MSS. Tbey are indeed disfigured by raany errors, but such
are found in greater or less number in all ancient MSS., and were as
unavoidable as modern typographical errors ; raoreover, both X and B
contain raany valuable corrections by later hands.
5. S and B are sufficiently different in the arrangement of boohs and
in a great many characteristic readings tojustify the conclusion that thej*
are independently derived from distinct originals. "They are cousins,
not sisters." This makes their concurrent testimony all tbe stronger.
This result is not at all affected by the interpretation of the terms rpiaaa
Kai rtrpaaad (i. e., triple and quadruple) in tbe Eusebian description of
the MSS. ordered bj' Constantine, which are usually understood (by
Montfaucon and Gardthausen) to refer to quires of three or four sheets
(terniones and quatemiones), but which Canon Cook (with Wattenbach
and Von Gebhardt) refers to the three or four vertical columns respectively
of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. Eusebius would not have sent two
different texts to the emperor, and still less if, as Cook assuraes without a
shadow of proof, he was the editor of a recension.
I had some correspondence on this subject with Dr. Ezra Abbot, a most
careful student of the ancient MSS,, and I ara permitted to add the follow
ing extract from his letter: "The representations of Canon Cook as to
the extrerae haste and carelessness with which S and B were written
are greatly exaggerated. The A'atican was raore carefully written than
the Sinaitic, which has a rather unusual nuraber of omissions frora homoe
oteleuton. But in both of these MSS., tbe transcriptional errors dimin
ish but little their value for critical purposes, as most of tbem betray their
character at once, and cause no more difficulty or uncertainty than the
typographical errors in a printer's first proof. Leaving out of view the
obviously accidental omissions from the occasion just mentioned, most of
the so-called ' oraissions ' or ' rautilations ' in these MSS., when critically
examined, on the principles which would guide us iu determining tbe
text in the case of an ancient classical author, afford the clearest evidence

'428 THE EEVISED VEESION.
of the remarkable freedom of their text from the glosses, and interpola
tions which vitiate so many of the later MSS. In most of the important
cases where they present a shorter text as corapared with the great raa
jority of MSS., their testimony is so corroborated by our other oldest in
dependent authorities — ancient versions and quotations by early fathers
— and by internal evidence, as to demonstrate the pre-eminent value of
these MSS., especially in questions of omission or addition."
SELECT LIST OF TEXTUAL CHANGES.
Comp. here ch. v. p. 183 sqq.
I. 0.MISSI0NS FROM Text without Marginal Note.
Matt.'i.ib:" her firstborn" son (rbvv'ibv avr^c rbv ¦n-pmrvroKov);
for v'lov, " a son."
Omitted by X, B, Z, 1 , 33, a""", b, c, g ', k, Sah., Cop., Cur. Syr., etc. ; sup
ported by Pesh. Syr., C, D, and later uncials (A is here wanting). In
serted from Luke ii. 7, where all authorities have it (" ubi nemo lectionem
mutavit," says Tischendorf ). Some trace the oraission to dogmatic inter
est in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as " firstborn "seems to iraply the
birth of younger children ; but why then was Luke ii. 7 left untouched?
Matt. ii. 18 : " lamentation and " (Sp^vog Kai).
Omitted by S, B, Z, 1, 22, Itala, Vulg., Sab,, Cop,, Pesh, Syr,, Jerus, Syr,,
Justin M. Inserted from the Septuagint, Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 15, to com
plete the quotation.
Matt. V. 44 : " bless them that curse you, do good to them thai hate you . . .
which despitefuUy use you ahd."
These beautiful words are undoubtedly genuine in Luke vi, 27, 28, and
have been inserted here in wbole or in part by later authorities, contrary
to the testimony of X, B, 1, 22, 209, Itala, Vulg,, Cop,, Cur, Syr., Thcophil.,
Athenag., Clem. Alex., Orig., Euseb.
Matt. XX. 16 : "for many he called, but few chosen."
Omitted by X, B, L, Z, Sah.; Cop. (The Cureton Syr. has it.) In
serted by Western and Syrian authorities (also by Origen) from Matt. xxii.
14, the close of a similar parable (jroWoi yap iiaiv KKrjroi, oXIyoi Si
IKXeKroi), where all authorities have the passage.
Luke xxiii. 38 : " in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew." .
Omitted by X'^% B, C*, L, a, Sah., Cop., Cur. Syr., but added by later
authorities in whole or in part from John xix, 20. In justice to the nu
merous witnesses for the clause (several uncials, all ciirsives, Itala [except
a ], Vulg,, Pesh,, Cyr. of Alex.), it deserves a place on the margin.
Acts ix. 6, 6 : " it is hard . , . said unio him."

TIIE REVISED VERSION. 429
Omitted in all Greek MSS., interpolated from Acts xxii, 10; xxvi. 14
(first by tbe Vulgate and then by Erasmus).
Rom. viii. 1 : "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Derived from ver. 4, where the words are genuine.
1 Cor. xi. 24 : " take, eat " (Xd^en, fayere).
Omitted by X, A, B, C*, D, E, F, G, d, e, f, g, Sah,, Cop,, Armen, In
serted from the parallel passage in Matt, xxvi, 26, " Broken " (KXmpe.-
vov), being better supported, is retained in the margin.
1 John V. 7, 8: "in heaven, Ihe Father, the Word [sic!], and the Holy
Ghost : and these three are one. A nd there are three that bear witness in
earth." Contrarj' to the context and the trinitarian terminology (which would
require " the Son," instead of " the Word ") ; not found in any Greek MS.
before tbe fourteenth or fifteenth century, nor in the genuine text of any
ancient translation; nor in any lectionary,nor Greek patristic quotation,
and universallj- given up as a clurasy interpolation (probaljly frora a Latin
gloss, derived perhaps from Cyprian, on the assumption of a purely fanci
ful analogy). It was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglot, 1514,
and in the third edition of Erasmiis (1522, against his better judgment),
from which it passed into the textus receptus. . Every consideration of
truth and honesty requires the expulsion of these spurious witnesses from
the text. The doctrine of the Trinity needs no such support, and could
only be injured by it. ¦ See p. 136 sqq, and 192 sq, ; also Tischendorf, and
the notes of Alford, and Wordsworth in loc. I add a note frora Dr, Hort
(Select Readings, ii, 104) : "There is no evidence for the inserted words
in Greek, or in any language but Latin, before the fourteenth centurj',
when they appear in a Greek work written in defence of the Eoraan com
munion, with clear marksof a translation from the Vulgate. For at least
the first four centuries and a half Latin evidence is equally wanting.
Tertullian and Cyprian use language which renders it morally certain
that thej' would have quoted these words had they known them ; Cyprian
going so far as to assume a reference to the Trinity in the conclusion of
verse 8 ('et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto sa-iptum est Et
tres unum sunt'), as he elsewhere finds 'sacramenta Trinitatis' in other
occurrences of the number tbree (Dom. Orat. 34), and being followed in
his interpretationmore explicitly by Augustin, Facundus, and others. But
the evidence of the third century is not exclusively negative, for tbe
treatise on Rebaptisra conteraporary with Cj-prian quotes the whole pas
sage simply thus (15 :' cf. 19), 'quia tres testimonium perhibent, spiritus et
aqua et sanguis, et isti ires unum sunt.' The silence of tho controversial

430 THE EEVISED VEESION.
writings of Lucifer, Hilary, Arabrose, Hieronymus, Augustin, and others
carries forward the adverse testimony of the Old Latin through the
fourth into the fifth century ; and in 449, shortly before the Council of
Chalcedon, Leo supplies positive evidence to the same effect for the Ro
man text by quoting verses 4-8 without the inserted words in his epistle
to Flavianus (Ep. xxviii. 5). They are absent from the Latin Vulgate,
according to its oldest MSS., am,fu [Cod. Amiatinus at Florence, and Cod
Fuldensis at Fulda], and many others, as also from the (Vulgate) text
of the Gallican (Luxeuil) Leotionary."
Eev. i. 8 : " the beginning and the ending " (apxfj Kai riXos).
Supported by X"", Vulg., Cop., and a few cursives ; but absent in X*^, A,
B (Ap.), C, P, Syr., Aeth., Arm., Ambrose, Primasius, and raost cursives.
Inserted from ver. 17 and xxii. 13, as au explanation of " the Alpha and
the Omega."
Rev. i. 11 : "I am .Alpha . . . last: and" (s-yw . . . Kal).
Omitted by X, A, B, C, Vulg., Cop., Syr., Aeth., Arm., and about fifty
cursives ; inserted from xxii. 13 ; comp. also i. 8 and 17.
The following list includes tbe more important remaining examples, and
will well repay a critical examination : Matt. xv. 8 ; xx. 7, 22, 23 ; xxv.
13; xxvii. 35; xxviii. 9; Mark vi. 11; vii. 8; xiii. 14; xiv. 27, 70; Luke
iv. 8, 18 ; v. 38 ; ix. 10 ; xi. 44, 54 ; xix. 45 ; xx. 23, 30 ; xxii. 64, 68 ; xxiv.
1 ; John i. 27 ; iii. 16 ; v. 16 ; vi. 11, 22, 51 ; x. 12, 13, 26 ; xi, 41 ; xvi. 16 ;
xvii. 12; Acts ii. 30; iii. 11; vii. 37; x. 6, 21,32; xv. 24; xviii. 21; xxi.
8,22,25; xxii. 9, 20, 30 ; xxiii. 9; xxiv. 26; xxvi. 30; Eom.ix.28; xi.6;
xiii. 9; xiv. 6; xv.24; lCor.vi.20; vii. 5; x. 28; Phil. iii. 16; Col.i. 2,
14; 1 Thess. i.l; ITim. iv. 12; vi.5; Heb.vi. 10; vii. 21; xii. 20; IPet.
i. 22, 23 ; iii. 16 ; iv. 3, 14 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ; 1 John ii. 7 ; iv. 3 ; v. 13 ; Rev.
li. 9, 13 ; V. 14 ; xi. 1, 17 ; xiv. 5 ; xv. 2 ; xxi. 24.
II. Passages Omitted from Text, but Transferred to the Margis.
Matt. vi. 13. The doxology of the Lord's Prayer : " Many authorities,
sorae ancient, but with variations, add For thine is ihe kingdom, and the
power, and the glory, forever. A men."
See the authorities on p. 186 .sq.
Luke i. 28 : " blessed art thou among wonien."
Inserted from ver. 42, where all authorities agree.
John V. 4, 5 : " waiting for the moving ofthe water. For an angel went
down ata certain season inlo the pool, and t?-oubled the water: whosoever
then first after the troubling of Ihe water stepped in, was made whole of
whatsoever disease he had."

'I'HE EEVISED VEESION. 431
A popular superstition, for which John should not be held responsible.
The authorities for the interpolation vary, whicb always looks suspicious.
See p. 187 sq. Even the conservative Dr. Scrivener thinks it "well-nigh
impossible, in tbe face of evidence so ancient and varied, to regard it as a
genuine portion of St. John's Gospel " (Six Lectures, etc., p. 158).
Acts viii. 37 ; " .4 nd Philip . . . Son of God."
The baptismal confession of the eunuch inserted wholly or in part
from old ecclesiastical usage. See p. 191.
III. Doubtful Sections Retained in Text, but with M.vrgin.vl
Note, stating the Facts in each C.vse.
Mark xvi. 9-20. The evidence for and against is given on p. 189 sq., in
tbe critical apparatus of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and in the second volume
of Westcott andHort. On the conservative side, see Burgon and Scrivener.
John vii. 53-viii. 11.
The pericope of the woman taken in adultery. See the discussion,
p. 189 sq.
According to the judgment of the best critics, these two important sec
tions are additions to the original text from apostolic tradition.
IV. Substitutions.
Matt. X. 4 (and Mark iii. 18); "Simon the Cananaean" (Kavavaiog,
from an Aramaean word raeaning "Zealot;" compare Luke vi. 15; Acts i.
13), instead of " the Canaanite " (Kavavirrjs).
None of the apostles belonged to the race of the Canaanites.
Matt. xix. 17 : " Why askest thou
me concerning that which is good?
(ri pe Ipmrqig irepi roii dya^oH ;)
Oue there is who is good (tie iariv
l> dyaftdt,')." The old text is conforraed to the parallel passages, Mark -i. 18 and
Luke xviii. 19, and is retained in margin. Deau Burgon recklessly calls
the Revisers' reading an "absurd fabrication," and Canon Cook (p. 92)
unjustly traces it to "doctrinal bias and Alexandrian subtlety;" but it is
well supported by the oldest authorities, X, B, D, L, Cur. Syr., Cop,,Vulg.,
Orig, (who expressly vouches for tbe first clause), Euseb,; it is adopted
by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and even by Scrivener
(Six Lectures, p, 130), It gives excellent sense, and sheds new light on
the whole conversation with the rich young ruler, whether we assume
that the ruler asked two questions and received two answers, or that
Matthew gi'res this form to bring out the true sense. The ruler (from a

0. V. : " Why callest thou me good?
( ri pe XeyeiQ ciya^ov ; ) There is
none good but one, thai is G od (ovdeig
aya^oQ, ti pf/ tig, o Oiog)."

432 THE REVISED VERSION.
purely humanitarian and moral standpoint) had asked Christ (ver. 16)
"what good thing" he should do to have eternal life; and Christ directed
hira to the suprerae source of all goodness, God hiraself, and thereby struck
at the root of his besetting sin, -the love of riches (ver. 22).
Mark i. 2 : " As it is written in O. V. : " As it is written in the
Isaiah the prophet (iv rtp 'Haati^ pr-ophets (iv roig irpoipijraig)''
rip irpoiprjTy)."
The old text is evidently a correction to suit the quotation (verses 2 and
3), which corabiues two prophetic passages, Mal. iii. 1 and Isa. xl. 3 ; but
Mark raentions Isaiah as the older and more iraportant of the two prophets,
who struck the key-note to the later prophecy of Malachi. The revised
text is araply supported (by S, B, D, L, A, 33, Itala, Vulg., Cop., Pesh., Iren.,
Orig.), yet the Revisers put the textus receptus on the margin.

Mark iii. 29 : " Whosoever shall
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit
hath never forgiveness, but is guilty
of an eternal sin (dpaprrjparog)."

O. V. : " He that sball blaspheme
against the Holy Ghost, hath never
forgiveness, but is in danger of eter-
naldamnation (judgment, Kpiaemg)."

An important change, which sheds light on the sin against the Holy
Spirit, and suggests the reason why it is unpardonable. It maj- culminate
in au act of blasphemy, but it ends in a state of absolute hardening and
final impenitence or perpetual persistence in sin. As long as sin con
tinues, guilt and punishraent continue; there can be no pardon without
repentance and cessation frora sin. Kplatmg is supported bv A, C -', Syr. ;
apaprtjparog by X, B, L, A, Itala, Vulg. (Sorae MSS. read apapriag, an
other early correction.)
Luke ii. 14. The angelic anthem. On this much-disputed passage
(tvSoKiag or tvSoKia), see p. 195 sq. The old rendering, "towards raen,"
is wrong, at all events (instead of " araong men," I v dvipiinroig) ; but the
Revised Version is not wholly satisfactory in rendering the genitive
tbdoKiag, " in whora he is well pleased," This periphrase destroys the
terse brevity in the threefold parallelisra of the Greek (So^a correspond
ing to elprji'Tj, iv v\^iaxoig to Iiri yrjg, and Qeif to tv dvSrpiii-rroig tvSoKiag).
"Among men of his [God's] good pleasure" would be shorter than the
R. v., and raore correct than the "bona voluntatis" (men of good-rvill) of
the Vulgate ; bnt the Revisers wished to conform to the rendering of the
verb tvSoKtm in Matt. iii. ] 7 ; xvii. 5.
John i. 18: "God only begotten" (povoytvrjg Otog) was originally
adopted by the Eevisers in the text (as in Westcott and Hort), but after
wards relegated to the margin, and the common reading, " the only begotten
Son " (o povoytvrjg v'tog), retained in text (as in Tischendorf, and as sug-

THE EEVISED VEESION. 433
gested by the American Coraraittee). The evidence is nearly equally
balanced. See p. 194 sq., and the special discussions of Dr. Hort and
Dr. Abbot there quoted.
Rom. V. 1 :" let us have (e)(mpev) peace with God ;" for " we have "
(Ixoptv). See p. 197.
1 Tim. iii. 16 : " He who was manifested in the flesh ;" for " God was
raanifest in the flesh."
On the difference of reading between 'og and Srtog. see p. 199 sqq., and
an article by Dr. William H. Ward in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover,
Mass., for Jan. 1865.
Rev. xvii. 8 : " how that he (the beast) was, and is not, and shall come "
(or " be present ") ; for " that was, and is not, and yet is."
A manifest improvement, Kai irapiarai (X, A, B, P, forty cursives),
for Kairrtp tariv, which is an error of transcription, and raakes nonsense.
V. Passages Gained by tiie Revision.
1 John ii. 23: "He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also" (o
opoXoyixtv rbv vtbv Kai rbv rrartpa tx^i).
A very important passage, supplementing the preceding clause; lost in
the Greek textus receptus by hommoteleulon (txti stands at the end of each
clause in verse 23) ; italicized in the A. V. (whicb inserted it from the Latin
Vulgate, "jMJ confitetur Filium, et Patrem habel"); amply sustained by
the best uncial MSS., and restored by Lachraann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort. See p. 183.
Acts iv. 27: "in this city" (iy ry rroXti ravrrj), sustained by X, A, B,
D, E, Vulg., Syr., Sah., Cop., Eus,, Chrj'S,, Iren, (Lat,), Tert,, Lucif., Hil.
Acts viii. 10 : " This man is that power [better, ' Power '] of God which
is called (KaXovixivij) Great," KaXovpivrj is important to characterize
the boastful title as a self-designation of Simon the sorcerer, and rests on
the authority of the oldest MSS. (X, A, B, C), versions, and fathers (Iren,,
Orig,). Acts xvi, 7: "The Spirit of Jesus suffered them not," 'Irjaov is well
sustained and adopted by the best editors.
Aots XX.4: "as far as A.sia" (dxpi rrjg 'Aoiag). This is supported
by many authorities, but not by X and B, and omitted by Tisch. in his
eighth edition.
Col. i. 6 : " bearing fruit and increasing" (ko'i aii^avopivov), supported
by X, A, B, C, D, Ital., Vulg,, Sah,, Cop., Syr., etc.
1 Thess. iv. 1; "even as ye do walk" (KaSmg Kal ¦ntpirraTiiri), sup
ported by X, A, B, D*, F, G, Ital., Vulg., many cursives, and versions.
Internal aa well as external evidence favors the addition.
28

434 THE EEVISED VEESION.
James iv. 12: "and judge" after "lawgiver." The oraission of Ka'i
KpirijQ is perhaps owing to hqmoioteleutqn (see vopq^trrj g). Tischendorf
and Westcott and Hort likewise retain it with X, A, B, P, Syr., etc.
1 Pet. ii. 2 : " that yemay grow thereby, unto salvation" (tig amrtipiav).
Abundantly sustained by X, A, B, C, K, P, Vulg,, Syr.
1 Joh'n iii. 1 ; "and such we are" (Kai iapiv). We are not only called
(KXtiSHptv), but we really are children of God.
X, A, B, C, P, and raainy cursives have kai taptv, and the Vulg. et sumus.
Jude 25 : " before all time " (irpo Travrbg roii aiUvog). Well sustained
by X, A, B, C, L, Vulg., Syr.
Eev. i. 8 : " God " after " the Lord."
All uncial MSS. of the Apoc. read Kvpiog o Stag, " the Lord God," in
stead of 6 Kvpiog.
Eev. iii. 2 : " before ray God " (ivmmov tov Otov po v), instead of " be
fore God."
Eev. viii. 7 :" and the third part of the earth was burnt up " (icai rb
rpirov rijg yrjg KartKarj).
This iraportant clause dropped out from the repetition of irai to rpirov.
Eev. xiv. 1 : " Having his [i. e. the Lamb's] narae, and the name of his
Father," instead of " having his Father's name." The words avrov Kai
TO Hvopa dropped out from homoeoteleulon (ivopa twice), and have been
restored with the best authorities.
Rev. XX. 14 : " even the lake of fire " (r; Xipvrj rov irvpog).
The words lost in the textus receptus are sustained by X, A, B (Ap.), P.,
.Vulg. (best MSS.), Sah., Syr., Hippol., Andr., Areth., and many cur
sives. SELECT LIST OF IMPROVED RENDERINGS.
Far more numerons than the textual changes are
the corrections of errors, inaccuracies, and incon
sistencies of the Authorized Version, which have
been discussed in chap. vii. pp. 347-364. These im
provements occur in almost every verse, although a
superficial reader would hai-dly notice them. We
must confine ourselves to a selection of various kinds.
Matthew.
Matt. i. 18 : " When his raother Mary had been betrothed (pvrjOTiv-
biiarie) to Joseph ;'' for " espoused to Joseph."

THE EEVIgED VEESION. 435
The betrothal preceded the discoverj-, the espousal followed it ; but after
betrothal, unfaithfulness on the part of the woraan was deeraed adul
tery. 1.20: "anangel of the Lord "(Gabriel; see Luke i. 20) ; instead of " cAe
angel of the Lord."
One of the innuraerable cases where the Authorized Version (under the
influence of the Latin Vulgate, which has no article) disregards the article
either hy substituting the definite for the indefinite, or vice vasa.
I. 22 : " spoken by (inro) tbe Lord through (Sia) tbe prophet ;" for
"spoken ofthe Lord hy the prophet."
Iraportant distinction between the primary agencj' of God and the
secondary or instrumental agency of man, in inspiration. The Araerican
Committee desired to carry this distinction through (see Appendix No. V.).
I. 23 : " the virgin " (r) rrapHvog) ; for " a virgin."
The Virgin Marj' is meant by the Evangelist, who so understands the
prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. vii. 14. See note on Matt. i. 20. Mark also
the stichoraetrical arrangement wbich has been adopted throughout (as
first suggested by the American Committee) in the poetical quotations
from the Old Testaraent, to indicate the raetrical structure and the paral
lelism of Hebrew poetrj'. Much of the heauty of tbe Bible is lost to the
coramon reader by the usual typography, which prints poetry like prose,
and cuts up the prose into verses.
II. 2: "to worship him," with margin (Am. Cora.).
Probably here in the sense of religious adoration ; yet the American
Comraittee is right in directing attention to the fact that the Greek verb
TrpooKiivtm denotes an act of homage or worship (usually by kneeling
or prostration), whether paid to raan (as in Matt, xviii. 26 ; corap. Sept. in
Gen. xiii. 6, Joseph's brethren kneeling before Joseph ; xlviii. 12, Josepli
before Jacob), or to God (as in iv. 10). The English verb " to worship "
was formerly Jikewise used in a wider sense (as in the Anglican marriage
service: "with my body I thee worship"), but is now confined to acts of
divine adoration.
II. 6: "which [better 'who'] shall be shepherd of Coarig Troipavii)
ray people Israel ;" for " that shall r-ule ray people Israel."
The Greek includes both ruling and feeding.
II. 11: "And they came into the house and saw the J'oung child with
Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him" (or more
literally, " And coraing into the house they saw . . ., and falling down they
worshipped him," Kai iXSovrtg . . . liSov . . . Kai vtaovrtg npotstxvvrj-
aav) ; for " when they were come . . ., they saw . . ., and fell down . . ."

436 THE EEVISED VEESION.
II. 16 : " and slew all the male children " (rois irciiSag) ; for " all the
children." The Authorized Version doubles the nuraber of the slaughtered inno
cents and the cruelty of the act. The Geneva Version has " raale children,"
aud the Vulgate pueros. Herod had nothing to fear from the female
children. In tbe same verse " borders " for " coasts," which is now con
fined to the seashore. This change is made throughout.
II. 17 : " by [better ' through '] Jeremiah ;" for " by Jeremy."
The Authorized Version varies — as in many other proper naraes — be
tween Jeremiah, Jeremias, and Jeremy. This inconsistency is indefensi
ble. The proper rule is: Hebrew spelling for Hebrew names, Greek
spelling for Greek names, with few exceptions where usage has invaiiably
fixed two forms (as Jesus and Joshua, Mary and Miriam, James and Jacoh).
III. 3 : "by Isaiah the prophet " (the order of the Greek) ; for " by the
prophet Esaias."
Another , variation of spelling: Esaias (Greek) and Isaiah (Hebrew).
So Elijah and Elias. See ii. 17.
III. 4 : " Now John himself" (aiirbg Si o 'Imavvrjg) ; for " And the same
John." IIL 4 : " his food " (rpoipfj) ; for " his meat."
"Food" is more comprehensive, but the English Revisers often re
tained " raeat " where the American Eevisers would have preferred " food,"
The Authorized Version has " food " about fortj' times in the Old Testa
ment, but only four times in the New Testaraent, aud " meat " about sixty
tiraes in the New Testament. , . i
III. 6: "They 'B'cre baptized in the river Jordan" (iv rqi 'lopSdvrj tto-
Tajtifi) ; for " in Jordan." TrorapOi is added by Lach.,Tisch.,Treg., VV. and H.
The Authorized Version, contrary to English (and Greek) usage, oraits
the article before the river Jordan. The English Revisers have restored
it, except in the phrases " round about Jordan " and " beyond Jordan ;"
the Araerican Revisers would have preferred the article all through.
The question of baptism was scarcely raised in the American Committee.
All agreed that it was best to retain the Greek word which has long since
been naturalized in English (like so many other Hebrew and Greek
words), aud to leave the controversy about the mode (immersion, pouring,
sprinkling) to exegesis and church history.
III. 7 : "Ye offspring (ytvvrjpara) of vipers ;" for " O generation."
III. 11 : " with water,", with marg. " Or, in."
The raarginal rendering, being raore literal (iv 'iiSari), should have been
put in tha text, as recoraraended by the American Coraraittee (Appendix

THE REVISED VERSION. 437
No. IX.). So in the last clause of this verse. Luke difTers from Matthew
by using siraply the dative (vSari) of water-baptisra ; but when speaking
of the baptism of the Spirit he likewise uses the preposition (iv wtvpari,
iii. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16).
III. 12 : " threshing-floor " (rijv liXmva) ; for " floor."
The Eastern threshing-floor is meant, or the circidar space on the farm
where the grain is trodden out by oXen or horses. "Fan" (ro tttvov)
should have been changed into " winnowing-shovel."
III. 13: "John would have hindered him ;'' for " John forbade him."
SitKiiXvtv is here the iraperfect of the attempt, as tKoXovv, Luke i. 59;
auvijXXaaotv, Acts vii. 26; im'ipiti, Gal. i. 23.
III. 15: "Theu he suffereth him" (ron dipirjoiv avrov) ; for "then he
suffered him."
III. 17. The rendering of this verse has been retained, except " out of
the heavens" (JK rmv oupavuii'), for "from heaven." Butthe Committees
labored long on tbe phrase 'tv ip tvSoKrjaa (Hebraizing construction,
3 I^En), which raeans literallj-, " in whom I delighted," or " with whom
I was (instead of am) well pleased." The aorist refers to some definite act
in the past, when the Son assumed the office of Mediator and Saviour,
and under this character became the object of the Father's delight.
Comp. xii. 18 (from Isa. xiii. 1), where ivSoKrjoiv is parallel with yperiaa ;
also xi. 27; John xvii. 24; Eph. i. 4.
IV. 21, 22, and often: "boat" (vXoiov, ^rXoiapioi/, used in the Gospels
of small fishing-vessels on the lake of Galilee) ; for " ship."
IV. 24: "epileptic" (aiXrjviaZi'iptvoi) ; for "lunatic" (moonstruck).
Epilepsy was traced to the influence of the moon, or of evil spirits.
In the same verse the inaccurate rendering, " possessed with devils " (for
SaipoviZoptvoi) is retained, but with tbe marginal alternate " demoniacs,"
which ought to have been put into the text, since there is but one Devil,
with a good many demons or evil spirits under his control. See American
Appendix No. VIII. The word " lunatic " now denotes an insane person,
which is not the meaning of otXrjviai^optvog, notwithstanding the ety
mological correspondence.
V. 15: "Neither do raen light a lamp (Xvxvov) and put it under the
bushel, but on the stand" (Xvxviav) ; for "candle" and "candlestick."
The portable lamp supplied with oil was used bj' the Jews, and is still
used in the East instead of the candle. The seven-armed candlestick in
the teraple was supplied with oil-laraps. "Lamp-stand" (Conant, Noyes,
Davidson) would be better than " stand," though the preceding " larap "
prevents any arabiguitj'.

438 THE EEVISED VEESION.
V. 21 : " It was said to them of old time " (rois dpxaioig) ; instead of
" by thera." So also ver. 33.
VL, 2, 5 : " They have received their reward ;" for " they have their
reward." The Greek is not ixovni, but dwixovai, i. c, they have re
ceived all the reward they sought from meh, aud need not expect any
more. VI. 9-13. The Lord's Prayer. No less than six changes. They have
given by far the greatest offence, which might have been avoided if they
had been put on the margin ; but the Revisers sacrificed prudence and
expediency to a conscientious sense of duty. The changes are as follows :
1. " As in heaven, so on earth ;" for " in earth, as it is in heaven." Re
quired by the order of the Greek (we 'tv ovpavip, Kai trri yrjg), and by
the direction of the petition from the divine will in heaven to its accom
plishment on earth. The same order in the Old Version, Luke xi. 2 in
text (in the Eevised Version on the margin).
2. "Our daily bread" is retained in the text, but "our bread/or Me
coming day " is put in the raargin, as the correct rendering of the Greek.
But we do not need to-raorrow's bread " this day." I prefer the Araerican
margin, "our needful hr-ead." The derivation of the difficult imoiaiog
(either frora imivai through immv, imodaa, or from ivtlvai, as a cora
pound of tTTi and oxiaia) is elaboratelj' discussed by Lightfoot in the Ap
pendix to his work on Revision, p. 195-242. Meyer, in loc, like Fritzsche,
and Lightfoot, derives the word from iirdvai, " to-morrow's bread," and
objects to the derivation frora iiriivai that it would require irroimog. But
this is refuted by such exaraples as iniopKog (connected with 'tviopKim) ,
imtiKrjg, irrtovpog, irrwySoog. Dr. Weiss, in the seventh edition of
Mej'er's Matthew (1883), dissents from him, and explains: "the bread
which belongs to our daily need," thus sustaining the American margin.
Origen, Chrysostom, Tholuck, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, and Holtzmaun adopt
substantially the same view.
3. " As we also have forgiven [literallj-, we forgave] our debtors;" for
" as we forgive our debtors." There is here a difference of reading, d^ijKa-
piv or dijritptv. The aorist implies that we raust have forgiven our
debtors before we can consistently ask forgiveness from God. In the par
allel passage, Luke xi. 3, all authorities read the present tense, "We for
give," which gives as good sense, and implies simultaneous or habitual
forgiveness to our neighbor.'
' Mej'cr and Weiss defend SupijKaptv : " .Tesus setzt mit Recht voraus,
dass der Gldubige, welcher Gott um Schuldenerlass billet, berdls denen
verziehen habe (Sir. xxviii. 2i; Mark xi. 25), welche Heh an ihm verschuldet

THE EEVISED VEESION. 439
4, "Bring us not into temptation;" for " lead na not" (Vulgate, ne nos
inducas, etc). So also in Luke xi. 4. The former verb better expresses
tiatviyKyg (from tiaipipm), and may refer here morc to outward circura
stances; while "lead" (which would require tiaaydyrgg, from iladym) is
a stronger word, and implies action on the consenting will. The slight
change relieves the petition of a difficulty which is often felt, and is apt
to lead into error. God cannot directly and inwardlj' (through our will)
tempt us (Jas. i. 13)— i. e., solicit us to sin — but he raay permit us to get
into terapting positions which are under the control of his providence.'
tiaipkpm is, with this exception, and in Luke xi. 4, always in the Author
ized Version rendered to bring in (with tig, to bring into, or io), Luke v. 18,
19 ; xii. 11 ; Acts xvii. 20 ; 1 Tira. vi. 7 ; Heb, xiii, 11. The Revised Ver
sion carries the sarae rendering through all the passages, and uses "lead"
for aym (Rom. ii. 4), or drrdym (Matt. vii. 13, 14) ; but it is inconsistent
in rendering tiadym (with and without tig) like t'wijripm, to bring (Luke ii.
27 ; xiv. 21 ; John xvii. 16 ; Acts vii. 45 ; xxi. 28, 29, 37 ; Heb. i. 6), instead
of to lead, to lead into (as iu Acts ix. 8).
5. "Deliver us from the evil one" (i. e., Satan, the great tempter), with
margin, " Or, evil ;" for " from evil." This is tbe most serious and most
unpopular change in the whole hook. It is especially offensive to those
who are disposed to denjr the existence of a personal devil (although no
one can deny the existence of many devils in huraan shape''). But Canon
Cook, also, in the name of high Anglican orthodoxy, strongly protests
against the innovation.' The Greek (roii irovrjpoi and pljtaSiai with diro)
haben, und giebt dem Beter dadurch A nlass zur' Sdbstprilfung,- ob er das
auch gethan und sich dadurch als ein rechtes Gotteskind hewdhrt habe, wie
es allein dies Gebet sprechen kann."
' Meyer and Weiss, in loi:. : " Goilfuhrt in Versuchung, in so fern die
versuchlicheri, d. i. die zur SUnde A nlass gebenden Lagen und Umsldnde durch
ihn, vermoge sdner Regierung hergestellt werden, und es also von Gott
geschiehi und er es niacht (1 Kor.x. 13), wenn der Mensch in solche Seelenge-
fahren gerdth. .. . So lost sich zugleich der schdnbare WiderspruchmitJak.
i. 13, wo von der subjectiven, inneren Versuchung die Rede isl, deren wirkendes
Prindp nicht Gott, sondem die eigene Begierde ist. In letzlerer liegi auch
bdm Gldubigen ver-moge sdner adpi, (xxvi. 41 ; Gal. v. 17) die grosse sillliche
Gefahr, welche dieses Gebet immer wieder nothwendig macht."
" As Goethe admirably says of the Rationalists:
" Den BSsen sind sie los.
Die Bosen sind geblieben."
' He speaks of " the extrerae surprise and grief" which this change has

440 THE EEVISED VEESION.'
adraits of both the raasculine and the neuter rendering; and hence the
Revisers retain tbe old as an alternative in the margin. The case in
volves the following points :
(a) In nearly, all the passages o rrovrjpog, as a noun, designates Satan,
who is emphatically the Evil One, the Wicked One— namely. Matt. xiii.
19, 38; Eph. vi. 16; l^John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19 (probably also
Matt. V. 37; John xvii. 15; 2 Thess. iii. 3) ; whileVo Trovjjpoi', as a noun,
occurs only twice in the New Testament — Luke yi. 45 and Rom. xii. 9.
In Matt. v. 39 o irovrjpog is used of an evil man.
(b) The preposition djro with the verb pvta^ai more naturally suggests
a person, the preposition ts a danger, but not necessarily.'
(c) The close connection of " not " and " but " (pij . . . dXKd) favors
the masculine rendering. And this is strengthened by the fact that Christ
shortly before came out of the mj'sterious confiict with his great antago
nist. Hence there is great force in the petition in this sense, " Bring us
ijot into temptation, but deliver us frora the Tempter," i. e. from the power
of him who is the author of all sin and misery in the world. Several
fathers remark that Luke omits the last petition because it is practically
included in the former.
; (d) All the Greek fathers (Origen, Chrj'sostom, etc.), and most of the
Eeformed or Calvinistic commentators (from Beza tp Ebrard), support
the masculine rendering ; = while the post-Nicene Latin Church, under the
lead of Augustin (a malo),' and the Lutheran Church, under the lead of
Luther, favor the neutral rendering. The Heidelberg Catechism (Re-
caused to him and will cause to " millions of devout and trustful hearts."
To which Bishop Lightfoot aptly replies that the cause of truth is more
sacred even than the sentiraents of our fellow-Christians. " If transla
tors are not truthful, they are nothing at all."
' pvtaSiai occurs seventeen times in the New Testament with diro and
'tK. Lightfoot lays no stress on the preposition.
= Lightfoot saj'S (iu "The Guardian", for Sept. 21, 1881): "Among
Creek writers there is, so far as I have observed, absolute unanimity on
this point. They do not betray the slightest suspicion , that any other
interpretation is possible," Then he quotes from the Cleraentine Horailies,
Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nyssen,
Didymus of Alexandria, Chrysostora, and Isidore of Pelusium.
° Tertullian and Cyprian, however, used malus of the Evil One, and so,
according to Lightfoot, understood the Lord's Prayer. But Canon Cook
clairas Cyprian on the other side, and not without reason (Second Letter,
p. 87 sq.).

THE EEVISED VEESION. 441
formed) translates vom Bosen; Luther, in his Bible and Small Catechisra,
vom Uebel, but in his Large Catechism he refers the word to " the evil
one, or the malicious one," so that " the entire substance of all our prayer
should be directed against our chief enemy " (Expos, of the Seventh
Petition). (e) The testimony of ancient versions and liturgies is prevailingly for
the masculine rendering, as Lightfoot has shown.
(/) Modern commentators are divided ; tbe most exacting philological
exegetes (Fritzsche, Meyer, also Keim and Hilgenfeld) prefer the mascu
line rendering, and Meyer urges that it better suits " the concrete concep
tion of the New Testament " (referring to ten passages) ; but Tholuck,
Olshausen, Bleek, Ewald, Keil, and Weiss (in the seventh edition of Meyer
on Maliliew) are on the other side.
(g) In any case, roH rrovripov here refers to moral, not physical, evil,
although the latter is a consequence of the forraer. Corap. the contrast
between rb irovrjpav and ro dyahov in Eom. xii. 9, where both
versions render "Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is
good." ' 6. The doxologj-. Hgre the Revisers are undoubtedlj' right in relegat
ing it to the margin. The entire silence about it in the earliest patristic
expositions of the Lord's Prayer, bj' Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, is
alone conclusive against its being a part of the original text, and far out
weighs the authority of Chrysostom, who lived two hundred years later.
It is, no doubt, a liturgical insertion (from 1 Chron. xxix. 11, where nearly
the same doxology is found). Its omission in the most ancient authori
ties, including the Latin versions, is inexplicable otherwise. The Saviour
did not so much intend to enjoin a complete formula of praj-er as to sug
gest the essential topics, and to teach us the right spirit of all prayer,
whether free or liturgical.
The changes in the Lord's Praj-er have been fully discussed between
Canon Cook and Bishop Lightfoot. See above, p. 378. The former is
totally opposed to all changes, especially the omission of the doxologj-.
In his last book on The Revised Version he again opposes it, but makes
the wrong statement that the reference of the last petition to Satan is
"opposed by all the churches of Westem Christendom" (p. 61), ignoring
the fact that the German and the Dutch Reformed churches, which hold
to the Heidelberg Catechism, belong to Western Christendom. The
Dutch Bijbel translates, " verlos ons van den booze " (from the evil one), in
agreement with the Heidelberg Catechism in the German original (vom
Bosen). It is not likely that the Revision will change the habits of the

442 THE EEVISED VERSION.
people. The Episcopalians use fhe prayer in two forms, with ahd with
out the doxology, and still adhere to the older version : " Forgive us our
trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us" (instead of, "For
give us our debts, as we forgive our debtors"), and the double "ever" at
the close, contrary to King James's Version.
VI. 25: "Be not anxious for your life" (p-fj pepipvdri); for "take no
ihought." So also ver. 34.
Removal of an archaic phrase which now reads like an exhortation to
improvidence. Shakespeare and Bacon use "thought" in the sense of
anxiety, melancholy : e. g., " to die of thought," " sicklied o'er with the
pale cast of thought."
IX. 17 : " wine-skins " (doKoi) ; for " bottles."
In Egypt and Palestine wine and water are put into bottles made of ,
the skin of an animal taken off whole, and carriers of such skin-bottles
are still constantly seen in the streets of Cairo and Jerusalem.
XI. 23 : " Hades," for " hell," and so in nine other passages where the
word occurs in the New Testament — Matt. xvi. 18; Luke x. 15; xvi. 23;
Acts ii. 27, 31 ; Rev. i. 18; vi. 8; xx. 13, 14.
, Restoration of an important distinction between Hades (or Sheol) — i. e.,
the realm of the dead, the spirit-world — and Hell (or Gehenna, also once
Tartarus, 2 Pet. ii. 4) — i. e., the state and place of future punishment (in
twelve passages). The Araerican Committee insisted upon this change
from the beginning, but the English Committee resisted it till they
reached the passages in Revelation.
XIV. 8 : " She [the daughter of Herodias] being put forward [or, urged
on, impelled, 7rpo/3i/3aff9ei<7a from rrpojiipdtm'] by her mother;" instead
of " being hefor-e instructed " (from the Vulgate, prcemonila).
XV. 27 : "Yea, Lord, for even (eai ydp) the dogs eat of the crumbs
wbich fall from their niast^'s table;" instead of "Truth, Lord: yet the
dogs," etc. The woman put in her plea on the very ground of the Lord's
words. Not as one of the children, but as an hurable dependant, she.
asked only the crumbs,
XVI, 13 : " Who do men say that the Son of man is ?" for " whom," etc.
An error of grararaar.
XVI. 26 : " What shall a raan be profited, if he shall gain the whole.
world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his
life?" instead of "lose his own soul ... for his soul." So also Mark viii.
36, 37.
The Greek i/zux^ means both life and soul, but consistency with ver. 25,
where the Authorized Version itself translates life, requires the same ren-

TIIE REVISED VERSION. 443
dering in ver. 26. The difference in the text is between the lower physi
cal br temporal life aud the higher spiritual or eternal life, and the warning
is against sacrificing the latter to the former. There is mdeed a fearful
sense in which one may lose his soul ; but the usual inferences based upon
this phrase are just as applicable to life in its higher sense (life eternal).
XXI. 41 : " He will miserably destroy those miserable men ;" for " mis
erably destroy those wicked men."
The Greek KaKoiig KOKmg (—pesdmos pessime) d-rroXiaei is a parono
masia of purest Greek, and brings out the agreement of character with
the punishraent. Compare the English phrase, " Evil be to him that evil
thinks." It might also be rendered, " These wretches will he wretchedly
destroy." XXIII. 24 : " Strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel ;" for " strain
al a gnat."
A tj-pographical error which became stereotyped. The older English
versions have " out." A proverbial sentence for pedantic scrupulosity iu
trifies. The Jews were in the habit of filtering wine and other beverages
to avoid swallowing a small insect pronounced unclean by the law. So
the Buddhists to-day.
XXV. 8 : " Our lamps are going out " (the present, afitvvvvrai) ; for
" are gone out."
The flax was still smoking, as is apparent frora the virgins trimming
the wick (ver. 7).
, XXV. 46: "Eternal punishment;" for "everlasting."
The same word, aimviog, is used in both clauses, and the variation of
the Authorized Version in the same verse creates a false distinction.
XXVI. 28 : " Thia is my blood of the [new] covenant ;" for " testa
ment." So also in all other passages where SiciSirjKrj (=ri^3) occurs, except
Heb. ix. 16, 17, where the meaning is disputed. The English Revisers
retained " testament " in the raargin, but tbe Araerican Committee objected
to this alternative except in Heb. ix. 15-17. The error came frora the
Vulgate, and has affected the designation of the two parts of the Bible,
whicb has become stereotyped in all modern languages beyond the power
of change, although Old Testament (as implying the death of the testator)
is a raisnoraer.
XXVIIL 19 : " Baptizing them into (dg) the name of the Father, and
ofthe Son, and ofthe Holy Ghost;" for "in the name" (from the Vulgate,
in nomine). Compare Gal. iii. 27 (baptized into Christ) ; 1 Cor, x. 2 (into Moses) ;

444 THE EEVISED VERSION.
Acts viii. 16 (into the name) ; 1 Cor. i. 13 (into the name). The Greek
preposition tig denotes raotion and direction. Baptisra is an introduction
into the covenant and communion with the triune God. " To be baptized
into that name was to be consigned to the loving, redeeming, sanctifying
power of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."— Humphry (p. 68).
Luke.
II, 2: "This was the first enrolment (d-rroypaipfj Trpiirrj) made when
Quirinius was governor of Sj'ria;" for "this taxing was^r**" (which
would require Trpmrov) "raade when Cyrenius," etc.
Luke distinguishes tbis enrolment from another which took place ten
years afterwards under the same governor. Acts v. 37. The chronological
difficulty ought not to affect the translation.
II. 49 : " In ray Father's house ;" for " business."
The Greek (lv roig roi, literallj-, in the things of) admits of both ver
sions, but the Revised Version is more probable in the context ; for the
parents sought hira in a place. See the reasons which influenced the
Revisers in Humphry's Commeniar-y, p. 98.
III. 23: "Jesus himself, when he began io teach, was about thirty
5'ears of age;'' instead of "Jesus himself fte^ran to be about thirty years of
age." VII. 2 : "At the point of death " (rjptXXt rtXtvrgiv) ; for " ready to die,",
which, in the sense here used, is an archaism. In the modern sense of the
term, we should always be ready to die, in health as well as sickness.
," Readiness is all " (Shakespeare).
XXIII. 15: "Nothing worthj' of death liath been done bj' hira [Je
sus] ;" for " done unto hira."
The Greek is ambiguous (rTtrrpayptvov avrip), but the context leaves
no doubt as to the meaning of Pilate. John.
V. 35: "He [John the Baptist] was the lamp (o Xir;^i'of) that burneth
and shineth ;" instead of the " light."
Christ was the self-luminous light (ro ipOig, lux) ; John the Baptist was
a lamp lighted and supplied with oil for the purpose of bearing witness to
the light. Corapare John i. 8.
V. 39 : " Ye search the Scriptures," for " Search the Scriptures."
The Greek iptvvart adraits of both translations, but thc context
(especially the on, the eraphatic iptig, the position of iv avraig, and the
contrast expressed in icai ov SriXtrt) decidedly favors the indicative rather

.THE EEVISED VEESION. 445
than the imperative rendering. The Jews really did search the Scriptures
very diligently, though slavishly, pedantically, and superstitiously; it
was their boast and pride, and thej' used this very word (compare vii. 52,
where they tell Nicodemus, " Search [^iptvvrjaor''] and see," etc) ; but they
studied the letter only and missed the spirit, and do so to this day.
Christ turns the tables against them, saying : "Yedo [indeed] search the
Scriptures [Vde ypafdg, not rbv Xo'yoi' rov S'eoi], because ye think that
in them [not through them, as a raere means] ye have eternal life; and
these are they which bear witness of me; and [yet] ye will not come to
Me [who am the Life and Light of the Scriptures], that ye may have
[that eternal] life." The contrast brings out the inconsistency aud hy
pocrisy of the Pharisees. The two interpretations are fully discussed in ray
edition of Lange on John, p. 194 sq. See also Beza, Bengel, Godet, Meyer,
Weiss (sixth edition of Meyer), Luthardt (in his new edition), Westcott,
Milligan and Moulton, who all take the verb in the indicative sense.
The English Eevisers give the iraperative rendering (supported by
Chrysostom, Augustin, Luther, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Alford)
the benefit of the margin.
VIII. 58: " Before Abraham was born (ytviaSiai),\ ara" (tipi); for
"before Abraham was, I am."
This correction is only made in the margin, but ought to have been put
into the text. There is an iraportant distinction between ytv'inSai, which
signifies temporal or created existence, beginning in time and presupposing
previous non-existence, and itvai, which expresses here, in the present
tense, the eternal, uncreated existence of the Divine Logos. The same
distinction is observed in the prologue of John, where ijv is applied to the
Logos, ver. 1, while ly'ivtro is used of the genesis of the world, ver. 3,
the birth of John the Baptist, ver. 6, and the incarnation of the Logos,
ver. 14.
X. 16: "They shall becorae (ytrijaovrai) one flock (iroipvri), one
shepherd;" instead of "There shall be one fold" (which would require
avXrj, occurring in the same verse) " and one shepherd."
There may be, and there are, many folds (denominations and cburch
organizations) for the one flock under the one shepherd. The error of the
Authorized Version, derived from the Vulgate (ovile), is mischievous, and
has often been used in favor of an outward visible unity culminating in
the pope. Dr. Westcott says (Commentary, in loc): "The translation
'fold' for 'flock' has been most disastrous in idea and influence. The
obliteration of this essential distinction has served in no sraall degree to
confirm and extend the false claims of the Eoman See. It would perhaps

446 THE EEVISED VERSION.
be impossible for any correction now to do away with the effects which a
translation wndeniably false has produced on ecclesiastical ideas."
XIII. 2: "During supper" (or, "as supper was beginning," SfiTrroi;
yivop'tvov), for "Supper being ended" (which is inconsistent with ver.
26, where the meal is still going on). The SeTirvov was the principal
^eal of the ancients, and corresponds to our late dinner.
XIV. 16 : " Comforter," used here, ver. 26, xv. 26, aud xvi. 7 of the Holy
Spirit, was retained, but with a raarginal note. It is an inadequate ren
dering of irapdKXrjTog, which means advocate, helper, intercessor, coun
sellor: It is passive, one called to aid (advocatus), not active (-wapaKXij-
rmp) ; but after long deliberation the Revisers retained the dear old word
which expresses one iraportant function of the Spirit. In 1 John ii. 1,
where it is used of Christ, the Revisers retained Advocate in the text,
with Comforter in the raargin. Rather inconsistent. It would be better
to use A dvocate all through, with Paraclete in the margin. See the long
discussion in Lange on John xiv. 16 (English edition, p. 440 sq.), and
Lightfoot on Revision (p. 50 sqq., in favor of Advocate).
XVL 8 : " Convict ;" for " reprove."
The verb iXtyxtiv implies both a convindng unto salvation and a con
victing unto condemnation. Acts.
II. 3: "And there appeared unto thera tongues parting asunder" (or,
dividing, distributing themselves, SiaptpiZoptvai), "like as of fire;" for
" cloven tongues " (from Tyndale, giving the wrong idea that each tongue
was forked).
II. 31 : " neither was he left in Hades " (or, abandoned unto Hades,
ovrt iVKartXtiipSri tig ^Sov, the realm ofthe dead, the abode of departed
spirits) ; instead of " his soul was not left in hell." So also ver. 27.
Christ was certainly in the realm of the dead, and in Paradise between
his death and resurrection, aa we know from his own lips, Luke xxiii. 43
(" To-day shalt thou be with rae in Paradise ") ; but we do not know
whether he was in hell. The wording of the clause in the Apostles'
Creed, according to its original raeaning, ought to be corrected, "De
scended into Hades." The oraission of " his soul" is due to a change of
reading ; r) tpvxv airoij of the textus receptus is not supported by any of
the oldest authorities, and was probably inserted in contrast to ij ffdpS avrov.
II. 47: "Tbe Lord added to them day by day those that were being
saved" (in the process of salvation, or, with Araerican Committee, "were
saved ") ; instead of " such as should be saved."
The false rendering of the present participle, rovg aioZopivovc, as indi-

THE EEVISED VEESION; 447
eating a class of persons predestinated for salvation, has been traced to a
Calvinistic bias ofthe Authorized Version and the influence of Beza, but
it is derived frora Tyndale and other versions. The sarae word is used in
1 Cor. i. 18, and contrasted with diroXXvptvoi, " those that are perish
ing." III. 19, 20 : " that so Corrmg) there raay corae (tX^mai) seasons of re
freshing from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send (drroart'iKy)
the Christ (rbv Xp,), who hath heen appointed (rrpoKtx^ipiopivov) for
J-ou ;" instead of " when the times of refreshing shall come, . . . And he
shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached (vpoKtKrjpvypivov)
unto you."
Both verbs depend upon oirwf, which never raeans when. The Author
ized Version and older English versions were misled by the Vulgate (ut
cum venerint). The season of refreshing refers to the second coming of
the Messiah.
III. 21 : " Until the times of restoration of all things ;" for " restitution "
(from the Vulgate).
The word dTroKardaraaig refers to the general renovation of the world
at the glorious coming of the Messiah. Compare Matt. xvii. 11 (drroKa-
raoTYjoti Ttavra), and xix. 28 (iv ry rraXivytveoig.).
XIL 4: "Passover;" for "Easter."
The Jewish festival is meant. Easter is of mediaeval Germanic origin,
but was regarded as the precise equivalent for Passover. Luther made
the same raistake (Ostern), and the Gerraan Eevisers did not correct it.
XVII. 22 : " Ye are soraewhat superstitious " (margin, " Or, religious ") ;
for " ye are too superstitious " (frora Tyndale).
Paul was too rauch of a gentleman and had too much good sense to
begin his address to the Athenian philosophers with an insult rather than
a captalio benevolenliee. SuaiSaipov'tartpoi (tbe comparative of SitniSai-
pmv, literally, " demon-dreading," but almost equivalent to our " God-fear
ing "), is ambiguous, but is no doubt used here in a good sense to designate
the scrupulous religiosity of tbe Athenians in erecting an altar for an un
known god, lest they might neglect one. The American suggestion is
still better, " very religious." We might say "over-religious," for the
coraparative intensifies rather than weakens ("somewhat") the idea. In
the sarae address, " What (li) ye worship in ignorance " (unknowingly,
dyvooUvrtg), for "whom ('ov) ye ignorantly worship." Corapare John iv.
22: "Ye (Samaritans) worship that which ye know not."
XX. 28: "Bishops" (tTrioKOTrovg), for "overseers."
This important change (ignored by Humphry) is required by con-

448 THE EEVISED VEESION.
sistency with the uniform rendering of the word in Philippians and the
Pastoral Epistles, and by the undoubted fact that bishops (overseers) and
presbyters (elders) in the apostolic age were identical. The sarae officers
at Ephesus, who are here called MaKoiroi, are in ver. 17 called irpiajSurfpoi.
The change was strongly urged by the American Committee upon the
English Revisers.
XXI. 15 : " We took up our baggage ;" instead of " carriages," which
forraerly had the passive sense, " the thing carried."
XXVL 28 : " With but little persuasion (iv oXi-yy) thou wouldest fain
make me a Christian."
The Authorized Version, "A Imosi [from the Geneva Version'and Beza's
propemodumj thou persuadest me to be a Christian," gives very good
sense, and has furnished the text for raany excellent sermons; but is
against the Greek, both classic and Hellenistic, though supported by
Chrysostom, Luther (es fehlet nicht viel), and Grotius. "Almost" would
require Trap' oXiyov or oXiyov. It assumes, raoreover, that Agrippa, a
raost frivolous character, was in earnest and on the very point of conver
sion, which is contradicted by his later history. The phrase iv oXiy^i
means "in a little," and this may be understood either in a temporal
sense, "in a short time," or in a quantitative sense, "in a few words" (as
Eph. iii. 3). The former is preferred by Neander, De Wette, Hackett,
and is suggested by the Araerican Coraraittee as a raarginal alternative;
the latter is the interpretation of Meyer (" mit wenigem iiherredest du mich
dn Christ zu werden "), Lechler (in Lange), Wendt, Pluraptre, etc, and
corresponds better to the quantitative iv ptydkiji in Paul's answer (adopted
by Lachraann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and EngUsh Eevisers, in
stead of £i» TToXXif). The periphrastic rendering, " with little persuadon "
(or "effort"), is not quite satisfactory, but it is extreraely difficult to trans
late the terse and sententious Greek. Agrippa spoke ironically, or per
haps in playful courtesy ; at all events evasively.
The Change in ver. 28 requires a corresponding change in Paul's answer,
ver. 29 : " whether with little or with much " (Kai iv oXiyifi Kai iv ptydKiji),
for " almost and altogether " (also from the Geneva Version). The Re
vised Version requires the supply of the word persuasion. The Araerican
Committee suggests in the margin, " Or, both in lillie and in great, i. e., in
all respects." The exquisite courtesy of Paul's answer is obvious whether
Agrippa was in earnest or not, and all the more striking if he was not.
Romans.
I, 18 : " Who hold down [or better, " hinder," k a r exovrmi'-] the truth
in unrighteousness ;" instead of " hold."

TIIE REVISED VERSION.

449

The preposition Kara in the verb bas the sense of suppressing, not of
holding fast; compare Luke iv. 42 ; 2 Thess. ii. 6.
III. 25 : " Because of the passing over [or, praetermission, Sid rrjv rrdpt-
aiv, frora Trapirj/ii, to let pass] of sins done aforetime ;" instead of " for the
remission of sins that are passed." Corapare Acts xvii, 30; Heb, i.x, 15,
The praeterraission (irdptaig) of sins is an act of God's long-suffering or
forbearance .(dvoxfj), reraission (dftaig) an act of God's mercy (xdpig) ;
the former is a postponement, the latter a granting, of pardon. The
Vulgate, Luther, and Beza confounded the two.
V. 12 : " For that all sinned ;" instead o( "have sinned."
The aorist (rjpaprov) points to a definite acl in the past, whether this
be the potential fall of all men in Adam, or the actual fall of each de
scendant. The Revisers ought to have made the same correction in iii.
23.

V. 15 : " But not as the trespass (ro
irapdrrrmpa), so also is the free
gift (to xapia/ia). For if by the
trespass of the one (rov ivog) the
many died (ol iroXXoi drriBa-
vov), much more did the grace
of God, and the gift by the grace
of the one man (roii ivba dvBp.),
Jesus Christ, abound unto the
16 many (tig rovg iroXXovg). And
not as through one that sinned,
so is the gift: for the judgement
came of one unto condemnation,
but the free gift came of raany
17 trespasses unto j ustification. For
if, by the trespass of the one (roi)
ivog), death reigned through the
one; rauch more shall they that
receive the abundance of grace
and of the gift of righteousness
reign in life through the one, even
18 Jesus Christ, So then as through
one trespass the judgement came
unto all men to condemnation;
even so through one act of right
eousness (St evbg SiKaiiiiparog)
the free gift came unto all men

V, 15: "But not as the offence, so
also is the free gift : for if through
tbe offence of one many be dead:
much more the grace of God, and
the gift by grace, rvfiich is by one
raan Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto raany.

16. And not as ii was by one that
sinned, so is the gift : for tbe judg
raent was by one to condemnation :
but the free gift is of many offences
unto justification.
17. For if by one man's offence
death reigned by one, much more
they wbich receive abundance of
grace and of the gift of righteous
ness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus
Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence
of one judgment came upon all men
to condemnation : eveu so by the
righteousness of one Ihe free gift
carae upon all raen unto justification
of life.

29

450 THE EEVISED VEESION.
19 to justification of life. For as ] 10. For as by one man's disobe

dienee many were raade sinners : so
by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous."

through the one man's disobe
dience the many (ol iroXXoi)
were made sinners, even so
through the obedience of the one
shall the raany (o'l iroXXoi) be
made righteous."
The iraportant iraproveraents here are apparent at once to every reader
of the Greek. The chief defect of the Authorized Version is the oraission
of the definite article before " raany," whereby a false distinction is created
between many and few, instead of the real distinction between the many —
i. e., all (^Trdvrtg, compare ver. 18 and 1 Cor. xv. 22) and the one (6 tig).
The whole force of Paul's argument is weakened, and a narrow particu
larism substituted for a grand universalism. For in this wonderful section
(verses 12-21), which may be called a grand outline ofa philosophy of his
tory, Paul draws a bold parallel between the first and the second Adam, be
tween the universal reign of sin and death introduced by the one and the
universal reign ofrighteousness and life brought to light bythe other; and
he emphasizes by the repeated " much more " (iroXX^j pdXXov, a dynamic
plus) the greater efficacy or more abundant power of the second Adam,
whose gain far exceeds the loss. The same parallel is brought out raore
briefly in 1 Cor. xv. 22 : " As iu Adam all (rravrec) die, so also in Christ
shall all (rrdvrtg) be made alive." Paul does not indeed teach an actual
salvation of all men — for tbat depends on moral conditions, the free con
sent of the individual, and is a matter of the future known to God^but
he does teach here a universalism of divine intention and divine provision
for salvation; or the inherent power and intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's
atonement to save all sinners. All men rnay be saved, God wills all men
to be saved, Christ is abundantly able to save all, but only those will be
saved who accept Christ's salvation by a living faith. See Lange on
Romans, p. 171 sqq., where these questions are fully discussed. Light
foot (on Revision, p. 97) quotes a good remark from Bentlej', who pleads
for the correct rendering, and saj-s : " By this accurate version some hurt
ful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation had been
happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what several of
the fathers saw and testified, that ot iroXXoi, ihe many, in an antithesis to
the ene, are equivalent to irdvrtg, all, in ver. 12, and comprehend the
whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one."
In several other places the omission of the article bj- tbe Authorized
Version before iroXXoi changes the sense materially — e. g., Matt. xxiv. 12 ;
1 Cor. ix. 4. ,

THE EEVISED VEESION. 451
VI. 2: "We who died (dirt^dvopev) to sin, how shall we any longer
live therein;" for "How shall we that are dead to sin," etc.
The apostle refers to a definite act in the past, namelj-, that critical
turning-point of the conversion and baptisra (verses 3 and 4) when the
Christians renounced sin and consecrated theraselves to God. The Au
thorized Version substitutes a state for an act, and raakes the question'
superfluous. The sarae neglect of the aorist in ver. 4 (avvtrdiliriptv),
6 (avvtaravpmdrj), 7 (drro^avrnv), 8 (dirt^dvoptv) ; also vii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v.
14; Col. ii. '20; iii. 1, 3.
VI. 5: "If we have becorae united witb him by tbe likeness of his
death ;" for " have been planted togelher."
The Authorized Version, following the Vulgate (complanlati), raistook
the etyraology of avpfvroi, literally grown together, which comes from
^vm, io grow, not from ipvrtvm, to plant. Compare Heb. xii. 15 (pi?a
¦jriKpiag fvovaa, a root of bitterness springing up).
VI. 17 : " To that form [or, pattern] of teaching whereunto ye were de
livered " (tig ov rraptSoSrrjrt rvirov SiSaxrjg) ; for " forra of doctrine which
was delivered unto j-ou."
The Apostolic teaching is represented as a mould or pattern after which
the Christians were to be fashioned. Beza : " Hoc dicendi genus magnam
quandam emphasin habere videtur. Ita enim significatur evangelicam
doctrinam quasi instar typi cuiusdam esse, cui veluti immiltamur, ut dus
figura conformemur, ei totam istam iransformationem aliunde venire."
XII. 2: "Be not fashioned (ovaxVl'arH^iaBt) according to this world;
but be ye transformed (perapopipoiiaSt) by tbe renewing of your mind ;"
for " be not conformed . . . but be j-e transformed."
The Authorized Version is an attempt to improve upon the original by
introducing a beautiful play on words, but at the sacrifice of accuracy and
the special adaptation of the first verb to the changing and transitory
fashion (axijpa) of this world. Compare 1 Cor. vii. 31 (rrapdyei rb ox'jpa
roi) Koapov rovrov),
XIII, 2: "They that withstand sball receive to themselves judgment"
(Kpipa); for "They that resist, shall . . . damnation."
According to the usual sense of damnation, the Authorized Version
would send to hell all rebels to any existing political government (t|oii-
aia), however bad, and the passage has often been abused by tyrants, who
never look at the other apostolic precept that "we must obey God rather
than men" (Acts v. 29). Paul, of course, bas reference only to teraporal
punishraent by the civil power. Tbe Authorized Version uses damnation
(eleven times), damned (three tiraes), damnable (once, 2 Pet. ii. 1), foi judg-

452 THE EEVISED VEESION.
ment, condemnation, etc. Compare Bom. xiv. 23 ; 1 Cor. xi. 29 ; 1 Tira. v.
12; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47. In the Revised Version these words
never occur, but are replaced bj' condemnation, judgment, condemned, judged,
destructive (2 Pet. ii. 1). Coeisthiass.
1 Cor. iv. 4; "I know nothing against mj-self" (ipavrif avvoiSa); for
" by myself." A misleading archaism.
XI. 29 : " He that eateth and drinketh [unworthily, compare ver. 27],
eateth and drinketh judgment (Kplpa) unto himself, if he discern (Gr.
disaiminate) not the body ;" for " damnation."
The sarae raischievous archaism as Rom. xiii. 2 and in other passages.
The apostle does not mean to damn every unworthy communicant, but to
warn them of temporal judgments and punishments, such as divers dis
eases (see ver. 30).
XIII. In this wonderful chapter, "love" (dydrrrj) has been substituted
for "charily" (from the Latin caritas), to the great offence of multitudes
of Bible readers. The change was absolutely required by the restricted
sense which "charity" has assumed (i.e., active benevolence towards the
needy and suffering), and which is inapplicable to the ever-enduring char
acter of the greatest of Christian graces (compare ver. 8). Besides, ver. 3
would he a flat contradiction ; for to bestow all one's goods to feed the
poor is the greatest exercise of charity. Tyndale and the older versions
used love, a word as sacred as the other, besides being a strong Saxon
monosyllable. Yea, it expresses the very essence of God himself. Who
would think of changing such passages as " God is love," " Love your
neighbor," " Love one another," " Love the brethren," etc. In all these
and many other cases the substitution of charity and have charily would
weaken the force. It has been objected that " faith, hope, charity " of the
old version sounds more rhythmical than "faith, hope, love" ofthe new;
but this is a mere matter of habit. Good rhetorical taste will ultimatelv
decide in favor of the strong monosyllabic trio.
2 Cor. V, 14: "One died (d-rri^avtr.) for all, therefore all died" (drri-
5avov) ; for " If one died for all, then were all dead."
The same serious mistake by neglect of the aorist as in Rom. vi. 2 and
often. Paul assumes that potentially all Christians died with Christ on
the cross to sin, and rose again to a new life in God. He means an acl of
death to sin, not a state of death through siu.
VIII. 1 : " We make known to you the grace of God ;" for " We do you
to wit of the grace of God."
An obsolete phrase, which meant " to cause to know."

THE REVISED VERSION. 453

Galatians,

11.20: "I have been crucified with Christ (avvtoravpmpai, at tbe
tirae of ray conversion) ; yet I live (Jii S's) ; and yet no longer I (oiiKiri
iym, with a coraraa after Se), but Christ liveth in me ;" for " I am crucified
with Christ. Nevertheless, I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in rae."
The "nevertheless," which is not represented in Greek, raakes the
passage contradictory. But I agree with the Araerican Committee that
the Revisers ought to have put their marginal rendering into the text —
namely, " and it is no longer I that live (Ji3 ^e ovKtri tym, without a
comma), but Christ liveth in me." At his conversion Paul was crucified
and died to the law (drr'tSiavov, not "am dead," ver. 19), according to his
old raan of sin under the curse of the law, but he rose with Christ, who was
henceforth his very life ; he had no longer a separate existence, but was
identified with Christ dwelling in hira as the all-controlling principle.
Corapare iii. 27; iv.l9; 2Cor.xiii.5; Col. iii. 4. Yet this life-union with
Christ is not a pantheistic absorption of the personality of the believer;
hence the explanatory clause in the sarae verse : " and that life which I
now live in the flesh " (i. e., in this bodily, teraporal forra of existence) " I
live in faith," etc.
IV. 13 : " Because of an infirmity of tbe flesh (St daiivtiav rijg aapKog)
I preached the gospel unto you," instead of "through infirmity" (which
would require St da^tvtiag).
The physical infirmity was the occasion, not the condition, of Paul's
preaching to the Galatians. The passage throws some light on the char
acter of the mysterious disease of Paul, which he calls his "thorn in the
flesh." Compare 2 Cor. xii. 7-9, and the commentaries (e.g., the Excursus
of Lightfoot, and in my Commentary).
VI. 11 : " See with how large letters (or, characters, irrjXiKoic ypdppa
aiv) I have written unto you with raine own hand ;" instead of " how large
a letter." Paul refers to his peculiar, large-sized (perhaps bold and awkward)
handwriting, not to the contents. The Authorized Version would require
the accusative, ypdppara. From the Remaining Books.
Phil, ii, 6, 7 : " Who being in the forra of God, counted it not a prize
(apiraypov, a thing to be grasped) to be on an equality with God, but
emptied himself" (eavrbv tKivmai); for "thought it not robbery to be
equal with God: but made himself of no reputation."
This locus clasdcus on the important doctrine of the kenosis of the

454 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Logos is far better rendered than in the Authorized Version, though
there was rauch dispute about a proper equivalent for apiraypog. See
tbe Araerican note, and the Coraraentaries.
Phil. ii. 10 : " In the name of Jesus " (iv np ovi'ipart) ; for " at the narae."
Phil. iii. 20 : " Our citizenship (rroXirtvpa) is in heaven ;" for " our con-
versation " (in the obsolete sense for conduct).
Phil, iii, 21 : " Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation
(rb adpa rijg rarrtivmatmg), tbat it raay be conforraed (avpfiopipov) to
the body of his glory ;" for " who shall change our vile body tbat it raay
he fashioned like unto his glorious body."
The body of the believer, far from being vile, is the temple of the
Holy Spirit, but passes, like Christ, through two stages — a state of hu-,
miliation, and a state of exaltation or glory beginning with the resurrection.
1 Tim. V. 4 : " If any widow hath children or grandchildren " (tKyova) ;
instead of " nephews,", in the obsolete sense.
1 Tim. vi. 5 : " Supposing that godliness is a way of gain ;" instead of
" gain is godliness." The Authorized Version turns the subject into the
predicate and makes nonsense or bad sense.
1 Tim. vi. 10 : " The love of money is a root (piSa, without the article)
of all kinds qf evil ;" for " the root of all evil."
There are other roots of all kinds of evil besides love of money.
Heb. ii. 16 : " Not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the
seed of Abrahara;" for "He took not on him ihe nature o/ angels: but he
took on him the seed of Abraham."
Here the Authorized Version makes (besides the wrong punctuation)
two errors, changing both the tense (imXap^dvtrai) and the meaning
of the verb, as if it referred to the incarnation. imXapjSdvtaSai in the
middle and with the genitive has the sense, to take by the hand, to help,
and corresponds to the deliverance spoken of iu ver. 15, and to "succour"
(jiorj&^aai), ver. 18. See the elaborate note of Bleek given by Alford in loc.
Heb. ix. 27 : " It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this coraeth
judgment" (icpiinc); instead of "?Ae judgment."
The definite article would point to the general judgment at the end
of the world.
Heb. xi. 13 : " Having seen them and greeted them [the promises] from
afar" (da-n-aadptvoi); insteaA ot " embraced them."
1 Pet. iii. 21: "The interrogation (irrtpmrrjpa) of a good conscience
toward God ;" instead of " the answer."
Whatever be the sense of this difficult passage, irrtpmrrjpa cannot
mean an answer, but must mean inquiry o'r seeking after God.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 455
Eev. vi, 6-9: "Living creatures" (Jilo); for "beasts."
This change is necessary to distinguish the four representatives of the
whole creation before the throne of God frora the tw'o antichristian beasts
(^rjpia) of the abyss, Eev. xi. 7 ; xiii. 1 ; and several other passages down
to XX. 10. THE ENGLISH STYLE OF THE EEVISION.
A good translation must be both true and free,
faithful and idiomatic. It is not a photograph made
by mechanical process, but a portrait by the hand
of an artist. It is not simply a transfer from one
language to anotiier, but a vernacular reproduction,
in the very spirit of the writer, and reads like an
original work. This requires full mastery of the
two languages and intelligent sympathy with the
subject. Only a poet can reproduce Homer or Ver
gil, only a philosopher can translate Plato or Aris
totle, only. an orator can do justice to Demosthenes
or Cicero. The best versions of the Bible are from
men who most heartily believed in the Bible and
were inspired by its genius.
The Eevisers, in obedience to their rules and to
public sentiment, have faithfully adhered to the
idiom of the Authorized Version, which is classical
English from, the golden age of English literature,
and has indelibly impressed itself upon the memory
and heart of two great nations. The, Ke vision has
the familiar ring and flavor of the old version, and
whole chapters may be read without perceiving the
difference between the two.
But some changes were iraperatively required by
faithfulness, consistency, and the progress of the
English language. Fidelity to the original must

456 THE REVISED VEESION.
overrule fidelity to the vernacular in translating the
Oracles of God. The Apostles did not write clas
sical Greek, but the then prevailing Greek of the
common people ; and translators have no right to
improve it, or to break up the long and often anaco
luthic periods of Paul {e.g., Eph. i. 3-14) into short,
smooth sentences, although these would be more
congenial to the genius of the English language.
I. Aechaisms. — Every living language clianges
more or less by throwing out old words, adopting
new words, and raodifying the meaning of words,
soraetiraes turning tlie sense into the very opposite.
Obsolete words and phrases ought to be reraoved
from a popular version for practical use, and replaced
by intelligible equivalents. The people's Bible is not
a museum of linguistic antiquities and curiosities.
It is not a herbarium, but a flower-garden. The sa
cred authors wished to be understood by their hear
ers and readers, and wrote in the language familiar
to their conteraporaries, as clearly and forcibly as
they could. Tliey used no antiquated words and
phrases. The Hebraisms of the Greek Testaiment
are no exception, for they were unavoidable for He
brew ideas, and were familiar to readers of the Old
Testament and the Septuagint.
But there is a difference between what is anti
quated and what is antique, or between the obsolete
and the old. Oije class of archaisms is obscure
and misleading, the other is clear and harmless.
,The English Revisers removed the former, but re
tained and even increased the latter ; the American
Eevisers wpuld prefer modern forras of speech

THE EEVISED VEESION. 457
throughout, and have put their protest to a nnmber
of remaining archaisms on record in the Appendix
(Classes of Passages, No. VII.). In this difference
the two Companies represent the diverging tastes
of two nations ; yet there is a dissenting minority
in England which sympathizes with the Araerican
Committee. One reason why the English Eevisers,
the majority of whom belong to the Church of Eng
land, raore closely adhere to archaic forms, is the
daily use of the Book of Common Prayer, whicii has
the same idiom as King James's Bible and is its in
separable companion. The Araerican Episcopalians
have subraitted it to a raodernizing recension, which
was adopted by the General Convention of 1801.
(1.) Misleading Aechaisms. — The two Commit-.
tees were unanimously of the opinion that these
should be removed, and differed only as to tlieir
precise number. The following is a list of obsolete
words in the Authorized Version, and their substi
tutes in the Eevised Version of the New Testament:
"Atonement," in the sense of "reconciliation," Rora. v. 12 (compare xi.
15 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19). ' Etymologically " at-one-ment " is a correct rendering
of KaraXXayij, hut theologically it is now used in the sense of expiation
or propitiation (iXaapog,! John ii. 2; iv. 10; 'tXaorfjpiov, Rom. iii. 25).
"By-and-by," for " inimediately '' or "forthwith" (ivBvg or tvBimg),
Matt. xiii. 21 ; Mark vi. 25 ; Luke xvii. 7 ; xxi, 9.
"By myself," for "against myself," 1 Cor. iv. 4.
" Carriages," for "baggage," Acts xxi. 15.
" Coasts " (opia, p'sprj, x'^P")' ^°'' " borders," " parts," " country," Matt.
ii. 16 ; xvi. 13 ; xix. 1 ; Mark vii, 31 ; Acts xix, 1 ; xxvi, 20,
"^Conversation" (dvaarpo^rj), in the sense of "conduct," or "raanner
of life," Gal, i. 13; Eph. iv. 22; Phil. i. 27; Heb. xiii. 5; James iii. 13;
1 Pet. i. 15 ; ii. 12 ; iii. 1, 2, 16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 7 ; iii. 11. In Phil. iii. 20 " con
versation" is replaced by " citizenship " (r^oXirtvpa).
"Damn" and " Damnation," for " conderan," " condemnation," or "judg-

458 THE EEVISED VEESION.
ment," Rom. xiii. 2 ; 1 Cor. xi. 29. " Damnable " has been replaced by
"destructive" (2 Pet. ii. 1).
" Diddest," for " didst," Acts vii. 28.
" To fetch a compass," for " to make a circuit," or " to go round," Acts
xxviii. 13.
" His," for " its," Matt. v. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 38, etc.
"Horse bridles," for "horses' bridles," or "bridles of the horses," Rev.
xiv. 20. The other form is not a typographical error, but archaic; com
pare "horse heels," Gen. xlix. 17, and " horse hoofs," Judges v. 22.
" Instantly," for " urgentlj'," Luke vii. 4 (airouSaiwg) ; Acts xxvi, 7 (lv
iKTtveif). " John Baptist," for " John the Baptist," Matt. xiv. 8 ; Luke vii. 20.
Elsewhere the A. V. prefixes the article.
" To let," in the sense " to hinder," or " to restrain," Rom. i. 13 ; 2 Thess.
ii. 7. The word means now just the reverse (" to allow ").
"Lewd" (originally "ignorant," then "vicious," then "profligate").
Acts xvii. 5, "lewd fellows," now "vik fellows." Also "lewdness," Acts
xviii. 14 (" wicked villany ").
" Lively," in the sense of " living." Acts vii. 38, " lively oracles ;'" 1 Pet.
i. 3, " lively bope ;" ii. 5, " lively stones."
" Nephews," for " grandchildren," 1 Tim. v. 4.
" To prevent " (from prwvenire, to come before), for " precede," 1 Thess.
iv. 15 (oir prj tjiSdamptv), or " spake first," Matt. xvii. 25 (Trpoi^&aatv
airrov). Now the verb has just the opposite meaning, " to hinder."
" Proper" for " beautiful," Heb. xi. 23 (dartiov, of Moses, " a goodly
child"). " Room," in the sense of " place," Luke xiv. 7, etc.
" To do io wit," for " to raake known," 2 Cor. viii. 1.
" Sometimes," for " some time," i. e., once, formerlj', Eph. v. 8.
" Thought," in the obsolete sense of " auxietj'." Matt. vi. 25 : " Be not
amaioMS," for " take no thought" (pfj ptpipvdrt). Compare Phil, iv.' 6,
where the Authorized Version renders the same Greek verb bj' " Be care
ful for nothing," which is consistentlj' rendered in the Revised Version,
"In nothing '6e anaifous."
" Ware of" (literallj-, woj'y, cautious), for "aware of," Matt. xxiv. 50;
Acts xiv. 6 ; but retained in 2 Tira. iv-. 15.
We add two more archaisms which have been re
tained in the Eevised Version, but against the pro
test of the American Committee :

THE EEVISED VEESION. 459
"Charger," in the sense of a "large dish" or "platter," Matt. xiv. 8;
Mark vi. 25, 28. The American Committee proposed " platter" (in their
notes on Mark vi. 25). " Charger " is now almost exclusively used of a
war-horse. " To hale" and "haling," in the sense " to drag" (haul), Luke xii. 58;
Acts viii. 3. Entirely antiquated in Araerica.
Sorae intelligible words also have disappeared
from the Eevised Version and are replaced by more
accurate renderings — e. g., banquetings, bishopric,
bottles, bottomless pit, brawlers, damn, damnation
(replaced by condemn, condemnation), flux, heretical,
hinder-part {stern), pillow, stuff, whoremonger (five
times, replaced hy fornicator, consistent with other
passages), witchcrcft (Gal. v. 20, replaced by sorcery,
(papfiaKiia). (2.) Injstocent AECHAISMS are words and gram
matical forms which have gone out of use, but do
not affect the sense, and have become familiar to.
the reader of the Bible, and even carry with them
a certain charm to a great many people. Here be
long the uniform use of the "^A." ending of the
verb {hath ior has), tlie very frequent use of ^^ which"
(as applied to persons) for "who," the -occasional use
of " the which," " they " for " those," " they which "
and " them which," " 'unto " for " to," " of" for " by,"
the old-fashioned forras of conjugation, "spake,"
"brake," "drave," "digged," "holpen," "stricken,"
etc., " throughly " for " thoroughly," " alway " for
" always," " howbeit " for " yet " or " however,"
"how that" for. " that," "for to" for " to," " be" (in
the indicative) for "are," "hewas an hungred" for "he
hungered" (Matt. iv. 2; xii. 1), "whiles" for " wiiile"
(Matt. V. 25; Acts v. 4)," woi" for "know "(retained in

460 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Actsiii.l7;vii.40;Eom.xi.2;Phihi.22),and"'i«i5i!"
for " knew " (Mark ix. 6 ; xiv. 40 ; Luke ii. 49, and sev
eral other passages), " entreat " for " treat," " ambas-
sage" for " embassy" (Luke xiv. 32; xix. 14:)," etisam-
ple " for " example" (Phil. iii. 17, and in six other pas
sages), "often," used as plural adjective for "frequent"
(1 Tim. V. 23, " thine often infirmities "), " but and
if" (1 Pet. iii. 14 ; changed in three other places).
Here, however, there is a slight difference of
taste between the two Coraraittees, as already re
marked. The English Eevisers, representing an
ancient nation that is fond of old things and nurses
its very ruins, naturally adhere to these archaisms,
and have even unnecessarily increased them ; ' while
the American Eevisers, who share in the young,
fresh, progressive spirit of their nationality, prefer
to modernize the diction, deeming it unwise to per
petuate a conflict between the language of the chUrcli
and the language of the school. They object espe
cially to the use of "be" for "are" in the indicative,
and of " whicii " for " who " when applied to per
sons, as " God which," " Our Father which," " Christ
which," " Abraham which is dead," etc. The one
is just as good old English as the other is good
new English, but each in its proper place. Why
should we censure a boy for violation of grammar
when he imitates the language of the Bible? The
demonstrative ^/la^ is the old English relative and
the most coraraon in Wiclif, but was often replaced

' E.g., they have introduced the archaic "howbeit" in raany passages
for " but," " yet," " nevertheless," " notwithstanding," or, be it as it raaj'.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 461
in the Elizabethan age by " which" and " who," and
is now again used as a relative, soraetiraes for the
sake of euphony, soraetiraes with a slightly defining
force. " Which" was originally an adjective {qualis,
"of what quality"), and was used of all genders and
both nurabers, but is now confined by all good writers
to the neuter gender and also used as an interroga
tive. " Who" {qui, OQ, welcher) was indiscriminately
used for " tbat " and " which," but is now confined
to persons of either sex and in both numbers. The
Eevisers have often changed " which " into " who "
or " that," according to euphony and English taste,
and thus conceded the principle; but soraetiraes
they are strangely inconsistent in the sarae connec
tion, as Matt. vii. 24, " every one which heareth," but
in verse 26, " every one that heareth ;" Col. iv. 11,
"Jesns, which is," and in the next verse, "Epaphras,
who is" (following in both cases the Authorized
Version). But matters of national taste and habit
are very tenacious."
' Two of the most eminent English statesmen (W. E. Gladstone, who is
a devout Episcopalian, and John Bright, who is a Friend) told me some
years ago that they liked all archaic forms in the Bible, and would rather
pray " Our Father which art in heaveu " than " who art iu heaven." But
the Araerican Episcopalians have long since made the change in their
liturgj-. The German Lutherans always address God, not in the more
correct raodern style, " Unser Vater " (although Luther so translated the
Lord's Prayer in Matt. vi. 9), but in the old-fashioned and now ungrara
matical form, " Vater unser," which Luther retained in his Catechism, in
accordance with the old German and with the Latin " Pater noster-." The
Pennsj'lvania Gerraan farmers, when asked what is the difference between
the Lutherans and the German Reformed, reply : Tbe Lutherans praj-,
" Vater unser," and " Erlose uns vom Uebel ;" tbe Reforraed, " Unser Vater,"
and "Erlose uns rom Btisen." The English Lutherans adopt " Our Father,"

462 THE EEVISED VEESION.
In this connection I may mention another case
which is not archaic, but involves a change of mean
ing as used by the two nations. The Americans
wished to substitute "grain" for "corn" (Matt. xii.
1 ; Mark ii. 23 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9, etc.), because " corn " in
American English designates Indian corn or maize,
which was not cultivated in Palestine ; but the
English still use it in its generic sense, and over
ruled the Americans.
The Araericans also repeatedly protested in vain
against the ovcrstrong idioraatic rendering of the
phrase of ' repulsion ju>) jivoiTo, by " God foi'bid,"
which has been retained from the Authorized Ver
sion in all the fifteen passages where it occurs (Luke
XX. 16 ; Eomans, Corinthians, and Galatians). There
is neither " God" nor "forbid" in the original, and it
can be sufficiently rendered by such phrases as " be
it not so," " let it never happen," " by no means,"
"far from it" (Luther: "das sei feme"). The pro
fane use of the name of God in the Elizabethan age
and by Queen Elizabeth herself {e. g., in her letter
to the Bishop of Ely : " By God, I will unfrock
you"), as well as by her successor James, should
receive no aid and comfort from the English Bible.
II. New Woeds Inteoduced. — While the reader
of the Authorized Version will miss some old words,
he will find a larger number of new words. The
following is a selection :

and adhere to "evil;" the English Reformed retain the address, but dis
miss "the evil one;" both naturally follow the Authorized Version and
the American custom.

THE REVISED VERSION. 463
Abyss, active, actually, advanced, aforepromised, aim, ancient, anew,
animals, announce, anxietj-, anxious, apparition, apportioned, aright,
arisen, ashore, assassin, aught, awe.
Balance (in the singular), bank (rampart), bathed, bay, beach, befitting,
believer (in the singular, 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; 2 Cor. vi. 15 ; the plural occurs twice
in the Authorized Version), bereave, betrothed, billows, blows, boastful,
bondservant, boon, bowl, boy, branded, break your fast, broken pieces,
burnish. Carousings, cell, cellar, circuit, citizenship, clanging, cleanness, coasting,
coUectious, concealed, conduct (noun), confuted, continency, copj-, crowd,
cruse, crush, cushion.
Daring, dazzling, deathstroke, decide, decision, define, defilement, de
meanor, depose, diadems, difficultj', disbelieve, discharge, discipline, dis
paragement, dispersion, dispute, disrepute, doomed, drift, dysenterj-.
Earnestness, effulgence, embarking, emperor (Acts xxv. 21), emptied,
enacted, encourage and encourageraent, enrol and enrolment, enslaved,
ensnare, epileptic, explain.
Faction, factious, fainthearted, fellow-elder, fickleness, flute-plaj'ers,
foregoing, foresail, fureshewed, forfeit, foster-brother, freight, full-grown.
Garaes, gangrene, gear, goad, ^oal, grandchildren, gratulation.
Hades, hardship, haughty, healings, hindrance. Holy of holies, holy
ones (Jude 14), hyacinth (in the Authorized Version "jacinth").
Imitate and imitators, implanted, impostors, irapulse, indulgence, inside,
insolent, interest, interposed, interrogation, intrusted, irksome, its.
Justice.Kinswoman.Late, later, lawlessness (2 Thess, ii. 7 ; 1 John iii. 4, dvopia), lawsuits
(1 Cor. vi. 7), lee, life-giving, listening, love-feasts.
Mantle, mariners, meddler, mess, midheaven, mirror, moored.
Narrative, neighborhood, north-east.
Onset, onward, overboard, overflow, overlooked, over-ripe.
Pangs, planks, plead, plot, prajtorian guard, precede, prejudice, proba
tion, proconsul (for deputy), progress, prolonged, pronounce, put to sea.
Rabble, race (generation), reclining, refined, reflecting, regret, regular,
reminded, rid, riding, roll (noun), roused, rudder.
Sabbath rest, sacred, seenilj', self-control, senseless, setting sail, shame
fastness (for shamefacedness; rather archaic), sharers, shekel, shrink,
shudder, skins (wine-skins), sluggish, snatch, sojourner, solid, somewhere,
south-east, springs (noun), steersman, story (loft), strict, strolling, stupor,
succeeded, sum (verb), sunrising, surge, surpass, suspense, swearers.

464

THE EEVISED VEESION.

Tablet, temple - keeper, tend, tents, threshing-floor, tilled, toll, train,
tranquil, treated.
Unapproachable, unbeliever (the plural occurs in the Authorized Ver
sion), unceasing, undressed, unfaithful, unlifted, unmixed, unripe, unsettle,
unstedfast, unveiled, useful.
Victorious, vinedresser, vote, vouchsafed.
Wallet, welcome, wet, wheel, wine-bibbings, wine -skins, workings,
world-rulers, wranglings, 'H'rong-doer, wrong-doing.
III. Improvements in Ehythm. — Ehythmical
flow and musical charm are generally regarded as
araong the great excellences of the Authorized Ver
sion which cannot be surpassed; This is, no doubt,
true as a rule, but there are not a few exceptions.
The ear may become so used to a favorite passage
that all sense of imperfection is lost. The following
are a few specimens of improvement in rhythm as
well as in fidelity :

Mati
Eevised Version.
Blessed are they that hunger and
thirst after righteousness: for thej'
shall be filled.

, v. G. Authorized Version.
'Blessed are Ihey which do hunger.
and' thirst after righteousness: for
thej' shall be filled.

Matt, viii, 32,
(Corapare Mark v, 13 ; Luke viii, 33,)

Revised Version,
And behold, the whole herd rushed
down the sleep into the sea, and per
ished in the waters.

Authorized Version.
And behold, the whole herd of
swine ran violently down a sleep
place into the sea, and perished in
the waters.

Acts ii. 20.

Revised Version.
The sun shall be turned into dark
ness. And the raoon into blood.
Before the day of tbe Lord come.
That great and notable daj-.

Authorized Version.
The sun shall he turned into dark
ness, and the raoon into blood, be
fore that great and notable day of
the Lord come.

the eevised VEESION. 465
Col. IV. 10.
Eevised Version. Authorized Version.
Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. | Marcus sister's son to Barnabas.
2 TiiESS. I. 11.
Eevised Version. Authorized Version.

That our God may count jou
worthy of your calling, and fulfil
every desir-e of goodness and every
work of faith, with power.

For the Lamb whicb is in the
midst of the throne shall be Iheir
shepherd, and shall guide them imto
fountains of waters of life : and God
shall wipe awaj- ever-y tear frora their

That our God would count j'Ou
worthy of this calling, and fulfil all
the good pleasure of his goodness, and
Ihe work of faith witb power.
Revelation vii. 17. »
Revised Version. Authorized Version.
For tbe Larab, which is in the
midst of the throne, shall /eed Ihem,
and shall lead them unto living foun
tains of waters: and God shall wipe
away all tears from their eyes.

IV. Grammatical Ieeegulaeities. — A number
of passages in the Eevised Version are. too closely
rendered from the Greek or retained from the Au
thorized Version at the expense of strict rules of
English grammar. These irregularities have been
violently assailed, but mostly by critics who are
either ignorant of Greek, or have not taken the
trouble to compare tho version with the Greek, or
even with the Authorized Version, which is guilty
of the same faults. It is not to be supposed for a
moment that the Eevisers do not know the English
language fully as well as their critics ; some of them
are themselves classical writers, and authorities on
the subject of style. Good English, raoreover, is
deterrained by classical usage as well as by the rules
of grammar, and the greatest authors take some
liberties. Nevertheless, corapliance with the rules
30

466 THE EEVISED VEESION.
is better than violation, unless there is a good rea
son for the exception.
The singular verb is repeatedly used with two or
raore subjects. The following are exaraples :
Matt. vi. 19 : " Where moth and rust doth (for do) consume," So in the
Greek (dijiav'tlti) and the Authorized Version. Moth and rust are taken
as one conception.
Matt. xxii. 40 : " On these two comraandments hangeth the whole law,
and the prophets." Here the Authorized Version has hang, following the
textus receptus (Kptparirat)-, but thg Revised Version adopts the reading
Kp'tparai after vopog.
Matt, xxvii. 56 : " Among whom was (for wei-e) Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the raother of James and Joses, and the mother of tbe sons of
Zebedee." Washington Moon, the special charapion of "The Queen's
English" versus "The Dean's English," facetiously asks: "If two Marys
are plural, how can three Marys be singular?" But the Greek has the
singular fjv, and the Authorized Version was. The verb is adjusted to
the first narae, and is silently repeated. The case is different when two
or raore nouns precede, as in Matt, vi. 19,
Mark iii, 33 : " Who is (rig ianv) ray raother and ray brethren ?" Mr,
Moon exclairas : " Who is they !" and refers to Matt, xii, 48 : " Who ts my
mother? and who are (rivtg tiaiv) mj' brethren?" But in both cases the
Revisers simply followed the Greek,
Acts xvii, 34 : " Among whom also was Dionj'sius tbe Areopagite, and
a woraan named Damaris, and others,"
Rom. ix. 4: "Whose is the adoption, and the glory," etc. Here the
Greek omits the verb, aud the Authorized Version &i\p])\ies pertaineth.
Compare also 1 Cor. xiii. 13 ; Eph. iii, 18 ; 1 Tira, i. 20 ; James iii. 10, 16 ;
Heb. i.x. 4.
An example of the reverse irregularity we have in Rev. xx. 13 : "And
they were judged eve?-y man according to their works." Mr. Moon thinks
it ought to be " his works," but the Greek has avrSrv, as required bj- the
plural verb 'iKpiSirjoav. The fKoirroc individualizes the judgment. A
comma before and after "every man" would make all plain.
V. Infelicities. — Here belong some harsh and
clashing renderings which arise mostly frora a slav
ish adherence to the Greek, and could be avoided
without injury to the sense.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 467
John xvii. 24, in the sacerdotal prayer: "Father, that which thou hast
given rae, I will ihat, where I ara, they also may be witb me ; that Ihey
may behold ray glory." This is perhaps the most objectionable rendering
in tbe whole book. It is literal after tbe emphatic order of the Greek,
and the true reading iJ (for qvg), which expresses the undivided totality
of believers; compare ver. 2 (rrdv-avTo-ic). But the English idiom per
emptorily requires here a slight change, or a return to the Authorized
Version: "I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me
where I am," etc. Westcott (in the Speaker's Commentary) proposes:
"As for that which thou hast given rae, I will that . . . thej'." This
does not relieve the difficultj-. Better, though less literal, "As for those
whora," etc., with a raarginal note: Gr. "As for that which."'
1 Thess. iv. 15 : " that we thai ate alive, that are left unto the coraing
of the Lord." Here the triple thai could have been avoided by substitut
ing who for the second and third. The Greek has the participles (rjptig
o't J^mvrtg, ol jrcptXtin-opevoi).
Heb. xii. 13 : "that that whicb is larae be not turned out of the way."
Avoided in the Authorized Version by "lest that" (iva pij). Or, "that
the lame " (Noyes and Davidson).
Heb. xi. 19 : "he did also in a parable receive him back." Literal (iv
¦n-apttjioXy), but unintelligible to tbe English reader. Davidson's render
ing, "in a symbol," is no improvement. Noyes: "figuratively." The
old version is preferable, except that it puts the words "in a figure"
wrongly after the verb. Better in The Speaker's Commentary : " from
whence he did also in a figure receive hira back."
2 Pet. i. 7 : " in j-our love of the brethren love " (ti' ry ipiXaSiXipiq, dyd-
mjv). Intolerable. Better witb the Authorized Version and the Araer
ican Committee, "brothei'ly kindness" for iptXaStXipia (so also Alford,
Noyes, Davidson), or "universal love" for dydrrrj.
Matt. V. 35 : " footstool of his feet " (vttottoSiov rmv rroSwv airrov) ; for
"his footstool." From the Hebrew, Ps. xcix. 5; ex. 1 ; Isa. Ixvi, 1, and
the Septuagint, So also Mark xii, 36 ; Luke xx, 43 ; Acts ii, 35 ; vii, 49 ;

' Other raodern translations — Dean Alford and Dr, Davidson : " Father,
I will that what thou bast given me, even they may he with rae where
I am;" Dr, Noyes; "Father, as to that which thou hast given me, I de
sire that they also," etc, ; Milligan and Moulton (two of the Eevisers, in
SchaWs Illustr. Commentary) : " Father, what thou hast given me, I desire
that where I am they also raay be with rae." This is the best rendering,
if we raust reproduce in English the reading li for o'iig.

468 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Heb. i. 13 ; x. 13. Reproduced in the Vulgate (scabellum pedum ejus),
Luther (Schemel seiner Fiisse, retained by De Wette and Weizsacker), the
Dutch Version (voelbank zijner voeten). But in English the phrase sounds
lumbering and pleonastic (as there is noybo^stool for any other member
of the body), and hence it has been rightly omitted in the Authorized
Version, and also by Alford, Noj'cs, and Davidson.
In tbe Lord's explanation of the parable ofthe tares. Matt. xiii. 37-39,
and in the passage of Paul, 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, the connecting particle and
is introduced no less thau six times in one sentence in scrupulous fidelity
to the original. The repetition of the little Si does not offend the Greek
ear, while the repetition of arui offends the English ear, unless it is era
phatic, which is not tbe case in these two instances. It should be borne
in mind, however, that the English Testament, even in the Authorized
Version, is full of " ands," and that it would be a vicious principle to sacri
fice fidelity to sound. The Revisers have here simply carried out con
sistently the only general rule which cau be defended iu regard to the
rendering of ^e, and the rule usually followed in the Authorized Version.
If "and" is to he left out when its omission or sorae other particle in its
place is raore agreeable to tbe English ear, it must be left out in a hundred
places where it now stands in the Authorized Version as well as the Re
vised Version, and the Hebraistic character of the New Testament style
is changed. And we raust remember that what might be justified in a
professedly modern Version, not aiming at great literalness, cannot be jus
tified in a version like the Authorized Version and the Eevised Version,
which aim at closeness rather than elegance.
INCONSISTENCIES.
These are very few and insignificant, while in the
Authorized Version they are
" Thick as auturanal leaves that strew the brooks in Vallambrosa."
The Eevisers have been ranch censured by some
for inconsistency, by others for pedantry, in the ren
dering of the Greek article and the Greek tenses ;
while it is admitted by nearly all critics that in both
respects they have generally been as careful and
accurate as the old translators were negligent and
inaccurate. No scholar of good taste and judg-

THE EEVISED VEESION. 469
ment, in view of the idiomatic peciilia rities of the
two languages, would advocate a pedantic uniform
ity. Ehetorical and rhythmical considerations must
often decide whether the definite article is to b6
retained or omitted, and whether the Greek aorist
is to be rendered by the simple preterite or by the
perfect. It is the duty of the translator to retain
the definite article whenever it strictly defines the
noun — e. g., the Christ, as the official designation of
the promised Messiah or the Anointed, in the Gos
pels; "the many" in Eom. v. 15-19, as equivalent
to " all," and opposed to "the one" (not to "a few");
"^-^6 falling away" and "the man of sin" in 2 Thess.
ii. 3 (instead of "a falling away" and "that man of
sin"); "^^ecity" (namely, the heavenly Jerusalem),
Heb. xi. 10 (instead of " a city ") ; " the good fight "
of faith, "the course," "the crown of righteousness,"
2 Tim. iv. 7, 8 (instead of " a good fight," "a crown ") ;
" the crown of life," Eev. ii. 10 (for " a crown of
life"). On the other hand, the definite article
shonld be oraitted in English where in the Greek
it is used idiomatically, as frequently (not always)
in the proper names of persons (tov 'IirnoK, but
'AjBpau/i in Matt. i. 1, 2 sqq.) or countries (ij 'lovSaia,
17 FaXiXala, t] ^Aa'ia, rj A'tyvTrrog ') ; in the designa
tion of a class or genus (6 aySrpatTrog, man, al aXu'i-
TTfKEcfoxes) ; in Eora. v. 12, j? a/taprla and 6 ^araroc,
sin and death, as a principle or all-pervading power.
But it is used in English where it is oraitted in
' Winer says Aiyvrrrog never takes the article, but Lachraann, Tregelles,
^Westcott and Hort admit it in Acts vii. 36, on the authority of B, C, etc.;
while Tischendorf, eighth edition, omits it with X, A, E, H, P. \

470 THE EEVISED VEESION.
Greek in a number of adverbial phrases {iv apx\i, in
the beginning, sv ajopa, in the market-place); be
fore Ssoe (while the plural ol Suoi must be rendered
"^Ae gods"); and in otber cases. Upon the whole,
the Greeks used the article raore freely than the
English ; the translators of King Jaraes, following
the Latin Vulgate, too often neglected it; but in
both languages it may often be either inserted or
omitted with equal correctness, and the choice is
determined by subjective considerations or the feel
ings of the writer.'
As to the verb, the Greek aorist should be repro-
' See Moulton's Winer, p. 131 sqq. (eighth edition), and two able essays
on the Use of the Article in the Revised Version by expert Greek scholars,
one by Professor J. S. Blackie, of Edinburgh University, in "The Con
temporary Review" for Julj', 1882, and one by Professor Williara S. Tyler,
of Amherst College, in the "Bibliotheca Sacra" of Andover, Mass., for
January, 1882. Both charge the Revisers with minute micrology or
trifling acribology, but differ among themselves in several details. Tyler
defends the restoration of the article in Heb. xi. 10 (" the city which hath
/Aefoundations"), andinRev. vii. 13, 14 (" i/ic white robes . . .the great
tribulation"); while Blackie condemns it as "simply bad English." If
philologists differ, what shall theologians do ? Blackie objects to Middle-
ton's principle of the emphatic use of the Greek article, and rather leans to
Scaliger's view, who sarcastically called it " loquadsdmce gentis fiabellum."
But hc is certainly wrong in censuring the Revisers for omitting the ar
ticle in John iv. 27: "a woman," pird yvvaiKog, for "Ihe woman" (thc
wonder of the disciples being not, as Blackie thinks, that their Lord was
talking to that particular woman of the heretical Samaritan people, but
to any woman in a public place, in violation of the rabbinical and
Oriental etiquette which forbids conversation even with one's own wife in
the street), and in 1 Tim. vi. 10 : "a root of all evil," piZa, tor " ihe root,"
which he explains to mean " a very big root." He says that " a root " is
un-English, and yet admits that there are many other roots of all evil be
sides love of money, " such as envj-, hatred, anger, and even the contempt
of money exhibited in the squanderer and the spendthrift."

THE REVISED VEESION. 471
(Juced by the English preterite not only in a con
secutive narrative, but also in didactic discourse,
whenever the writer refers to a definite act in the
past, as crucifixion and resurrection (Eom. iv. 25 ;
vi. 10; Gal. iii. 21, etc.), or the conversion and bap
tism of the readers (Eom. vi. 3, 4 ; Gal. ii. 19 ; iii. 27 ;
2 Cor. V. 14, 15, etc.). As to the imperfect tense, it
is easy in most cases to express in English, with the
aid of the auxiliary verb, the continued or repeated
or contingent past action which is implied in the
Greek imperfect.
But in a number of cases there is room for a dif
ference of opinion and taste araong the best of
scholars. The following are instances where the
treatment of the article and tenses may be dis
puted :
" God's righteousness " in Eom. i. 17 would be more exact for SiKaioaivrj
StaU than "a righteousness" (or "the righteousness" in the Authorized
Version), and the contrasted "God's wratl;," opyfj Stov, in the following
verse, instead of "Ihe wrath of God," which the Revised Version incon
sistently retained from the Authorized Version, with " a wrath '" in the
raargin. In Matt, vii, 6 the definite article before Kvvig and xoipoi is generic
(as before dpapria and Sidvarog in Rora, v, 12), where the German idiora
reserables the Greek, but where the English idiora requires the absence of
the article. Hence, "unto dogs" and "before swine" would be better
than "unto Ihe dogs" and "before Ihe swine," (The Authorized Ver
sion renders the article before "dogs" and oraits it before "swine.")
When we use the definite article of the genus of aniraals, we do it in the
singular, as "the horse," "the cat," "the fox."
In Matt. viii. 20, and the parallel passage, Lnke ix. 58, the article is
likewise generic in at dXmirtKtg, and hence should be omitted, although
the Revised Version corrects the inconsistency of the Authorized Version,
which retains it in the first and oraits it in the second passage.
Matt. viii. 12 and in several other passages, "the weeping and gnash-

472 THE REVISED VEESION.
ing" (corisistency would require "the gnashing"), for b KXav^pbg Kai o
Ppvypbg rmv oSovrmv. The Authorized Version, which omits the article
in botb cases, is preferable.
Other questionable uses of the definite article are: "ihe bushel," Matt.
V. 15; "the rock," Matt. vii. 24; "the sower," "the rocky places," "the
thorns," "ihe good ground," in the parable of the Sower; "the breaking
of the bread and the prayers," Acts ii. 42 ; " the dogs," Phil. iii. 2 and Rev.
xxii. 15. Compare also the important class of passages mentioned iu
No. XIII. of the Araerican Appendix.
One of the most difficult questions connected with the article is the
Pauline use of the anarthrous vopog. The Revisers vary between "the
la-w," "a law," and "law." On general principles we would say that o
vopog, " the law," means the Mosaic or written law (moral and ceremonial),
while vopog, "law," without the article, means the natural law, or law in
general, law as a principle. But it is impossible to carry this distinction
through, and,for a good reason. The term vopog had, like Otog, Kvpiog,
ypaipai iiyiat (see Rom. i. 2) and the Hebrew Thora, assumed the char
acter of a proper name with the Jews, who regarded the Mosaic law as the
perfection of all law, moral as well as ceremonial. So we use in English
" holy Scripture," " holy writ," and •' the holy Scriptures " alternately with
out any discrimination. In addressing readers of Jewish descent, Paul
could alternate between vopog and o viipog without danger of being mis
understood. In Galatians he uses vopog without the article even more
frequently than with it.' In Gal. ii. 16, tS tpymv vopov, and in ver. 19,
Std vopov vopip drr't^avov, he can hardly raean any other law but that
of Moses, and hence the Revisers have correctly rendered the passages
" by the works of the law," and " I through the law died unto the law,"
although they, have put " law " on the raargin. So in vi. 13 : ovSt ol irtpi-
rtpvoptvot auroi vopov ipvXdoaovaiv, " not even they who receive cir
cumcision do themselves keep Ihe law " (so the Revised Version, with the
useless margin, "Or, a Za»"). The same holds true in Rom. ii. 17 : "Thou
art called a Jew and restest upon the law" (vopip); corapare ver. 23 (iv
vopip and roU vopov) and ver. 27 ; vii. 1 : yivmoKovai vopov XaXw, " I
speak to men that know Ihe law " (again with the useless margin, " Or,
law"); X. 4; -xiii. 8, 10.^ ,
' Frora ray counting in Bruder's Greek Concordance the figures are
these: in the six chapters of Galatians the anarthrous vopog occurs twen
ty tiraes, o vopog ten times; in the sixteen chapters of Romans vopog
occurs thirty-four tiraes, 6 vopog thirtj'-five tiraes.
' Corapare here Winer's Grammar, and the discussions of Meyer and

THE EEVISED VEESION. 473
As to the Greek tertses, the Revisers are as accurate and consistent as
the English idiom will admit. Tbey seldom depart from the Greek with
out good reason. In Matt. vi. 12 they translate the aorist cuprjKaptv (which
is better supported than the present dfitptv) by the perfect: "we have
forgiven," because it conveys tbe idea of a completed act more forciblv in
English than the more literal " we forgave." So John xx. 2 : " they have
taken away (fjpav) the Lord," and ver. 3 : " they have laid him (i^rjKav),"
is better than tbe more literal but less faithful and idiomatic " took " and
" laid." Compare Matt. xi. 27 : " all things have been delivered unto me "
(rrdvTa poi waptSoSrrj, in tbe Authorized Version "all things are deliv
ered," whicb is certainly wrong) ; xxv. 20: "I have gained" (iKipSrjaa).
But in Matt, xxvii. 4 the rendering "I sinned in betraying innocent
blood," seems better adapted to the terse Greek ('ijpapTov -rrapaSovg) and
the desperate state of Judas than "Ihave sinned ui that I [have] betraj'ed
innocent blood," which the Revisers retained from the Authorized Version
with the exception of the second " have." In Rom. iii. 23, rjpaprov should
have been rendered " sinned " for " have sinned," consistently with Rora.
V. 12; the aorist pointing in both passages to a definite act in tbe past,
whether it be the fall of the race in Adam or the individual transgressions
of his descendants.
We add a few inconsistencies of a different kind,
trifling oversights resulting, perhaps, frora weariness
of the flesh after hours of hard study, quite excusa
ble in scholars as well as in poets. "Aliquando
dormitat bonus Homer-us."
" Thy house" in Matt. ix. 6 and Luke v. 24, but "thine house" in Luke
Weiss on Romans ii. 12 sqq., Wieseler and Lightfoot on Galaiians ii. 15,
19, etc. Bishop Middleton, in his famous Doctrine ofthe Greek A rticle (1808,
new edition, 1841), censures the Authorized Version for obliterating the
distinction between vopog and o vopog ; while Professor Blackie, on the
contrary, expresses the opinion that tbe Authorized Version in this case
is generally right, the Revised Version, in so far as it departs from it, gen
erally wrong. Professor Tyler, on tbe whole, sides here with the Eevised
Version, yet he, too, thinks tbat in the whole paragraph, Rora. ii, 11-29,
the rendering ofthe Authorized Version is more consistent and more cor
rect, I dare saj-, however, that if these eminent Grecians had heard the
debates in the Companies, they would judge less confidentlj'.

474 THE REVISED VEESION.
vii. 44. " Quick " (i^dv) is changed to " living," Heb. iv. 12, but left in
Acts X. 42 ("judge of quick and dead," perhaps in deference to the Apos
tles' Creed) ; " quickening " (i^morroioiiv) is changed to " life-giving," 1 Cor.
XV. 45; but "quickeneth" is retained in John vi. 63. The obsolete form,
"he was an hungred," is changed in Matt. iv. 2, xxi. 18 into "he hun
gered," but retained in Matt. xii. 1, 3 ; xxv. 35, 37, 42. The older ver
sions vary between "hungered," "was hungry," "was au hungred."
NEEDLESS VAEIATIONS.
Much complaint is made of mere verbal depart
ures from the Authorized Version which convey no
benefit to the English reader, but offend his ear or
taste, and disturb his sacred associations connected
with his familiar Bible. The Eevisers have even
been charged on this point with a violation of their
own rule: "to introduce as few alterations as possi
ble into the text of the Authorized Version consist
ently with faithfulness." This is thought to be the
more censurable as the English Bible is not simply a
tran.slation, but a national classic and inestimable
treasure of the people. Why, for example, it is asked,
should " the fowls of the air " be changed into " the
birds of the heaven"?' Why should the "vials"
which contain tire incense of the prayers of saints
and the " vials " of wrath (in the Apocalypse) be
turned into "bowls"?" Why should the phrase
' Matt. vi. 26 : rd rrtreivd roi oiipavoii. So also Matt. viii. 20 ; Luke
ix. 58, etc. The Authorized Version is here, as often, inconsistent in using
five times bird (Matt. viii. 20; xiii. 32; Luke ix. 58; Eom. i. 23; James
iii. 7), and nine times fowl (Matt. vi. 26; xiii. 4; Mark iv. 4, 32; Luke
viii. 5 ; xli. 24; xiii. 19; Acts x. 12; xi. 6). oiipavog is in most passages
translated heaven, four times sky, nine times air.
^ Eev. V. 8 ; xv. 7, and in ten other passages of the same book. The
Greek ipiaXrj, corresponding in the Septuagint to pltiQ, is a broad, flat,

THE EEVISED VEESION. 475
"which, being interpreted, is God with us," Matt. i.
23, be made to run, " which is, being interpreted,
God with us " ? ' Why should the order of words
be reversed in slavish conformity to the Greek,
even in the Lord's Prayer : " As in heaven, so on
earth " ? "
In reply to these charges, we have to subrait (1)
that in nearly all the examples which have been
singled out by friendly and unfriendly critics, there
is a good reason for the change ; (2) that a great raany
alterations were required by consistency or necessi
tated by the sound rule of uniforra rendering, wliich
shallow bowl or cup (Latin pa^eio, Gerraan Schaale) foir drinking or pour
ing liquids; in the Old Testament, for receiving the blood of sacrifices or
frankincense. The English vial or phial is, no doubt, derived from tbe
Greek ^tdXrj through the Latin phiala, but is coraraonlj- used of a small
bottle, or little glass vessel with a narrow aperture intended to be closed
with cork, as a vial of raedicine (see Webster). Hence, here, too, the
Eevisers are rigbt.
' This is simply to conform to the Greek order (<i tan ptSrtpprjvivupt-
vov), and to make the translation consistent with the five other parallel
passages where the much-lauded Authorized Version itself observes the
same order ; see Mark v. 41 ; xv. 22, 34 ; John i. 41 (42) ; Acts iv. 36. And
yet, in culpable ignorance of tbis fact. Sir Edraund Beckett, a special plead
er for the superior excellency of the English style of the Authorized Ver
sion, calls this change an illustration of "the capacity of the Eevisers
for spoiling sentences with the sraallest possible exertion, and for no visi
ble object. Here the raere transposition of that little ' is ' makes all the dif
ference between a livelj', soleran, and harmonious sentence, and one as flat,
inharmonious, and pedantic as a raodern Act of Parliament or the Revisers'
Preface." (Should Ihe Revised New Testament he Authorized? p. 50.)
" Matt, vi. 10. The critics forget that the Authorized Version has pre
cisely the sarae order in the parallel passage, Luke xi. 2, with the single
difference of " in earth " instead of " on earth ;" but the Revised Version,
with all critical editors, omits this passage in Luke as an interpolation
from Matthew.

476 THE REVISED VEESION.
must be carried out wherever the Greek words have
precisely the sarae meaning or are emphatically re
peated. We would not deny that the Revisers may occa
sionally have overdone the changing by an over
anxious or over-conscientious desire to be faithful to
the original. But if they have erred here, they have
certainly erred on the right side. And this is the
laudatory censure of Bishop Wordsworth, of Lincoln,
who said of the Eevisers : " They would have suc
ceeded better and have performed more if the;^ had
attempted less. Not by doing, but by overdoing,
their work has been less happily done."
In many instances it is simply impossible to secure
unanimit}', or to satisfy even one's own taste, in mak
ing or omitting changes. And the adverse critics
have certainly shown no better tact or promised bet
ter success. In most cases the laboring nlountains
have only produced a " ridiculus mus." An anony
mous, but very able and fair-minded reviewer of
these critics, gives the following amusing specimens
of a revision of the Eevision : '
"We hasten to turn awaj' from these irksorae records of fault-finding
to acknowledge the great and raanifold obligations under which the Re
visers have laid all English-speaking people. The critics have not pro
pitiated our assent to their arguraents by the alternative translations
which they have soraetiraes been good enough to offer. We are not sure
that the Bishop of Lincoln hiraself would be applauded for the correction
whioh he suggests on Rom. xii. 11, 'in your hurry be not lazy' (p. 29).
The new Bodleian Librarian would scarcely have improved the fortunes
of the Revised Version if he had been a meraber of the Corapany, with
infiuence enough to induce them to begin tbe New Testament, the 'Roll
' In " The Church Quarterly Eeview " for January, 1883, p. 385.

THE REVISED VEESION. 477
of birth, or Birth-roll, or EuU of descent, or Family-roll, of Jesus Christ;'
and if they had yielded to the 'regret' which be expresses, that the Re
visers did not further improve the Lord's Prayer, by rendering ' Give us
our morrow's bread to-day ' in their text. Mr. J. A. Beet, who complains
of the ' almost total absence of poetic instinct ' in the Eevisers, addresses
himself to the difficult text, Phil. ii. 6 ; and after toiling over the passage
for four large pages, produces at last his own rendering (' in lack of a bet
ter,' as he modestly says) ; ' Not high-handed self-indulging did He deem
His equality with God.' "
Making every allowance for imperfections which '
adhere to the best works of fallible men (including
the Pope — remember the revised edition of the Vul
gate corrected by Sixtus V.), a minute, careful, and
impartial examination of the Eevision of 1881 must
lead to the conclusion that in text and rendering it
is a very great improvement upon the Version of
1611, and the most faithful and accurate version of
the Greek Testament ever made from Jerome down
to the present date. Its merits are raany and great;
its defects are few and sraall, and mostly the result
of overfidelity to the Greek original and to the Eng
lish idiom of King James's Version. The defects,
moreover, are on the surface, and could be easily
removed by the Eevisers themselves if tliey were
called upon to do so. And why should they not do
it after the completion of the Old Testament ? Do
they not owe it to theraselves and to the Christian
public? The best scholars are eager to correct blera
ishes, which they always discover in the first edition
of their works. Such final editing is not to be con
founded with a new revision, which is not likely to
be undertaken in the present generation.
We believe that the foundation of the revision
will stand and outlast all the criticisras. )'¦

478 THE EEVISED VEESION.
We have so far reviewed the Eevision as a unit.
Wc must now, in justice to the American Commit
tee and the American comraunity, speak of the
American share of the work as far as it is incor
porated in the text or relegated to the Appendix.
THE AMEEICAN PAET IN THE JOINT WOEK.
The Eevised New Testament, as authoritatively
printed and published by the two English Univer
sity Presses, is the joint work of both Committees.
The English Eevisers began nearly two years earlier,
and the American Eevisers worked on the basis of
the first English revision, whicii was a great advan
tage; but they had to go through precisely the
same process of textual criticism and exegesis, to
examine the sarae authorities, and to discuss the
same differences of reading and rendering. They
have spent probabl}' the same amount of time and
labor since they began to co-operate. They trans
mitted to England only the points of difference and
suggestions of new changes. Tliese were printed
from time to tirae for the exclusive use of the Ee
visers, and would raake altogether an octavo volume
of about four hundred pages. Occasionally an elab
orate essay was included, in justification of a partic
ular point, as the difference of reading in John i. 18
{fiovoyivxjQ S'Eoc, or 6 fiovoyevrjq viog) ; on Acts XX.
28 (S'Eof;, or Kvpiov); on John viii. 44;. on Acts xxvi.
28 ; Matt. xxvi. 50, see Pres. Woolsey in the " Bibl.
Sacra" for April, 1874; on Luke ii. 2 (Quirinius,
not Quirinus), see Pres. Woolsey in " Bibl. Sacra "
for July, 1878 ; and on Tit. ii. 13 (the last not sent to

THE EEVISED VEESION. 479
the English Revisers, but published in the " Journal
of the Society of Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis" for June
and Deceraber, 1881). In the great raajority of
cases the result only was stated.
In order to forra a just estimate of the Araerican
share of the work, and the degree of harmony of the
two Committees, it is necessary to compare those
parts which were done independently. For such an
estimate we have the materials at hand.
When the comraunication between the two Com
mittees was interrupted for a few months in 1877
(in consequence of negotiations with the Univer
sity Presses), the American Committee took up the
first revision of a portion of Isaiah and of the Epis
tle to the Hebeews, and finished thera before the
tirst English revision of the same books was re
ceived. On a comparison it was found that in about one
half of the changes the two Committees had arrived
at the sarae conclusions.
The result as to the Epistle to the Hebrews is
raore particularly stated in the following letterfrom
Bishop Lee, a member of the New Testament Com
pany, to the writer : "Wilmington, Del., April 25, 1881.
"My Dkai! Sir: My examination of the independent revisions of the
Epistle to the Hebrews by the English and the American Companies,
resulted iu the estimate that out of 913 changes made by the Araerican
Company, 476 were exactly coincident with those of the English. There
were others .substantially the sarae, but not precisely identical.
"The variations were largely in punctuation and minor points.
" I do not claira, of course, perfect accuracy, but I think this statement
is not far from the truth.

480 THE EEVISED VEESION.
" My estiraate of the American suggestions adopted is, in
The Gospels  318
Acts  186
Epistles and Revelation  400 904
" In the calculation I aimed to count each new suggestion but once,
although in many cases it was often repeated — as food for meal, Hades for
hell, lomb for sepulchre, etc. I omitted returns to the Authorized Version
aud differences of punctuation, except in a few important instances, and
metrical arrangeraents, presuraing that these w-ould have been done by the
British Corapany even without our calling their attention to them.
"If you wish for more particular information upon any of these points,
I shall be happy to supply it as far as I can.
" Very trulj' jours, "Alfbed Lee."
See Bishop Lee's list of American changes adopt
ed by the English Company in text or margin, in
Appendix IV.
Again, in the year 1880, the American Old Testa
raent Cornpany went through the first revision of
the Book of Job, and printed it (for private use)
before the first English revision of the same book
was received. Copies were transmitted by the Pres
ident to the Secretary of the British Old Testament
Company, February 4, 1881, with the reraark: "I
send you to-day by European express twenty-seven
copies of the American revision of Job, for distribu
tion among the members of your Company. The
revision was completed before yonr revision came
to hand. Hence, it has been printed in full, which
will give you a better idea of the character of our
work and the raeasure of its agreeraent with yours."
A careful comparison was made between the Eng
lish and the American revision of Job, by Professor

THE EEVISED VEESION. 481
Mead, of Andover, Mass., a member of the Old Tes
tament Corapany, and the result is stated in the
following letter addressed to the Chairman of the
Old Testament Company : "Andover, i^eJ. 5, 1881.
"My Dear Prof. Green: . . . You may be interested in knowing
the result of my collation of the two revisions of Job. Of course it is
impossible to be very exact, it beiug often difficult to determine how to
designate a change, or to decide how far to analyze a change— j. e,, whether
to call it one, two, or three, when a whole clause is transformed. In gen
eral I have adopted the plan of being rainute in tho matter, though doubt
less not consistent with rayself either in this or in any other respect.
Still, the general proportion of things is probably indicated with tolerable
exactness. The result is as follows :
Whole number of changes made by the American Revisers  1781
Whole number of changes made by the English Revisers  1004
Changes identical in both  455
Changes substantially the same in both  134
Passages differently changed by both  289
Changes in Amer. Revision where there arc none in English Revision 913
Changes in English Revision where there are none in Amer. Revision 2BG
American readings found in English margin  53
English readings found iu Araerican margin  12
"The general result is that in about half the cases we coincide. Moro
exactly, the identical changes forra about 45^ per cent, of the changes
made by the English. Adding tbe cases of substantial coincidence, wo
have made 58J per cent, of the changes which they have made. In
multitudes of other cases there -B-ould bc a ready acquiescence on our
part in tbeir changes— raany of them having reference to very small
matters, while many of ours also are ofa similar sort.
"Yours truh-, " C. M. Mead."
On the basis of these facts it may be said that tho
two Committees, if they had acted independently,
would have produced two recensions of the same
revision, agreeing in about one half of the changes
31

482 THE EEVISED VEESION.
and iraprovements, while the other half in the great
majority of cases would have admitted of easy ad
justment, so as to leave only a small residuura of
minor differences.
Both Coraraittees, therefore, may look upon the
Eevision as their own work. The English Com
raittee, however, has a just claim to priority and a
primacy of honor. The mother took the lead, the
daughter followed. The Americans gave to the
vast majority of the English changes their hearty
approval, and the whole weight of their independent
research and judgment. On the other hand, a large
nuraber of the remaining changes whicii they re
garded as most important have been, after due de
liberation, accepted by the English, so that with a
few exceptions the points of difference set forth in
the Appendix are of comparatively little interest
and importance. These mutual concessions are of
vital account for the international character and suc
cess of the work. THE AMEEICAN APPENDIX.
The American Appendix is short, and contains
only those renderings which the English Company,
in its final action, was unwilling to accept, and which
the American Comraittee deeraed of suflScient im
portance to be recorded for future use. It is pro
vided for by the fourth article of the agreeraent of
August 3, 1877, which is as follows :
"If any differences shall still reraain, the American Comraittee will
yield its preferences for the sake of harraony; provided that such differ
ences of reading, and rendering as tbe American Coramittee may represent

THE EEVISED VEESION. 483
to the English Companies to be of special importance, be distinctly stated
either in the Preface to the Eevised Version, or in an Appendix to the
volurae, during a term of fourteen years from the date of publication,
unless the American Churches shall sooner pronounce a deliberate opinion
upon the Eevised Version with the view of its being taken for public
use." '
The material for an Appendix was gradually re
duced, by honorable and liberal concessions of both
parties. The Americans yielded at least six hun
dred and eighty preferences (according to Bishop
Lee's calculation). The best part of the Araerican
labor is incorporated in the book, and there it will
rernain, whatever may become of the Appendix.
The reraaining differences are still more reduced
when we consider that the English Eevisers have
 ft 
' The introductory note to the Appendix was carefully drawn up bj'
the American Corapany and transraitted to the English Corapany in the
following terms :
" The American New Testament Revision Company, having in many cases
yielded thdr preferences for certain readings and renderings, present the
following instances in which ihey differ from the English Company as in
iheir view ofsuffidenf importance to be appended to the Revision, in accord
ance with an understanding between ihe Companies."
The English Corapanj', for reasons best known to theraselves, have
taken the libertj' to set this heading aside, and to substitute for it the
following :
"List of readings and renderings preferred by the Arnerican Committee,
recorded at iheir desire. See Preface, page ix."
This heading has been strangely misunderstood and raisinterpreted by
manj-, as conveying the idea that the printing of the Appendix was a
favor rather than a right, and that it contained aK the work of the
American Company. Fault has been found also witb the Preface from
the Jerusalem Chamber (which was not subraitted to the American Com
pany), because it does not state expressly that any of the American
suggestions were adopted; but this may be fairly inferred from the terms
in which they are spoken of, as having received " much care and atten
tion," and having been " closely and carefully considered."

484 THE EEVISED VERSION.'
recognized on the margin many of the American
changes. The Appendix consists of two parts. The first
contains fourteen classes - of passages, and implies
general rules;' the second suggests about three hun
dred speciflc changes or alternate renderings. The
former require many alterations in the text; the
latter are mostly of the same nature as the marginal
notes, and might have been distributed to the sev
eral passages if the English Company had thought
proper to do so. The most important have already
been discussed in the preceding pages, especially the
archaisms. We will only notice the first and the
twelfth of the general rules."
1. The Titles and Headings of Books.
" Omit the word ' Saint ' from the title of the Gospels and the Revela
tion of John, the word ' the Apostle ' from the title of the Pauline Epistles,
and ' Paul the Apostle ' frora the Epistle to the Hebrews, the word ' Gen
eral ' frora the title of the Epistles of Jaraes, Peter, 1 John, and Jude."
The Committee had no eapress authority to revise
the titles of the books, and hence the English Com
pany retained those given in the Authorized Version
as printed in 1611. But the American Company
' In Rule XIII. the reference to " Col. i. 3 " ought to be stricken out,
because the Revisers read rip ^tip irarpi without the intervening icai of
the textus receptus.
" For a fuller vindication of the Appendix, see the writer's additional
chapter in the Araerican edition of Dr. Roberts's Companion io the Revised
New Testament, pp. 192-206, and in an article contributed to " Christian
Opinion and Revisionist" (Lond., Nos. 22 and 23, June, 1882), also two
articles of Dr. Timothy Dwight in the "N. Y. Independent" for May 19
aud May 26, 1881.

THE EEVISED VERSION. 485
embraced this opportunity to conform the titles to
the ancient authorities, and critical editions of the
Greek text, and to make thera consistent. Their
conclusions were determined by the following con
siderations :
{a.) There is no documentary evidence whatever
for the title "Saint." The best Greek and Latin
MSS. (s, B, D, a, b, e, q, etc.) read simply : " Accord
ing to Matthew " (Kara MaS'S'aTov), or " The Gospel
accm'ding to Matthew"' {EvayjiXiov to kuto. M.).
Some of later date add the title to the book (not the
author) : " The Holy Gospel according to Matthew."
{b.) The technical ecclesiastical use of " Saint," as
one of a spiritual nobility or aristocracy distinct
from ordinary Christians, is not biblical, bnt belongs
to a much later age. The sacred writers apply the
term ajiog to all believers, as being separated from
the world, consecrated to God, and destined for holi
ness. See Eom. i. 7 ; xii. 13 ; xvi. 15 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9 ;
Acts ix. 13, 32, 41 ; Jude 3. In the text of the
New Testanient the apostles and their disciples are
siraply called by their names, and this ought to be
suflScient. They theraselves would protest against
the claim to exclusive saintship ; nor should we, on
the other hand, put them on a level with the innu
merable saints of later ages. They stand far above
them. (c.) The Authorized Version is inconsistent: it
prefixes the title "Saint" to the Gospels and to
Eevelation, but oraits it in the Acts and Epistles, as
if James, Peter, and Paul were not saints as well as x
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or as if the St. John of

486 THE EEVISED VEESION.
the Gospel and of the Revelation were not the sarae
as the John of the Epistles. The inconsistency is,
of course, an inadvertency. The Bishops' Bible re
tained the title " Saint" frora the Vulgate in twen
ty-six books of the New Testaraent; the Geneva
Bible consistently omitted it in all ; the first edition
of the Authorized Version of 1611 omitted it in all
but five.
{d) The title "Apostle" is likewise wanting in
the oldest Greek MSS. (s, A, B, C), which read sim
ply, "To the Homans" {Upbc 'Fw/jiaiovg), etc., al
though some insert "of Paul," or "ofthe Apostle
Paul," or " of the holy Apostle Paul." Moreover,
the title "Apostle" belongs to Peter and John as
well as to Paul, and should be given to all or none.
Here, too, the Authorized Version is strangely in
consistent or careless in omitting "the Apostle" in
the heading of the Catholic Epistles and the Epistles
to the Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, while insert
ing it in all the other Pauline Epistles.
{e.) The present title of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(" the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews ")
prejudges the open question of the authorship of
this anonyraous epistle. The best MSS. (s. A, B, K)
read simply, "To the Hebrews" {Ilpog 'E(5paiovQ).
The raajority of modern scholars regard it as the
production of a pupil or friend of Paul. The opin
ions of the ancient Church were divided on the
question of authorship between Paul, Luke, Barna
bas (and Cleraent of Rorae). A translator has no
right to decide that question in the absence of docu
mentary evidence.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 487
(/.) The title "General" {^'Catholic," KaSioXiK^i)
of the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude is
likewise of later date, and omitted by critical.editors.
It is misleading, and applies no more to those Epis
tles than to Ephesians and Hebrews, which have an
encyclical character; while the second and third
Epistles of John are each addressed to an individual.
An objection will be made to this part of the
Appendix by those who deem it reverent to retain
the time-honored " Saint " in connection with the
evangelists and apostles. But then, let us at least
be consistent, and use it uniformly, or drop it alto
gether. The sacred writers must be our standard
of reverence, and they speak of each other simply
as Matthew, Mark, LuTce, John, Peter, and Paul.
The highest order of merit and distinction needs no
epithet of honor.
2. Rendering op Terms Denoting Coins.
"Let daadpiov (Matt, x, 29 ; Luke xii, 6) be translated 'penny,' and
Srjvdptov 'shilling,' except in Matt, xxii. 19; Mark xii. 15; Luke xx. 24,
where the name of the coin, ' a denarius,' should be given."
The rendering of coins in our English Version is
very objectionable, and makes a false impression
upon the popular reader. "Mite" may be retained
for Xettto'v' (the eighth part of an aaadpiov, or as,
half a quadrans, or about one fifth of one cent), and
"farthing" for Ko^pavrrjQ {(quadrans, the fourth part
of an as, equivalent to two mites, 8uo Xettto), as in
Mark xii. 42, "a poor widow cast in two mites wliich
make a farthing." But the more valuable coins .are
mischievously perverted and belittled. Bishop Light
foot, one of the most influential of the English Re-

488 THE REVISED VEESION.
visers, has shown this so well that I can do no better
than quote him in full justification of the American
view. He says : '
"Why daadpiov, the late Greek dirainutive used for the as, of which,
therefore, the KoSpdvrrjg is a fourth part, should still be translated a
far-thing (which elsewhere represents KoSpdvrrjg) rather thanpenny, it is
difficult to see (Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 6). And as we advance in the
scale, the disproportion between the value of the original and the English
substitute increases. Thus the denarius, a silver piece of the value orig
inally of ten and afterward of sixteen ases, is always rendered a penny.
Its absolute value, as so much weight in metal, is as nearly as possible the
same as the French franc. Its relative value as a purchasing power, in
an age and a country where provisions Were much cheaper, was considera
bly more. Now it so happens that in almost every case where the word
Srjvdpiov occurs in the New Testament it is connected with theidea ofa
liberal or large amount ; and yet in these passages the English rendering
names a sum which is absurdly small. Thus the Good Saraaritan, whose
generosity is intended to appear throughout, on leaving, takes out 'two
pence,' and gives thera to the inn-keeper to supply the further wants of
the wounded man. Thus, again, the owner of the vineyard, whose liber
ality is contrasted with the niggardly, envious spirit, the 'evU eye' of
others, gives, as a day's wages, ' a penny ' to each man. It is unnecessary
to ask what impression the mention of tbis sum will leave on the minds
of an uneducated peasant or shopkeeper of the present day. Even at the
time when our Version was raade, and when wages were lower, it must
have seeraed wholly inadequate. The inadequacy again appears, though
not so proraiiientlj', in 'the two hundred pence,' the sura named as insuf
ficient to supply bread to the five thousand (Mark vi. 37 ; John vi. 7), and
similarly in other cases (e.g., Mark xiv. 5; John xii. 5; Luke vii. 41).
Lastly, in the Book of the Revelation (vi. 6), the announcement, which in
the original implies famine prices, is rendered in our English Version, 'A
measure of wheat for a pennj', and three measures of barley for a pennj'.'
The fact is that the word xo'^vi^, here translated ' measure,' falls below the
amount ofa quart, while the word Srjvdpiov, here translated 'a penny,'
approaches toward the value of a shilling. To the English reader the
words must convey the idea of enormous plentj'."
' "A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament," London, 1871,
pp. 165-167 ; Amer. cd. (Harpers), 1873, pp. 141-143.

THE EEVISED VEESION. 489
But in this case, again, the scholarship of tbe
English Revisers was overruled by the timid con
servatism of the majority, and custom was allowed
to prevail against truth. So the "farthing" was
retained twice for aaaapiov (Matt. x. 29 ; Luke xii.
6), and twice for KoSpavrijc (Matt. v. 26 ; Mark xii.
42), and the "penny" (with "pence" and "penny
worth") for ^ijvdpiov in flfteen places. Where the
penny occurs for the first time. Matt, xviii. 28, the
marginal note is added with killing effect on the
text: " The word in the Greek denotes a coin worth
about eight pence half-penny," i. e., in plain Saxon,
worth eight and a half times more than the text in
dicates. . But in all other passages the reader, unless
he looks up that marginal note, will still be at a loss
to understand how a penny or two cents can be fair
wages for a day's labor, or a liberal gift to save a
sick man, or a famine price for a whole measure of
wheat and three measures of barley.
Yet, in justice to the English refusal of so reasbn-
able a change, it should be remembered that it is
impossible, without circumlocution, to find a precise
idiomatic equivalent in English for the Greek Siji-a-
joiov and the Latin denarius. Sometimes a little
matter gives great trouble. This is an instance.
The inevitable penny was discussed over and over
again in the Jerusalem Chamber and in the Bible
House. The Engli.sli Company at an early stage
was about to adopt the Anglicized form " denary,"
when the late Dean Alford killed it by the humor
ous objection that denary raight be mispronounced
deanery, and give rise to the jest that the Revisers

490 THE EEVISED VEESION.
sold a deanery for a penny. The precise rendering
would be " eight pence and a half," but this is no
single coin. " Six pence" in this respect would do
better, but falls short of the full value. Still less
would Englishmen tolerate " sixteen cents," nor
would Americans intrude their coins into the Bible.
The Americans wavered between "shilUng," "franc,"
" silverling," "drachma," "denarius," "denary"
"denar." The Latin "denarius," with a marginal
explanation, would have been unanimously adopted
but for the passages where the word occurs in the
plural (Matt, xviii. 28 ; Mark vi. 37 ; xiv. 5 ; Luke
vii. 41 ; X. 35 ; John vi. 7; xii. 5) ; for denarii sounds
too much like Latin for an English Bible. They
agreed at last upon " shilling," but would prefer any
other of the proposed renderings to "penny." A
shiUing is not absolutely correct, but is a genuine
English silver coin, and does not convey the idea of
a ridiculously small sum. There can be no doubt
whatever that, if found in the old version, shilling
would have been retained by both Companies.
THE PUBLIC VEEDICT.
The Revision is subject to the verdict of the
Christian public, whicii will be pronounced by the
official action of churches and Bible societies. In
England an Act of Parliament or Order of Council
may be necessary in addition to the votes- of the
Convocation of Canterbury and Tork before it can
be used in public worship. No such action can be
expected before the Old Testament is published and
sulficiently examined. If approved, the Revision

THE EEVISED VEESION. 491
will gradually supersede the old version ; if reject
ed, it will still reraain a most iraportant help for the
private use of rainisters and Bible readers, and be
made the basis of some future revision ; and such re
vision will become inevitable in case of rejection ; for
the churches will never be contented with the version
of 1611 after all its innumerable defects have been
made known. " Revolutions never go backward."
The American Appendix will be printed, accord
ing to agreeraent, in every copy of the University
editions till the expiration of the term of fourteen
years— *. e., till May, 1895. If approved, it will be
incorporated in the text, if not, it will be dropped.
The Church of England is not likely to surrender
her love for the archaic forms of language, as
"which" for "who," "be" for "are," "Ghost" for
"Spirit," "devils" for "demons," "wot" and "wist"
for "know" and "knew," etc., but she may possibly
give to the specific renderings a place among the
marginal notes, though they are already very nu
merous. Of English critics, some sublimely ignore
the Appendix,' some approve it,^ none has con-
' So Dean Burgon, Canon Cook, and even Mr. Humphry in his Com~
mentary on the Revised Version. One of the adverse critics naively con
fesses that till the j'ear 1882 he was happily ignorant of the existence of
any eminent biblical scholars and critics in America.
' Dr. Angus, one of the English Eevisers, says : " The first three sug
gestions of the Araerican Committee ought in consistency to be accepted,"
and speaks favorably of the rest. A critic in the London Athenceum (May
28, 1881) saj'S : " Several of the recommendations of the American Com
mittee might have been adopted with advantage. The general excellence
of the suggestions of the Araerican Eevisers is undoubted, and they ought
not to have been so often neglected." Mr. Thoms, the compiler of the
Complete Concordance lo ihe Revised Version of ihe New Testament, Pub-

492

THE EEVISED VEESION.

demned it. In the United States public opinion
seems unanimously in favor of the American readings
and renderings.' Several editions have already incor
porated them into the text with an Appendix reversed;
but such a reduetio ad absurdum does great injus
tice to the English Revisers, for they only retained
certain words and phrases of the old usage whicii is
still preferred by the majority of Englisbraen."
lished under Ihe Autliorization' of Oxford and Cambridge Universilies
(London, 1882), notices the Araerican suggestions throughout, and says
(Preface, p. vii.) that "raost of thera are very valuable, and deserve far
better treatraent than to be relegated to tbe end of the book without so
rauch as a reference raark in the text to indicate their existence."
' A very corapetent Greek scholar. Professor W. S. Tyler, D.D., says
(iu the " Bibliotheca Sacra," Andover, January, 188-2, p. 161) : " We think
the feeling is wide in Great Britain, and it is almost universal in this
country, that the greater part of the changes which were proposed hy the
American Committee and rejected by the Anglican Committee should
have been accepted, and that consistency, not less than the intrinsic merits
of the proposed emendations, required their adoption."
^ The following are specimens from the Appendix in one of these
Americanized editions :
American Edition.
" List of Readings ond Renderings
preferred by the English Committee.

II. In the litle of the Pauline
Epistles (except those to the
Galatians, Titus, and Phile
raon) insert 'the Apostle;' in
the title of the Epistle to the
Hebrews insert ' of Paul Ihe
Apostle ;' in the title of the
Epistles of James, Peter, 1
John, and Jude insert the
word ' General ;' and let the
title of the Eevelation run,
' 'The Revelation of S.John ihe
Divine.'

University Edition.
" List of Readings and Renderings
preferred by the A merican Commit
tee, recorded ai thdr desire.
II. Strike out ' ihe Apostle ' from
the title of the Pauline Epis
tles, and ' of Paul the Apostle '
from the title of the Epistle
to the Hebrews; strike out
the word 'General' from the
title of the Epistles of James,
Peter, 1 John, and Jude ; and
let the title of the Eevelation
run, ' lhe Revelation of John.'

THE EEVISED VERSION;

493

It is barely possible that there raay be ultiraately
two standard editions, an English and an Araerican.
But these would be only two slightly different re
censions of one and the sarae revised version (as we
have. different editions of the Greek text), and the
changes will no raore affect the unity of the version
than the differences of English and American spel
ling now affect the unity of the English language.
On the contrary, the essential unity will be all the
more, apparent and effective for the variety in un
essential details.

AiMERic.VN Edition.
III. Wherever 'Holy Spirit' oc
curs, substitute 'Holy Ghost,'
except in Mark iii, 29 , Luke
ii.25,26;iv.l; x.21; xi.l3;
xii. 10, 12; John i. 33; xiv.
26; Acts ii. 4; vi. 5; 1 Cor.
xii. 3; Ephes. i. 13; iv.30; 1
Thess. iv. 8 ; Jude 20.
VI. Use 'which' of persons as well
as 'who' or' Ihat ;' ' 6e ' as well
as 'ai-e' in the present indica
tive ; 'wot' ot' wist' as weil as
'know' or 'knew;' and 'hale'
for ' drag.'

vn. Substitute for 'demon' ('de
mons') theword 'devil' ('dev
ils'); and for 'demoniac' or
'possessed wilh a demon ' (' de
mons') substitute
wilh a devil' (' devils ').'

University Edition.
III. For 'Holy Ghost' adopt uni
formly the rendering 'Doly
Spirit:

VI. Substitute modern forms of
speech for the following ar
chaisms, viz., ' who ' or ' that '
for ' which ' when used of per
sons; 'are' for 'be' in the
present indicative ; * know,'
'knew,' for 'wol,"wist;' 'drag'
or ' drag away ' for ' hale.'
VIL Substitute for ' devil' (' devils ')
the word 'demon' ('demons')
wherever the latter word is
given iu the margin (or repre
sents the Greek words Sai-
pmv, Saipoviov); and for 'pos
sessed wilh a devil' (or devils')
substitute either 'demoniac'
or 'possessed with a demon ' (or
'demons')."

494 THE EEVISED VEESION.
But whatever may be the ultimate fate of the
American Appendix, it is of very little account as
compared with the text of the Revision as it now
stands. It is a matter of wonder and congratulation
that two distinct Companies of scholars of various
denominations and schools of theological thought,
divided by the ocean, and representing two inde
pendent and high-minded nations, should have ar
rived, after several years of unbroken and conscien
tious labor, at such harmonious conclusions' in the
translation of their most sacred book, which is recog
nized by both as their infallible guide in all matters
of Christian faith and duty.
The Anglo-American Revision is the noblest
monument of Christian union and co-operation in
this nineteenth century.
And herein is the finger of Providence, and the
best guarantee of ultimate success. The Revisers
of 1881 will ere long be forgotten, like their prede
cessors of 1611, and some of them have already
passed beyond the reach of praise or blame; but
their united work will live until it is superseded by
a better one.

APPEl^DIXES

APPENDIX I.

LIST OF PRINTED EDITIONS OF
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.
By Pkopessoii Isaac H. Hall, Pdiladelphia.

Note. — The following list consists of the " Index I. Editio
num" from the Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Grceci, Brunsvigse,
1872 (pp. 289-301), by Professor Eduabd Reuss, D.D., of
Strassburg, ¦with a few bracketed remarks or additions, and
a ''' to mark the more noted, or the epoch-making publica
tions; omitting, liowever, the Gosi)el Harmonies and other
mere portions of the N. T. Editions not enumerated (or not
known) by Reuss, but within his plan, are added in brackets,
in chronological place.
A supplementary list of editions published since 1870, the
date of his compilation, is added, down to the present time.
The plan of Dr. Reuss included all published editions of
the entire N. T., together with such larger portions thereof
(Gospels, Harmonies, Epistles, etc.) as exhibited editorial care
in text or form, but omitting uncritical school-books. He
also omitted published copies of MSS., aud editions based ou
a siiigle MS. Repetitions of the same edition, with changes
only in the title-page, or by minute corrections in the text,
were denoted by the same number in the "Index," but put
ting the repeated number in parentheses. This method is
followed here also, as far as his numbers reach or .apply.
It is not claimed that this list is perfect, but diligence has
been exercised to make it as complete as possible.
The number of Harmonies and other forms of the Four
Gospels, omitted, as above stated, from the list of Dr. Reuss,
is about fifty; while that of other portions of the N. T. is
rather less than twenty-five. A list of each, supplemented
and continued to the present time, would add at least Lalf as
32

498 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
many more Harmonies, etc., and more than quadruple the
number of other portions ofthe N. T.
Estimating each edition of the entire Greek N. T. at 1000
copies, the whole number of copies printed would exceed
1,000,000, besides a vast multitude of repetitions, etc., which
are beyond the reach of estimate.
I. EDITIONS OF THE ENTIRE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT
FKOM 1514 TO 1870.

List of Reuss enlarged.
(The numbers aro Eouss's; editors' naraes in small capitals; publishers' in
lieaTf type; places of publication in italics.)
*1. 1514. Biblia polyglotta Complutensia. fol. [Card, Ximenes.
Alcala. The first printed, published 1522.]
*2. 1516. Erasmi I. gr. lat. BasU. Froben. fol. [The first pub
lished.] *3. 1518. Biblia gr. Aldina. Venet. fol.
4. 1519. Erasmi II. gr. lat. £asil. Froben. foL
6. 1521. Gerbelii. JIagenoce. Anshelm. 4.
'^6. 1522. Erasmi IIL gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. [1 John v. 1
admitted. The basis of the textus receptus, except in Revelation.].
7. 1524. CephalsBi. Argerd. S.
8. 1524. Bebelii L Badl. 8.
9. 1627. Erasmi IV. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol. [With Vulg.]
10.. 1531. Bebelii IL Basil. 8.
11. 1531. Rescii. Lovan. 8.
13. 1534. Colinaei. Paris, 8. [The first attempt at a critical
edition.] 14. 1535. Erasm: V. gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol.
IS. 1535. Bebelii IIL Badl. 8.
16. 1536. Valderi. Badl. 32. [The first miniature-sized.]
18. 1538. Plateri L Basil. 8.
19. 1538. Ant. de Sabio II. Venet. 8. [Ed. L, 1533, contained
only part of the N. T.]
20. 1540. Plateri IL Ba^l. 8.
21. 1541. (al. 1539, 1540.) Erasmi VI. gr. lat. Badl. Froben. fol.
22. 1541. (al. 1542.) Erasmi VIL gr. lat. Basil. Froben. fol.
23. 1541. Brylingeri I. gr. lat. Badl. 8.
24. 1542. Brylingeri II. gr. lat. Badl. 8.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. -4:99
25. 1543. Brylingeri IU. Basil. 8.
' 26. 1543. Bogaidi. gr. lat. Boris. Gaillard. 12. [Toussaint.
Displays some critical effort.]
(26.) 1543. Eoignyi. gr. lat. Paris. GniUard. 12. [Toussaint.]
Plateri IIL Badl. 8.
Plateri III. Badl. 8.
Brylingeri IV. gr. lat. Badl. 8.
Curionis. Badl. 16.
Erasmiana. Honter. gr. lat. Coronm. 4.]
Frobenii. Badl. 4.
Biblia gr. Basil. Hervagii. fol. [Melanchthon's ed.]
Brylingeri V. gr. lat. Badl. 8.
Rob. Stephani I. Paris. 16. [" 0 Mirificam."]
Froschoveri I. Tiguri. 8.
Brylingeri VI. Basil. 8.
Brylingeri VII. gr.lat. Badl. 8.
Dupnisii. gr. Iat. Paris. 16.
Granjon (Marnef, Fezandat), gr. lat. Paris. 16.
Rob. Stephani II. Paris. 16. [" 0 Mirificam " IL]
Frevotii. Paris. Haaltin. 16.
Prevotii. Paris: Birkmann. 16.
Rob. Stephani in. Pam. fol. ["Editio regia." Eng
lish textus receptus, so called.]
41. 1550. Brylingeri VIII. gr. lat. Basil. 8.
*42. 1551. Rob. Stephani IV. gr. lat. (Genev.)\?,. [First divided
into modern verses.]
43. 1552. Oporini. Badl. 16.
Brylingeri IX. Basil. 8.
Brylingeri X. gr. lat. Basil. 8.
Jo. Crispini I. (Genev.) \&,
Brylingeri XL gr. lat. Basil. 8.
Brylingeri XII. gr. lat. Badl. 8.
Brylingeri XIIL Basil. 8.
Froschoveri II. Tigmi. 8.
lornaesii. gr. lat. Lv,gd, 8.
Earbirii. gr. lat. Badl. fol. [Pseudo -^eim. It has
Beza's latin only.]
(52.) 1659. Tiguri. gr. lat. fob
(52.) 1560. Barbirii. gr. lat. Badl. fol.
54. 1662. Brylingeri XIV. gr. lat. Basil. 8.
66. 1563. BryUngeriXV. Badl. 8.

27.

1543.

(27.)

1544.

28.

1644.

29.

1545.

[

1544.

30.

1545.

31.

1645.

32.

1646.

*33.

1546.

34.

1547.

35.

1548.

36.

1549.

37.

1649.

(37.)

1549.

38.

1549.

39.

1549.

(39.)

1549.

*40.

1550,

44.

1553.

46.

1553.

46.

1553.

47.

1556.

48.

1658.

49.

1558.

60.

1559.

61.

1559.

52.

1659.

500 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
66. 1663. Voegelini I. gr. lat. Lips. 8.
57. 1663 (1564). Voegelini IL Xijos. 8.
58. 1564. Brylingeri XVL gr. lat. Lips. 8.
Jo. Crispini II. (Genev.) 16.
Jo. Crispini II. (Genev.) 16.
Bez^ major. I. gr. lat. (Genev.) Steph. fol.
BezjE minor. I. gr. lat. (Genev.) Steph. 8.
Voegelini III. gr. lat. Lips. 8.
Frosohoveri III. Tiguri. 8.
Brylingeri XVII. gr. lat. • Badl. 8.
BEZ.E minor. II. gr. lat. (Genev.) Steph. 8.
Bob. Stephani jun. Paris. 16.
Rob. Stephani jun. Pons. 16.
Tremellii triglotton. (Genev.) Steph. fol.
Flacii I. Perna. Basil, fol.
Voegelini IV. gr. lat. Lips. 8.
Brylingeri XVIII. gr. lat. Basil. 8.
Tremellii triglotton. Lugd. fol.
Biblia polyglotta. Antwerp. Plantin. fol. [Antwerp
Plantini I. gr. lat. Antwerp, fol.
Flantini II. Antwerp. 8.
Plantini IIL Antwerp. 32.
Vignonii I. (Genev.) 16.
Henr. S'I'Ephani I. (Genev.) 16. [Preface contains
his celebrated essay on tbe style of the Gr. N. T.]
Brylingeri XIX. gr. lat. Basil. 8.
Steinmanni I. gr. lat. Lips. 8.
Bez^e minor. III. gr. lat. (Genev. Steph.) 8.
Burgis Araconensium. fol. [Same as No. 72 ?]
Bez.e major. II. gr. lat. ( Genev. Steph. ) fol.
Steinmanni II. gr. lat. Lips. 8.
Plantini IV. gr. lat. Antwerp. 8.
Selfischii I. gr. lat. Viteb. 8.
Jegeri. gr. lat. Amst. 8.
Plantini V. gr. lat. Antwerp, fol.
Vignonii II. (Genev.) 16.
BoDERiANi triglotton. Paris. Prevoteau. 4.
Boderiani triglotton. Paris. Le Bono. 4.
Ostenii I. Basil. 8.
Henb. Stephani IL (Genev) 16.

59.

1564.

(59.)

1565.

*60.

1565.

61.

1568.

62.

1865.

63.

1566.

64.

1666.

65.

1567.

66.

1568.

(66.)

1569.

67.

1569.

68.

1570.

69.

1570.

70.

1671.

(67.)

1571.

*71.

1671.

Polyglott]

72.

1672.

73.

1573.

74.

1674.

75.

1674.

.76.

1676.

his ce

lebrate

77.

1577.

78.

1578.

79.

1580.

9

1681.

80.

1582.

81.

1582.

82.

1383.

83.

1583.

(83.)

1583.

84.

1584.

85.

1684.

*86.

1684.

(86.)

1586.

87.

1686.

88.

1587.

[With No. 106,
¦ the chief basis of
our A. V.N. T.]

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 501
89. 1587. Vautroilerii. Lond. 16, [First Gr. K T. pub. in Eng.]
90. 1687. Vignonii IIL (Gmev.) 16.
91. 1588. Ostenii II. gr. Iat. Basil. 8.
92. 1688. Steinmanni IIL gr. lat. Lips. 8.
? 1588. Stoerii. [gr.lat. Masch.] (?CTi««). fol. [Same as No. 80?]
*93. 1588. BEZ.E major. IIL gr. lat. (Genev.
Steph.) fol.
*(93.) 1689. BEZ.E major. IIL gr. lat. (Sine
loco et typog. sed Genev. Steph.) fol.
*[(93.) 1589. BEZ.E major. III. gr. lat. Genev.
Henr. Steph. fol.]
94. 1590. Bez.« minor. IV. gr. lat. (Genev. Vignon.) 8.
Plantiniana. Antwerp. 8. [Doubtful.]
Baphelengii I. Lugd. Bat. 32.
Lanzenbergeri I. gr. lat. Lips. 8.
Londinensis e typogr. regia. 16.
Mylii. gr. lat. Colon. Birkmann. 8.
Voegelini V. gr. lat. Lips. 8.
1694). Voegelini VL Lips. 8.
vel antea). Bihelii. gr. lat. Argent. 8.
Falthenii. gr. lat. Francof. 8.
WoLDERi trilinguis. Hamb. Lucius, fol.
Biblia gr. Wecheliana. Francof. fol.
KouBsini. gr. lat. Lugd, 8,
BEZ.S; major. IV. gr. lat. (Genev,) Vignon. fol. [See
Bez.e major. Sine-loco et typog, fol. [Other varie-
Biblia Commeliniana. gr. lat. Hddelh. fol.
Commelini. gr. Iat. (Heidelb.) 8.
Vincentii. gr. lat. Lugd. 8.
Genev. gr. lat. 8.
Harsyi I. gr. Iat. Lugd. 8.
Lanzenbergeri IL gr; lat. Lips, 8.
HuTTERi dodecaglotton. Norimb. fol.
Wechelii II. Francof. 16.
¦Weohelii III. Francof. fol.
Baphelengii II. Lvigd. Bat, 48.
Commelini. gr. lat. (Heidelb,) 8.
HiTTTERi tetraglotton. Norimb. 4.
P. Stephani I. (Genev.) 16.

J

1590.

95.

1591.

96.

1591.

97.

1592.

98.

1592.

100.

1594.

101.

1595

102.

1596

103.

1596.

104.

1596.

105.

1597.

(51.)

1597.

*I06.

1598.

No. 93.

]

*(106.)

1598.

ties exist.]

107.

1599.

108.

1599.

(108.)

1599.

(108.)

1599.

109.

1599.

110.

1599.

*111.

1599.

112.

1600.

113.

1601.

114.

1601.

(108.)

1602.

115.

1602.

116.

1604.

502 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT;
117. 1604. BezA minof. V. gr. lat. (Genev. Vignon.) 8.
118. 1605. Selfischii IL gr. lat. Viteb. Seuberlich. 8.
(118.) 1606. Selfischii IL gr. lat. . Viteb. Seuberlich. 8.
? 1609. Baphelengii. gr. Iat. Lugd. Bat. 8.
Lond. 8.]
Roverii I. gr. Iat. (Genev.) to\.
Boverii IL gr. lat. Aurel. AUobrog. 8.
Roverii III. (Genev.) 24.
Stoerii I. gr. lat. (Genev.) 12.
Boverii IV. gr. lat. Aurel. AUobrog, 16.
Harsyi II. gr. Iat. Lugd. 16.
Bez.« minor. VI, gr. Iat. ( Genev. Vignon.) 8.
Bez^ minor. VL gr. Iat. (Genev. Crispin.) 8.
Baphelengii III. Lugd. Bat. 32.
Sam. Crispini I. gr. Iat. Genev. 12.
Baphelengii IV. gr. lat. Lugd. Bat. 8.
LuBiNi trilinguis. Post. Pedanus. 4.
LuBiNi trilinguis. Amst. Janson. 4.
Vignonii IV. Genev. 16.
HuTTEKi tetraglotton. Amst. 4.
Biblia Commeliniana. gr. Iat. (Heidelb.) fol.
P. Stephani IL S.Crispin. (Genev.) 16. [Text same
LuBiNi trilinguis. Post. Hallerfeld. 4.
Hafenrefferi. gr. Iat. Tub, Werlin. 4.
Selfischii III. gr. lat. Viteb. Seuberlich. 8.
Boverii V. gr. lat. (Genev.) f6\.
Boverii VI. gr. lat. Aurel. AUobrog. 8.
Boverii VI. gr. Iat. Sine loco. 8.
Roverii VII. Col. AUobrog. 4.
Roverii VII. Col AUobrog. 4.
Roverii VII. Genev. 4.
Gergani. Witteb. Borheck. 4. [For use in Greece.]
Billii. Lond. 8. [K. Whitaker.]
Sam. Crispini II. gr. Iat. (Genev.) 12.
Selfischii IV. gr. lat. Viteb. 8.
Elzevirornm [Elzeviriorum] I. Lugd. Bat. 24.
[European textus receptus, though not so called till after 1633,]
145. 1626. Stoerii IL gr. lat. Genev. 12.
[(158.) 1625. Buckii. Cantab. 8.]
(130.) 1626. LuBiNi trilinguis. Rt>st. Perber. 4.

{- '

(1609.)

120.

1609.

121.

1609.

122.

1609.

123.

1609.

124.

1610.

125.

1611.

126.

.1611.

(126.)

1611.

127.

1612.

128.

1612.

129.

1613.

130.

1614.

(130.)

1614.

131.

1615.

(115.)

1616.

(107.)

1616.

133.

1617.

as Vignon.]

(130.)

I6I7.

134.

1618.

135.

1618.

136.

1619.

137.

1619.

(137.)

1 1619.

138.

1619.

(138.)

1 1620.

(138.]

1 1620.

139.

1622.

140.

1622.

141.

1622.

143.

1623.

*144.

1624.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 503
146. 1626. [Henrici laur(entii), «©<] Laurii L gr. Iat. Amsf.8.
lil. 1627. Stoerii III. gr. Iat. Genev. 8.
149. 1628. Tournesii I. (Genev.) 24.
(149.) 1628. Tournesii I. Aurel. AUobrog. 24,
150. 1628. Tournesii II. trilinguis. Genev. 8.
151. 1628. Jannonii. Sedan. 32. [The smallest ever published,
except No. 450.]
152. 1628. MoEiNi biblia grseca. Paris, fol. [4 edd. ; Sonnius,
Chappelct, Buon, and A. Steph.]
(150.) 1629. Tournesii IL Genev. 8. .
153. 1629. WecheUi IV. Hanov. 12.
*164. 1630, 1633. Biblia polyglotta Parisienda. Vitre. fol.
? 1630. . JanssoniL Amst. 16.
(137.) 1631. Roverii [VL] gr. lat. Aurel. AUobrog. 8.
155. 1632. Janssonii I. Amst. 16.
156. 1632. Jac. Crispini. (Genev.) 16.
(156.) 1632. Tournesii IIL 16.
167. 1632. Tournesii IV. (Genev.) 24.
158. 1632. Buckii. Cantabr. 8.
159. 1632. GoRDONi. gr. Iat. Paris. Cramoisy. fol.
*160. 1633. Elzevirorum [Elzeviriorum, and so No. 167] IL Lugd.
Bat. 24. [The famous textus receptus.'\
161. 1633. Whitakeri. Lond. 8. [Elzevir.]
162. 1633. Blaeuii. Amst. 32.
163. 1635. selfischii V. gr. Iat. Viteb. 8.
[ 1635(?). B. Whitakeri. 4.]
164. 1638. CrHiLLi Lucaris bilinguis. Sine loco. [With the
first Modern Greek version.]
165. 1639. Janssonii IL Amst. 16.
166. 1639. Janssonii IIL Amst. 8.
(152.) 1641. MoRiNi biblia grseca. Paris, Piget.' fol.
167. 1641. Elzevirorum ra. Lugd, Bat, 'H.
(161.) 1641. Whitakeri. Lugd. Bat. Elzevir [1633]. 8.
168. 1642. Danielis L gr. lat. Cantabr. fol.
169. 1642. Mazariniana. Paris, typ. reg. fol.
? 1643. Amsterd.8. [Henr. Laurentu?]
170. 1646. BoECLERi I. Argent. VLUlb. 24.
172. 1647. [Laurentu, «o<] Laurii II. gr. lat. Amst. 8.
173. 1648. FreriL Lond, 12.
176. 1662. Danielis IL Lond. 12.
[ (1662.) Danielis. Lond, 32.]

504 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
Danielis IIL [IV.] Imid. 4.
Witteb. RoeteL gr. lat. 8.
HooLii I. Lond. Norton. 12.
Leereii I. Poterd. 12.
Ammonii. Hamb. 12.
Elzevirorum [Elzeviriorum, and sohelow] IV. Amst.32.
Eirchneri. gr. Iat. Lips, fol.
Biblia polyglotta Waltoni. Lond. Boycroft. foL
Leersii II. Poterd. 12.
CDRCELL.EI I. Amst. Elzcvlr. 12.
Er. Schmidil gr. Iat. Norimb, idi.
Flacii IL gr. lat. FVancof. Beyer, fol.
Pricei Comment. Lond. Flesher. fol.
BoECLERi II. Argent. Staedel. 24.
Wiistii L gr. Iat. Viteb. 8.
Endteri. gr. Iat. Francof. 8.
Elzevirorum V. Amst. 16.
Bodmeri I. gr. Iat. Tiguri. 8.
HooLii II. Lond, Norton. 12.
Pearsonii. Cantabr. Field. 12.
Hampelii. gr. lat. Oiss. 4.
Elzevirorum VL Amst. 16.
Bodmeri IL gr. lat. Tiguri. 8.
HooLii IIL Jjmd. Banew. 12.
HooLii. Lond. 12. (Wrongly suspected by Reuss.)]
Montends trilinguis. Migeot. 8.
Wiistii II. gr. lat. Francof. 4.
Wiistii IL gr. lat. Francaf 8.
Kolini. Lngd. 12.
HooLii IV. Lond. Mearne. 12. '
Bedmainii I. Lond. 8.
Wiistii IIL gr. lat. Francof. 8.
CoccEii I. Amst. Van Someren. fol.
Fellii. Oxon. Sheldon. 8.
CuRCELLiEi II. Amst. Elzevir. 12.
Leusdenii I. Trajecti. Smytegelt. 16.
Psbudo-Lecsdeniana. Trajecti. Smytegelt. 24.
Bodmeri IIL Tiguri. 16.
Elzevirorum VIL Amst, 16.
CURCELL.EI III. Anwt. Blaeu. 12
Wiistii IV. gr. lat. Francof. 12.

177.

1653.

178.

1653.

179.

1663.

180.

1654.

(163.)

1655.

181.

1666.

182.

1657.

*183.

1657.

184.

1658.

*185.

1658.

186.

1658.

187.

1669.

188.

1660.

189.

1660.

190.

1661.

191.

1661.

192.

1662.

193.

1663.

194.

1664.

195.

1666.

196.

1669.

197.

1670.

198.

1671.

199.

1672.

[

1673.

200.

1673.

a96.)

1673.

(196.)

1673.

201.

1674.

202.

1674.

203.

1674.

204.

1674.

205.

1676.

*206.

1675.

207.

1675.

208.

1675.

209.

1676.

210.

1677.

211.

1678.

212.

1685.

213.

1686.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 505
Dulci biblia graeca. Venet. fol.
Leusdenii II. Amst. Boom. 16.
Leusdenii IL Land. Smith. 16.
Gezklii. Aboce. 8.
CoocEii II. Francof. Wiist. fol.
Rechenbergii I. Luneb. Lipper. 12.
Rechenbergii I. Lips. Heinichen. 12.
Patavina I. Cagnolini. 16.
Eud. Leusdenii. Francof. Wiist. 8.
Eud. Leusdenii. Francof. Wiist. 8.
Wustii V. gr. lat. Francof. 12.
WiNKLERi. gr. germ. Liineb. Lipper. 8.
Rechenbergii II. Lips. Bichter. 12.
Frickil Lips. Eoenig. 8.
Waltoni N. T. polygl. Lond,, Smith & Walford. fol.
[Other copies of the N. T. vol. exist with different titles.]
Leusdenii III. (Wetstenii I.) Amst. 12.
Leusdenii III. (Wetstenii L) gr. lat. Amst. 12.
Leusdenii IIL (Wetstenii I.) gr. belg. Amst. 12.
CuRCELLiEi IV. Amst, Blaeu. 12.
Leusdenii IV. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24.
Wiistii VI. gr. lat. Francof. 12.
Cantabrigice. Jeffray. 12.
HooLii. ]j>nd. 8. (Suspected and omitted by Reuss.)]
CoccEii IIL Amst. Blaeu. fol.
Buddimanorum. Edinb. 16.]
Wetstenii IL Amst. 16.
Londini. Churchill. 8.
Londini. Churchill. 12.
Frankii. Lips. Koenig. 8.
Rechenbergii III. Lips. Kiehter. 12.
Gregorii. Oxon. Sheldon, fol.
Pritii I. Lips. GleditBCh. 12.
Quillau. Paris. 24.
Maii. Gissie. Vulpius. 12.
Maii. gr. germ. Gissce. Vnlpius. 12.
Erasmi VIL gr. lat. Van der Aa. Lugd. Bat, fol.
Bedmainii II. Lond. 8.
MiLLiL Oxon. Sheldon, fol.
Bodmeri IV. Tiguri. 12.
Bodmeri IV. gr. lat. Tiguri. 12.

214.

1687.

215.

1688.

(215.)

1688.

216.

1688.

217.

1689.

218.

1691.

(218.)

1691.

219.

1692.

220.

1692.

(220.)

1693.

221.

1693.

222.

1693.

224.

1697.

225.

1697.

(183.)

1698.

Other

copies

226.

1698.

(226.)

1698.

(226.)

1698.

227.

1699.

228.

1699.

231.

1700.

232.

1700.

[

1701.

233.

1701.

[

1701.

234.

1701.

235.

1701.

236.

1701.

237.

1702.

238.

1702.

239.

1703.

240.

1703.

242.

1704.

243.

1705.

(243.)

1 1705.

244.

1705.

245.

1705.

*246.

1707.

248.

1708.

(248.) 1708.

506 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
249. 1708. Eeyheri. gr. Iat. Goth. 12.
250. 1709. Pritii IL lAps. Gleditsch. 12.
251. 1709. Rechenbergii IV. Lips. Richter. 12.
*252. 1710. KlisTERL Amst. fol. [Kuster's Mill.]
(252.) 1710. KiisTERi. Poterd. fol.
253. 1710. Orphanotrophei I. bilinguis. Hal. 12.
(249.) 1710. Hanschii. gr. Iat. Goth. 12.
264. 1711 [error for 1709]. Wellsii. gr. eng. Oxf Knapton. 4.
[First English attempt at a critical text ; 10 parts, 1709-19.]
*256. 1711. GerhardiL ["G.D.T.M.D."] Amst. Wetstein. 8.
(255.) 1711. GerhardiL Amst. Wetstein. 8. [Varied in pag
ing, etc. The editor was Gerhard ton Mastricht.]
(249.) 1712. Hanschii. gr. Iat. Goth. 12.
Reineccii quadrilinguis. Lips. Lankisch. fol.
Maittairti I. Lond. Tonson. 12.
BowTERi I. Lond. 12.
Ctpeianl Goth. Beyher. 12.
Emeryi. Paris. 8.
Leusdenii IV. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24.
Lyon. Sacy. 32.]
Wetstenii IIL Amst. 12.
Wetstenii IIL gr. Iat. Amst. 12.
Wilischii. gr. lat. Chemnitz. Stoessel. 8.
WiLlscHii. gr. germ. Chemnitz. StDesseL 8.
Bentleii specimen. lAmd. 8.
Abo(B. 8.
Brocasii. Paris. 16.
Voasii I. gr. Iat. Lips. 12.
KosTERL Lips. Gleditsch. fol.
Vossii IL Lips, 12.
Pritii IIL Lips. Gleditsch. 12.
Reineccii I. Lips. Breitkopf. 8.
Patavina II. Manfre. 12.
Vossii III. gr. lat. Lips. 12.
BowTERi II. Lond. 12.
Lond. Enaplock. 8.
Maittairii II. Lond. Tonson. 12.
(Macii.) gr. ang. Lond. Boberts. 8.
Neudeckerl Hal. Benger. 8.
Voasii IV. Lips. 12.
Maittairii III. Lond. Tonson. 12.

256.

1713.

257.

1714.

268.

1715.

259.

1715.

260.

1715.

(228.)

1 1716.

[

1716.

261.

1717.

(261.)

1717.

262.

I7I7.

263.

1717.

* 

1720.

264.

1720.

265.

1722.

266.

1722.

(252.)

1723.

267.

1724.

268.

1724.

269.

1726.

270.

1726.

271.

1727.

272.

1728.

273.

1728.

274.

1728.

275.

1729.

276.

1730.

277.

1730.

^78.

1730.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 507
(262.) 1730. Wilischii. gr. lat. Chemnitz. Stoessel. 8.
(263.) 1730. WiLiscHiL gr. germ. Chemnitz. Stoessel. 8.
279. 1731. Stockil Jence. Mayer. 8.
280. 1732. Vossii V. gr. germ. Lips. 12.
281. 1733. Reineccii IL Lips. Breitkopf. 8.
*282. 1734. Bengelii L Ihibing. Cotta. 4.
283. 1734. Bengelii IL Stuttg. Faber. 8.
284. 1735. Pritii IV. lAps. Gleditsch. 12.
285. 1735. Gerhardi [Mastrichtii] IL Amst, Wetstein. 12.
286. 1736. Rechenbergii V. Lips. Heinsius. 12.
287. 1736. Georgii L Witteb. Teubner. 8.
288. 1737. Georgii IL gr. lat. Witteb. Teubnei. 8.
289. 1737. Buttigii. Lips. Weidmann. 8.
290. 1737. Vossii VL gr. Iat. Lips. 12.
(283.) 1738. Bengelii IL Tubing. Berger. 8.
291. 1739. Vossii VIL Lips. 12.
292. 1740. Buddimanorum L Edinb. 8.
293. 1740. Debiehi. gr. lat. Vindob. Kaliwoda. 8.
294. 1740. Orphanotrophei IL Hah 12.
295. 1740. Wetstenii IV. Amst, 12.
296. 1740. Muthmanni. Zullichov. Orphanotr. 4.
(296.) 1740. Muthmanni. gr. germ. Zullichov. Orphanotr. 4.
(295.) 174L Wetstenii IV. gr. lat. Amst, 12.
(294.) 1741. Halle, gr. germ. Waisenhaus. 12.
297. 1741. Tam-ini. typogr. regfia. 12.
298. 1742. Oxonii. Broughton. 8.
299. 1742. Reineccii III. Lips. Breitkopf. 8.
SOO. 1743. BowTEEi IIL Lond. 12.
801. 1744. Schoettgenii I. LAps. March. 8.
302. 1745. Patavina III. Manfre. 12.
303. 1745. VosBii VIIL gr. Iat. Ups. 12.
304. 1746. Ewingii L Dublin. 12.
(252.) 1746. KusTERi. Amst. Wetstein. fol.
(256.) 1747. Reineccii quadrilinguis. Lips. fol.
305. 1749. BiRRii. Basil. Mechel. 8.
306. 1750. Vossii IX. Berol, 12.
307. 1760. . Buddimanorum IL Edinb, 8.
308. 1760. Glasguce. Urie. 8.
309. 1751. Venetiis.. Bortoli. 12.
(228.) 1761. Leusdenii IV. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24.
*3iO. 1751,1762. J.J. Wetstenii. Amst. Dommer. fol.

508 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
Bengelii III. Tubirig. Berger. 8.
Reineccii IV. LAps. Breitkopf. 8.
GoLDHAGENii. Mog. Varrcntrapp.
Vossii X. gr. lat. Berol. 12.
Patavina IV. Manfre. 12.
Orphanotrophei IIL Hal, 12.
Orphanotrophei III. gr. germ. Hal. 12.
Maittairii IV. Lond. Tonscn. 12.
Vossii XL Berol. 12.
Vossii XL gr. Iat. Berol, 12.
Stregnedce. Collin. 8.
Charnleyi. Glasg, Foulis.
Bow YERI IV. Lond. 12.
Vossii XIL gr. lat. Berol. 12.
Patavina Y. Manfre. 12.
Patavina VI. (sine typog.) 12.
Bengelii IV. Tubing. Berger. 8.
Orphanotrophei IV. Hal. 12.
BowvERi V. Lond. 12.
Baskervillii I. Oxon. Clarend. 4.
Baskervillii IL Oxon. Clarend. 8.
Schoettgenii IL Vratisl. Gampert. 8.
Leusdenii IV. Zmgd. Bat. Luchtmans. 24.
Reineccii V. Lips. Breitkopf. 8.
(Hardyi I.) Lond. Richardson. 8.
BowTERi VI. Lond. 12.
Buddimanorum IIL Edinb. 8.
Wetstenii V. gr. lat. Lugd. Bat. 12.
Vossii XIIL Berol. 12.
Patavina VII. Manfre. 12.
 Griesbachii Synopsis I. fia/.") ,„,
[Matt. Marc. Luc] I [These two together
Griesbachii L Hal. Curt. 8. | fo™ Griesbach s
. Apoc] J fi''^' «'^'"™-]
Ewingii II. Dublin. 12.
Orphanotrophei V. Hal. 12.
Maittairii V. Lond. Rivington. 12.
Bengelii V. 7'ubing. Berger. 8.
Harwoodii. Lond. Johnson. 8. [Critical edition of
some merit, but neglected.]
(338.) 1776. Griesbachii Synopsis L Hal. Curt. 8. [Vol. 2. Epp.
Apoc 1776.]

311.

1753.

312.

1753.

313.

1753.

314.

1753.

315.

1755.

316.

1766.

(316."

I 1756.

¦ 317.'

1756.

318.

1757.

(318.;

1 1757.

319.

1768.

320.

1759.

321.

1760.

322.

1761.

323.

1762.

324.

1762.

325.

1762.

326.

1762.

327.

1763.

328.

1763.

329.

1763.

330.

1765.

(228.)

1765.

331.

1766.

332.

1768.

333.

1770.

334.

177L

335.

1772.

336.

1774.

337.

1774.

*338.

1774.

Curt. 8.

[Mal

*339.

1775.

[Job. Act. Epp

340.

1775.

341.

1775.

342.

1775.

343.

1776.

344.

1776.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 509
[ 1776. Lond. J. D. Cornish. 8.]
(339.) 1777. Griesbaciii L Hal. Curt. 8. [Mt., Mc, Lc. not in
Synopsis ; 1775, Job., Act. ; vol. 2, Epp., Apoc]
(339a.) 1777. Griesbachi L Hal. Curt. 4.
345. 1777. BowYERi VIL Lond. 12.
? 1777. Stregneda. 8»
347. 1777. FiscHERi. Prag. Hagen. 8.
348. 1778. Hardyi II. Lond. Eichardson. 8.
349. 1778 sqq. Koppii L Goetting. Dietrich. 8. [Sine Ew.]
351. 1779. E. Stephani. Argent. Stein. 8.
352. 1782. ScHOETi'GENii III. Vratisl. Kom. 8.
*3o3. I782-1788._ MAxrHiEi I. gr. lat. Riga. Hartknoch. 8.
364. 1783. Bowyeri VIIL Lond. Nichols. 4.
356. 1783^ EkiNECcii VI. Lips. Breitkopf. 8.
(228.) 1785. Leusdenii IV. Lugd. Bai. Luchtmans. 24.
356. 1786. Maiitaikii VI. Lond. Rivington. 12.
*357. 1786, 1787. Alteri. Viennce. De Trattnern. 8.
358. 1787. Detmold. Helwing. 8.
359. 1787. BowYEKi IX. Lond. Nichols. 12.
*360. 1788. BiRCHii. [Evangelia.] Havn. Schulz. 4.
361. 1789. Patavina VIIL Bettinelli. 12.
362. 1790. Bengelii VL Tubing. Heerbrandt. 8.
364. 1794. Londini. Longman. 12.
365. 1794. Londini. gr. lat. Wingrave. 12.
366. 1794. Dublinii. Ekshaw. 12.
[ 1794. Bowyerl Lond. Nichols. 12. This deranges Eeuss'a
numbering of the Bowyer editions.]
367. 1795. Schoettgenii IV. Vratisl. Kom. 8.
368. 1796. Patavina IX. Venet. Fraoasso. 12.
369. 1796-1806. Gkiesbaohii IL Hal. Curt. 8.
(369.) 1796-1806. Griesbachii II. Hal. Curt. 4.
371. 1797. Knappii I. Hal. Orphanot. 8.
372. 1798. Whitii. Oixm. CoUingwood. 12.
[ 1798-1808. Whitii. Oxon. 2 voll. 8.]
373. 1800. Wigornice. [Alexander. Milliana.] Thomas. 12.
[First American edition.]
374. 1800-1802. Paulus L Lub. Bohn. 8.
376. 1801. Londini. Woodfall. 12.
[ 1801. Bowyeri. Lond. Nichols. 12. This again deranges
Reuss's numbering of the Bowyer editions.]
376. 1803. Londini, Beeves. 12.

'510 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
377. 1803-1807. Griesbachii IIL Lips. Goeschen. fol.
378. 1803-1807. Matth.ei IL Witteb. etc [Matthaei, vol. 2, at
end, says this is an error for Curice Variscor-um.']
879. 1804. Londin. gr. lat. Wingrave. 12.
DuisburgcE. Baedeker. 8.
Paulus II. LUb. Boh%S.
Biblia gr. Oxon. Clarendon. 4.
Oxon. £ typ. Clarend. 16.]
Schoitii I. gr. lat. LAps. Marker. 8.
Griesbachii IIL Lip^. Goeschen. 8.
[Leusdeniana. gr. lat.] Pliiladelphiw. Bradford. 12.
[Leusdeniana. gr. only.] PhiladelpMce. Bradford. 12.]
Upsalice. Edman. 8.
Edinburgi. BelL 12.
Dakinsil Lond. 12.
Whitil Oxon. Clarendon. 8.
WiLSONii. Neo-Ebor. Wallis. 12. [An error. Wil-
t appeared in 1822.]
Londini. Longman. 12.
Griesbachii II. Lond. M'Einlay. 8.
Griesbachiana III. Cantabr. [Mass.] Wells. 8.
Griesbachiana. gr. lat. lAps. (Linz.) 8.
Aittoni. Lugd. Bat. Luchtmans. 12.
ChelsecB. bilinguis. Tilling. 12.
(397.) 1810. Londini. bihnguis. Tilling. 12.
398. 1810 sqq. Koppii II. Ooett. Dietrich. 8. [The various
parts of this edition have different editors' names ; and some parts
passed to a 3d ed.]
? 1810. Constantinopolitana.
[(388.) 1810. Dakinsil Lond. 12.] "
399. 1811. ScHOTTii II. gr. Iat. Lips, Marker. 8.
[(414.) I8I1. DiCKiNSONiL Edinb. 12.]
401. 1812. Bowyeri X. Lond,
(388.) 1812. Dakinsil Lond. Wilson. 12.
[(380.) 1812. Paulus II. Lips. Barth. 8.]
402. 1812. Gailii L Paris. Delalain. 12.
403. 1813. Londini. Bagster. 32.
404. 1813. Oxonii. Clarendon. 8.
405. 1813. Gaillardi. Genev. Bonnant. 12.
406. 1813. Knappii II. Hal. Orphanot. 8.
(397.) 1814. Londini. bilinguis. Tilling. 12.

(358.)

1804.

380.

1804.

381.

1806.

[

1806.

383.

1805.

384.

1805.

386.

1806.

[(385.)

1806.

386.

1806.

387.

1807.

388.

1808.

389.

1808.

390.

1808.

son's N. T. fin

391.

1809,

392.

I8O9!

393.

1809.

396.

1809.

396.

1809.

397.

1810.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT, oil

408. 1814.

[Milliana.] Bostonii. Thomas. 12.

409. 1814.

Gailii IL Paris. Delalain. 12.

410. 1814.

London. Pytt. 12.

[(382.) 1814.

Mastrichtiana. EdinJb. Carol Stewart. 12.]

411. 1816.

Bowyeri XI. Lond. Nichols. 12.

412. 1816.

Valpyi I. Lond. Valpy. 8.

[ 1816.

AiTTON. Glasguce. 12.]

413. 1817.

Glasguce. Duncan. 24.

414. 1817.

DiCKiNSOXii. Edinb. 12.

415. 1818.

Griesbachii IL Lorul. Rivington. 8.

417. 1819.

Londini. bilinguis. Tilling. 12.

418. 1819.

Oxonii. Clarendon. 12.

[(414.) 1819.

DiCKiNSONii. Edinb. 12.]

[(397.) 1819.

Bilinguis. Chelsece. TiUing. 12.]

419. 1820.

Patavina X. typ. Semin. 8.

420. 1820.

Hardyi IIL Lond. Bliss. 8.

(420.) 1820.

Hardyi III. Lond. Allman. 8.

421. 1820.

Gaillii iil Paris. Delalain. 12.

422. 1820.

TiTTMANNi I. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.

[ 1820.

(Polyglott.) Bagster. Lond. 12.]

423. 1821.

Gratzii I. gr. Iat. Tubing. Fues. 8.

424. 1821.

Biblia gr. Mosquensia. 4.

(388.) 182L

Dakinsil Lond. Wilson. 12.

(405.) 1821. Gaillardl Lugd. / -RMS&Txi. 12,
[ 1821. AiTTON. Glasguce. 32.]
[ 1821. Leusdeniana. gr. Iat. Neo-Ebor, Long. 12.]
425. 1822. Glasguce. typ. acad. 24.
426. 1822. [Griesbachiana.] Kneelandil [gr. angl.] Pliiladel
phiw. Pry. 8.
[(426.) 1822. (Griesbachiana':) Kneelandil (gr. only.) Philadel-
place. Fry. 8.]
(390.) 1822. WiLSONii. Hartford. Wallis. [error for Cooke.] 12.
428. 1823. Londini. Bagster. 8.
[(426.) 1823. (Griesbachiana.) Kneelandil Philadelphia. Fry. 8.]
429. [563.] 1824. [Pseudo -Leusden. gr.lat.] Neo-Ebor. Col
lins. 12.
(417.) 1824. iowrfmi. bilinguis. Tilling. 12.
(428.) 1824. Londini, Bagster. 8.
431. 1824. BoissoNADii. Paris. Eberart. 24.
432. 1824. Tittmanni II. LAps. Tauchnitz. 8.
433. 1824. Londini. Whittaker. 12.

512 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
434. 1824. Knappii IIL Hdl. Orphanot. 8.
435. 1824. Knappiana III. Lond. Valpy. 8.
436. 1824. Vateri. Hal. Gebauer. 8.
437. 1825. £as!7f(B. Thuriieisen. 8.
(428.) 1826. Londini. Bagster. 8.
438. 1826. Eoothii. gr. angl. Londini. 8,
(390.) 1825. WiLSONii. Hartford. Cooke. 12.
439. 1825. ScHOTTii III. gr. lat. Lips. Marker. 8.
440. 1825. Griesbachii IV. Lips. Goeschen. 8.
[ 1825. Milliana. Oxon. E typ. Clarend,]
442. 1826. Valpyi II. Lond. Valpy. 8.
444. 1827. . Gratzii II. gr. lat. Mogunt. Kupferberg. 8.
445. 1827. Van Essil gr. lat. Tubing. Fues. 8.
446. 1827. ioretfwij. bilinguis. . Watts. 8.
447. 1827. Griesbachiana ScHULzn. [VoLLEvv.] 5«'oi Laue.8
448. 1827. Paris. Delalain. 12.
[(390.) 1827. Wilsonii. Hartford. Cooke. 12.]
460. 1828. Londini. Pickering. 64. [Smallest edition.]
451. 1828. ioruKni. bilinguis.. Tilling. 12.
452. 1828. Lloydii. Oxon. Clarendon; 12.
453. 1828. Leutschii. gr. lat. Lips, Serig. 8.
(422.) 1828. Tittmanni I. Lips, Tauchnitz. 16.
455. 1828[-29]. [Triglotta. Bagsteri.] Lorid. Watts. 4.
[ 1828-30-32. HiLARioN. bilinguis. Lond. 8.]
(414.) 1829. DiCKiNSONiL Edinb. 12.
(388.) 1829. Dakinsil Lond. CadeU. 12.
456. 1829. Londini. Bagster. 12.
457. 1829. Greenfieldh. Lond. Bagster. 32. [Polymicrian.]
(390.) 1829. Wilsonii. Hartford. Cooke. 12.
(390.) 1829. Wilsonii. WaUis [error for Towar]. PhUadelphice.
12. (446.) 1829. Londini. bilinguis. Watts. 8.
458. 1829. Knappii IV. Hal, Orphan. 8.
469. 1829. Meyeri. gr. germ. Goett. Vandenhoeck. 8.
[(462.) 1829. Glasguce. Hutchison. 24.]
[ 1829. Griesbachiana. Lond. Rivington. 12.]
[(455 ?) 1829. (N. T. Polyglott.) Bagster. Lond. 4.]
461. 1830. Lloydii. Oxon. Clarendon. 12.
(446.) 1830. lAmdini. bilinguis.. Watts. 8. ¦
462. 1830. Glasguie. Hutchison. 24.
'*463. 1830-1836. ScnoLza. Lips. Fleischer. 4.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 513
londini. Valpy. 48.
Paris. Delalain. 32.
Duncan. Edinb, 12.]
Burtoni I. Oxon. 8.
Brossetil Paris. Didot. 24.
Valpyi IIL Lond. Valpy. 8.
Naebii. gr. lat. Lips. Koehler. 8.
Lach.vanni I. Berol. Reimer. 12.
Tittmanni IL Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
Wilsonii. Towar. Philad. 12.]
(Bibl. Polyglott.) Bagster. Lond. fol.]
Greenfieldii. Lond. Bagster. 32. Polymicrian.]
GoESCHENii. gr. lat. Lips. Weidmann. 8.
Jaomanni. Monach. Lindauer. 8.
Bloomfieldii I. Cantab. 8.
Brookman. 24. frf^Voch

464.

1830.

466.

1830.

[

1830.

466.

1831.

467.

1831.

468.

183L

469.

1831.

*470.

1831.

(432.)

1831.

[(390.)

"1831.

[

1831.

[457.

1831,

471.

1832.

47'2.

1832.

474.

1832.

(46^.)

1832.

476.

1833.

(390.)

1833.

477.

1834.

478.

1834.

t

1834.

482.

1835.

483.

1835.

(414.)

1835.

[(429,1

563.) li

486.

1836.

487.

1836.

488.

1836.

(472.)

1836.

(462.)

1836.

[

1836.

16.]

491.

1837.

492.

1837.

493.

1837.

494.

1837.

(470.)

1837.

(467.)

1837.

[(536.)

1837.

[(527.)

1837.

[

1837.

Wilsonii. Philad. Towar. 12.
BoEKLiNi. Christiansiadt. Schmidt. 8.
Smithii. Lond. Hurst. 12.
Scholefield. gr. angl. Cambridge. 12.]
Burtoni IL Oxon. 8.
[Knappiana.] Pattonii. Neo-Ebor. Starr. 4.
DiCKiNSONii. Edinb. Stirling. 12.
35. Pseudo-Leusden. Collins, gr. Int. Neo-Ebor. 12.]
Bloomfieldii II. Lond. Longman. 8.
Valpyi IV. Lond. Valpy. 8.
Oxonii. typ. acad. 12.
Jaumanni. Monach. lindauer. 8.
Glasguce. Brookman. 24.
Scholefield. gr. angl. Deightcn & BeU. Cambridge.
Cardwellil Oxon. typ. acad. 8.
Tkollopii. Lond. Bickerby. 8.
Berol. Hauck. gr. germ. 8.
Bloomfieldii [Amer. I.]. Boston. Perkins. 8.
Lachmanni I. Ber-ol. Beimer. 12.
Brossetil Paris, Didot. 24.
Griesbachiana. Lond. Taylor & Walton. 16.]
Bloomfieldii minor I. Lond. 12.]
Aitton. Lond. 12.]
33

514 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
496. 1838. Londini. Parker. 16.
(390.) 1838. WiLSONiL Philad. HasweU, 12..
497. 1839. Kerstenii. Leod. Kersten. 8:
498. 1839. Belezil Paris. Delalain. 12.
499. 1839. ScHOTTii IV. gr. lat. Lips. Barth. 8.
(463.) 1839. Leutschii. gr. lat. Lips. Serig. 8.
[ 1839. Griesbachiana. Aitton. Glasguce. 24.]
[ 1839. Bloomfieldii III. Lond. 8.]
501. 1840. Darollil Tolos. Delsol. 32.
502. 1840. Knappii V. Hal. Orphan. 8.
503. 1840. Hahnii L lAps. Tauchnitz. 8.
(388.) 1840. Dakinsil Lond. Cadell. 12.
[(429, 563.) 1840. (Pseudo-Leusden.) Dean. gr.lat. Neo-Ebor.l2.]
504. 184L Hahnii II. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
*505. 1841. Tischendorfii I. Lips. Koehler. 16.
506. 1841. Bloomfieldii IV. Lond. 8.
(473.) 1841. Greenfieldii. [Engles.] PMatfeZp/wfE. Perkins. 32.
[ • 1841. GltlESBACHIANA. L.ond. 12.]
[(519.) 1841. Scholziana. Eng. Hexapla. Bagster. Lond, 4.]
608. 1842. [Hahn.] Robinsonii. Neo-Ebor. Leavitt. 12.
*509. 1842-1850. Lachmanni IL gr. lat. Berol. Reimer. "8.
610. 1842. Tischendorfii II. Paris. Didot. 12.
511. . 1842. Tischendorfii III. gr. Iat. Paris. Didot. 8.
512. 1842. Tischendorfii IV. [T's own No. IIL] Pam. Didot. 12
515. 1842. Pharmacidis. Athen. 8.
[(667.) 1842. Scholziana. gr. angl. Bagster. Lond. 16.]
516. 1843. Jowettii. Cantabr. Pitt. 16.
517. 1843. Grinpieldii. Lond. Pickering. 8.
[(627.) 1843. Bloomfieldii minor III. Lond. Longman. 8.]
[ 1843. Bloomfieldii V. Lond. Longman. 8.]
518. 1844. [Milliana.] Oxonii. typ. acad. 16.
619. 1844 [error for 1841]. Bagsteri Hexapla. Lond. 4.
620. 1844. Venetiis.
621. 1844. Theilii L Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
[(563.) 1844. (Pseudo-Leusden.) gr. Iat. Dean. Neo-Ebor. 12.]
[(527.) 1845. Bloomfieldii minor IV. L,ond. Longman. 12;
523. 1846. Theilii Polyglott. Bielefeld. Velhagen. 8.
(508.) 1846. [Hahn.] Robinsonii. Neo-Ebor. Leavitt. 12.
[ 1845. Valpyi minor. Whittaker. Lond. 12.]
[(483.) 1846. Knappiana. Pattonii. Neo-Ebor. Biker. 4.]
524. 1846. MuRALTi minor. Hamburg. Meissner. 16.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. '515
(470.) 1846. Lachmanni I. Bei-ol. Beimer. 12.
525. [(494)] 1846. Bloomfieldii. Boston. Perkins. 8.
(473.) 1846. Greenfieldil [Engles.] Philad. Perkins. 32.
[(473.) 1846. Greenfieldil [Engles.] Philad. Perkins & Purves.
32.] [(619.) 1846. Scholziana. 'Eng. Hexapla. Bagster. 4.]
'[ 1847. Lloydii. Oxon. E Typ. Acad. 18.]
526. 1847. Reithmayri. Monach. Weiss. 8.
(612.) 1847. Tischendorfii IV. [T.'s No. III.] Paris. Didot. 12.
527. 1847. Bloomfieldii [minor] V. Lond. Longman. 12.
628. 1847. Venetiis. Phoenis. 8.
(616.) 1847. Jowettii. Cantabr. Pitt. 16.
630. 1847. Spencerl Neo-Ebor. Harper. 12.
[ 1847. Theilii (Polyglott.). Biel. 8.]
[ 1847. Bloomfieldii VI. Lond. 8.]
[ 1847. Valpyi V. Lond. Bohn. 8.]
531. 1848. Burtoni IU. Oxon. Parker. 8.
(621.) 1848. Theilii IL Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
(624.) 1848. MuRALTi major. Hamb. Meissner. 16.
[(611.) 1848. , Tischendorfii V. (T.'s No. IIL) gr. lat. Park. 8.]
[(iH-) 1848. Bloomfieldii (Amer. V.). Boston. Perkins. 8.]
*633. 1849. Tischendokfii V. [T.'s ownNo.IV.] Lips. Winter. 8.
*534. 1849-1861. Alfordil Lond. 8.
(523.) 1849. Theilii triglott. [Polyglott.] Bielef. Velhagen. 8.
[(524.) 1849. Muralti. Hamb. Meissner. 16.]
[(563.) 1849. (Pseudo-Leusden.) gr. l.it. Dean. Neo-Ebor, 12.]
. 536. 1850. [Griesbachiana.] Londini. Taylor & Walton. 16.
637. 1850. Tischendorfii VL [T.'s own No. V.] Lips. Tauch-
nitz. 8.
(621.) 1860. Theilii IIL Lips. Tauch. 16.
(462.) 1850. Glasguce. Brookman. 24.
[ 1850. Ex ed. Steph. Cambridge. 18.]
[ 1860. Scholefield. gr. engl. Cambridge. 16.]
[ 1860. Scholefield. gr. engl. Cambridge. 4.]
(512)1861. Tischendorfii IV. [T.'s own IIL] Paris, Didot. 12.
516. 1851. Jowettil Cantabr. Pitt. 12.
(444.) 1861. Gratzii IL gr.lat. Mog. Kupferberg. 8.
640. 1851. Oxonii.
641. 1851. Venetiis.
[ 1851. Large Print. Crit. Lond. Bagster. 8.]
542. 1852. Burtoni IV. Oxon. 8.

516 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
543. 1852. Theilil gr. germ. iaps. Tauchnitz. 16.
(521.) 1852. Theilii IV. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
[ 1852. Liirge Print. Crit. Lond. Bagster. 8.]
[(530.) 1852. Sfehceri.' Neo-Ebor. Harper. 12.]
546. 1853. Valpyi V.[VL] Lond. Valpy. 8.
647. 1853. Stuttgardt. gr. gerra. Liesching. 8.
549. 1864. Tischendorfii VIL [T.'s own No. VL] triglott.
LAps. Avenarius. 8.
550. 1854. Theilil gr. lat. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
561. 1864. Macmichaelis. [Whittaker. Lond.] 16.
(508.) 1864. [Hahniana.] Eobinsonil Neo-Ebor. Leavitt. 12.
563. 1854 [etc.]. Neo-Ebor. Amer. Bible Union, gr. angl. 4.
(623.) 1854. Theilii Polyglott. Bielef. Velhagen. 8.
(521.) 1864. Theilii V. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
[ 1854 sqq. Alford II. Lond. 8.]
[ 1864. Large Print. Crit. Lond. Bagster. 8.]
[(390.) 1854. Wilsonii. Philad. Lippincott, Grambo, & Co. 12.]
[(390.) sine anno (sed 1854.) Wilsonii. Phila. Barrington &
HasweU. 12.]
(649.) 1855. Tischendorfh VIL (T.'s own No. VL] Lips, Men
delssohn. 16.
(523.) 1865. Theilii Polyglott. Bielef. Velhagen. 8.
(636.) 1855. Londini. Walton & Maberly. 16.
555. 1855-61. Websteri [& Wilkinsonii]. Lond. Parker. 8.
[ 1866. Bloomfieldii IX. Lond. Longman. 8.]
[ 1865. Bloomfieldii minor VII. Lond. Longman. 12.
[(663.) 1856. (Pseudo-Leusden.) gr. lat. Lippincott. Philad. 12.]
556. 1856. Cohnice Agripp. Soc. Bibl. 32.
567. 1856. Burtoni V. Oxon. 8.
558. 1866. Bcttmanni I. Lips. Teubner. 16.
(521.) 1856. Theilii VL Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
1856. Jowettil Colon. Brit. BibL Soc. 12.]
1856. Milliana. Oxon. 16.]
1856. Dakinsil Lond. Longmans.]
560. 1857. Cantabrigice. gr. angl. 12.
(508.) 1857. [Hahniana.] Robinsonil Neo-Ebor. Leavitt. 12.
(549.) 1857. Tischendorfii VIL [T.'s own No. VL £d. acad. V.]
Lips. Mendelssohn. 16.
561. 1857 [1856-60]. Wordsworthii I. Lond. Rivington. 4.
[(567.) 1857. Scholziana. gr. lat. Lond. Bagster. 4.]
[ 1857. ScHoi.EFiELDiANA. " R. 0." gr. angl. Lqnd, 16. "]

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 517
[ 1857-79. Tregellesil Bagster. Lond.i.]
662. 1858. Londini. gr. angl. Bagster. 18.
(523.) 1868. Theilii Polyglott. Bielefeld. Velhagen. 8.
(621.) 1868. Theilii VIL Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
(549.) 1868. Tischendorfii VIL [T.'s ed. VL] gr. lat. Lips. '
Mendelssohn. 8.
563. 1858. [Pseudo-Leusden.] PhUadelpIiice. gr.\a.t. Lippincott.
12. (390.) 1868. WiLSONiL Philad. Lippincott. 12.
(512.) 1869. Jageri [Tischendorfiana]. Par-is. Didot. 12.
*565. 1859. . Tischendorfii VIIL [crit. maj., T.'s ed. VIL] Lips.
Winter. 8.
(566.) 1869. Tischendorfii VIIL [crit. min., T.'s ed. VIL] Lips.
Winter. 16.
666. .1859. Bloomfieldii [minor] VIII. [Lond.]
(457.) 1859. Greenfieldii. Lond. Bagster. 32.
(530.) 1859. Spencerl Neo-Ebor. Harper. 12.
(536.) 1859. [Griesbachiana.] Londini. Bohn. 16.
567. 1859. [Bagster. Scholziana.] Neo-Ebor. WUey. 16.
[ 1869 sqq. Wordsworthii II. Lond. 8.]
[(663.) 1869. (Pseudo-Leusden.) gr. Iat. Phila. Lippincott. 12.]
[ 1869. Milliana. E typ. Clarend. 4.]
[ 1859. Milliana. E typ. Clarend. 16.]
[(390.) 1869. Wilsonii. Philad. Lippincott. 12.]
[ 1869. Soriveneri I. Cantabrigice. 16.]
568. 1860. Buttmanni IL Lips. Teubner. 16.
(524.) 1860. Muralti major. Hamb. Meissner. 16.
569. 1860 sqq. Alfordii IV. Lond. 8.
(519.) 1860. [Scholziana.] Bagsteri Hexapla. Lond. 4.
[(563.) 1860. (Pseudo-Leusden.) gr. Iat. Phila. Lippincott. 12.]
[ 1860. Ornsbyl Dublin. 8.]
[ 1860. Scriyeneri II. Cantabr. 16.]
[(492?) 1860. Trollopil Tegg. Lond. 8.]
[(524.) 1860. Muralti minor. . ifamJ. Meissner. 16.]
[ 1860, etc Amer. BibL Union, gr. angl. A^eo-Ebor. 4.]
[ 1860-61. Giles, gr. angl. Lond. 12.]
[ 1861. "Narrowed." Scholziana. Lond. Bagster. 12.]
[551?) 1861. Macmichaelis. .Lond. BeU & Daldy. 16.]
[(611.) 1861. Tischendorfii IV. [T.'s No. III.] gr. lat. Didot
Paris, 8.]
[(549.) 1861. Tischendorfii VIL (T.'s cd. VL) X^jos. Mendels. 16.

518 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
(537.) 1862. Tischendorfii VL [T.'s ed. V.] Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
572. 1862. BuTTMAN.M IIL Berol. Decker. 8.
[ 1861-63. Wordsworthii IIL Loud. 8.]
573. 1862. LoCHiL Patisb. Manz. 8.
(550.) 1862. Theilil gr. lat. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
[ 1862. SCRIVENERI IIL Cantab)-. 16.]
574. 1863. Colon. Agr. gr. angl. 16.
[ 1863. Lloydil Oxon. 18.]
[ 1863. Lloydil Oxon. 4.]
[(491.) 1863. Cardwellil gr. angl. Oxon. MaomiUan. 8.]
[(677.) 1863 & 64. B. Wilsonii Emphat. Diaglott. Geneva, IU.]
576. 1864. Colon. Agr. gr. germ. 16.
(549.) 1864. Tischendorfii VIL [T.'sed.VL] X?>s. . Mendels. 16.
[(527.) 1862. Bloomfieldii minor IX. Lond. Longman. 12.]
(649.) 1864. Tischendorfii VIL [T.'s ed. VL] gr. germ. Lips,
Mendelssohn. 8.
(568.) 1864. BuTTMANNL Lips. Teubner. 16.
[ 1864. Hansellii. Oxon. 8.]
[ 1864. Wordsworthii IV. Lond. 8.]
(568.) 1866. BuTTMANNL Lips. Teubner. 16.
677. 1865. [B. Wilsonii Emphat. Diaglott.] Neo-Ebor. Fowler.
[ 1865. Ornsbyl Dublin. Duffy. 16.]
[ 1866. Wordsworthii V. Lond. 4.]
[ 1865. Theilii Polyglott. 8.]
(621.) 1866. Theilii VIIL Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
[ 1865. The Twofold N. T. Green. Bagster. Lond. 8.]
[ 1866. Wordsworthii VI. . l^nd. 4.]
[ 1866. Candyi. Lond. 8.]
[ 1866. Duncan. Simpkin.]
[(549.) 1867. Tischendorfii ed. acad. V. Lips. Mendelssohn. 1 6.]
[ 1867. Scriveneri IV. Cantabr. 16.]
[ 1867. Candyl Lond. 8,]
[ 1867. Candyi minor. Lond. 8.]
[ 568. 1867. Buttmanni III. LAps. Teubner. 16.]
[(508.) 1867. [Hahn.] Robinsonil, Neo-Ebor: Appleton. 12.]
[(508.) 1868. [Hahn.] Robinsonil Neo-Ebor. Appleton. 12.]
[ 1868. Milliana. Oxon. 12.]
[ 1868. Milliana. Oxon. 4.]
[(494.) 1868. Bloomfieldii (Amer. XIV.). Phila. Lippincott. 8.]
*o81. 1869[-72]. Tischendorfii IX. [ed. crit. maj. VIIL] Lips. L.
Winter [post., Giesecke & Devrient]. 8.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 519
[ 1869. Alfordii minor. PhUadelphice. Lippincott 8.]
[ 1869. Alfordii minor. Lond. Rivington. 8.]
[ 1869. Lloydil Oxon. Clarend. 16.]
682. 1870 [-1876], Westcottii & IIohtil Cantabr. 12. [Pri
vate issue.]
[ 1870. Bloomfieldii minor XII. Lond.. Longmans. 12.
[ (1870.) Bagster. gr. angl. Lond. 4.]
[ 1870. Lloydil Oxon. E typ. Clarend.A Macmillan. 12.]
[ 1870. Milliana. Oxon. Macmillan. 16.]
[ 1870. Wordsworthii. Lond. Rivington. (ed. vii.) 8.]
[ 1870. Tregellesii. Parts I.-V. Gospels, Acts, Epistles.
Bagster. Lond. Also, Neo-Ebor. Wiley. 4.]
[ 1870. Travelers' N. T. gr. angl. Neo-Ebor. WUey. 16.]
[ 1870. Tischendorfil ed. acad. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16.]

SINE ANNI NOTA.
(470.) Lachmanni. Berol. Beimer. 12.
(457.) Greenfieldil Lond. Bagster. 32. [Also, Neo-Ebor. Wiley ;
also, Phila. Lippincott]
(667.) Lond. Bagster. 16.
583. Fix. Paris. Dezobry. 12.
584. (Lefranc.) Paris. Belin. 24.
(473.) Greenfieldil [Engles.] PhUadelphice. Peck. 32.
[(473.) Greenfieldii. [Engles.] Philadelphia!. Bliss. 473.]
[(473.) Greenfieldil [Engles.] PhUadelphice. Lippincott 32.]
[(456.) Bagsteri triglotta. Lond. 4,]
[(390.) Wilsonii. PhUadelphice. Barrington & Haswell. 12.]
[ The Twofold N. T. Green. Lond. Bagster. 8.]
[ E typ. acad. Cantabr. & Lond. Rivington. 16 (no paging).]
[ Large Print Grit. Lond. Bagster. 8.]
[(567.) Scholziana. Crit gr. angl. Bagster. Lond. 16.]
[(567.) Scholziana. Crit. gr. angl. Wiley. Neo-Ebor. 16.]
[(608.) [Hahn.] Robinsonii. Neo-Ebor: Leavitt & AUen. 12.]
[ Scholziana. "Narrowed." £on(/. Bagster. 12.]
[ Lond. Bagster. 16 (ex Polyglottis.)]
[ Lond. Bagster. 32.]
[(483.) Pattonil Neo-Ebor. Riker. 4. (In "The Student's Bi
ble.")]

520 EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.

IL SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF EDITIONS, 1871 TO 1883.

1871. B. Wilson. Emphatic Diaglott. Geneva, LU. (Reuss, 577.)
187-1. Twofold N. T. Green. London: Bagster. 8. (With App.)
1871. Alford. Boston. Lee & Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 534.)
1871.' Jowett. Colonim, 12.
1872. Scrivener v.- Cantabr, 16.
1872. Theile X. Lips. Tauchnitz. 16.
1872. Wordsworth VL Lond. 8.
1872-77. Tischendorf VIII. (new ed. crit minor.). LAps. Mendels
sohn. 16.
1872. Tischendorf. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
1873. Scrivener VI. Cantabr, 16.
1873. Milliana. Oxon. E typ.Clarend. & Macmillan. 16.
1873. Alford. Boston. Lee & Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 534.)
1873. Tischendorf (iid ed. VIII. cont'ormata). Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
1873. Tischendorf IX. (ad cd. VIIL conformata). Lips. Brock-
haus. 8.
1873. Tischendorf. ed. acad. Lips. MendelsEohn.'I6.
1874. Buttmann. Teubner. Lips. 8.
1874. Analj'tical Gr. T. Lond. Bagster. 16. '
1876. Lond. Geo. BeU. 16.' (Reuss, 636.)
1876. Scrivener VIL Cantabr, 16..
1876. Tischendorf. ed. acad. Lips. 16.
1875. Hahn IL KeUy. Dublin. 16. (Reuss, 504.)
1875. [Hahn.] Robinson. Neo-Ebor. Appleton. 12. (Reuss, 508.)
1875. Pseudo - Leusden. gr. Iat. Philadelphia. Lippincott. 12.
(Reuss, 663.)
1875. Scholziana. gr. engl. New York. Wiley. 16. (Reuss, 567.)
1876. The same. Lond. Bagster; and New York. Wiley.
1876. Brit. & For. Bib. Soc. (Iu Paragraphs.) Cambiidge. Lniv.
Press. 32.
1876. Tischendorf. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
1877. Scholziana. gr. engl. New York. Wiley. 16. (Reuss, 567.)
1877. Englishman's Gr. Test. Bagster. Lond, 8.
1877. Milliana. Oxon. Clarend. 16.
1877. Lloydii. Oxon. Clarend. & Macmillan. 16.
1877. Scrivener VIIL Cantabr. 16.
1877. Wordsworth VII. Lond. Rivington. 4.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 521
1877. Jowett. Lond. Brit. & For. Bib. Soc. 16.
1877. Tischendorf. ed. acad. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16.
1878. Alford. Boston. Lee & Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 534.)
1878. Pseudo-Leusden. gr. lat Philada. Lippincott. 12. (Reuss,
563.) 1878. B. Wilson. Emphatic Diaglott. N. Y. WeUs. (Reuss, 577.)
1878. Tischendorf. LAps. Tauchnitz. 8.
1878. Tischendorf. ed. acad. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16.
1878. ScHOLEt'iELDiANA. " E, A." gr. cugl. Lond, dk Cambridge. 16.
1879. ScHOLEFiELDiANA. " E. A." gr. engl. Lond. d: Cambridge. 16.
1879. Tischendorf. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
1879. Lond. Geo. BeU. 16. (Reuss, 536.)
1879. Lloyd. I^xon. Clarendon. 16.
1879. Scrivener. New York. Holt. 16.
1880. Tischendorf. Lips. Brockhans. 8.
1880. Tischendorf. ed. acad. Lips. Mendelssohn. 16.
1880. B.Wilson. Emphatic Diaglott N.Y. Wells. (Reuss, 577.)
1880. Pseudo-Leusden. gr. Iat. Phila. Lippincott. 12. (Reuss, 563.)
1880. Scholziana. gr. engl. New York. Wiley. (Reuss, 567.)
1880. Alpord. Boston. Lee & Shepard. 8. (Reuss, 634.)
1880. 'Ef BaoiXeig, [Basel], (BibelgeseUschaft) sine editoris no
mine. 16. Also, the same, Riggenbach & Stockmeyer. Also, an
edition with Greek church-lessons and Psalms appended.
1881. Tischendorf. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
1881. Tischendorf. ed. acad. Lips, Mendelssohn. 16.
1881. Scrivener. (A.V. text) Cambridge. Univ. Press. 16.
1881. Palmer. (Rev. V. text.) Oxford. Clarendon. 16.
*1881. Westcott & Hort. Cambr. & Lond. Macmillan. 16.
1881-82. Westcott & Hort (Schaff). New York. Harpers. 16.
1881. Tischendorfiana. Von Gebhardt. Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
1881. Tischendorfiana. Von Gebhardt. gr. germ. (Luther, Rev.)
Lips. Tauchnitz. 8.
1881. Perowne. Cambridge, (Only part yet published.)
1882. Palmer. (Rev. Vers. te.\t with marginal references.) Ox
ford. Clarendon. 8.
1882. Westcott & Hort. gr. engl. (Rev. Vers.) New York. Har
pers. 16. 
WITHOUT DATE.
The Student's Analytical. Scholziana. Lond. Bagster. SmaU 4.
(Tischendorfiana.) Cohn's Hexaglott Lond. Abraham J. Lev. 4.

522 EDITIONS OF .THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.

ADDITIONS TO EEUSS'S LIST, UP TO 1870.*
[(457.) 1830. Greenfieldii Polymicrian. London. Bagster. 32.]
[(563.) 1838. Pseudo-Leusden. Neo-Ebor. Collins, also Dean. 12.]
[(473.) 1840. Greenfieldil (Engles.) Philadelphia:. Perkins. 32.]
[ 1840. Griesbachiana. Londini. Taylor & Whittaker. 12.]
[(473.) 1844. Greenfieldii. (Engles.) PhUadelphice. Perkins. 32.]
[(608.) 1845. [Hahn.] Robinsonil Neo-Ebor. Leavitt. 8.]
[ 1847. Lloydil Oa;o«. E typ. acad. 18.]
[(494.) 1848. Bloomfieldii (Amer. V.). PhUadelphice. Perkins. 8.]
Also, the siime with a slightly different title-page.]
[ 1851. Trollopii il Lond. Tegg. 8.]
[(663.) 1863. Pseudo-Leusden. Gr.-Lat Neo-Ebor. Dean. 12.]
[(473.) 1854. Greenfieldil (Engles.) Phila. Clark & Hesser. 32]
[(527.) 1854. Bi.oo.MPiELDii minor. London. Longman. 8.]
[(390.) 1860. Wilson. Phila. Lippincott 12.]
[(663.) 1863. Pseudo-Leusden. Phila. Lippincott. 12. '
[(608.) 1870. [Hahn.] Robinsonil Neo-Ebor. Appletcn. 12.]

ADDITIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAET LIST, SINCE 1870.*
1873. Gr.-Eng. Cologne. Brit & For. Bible Soc. Sq. 16.
1876. Milliana. Oxon. E typ. Clarend. & Macmillan. 16.
1876 (misdated 1866). Cologne. Brit & For. Bible Soc. 1 6.
1876. B. Wilson. Emphatic Diaglott New York. WeUs. 12.
(Reuss, 577.)
1876. In Paragraphs. Gr.-Eng. Cambridge. Univ. Press for Brit
& For. Bible Soc. Sq. 16.
1878. Theile (Von Gebhardt). LApsice. Tauchnitz. 16.
1879. Hahn. Lipsice. F. Bredt. 12.
1880. Theile (Von Gebhardt). Gr.-Lat Lipdce. Tauchnitz. 12.
1880. Wilson. PhUadelphice. Claxton, Eemsen, & HafPelfinger.
12. (Reuss, 390.)
1880. Gr.-Germ. Berlin. Brit. & For. Bible Soc. 16.
1881. Gr.-Eng. London. Soc. Prom. Chr. Knowledge. 16.
1881. Lloyd. Oxon. E typ. Clarend. & Macmillan. 16.
* These additions have boen made since the foregoing pages wero
electrotyped.

EDITIONS OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 523
[1882.] n.d. Tafel. Interiinear Gr.-Eng. Philadelpliia. Tafel;
London. Nutt. 8.
1882. Scholziana. Critical Gr.-Eng. New York. Wiley. 16.
1882. Scrivener. The Parallel N. T. Gr.-Eng. (A, V. text, with
A.V. andR. V.) Cambridge. Univ. Press. Small 4.
1882. Palmer. The Parallel N. T. Gr..Eng. (R.V. text, with A.V.
and R, V.) Oxford. Clarendon Press. Small 4.

Note. — Eight editions in the list of Dr. Reuss, denoted by a ? in
stead of a number, were classed by him as "Editiones DuBi.iE,"
because he had not been able personally to verify or disprove their
existence. Eighty-four others, mentioned by former bibliographers,
he classed as " Editiones Spuri.«," and excluded from his list, having,
as be thinks, disproved their existence. His list (the "Index Editio
num " above referred to) comprises 757 editions. Of these, 83 are
here omitted, being only portions of the N. T., with two others, found
to be Fkglish, leaving 672. Two of the portions, however, are re
tained, to show their historical place: viz., Bentley's Specimen, 1720 ;
and Birch's Gospels, 1788 — all that the burning of the royal press at
Copenhagen suffered to appear. The new additions to this list of
672, made above, number 169.
The Supplementary List, 1878-1882, comprises 82 editions, making
the entire total 923.
This list discloses the fact that many repetitions exist which have
been either not catalogued separately, or not catalogued at .all. (See,
for example, Nos. 106, 152, 183 [anno 1698], in the list above, as well
as the editions of Bloomfield and Alford.) The undated editions
hiive mostly been many times reissued. Besides this, the English
presses at Oxford, Cambridge, and London, the Scotch at Glasgow
and Edinburgh, the British and Foreign Bible Society's at Cologne
and elsewhere on the Continent,, have all been busy in printing the
Greek Testament; and it is scarcely to be supposed that all their
issues have been here enumerated. The same is probably true of the
American editions.
It is beyond question that the total number of printed copies of
the entire New Testament, estimated on the basis of 1000 for
each edition, must exceed one million. Beyond that we can only
guess; but the number must be great. The British and Foreign
Bible Society has issued as many as 60,000 of a single edition; so

524 EDITIONS OP THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT.
that the basis of 1000, here taken, must be smaller than the
average. The number of editions of the entire Greek New Testament issued
in America, including reprints of European editions, together with
(the comparatively few of) those actually printed abroad, but bearing
an American imprint, is about one hundred. The number of editions
of harmonies, and other portions of the Greek text, issued in America
is not far from seventy. (See my article, " The Greek Testament as
Published in America," Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc, vol. xiii., 1882.)

APPENDIX II.

FAC-SIMILES OF STANDARD EDITIONS
or THE
GREEK TESTAMENT.

L Complutensian Polyglot, 1514. The first printed Greek Testa
raent.
1. Fac-simile of title-page (reduced). Hat and Shield of Car
dinal Ximenes. Size of original, 11 J in. x 7 in.
2. Fac-simile of Colophon (reduced), Rev. xxii. 17-21. Size of
original, Il^g in. x 7 in.
IL Erasmus, 1516. The first published Greek New Testainent
1. Fac-simile of title-page (reduced). Size of original, 8| in. X
4/g in.
2. Fac-simile of last page (reduced). Rev. xxii. 8-21, showing the
last six verses translated into Greek from the Vulgate.
Size of original, 9 in. X 6 in,
III. CoLiN.EUs's New Testament, 1534. Text of Erasmus, with vari
ations, partly from the Complutensian, partly from exam
ination of new MSS. Transition to the edition of Stephens.
I. Fac-simile of title-page. Full size.
2. Fac-simile of page containing 1 John v. 7. Full size.
IV. Stephens's Editio Regia, 1550.
] . Fac-simile of title-page of Gospels and Acts (reduced). Size
of original, lOJ in. x 6| in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing Matt viii. 12-30, with readings
contrary to all his authorities. Size of original, llf^ in.
X 7f5 in., including marginal notes.

52(5 LIST OF FAC-SIMILES.
V. Stephens's Edition of 1561. The first edition with the modem
versicular division.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 4fg in. X 2^g in.
2. Fac-simile of fol. 18 b. Matt. vi. 13-17. The version of Eras
mus always occupies the outer, the Vulgate always the in
ner, column. The latter shows the absence of the Doxology
at the end of the Lord's Prayer, which is present in tbe
other texts. Size of original, 4j^ in. x 33^ in., including
marginal notes.
VI. Beza's Edition, 1698. The latest of Beza's folio editions, and
one of those which formed the basis of the common Eng
lish version of 1611.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, lOJ in. x 6JJ in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing. Rev. x. 9-xi. 8, showing the
unauthorized addition to the Greek text of A a-yyiKog e'iorr]Kei,
and the corresponding Latin " adstititque Angelus," in xi. 1,
which has passed into our common English version. Size
of original, 11^^ in. X 6| in.
VII. Beza's Edition, 1604. The latest of Beza's smaller editions
which could have aided in forming the text followed in our
common English version of 1611.
1. Fae-simile of title-page. Size of oi'iginal, 6^ in. X 3J in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing Heb. x. 36-xi. 6, showing Beza's
interpolation of " quis " iu x. 38. Size of original, 6J in. X
3iin.
VIIL Elzevirs' Edition, 1633. The "Textus Receptus."
1 . Fac-simile of title-page. Full size.
2. Fac-simile of page containing Rom. vi. 19-vii. 4, showing the
omission of roU vojiou in vii. 2. Full size.
IX. Walton's Polyglot Bible.
1. Fac-simile of general title-page. This is the title-page to the
first volume. The sixth volume has a full title-page like
the first. The other volumes, including the fifth volume
which contains the New Testament, are prefaced by sub
titles only. Size of original, I4J in. X 9J in.
2. Fac-simile of left-hand page containing the Greek text, and
the Syriao and part of the Ethiopic versions, with corre
sponding Latin translation, of 1 Tim. iii. 1 S-iv. 4. The opposite

LIST OF FAC-SIMILES. 527
(right-hand) page contains the " Versio Vulgata Latina," the
" Versio Arabica cum Interpretatione Latina," and the con
tinuation of the "Versio jEthiopica cum Interpretatione
Latina," of the same passage. Size of original, 15/j in.
X 9J in.
X. Mill's Edition, 1707.
1. Fac-simile of title-page (reduced). Size of original, 12J in.
X li in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing James ii. 12-23, with note at
tempting to defend and justify a false reading in verse 18.
Size of original, Il| in. x 6J iu.
XL Bengel's Edition, 1734. The first German critical edition.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 7| in. X 5| in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing Gal. vi. 7-18 ; Eph. i. 1-6 ; the
notes showing Bengel's judgment on the words iv 'JLf'eaif
in Eph. i. 1. Size of original, 7J in. x 6J in.
XII. Wetstein's Edition, 1751.
1. Fac-simile of title-page (reduced). Size of original, lOf in.
: X 6J in.
2. Fac-simile of p. 891, John vii. 5I-viii. 2, showing a part of tho
disputed HEPI MOIXAAIAOS HEFlKOnH. Size of orig
inal, 10\ in, X 5J in.
XIII. Griesbach's Second Edition, Halle and London, 1796-1806.
The first edition appeared at Halle, 1774 and 1775.
I. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 6i| in. x 3J in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing Matt. xix. 29-xx. 6, showing
some of the signs used to denote different grades of prob
ability. Size of original, 6f in. X 3f in.
XIV. Scholz's Edition, 1830-1836.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 7i in. X 5^ in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing 1 Tim. iii. 13-16. The notes
show the close following of Griesbach, even to an accidental
appropriation of the authorship of Griesbach's "Symbolce
Criticse." Size of original, 7^^ in. X 5ja in.
XV. Lachmann's Edition, 1831. The first text constructed accord
ing to actual docuraentary evidence, without reference to the
" Textus Receptus."

528 LIST OF FAC-SIMILES.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 6J| in. X 3J in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing Mark xvi. 14-20; Luke i. 1-8.
Size of original, 5| in. X 3f in.
XVL Lachmann's Edition, 1842-1850.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 6f in. X 3 J in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing 1 Thess. iii. 2-8, showing the
division ot the uncial writing followed in ver. 7 (ro prjSev
daaivEoSai). The Latin version is the Vulgate, with the
readings of the most noted Codices. Size of original, 7^^ in.
X 4 in.
XVII. Tischendorf's Edition, 1841. Made before the editor's jour
neys, or established reputation as a critic.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 5J in. X 4 in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing 1 Tim. iii. 13-16, showing in
the note to ver. 16 the uncial variation which would produce
the reading of Srebg for 'og. Size of original, 5f in. X 3J in.
XVIII. Tischendorf's Edition, 1869-1872.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 5| in. x 3f in:
2. Fac-simile of page containing 1 John v. 6-8, showing the
interpolated passage of the three heavenly witnesses. Size
of original, 6f in. X 3f in.
XIX. Tregelles's Edition, 1857-1879.
1. Fac-simile of title-page. Size of original, 7| in. x 6J in.
2. Fac-simile of page containing Apocalypse i. 1-5. Size of
original, 7^ in. X 6^^ in.
XX. Westcott and Hort's Edition, 1881. London and New York.
1. Fac-simile of title-page of the Harper edition from English
plates. Full size.
2. Fac-simile of p. 14, containing the Lord's Prayer. FuU size.
XXI. Fac-simile of the engraved title (by C. Boel) in sorae copies of
tbe first edition of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.
Size of original, 13f in. x 8Jf in. See description, p. 301.
In the preparation of these fac-similes the author has been kindly
aided by the Rev. Dr. Conant, of Brooklyn, Dr. Ezra Abbot, of Cam
bridge, and Professor Isaac H. Hall, of Philadelphia, who are in pos
session of some of the rarest editions of the Greek Testament

(L-1.)

TfeaectfbipMlaaccflEiJfB'asoiiopirefpicitiUqiL. IbofpiliumpctriipauHicrqmnqsbieTOii.inampjiiiftrumeiimmvciuoocbdoaamni'.if.'oaci. ilernoualIsnaiur.lcrquinq3r««gtat.vtrur.n5,

IHouum tcfmmmnmi
flrccc t latine in. academia
compliitenfinouitev mpjclTuin,

^TcxsJrofti;ilIafll»-:pero:dmcili mlolooiJC ^'«''l^nn"'''l>Taol5iipfluTi:"iTncpTo3tfliioin'ca«:ti(ca(8iha
 " ¦ »ll'^lnca^dcaill:rnl6S«lo!iesrfl¦^'lnllUHlinflH.^fao(Il^l;l•lc?«luiiiurcpri:iprEbiiTpfluli:curcliqoiioHitclHopibU6.oiafiiinterpjctationcladiiaemfdcbL'aKbtwwiyflUcregioe&eidcfubiustlurvocdbiilanusreirucotuiceofat'icnocatotiuinoMl icllaincnli t inTuper rupieiilie t cafianui grcrc z \,^tini eix
ftjlcuitTima quada in initio ad jrccaB liltcrao lyo Juctioa. Tp»
pQaienlivocabttloiumguchmsrccamquabcrbiaKaitlial' ^icom ib!iua funtctjtiioJo^iQolj inmpmaiif}Gu>f4jiul fioa

_JatCH,'Tnc(urbif (iHdiorp kdoiooilifliuia Tubiiiiiunlur.
ISS!!.' , ""<'"" cpla 15a rtbil pipbiU ad tatpianu ba
SSSr!'' =';'"?''''''"l'»"l'i ''''''¦''" '""""S P»lMi-
Sil ,m..»i',;'i ¦'"-*''''''' '"'fi'l'aS'Ko rcmoe tn lairnoi
ii ..,.-' ."¦'""°""PP»''I» i^'iil' '''')">'li'i'»»0 3'Ci
„„V,,',i'''r;''>'>'"'S''""no<bli'l£j«nii:!rall).li|&,a..£',? "f;'P'l''P<ii«i,3n:tn.arlv;io"cinfde.O«mdiilp»

ocWjio grccLcmi.

530

(L-2.)

.2(poc3lrpfis.

<9S«lf.

\^6p'£pXEoeo(o'6EXcop'^aBET£o'u2icEp['3cDH(;~'vmiat:7\VvuIt'caipi'ai>aqii3rartltfao >2njpEdi). 'aapTvpal>"E'ytii''raaiiTi''aKouo>iTi -t*i!riti6„'lComcfto;"i.iiiTn"omrpi''aiidinili
./¦Tov(;'>6'you(;'i7H(;'njpo(pHTEia<;;1ou'Bi3?M' i Tvftb3'p:opVii

omrpraudicnti
ictit'liW coMoreooKoccco

ouilouTOU'Edp-lu'ETiiei^i'En'avTd'EiiisrioQi'ETj' 'biiiVSiMi'appofumVad'bcc'appontt
ypau ; •ocuB'nip.-t'illirs'plasae'fmpraoci.-cixco
("'nmi? I ,*llllih!iVllI,T.'(Prn'ri".llliaPfttt«ini...'M* 

'av'«5p/o'OEd(;;Ta(;'E7Tld'ii^H'yd(;/'ra(;''yE'ypau ;  
aElia(;"Ep/7o3'BiBAi<o>7o\>T(n.'Kai"Edp''"ric'a(p6 i Jmlib!o'jllo.'(£t'"fi"quiii"oiminucWt«a
JvH'ciTi'j'TO>ii'?i6yo3p/Tou;BiBAfouiTH(;'ropoa .'oe'wrbB'libii'prapbcttc.ca.'occcccca)
(fHTEiaC'ravTHO'a'psAoi'o'SEot/To'iiEpoti'av "l)iiiu(i:''aiiftrci'Bcuo'paiTC5'ciu0cooaB
Tou''onon'Ov*|\iAov/TH(;'3mH^'Kai'EK/T>ic;'no . *oc''Iibio'wc'^'t>c'ciuiraKoTOcccocwo
AE<n^mi<J'ayiai;'T(Dp''yEypcuuiEJia5p'Ei;/Tm'Bi -•fctlctscbio'qiic'topta'ffii'm'libMrao
BAi<o'ToCrTffi."!>iEyEi/o°jiapTvpa>p"TauTa'pai 'rno.'"Dicif(l"[rthmorafrBbibn"irtof.'E
'6pXoiiiai'TaXvr.''auHii.'pai.'£pXov'KupiE'iH= .'nS''TiCTiio'd(o:"9mc.'13cm'Olic'icfu,«iro
oov.(H'xdpiq/TOVKvpiou*iHOOu'.XpiOTou''nE 'ISratia'oiiiiionri'icfu'cbani'cuicoccm
Td'I5d|JT(DpnrcoiJ'ayia)p.'aiiHp. 'ommbus'vobio.' Zlmcn.
IeAo5/lHi; •crajoKctAuvJ'Esx;. Cxpliddibct'apnceljprio;
1@eo0r3tf9s.

Jd perpetuam laudem ct glojiiam
om bomiiunonri ietuCbnttibQC racrofanctumopus nom reda
mentis liba'Pitegrms Iatinirq5£baraamt)uenout(a'imp:cf
fumauplludiofifriineaiKiidatanufelidfi'neabroIuitidtui .
bac p^darifiitna Copluienli vniucrfitace : oe madato z
fampiibus 'd^oKrendillimi in cbafto pam's t ilUiRriT
rmubfiiiMmim frame frSdfd XimoK; be Cifne
roe nniCiincteSalbinerancieiRaniane eane
pwfbrteri CanJtnalte birpanie2lKbiepi ro
Iftani 2 ^ifpania? pnmaiis aeregiio^
adelle arcbicaeellanCinduRriatfokr
r^bonoiabibeviriamaldiguiUel liubeiJBiocarioartjeimpafllbtie maeiflTi.SnnobDmini JSiH
lefimaqiHneeniefiniot>es° cmo quano . .^eillie
ianuaritsiceedino^

531

(IL-I.)-.
NO VVM IN
nnanentuomne,diIigeiitcrabERASMO roterodamo
|iecog(iitumKeinendacuni,no {blutnadgr:ecamueritatetn,ue<
tumetiamadmultonimutriuri^lingux codicum, eorumc^ uc<
temmlimnlfiCefflendatoium fidem, policemo adpro"
badlTimorum autorami atationem.emendacioncm
Kinceiptctadohem^rxcipueiOngems, Gu-/
ibftomi.Cyrilli.VuI^ni, HiCTonymi>(^-
priani.'AmbroGj, Hilarii, Augufti/
n],unaciiAHnotat{onibus,qux kAorem doceantquid qua
ratione mutanimilr.
Quifquis igitur
amasuc' ram
Theolo/
giam.tege.cogno
Toe, ac deinde iudica.
Netj flan'm offendere, fi
quidmutalum ofFenderis.fed
expende.tium in melius mutatum ft.
APVD INCLYTAW
GBRHANIIAE BA81LAEAM.

CVM PRIVltyEGIO
HAXmiLIANI CAESARIS AVGVSTlo
NE Q.V1S AI,1VS IN SACRA ROMA^
NI IWFERII DITIONE, IN Tl(l A Q.VATV
OR ANNOS EXCVDAT, AVT ALflBI
EXCVSVJi IMPOETET. 532

(11.-2.)

AIlOKAAltlS

>&EOCALYPSIS

(i04'tAouT!Cj*eKVvovr/gjt'OrTcarTo£>KaJX?-' Tai/5 ;\,o jougTov J^itSXiouTowroB*'^ 3eS>
XoK JOI £)V"'s ^i"«0 ciJ^j HwjJ aiTijtKcrdtTw tTi,
^UTOjjUgi^'V^a.T^.MaKctjfo; of -ttoiouv /
(T/^ iitftAfiBC?^ OS-^-H-oTK/i.eIq 3 Oi KIWIS
»t95joi.9«^(tiaH(3fjKOU7rojiioi,KOuot$oias,w3|
01 ijJ'uAoTiBJj'fiQjKcd'waq 0 ^7iu/i,K£d TTOi
"Xop ^ou MrtjT,vj«irttt I//J.7/I TauTttTcas \h/
ftAjfoioKg.t^cj Vju7 ji^a,t(^ -p •^©-'137 cTct
^ajTuiou/ttfi ^(t^ Ttau n Eikouovti tdu^ ^0'/
O'Oi'? srjoifsTttcie ^iGXrou73;T».Vi7js?7a-iTi0H
7(5 aq>«ff H ai^ t Xoaap ft/exy '? ¦ajo^HTtiot?
7ciuTK8,Sqict(jjr(ra o5ios "» MtjO^auiw ec^
5S«;i/>£vci)^S^B/GAicpT0uru).AE'vaS^afTu
jS^-rauTccvoi' tyX^i"''^ laXw^o^M^* ifai/tj'

?4

angeli qui mihi hsc oflendebat. El di.-
citmihi. Vide ne feceris . Coietuus eoi
tuus fu.Sjfratriimojrf phetaijiSJeojt
qui fctuanc uerba;pphetia:Iibri huius.
Deum adora. Etdicit mihi. Nc fiona>
ueris uerba prophetis libri huius.T£>
pus enim propeeft. Quinocer. noceat
adhuc, & qui inrordibus dt , rordefcat
adhuc,8; qui iufhis eft .I'uftificetur ad/
hue, 8C faiis iccificeturadhucK ecce ue
nio cito.K merces mea medi Eft,ut red-
da um'cuiq;~ui:opus illius erir. Ego fum
alpha 8£ -i.primus K noui(limus,priii/
cipium SC finis. Beati qui fcmant man^
dara illius ut lic poteftas eorum in li^
gnouit«,Kperportas intrenciuduiia
tem .Poris autem canes K uenefid 8i
impudici Si homicide Si idolis fcruien
tes.SC omnis qui amat Si facit menda-
cium.Ego lefusmifi angelii meii teftifi
cari nobis h^c in ecdefiis . Ego fum ge'
nus Si radiVDauid/ftella fplendidaSS
jnamtina JSt Ipirims & fponfkdicuiic,
Ueili.Ecquiaudicdicacueni.Ecqutfiti'Cueniar.S^ qutuulcacapiacaquam iiitx
gratis . Cqnteftor emm omni audiend
uetbapphctia libri IiUi'us.Siqufs ap-
pofueritad hsc.apponetdeus fuperil
lum plagas fcripcas in libroifto.Etfi qs
diminueticdcucrbislibrifpherizhu/ius,auferetdeusparteeiusde libro ui>
tar.a: de ciuifatc feudta. Kdehis q feri/
pta flint in libro ifto.Dicit qui teftimo
niilghibetiftojz.Eti'a.ueniocIto.Ame- Etiam Veni diie ledt. Gratia diiitio-
flrilefuChrifticLioibus uobiS.Amen.

EnisTcdamenti totius ad grarca ueritate uemftiflTimoriiq) CodicumLatinojc
fldemKadobatilTimoiSiauthoruci'tationeSiinteipretatronemaccU. Taterecogniti, opera Ihidioq} .D.ErafmlRoterodami,
¦533

(IIL-l.)
H K Al N H A.I.A 0 H K H.

AvTi^Oi 4'fl''»'iJV7Tf ,tT</ cqp W t5tO-
JlSy/^S /Ot. cp. h. o'l-

534

(III. -2.)
EPT2T0AH

et^TH iSSV N tlKH,H MXH(rai(^ i^V Iw'il^yUOl^jH 77,'.
0 USzaV cfj .ilcftsrSf ly ou^ucZ? ihGvj ^a/j,^^
»T(c* §' VcftsTi /uopov , «M' w? |r ucft:2( |J 5^
isufMcHi. Vj S tivAJ/lW ^ r> f-ux^-rv^oiw il
&' 7lv£(ioc ^v H oikndux, 077 fiSay acf o)
•ji/eiotv '^ cu^^onrnv Xoiixj^'oum^jJlM.^ h ^d-
iCM/Su-OTniii/'i&f «jr'i' tjo? tS iSt5.^t^ liuj
(Sty , rlavsuv ¦zsi^iHUiv cwvy , 0^ i znirim-
^kvaiiiw iiu^'Tv eiiiui ,lw (jitfjjoc§'rJ§HKty 0
«5to? -snJ^ 7« i|5 ctJSu. jy isoi'tw 5SV n /twi;^
7ve/«, 0^ ?^ta^* ouinov Ic/biav ufjuy od^of,
« ' cf d. '*' ¦' _"ri >> I • ' ' " ^ ' ' iTT
tStS, -tU^ XciUv hc i.;)(«.' twUtz/ 'ky^i^ v-
\u.y Vii "mssiitaiv &g S cvh^jlol ^^^it^ .3trf,
SE^«7taj S'cVo^W£7a lf5 'S 3^5 KJ CW7W i^iK
535

(IV.-l.)
Tiis kainh:^ AiAeiiKHS .Quanta.'
^ ETArJTEAlON'
Kftia A.liUtU3JI.'
iit.A.SEi2 TxiN AndsloAnN.
NouumlESVariftLD.N. Tcftamentum.
EX BIBIIOTHBCA REGIA,

LV,TEjriAE.
Exolficiiii'RotettiStcEhmi lypognBhi Regli.Rcgiislyf.ii.

536

(IV. -2.)
KATA MAT0.. ,3 t^'r
cifusj/ar 01 Aijoj'WfySttnAacf oK;8Ai)5ii<nvWf fi'c ^okij-
(. •ag'Q^ilmfarlKeylga\-iii}vw^pigij0^fuyfMgv!iSli\-m]i.
,(„,*,a. _' KataTrivohmQ'TW 'aisi'jiiVTai>;i(i^,'f'm-}t,&agi3%{gBimi;
."'^'^  > " oSZuHAj7MB5l.KaZia.5H0iraiC oui rJJ<n.Mn/* A«eiuu *ir -!''?.'_

tl

i.-

'""teo.i- " 'J?"n'3wwinl.Ka.t/a..3i)()!ra(5a<^cj''i5^4''?'"'c-'i'!''*Ka)°g-
r'jj^'ti 'J S^voiimQei'g7laio-mcuTli^v,elSi-!lw7Titi^l,ajaiffp,^
i*"i7-,V ~ £Ai</.^iui leef Twpeajtuinti', )^n''\|a')i) '?_;^^fofa^^i^f|IQe/tt-
«-A'w¦¦<' ' <J)n!t5Va.u7ia)0OTpe7iiS"^«'>6p3>(jii Aix«V4'au'7ii)<'.'°CJ'vltaf >W.«.*
"¦ "¦''=¦"1' s „ 0 i '^1 ^ r n >- (1 / . ' \ % ""'"'¦"'
j™^...v. 3 yfio/Jipne 'srspawiliiwi «una) JinpinQiijifjoi; tibMoic,!^
o^efeaAS '5t Tis^iJia-ia. J«j«),)j) vnwjiif Sic xaxor ^vtoc 6-
StgSSOTuirevomov.zs^nejs.jS'P pnStv AcHimtm S'/zjepcpflK,
Aej;ii'7!!C,At!'^fWa<8ti'^a{i/^ga'^^'OT'°C >'''''"<''=*" ^ ""v"*'
saosi'. 1 Aiv 3 0 f>iireiC7»A\oi{o;(jADtf •sfeiauToVjOneAA'ire!
/. EBtAMv as T= wepay. - 'KafcsesosASavafjfitjUjMeTEifa'- jvkj.b
. -mi cujniyAiJkina?\i,<lxi?a03ii!nii Qi o-mi tax ani^yi, Kaj
Aej^ a*;raJ 1: Irmig. Al'I^Oi-rrinAg cpaAeotj fc;i9wrt. ics^^^Tje-
TOW TH oupowod K5i'!aW!"U'«'015' 0 j 1^0S ra <SuSf fflOTU OTO 6-
^miT tIui xs^afjui xAivii. Brtpof ifJ fv lUtSnmv aJ^
B-miami, Kveni i3^fi'^]/piii''m&'P>i'i!nf^v,ltSa.-
^|a)^Dll5Ia7Sg5JJ^^Su. (ijjfnmtJaTnvaunSjAiaAroS^/iMj,)^
,fLia,'i$t;5iC vil'foi.CSa'vIafSiC eauTOVvewiC' °^aJiu,CaIit m^.^.a
.'p,\ «¦.'(„ o?' n \.T*A'a\ «!t.,.r
&Ktura) fl J 7= a!?i«iii',«MAsu*Kiaf aural 01 paSmof aiti , Ciiftiu
oTJojiuis' /*/j<«j t3?o€'TO c* CT SaAStflW , mgmT'ViKmimt-''-
sj^kSitu -[jmr luipaiaii .auTog 3 iJKt5tOift.Kat /zuejusAStm-
¦jig o'lpaSirmi'iu^iyifafau'm, AejsTOf, Ko&iE oroGm'-
i£f.iat,'X:mM.vp.(5a. Ka) A6>j ajJiB7g,Ti'i!i!\si'ig(,ol>\iymaif
Tent lj*p&Js hn-npimni Sic <ivtnsig &¦ tm SKAstaw . lay ej^-"
i;;rra) jaAtuii) jiMjaAn. oi g iii^m-mi i^ovpamv, M'yn-ns, A
Ho-iamg i(hi cSr/ oij £ oi tVi'^f ^ n SizAStora VTiwauium

iii K 3tJi»AStc u A c<re) y^psSfiamtimi ^Ata?;H ij ij ^
KfarftT'attTOvaj^Au/is/eJjy issff^ici fiti(r,af^i.c'io Jiij-
tt rTfii-f HnV<iwj»j"i!«Vwi'. iS" nuiT^wJujunJiJ^'B
537

(V.-].)

jfFANTA tA TliS KAINfl^S
Nouum lESV ClirilHD.K
Tellamentum.
Cum duplici interpretatione',T>. Erafmr, KV ete^
yis interpretis ¦- Harmonia item Euangelica, ?&
copiofo Indice.

Ex officina Roberti Steplianic
M. D. LI.

538

(V.-2.)

Cap. V I. E. 2 V A N 0, V-
Et nein<Iuc« ,j KajV«Wrwtf«- ,""•"*
nos in tentatio- ,v T < ' i '""Joca' in
nem, fed libera juo^ et; ¦mic3iaU0f,''^a, '/."'H^^';
infiJu-c, nos^Iraalo. puoBUWucii'^n'milii- f • ^ ¦"J'-
Quia tuueft re- [> </ P .ri ' lo.Amsa.
gnum.&poten- pod .o-rt niJ biWu^gj-
tia, &. gloria in ^na , 4 »' J^a.uu;,iin
iccula.Ainen. ./»- . o- » , r- "-^
</!)5ot flf (erf ojoiya.;.
«";"::'; i,r^oindef.rc- .4 eW ;^ ^>;;^ ™-% ,.^', «^^
reraittct 8c vo- (XcLTtt avTzoV ,clipna^ S rui^dimK
bi5 Pater veftcr -^^ J ^^ -^ - ., »¦«":'"/'
£j£,C;0 f • Uiaa vcAra;
CLu3d fi n5 re. „ ^cJ Jiim aV?7T Sr? sl aucc™
mitentis Jiomi- . , i <y o ' "o"""™"'*
tiib' errata fua, ^Sfcii-rjci; •m.'Z>^mar-- titU homl~
n v a- ^ ^ * r^ * DJbus , nec
nec rater velter ucL'mcwTiiiV.oudi 0 ¦xa.~ pattrvtftcc
remittee errata , , t,« . . i dlmltici »»
vcftra.. "^P '^/¦W cKpnai Ttt aa- bit pcccaia
.1 / < WP veftra,
£f 711 a/uam v/ujfl ,
Hann.t.is Porro qnum ,5 O71U3 CHrti/n/EjU* >) t.m^tiuna-
ieiunaueritls.ne „«'<>•' . \ tIj , nollie
fitis veluti hypo ftoSs af'S^«\.3miVf/7Ii) fi„(ficuihy
... . .» ' » '^ DDcrft* tri
cntztetrici: ob- nv^f>er!-mi , aL<fcUiC,ouj\ «„:„(„.
fcurantenim fa, \'ir'_>./  '_"„ mlnSieiiiin
ciesruas.quo per If ^ 'a«P^'^^«'^™^_ fa.ic. fuM.
fpicnum fit ho-. oTiag tpoJ/Ztn'miii'^oa "o^^olbw
minibusipfosic ^/J VH^lJomc.tfW At ll"'"",;"-
eo .vobis, habent Jf.^u/«l'0T7 *7re;^«W1 7i» J^p",';?'^^;
^nercede fuam. lh.qIv afnZl., «ed«ru.n,.
Tuverdquum ' 1 ., 1 .a tuaiiifm
icjunw , vnge 7 2f .(i K8n.f»y eCA«- f;;,-^^J';:

539

(VI.-l.)
lEST
CHRISTI DOMINI NOSTKI
Nouum, Teftamentum,
Cuius Grxco contezim re^ondent bterpretltiones ilu3:vii3,'r etui:
alteta,Theodoii B ezs,
^r Jf- J D z jr. -7a. "B tz.M jrsiyro tax io-ne s,
iri^iiiiusratiorielrimmuriimswcuinredJiUfiulilimrSyriopfisirllririie: m Euangelica hilhri4,&EpiJlolis Jfojhticii comfreher^xf
^ipje quoque conKxttis,i^Ui^bTem corsmeit--
¦imocxpliamrj
Ojncunua0dcmuiil,'vlcimaa^i^ifa^anu,quam accuntiiCin^ £aifii3at£&aB^
&a,vt^ugdaoiniedeAOUuni0£u(Yidui£oirir.

S VMPT IB.VS
ffJEREV. EfST, fiaji.ON.
M. D. XCYIIL.'
540

CVI.-2.)

Cap.XIjii. iKoj Al?lf>0r,&f!nEaAn«e09h'
91 i/iSn nie »3'fin ' nfijtluiyii^rtlw
IE?? «^4)HT^'eeu9iF ffiiept yi^iiu
Quniaait atJioi^aiitiiXtii'^^^v-
^rjaf a^ oiiimot lv ©fcS TIC.Jfle t-
ISmJ e^c oiTnic 3J^n a JNnuTnif ,Tve
£ianpdjtTiif ON «£ ^MSf7°( '^Tii^t'vi
)£jBxripS»»tff". ¦¦ — _ 1 ¦
•Mi/nri^^^t/fAi'Tarif^c^MWTafj; ^^lOraiuc I Of diAt) jaroir

lOANNIS
mariradinem adferct vetri moil lf""i ""«"<« v""""!
_ [ \tM'a ,fii in tri Im air
iMtriw^miiiil,

Ted itl ore tua cue duldl laiu
Accept igitur libcTfLiRi dina
nu Angeh 1 St dcuoraiii eumi
eiatijue in ore tneo dulcii
tiaquam mel i Jed quum de-
uoiiITcm cDiD f aniruit vcdici
meutt •'•
Tura dixiCRuhj » Oponeiie
iterum prophecatc .'coram po
pulis St-geniibui , St tinguit, &
rcgjbaimultifi C A P.'-sl,
DAn» eft auiem ralhi ca
lamus fimilii virg^yaddi'
(itqiie Angel [iitdiccDSiSurge &
metire templum Det ^altarcj
&eof ^uU^nnc is cat
Sc?atriiim''quod extra tem
plum eft' extrude. & ne metia-
ris illud: nam datum cd Genti
bus: Sc Vrbcm finAam cilca-
buncmclibui^uadragjntaduo- busi. Sed d3boi^4nii<luol)us Illis
tcftibui meis ¦ qui propbctabui
diebusmilic ducentis fexagin-
ta,amiai fjccis.
Hi funt duz i\fs olexiSc duci
candelabra in coolf cSu' S)ei
iczix pofitah
Qj^&d Cqnitvelit eosTzderc
f^nis prodic ex ore ipforura i
deuoiat inimicos eorutn ; nam
[jquis velit CO) lzdccei.iu op 01
CI cum oediii,
Hi poictlatc ha&enc clau jen-
di czlum,oe riget rnrjm pluuL
diebus prophctiz ipforuiiSc po.
telVicera habeni 10 aquas , con-
ucRcndi eat inranguincm:&
pcrcutiendi terram omnipbga
quotiercunque voluerint.
Porro poftqua percgerint'fuii /
illud ccfEimouium, bcftia ilia af! ^
cendenscx abyflb,geret aduer-
Tus cos bettaKtSnyiacaeosiSi'.
occidcieost I
Etcadaucri urjmiaceliunt s

£lieinl litis it mna
^¦j(Ii,(tr itattani iHi'i.
or no » 'ri mit im^
ijium mil iiilti^ jiium
ttiKtalJim ium.amaTi:d
nt^vmnmiuin Tl lint It ^Opnux
' ItCTUnt pfnpJuiflff gnu
bm.efftfidji,^iuia
jirli lO- ttg/bn maiiii,
C A F. -B r,
.jtainnifiiulit iirr^,
(^ uns lfl mill}, .mgii
&miutt wbttumOtii
'¦Mw Amum isime^itfl
'tultmplumi^i.fatUtf ntautura iBuatgu*^
mmdaSiJi Otiaibuit
¦r'imaitm^iuifhni taU
^niaiaaiuii '
£1 data Saihm itpiim
Btii.^ /mfbUMtiSi ilt-
ba mlOi dmiml final
llv«,aniiS'futi,A W fimtSaaeflnecf
iuitaaitlehTam (eafhi
till Daaim'imafiamtji
Stffih'KluiHtai
tsttra, igaii aaitJa era
',eriiiimetai.ti-, ttraoK^fmaitiD-,
\mit eoi Uitityfu ap^ri
leimtuidit ¦
t/l heZmtpMjIaan
ttaiiaii relim nipliM
iUbm pnfbaia ipfnSi
Vpeujlaaa hcbaufui
ft equal fcnuaHii at
rn/m ,^ MfcvICf
lemiujite^aipi.
litfisn^afoLaait^ IG qajBnfiniaiiit uJS^
imaaumfmn.bJHif .
fiu aftmiii il atrfgofa
oduirfaiai iiUanit
ttr-pinut iSa^ff scdia
a Eit^foratfrumietti

f .^marilaiitima^iTittSMf^ii.Htbt.iitn'iff'niet.lfn Icftio.quzezuiapud AttlumiScin ComplaHa£'cD(U'
^uoViiIgaUiFatHifiBidriMUifiuiirftcrcuft-DonfcinGl. ce. .AUudrt cDimadatriuin illud utmui .cjuadiRiuia
^maiem, ^ populi dieeb»ur,quoarim ODinibni puelijc, fExnu-
n CBrvBpipvl!i,&e.Pitaut,'8iCSiCvCll^trai2p^g^ A.i'tCiii/et^ilKtbuiii.fiiK/trM.AiqmiaminoDEtl^
litiDAiUaIta>Jt.&i.Tiiii><.ij< I Fueoirdi^uidcmjIiqujtenui.Niciiliiiflj&SiD^ciiK
1 M t f vr ' flomtDihhoenrioeMDtfeiuana.redtimeniorami-
IN CAP VT xu ' jifiini«<UfiaumnomrneTempbIigmficj[uiuc.Ni)ii«»fi*
T ^J/[ir>l^..fB|tIiu,i£i'cai.iw(a)i'x«r*<cnii^T>n.Tu rAquodjnimodofDriiciicirtJci(ur,qudJunt]UjmprQ£t3
TeftjEuohunc laciiui » Compluitn^ editroQc, cjuum in nura ncgligicui \a metiendo Templa. Hoc duinan con«
ielJquitrcnbiratdunuMit>)aiJjin>.i}naficilunut ipfelOlideriruni,pouruni legendiun tUs^V -H tau,ia itS
hat Gt loqiiuiui . ^iiod mibi aimium videtur,ibrurduD] iaiJ;ariwmq»td iam ttmrUai^'JUtaiosiii^UvR-^'Oi,
VcIpcrviGoncmcaeitvc.VKUiinicrpretJcgicui'x*;!!* /uineniniboeBddereinrl _^
fHi,& diOvm cit mini. cadcm-ilunEnrerenicniJi. Sed 4 Daimi,-^ Uitfaiin VLlg.nBuJurfd,* Bggjcv
eciaii]GIiinpltdterpanjEur>>}^rFrpnn(t«b'iHebr. ioG' ^(iii,nKi4inlegituruiccLtJoaeCcMi)pluieDfi,gDciddL
wioiiaHVl'nw.Jditejido.&iienrarefeKturi^oo'liiugiivfitituin. t. i!jieiixuaim{tamiJl,T(mllninwaii.lixttA':ix> ^OiODaaiujaDbisnaii.
' Jl Sfiti^

541

(VII.-1.)
NOVVM
IES V CHRISTI
TESTAMENTVI^
Theodora Bf^ mt^r^ete
A ddite/unt at eodem fu mms treues doflrins vnor
quoque Eu3ngeliorum^& AiSoriim loco cbmpre-
lietifx. itenifMethodiApoflolicaratnepifloIorunv
bfeuls explicatio.'
Utile aUtem quinta- edittonh prater'iwiftormn Ifcoivmt
recognkionefKfacceJferunt'i'reMs^^cilioriimphrtii
fcturf.expopnone! ; (fr alia ^utiJUm.anmtitiiiiritulg.,
turn ex mnioribm ¦ipfm JBe'i^ 4tia<itatiop)t}f!_ titm
ahttnde excerptg.

Anno, M; DClIir.

542

(VII. -2.)

\capJCL

AD HEBRAOS.

145

¦g-> 1.17.
UMi.J.tt.

!Vet TD 3e\b/yt TO 0BUU vniiH-
E-n ja/j ^ xf ov oircv Tot/ 0
i^TBJ- J^ ta.» UTJOTMM-mi J J()C
MicWcetTTwAHtts, AiOitim-

««/. 4^.17.

Nam patience animo vo
bis eft opus y vt voluntati
Dei obrequiiti repottccii
promilTtonein ilUmi'
Adhuc enim f pufitlum
quantuIumcunquCfficqui
vcnturuseft v.saietinc^uc
ta Habit.""
r " luflus autem ex fide
viuet.:a( dquit fofubdu-
xerit, non eft gratum a-
nimomco. TAt nos non ij rumtis ^ui
nos fubducamus ad exi-
tiuni,red qui credamus ad
animxratutem.

C A P. .XI. -
). TraH^att/J^ue ad fi/iem capirit lion aliunde falittem adtptot
effc patres, tiuicurttjtte ttl* initio jnisiif Deo prolmtifuernt.'jHaTaex
fde:vrfeiat ludai hacfila fe coli'i^sripatriifu in fan^a vnitate.

xiyj^zv^Jii-mj^oiYi, Ev twItj •jai e/otfTt^p'Sm*
ToCi djaufif piaf4ff.Ti ©EoJ , m'c
ITiVei wAHifV* SuOTiW A-
0tJ''(ft'5c fi/taplupii'J&'l " V*f
Jii^ic ioj'nd roS Oiou'i^'eTi*
/» idt;v5c£vaT6VB,Dv;t(u-
/k'otceto, lAa-n^TE^niuvlu;'
^iftfta}; iU''ni fA^f4tf-fTVft)mi

¦ illud

f FduUtntn
pnh lidbitt f4-
ffrrPtflxTU lie*
Kiut 12^ FiraiatC'
dei pTsAaniia
ab eSeda co-
aiendat» ntiod
Vnicinn lit ad
viti iter: qua
finteatiam il
luOrit oppo-
''(ico tiUziiff,

t ExceUeiu
fidei Oefcri-
ptio ab cffi:-
die r quad res
adhuc in (pt
S'ofitiu I'ptf-
enietjSctnui-
Abilia rcluu
oculis fubit'
cut. .^¦/ irn&.
fiiififeatiA <•'

z Doccg Pa*
rm Cl lue de
mum virtufe
cfie sftiman.
dot. miatnS.iUi (^
iritf « f «j&«(
•tiifutttmrtiTguar an ceitw
¦ii^rciffWM
flmau flmii-

pSt_*autcm fides,
-•-l^quei .fubfiftimt" qu5
rperantur,& quidem^n-
fttat qax non cernuntur.
?Ob cam enim teftimo-
nlo fuecuotoinaci'* jna-
iotcs> *• Per fidem InteUigi
mus compaftum fuiflje
mundum veibo Dei , ^ vi
qux videmus nonfiotex
appaientibus faAa.
** Abel pec fidem . ma-
toris pcc(i| facrificiumob
lulic,- Deo quam Cain:
per quara teftimonium
obtJnuItquod elTet iuftus.
teftimonium pechibcnte
Deo de donii eius:& mor
tuus adt]ue pec. cam io-^
quirur. *J Per fidem Enoch fuit
trafltftu5ine<'videtet mot-
tern : GCc fuit inaenius,
pcopterca quod tcanftu- — v- a —
ierat eum Dcus:priurqui "'"^'^^
enim eransterteturjtclttHpwMf i.f,
raoniumobiinuerat^uod "— ^-— -
gratusfuecitDeo.. Atqui ficti no poieft vt
abfqiftde quifqua Dm C*
^ratus : nam quiacccdit

Uttiptrffl,) Propriirsi
fidMoKcndit*piopotitii fe-
Jec^iliimiscxc[•lis eerii ^ai
i cDDditoina
<tora Ecctefn
tzcclfUerwit. dmi jPi

r ij

nifdilnt. AbrL
Enocb. McawfT'

.543

CVIII. -1.)

;h.' KAINH'

AIA&H'KH. Novum
Teftam^ntumy.
Ex Regiis aliisqm-cptimU editionibtif,hac
WVH cxpreffiim: cui quid accejferit,
Vr&fatio docsbiu. '¦

LvoD. BatAtorvm,
Ex Officina' ElzcYiriorum*
cb la c XXXIII,

544

CVIII.— 2.)

vIm ufOfiiav' iiia iuJu-'!B^^<piazc\i mui.
?iu vfi'Z') dihit TV) a>i(fi,joi7iiVr) «5 aptairu^v.
JJ 7e T*)' J^KCKOtFMOl] .
2. I Tha B» ^g7re» «;(</e tstt , iO' cis viu/
tTitcji^uiltS-s ; TO y> 'Tt A©y c.a«w> > J»-
2. i Nstu! 3 £ Adi/JcgW^EVTES >JIS -^ ciftafliocg,
^nAa'jiiTtg'^TtS&ia, 't^i Ti(sif7i3> ufiSv
HS aytaa- fiisy' "T" J •rth®-',^ala) aimiov.
i. $ Ta gd o'^atnn '-p a/.{gifUxg, JaJas]®-" tb
I tJ «jKOHTEaJV/ipo; (j<vae:yJai yi vi-
ffSI A«;iS) 07! 0 yo'ft®' KV^^ji a «*-
5p«!r«llf>"o(rev^o'v«v ^(13
2. a .SuTmvJJi^ytwii-nS^St'lt aisles •
^"^ lOfca' icu/^t ^otJwuji t »i>i^, it^-ma-
yii^ iao S" at^ig.
Tiifirecui^ri'Dasi^i irifif icul'^laitjuii^
oujrluu ffs'X^^l^'^'l^^ *'"')'' ^'"PP-
4 i![gTT,ah>i(pi)l/,t,s,>^vfiMsijKVii'niJ>tls 5 d'w

35 545

CIX. -1.1

BIBLIA SACRA
POLYGLOTTA,

Textus OiiginalcB,

COMPLECTENTIA
iHebraicum, cum Pen- 1 ^ Chald ai cum,
> tateucho Samaritano,' 3 ( G!l.«cii,m.

¦Arabics, ..Ethiopice,
P E R s I c A,
.Vulg. Lat,

'Samaritan.*,
¦Verlionumqae G R.£ C .« LXXII IntCrp.
amigmram, ' ChaLDAICvE.
.SvRIACiE, Quicquid comparari poterar.
£um Textttwn, c> yirfomtn Orientalium Tranjlaiionitui Latina.
E X
VETUSTISSIMtS MSS. UNDrQ.UE CONQ.UISITIS,
optimirque Exemplaribus imprctw, fumnia fide colhiis.
QuB in prioribus Editionibus dcennt fiipplcta,
MuLu anlGbac incdiu , denovo adjccla.
Omiiid CO ordine dilpolita, ut Textus cum Vcilionitus uno intuitu coafnti poUidt.
Cum Apparatu, .Appendicibus, Tabulis, Varus
Lectionibus, Annotationibus, Indicibus, 6cc.
Opus totum in fex Toraos cributum.
Edidit BRIANUS VVALTONUS, s. t. d.
^tiones quihas Opus hoc fiifcepittm.
Quorum Juf^iciii O* munifcctuitt promotnmy
Quorum collatis fiuiViis O" lahofihM ptrfi:d.nm^
Q^d(^\it in hae Sditioiic pra rcliquis prtrjliium,
Seqiie/u Trsfatio indical/ir.

ImptimcbatTHOMAS ROYCROFT,

M DC LVII.
546

CIX.-2.)

tli

Vm bf a***". VAa CUHti km «*— •¦ « «<

E<P ISTOLA iff. !P,.^MI7
'EnisTDAic npo'£ TiMOOEOM' a', k t ». r. 2'. ll e*.

Mt3t T^t«'C"y»»^ i*i<-»^M''^*

_»n,l. nil ttt ErIiCi DiI tIiI , Vtmn * fannmni
bJ lm*tyviiiin |ii>> Rl Tji3i>tinCMi|ivti)!n»* Oili
r<j;ni, >^V •^[¦•i j«A*Hi~'

-If. •

, livV" U.

S' ('rT'i l( In nnif *An> tuSwimFi (utunt

9^ ttJUra. ittttit Cl A

WTMtfiJm'' ULA n;>0' iln^

ti<>it>:» li'V^'i iJlwi'h
ttliiut. ilHu^-if dlifi atiAifSi it fl;j..
CAP. l\f. J>' ¦
_a ^ Kplnmi '^ didi 1 Quli ta mnUuiIi t
Jit, uimlnm OMiIbi, «tMB , a  _^ 
f SMinin-' ^i-'t, iaixl^ Bt^"" , > • £'•'< l*1(irt> tic r"1^^<
f/^ l»jw«nr n" •mill ( l»ii™Mt»ui>«iMir«»* "uh «»

Cjip.TT.
WAlr-

iPb Fn ¦uiini tM ft oiuteni 11
nm^ woa Bt< alalBir IcTl Oriil, isglriltii m, u. -
^f uAii /iA.nuulB>(}iJ,>

„ , ¦ ¦-;  ~f IIMit
m> ' Til 9 diAiui ^ }twh<i pulii^

HMiniB in niMii a rinu Ml obiiIi «uUi <fl, pnauUra iiw
iiJx'«'"»'»vO''^l«"»»-('''-''™i»i*#fJ.io^;«,«M4,i™ Mu am sn, k finn. ,(Ulii- fans » IBB> Himlin dieni. u
Iii»i.Tri iS>, ^''m'Anih 'TlK»l.Alvt. ^ainf MUtxitaffe'. tS,^'

j^ in{tiiBiTw;(n|ainmq3imcut.

•'^^— "*l *STiBi{lnnill!7nrproWnniiiftnT(Kof,iipfl.i* * - .eompirint fibiipSi.Si nijiia
-'-¦'-'¦ Chrifti_.I|---^ '- ¦'

lonun tiu. Sm'C

alUDnu oe I
ct DuenBOiclbacui 'Idunufii
. _  . .iif&ri)i«i_„  .
diana imcr Gcdui. Bc crcdinBiBOBadia

"i .^ ' JBftida, BjAd I _ 
— \ l|f ,|tajL:&l8iBeicniii5pinw,i[|firi|iKiii|dli,Bipcn
,r " " . ^" dia — ' — '^  "  ¦¦-—  '-

.  -t^i
lubcntaDiibcniaetbiriKmndabu.q'n
"  Dtliinuniiii, Spuunp*

'VeiBo S T ^7 A C A cam Interpteatione LAT^Nj.
¦•}• :^oJla*.».- car. Wi
^ §r m m-f .«' ¦'!•"»*•¦¦ r" m ^ poocm, r- ¦  — ''-
J." n^;i V-N . -¦Sio • .^oiLl)&^ y imo ¦|l<n.-i^a ^ ¦'S'SViVio p_ifcA^>3o <*«»»
,. --iL-r,^ I •¦i"'-'' ^f 1^ l'^-' <-^ f .livkJui H" r-f-^ S°to:r_„ , . „^,  __,
4 fit— ^a .OCT >»afc lOl^JI If^) ^01 ^tfl-ao " .liv*. ... \...0 f .«.l aaiCBJO; y ^^Jl nun cUi K inluliI»miiuilBa. «°>oi
J » . '~«w V'** • •». •'£. r"»»r,, pmumB lOiaw Iubkut. SjhOiSo""'
I.)taSjaB|juS.j 15A<ji }.i.^ooii»jiBo • .cajaja^^lfcy^ipa^ ^t^^mjoj ^|J'i°j'?^^'°°'*°°"i''°''°°°^.!s
7llOL*a3 ^^ij |6m »>&> ^..Aa « jfe»Ji t^*^ ^a-^ ^»i.ft^n,*nQ Jlalaojcai Jl3aapao,a(.5Mn:cBipfiioi.anfliiBJiw:. mmi
IQ .QOi^ !¦ 'i ^ Lit V-Lw^ uoie&^Ti .• ill |n&^ -Vt-iav^ >, — -l*-tftI.b>»>otn sn^oTti^'i^ ho'ii^i"™. Zui^B- /
I. ¦* V * ¦ ¦ .r' ¦ / •? • ^k,* •' r -«."'¦ 'j ¦ fdtlium. vxdBttecfrre-ft.Lintaa
11 .» ¦ ' " ¦ i"* 1 _ ^ ' > _*,f Cdtlihaa ih r»imone « (anvir(ilioiic,a:
; , jj. • .)£a.4aol£itt.oLao,^iol^S .US««.3c')i.:^ -. \1^6Lie^ )i^'X'i^ZM^t^''-'^''^i^"^ "t^-^^"*
' 14 tiJt N»t! l'i«Aoiuaa IcuL 110% .1?"^^-^*"/^^^.?.,^ 'f ' '¦¦* - lA&Ilf .(Jil ILf* doHZiirw'd '» i' *«'. <)^dMiDD'!la'!!t>
' Vnlw .^rHZOP/Crficiun rnrerprrcufone t-A TJ N"JL
uiojifM-iTiiHAflihC: a+:*w:rtt#>j(i?i'nrtA-fM»c.-<V(i>.!t)>B.e:a'.™™.,n ,.rt«*«.r, ^.i»».™rtu: i-rf,w™»»«"«T

547

H KAINH
A I A 0 H K H
NOVUM
TESTAMENTUM. Cum Lectionibus Variantibus
MSS Exemplarium, Verfionum, Editionum, SS Patrum &
Scriptorum Ecclefiafticorum; & m eafdem Notis.
ACCEDUNT
loca Scriptur* Parallela, aliaque '^/rymi^, & Appendix
ad Variantes Lectiones.
PRfMiTTiTUK Disss It TAT I'O,
In pa de tihrii N. T. CJ dnimu Conjlitu^me agitur i Bifieria S.Texm N. Fadtf-it ad mpa
ttj-gue tempBTa dutuiitur: Et quid ia hoc ^OITIOKR pajtitiaa Jtt, ei$Ueat«T.
SxUDiO ET LaBORR
yoANNTS tMIL L I r S. T. V.

OXONII,
E THEATRO SHELDONIANO. MDCCVIL
548

(X.-2.)
Km, 0, 2.. I A K Q B o r, e$^
^, '"yijovfltc f^^Ang vafiov • 12 Od-m ?^7\.Hn, m oij-mt -milhz ^. gjc
0^ ^Vbfiav i?.<3j^eACLg (ji?^cm; xeltK^aj. x J H -yS xefVx; •^m^SUs"'
;u.a iWctrcn h m?iQ owoaf 'stuiov j i y Ealo ^ S^" aSiAcfjig a ci§iX(pri. yviivoi
§^ ttSroTff "ra G^riiSSia aa ^jio!^?, % -P o^sAo;; ly Ou7m.(c i5 TJSJf,
l:Ad fjah i^cL h/yjy iieTi^.. ^ 3[ff,^' icwilw. i8 Am' ig« k" trt) ?rifiy
Ii;^a?rxa3/B sej« ix^' SiT^^P /"* t!u) J^ifiu Qu ^ sua." '^ 'i^m '^Gv",
xotytf ^i^fiJ (Jt ?0K ^ egy»v -P/Lwy" Tito msii^ fwu'V Ip Su mssyeic oti
h ©eoe w 6^' ^H9^^ -miik' ^'vgJi^^ ^titfjavict ^siuovtrt, j^ cfeiwDvo-*.
20 ©£Aei5 S^ fmt^i ^ ai" m^a-aS xei^g, o-n « Trffie',;^^^!; /riy* ig^K ^ (g-/
tiy^i^ 'Isreww" t* tjotf riUTotf c^ r ^urfa^e^oifj 22 BAstthc oti a Tjfiff
"ffzwagya" '&Ts i^iQ,tiuiiii itj m« •1^' e^'j^i' » ttisi? ersAafii^; iiSjCoj
"Vcrr. T2:,*J«j)i';r2f." Vcrr.ij. 3forS.ir-C>'iS.3y.($'2f.4.i,,fSj4.5,Mf?;ir2(?;E»Ki(f.ay.C^n.^9..2r.
Pw-J.2i.ij, (&-a8.=7-y''i".tf,7,9,io,ll. I»/i-.j.+. •170.4.17,1s. Jtlar.v.T.. Verf 14. Siipr.l.ni. Infr,
i'.l7,20,34,itf. iW/rt.7.iS., Vgrr.iy,iff. Zj(f-J.'i.t?tf/.if.iu.i7ii.j.i7,iS. •fyAyai.ji.ia..* iZVw.iI.S,
Verf, 17. S(»^r.«.i4. I»fi¦.v.zo,^(J, Vcril ti/. Deiir.S.4,. J/.riM2.2p,» j2, *(^i..:4_,i'i 7. il/jr.8.29,
Xirf4-34:. Ail.i6. 17. ?&• ly-i j. PA//.s.io.aPer.2.4- Jud.'j.S. .rffw.io.io. . Vcrf.20. Sugr.v.i-j .hifr.-u.z6*
Verf.21. Inj*.'B.24, •Gra,2z.5,I2,lCj Vctfjl3» Hc^i-^l.J7,i^, VP'f"!* C«»' JrLff_BDmi4,T,
Ga/, 3, tfi I JWd«ii£j. 51^.
rfI?3uwl6o»73r./4?fy, B AF&.;irr7Wrf^(I.l.C()P.3, ^cnquYconftccrcnniS: iratn'GBcsoftenili'noa
Prt. 3. Ai(M« ./?/«. Brfroc. Litsd^2. Lui. N.s.. potcinifi faftis, inquit £rj^H«j. Adde, qnnA
Pfr. I. Cpv. z.' Genev, OecumenK e Hmcv ii.!r4if.i Lectio recenta (cnlum prxbcac omnino faci^
'Bah.^--^.^. Stt.i^Coib.raCoU & Dcefty//eri lem, K ApoltDlifcopncongrucntHnmum: HU
irfHrf.3, C'o/i.7', Cant.2- Cov.z.34- f «M-3' ff«- «erif, inquit, p'm vetc'qttc Chifiidma aliqua, /w^
nev. 'M>>sd.i. N.1.2. Liii. Vulg- Syr» e \.a.-Ta.:>^if mini hiani ijli qui ex nudA fiiici fxufejfmietiuegle-
X^SaJlex.Cov.^.GcHev- f iit ihtat Alex.B*Tl>.t, lia pietatis JIadio , fe faltitciir lon/ecuturstu arit-
Vulg.Arab.i tiMiIJn. N.l.z. Barne. Cov.z.^.^ tratur: Age vers, ttt fidem htiLti, eamque niha
L»ad.z.Bttrb.i^.Geiiey.Oeciinieii. ' g ^'/jir OfV.j- f«ffiMj; ego, dv fide mac tAcenr, cperit babeo-j il-
ti DceftCflr.4. j3r«i^' i DeeftCfl/t.7- Lcguni; aeique (quhin crepiu) legem iffiimyiia'ae tnoribiit
^ Alex.Araii.Mihiop.^ ^Krtifiirn Alex.Colli.y .Ge~ txp/me. Offende mihi {idem tii.vii ex f.tiiii tuisi
fiev,S)r.Attti../Etbiop. ^/ Omiccit /J<7, ;» Ebtb*; Jlx factis, inquam; neque enim aliki,-mrim te crc:
Codd. al. fi Ti^io Fides. Ego quidem id nullus dne. 'Verum bac mu petel'. opera non hulies; qti£
haScnas iiicidi, qui ita legant : nec pucb Hc cjlendai. Bgo vero iiitcriui ex. pperilfus meis nulla
fcripGITc yjicoEnin,' irtoV,- pro _/ine, nafquam pegotio Fident meam itidicahi Opera ipfa qua di-
occurricin N.T'. uti nec apud Lxx quidem fo,ftttit Opera Fidei; produntqae tucttUmi fatis*
laicrprcECSf quod Jcjam. 'Xmpc Stepb. i«. Ales^ _ eti/im me tacente, jviitcm ipfiinf ex qiiapriiflautitt
Cov.z, Batb.i. Colb.7. Col. Bdicial. Vblg. Sjr. Clara ble u'mnia; nec rcccdcndum ab Editis
JEthiap. Ei/i^iwiEp^irB/if, in Epiftoia 'quidam. noftris; w Dccft Alex'.^ B.irb.i. Colb.Tiyitlg*
Ltaionem Kincideo ccrti,invcaam arbitror, Syr. Totum Jllud U ? (?;«» raw omlrrit Oecnmen*
3ubd altera ilia abfurdi aliquidin fc habere vi-. 0 Ti tfyt m ir. -f 'a'siof'l^v CcV-4. Genev. onrnino
etetur. Quomodo enim fidem »0^m(i(id{ten- perperam* p Pccft Vulg. Cel'j.7. ^ Omiciit
dac, qui verbis proKJmfc praicedencibus ope- Cov-i.' r Ayfe Cov ¦^. Genev, f Ke^' ieinUu ^d- •-
ynmcxpcrsdcfcribitur? Ad evitandam banc diti©ftie;». cxvetf. I7.' f Decft iiH, Sed ad
^fficuliatcm; mutatum Uia x«pV, in antiquif- cram Libri pofuit recentior cakinus/ ^,« Suw:-
fimis alitj, fcicmplaribus. Quanquam neque >« Alex., x Non rcdJuac Vulg. Rjr. Arabm.
£c apedin onmja. Silegas /iff; omihwi^QQ. vi* jSshhp. Tctt * 0{p*
549

(XI.-I.)

H KAINH AIA0HKH
NOVVM
TESTAMENTVM G R AE C V M
ITA ADORNATVM
TEX TVS
PROBATARVM EDITIONVM MEDVILAM
MARGO
VARrANTIVM. LECTIONVM .
IN SVAS CLASSES DIS TRI E VT AR VM
LOCORVMQVE PARALLELORVM
DELECTVM
APPARATVS SVBIVN^CTVS
CRISEOS SACRAE MlLLlANAE .PRAESERTIM
COMPENDl.VH'LlMAM, SVPPLEMENIVM AC ERVCTVM
EXHIBEAT
rns E R V I£NTe
10^ ALBERTO BENGELIO.

TVBJNGAE,
fiYHPTlBVS IO- GEORGII COTTAE
a;d.mdccxxxiv.

5,50

(xr.-2.)

VI-

nPOS TAAATAS.

vciid-e i &ioi u fi-VKr^^^erexf' o ya^ eav
ff^a^n av^-^ara:^. t5to »(^ Q-e^a-n-
^m «« Tfl OTKljlMS, OK Ta irtEiI/toeT®-
p $-e^e-a {u)i» euuvtev. to <^ xoA^i
TTOihrSi ¦ fiij OKKetxu^EV xcum yap !•
iv ag Kect^ov exof^s" > i^t^afieS-ex, ro
ayttS-ov 'ta^i Trmreti , fAa>^iTa Ji ©£95
Tiff e'lKetiti T?5, ff'Vewf. I
1 1 I JVTf B^Awca;? u^Ty y^f4.fiaffiv iy£^ '
IZ-vf/flB T^ fi/*» %«e/- W"" ^-EAiOTl- £U-!
n^roiTrqiTAf z» ost^Kij arot aveeyaaC^il- 1
tnv vfM^ 'zSmftveSut J fUvov 'ivet fuj
1 3 T« ^cwpu Tif X€/^^ ^tuKuyroi. j*^
' \ • n -' • ^ .» ^
yetp et. 'sr6ir£ju,vof*e]foi avroi vofMV ^v-

17 f

ftveSa{'% tiles, c* -ni vfitre^a aaPKi kow
X^trmTttf: e/toi J^ yw,^ ;^voiTo futny^ I 4
i&Kf « ft)/ c* TM yacfw Ttf XU£/tf ^/*ui»
^ITO XC^''^' ^* il ^f*o) Koo-fii^ e^au'
¦fiarraj > Ketfyu ru kotuu, c* yetp xC/~ ' f
-.-V r* y'./ v^.
^v^ict f o^ds xa4Vti itrm^* n^ ocrai i 6
TU xetym rt/ru ^otx^imaiv'j a^tm tir
*0Tif5 HSff lAe(^, nfff ew* ror (Vg^ijA
t5 S-fS-tS Afliwa > KOTTHi fta: fOi^i SrtB^ff- ^ 7
;^fiT(a' eya yotf t* s-fy/«tTa t5 itog^if
! *V5 c# T« trufM-rt jua G«7«^'*'- ^ ^ ^
Ttf ;i7£t>/«aT(^ VjIMiv <WVA^0i'. Ay^l?!'.

npox E^^ESIOYS
EmSTOAH nAYAOY

yifli? Toi^ amy cu i(pitrai j^sf Ti-
7075 c* ;jfi?a iV»' 7<At*i, ^1"' 't?*
'V« _%/«¦»- ^ „. ,
VI. 2 "m tii — iiuxmrof J I'v" — /**

c* fl-tfinj fuAcyia! ^rvEU/iaTiH.^ cy toj? *
'wru^vicii c# XS/^^ » Xit^-iiJ? B^fAe^flt- 4
Ta ^^tfs c* «wal roe? x«r«£oA;;5 Ksff'/iK i
wios ujtif al a-yairif , ^ <ZB^B^a-a4 ^^ f
fUu: fi'{ uicS'Eiri'.M' <)<« /i)ir» JSg/<« '»«
asilrov) xaT* T);v evJ-oKiou th S-E^fM,-
i!^ aM, h; eV»(OT <J!iJ<15 tw j;afi<- ''
Eph. I. I fci^Af*] ^ »
J i> a>'i<i;0 . ^' •V'-'o '' £¦
Mm 1 ^i^

551

(XII.-1.)
H KAINH AIA0HKH
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM
GRAEC U M
EDITIONIS B.ECEPTAE
CUM LECTIONIBUS VAR I AN TIBUS
0001017*1 MSS > EdiTION'UM AI.IAJl.UM,
VsiLSIONUM. ET Fatrum:
NECNON COMME NT ARI O PLE NIC RE
Ex ScILIFIORlBUS VETERIBUS HeBRAEIS, GrAECIS ET XaT.IHIS
HlSIOR-lAlCIX vim: VERBO n.UM ILLUS TRANTE
OPERA.ET STUDIO
JOANNIS JACOBI WETSTENII
T o M V s T.
CoNTINEK Q.TJ A T U O S. E V A N O XI:,'1:a.

AMSTELAEDAMI,
Ex OFFICINA DOMMIKIAWA.
M D C C L I.
552

(XIL— 2.)
VIII- KATA IflANNHN- gp,
fl ^^fl^wFx;i«iT«arP/i<airov, tar fi), ^xoitn zraf avroli zrpoTt^ar , xj 71^ t ' o-oitT-
SJ ^THS 6«,.^ ToAiAo. OS Ont iyiiy«/,3  Kale^opt^flq'ixar©- tiVf oTww <tCTa.
I — Xh^bs J^i tVopiXfciS Tfl-ag©. r^ 'EXtuZr; "Oi^poM ^ Br<i\.F Braetymto
2 — MS Ta ((.gOT, itji sraio Aao,s *i>;t*To.'crp« ttOrw- ^5^' jutft'cKW t.Ti'J'ttirxi? aurtiif. "a-
djcis jccur*-.in>iis abfolvit. ipft praecipicns c! . ut pm peccare dcfTnmi. ^«^»y!i,. Je Adulter. CohJue- ll.'fi 7,
Poft^'i^Chnftu, ait adul.cne : nec ego te condemn. bo , qu.s non mlcIUgit. debere .gnorceremaiilum . quud
Tidet lEMvUIe Dommum ambo turn , nec pta fe debere aduUcmm dicere
dit mifeiationc dcletumi Sed hoc videLcci infiddium fcnfui cAhorrel. ita uc nonnuUi mocUwe vel potius jni
Biiei verae fidei , eredo mctuenWs peccaii JmpuniLitein dari muheribus fuis , illud quod dj adultcwe uiduleeniia
dominuj fecit , aufcrrent de Codicibm tun. Himmjmta cum omnia, conqmrcrei nrfverfus Pclaeianoj 1 1 1 ciiim
Jiaecfcnpfit: In Ewngelio fccuudum Joannem in multis- & Graecis & Uiinu Codicibus invenilur de sduherj
muueicquaeaccutetacli apud Dominum' Siiem c. Armcnios; aAA« .4 t*f .>o/.a. iv iii,Mirt,miiT vpit at »?=•¦
wA aa^ Ttf 3fli.ffJ «ara.i.p.T-., i.&L»b<r,^ flA-LGict .,.=. >,yflrt„ »«'i toaA-'i t,- r...«,r .Vp«-<t. Joannei quc^
que Oregonus m pnefat.onc ad obfervauonei fccras nairat , fe a quodam ^rmmwi.™ f.cerdote aceepiDe nre
iplos Fericopae ds aduilcri in Evangelio locum concedere, fed ad calcem rejicere confuefrB , tuiquam fufpe-
&im. AihanaJiHi m Syiiopfi hanc pencopen memoral, fed FatemcScWeno ife ux ore Hebr. 111. 11. ita ut mmi-
feflam imerim dubitandi nolam relinquat, JrrauAL i-a::igi' t xarrrofiiaiiirat iTi ^gi;r„'&. Ih^^j/u, 1^ g l[]
de Papia iiT^urot A -1^ 'a\\n< iTHfUivip -/vjixucislvi ^oX^aif Oftapti'ai »lfS\i,ei!irin in ru lupii, « vi t^S iPfJnr
'Evr77^Xi»«&i5t«,quaedehi!loria3dullcraeintclLguntJ?N/nw,r«/wuj,r»/n*TOffw,AM,Z)r«/W,^ Ji-
msnius. TearJoniut.Tobridut.iX^ve inde inferant, Eufiiiiun. quod in EvangelioadHebYaeoi cxiaKmoneu in Evanee
lo Joannis nonle^ffc. Denique fufpefla etiam haec hiftoria fuit Zr^^, PeZ/wBo, O/rvrtuwo, Cajetano Ik-
etro, Cahino, ^ULM, Janfrnio CanJa-imfi , H. Ci-ntio . J/. J/anmonJo , 7- C/friro. Bnae. verba haec funt: Ad me
quidem quod attinet, non diflimiUo, mihi meriio lufpeAum cfl^, quod vcii-rps illi tanio tonlenlii vd reiccc-
lur.t, Tol ignoraruni. Deinde quod nan-at Jefmnfolumfuifre leliaumcum muliere in tempio, nefcio quamlit
¦pTobabile.nec latii cohaeiet cum. eo quod mox id eft p. ii. dicitur eos rurAu allicutui: £c quod fcribii Jeliitn
digilo fcripGlIe in terram > novum mihi £c infolcns-videturi nec pnfTum eonjicere, quomodD poflii fit « com-
mode explicari. Tanla denique leftioni: varieus fadt, ul de lolius iflus narrationis fide dubitem, MalJataiuj
Confului veierea Graecorum Codices mnltos, nuUus ex MSS. liabebat praeter unum, m quo Leonrii (lint coml
menlarii. Be iDe ipl'e ita habcbai.ut tota. hiftoriavemtransfoOa effet, Sc Leontius^ no mentianem quidem, dc
iuia ul^in &ceret, fed ea praeierita reliqua explicarct. Non habebat anliquifTunus tUe Vaticani codex, queiik
£iepe ncminavimus > non Graces Catena , in qua cum Irej & vigimi auflores fint , nemo ejus meminit.
Quid quod, iple Aylus a Joanne diUcAtil? Joannes emm laro conjunCliones , rarius I^ habet t quod hic comm.
1, 1. 3. f. C. 7> 9-10.11. bis occurnl. Joantiis Jlyhi valde efi limplex, hic vero ornatior comm, q, io. Ncn
pauca etiam hic narraniur , quae difilcultcr cum venule concifiaii poUunt : lege Mofls aduheras fiiiffe lapidanda:!
Jefum pinxiCTe in tena , quod haerentis eA , Sc ad aUquid excogitandum tempus fibi fumenti^ i judicem , qui e<
juidem delicti commifli ubi Ipie 111 conlbiuii non debere animidverteie indelinqucntem; Jefum tempore fe-
ili hoi^matulina Iblum cum mulieie in tempio fiiifle-, Gc non damnandam judicalfe, guamlcic Mofls damnave-
lat. Porro hae hiftoiia e Textu fublatSi conneftetiu comma 11. £c feqq-. Capitis VlU- cum VII, ft. ut in
tt IbganWoiqiua ditla fiuffc eodem tempore, fcflicet die felU ultimo, quae etiam ell Graecorum PAtrumfcnten-
tin; eadeti^vero infcrta neccfTario confequerelur, rem gcOam cDe die feoaenii ultimum diem feflivid. cap. VII. .
39' Vlll.i. ££¦ quae acomnuie la. dicuntur usqueadRnem capitis .'JiOa ftufle ^iij7/f^i/ni- Jam ii oris per-
penderit, Judaeos toto illius fefli tempore fe 3f£laQfl de efiUIione aquarum, de lucernit accenlls fie lucelcgii^de
liberlate & de peccaloium venia die jejunii pnixinio impetrata, facile intelliget, non folum quae de aquatpiritu-
ali dicunlat'VlI.|7. ied eiiam qaae habentur de tenebris in quibus Judaei verfarentur VIII, 11. de peccatiiju'
daeoium nondum condon^itLs comm. 11. Cc de ferntute judieonim comm. |i. mullo apiiori tempare b. cun-
venjentins dici, dum agebantur dici fefli. quam poflea. Deinde tamen apud Giaecoi publics ItCli eh, vel ii\fi>-
lenirTA infciiplA Cod. t. fir if. vel i>i ti''"':^' Evang. 14.J Vel OAobris Vitl.feflo t ayiWt Ui^ayitt 11.11.
1 J. l6- 17, l8, 19. ao. vel 71- nSSam y, n/putjativV -rj Ti/ripi.-.iif 5 17, vel pnmo Aprilii, fcflo Muae A^j^
tiarae. Jyr»»v cliam vertit Jd«nij Amidac Epifcopiu, quod teflitur D. Barjaliiaciu..
a. 1(«wD(fi] ^ B l)e«i Colb, duo 40. ^4- IJ. 7"^. 7*. 8o- 87. 89. jto, 914 j^^J^atvi U.M. 6g^
kf^irful "e»P"t" f7. *4. . "i] *p"> tt.
aiirc^iT] -hfloff/ui j-.ii.38.4o-47.4-8.p.fl.n-^4-*/-73 74- 7<*-78. 87.90:91. r-liymnw-
itafiri'iro) ««/i*70'Wl>. >iA»i II. ^8. 47. fl. fi. j). fiy. 66. in or*. Ti- 7+.^76- 78.90. 91. Colb. duo»
t^iltaoii 11. +0, 7 J, 7^, 78. Colb. duo. .IIK|W»*»64, 69. 1^ w5» e Aen i^iTO i^air'it^ — *9.
Anlil Ijc**' »7. 4f , 47- f*- f »• T7. 7V """"^ Stephani i, e, 11. •x*®- pro t n^'t.,
^fnairli")  EGH Tr.' 41, f6. f8. 60. ^1. H). Colb;
^xsSwtii iidteattaitni^ -~-!D 69. fro bame J'. Milito prol. 118a.
"bam : quia Het mihi dircipulum lapientis f mordC' poptilo terrae.
lem eum ut a&ntis. Non quod odi&et fapientei, 51. Evrtptd. HeracHd. 180. -rff a* ^'.f, ,ii,,a.
led quia JJulabat, eos fuperbire &infoIefcerecon- > T^t fi^,,,,,,^ „ >.., j'«,pio,.:(«t|;,|«,ii;r«9f;>4,
tia popmOS teiraCy & quia difnpuli lapienlum 0- npophants in Vefp. 714. «r» «t^1j %,, if^ Iobmj |
derani eos;,-tum etiam quia noa permittebanl fe -nm't/ir l^o.o aa,t,f,y, »>. ^, ^ar«.j. j4jipian. B.
tangi ab iis. .Aboth II, 5. PojMilus terrae non eft. C, IU. p. 91 r. - /tv nfi-n^i ^a^j ^uj.ir/ii- ul<f
ipius *ron- Tharsum- Hof, W. .14. & cum gaie- iJmu- s-^r'n ;.«V«r ,• .It •na-m.iihixt, ^n. cT.ii'r^w-
EiUone, quaeTuTiilTioTitin lege, Sibaibathi 13. ^t™ l«U iVrr .^rei... ^of. ^, xiv. 9. 3. "*'
1 ILOnedil feminifluOS Ptacrildeuf cum leminifluo )'//Hj'"''S !¦ '='^ "^i? 'f jfui'«i Ati«rwi ra; 7tf< o'*«
YVVVV a. ->
553

(XIIL— 1.)
NOVVM
TESTAMENTVM GRAECE.

T E X T V M
AD riDEM CODICVM VERSIONVM ET PATRVM
E.ECENSVII ET
LECTIOJN'IS YARIETATEJVf
ADJECIT
D. JO. JAC. GRIESBACH.

VOLVMEN L
IV, EVANGELIA
COMPLECTENS.
XDITIO SECVNDA.
'EMESDATIOn MVI.TOQVE. tOCmSiTIOn.
HALAE SAXONVM
APVD JO. JAC. CVm.TII JIAEIVEDES
Iir LONDINI
gi.rY-i> a?x-iii. XLMsx.Y.
MDCCLXXXXVI. 554

(XIII.— 2.)
CAr.xiJf.xx. KATA MAT0AION.
Txrhx, ij fi;)regtt," * ^ yu- ' 'aTrEffTsJjV auroii; siVtSv ay.-
'jai-.'.a," ^ TtMix, ^ a'ygov;, 3 urtXtwa auTou. Kal IgsX-
fVEiutf TOU ovo^tToji' j.',ou, 5wV Tspi '' t ¦rpiVij'/ wpa-/,
f £XoTOVTa5rXaiJi'ova" hj^i.- ^ ilSiv" aXXov; iaTtUTa; li/
Tar, ^.al _;^wy/ aitu'viov -xX^- 4 t^ ^"ioi^a, ip'yoyj"' / '' cS3 Kci-
^o^omJMJasi,- ' IIoXXoi ci tmv-. keA/iJi;"- eoteV -vKocyars xoi
/rm.jrpaiTot I'bj^ftTor Ka! t- jJpijEJiT.-Tov ajiSTCsXcJva'- xai
1 ayicaai jrncuToi.] ['Oj.iO(ct 0 £«-> g' Sfeaiov, SuJffaJ vjuTv,
-/lip itiTiv'ij PamXifa tk-j ou- ^ O't Sd aT^XSav.naXiv ™ sgiX-
f oviuu avifpmVw oiKoisaitoT.^, JSav 5r£pi FxTi^v xa! n «o £V-
otm; l5^A.5fV aiia irpa.'!' ^.ii- ¦vaTij'j'" iJpav, iro/i^ffst' mffou-
vSiicacSai l^-yara; iif tov 6 .nuf. Jlfpl 51'TiJ'j ivSknaT-'P
S, a^vhXaiia'auiaiJ. £c>o2ijpr ° ~ lujau" l^tX^tJ:', J £ij-
(piovifoaf 5e" fiS'7a:.Tu;u.Ep''/o- psv" «X?.OUf ianuTCt; 1 -f-',
TWV W Sijvapiou Tijv ^jJi't^aV, r.di Xe-j'ei auroi;" 7^ iijos icr;;-
F 5 .xara
g 03 K«i ffUjUt^lu'jyJcnf.^ il "['. T*Jv. Jt, c^ y.ou E',-.£iyc;ff.
n OP E»«Tii'./. q •} ctpYoO;.
(e) ~ BD. 1. Syr, hier. cant. vere. veron. corTj.a. 2. clar.
Orig. dif. Iren. Hilar. Ambr. femel. Paulin. (f) iscAiartanwit.
L' Barb. r. Syr. hier. Sahid. Orig. Cyr. 1 1 -j- i^S-yj. Kr. 44.
(g) EFGHKiW; 12. 17. 77. io8- 118- 124- 127- isr- 21S (i^'"a
al. 3.) Ev:. I. s. Ig. 19. 33- S6- al- 59-' Mt. BHV. z,*» al. 13.
Ed. Arm. Antioch. Chryf. etiam in Mt. 6 codd. (hJ ~
BDEFGHKLMS. 1. 13. 17. 69-124. 131-' I57- Ev. r. 2. 4. 5.
Jg. 32. 33. 36. al, 31'. Mt. BH. al. ig. Ed. Orig. Cyr. Theo
phyl. (i) iS(>i-j. D. Mt. o. canr.veron. vere. colb. .corb. s- clar.
Juv. (k) FGH. alii. Mt. BHV, alii. Ed. Theophyl, (1) + m='-'.
13. 1-j. 33. <59. 124- 235- all g. Mt. n. '4'. iEd. .Arr. Aeth. Ann.
iSahid.>Syr. p riif. Slav.-ap. Beug. Vulg. nif, vere. corb. 1.2.
clar. btix. colb. germ. gat. Chryf. Op. .imp. Gregor. (m) -j-
J's. CDL. St. 77.Mt. w. Ed.Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Slav.' Off. Beng.
Syr. p. cum alt Vulg. cant.' vere. veron, rorb. 2. for. Cyr.
Op. imp. (u) CE. alii. Mt. HV. alii. Ed. (0) - BDL« Aeth,
Sahid. Slav, s- Vulg'- It: (exr. brir. colb.) Orig. Cyr. Op. imp,
(p) &r. 60. ap. Mill.' 90. 1 1(5; Sahid. CbryC inMt.- 6 codd,
lq) — BC'DL. Copt. Sahid. Aeth.' Arr. "Vulg.xSax. It. (e.^tr,
brix. clar.) Orig. Cyr. Arnoh. 1 1 Ante £5™tos habeat 76,
Mt. q. 555

(XIV.— I.)
1\ O V U M
TESTAMEIVTUM G R A. E G Eo

Textum ad fidem testium criticorum
receasiiif«
lection u.m, JT a. miliar
e gT^Ccls codicibus manuscriptis, qui in T)uropac et Asiae ibibliottccis
rcpcriuntur fere omnibus, e -vcrsionibus antiquis, conciliis, . Sanctis Patribus
ct scriptoribus ecclesiasticis quibuscunque -vel primo vel Itenira,
£ollatis copias criticas
B 3 d i d i tf
atfjue conditionem Iionun testium criticorum Ttistoriainque textus IVbvI
Testamenti in prolegomenis fiisiuB
praeterea Synaxaria codicmn IZAI 262. 274 iypis exsccibentTa
Dr. L ItTAHT. AnGUSTIZTUS SGHOI^

VoL I.
IV" EvAnjrelia, .complectens.
t IP S I.A E 18 3 0,
iUKPIIBUS J?RiaEK.ICI ElElS.CllElU.

(TjfU AbJiub laatofmO. t. X,^

556

(XIV.— 2.)

334

EPISTOLA I AD TIMOTH. CAPUT m.

dtaiitff^aavTBSt fia^fiov • iavzo's xaXov"
14 ^ iif nlotci. nfi iv" Xqiaxt^ ^Irfiav.l

Mat nulXi^v na^^Jjolta
yqa^\ il'nlQm ikO-eXi

neQinotovvrai <
Tavra ' oot"
'tva '. el3fjs"t ntSg'dBli^ ev oi'x^ 9eov

avaargigtea^ati ijrtg iailv iKKXtjala •^eov ^uivtog, ' arvlos xai idQalmfia Tfjg ^ cXtj-
iJi &elas"' ' Kal" ottoXoyovftivtag fiiya iazl to vijs "Uvaefieias" ftvat^siiovf » ^eos"
e) alcx. iv taxit. ri) fJcx. og const, ct rec. iyeos.

d) nvJoy laurifit 3ig<
b) ilt i}6'., TQK iir aCwio Oirys. (ia comnioal.) Zf
nrtrii Tii^ i* G.
e) Jf Led. O".
xfl ^ EGgn C {^7'*. 13? a). .Irm. Ante UHlo ponit
¦••) htajfu ACD" 17. 71. 73 bL rnjfifo>' gJ, ra;fAu;
Chryi. tn«c
g) I3^i 1)1.
X) -f* ¦dr.,D*' irm. .Vulgi Clan Or. Ambrosiast,
ttbi; Sil.h oXtiif SioS CiSnof SfaatQi^tn^ai, ijrif (^Sarisf)
larir fiTiiioti hh'i 6/ioioyaoutmt n. r. i. omisst*. iii-
tfl^aOx ifitoS .{luvTo; ot mu idoatufia T'Ji aiii^ttafi (ct
nddlto' (wiTof poHi OioS) Soliid. 
0 Hic interitin^unnt rj^A «(Id. " ' '
t) Itml'ialat 6U in m'. Poit aJfi^f/iif nuvoin 'pcrlo-
diini iachCBnt: Codd.. Veras, Patr. gr., ctlnt, pdd*
/) S aa^ 6r. !;( quidem Ambrosiast.
m) IxxXi^atai rfi*. iualiiiao Syr. Erp. iuatitiai 0* 1'vri-
n(t/, Aeth, ./luiHJ pietatiti AmbroAiast,
n) 9fpf hob*., codices 'a ma cxaminat! I fi. 10. 33>
9&, 44. ^6j 67- 68. 69. 70, 7i< 8u. .Sl. 83. 05. 8C1. B7,
gi.. 'g!}i 94> 95i ()lif 97^ 9t)( 99- 'joi^i los) )o3. 104,
jofii ^06, lotJ. looi 110. iii..]]]^ ;99i i3i )3ij. i35'
p37-;3B, i4'i- 143< >'i4< >4!>- 149 )&3. i58. >Sa. i66«
(67- ?6gj >7o- I?!*"-!??. 178,- 179. fHoi iMi ifia, iM*
tSqt 199, 193. iQJ' IQU' nqT- ik°- 1*}^' ^° '^r- 90^<
go3' ;ia6f ?o&, in. 313. 9i3. 319. i3o. aiti s'di. 333,
338 et reliqi/I codices 'ji1>''8liia colloli fcrC omnes.
LoclionariOj fdil, Arab. p.Slav:'Tnj, Geor;;; Ij^n.' (epi
Dll £]ihci,<j. 119 -ubi i'o rcQti '[verbis' iffnct aV^^unffujij
¦iififau'i/d'nc nostrum loi;umrc9p!t;it) Chryiusl. Thoo;
|ilora,l<'I)idvmv {da trlin rr. 83-] Eui hal.^ N^as; Cqun
ncriBepe> ifdc^ ccmcl U Icgisac videtur) Macedon.
unmascii Oecum. Tlicophvl.l>'c AGL'Gcn 17; 78. iDu
(lliant Jioc' locoi BEH aliiquQ nonnulli; cudiceai AC
B nrima manu fion 'S2\ ut nonaullis' vtsum 'fuerat. '
¦ca. OZ iiahuiasc* 1ui vodicer iiutDin^n. priiiiUAsrO
loctum Idque ncorrcciore multo iuiiiorojn dlS mtiA
latum: cascj CricsbacliuB I'a Symboljirii/n, IcrilicaruiTf -
lomoi 1. pug) VIII - LIV . er loma it^ jpag; 96 - rn
dcmonttraro,' Bladuiti .'codiccrf corura t aui Maco-1
donium sub Anastaaio , impi^ Sr, In. J>tot muiassc!
narrDrunli edd. Copi. titiliid. Syr: j). m m. Cyr< alci,
Vhoodorct: Mops. £piphs Sermo: inter ppp, Clir>s*
fiup.764) Vulg. [t: (Clar, Boeru.) Uclas. cyzlccn. Si
Macar. hieros; ap. Gelas: in acu cone -nicen. I. 3. c.
Hi' Sermo de uir.arnBt, lolcr opp. Chfys. T^ 8. 'pi
ai4« Apud Cyr. acytbopol. legitnrj ^iv 'rn<oi'aaii}/4
to /itya tf/t narfiilat lifavt^ii9i) uuor^Qiov. S D. ¦•
P</ 1. faod ^ci lilc Erf. Attb. ct Arm. Fatrei

latlnt omnium Bcculorum omnCR Irgeriinl 'vitinlerJum
i.jacramenlam quod mam/eitalutH ate, licet duCIiristo
iutclligarcnt. Sic Hilar. Aug, Fclag. lulion. pelag,
Fulgent. 'Idaciust AmbrosiaaLcr, feo M. Victorin,
Cassian. Gregor. IU. Vigil, taps. BcdQ..C)irvsologuR.
Martinus 1, (in cpisr^ ad loannem Pli)ladclr))i. in
Mnnai collect, ompliai. concilior. vol, 10. pag. 8t3.'
sed in -rcrsiono gracca ibidem cxtal ut) riicr. (in
Es. 53, W) ct Acta concilii constantinop. a. {rollsi
tione 4 io ciccrpto 53. a Tboodori mops. vest, libra
l3 tie incnrnatinnc op. Maaviam voj. i} pagj, 231.]
latine habeat t Qui manifigditue eti. in carne, iujii/it
catue ait in tpir/ta. De Fatnbus graecis liacc notanda
suut; ab antiqulsaimis rarlBsima btc locus excitaturj
JIO contra Acianoa quidem ( initial conlravcraiae
Arianoc; .noo Cyr. alex. provucat aa h. 1. contra
luiianum Imp, negantem Jesum a TbuIo unquam
nppellatum rulssa Deum; nequo vocabulum' ^lue
opponit Mcstorio, Ad Cnriatum rcforri potuit hoc
dictum a ratribus , bivo & Icgerent alvo Ht, 'Hine
Christum Ipsum nannuUl puarij^iov nominaco boIc*
bant, ct scrlbcro potuit v. c. lu.linus nd, Diogncl,;
dninrtiit AJvnp 'ira uda/tu farH i StjSia afruordiun
vi/Qv^^iiS iino i9ym imartv^i} Orig. if, Ocls>_3> 'In~
nous iy 36^1 ayaiafifidyui9ai iiytiau Idem in Hom.
a, 3. intcrprcto Biulno: 7» f/ui f^erb-um caro Jh.t
tStuf .appftruit piinuii itt earns f tieid apoitoiut. tlicil,
17 Ufa Cfortasso 7111) mattifieCatut est In eartic ^ vtiU'ji"
iciUiM etc. Tlieodotus epitom iB. 0 aiat^^ nifStj xa.,
jiuty roif iyyiloit- Dasil. Ep. 65. [rou /iirdlou /luoTni
^iov 0T( S Kiiifiae iifartniiStn iv oofxt. Erga simili
palionc scribero etiam potuit Igltat. ad Epb.> SioSk
fdyD^Qunirtm ^avifoiifiivov. Auctnr Conslilut. nposi, 7*
aCin Slot xuV' ^ innpaviit ^ftir If.ifauM^Hippol, cJ
[doct. 17. allot Tt^oiiSiiy «7c iiSafmy 3t6t iy oiaiiari
[sod Stor Mat avOpionot idemj ou. Theodoret.) iifovi^
ci^.9if . Gregort tbaumat. s.^ JVpollinaris potius api
^liot. cod. a3o VI aliii 9eog iv aacti'i tfaytfiaStie E
talibus igitur phmKibus ci 0 locuilonum in commato
lioc extantium.Jifl Christum appllcaliune neutiquam
icolligoro licoci patres Iiosco Icglsne Oiot. 'MonnuUj
putrcs graeci cone non Icggi ant Siof\ Clem, aleio
ap. Oaenni in h. locum 1 jiuax^gion jit^ .^lifiaM
iiJov Dl ifwj^Df, "rdr Xfitaidy. Cyri infci, (qui
>aepe quiden^ JiabcE 9ioi in .Operuin edilionlbus;
Ked perperam « uti docuimua in SymhntUr viiitij
tom. L pag; 'XTjHLJ Ab victa fiaa od Theodotiumi
ro /liya -r^f *3aipifue fiupnJQiav^ toi/t/dta !Xfiototf,''Sf
Hq>orrfu9ij r— — oifiai a'lx IfrrfOf to r^f gCo) /iUOrit
Jittj f 1] oStoS §/iay S iir roU ^lou iraTfot idyatt lUf
ifavfQiaBq etc- ot ad Begin. 1. r/i n iy oaan'i, ifovtfom
^aifi S d^lot/ £lt jldrrs tf Jio'i Jtdrrut i ht (hev jia>

557

(XV.-l.)
NOVUM
TESTAMENTUM GRAECE

sx K£C£NSIONE

CAROXI LACHMANNI.

MSitio stereotypa.

BEBOLINI

G.

K E I M E Tl,

KOCCCXXXI.

558
(XV. -2.)
^6 KATA MAPKON. 99
QoxagSlaf, ort toT; S-eaaaftivoig avruv iytjytQfiivov ix
-vixguiv ovx inimtvoav. "xal ilniv avxoi; IIoQivd-ivxig
ll; TOV xooiicv anavxa xtjeviuxt to liayyihov naait
TJ] xuaei.^ «o moTevaa;xai fiixnuaS-iii au^^anai, o
di aniaxiiaa; xaxaxQiffridcT'ai. "arnxita <Si roT; manv- s
camv nagaxoXovd-^ati ravra. iv rw ovofiarl /.lov ifai-
fwvia ixpaXovaiv, yXdaaai; Xahjaovaiv xcmvoi;, ^"ocpii;
dgovatv'-xav 9-avdaifdv rt nlioaiv, ov ntj aixoii; /?A«'-
V'S* M aggaiaxov; x^^Qi^i imd-^aovaiv , xai 'xalw;
''t^ovmv.^%fiiv ovv xvgw; 'hjaov; (iira, xo XaXrjoai lo
aixoi; unX^f.i(p&ij it; rbv ovgavuv xai ixu^iaiv ix Se-
|iwv ToS d-lcS' ^''ixtivoi Si i'^i\9-6vte; ixmvlav nav-
raxov, TOV xvglov awigyovvro; xal rbv Xoyov fiefiai-
cwtog Sia riJv iJiaxoXovb&ivruv. aijialuv.^

EYArrEAION KATA AQYKAtf.
'EntiS^ TtiQ noXXoi intxitg-rjOav dvaxd'^aa&at Si^yr;atv is
nigl xiav -ninXiigoqiogTifievuv iv ¦rjj.uv ngaf/naxtav , 'xa-
&u/; TtaglSoaav ij/Aiv ot an dgx^; avxonrai xal-vwrigi-
Tai yivofievoi rot; Xoyov, ^iSo'§£ xa/Aoi nagTiy.oXovO-7]-/.6xi
Hvwd-iv nSatv a-xgifiwg xaK^t^i]; aoi ygaipai, xgaxiaxs
6e6(ptXc, ''lva, iniyv^; nsgl div xccTtjyijdTi; Xoyoiv x^v 20
daqidXiidv. ^^EylviTO iv xai; ijfiigai; 'HgtiSov tov ^aaiXiw;
tij; 'lovSaia; Ugiv; xt; ovn fiaxi Zaj(agi'a; i'i irfTjfte-
pla; 'ji^ia, xai ywrj avxiS ix rwv Svyaxiguiv I4agiijv,
xci ro ovoila uvxij; 'EXtaa^ix. "laav Si Sixaioi ajji- 25
(foxigoi iviumov xov 0-tov, nogivoftivot iv ndaai; rat;
ivxoXat; xal Stxaiiu^aaiv rov xvgtov a^ufinxoi. ^xai
ovx 7)v avxoT; rixvov, xaStort r]v- 'EXiadptx ariTga, xal
djiipoxiQoi ngo^ifi>ix6ri; iv rat; ^/.ligai; airuiv ijaav.
'iyivixo Sk iv t(^ Ugaxivttv avrbv iv xf] ra^ti rij; so
24. xal n y-avh airov
E 2
559

(XVi.— l;)-
NOVVM TESTAMENTVM
GRAECE ET liATlNE

CAROLYS LACHMANNVS BECENSVIT
PHILIPPVS BVTTMANNVS PH. F. GRAECAE
LECTIONIS AVCTORITATES APPOSVlT

TOMVS PRIOR

BEROLINI
JN AID»YS OEOHOII RKIMIRI
A. MDCCCXXXXH 560

(XVI,— 2.)
TIPQ2 QESSAAOyJliEi:£ A. CJ.iS-e) B21
tia tiiyjilil^' nv xQiaioi, i/; 10 oi^qI^U i/iif Xal ttHfaKaX/eai
inif tvt ^nlaTiai i/iSt 'ti ftijih iaalrittd-ai - h rais- Sllipiciv
xavxaif' ovio! y&g oViaxi Bit iTi tovto xnniS'a- *xal fit/ Sxi
jiqi; vfiSt ^Itiff nQOiXlyofUv] ifiTy Sxi piiXcfiiv ^Xf/Hw^ai, xa9^i
xu! ifivno xal oi'Sttxi. >Jiol Toiiia xixyii iirixht atiyar i'ntfttj/ii •
ill to.Ynbivai xrjv nlaiir.vfiuiV) {flj put lnelgaoiv viia( 0 ffiifa-
^mv xai lU xeyov j'/vi;Tai o xonog {ftuv. 'f;n ^^ IXdiyxts Tifio-
9iav npo^ ^/lar iifi Pfiav xal iijayj'ilioa/i/i'ov ^fiiV j^ TilaiiV
xai-i^r &ydnijv Vfiiar, xal Sxi I'xixi fivtlav fiftioy SiyaS^r nai'iori
ininaiovmi! W'"f W'f* xo5on«j xal ^fii'f Vfiu;, iii& loiiio na- 10
(i(i(Xi)9);iuii', a<)<l9>o/, l(p' vpfv /nl ndff;j tj iSvoyxn ""^ M/V"
^^(3>' Jia t;; Vjuur nlaxnas, 'oil yvr ^wfur lav i/uTg aiijxijit ir
1. nagaxttXtaai ABJGfgv, aM iiiSc i £ vntf ABJB, mgi e,
pro fgo . IS AA, zio Bs, na G iiijiivaaaiyiaiai BA, /ojd/ra
aaiviaSyai ;, iiriiivaairioSt A, nrfiiv act .lyia^at (id e>t itrillta
vitJym^tti) 0, nemo moveatur ]f el aii rel terreatar'(f, ne raoreatur f
4. cssemua' gv, fuimus f ; /fT^oiAfyo^cv ABvs, praedicavimus fy,
UgaaiXi'/Cfiiv A . oti fiiliofiir Shptaiai ABAGgst passuros no;
triiralatioDem f 4. $. xa9i0( xal ABAvi, xaS-uiC Gfy 6. niauv
%f4WV AAGfgvs, v/iwy niaxiy B , 7. iii xaivov G, inanis fgv
Teniente fgo ' jnattbeo pr g, tiniothed cgrT g 8, bene (om fv)
onnuntiante fgv tiptiy BAGfgvs, V/41V A 9. CjIfCTf /4vtiav tijiwv
AB^, ftyiav fx^'^i Vf^^" ,^^3i memoriaio nostri habetis fv
10. !>/<«; ABABg^, et vos f nttgixlti^tiijiv BAG;, nagaxixiij-
fitHa A II. in Tobia fgv tni (tr Gg«i) naatj ttj ayayxt] xal.
&Xi^iii (9i. xai Sy. f) ABAGgvf, per oinnem necessitatem et tri
bulationem f 12. tifUOV Sia xtji vftuiy niaitait BAGfgg, v/ioiv
xal 3ia t>]( nioifu/; vifuir A at^xijtf BAG;, oii)X<i{ A, statil
gv, tteteiitia /
gelio Clirisli, ad confortandos (conlinnandos L) nos et cxliortandog
(exort.) pro Jide ueitra, 'ut nemo raoneatur in tribulatiogibus istis:
ipai (ipse) enun scitis quod in iioc poaiti sumus . *nam et cum aput (-d)
uoa eBsemu8> praedicebamusjuobia passuros.nos tribulationes . sicut
et factum est et scitis. (10) 'Propterea et ego amplius' nom suatmeni
misi ad cognoscendam iidem uestram. ne forte temptauerit nos ia
(his F)' qui temptati et inanis fiat labor noster, (11) 'Nunc autem
neniente llmotheo ad nos a uobis e( adountiante nobis fidem et ca
ritatem uestram, et quia memoriam nostri habetis bonam semper
desiderimfes nos uidere sicut [et L] nos quoque uus, 'ideo consclati
sumus, iralrea, in nobis in omni necessitate et tribniatiooe (t. el n.)
nostra per ueiatram fidem (f. u- *" ol), 'quonain nunc uiuimua, si
36 561

(XVIL— I.)
NOVUM
TESTAMENTUM GRAECE.
TEXTUM AD IIDEM: ANTIftUORCM TESTDM
JIECENSUIT
BREVEM APPARATUM CRITICIJM
TINA CUM VARIIS LECnoi>aBDS
EiiZunBiOBim; hxapcix, schoIiZIi; iiACHaumix
SUBJTUNXII
ABGUMENTA ET LOCOS PARALLELOS
INDICATir
COMMENTATIONEM ISAGOGICAM
NOTATTS PROPRHS LECTIONIBDS •
EDD. STEPnANTCAE TERTIAE ATQUE MILLIANAE;,
MATTHAEIANAE, GRIESBACHIANAE
PRJLEMISIT
AfiSrOTK FBED. COSTST. TlSCHiaiVOBF
TBEOL. UC. PHIL. OR. SOCIET. BIST. THEOL. LIPS. SODALIS.

LIPSIA£« MDCCCXLL
3UHPTUS FECIT C F.^OEHLEB.

562

(XVlI,-20

Sirnnn* Soctrinac JcClio lerralorelirevUer pToponifar'..lTIM, JII^ 16.i543
pd9nov iavrotg Mttlov miiiTiotowxai xai aoHqv-nuQ^tiaiav iv m-
pxii rij iv'XQiaxtp 'friaoy.
'.TavTO, aot'ygaifoi, iiiz'l^iov' IX&eTv ngos (Ts ivtayW ^^ ia-V'^X
Ss ^Qadvvro, tva eidHs nag Ssi iv ojxm -Dsov avaatgicpea&ai, ^tig
iaziv ixxXi;rrui &cov foowof, azvXog y.al iSgawona, vjs aXrfislag.
^''xai bfwXoyovfiivwg idya iarlV,ib irijg evai^stceg [tvaxtjgtbv,,o,gi(i
igittvtQtoO-iih'cagx(, idixatdOj; ivm'(i[ia-re, (a(fi9t;dyy^Xoig, ixijov-
•fOTj iv i9vmtv, latati-i&ri iv wan^g, avsXijtpd-ij iv do^rj.
Jit. Om, ;rp. oe FG al. Armr; etiam ante f^i?, non, — TBc.KN.Sr.Tayioi'..
[^Ta;f.c.ACl)*al.] .' ,-
,15. Hab. ill o'e D'^Mm.y'g. 3. Oi-.'Amlrst.
ICi Kc. Kn, Sz, pro 0! h, ^eoi;. . . i'; (OC) ledionefflTiacc commenBanf;
I.) osb.A'C* (o? Jcclionem v.cram cdil. A et C esse, a Woidio aliisq.
adduliilaliiniillani quidem, conrirm.ti'unt Wist, et Griesb.) JFGgr,, IT.
(s.'M.) 73;,(s\XI.) 181. (s.Xlll.), |,l>iant BEH aliique.] edd. eorum qui
(ut Victor^tiin.,' Xiiberatus, ^incmarus,) JMacedonium su6 Anastasia
imp. o; in 0^d; mutassc jrcfcrunt; Cpt. Sah. Syr. p. in nl. Cyr. alex.i
(ro ftiyctTZ<:fVoe^-jwaTi}Q:-zoitriorivXQtox6t;^,-oq i^avtqitid-ri etc.
ct alibi'; t^iillioncsfepugnanlihtisniss. saepe '^co? hab.) Xlidr. mopavj
^piphr'ijGelas.cyz. I.Mac. hr.ap.Ge[as.;'Hier.; Acta concil, cstinop.2.
(.citalnm^e^Thdr. niopsv.) 11.) h..o JD* Vg. Jt. HiI.'.Aug. Pel. Amhrst.
omnesq. Teliq. practcil, Hier. niodd .citatuni. 111.) s. c; s. o hab. Syr.
tatr.i;rp."j4cth;^rn<i IV^ tayle tion .^(o'slcgissc videntur; Thdotu*
(o oiur^(i iiipOtj xaxmvToiq ayyiXom:), Juat/ ^3 Diogn. (a;rVoTe»Aj»
jtoyov,, 'irce itoiifUji-.^v<WJlf fl! J«« o/rooToAtui' xifvxOili; i!iOj,l3-ymit
imaui&ij,') Oemil.'ap. Oec..(fivaTrigwy jieS-' tihuv eiSor oi ayyeXos
triv Xgiaxov.) Or. (^Iijoovi; iv <J6f/; dvalaji[ldvca9-M^iyeTat.) et
Oi^> Inti Burma (Jt jiil f-erbum cara yaclut npparuit poiiUt (al,
jioiititi) <ia earne-j liciii apostoliii Hicit, s.uia manifestatut est itl
fariii,- jutlificalui eteJi Gr. nys*. (to /nJoTifptoi' iy ua^xl havt-i
(lii-il.' xai(3{ Toi/r» Xlyav,.iixoi 6 .¦^itltidOq Xoyo-j.) JJaa. (tou ^c
f«),oa nv.ii.xtjgto}t 0x1) li xvgioi i^iavifiiB-ii h oofiij.) Nealor. ap.
Atnolirjun. fio iy Tti Magi<fyiyvti9-(v etcj ii»oMpo')*i/"j;op, tptiolv, M
pdf ult litxamS-^'iVnv^ Sermo intei;Opp. Chf s. (otioXoyovMyoitiilyi*
(itintOT.tvoe^.HViixqqiQV- m^B-ij dyyiXoifi imoxeiS-ii ivx6oiuf.),..t
S-tit' (oc) Tli let tddj reliqui lit.mlniUculij >cr. graeter trei supra,
oUttoi fere omnei; Xectt.;;Ar.\pr.SI. TOS. ChTS.Thdret, Did. Euthol.
JU«c«di.D«ihio. Oec. Xhphyli Praetereaqu* huic leclioiil favere pu-
Unt; Jgnj (aiEph. fl-soO ovfffuWM'U? q.atiiioviihov.'y Cstitt. apoat.
iHoAxilji.liimitavfitni^y'^''-'"'?'^-^ Hippol. (a-sot&ffWAaT' '»'«''«-
fu^iy,) Gr. thium. i. pat!ui'Apo11in.<ftp.Fhat.'(#co« ^y c«£iit {partju-
?«i{.) — Tl. wsp&^ itii-^w^Qti Si CUnlt.»g' 0«Ct
:5G3

(XVIIL— 1.)
lOVUM TESTAMENTUI
GRAECE,
AD ANliaUISSIirOS TESTES DEOTOHECENSUIt
jiPEARATUMCEirXCmrOMm STUDIOf ERFECTUM
.ATiosuzr
COMMENTATIONEM ISAGOGICAM
XBAETSXCtl!
CONSTAliJTINUS TISCHENDOEF,

JMIIO OCTAVA CRITICAJIAIOB.

YOLtTMElJ- II.

LirSIAE
GIESECKE ftDEVHIEin.
18T2,

564

(XVIII.— 2,)
Mmmor.x 5, 8. S37

Jipatia' ovx iy Tip SSaxt poyoy, dXS ey t$ iSaxt xai ev t^ oi/tan*
xai TO ttyeviid iaziv to naQzvoovv, on-To Ttyev/ia eaxiv i^ aX-^atl,
1 on TQtid eiah oi/tctoTiigoiit'Tco', $ to ;»'eD/<a xai to vSmq xai

cum Hint ol plu arm Cyrlok ¦"• »™ eine""« cl»"»^ Thpbyt Oee ...
jtp h Jii. ii. 83. 34. 36. 39. 56. 100. 192. oat sah Amb'JP''' ^i'OT,
^t[ii. .,.< *»?ff- " X^*it^'- •^m minusc ;vix Jam syrP (Thpbyl et Oec In
coroms^Ki^U I /iDrof: B /lovtil | aAA cuoiiibelf etc ...jLaA^a ... S.
6. 8. 66** 80, al**cr«AJl«Ka», item ayrP | ivT. u Jart - » ai/tart (cftir
toi aeth add «t spirito) : I 31* 83. arm t.-r, aiiioiT'- -\licat.,.A 21.
41. Cyr^"^"* f. r.-uSati - .- ,nvtv/inxif 66'* 80. f. .t. afttarl,... -7rv«w*
/i«T. I W tert cum ABLP 4, 8, 13. 17. 18. 21. 33. 40. 41. CG*« SO. 83,
118. j8cr k^nr cat Cyr*****®'* ... s.om cum «k al plu vg Cyr"e<tw2 ^om
et. tm) etl<!h'M et*''" Thphyl.Oec Kebapts" | xo-nfivfta sec et. in'"
3lebapt*'"\Amb^P^f''**' al ... 34. 'vg (et. am fu,cavdemid bnrllux tot
et pp«llill«y arm<"° Christus, .x^icroa- (: : quae Jecti^ Latina Graece
in codicem 84. Dubllnensem ilium Monttortianumreceptaanculcntcf
testaiur versionem. vulgatam ad eum conflciendum valuissc.^
T. 01. Tf Hff (et. CytM" »" eia« •') • ¦ • X 69- »'" ¦"' "" ''(!'-
1 et 8. o* im^vqamtta: « C= <3b Si) add {» if ousnvf, o Ita-inQ, i
.Aoyos, xcU TO oiyioi' XlyiD/ia ¦ xal ootoi ol Tfir? ?» «i<». ° Ka! n)"<
..Viir oJ «ixfri.eoi;>'«! i* VI rfi'- hiiso-verba ci omnibus edd Graecis
duo tantura iucntur, alter saeculi 16. alter GraecuS Latinus fero
15. saeculi, Mumcrfs signati 34 (Dublin) et 102 (Vat.). In singulis
\cro satis ab editis diBferunt. Sio enim 34.: or. Tf .iu t.w o. /lopii/-
tOVVtia IV TO) OUf OTO., OTTI? Mo" !¦«• 3l«VUCt K/lor, XC. Ol.tO. O^-
Toiiir tv Ml. xai, TO..0 iiw o..,eoftiieoi-jrHr .V TT ^.J, pergens:
5i«..«a ud«.D ¦«« «.,«.. » fjv ^aQin"^v. Item 162 : br/ Tf»<r,i.<r.i/
o.paotucoi^riir an:o Ton OKfavoii, 3raT,e io^-oir «a.;n«i.;-« a/ioK.
»B. 0. T«..ff (Iff TO tv ..«. xa. Tf «ff tmiv ot ;.«f TUf orVTtir OOT <.!»
y,,r, pergens: to ^v.vfia- Toliidfflf ««» 'r» «'/"«• ". Tl' ':"e"«*°'-
His duobus accedere vidcbatur, Birchioiet Schol^.o testibus, 173,
M ia verba ista non. habet Jiisi iumargiue manu recenti. umus nO
)uihi videtur er bibliotbecariis, sacc. fere "¦ «0="'I>'" ^^ Xf
alienum'abantiquorum codicum auctoritatcesse apparet. l^^et
autem margo eius codicis .locum sic ut er '"^'I'^'-^'lZTWlZI,
r. f ««,, o J?c.r,f x«. (ita multi edideruut, ut Beza lo9D. Gol<lh»£e»
1763. atque iam antea Compl.) o ioyoff <«^o „y.ov «HU/ia ««
liter es ed. Complut. eundem locum.. erscriptnm liabet, codex qui
dicitur Bavianus: rvrii. ol/f«r«. o ;rc.r,f m^ o ;.oyo<r. kW^to ay.oy
n.iv,,„, ia. 0. f f ,.<r ..„ TO ,v ,i«. ««. rooo: .ii«V o. ..of r.o,,™*-
..T. ;,a rlir, post quae verbapevgitur: ro ny.uuu na. to ^I"?'"''
«.,i.<.. » .^;.«afT.,e.av.- Vulgatae coiices, 'j""'™ ^'"j" 6
AVelstGb (I iiatribe insigillhunc i" l"'™ »*''."'¦ t""'""" 'Itan;
p. 1-25.) aliisque nofati cum el=que qui postbae -""l"" ""^ ™°'™
aitiquisslmi am et fo, itemque aulAkuiui fuisse cied.^ vallicell..
'Cucassuoar, ^'. T. ed. S. 565

(XIX.^1.)

THE

GMEK NEW TESTAMENT,

EDITED from: ANCIENT AUTHOEITIES, WITH TUEIR
VARIOUS KEADINGS IN FULL,

LATIN VERSION OF JEROME,

SAMUEL PKIDEAUX TKEGELIES, LLD.

LONDON".
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS: PATEENOSTEIl KOW,
C. J. STEWAET: KIKC ¦WIIilAlT STEEET, 'WESI STEAND.
1857-1879.

666

(XIX.— 2.)

AnOKAA.Y*lS IQAJfOY.

AHICl, fi
xe; 7. 14.38.
PQ.
'Tcdr-KmiA. Ano.JEth.Sjr,.
•e.MiB;.

6 Oto^t Set^ai. rot? SavAotv avrou a Set yfuitrOoi iv
TO-x^h t'^i i{n}p.avtv aTroaTftXa? S'la tou ayy^Xoo
avTov ' Tca SovAeo avrov ^^Itaavrf" y ' * or e/iapTupTjirev
TOV 'Koyovi rov Oeov ^kcli Trjv fiaprvptav ^lr)(ToG x/"~
<7Toy, otra * eiSev. ^ fiaxapiof. o avftyiveocKtav, 'kcu ol
aKOvovres ravs Aayous r^s TrpotpjjTeiaf, koI rgpovvrts
ra fV avr§ yeypafiftevif o yap Kaipov eyypy.
¦* * \lcodvTjs''' ratT i-Ttra tKKT^rja-lair ratr iv rrj *A(rto'
'yapi? 'Vfuv KCU €tp^$nj utto ^ ^ 6 cvv kcu 6 ^v koX 6
lipXopevor, KCU OTTO T&v tTrra Trwci'jUaTwy 'rail''' ivto-
•^lov TOV 0 povov' avrov., _ Kat wjto ^Itjitov xpicnov, ^ o
?i'.3S<Bb)!47; fidprVS O .SriCTTOr, i VJitOTiTOXOS* 7WV ytKpm'j Ktt) 6

A. £ Iiwinai>

denit, pMlora
lull qiue ofionct
flch clto.cl Bifpilficnvitiniltena
per iui[;ulam inum servo mt/
lohannl, * qu) mtlmoniuia
periiibDli ¦folio ilti ci teiti-
iiiODlan) [aDChrliil,i|iiaccnm*
que viilii. ¦Beetui qui legit
oc nal uillatit Tcrbn -pro-
phetiBfl hnlni ct lemnt es
qua* in ilk Krijin rant : tetO'
pni cifim prope cut.
*lnhitnnls wptem cAledll
qaia mrC fn Anta. GnitU
Tobii et p"s ivh vo qnl cn eC
qui crat ct qui vcnliini* cit, cS
k fcpieni (ipiritlhiin qui in con-
BpratQ thnini uiui mint. ' ut ah
Ir«n Chrlilu. qui ciit tCBiii
iidcli*, primogcunua mortuit-

Tntcnptld'
AnoSAArfflE IDANOr HCC-w^w-
«t A. In Kobfcr.)
AnOKAA^-*lS TOY AlV IQAKKOT
KAI Ei'ArrEAis Torr.
AnoKAArfis 10. TOT GKO-voror
^Ai ErArrzAitYoT q.
'tuovivv omEffXv^ic 9S.~
sntciXBil'i; }uawao nv Biokayov 14.
91.
Iwowoif TOU Oiakaym araioVml'ic 6.
IncoXinl'ie 7DU (lytou tat tvJaCdti otro-
trefiot) tat ivayyt\iarDt> Iwavi^D rou
PiaXnyou ijv iv llarfiy rg t^ffu'iSta*
7^8.1
¦nn\iii[^rai« oyiou JoavvBttXtk) rov
CtaXoyov Er.
5. oort) Dimt. Aid. np. Zus, Il.t V«.
•— fttAatc iJie*. .rl/M. T aytoi^ K*

1. r^i fo^fp\ r«ti Loi-\iiv A.
— u dtoi: a li ?ii ynfoSail om. Tlfon.
JW. op. KtiP.II.h;.
— lunvit Ki'c K. in inacriptione^ tuavit
Si". I t I*"i*»T( T< AK". ret, [h. C]
S. rijmu ;^iffr A>J avrov JA'Dn. .il/u. op.
K.I9,
_ £9<i om. 9S.1 f adV. Tf C-. t. Arm.
cdil. mnnuUi. Et. om. AKC. C. 7. 14.
aa. I'Q. 91. 99. Vu1(;. Memph. Atoi.
till. ff.t}i. Srr. />'on. ..irn. Cfipi.
— fiSir ((Aiv AK. 7. Q.) C. I. 6. 14. ae.
1*. 91. D-l.] DiliI, rai itnva uaixatii
(driva .IS) xptj ytvtvOat /ura ravra
7.(30.) 91. Arm. Onn/. £r. in Annot.
t ora. rel. Valg;. Memph. JSJh. Syr.
Sr,
S. roLc X(tr»i<f.A(C).rcI. Vo>B." I rev
^oynv K^.JKth, IroticXerevcrevroDC
o
— Trpo<>i7ffiof] iiflil. ravrne ?¦ Vn'c- Cl
,4ni.'-Mrm|>b. Atthl edd. Sfr. iVau. om.
I'ulJ. Tet,
4, Iiuo»'ri5 S, 1 * Iwaivii; ff, AC ral.

4. u brv] f pmem, rov ?.' £r. | praem.
Sitm U. U. Arm. frfi/. PnHl. | nihil
>shcnt AKC 1. G. 7. as. P. 91. OS.
"Vulff. Memph.' Arm. cifi/. .rfEth. Sjn
Cmpt. Er. in ^nintf..
'— ipx'p'iiwcl ^<)- onmTpotens 'Pmij
— 6 Ijv] uf qw AV.?
— rurAK.I sC. G.I4,Q. 1 tfrmrf
?. 1. 7. 38. P. 91. 99. Mmjih. Arh.
JSr. CHp/. qui in conijiecta tflMmi cjuB-
¦nnt Vulg.
— airpv] noratol Jondu-'uti^Ui. |
deifunt /Vm»-
5. mv vKpiin-] t|inatih~M-?. I. 91.
Arm eJd, JE.^,titvii,Hipp.<Jja^TAn
lM.)Er.Cmpt. (tid. Col.i.) | om.
AMC. €¦ 7. 14. as. I'Q. 9S. Tnljf.
Memph. Syr. .Vrrft. (Jahn. C7. 99.)
JVfflf, in nionais Arm, «f.

1 nil ^« •¦ I 3. etndlia | umtCL I
InMlcni.wtVi. 943

567

(XX.-1.)
THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE
ORIGINAL GREEK

THE TEXT HEVISED BY
BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, D.D.
CANON OF FETEKBOROUGH, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE
.AKD
FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HOET, D;D.
HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE

. AMERICAN EDITION

¦WITH A3Sr INTRODUC TIOTf
By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.
PROFBgSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK
rRESIDEXT OF THE AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION COMMITTEE

NEVV YOEK
HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE
18 8.3 568

(XX.-2.)
14 KATA MAeeAION VI
auTcui/. iTov oe ttoiovvto^ iXerjixocrvvriv p,r} yvunia "q dpi- 3
OTcpa o-ov Tt TOtet rj Se^id 170V, oirioi yj aov -q IXerjfioavvq 4
ev T<u KpvTTTw' Kat o rrarqp a-ov 0 ^Aeirtuv ev t<3 Kpy-trrio a-iro-
Sdjaei (rot. Kat orav xTpoa-ev^qa-Oe, ovk ea-eaSe s
o)S ot VTTOKptraf oti ^tXowtv cv Tats ctJvaytoyats Kat tv
Tats yojvtais t(uv TrXaTetiuv eorriuTes 7rpoo'£i!x«o'5ai, ottois
^avoio'tv TOis av^poiTTots" ap,qv Xe'yo) Vjittv, drre^ovai tov
fiiaOov avTwv. a-u Se oTav Trpoa-evxrj, eiceA6e €IC TO 6
TiiMeToN COY KAI KAei'cAc THN 6ip\n COY npdceYicM
T<3 trarpi aov t<3 ei' T<p KpvTTTm' Kat o xro.rqp <Tov o
jSAcJTiov cv TU KpvTTU) ajToStuffet o'ot. npoCTCv^^OjUevot 8e j
jx-q jSaTTaXoyiJoTjTe oxnrep ot IBviKoi, SoKovo-tv yop ort ev
Tg iroXvXoyia avTiCv eitraKovc^ryo'OVTat' p.-q ovv oixoioiOqxi 3
avTots^ ot8cv yap [d 6eos] o Tax-qp vp,SiV mv ^pctav ej^CTe
wpo TOV v/ttts atr^o-at avrov. Ourois ouv xrpoaev^ca-Oe 9
VMCtS Jlarcp qp,mv o ev to ts ovpavois'
'Ayiaa-dqxm to ocojua cpv,
eX^aro) 5; ^ao-tXeia trov, 10
ycvqOqro) rd 6i\qp.a. a-ov,
<J; ev oupavol Kat cTt yiJS"
Tov dpxov -qp-mv rov CTtovcrtov 11
8ds Tj/itv a-qfiepov
Kal a</)es i;/ntv ra o^etXiy/Aara qpmv, 12
tos Kat qp.€ii a<l>qKap£v rots oi^ctXerats Xjpmv
Kat /.ti; cto-eveyKijs ly/tas ets -n-eipaa/xov, 13
aXXa pva-ai r/p-di arro rov xrovqpov.
Eav ydp d<f>-qTe Tots aydprnrroii Ta irapU'rrxmp.a.ra, avrtuv, 14
d;<j>'qaei Koii -vpiv 6 irarqp -vpmv 6 ovpavtos' edv 8e /aij 15
d^-qre rots dvflpton'ots [rd TrapaTrroj/xaTa avrtovj , ovoc 0 ;ra-
rqpvjj.mv d(l>qa-eiTdTrapa-!TrmpaTavpijJv. Orav 16
8e vqa-Tevqre, prj yivea-Oe iiis oi vjroKptrat a-Kv6p<i)Troi,
a(j>a,vC^nva-iv yap ra Trpoa-mxra avTiuv oirojs ^avtoo'tv rots
569

(XXI,).

570

APPENDIX III.

LIST OF EEVISEKS.

This is. the most complete li;t over published, aud iucludes all who ac
cepted the appointment aud liave at auy time takeu part iu the work of xe-
visiou. ¦ The members are given their present or former titles aud positious.

I. ENGLISH EEVISION COMMITTEE.
(1) Old Testament Comp.vny.
Eight Eev. Edward Harold Browke, D.D., Bishop of Winchester
(Chairman), Farnham Castle, Surrey. (Born in 1811.)
Eight Eev. Lord Arthur Charles Hervey, D.D., Bishop of Bath and
WeUs, Palace, Wells, Somerset. (Born Ang. 20, 1808.)
Eight Eev. Alfred Ollivant, D.D., Bishop of Llandaff, Bishop's Court,
- Llandaff. (Born in Manchester in 1798 ; died Dec. 16, 1882.)
Eight -Eev. CoNKOP Thirlwall, D.D., Bishop of St. David's, Bath.
• (Born Feb. 11, 1797, at Stepney, Bliddlesex; died .July 27, 1875.)
Eight Eev. Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln.
. (Born in 1807 at Ashby, Norfolk ; resigned 1870.)
Very Eev. John James Stewart Perowse, D.D., Dean of Peter
borough, Deanery, Peterborough. (Born March 13, 1823, at Burdivan,
Bengal.)
Very Eev. Edward Hayes Plumptre, D.D., Dean of Wells, Wells.
(Born Aug. 6, 1^21; resigned March 17, 1874.)
Very Eev. Robert Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, Deanerj-,
Canterbury. (Born November, 1818, in Gloucestershire.)
Ven. Benjamin Harkisox, M.A., Archdeacon of Maidstone, Canon of
Canterbury, Canterbury.
Ven. Henry John Eose, Archdeacon of Bedford. (Died Jan. 1, 1873,
at Bedford.)

672 LIST OF KEVISEKS.
Eev. William Lisds.vy Alexakdee, D.D., Professor of Theology, Congre
gational Chnrch Hall, Edinburgh. (Born Aug. 24, 1808, at Edinburgh.)
Egbert L. Bensly, Esq., Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Gonville and
Caius College, Cambridge.
Eev. John Birrell, Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrews, Scot
land.
Frank Chance, Esq., M.D., Burleigh House, Sydenham Hill, London.
TiiOJLAs Chenery, Esq., Eeform ¦Club, Loudon, S. W. (Born in 1826, in
Barbadoes.)
Eev. Thomas Kelly Cheyne, Fellow; and Hebrew Lecturer, Balliol Col
lege, Oxford.
Eev. Andrew Bruce Davidson, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church
College, Edinburgh.
Eev. Benjamin Davies, D.D., LL.D., Baptist College, London. (Bom
Feb. 26, 1814 i died July 19, 1875.)
Eev. George Douglas, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Principal of
Free Church College, Glasgow.
Samuel Eolles Deiver, Esq., Eegius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford.
Eev. C. J. Elliott, Winkfield Vicarage, Windsor.
Eev. Patrick Faih3Airn, D.D., Principal of the Free Church College,
Glasgow, (Born January, 1805, at Greenlaw, Berwickshire, Scotland;
died Aug. 6, 1874, at Glasgow.)
Eev. Frederick Field, D.D., Carlton Terrace, Heigliam, Norwich.
(Born in 1801, in London.)
Eev. John Dury Geden, Professor of Hebrew, Wesleyan College, Dids-
, bury, Manchester. (Born May 4, 1822, at Hastings.)
Eev. Christian D. Ginsburg, LL.D., Elmlea, Wokingham, Berks.
Eev. Frederick William Gotch, D.D., Principal of the Baptist Col
lege, Bristol.
Eev. John Jebb, Canon of Hereford. (Born in 1805, in Dublin ; resigned
1870.)
Eev. William Kay, D.D., Great Leghs' Eectory, Chelmsford.
Eev. Stanley Leathes, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, King's College,
London. (Born March 21, 1830, at Ellesborough, Bucks.)
Eev. Joseph Eawson Lumby, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity,
Cambridge.
Prof. McGill. (Died March 16, 1871.)
Eev. Archibald Henry Sayce, Deputy Professor of Comparative Phi
lology, Oxford. (Born Sept. 25, 1846, at Shirehampton.)
Rev. William Selwy»«, D.D.^ Canon of Elj-, Cambridge. (Born 1806;
died April 24, 1875.)

LIST OF KEVISEES. 573
Rev. William Eobertson Sjiith, LL.D., Lord Almoner's Professor of
Arabic, Cambridge (formerly of the Free Church College, Aberdeen).
(Born at Keig, Aberdeenshire.)
Eev. Duncan Harkness Weie, D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the Uni
versity of Glasgow. (Born in 1822, at Greenock ; died Nov. 24, 1876,
in Glasgow.)
William Weight, LL.D., Professor of Arabic, Cambridge. (Born Jan.
17, 1830, in presidency of Bengal, India.)
William Aldis Weight, Esq. (Secretary), Bursar of Trinity College,
Cambridge. Old Test. Coinpa'ny, 37.
(2) New Testament Company.
Right Eev. Charles John Ellicott, D.D,, Bishop of Gloucester and
Bristol (Chairman), Palace, Gloucester. (Born April 25, 1819, at Whit-
well, near Stamford.)
Eight Eev. Samuel Wilbeefoece, D.D., Bishop of Winchester (for
merly of Oxford). (Born Sept. 7, 1805, at Clapham, near London ; at
tended only a few sessions ; died July 19, 1873.)
Most Eev. Eichard Chenevix Trench, D.D,, Archbishop of Dublin,
Palace, Dublin. (Born Sept. 9, 1807.)
Eight Eev. Joseph Baeeee Lightfoot, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Dur
ham. (Born in 1828, at Liverpool.)
Eight Eev. Geoege Mobeely, D.C.L., Bishop of SaUsbury, Palace,
Salisbury. (Born in 1803 at St. Petersburg, Eussia.)
Eight Eev. Chakles Wordsworth, D.C.L., Bishop of St. Andrews,
Bishopshall, St.Andrews, Scotland. (Born in 1806.)
Very Eev. Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. (Born Oct. 7,
1810, in London; died Jan. 12, 1871, at Canterbury.)
Very Eev. Edward Henry Bickersteth, D.D., Prolocutor, Dean of
Lichfield, Deanery, Lichfield. (Born Jan. 25, 1825, at Islington.)
Very Eev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, B.D., Dean of Lincoln, Dean
ery, Lincoln, ¦ (Born in 1808, in London.)
Very Eev. Charles Merivale, D.D., Dean of Ely, (Born in 1808, at
Barton Place, Devon ; resigned 1873.)
Very Eev. Eobept Scott, D.D., Dean of Eochester, Deanerj-, Rochester.
(Born in 1811, in Devonshire.)
Very Eev. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D., Dean of Westminster,
Deanery, Westminster. (Born Dec. 13, 1815, at Alderley, Cheshire ;
died July 18, 1881, in London.)

574 LIST OF EEVISERS;
Very Rev. Charles John Vacgil^n, D.D., Dean of Llandaff. (Born
. in 1816.)
Ven. William Lee, D.D., Archdeacon of Dublin, Dublin. (Born in
¦ 1815, in Ireland.)
Ven. Edwin Palmer, D.D., Archdeacon of Oxford, Christ Church, Ox
ford. (Born July 18, 1824, at Mixbury, Oxfordshire.)
Eev. Joseph Angus, D.D., President of the Baptist College, Regent's
Park, London. (Born Jan. 16, 1816, at Bolam, Northumberland.)
Eev. D.i.viD Brown, D.D., Principal of the Free Church College, Aber
deen.
Ee.v. John Eadie, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in the
United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow. (Born May 9, 1810, at Alva,
Stirlingshire, Scotland ; died Jan. 3, 1870, in Glasgow.)
Eev. Fenton John Anthony Hoet, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Di
vinity, Cambridge. (Born in Dublin, April 23, 1828.)
Rev. William Gibson Humphry, B.D., Vicar of St, Martin -in- the-
Fields, Prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral, London. (Born in 1815, at
Sudbury, Suffolk.)
Eev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Canon of Ely and Eegius Pro
fessor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. (Born Nov. 6, 1804,
at Summer Hill, near Birmingham.)
Eev. William Milligan, D.D., Professor of Divinity and Biblical Crit
icism in the University of Aberdeen.
Eev. William Fiddian Moulton, D.D., Master of The Leys School,
Cambridge. (Born March 14, 1835, at Seek, Staffordshire.)
Eev. Samuel Newth, D.D., Principal of New College, Hampstead, Lon
don.
Eev. Alexander Eoberts, D.D., Professor of Humanity in the Uni
versity of St. Andrews.
Eev. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, LL.D., D.C.L., Preb
endary, Hendon Vicarage, London, N. W. (Born Sept. 29, 1813, at
Bermondsey, Surrey.)
Eev. George Vance Smith, D.D,, Professor, Parade, Carmarthen.
Mr. Samuel Prideaux TregellBs, LL.D. (Prevented by ill-health
from attending ; born Jan. 30, 1813, at Falmouth; died April 24, 1875.)
Eevi Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., Canon of Peterborough and Eegius
Professor of Dirinity, Trinity College, Cambridge. (Born in January,
1825, near Birmingham.)
Eev. John Teoutbeck (Secretary), Dean's Yard, Westminster.
Kew Test. Company,'&0.
'Members in hoth Companies, 67.

LIST OF EEVISEKS. 575
II. AMERICAN REVISION COMMITIEE.
General Officers op the whole Committee.
Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D,, President.
Geoege E. Day, D.D., Secretary.

(1) Old Testament Company.
Rev. William Henry Green, D.D., LL.D. (Chairman), Professor of
Hebrew in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J. (Born Jan. 27,
1825, in Groveville, N. J.)
Eev. Geoege E. Day, D.D. (Secretary'), Professor of Hebrew in the Di
vinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (Born March 19,
1815, in Pittsfield, Mass.) ,
Eev. CiLARLES A. Aiken, D.D., Professor of Old Test. Criticism in the
Theological Seminarj', Princeton, N. J. (Born Oct. 30, 1827, in Man
chester, Vt.)
Eev. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., CoUegiate Reformed Dutch Church,
N. Y., and Lecturer in the Theological Seminary at New Brunswick,
N. J. (Born Feb. 25, 1819, in Carlisle, Pa.)
Eev. Thcmas JefEerson Conant, D.D., Brooklyn, N. Y., formerly Pro
fessor of Hebrew in the Theological Seminary at Eochester, N. Y.
(Born Dec. 13, 1802, in Brandon; Vt.)
Eev. John De Witt, D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the Theological Semi
nary, New Brunswick, N. J. (Born Nov. 29, 1821, in New Brunswick,
N. j.)
Eev. George Emlen Hare, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew in the
Divinity School, Philadelphia. (Born Sept. 4, 1805, in PhUadelphia.)
Eev. Chaeles Porterfield Keauth, DiD., LL.D., Vice-Provost of the
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and Professor in the Evan
gelical Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. (Born March
17, 1823, in Martinsburg, Va. ; died Jan. 2, 1883, in Philadelphia.)
Tayler Lewis, LL.D., Professor of Greek and Hebrew, Union College,
Schenectady, N. Y. (Born March 27, 1802, in Northumberland, N. Y. ;
died May 11, 1877, in Schenectady.)
Eev. Charles Marsh Mead, D.D., formerly Professor of Hebrew in the
Theological Sem. at Andover, Mass. (Born Jan. 28, 1836, at Cornwall, Vt.)
Eev. Howard Osgood, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew in the Theo-
' logical Seminary, Eochester, N. Y. (Born Jan. 4, 1831, in the Parish
of Plaquemines, La.)
Kev. Joseph Packard, D.D,, Professor of Hebrew in the Theological
Seminary, Alexandria, Va. (Born Dec. 23, 1812, in Wiscasset, Maine.)

576 LIST OF REVISERS.
Rev. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D.D., Hartford, Conn., formerly Professor of
Hebrew in Andover, Mass. (Born April 26, 1802, at Natick, Mass. ;
resigned 1876.)
James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew in Drew Theological
Seminary, Madison, N. J. (Born Aug. 14, 1822, in New York.)
Eev. Cornelius V. A. Van Dyck, D.D., M.D., Professor in the American
College at Beirftt; Syria. (Born Aug. 18, 1818, in Kinderhook, N. Y.
Advisory Member on questions of Arabic.) Old Test. Company, 15.
(2) New Testament Company.
Eev. Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., LL.D. (Chairman), Ex-President of
Yale CoUege, New Haven, Conn. (Born Oct. 31, 1801, in New York.)
Eev. J. Henry Thayer, D.D. (Secretiiry), formerly Professor of New
Test. Exegesis in the Theological Seminary at Andover, Mass. (Burn
Nov. 27, 1828, in Boston, Mass. ; now resides in Cambridge.)
Charles Short, LL.D., Professor of Latin in Columbia College, New
York. ,. (Born May 28, 1821, in Haverhill, Mass.)
Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D.,Trofessor of New Test. Exegesis in the Divin
ity School of Harvard Universitj', Cambridge, Mass. (Born April 28,
1819, in Jackson, Maine.)
Eev. J. K. Burr, D.D., Trenton, N. J. (Born Sept. 21, 1825, in Middle-
town, Conn.; died at Trenton, N. J., April 24, 1882.)
Thomas Chase, LL.D., President of Haverford College, Pa. (Born Juno
16, 1827, in Worcester, Mass.)
Eev. George E. Crooks, D.D., Professor in Drew Theological Seminary,
Madison, N.J. (Accepted the original appointment, but found itimpos-
sible to attend, and resigned. Born Feb. 3, 1822, in Philadelphia, Pa.)
Eew. Howaed Crosby, D.D., LL.D., Ex-Chancellor of the University of
New York. (Born Feb. 27, 1826, in New York.)
Eev. Timothy Dwight, D.D., Professor of New Test. Exegesis in the
Divinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (Born Nov. 16,
1828, in Norwich, Conn.)
James Hadley, LL.D., Professor of Greek, Yale CoUege, New Haven,
Coiin. (Born March 30, 1821, in Fairfield, N.Y. ; died Nov. 14, 1872,
in New Haven.)
Eev. HoEATlo Balch Hackett, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Test,
Exegesis in the Theological Seminary at Eochester, N. Y. (Born Dec.
27, 1808, in Salisbury, Mass. ; died Nov. 2, 1875, in Eochester.)
Eev. Charles Hodge, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theology in the Theo-
logical Serainary at Princeton, N. J. (Never attended the meetings,

LIST OF REVISERS.

577

but corresponded with the Committee. Born Dec. 18, 1797, in Phila
delphia ; died June 19, 1878, in Princeton, N. J.)
Rev. Asahel Clark Kendrick, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Greek in the
University of Rochester, N. Y. (Born Dec. 7, 1809, in Poultney, Vt.)
Right Rev. Alfred Lee, D.D., LL,D,, Bishop of the Protestant Episco
pal Diocese of Delaware. (Born Sept. 9, 1807, in Cambridge, Mass.)
Eev. Matthew B. Riddle, D.D., Professor of New Test. Exegesis in the
Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. (Born Oct. 17, 1836, in Pitts
burgh, Pa.)
Eev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Sacred Literature in the
Union Theological Seminary, New York. (Born Jan. 1, 1819, in Coire,
Switzerland.)
Rev. Henry Boynton Smith, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Systematic
Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. (Attended
one session, and resigned from ill-health. Born Nov. 21, 1815, in Port
land, Me. ; died Feb. 7, 1877, in New York.)
Rev. WiLLUM Fairfield Wareen, D.D., President of Boston Univer
sity, Boston Mass. (Accepted the original appointment, but fonnd it
impossible to attend, and resigned. Born March 13, 1833, in Boston.)
Rev. Edward Abiel Washburn, D.D., LL.D., Rector of Calvary Church,
New York. (Born April 16, 1819, in Boston ; died Feb. 2, 1881, in
New York.) Kew Test. Company, 19.
In both Companies, 34.
[A nnmber of Bishops and Professors of snored le.irning, who had beeu in
vited to join the American Comraittee at its flrst organization in 18T1, de
clined, from want of time, or other reasons, hnt expressed interest in the
work and coufldence in its snccess. Among these mny be mentioned Bish-
ops Mcllvaine, Whittinghnin, and Williams, Dr. Whedou (Methodist), Ur.
Nevin (Reformed), Dr. Shedd (Presbyterinn.)]
Number of EngUsh and American Revisers on the Old Test. Com
pany  o2
Number of English and American Revisers on the New Test. Com
pany  49
Total  101
Tbe English Committee np to date, i. e., April, 1883, lost by death and
resignation 15 members ; leaving the number still living  62
The American Committee up to date, i. e., April, 1883, lost by death
and resignation 1 1 members ; leaving the number still living  23
Total  75
37

APPENDIX IV.

LIST OF CHANGES
PROPOSED BY THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE AND
ADOPTED BY THE ENGLISH COMMITTEE.
Bt Alfbed Lee, D.D.,
BIGUOr OF THE niOTESTANT EPISOOrAI. DIOOESE OF JIELAWARE.

[This list was prepared from the offlcial records ofthe Amoricaii Commit
tee (printed, but not published), and kindly placed at onr disposal by the
venernble Bishop Lee* one of the most faithful and regular members of the
New Testament Company ot Eevisers. He wishes It to be understood that
the list is far from complete. Thp A. V. is placed flrst, the E. V. second. In
some cases, slight differences between the rendering suggested and that
adopted are uot noticed.]

I. AMEEICAN SUGGESTIONS ADOPTED IN TEXT.
Matthew.
L 18. " When as his mother . . . was " : " Allien his, mother . . .
had been "
20. " whUe " : " when "
22. Instead of, " of the Lord by the prophet," read " by the
Lord through the prophet." This change is placeJ iu
the Appendix, General Rule, No. V,, as preferred througli
out,
24, " from sleep " : " from his sleep "
n. 9. " went on before" • "went before"
10, "When": "And when"
18, " would not" • "she would not"

580 LIST OF CHANGES.
n. 20. "whieh sought" : "that sought"
28. " shall be called " : " should be called "
III. 4. "meat" : "food" ; and so elsewhere for rpoipr].
13, "Jordan" ; "the Jordan" ; and so elsewhere.
IV. 24. " lunatic " : " epileptic " ; and so elsewhere.
V, 1. " was seated " : " had sat down "
16. " candle " • " candlestick " ; " lamp " : " stand " ; and so in
Mark iv. 21 ; Luke xi, 33.
25. "lest" : "lest haply" ; and so often for pq-tron.
35. " neither " : " nor "
VL 6. "when thou hast shut" : "having shut"
1. "But when ye pray" : "And in praying" '
8. " Be not ye therefore " : dele " ye "
16. "sour" : "sad" ; and new paragraph.
26. " much better " : " of much more value " ; and Luke xii. 24.
VIL 9. " of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he give " • " who,
if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give "
10, " a fish " : " for a fish "
" will he give " : " will give "
VIII, 1. " came down " : " was come down " (A. V.).
9. "this man" •. "this one" ; and Luke.
11. "and west" : "and the west"
18. "multitudes" : " great multitudes "
"other shore": "other side"; and so elsewhere. (WithA.V.)
34. " the whole city " : " all the city "
IX. 31. "And they" : "But they"
"that country" : "that land"
X. 21. "and father shall deliver up child" : "and the father his
child"
XI. 5. " the gospel" : "good tidings" ; and so in Luke vii. 22.
1. " look upon " •- " behold " ; and so in Luke vii. 24.
10. " order thy way " (E, I.)' : " prepare " (A. V,),"
23. " Hell " : " Hades " ; and so elsewhere. This change was
urged by the American Revisers from the outset, and
acquiesced in by the British at the last review.
26. " that so " : " for so " ; from margin.
XII, 2. Read, " But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said,"
4. " save for the priests alone " : " but only for the priests "
 (A. v.). 
' First English Revision. "Authorized Version.

LIST OF CHANGES. 581
XII. 12. ! instead of ?
28. " but if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God " : " but if
I by the Spirit of God cast out devils "
45. "is" : "becometh"
Xin. 2. " the whole " : " aU the "
12. "taken" : "taken away''
15. " should understand " : " understand "
21, " he is offended " : pro. " falleth away " : ad. " stum-
bleth "
25. "amidst the wheat" : "among"
33. Margin, " is " (E. I.) : " denotes "
44. "for joy thereof" : "iu his joy" ; from margin.
XIV. 1. " report of Jesus " : " report concerning Jesus "
19. " and took " : " and he took "
22. " his disciples " : " the disciples "
26. "in their fear" : "for fear"
XV. 13. "AU plants": "Every plant"
26. " to cast " : dele " to "
XVII. 4. "good that we be here" : "good for us to be here"
(A. V.) ; and so in Mark and Luke.
8. " no man " : "no one " ; and Mark ix. 8.
11. "truly" : "indeed"
XVIII. 3. " be converted " : " turn " ; and John xii. 40, etc.
22. " seventy times and seven " : " seventy tiraes seven "
Exchange text and margin.
XIX. 6. " For this " ¦ "For this cause " (A. V.) ; and Mark x. 1.
8. "the hardness of your hearts" : "your hardness of
heart " ; and so Mark x. 5.
9. " whoso mari-ieth" : "he that marrieth "
10. "beso" : "is so"
XX. B. " the sixtii and ninth " : " the sixth and the ninth "
1. " hired " : " hath hired " (A, V,),
14. "that is thine" : "that which is thine"
" it pleaseth me " ¦ " it is my will "
XXL 10. "moved" : "stirred"
15. " And when " : " But when "
36. " likewise ";" in like manner "
38. "But when the husbandmen saw , . . they said " : " But
the husbandmen, when they saw . . . said "
" keep his inheritance " : pro. " have " : ad. " take "

582 LIST OF CHANGES.
XXL 41. " his vineyard " -• " the vineyard "
42. " this was the Lord's doing " : " this was from the Lord " ;
and so Mark xii. 11.
XXII. 13. "ministers" : pro, "attendants" : ad. "servants"
26, "the seven" ¦- "the seventh" (A, V.),
34. "vvere gathered" : pro. "gathered" : ad. "gathered
themselves "
43, " in spirit " : " in the Spirit "
XXIII, 8. "master" : "teacher" : (Another reading,) The Araer
ican Revisers preferred always to translate SiSdaica-
' \og, " teacher."
14, Margin, "and that" : "even while" ; and so Mark
xii, 40.
23. " to leave the other " : "to have left the other "
26. " may be " •- " may become "
33. "escape from the judgment '' : dele "from"
XXIV. 8. "pains" : pro. "pangs" : ad. "travail" ; and Mark xiii. 8.
14. " gospel " : margin, " Or, these good tidings "
16. "which be" : "that are"
22, "should have been" : "would have been"
25. " foretold you " : " have told you beforehand " ; and so
Mark xiii, 23.
43. " the thief coineth " ^ " was coming "
XXV, 9. Dele "Nay"
XXVL 16. " betray him" : "deliver him «nto Mem" ; and elsewhere.
24. " good were it for him if that man had not been born " :
" good were it for that man if he had not been born "
(A. v.).
39. " praying and saying " • " and prayed saying "
44, "saying the same words again" : "saying again the
same words "
49, " forthwith " : " straightway "
kissed him
elsewhere.
50. "is it this for which thou art come?" : "do that for
which thou art come,"
66. " guilty " (of death) : " worthy " ; and so Mark xiv. 64.
XXVIL 6. " silver pieces " : " pieces of silver "
21, "They s-iid" : "And they said"
24, "a tumult was made" : "a tumult was arising"

LIST OF CHANGES. 583
XXVII, 44. "cast the same in his teeth" : "cast upon him the
same reproach"
il. "Sdme" : "And some"
50. "And Jesus, when he had cried again . . . yielded" ¦
"And Jesus cried again . . . and yielded"
58. "begged" : " asked for " ; and so in other places for ai'rsw.
61. "And there was there Mary Magdalene " : "And Mary
Magdalene was there '.'
XXVIII, 11, " were done " : " were come to pass "
16. " appointed ":" had appointed "
Mask.
I. 4. "there cime John" : pro. "John appeared" : ad.
"John came"
26. "having torn him, and cried" : "tearing him and crying''
43. " solemnly " : pro. " sternly " ' [Put in margin] : ad.
" strictly" ; and Matt. ix. 80.
IL 3. "carried" : "borne"
1 5. " cometh to pass " : " came to p.ass "
IIL 8. " all the things " : " what great things "
10, " for to touch him " : "that they might touch him "
26, " riseth up ":" hath risen up " ¦ ¦
IV. 8. "thirty . . .sixty . - . a hundred" : "thirtyfold . . .
sixtyfold ... a hundredfold"
22. " but rather that " : " but that "
30. " place it?" : " set it forth ?"
32. " it groweth up " : dele " it "
" all herbs " : " all the herbs "
"putteth forth" : pro. "maketh" : ad. "putteth out.'.'.
36, "take him" "take him with them"
39. " arose ":" awoke "
V. 3. " among the tombs " : " in the tombs "
11. "nigh. unto the mountain" pro. "bythe mountain" :
ad. " on the mountain side "
36. " Be not afraid " : " Fear not "
38. "people " : pro. Roman type : ad. " many "
40, " when he had " : " having "
VI, 2, " the many " (E, L) : " many " and change margin,
22, "his daughter Herodias" : substitute margin, "the
daughter of Herodias herself "

VL

24,

54.

VIL

8.

18.

21.

VIIL

13.

584 LIST OF CHANGES.:
. " should I ask " : " shall I ask "
"they" : "tJiepeople"
" lay aside " : pro. " let go " : ad. " leave "
"Is it so that ye also are" : pro. "So then ate ye also" :
ad. " Are ye so . . . also ".
" proceed all evil thoughts " : " evil thoughts proceed "
." neither had they " : " and they had not "
18. "remeraber, when" : "reinember? When"
19, 20. " ye took up " : " took ye np ?" ¦
IX. 3. " such that no fuUer . . . can so whiten them " : " so as
no fuller on earth can whiten them "
8. "when they had looked" : "looking"
. 12. " truly '':" indeed "
18. Exchange margin and text, "rendeth him" : "dasheth
him down" ; and Luke ix, 42,
'and thoy asked" : dele "they"
' thy left hand " : " thy " italics.
' leaves " : pro. " boughs from leaves " ; and dele margin ' :
ad. " branches "
'shaU":"wiU" ' so much as this " : " even this "
2. " on another " : " upon another "
"lead you" : pro. "lead you away" : ad. "lead you to
judgement "
" which be " : " that are "
" as hath not been " : as there hath not been "
" should have been saved ". : " would have been saved "
" foretold you all things " : " told you all things before
hand"
2Y. " from the end " (E. I.) : " frora the uttermost part "
35. "either" ¦- "whether"
XIV. 8. " to the burying " : " for the burying "
25. " drink no more " : " no more drink "
32. " while I shall pray" : "while I pray"
55. " all the council " : " the whole council "
XV, 31. "when he had uttered , . . gave up" : "uttered . . . and
gave up "
43. "begged" : "asked for"
"counsellor" : "councillor"
XVL 1. " go your way " : " go "

X.

2.

SI.
XL
8.
XIL
9.
10.
XIIL
2.
11.
14.
19.
20.
23.
LIST OF CHANGES. 585

, Luke.
I. 21. "was waiting" : "were waiting"
28. Exchange margin and text. " Endued with grace ":" high
ly favoured "
30, " grace " ¦- " favour "
SI. " from God no word " : " no word from God "
68. " how " ¦- " that "
69, "were calling" : pro, "were about to call" : ad, "would
have caUed"
II. 2, " Quirinus " : " Quirinius "
8. "keeping" : "and keeping"
9. " stood over " : " stood by "
35. " shall pierce " : " shall pierce through "
49. Read, "in my father's house?" with E. L
III. 8, " worthy of your repentance ": dele " your " ; put in margin.
18, " Many other things, therefore, in his exhortation preached
he unto the people " : " With many other exhortations,
therefore, he pre<ached good tidings unto the people "
35, "Salah" : "Shelah"
¦ IV. 25, " a great famine came " : " there came a great famine "
41. " forbade them " : " suffered them not "
V. 22. "What" : "Why" ; put in margin.
VL 3. " so much as this " : " even this "
27. " do well " : " do good "
VIL 1. "After that" : dele "that"
2. " held in honor by " (E. I.) : pro. " highly valued by " : ad.
" dear unto "
"Ready to die" : pro. "about'to die" : ad. "at the point
of death"
35. " was justified " : pro. " hath been " : ad, " is "
VIIL 1, "proclaiming" : "preaching"
6. " fell down on the rock " : dele " down "
14. " as they go " : " as they go on their way "
25, " who then is this ? for he " : " who then is this, that he "
29. "caught" : "seized" ; and Acts vi. 12, and elsewhere.
"Bound, being kept with chains" : "kept under guard
and bound with chains "
IX, 7,8. "of" : "by" (ter).
12. " here we are " : " we are here "

586 LIST OF CHANGES,
IX. 58. Margin: " roosting places ":" lodging places "
X. 1. " seventy and two " E. I. : " seventy " and change margin,
and V, 11.
1. "workman" : "labourer"
21, " that so " : " for so " Ex. text and margin.
22. "to whomsoever" : "he to whomsoever "
29. "willing" : pro. "wishing" : ad. "desiring"
41. "careful" : "anxious"
XI. 39. "dish": "platter" '
45. " thus saying," : " in saying this "
XIL 11. "unto": "before"
36. " and ye yourselves " : "and be ye yourselves "
46. " faithless ":" unfaithful"
58, " exactor ":" ofiioer "
XIIL 4, " debtors " E. L : " offenders " ; margin, " Gr. debtors."
9. Insert " well " after " thehCefofth "
16. "to be loosed" : "to have been loosed"
XIV, 1. "chief Pharisees" ^ "rulers of the Pharisees"
23. " compel ":'." constrain "
XV. 7. "just" : "righteous"
13. " a country afar offi " : "a far country " (and Luke xix.
12, A. v.).
XVI. 2. "mayest be" : "canst be"
3. " I cannot dig " : " I have not strength to dig "
14. "mocked":. "scoffed"
16. " the kingdom" : pro, " the glad tidings of the kingdom '! :
ad. "the gospel of"
28, "warn" : "testify unto"
XVIL 2. "profitable'' : pro, "gain" : ad, "weU"
6, " would obey " : " would have obeyed "
" were there not the ten " : " were not the ten "
" shall quicken it " : " shall preserve it " (A, V.).
"therest" : "aU others"
"yet lackest thou one thing" : "one thing thou lackest
yet"
" being himself also rich " : " and he was rich "
" Take heed of " : " Beware of "
" waves " : pro. " swelling waves " : ad. " billows "
35. " break in "E.L : "come"
XXII, 29, Read " I appoint unto you a kingdom "

A 1.
33.

VIIL

9.

22,

XIX.

2.

XX,

46.

XXL

25.

LIST OF CHANGES. 537
XXIL 37. "for indeed that" : dele "indeed"
XXIIL 1. "number" : pro. "multitude" : ,ad. "company"
12. "together" : "with each other"
"with each other" : "between themselves"
23. "requiring" : pro. "demanding" : ad. "asking"
35. " derided " : " scoffed at "
55. "sepulchre" • "tomb" ; and so elsewhere for /jrij^eioi/.
XXIV, 22. " made us astonished " : " amazed us "
39. "behold we have" : "behold we having"
John.
I, 6. Exchange text and margin, " overcame " ¦ " appre
hended"
6, " there was " : pro. " appeared" : ad. " came "
1. " through him might believe " : " might believe throu"-h
him"
8, "but that he raight" : "but came that he might"
12. Exchange text and margin, "power" : "the right"
14. "the glory" : "glory"
15. "spake" : "said"
18, Exchange text and margin. " God only begotten " : "the
only begotten Son"-
33. " Holy Ghost " : " Holy Spirit " ; and Acts vi. 5.
42. " (Which is by interpretation, Peter),"
48. " before that Philip " : " before Philip "
II, 6. " the manner of the purifying of the Jews " : " the Jews'
manner of purifying"
10, "largely" (E.L): "freely"
III. 8, Exchange margin and text. "The Spirit breatheth" ¦
" The wind bloweth "
IV, 21, " at Jerusalem " : " in .lerusalem "
22. "of the Jews" ¦ "frora the Jews"
25, "tell us" : "declare unto us"
27. "talked" : pro, "was talking" : ad. "was speaking"
34, " perfect " ; " accoraplish " ; and xvii. 4.
39. "for the word" : "because of the word"
V. 6. " wilt thou " : " wouldest thou "
30. " of mine own self " : " of rayself "
39. "scriptures; for ye think": "scriptures, because ye thiuk"
A'L 1. " over " : " to the other side of "

588 LIST OF CHANGES.
VL 39. "aU which" : "aU that which"
41, "at" • "concerning"
66. " After this " : " Upon this "
VIL 6. "present" : "come" (A. v.).
16,17. "doctrine": "teaching"
18. "his glory that sent him" : "the glory of him that sent
him"
45. " Why have ye not brought him ?" : " Why did ye not
bring hira ?"
51. "hear him" : "hear from himself"
52. Exchange raargin and text, " see : for out of Galilee " :
" see that out of Giilillee "
VIII. 3, " when they had " -. " having "
12. "Jesus therefore again" : "Again therefore Jesus '' etc,
42, " carae out " : " carae forth "
46, " say the truth " : dele " the "
49, " ye do dishonour " : dele " do "
IX. 5. "Whensoever" : "When"
X. 12. "scattereth i/ie^/Joc/t" : " scattereth </t«m "
38. "If Ido" : "If I do them"
41. "John did" : "John indeed did"
XI. 12, "he shaU be saved" :," he will recover"
20. " Mary sat stUl " ¦ " Mary still sat "
28. " her sister, saying secretly " : " her sister secretly, saying"
47. "miracles" : "signs" . Exchange margin and text.
50. "reckon" : pro. "consider" : ad. "take account"
XIL 28. "from heaven" : "out of heaven"
36. "was hidden" (E. L) : "hid hiraself"
38. " who believed" : " who hath believed"
50. "whatsoever" : "the things which"
XIIL 18. " I chose " : " I have chosen"
23, 28, " at meat" : -" at the table"
34. " I loved you " : " I have loved you "
" may love " {E. I.) ; dele " may "
XV. 3. " Even now " : " Already"
5. " without rae " : " apart frora me "
15. "have heard" : "heard"
XVI. 8. " of sin " • " in respect of sin "
18. Return to A. V,
XVIL 13, "And now" : "But now"

LIST OF CHANGES. 589
XVIL 24. " they also may be with me where I am " : " where I am,
they also may be with me "
XVIIL 6. "As soon then as " : " When therefore"
9. " of them which " : " of those whom "
16. "and that disciple" : " How that disciple "
20. " whither all the Jews resort " : " where all the Jews
come together "
30. "would not" : "should not"
XIX. 12, "whosoever": " every one that "
17. "a place" : "theplace"
30. "gave up the ghost" : "gave up his spirit" {irapiSuiKE
TO trvtupa).
39, "which" : "he who"
XXI. 11. " went up ":" went aboard " (In margin.)
17. "seest" : "knowest" •
20, " leaned on his breast " : " leaned back on his breast "
Acts,
I. 4, " saith he" :" said lie"
13. "roora": "charaber"
18. " acquired a field " : " obtained "
21. " Wherefore of the men " : " Of the raen therefore"
23. "appointed" : pro. "set forth" : ad. "put forward "
IL 6, 11. "speak" : "speaking"
20. "before the great and notable day of the Lord corae":
" before the day of the Lord come, that great and no
table day"
22. Exchange text and margin. " powers ":" raighty works "
24. " pains " : " pangs "
26. " rost " • " dwell "
32. "of whora" : "whereof" ; and so iii. 15.
38. "for the reraission " "unto the remission"
39. " unto you " : " to j-ou "
47. "suchas were in the way of salvation." (E.L): "them that
were being saved." [Further change suggested by
Araerican Coraraittee and not adopted.] See Appendix,
III, 1. " for the hour " (E. I.) : " at the hour "
10. " gate " : " Gate "
20. " which was " : " who hath been "
22. "say" : "speak "

590 LIST OF CHANGES.
IV. 2. "beirig troubled" : "being sore troubled" ; and xvi. 18.
9. " be examined " : " are examined "
12. " our salvation is not in any other" (E, I,) : " in hone other
is there salvation "
24. "hast raade" : "didst make"
25. " hast said " : " didst say "
27. " hast anointed " : " didst anoint "
28. " determined before to be done " : " foreordained to come
to pass "
32. " and of one soul " : dele " of one "
V. 15. " some of them " : " some one of them "
21. "early in the morning" : "about daybreak"
30. " ye hanged on a tree and slew " : " ye slew, hanging him
on a tree "
33, " wished" : " w?re minded"
34, "reputation": "honour"
"little space" : "little while"
35. " intend to do " : " are about to do "
36, " brought to nought " : " carae to nought"
VI. 1. "And in these days" : "Now in these days"
14, "delivered us" • "delivered unto us"
VII, 4. " he removed ":" ffod removed "
11, "dearth" : "famine" ; also xi, 28.
12. "first" : "the first time"
16. "Emmor" : "Hamor"
33. "frora off thy feet" ; dele "off"
40. "brought" : "led"
45, " receiving it after" : " in their turn "
52, "ye were even now" : "ye have now becorae"
VIIL 10, "great" : "Great"
21, "this word" : "this matter" (A, V.).
23. " for gall " : " in the gall " Margin, pro. " art " : ad. " wilt
becorae gall "
38, " went down both '' • " both went down "
IX, 17. "raightest" : "mayest"
23, " counsel " : " counsel together "
32. "passed" : pro. "was going" : ad. "went"
33. " and was sick of the palsy " : " for he was palsied "
34. " maketh thee whole " : " liealeth thee"
41. "when he had called" : "calling"

LIST OF CHANGES. 591
X. 10. "wouldhaveeaten":pro." wished to eat": ad. "desired"
17. "porch" : "gate"
28. " and to me " : " and yet unto me "
33. " are commanded " : " have been commanded "
36. " he sent the word " : " the word which he sent " : " he
is Lord of all " in ( ).
XI. 4. "rehearsed" : pro. "set forth" : ad. "expounded"
13. "whioh stood and said" : "standing and saying"
19. "They then which" : pro. "Now they that" : ad. "They
therefore that "
23. "in the purpose of their heart" : "with purpose of heart"
26. "assembled theraselves" : pro. "came together" : ad.
" were gathered together "
" in the church " : " with the church "
XIII. 5, " their minister " : pro, " assistant " : ad, " attendant "
7, " who called " ¦ " The same called "
10. "thou child" : "thou son"
13, "sailed" ¦ "set saU " ; also xvi. 11, xx. 3,
16, " with his hand " : " with the hand"
18, 20. "about" : "for about"
34; "faithful" : "sure"
46. "waxed bold" : "spake out boldly"
" have been spoken " : " be spoken"
XIV. 6. " perceived it " : " became aware of it "
19. "And" : "But"
" came thither certain Jews " : " came Jews thither "
"drew" • "dragged"
XV, 1, "raanner" : "custora" ; also xvii. 2.
10, " to put " : pro, " by putting " : ad. " that ye should put "
17, 18. Read " who raaketh these things known " ; and margin.
25. "being asserabled with one accord" : pro, "having come
to one mind " with marg., " having come together " :
ad, " having come to one accord "
31, " at the exhortation " : " for the consolation " (A. V.),
88. "right" : pro. "meet" : ad. "good" (A.V.).
XVI, 4, "that were ordained" : "whichhad been ordained"
6. "preach" : "speak"
8, "and they passed by Mysia, and eame" : "and passing
by Mysia, they came "
18. " the spirit came out " : "it came out "

592 * LIST OF. CHANGES.
XVIL 23. " things that ve worship "(E.L): "objects of your worship"
xvm, 10. "hurt": "harm"
18. "unto Syria" : "for Syria" :
24! "born at Alexandria" : "an Alexandrian by race"
25. "in the spirit" : "in spirit" ; and xix. 21, same change
proposed.
26. "John. The same" : "John; and he"
"synagogue: but ":" synagogue. But"
27. Exchange text and margin : "helped much through
grace thera which had believed " : " helped them
much which had believed through grace "
XIX. 2. In margin for "be a Holy Ghost" : "is" etc.
7. " all the raen were " : " they were in all "
8, 9. "disputing" : pro. "discoursing" : ad. "reasoning"
15. " Jesus I acknowledge " : " I know "
31. " which were his friends " : " being his friends "
39. " enquire " : pro, " seek for " : ad. " seek "
XX, 3. " three months were past " • " he had spent three months
there "
5, "had come" : "had gone before" : change of text.
10, " trouble not yourselves " : " raake ye no ado "
27, " all the counsel ":" the whole counsel "
28. Exchange text and margin, "overseers" : "bishops"
XXL 9. " Now the same man " : " Now this man "
20. " zealous of the law " : " zealous for the law "
25. "strangled" : "what is strangled"
31. "sought"-: "were seeking"
" chief captain " : margin, " military tribune "
" an uproar " • " confusion "
XXIL 13. "standing over rae" : "standing by me"
15. "his witness" : "a witness for him"
19. " believe ":" believed "
XXIIL 6. " of the hope " : pro. " for the hope " : ad, " touching '"
15. " for that ye would " : " as though ye would "
27. " would have been slain " : " was about to be slain "
" ray soldiers " : " the soldiers "
29. "touching" : pro, "concerning" : ad, "about"
XXIV. 11. "understand" : pro. "ascertain" : ad. "take knowledge"
12. "gathering" : "stirring up"
14. " so worship I " : " so serve I"

LIST OF CHANGES. 593,
XXIV. 14. "and written" : "and which are written"
18. ( : ) after " offerings " instead of ( . )
24. "his own wife" : "his wife"
XXV, 1. " the province " : " his " : ai^. in margin.
8. "answered for himself" : "said in his defence"
11, "if I be a wrong doer" : "ifi am," etc,
, 16, "that he which is accused" : "that the accused"
19. "superstition" : "religion" : text in margin.
22. " ahould wish " : " could wish "
XXVI. 3. "because thou art specially expert" : "especially be
cause thou art " : text in margin.
14. " pricks " : " goad "
16. "wherein thou hast seen me": "whioh thou hast
seen " ; put in margin.
22. "the succour of" ; "the help that is from"
XXVII. 9, "already past" : "gone by" : ad, "already gone
by"
17. "run into" : "fall away into" : ad. "be cast upon"
19. "furniture" : pro. " movables ": ad. "tackling "(A.V,).
21, "not set sail" : "not have set sail"
XXyilL 4. "justice" : "Justice"
6, "mind" : "minds"
8, " it came to pass " : pro. " happened " : ad, " it was so "
"to whom" : "unto whom"
17, " were of the Jews first" : " were chief of the Jews " ;
dele margin.
19, "not because" : "not that"
Romans.
I. 1. "bondman" : "servant" ; margin, "Or, bondman"
2. " holy scriptures " : " the holy scriptures "
4. " resurrection " : " the resurrection "
17, " the righteousness " : " a righteousness "
26, " affections " : " passions "
-32, "do" : "practise" (bis) : "commit" : "do"
II, 1, " inexcusable ":" without excuse "
17. "art named" ; "bearest the name of"
23. "in a law" : "in thelaw"
27, " through the letter " : " with the letter "
IIL 6. " as a man " : " after the manner of raen "
38

594 LIST OP CHANGES.
IIL 20, 28. " works of law " : " the works of the law " ; from
margin.
31. "law" : "the law" (bis) ; dele margin.
"through the faith" : "through faith"
IV. 12. J)e\e"t/Mt/iemiffhtbe"(E.l.).
18. "was spoken" : "had been spoken"
19. "regarded" : "considered"
V. 5. ." maketh not ashamed " • " putteth not to shame "
8. " establisheth " : "commendeth"
11. " our reconciliation " ; " the reconciliation"
20. " a law " : " the law "
VI. 2. " live any longer " : " any longer live "
4. "even so we" : "so we also"
13, "from being dead" : "from the dead"
21. "therefore had ye then" : "then had ye at that time"
VIL 1. " know law " : " know the law "
5, " by the law " : " through the law "
7, "lust" : "coveting"
12, "Wherefore" : "So that"
VIII, 2. Dele " thee " in margin.
28. "with them" • "to them"
IX. 1. "therewith bearing me witness" : "bearing witness with
me"
6. A marginal rendering was suggested (see American Ap
pendix), for which three others were substituted.
21. "one vessel" : "one part a vessel" ; from margin.
X. 7. " deep " : " abyss "
12, Pro. "being rich" : ad. "and is rich"
14. Dele margin, "of whom"
16. "obey" : "hearken to"
XL 22,28. "abide" : "continue"
30. "yet" : "but"
XII. 3. "not to be highminded above what he ought tobe minded;
but to be so minded as to be soberminded " : " not to
think of himself more highly than he ought to think ;
but so to think as to think soberly "
13, " following after hospitality " : " given to hospitality "
16. "be not highminded" : pro. "mind not high things": ad.
" set not your raind on high things "
XIV. 23. " it is not " : " he eateth not " (A. V,),

LIST OF CHANGES. 595
1 Corinthians.
L 2. Insert " them that are " before " sanctified "
S. "grace" : "Grace"
,11. "shewn" : pro. "made known" : ad. "signified"
12. "aild this I say" : "Now this I mean"
22. Dele "likewisp" before "Greeks"
IL 4. "my message" : "my preaching" (A, v.).
VII. 26. " necessity " (E. I.) : " distress " (A, V,).
37, "virgin" : "virgin daughter"
IX, 17, "wiUingly" : "of mine own will"
" uriwUIingly " : " not of mine own will "
19. " being" free : pro. " though I am " : ad. " though I was "
X. 2. " into Moses " : " unto Moses "
XL' 7. "a man" : "a man indeed" (A. V.).
XIIL 1, 2, 3, " and have not " : " but have not "
5. " reckoneth not the evil" (E. L) : "taketh not account of evil"
12. "in a glass" : "in a mirror" ; and 2 Cor. ni. 18.
13. "greater": "greatest"; margin, " Gr., greater "
XIV. 22. " wherefore the tongues " : dele " the "
XV. 1. " declare ":" make known "
Dele "as touching" before "the gospel"
34. " as is right " : " righteously "
XVL 12. "God's wiU" (E, L) : "his wiU"
" that he should come " • " to come "

2 Corinthians.
IIL 18, " Moses put ":" Moses, WiO put "
IV, 8. "afflicted" ¦ "pressed"
15. " having multiplied may through the many " : " being
multiplied through the many may "
V. 21. "sin for us" : "sin on our behalf"
VII. 2, Margin, " Gr., Contain us " : " Make room for us "
"defrauded" : "took advantage of"
VIII. 3. " of their own " : " they gave of their own "
4. " tliey offered the grace " : " for the grace " : ad. " in regard
of" etc.
17. "for he accepted" : "for indeed he accepted"
IX. 13. " for the subjection of your profession to the gospel " : " for
the obedience of your confession unto the gospel "

596 LIST OF CHANGES.
X. 8. Dele " an authority " and enclose " whioh . . . down "
in(-)..
9. " as it were to " : " as if I would " (A. V.),
10, "forcible,": "strong"
12, "do not understand" : "are without understanding"
XL 2. "have espoused" : dele "have"
"may present" : "might present"
6. " in everything we have made manifest the gospel among
all raen unto you " ; " in everything we have made it
manifest among all men to you-w.-ird "
20. "taketh you" : pro, "catcheth you" : ad. "taketh you
captive "
23, " I am more than they " : " I more "
" exceedingly " ; pro, " beyond measure" : ad, "above measure"
XIIL 3. " mighty ":" powerful"
4, " might " (E. I.) : " power " bis.
1. " should " : " may " bia.
Galatians.
II. 6. "what, they once were" (E. I.) : "whatsoever they wore"
(from margin).
"imparted nothipg more" : "imparted nothing"
16. " works of law " : " works of the law " bis, and iii. 5.
"except it be" : pro. "but" : ad. "save"
III. 11. " in the law " : " by the law " ; margin, " Gr., in"
IV. 11. "I have toiled for you" : "I have bestowed labour upon
~ you" (A. v.).
17. "zealously court you " (E. I,) : "zealously seek you"
18, "courted" (E, I,) : "sought" ; (.) after "you" instead
of(,).
19. "my" : "My"
V, 4. " put away " : " severed "
" fallen " : " fallen away "
13, " For ye were called , , . brethren '' • " For ye, brethren,
were called " Ephesians.
II. 6. " raised us up " : " raised us up with him "
"to sit togethor" ; "to sit with him"

LIST OP CHANGES. 597
IL 15. "even the enmity, in his flesh, having abolished" : "having
abolished in his fiesh the enmity"
16. "slain the enraity in it" ¦ "slain the enmity thereby"
IIL 17. "ye being rooted" : "to the end that ye," etc.
18. " that ye may have strength " : pro. " may be fully able " :
ad. "raay be strong"
21. Insert "Amen" at end of verse.
IV. 21. "by him" : "in him"
22. " decayeth according to " : " waxeth corrupt after "
V. 19. "speaking to yourselves" : "speaking one to another" ;
and Colos. iii. 16.
VI. 13. " take up unto you " : " take up "
24. "in incorruption" : pro. "with a love incorruptible" : ad.
" in uncorriiptness "
Philippians.
I. 8. "compassions" (E.L) : pro. "tenderness" : ad. "tender
mercies "
10. " giving no offence " : " void of offence "
17. "supposing" : "thinking"
20, " ashamed " : " put to sharae "
28. "to thera" • "for them"
IL 3. "themselves" : "himself"
4. "on his own " : "to his own "
8. "unto death " : " even unto"
10. "iu earth" : "on earth"
12. ( ; ) after " trembling " instead of ( . ).
22. "unto" : "in furtherance of"
IV. 7. " keep your hearts " : " guard your hearts "
8. "make account of" (E. L) : " think on" (A. V.).
13. "enableth me" : pro. "giveth me power" : ad. "strength
eneth me" (A. v.).
21. "chiefly" • "especially" Colossians.
I. 2. " holy " : exchange with margin, " saints "
14. " the redemption " : "our rederaption"
23. " be not moved away " : dele " be "
IL 1. " with how great striving I contend " : pro. " how great a
contest I have" " ad. "how greatly I strive"

598 LIST OF CHANGES.
IL 10, "fulfilled" ¦ "madefuU"
18, "taking his stand upon" : "dwelling in"
28, "not of any value" : "but are not of any value"
IV, 2. "instant" : pro. "stedfast" : ad. "stedfastly"
3, "would open" : "may open"
"a door of utterance" : "a door for the word" ; from
margin. 1 Thessalonians.
II. 2. "with much contention" : "in much conflict"
4. " put in trust " : " intrusted "
7. "babes" : "gentle"
13. "of us" : "from us"
IV. 6, "forewarned you" : pro. "told you before" : ad, in margin,
"told J'OU plainly" 2 Thessalonians.
I. 11, " the calling ":" your calling "
II. 4. " an object of worship " : " that is worshipped " (A. V.).
6. " to the intent" : " to the end "
" his season " : " his own season "
8. "appearing of his presence" (E, I.) : "manifestation of his
coming "
IIL 9, "power" : "the right" 1 Timotht,
"Now": "But"
"whoremongers" : "fornicators"
"to minister" (E. I.) : "to his service"
" a good report of " : " good testimony from "
"liveth in pleasure" : "giveth herself to pleasure"
11. "come to wax" : pro, "have grown" : ad. "have waxed"
14. "women" ¦ "wido-ws" Text and margin exchanged.
22. "thine own self" : "thyself"
25. "be otherwise" : "are otherwise"
VI. 2, " the more " : " the rather "
3, "other" : "a different"
10. " all evil" : " all kinds of evil " ; so E. I.

I.

5.

10.

12.

II.

7,

V.

6,

LIST OF CHANGES. 599
2 Timothy.
L 14, "by" : "through"
II, 14. "testifying unto" : "charging"
18. " who concerning the truth " : " men who " etc.
19. " iniquity " : " unrighteousness "
25. "might": "m.ay"
IIL 9. " Howbeit " : pro. " Yet " : ad. " But "
IV. 1. " I protest " : " I charge thee " (A. V,).
3. "having itching ears" after "but," instead of "teachers"
6. In margin, " poured " : " poured out "
16, "supported me" : pro, "was by ray side" : ad. "took my
part" Titus.
I. 6. " are wanting " : " were wanting " ^
8. " a lover of hospitality " : " given to hospitality "
12, " slow belUes " : " idle gluttons "
IL 1. "become": "befit"
4, dele margin " discipline "
7, " a pattern " : " an ensample "
III. 1, "principalities" : pro. "governraents" : ad, "rulers"
5. "the laver"(E.I.) : pro, "awashing" : ad, "the washing"
"the renewing" :, pro. "a renewing'! : ad. "renewing"
Philemon.
2. "our sister" : "the sister" Put in margin.
Hebrews.
I. 2. " by whom " : " through whom ''
8, "a sceptre of thy kingdom" : "the sceptre," etc.
II, 10, " having brought ":" in bringing " Text in margin.
14. "Forasmuch then as " : "Since then"
IH, 2, 6, 6. "his house" : pro, "His" : margin added, "Tliatia, God's
house"
3. "insomuch" : pro, "by as much'' : ad. "by so much"
18, "daily" : "day bv day"
14. dele ( ).
" partakers of Christ " : add in margin, " Or, witli Christ "
IV, 2. " a gospel " : " good tidings "
8. " would he not " : " he would not "
10. " himself also hath " : " hath hiraself also "

600 LIST OF CHANGES.
IV, 12. " of joints and marrow " : " of both joints and raarrow "
14. " profession " : " confession " •
15. " but that" : " but one that "
V. 9. Arrangement (that of A. V.) changed.
VI. 18. " because " ¦- " since "
20. "as our forerunner" : "as a forerunner"
VII. 19. " bringing in ":" bringing in thereupon "
VIIL 4. " have been a priest " : " be a priest "
5. " serve an example " : " serye that which is a copy "
6. " was established " : pro. " hath been established " : ad,
" hath been enacted "
IX, 1. "Even the first covenant theu" : "Now even the first
covenant "
2, "are" : "were"
4, "is" : "was"
9, "unto the time " : " for the time"
" perfect . . . him that doeth the service " : " make the
worshipper perfect "
10. "(which rest only on meats and drinks and divers wash
ings)" : "being only (with meats, etc.),"
11. In margin, "have come" : "are come"
12. "gained" -. "obtained"
22. "blood is" : "blood there is"
24. " to be manifested " : " to appear " (A. V.).
28. "without sin" : "apart from sin"
X. 16. Arrangeraent changed : " upon their mind also will I write ''
25. "raanner" : "custora"
34. "ye have yourselves for a better possession" (E. I.) : "ye
yourselves have a better " etc, Exoh, raarg, and text.
XI, 17, " and he that had received " : pro. " yea, he that had ac
cepted " : ad. " yea, he that had gladly received "
XII. 15. "raany be defiled" : "the many" etc.
22. " innuraerable hosts " ; add in raarg., " Gr., myriads "
XIIL 20. " by the blood " ; " with the blood "
James.
I. 2. "among" : "into"
21. " superfluity " : pro, " excess " : ad, " overflowing "
23. " any be " : " any one is "
II. 3, " in honour " : " in a good place " (A, V,) : pro, for marg.

LIST OF CHANGES. 601
- IL 8. "yet if " : pro. "if however" : ad. "howbeit if"
9. " work sin" : "commit sin" (A. V.).
18. "glorieth over" : "glorieth against" (A. V.).
22. " his faith wrought " : dele " his "
IIL 15. "This wisdom is not one" : pro. "This is not a wisdom
that " : ad, " This wisdom is not a wisdom that "
17. "doubtfulness" : pro. " partiality " (in marg.) : ad, "vari
ance"
IV, 4. " desireth to be " : pro, " chooseth to be " : ad. " would be "
5. " planted " : " made to dwell " ; both in text and raargin,
12, "The lawgiver and judge is one, even he" : "One otily is
the lawgiver and judge, he "
V, 13. "psalms" : pro. "praises" : ad. "praise"
1 Peter.
I, 12, " repoi-ted ": pro. " declared ": ad. " announced "
13, " entirely ":" perf ectly "
20. " verily was foreknown " : " was foreknown indeed "
22. " with a clean heart " : " from the heart " Exchange marg,
and text.
23. "born again" : "begotten again"
24. " For " put at end of line preceding : " all " : " All ''
II, 2, " sincere " : pro, " pure " : ad, " which is without guile "
12. " whereas " : " wherein " : and so iii. 16.
20. " be buffeted " : " are buffeted "
25. " overseer " : " bishop " (A. V.).
III. 3, " that outward " : " the outward "
V, 2. "feed" : "tend"
3. "exercising lordship" : "lording it" ; from margin.
2 Peter.
L 1, "Symeon ": "Simon" Exchange margin and text,
8, " being yours and abounding unto you " : pro, " belonging
unto you and abounding " : ad, " are yours and abound "
II. 1. " were ":" arose "
4. "into dungeons " : pro. "into the abyss'.' : ad. "to heU"
7, "oppressed " : pro, " wearied put " : ad. " sore distressed "
10. " dignities " ;. add marg., " Gr., glories " ; and so Jude 8.
15. " Beor " ; add marg. note of the reading £osor.

602 LIST OF CHANGES.
III. 12. "hastening" : pro. "eagerly desiring" : ad. "earnestly de
siring " ; margin, " Or, hastening"
1 John.
II. 1. " sin not " : " may not sin "
3. " perceive we " : " know we " ; and so vs. 5, 18, etc.
V. 16. " sin a sin ":" sinning a sin "
"of" • "concerning" 2 John.
9. goeth "before" : pro. "forward" : ad. "onward"
3 John.
3. " I rejoice greatly, when brethren come and bear witness " :
" I rejoiced greatly, when brethren came and bare wit
ness"
8. "support" : pro. "sustain" : ad. "welcome"
Jude.
4. "sentence" : pro. "judgenient" : ad. "condemnation"
7. " as an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment " : " as
an exaraple, suffering the punishment of eternal fire"
Text and margin exchanged.
8. " dreamers also " : pro. " also, dreaming " : ad. " also in their
dreamings "
12, "shepherds to themselves" : "shepherds that feed them
selves" Revelation,
I. 2. " of the witness " : " of the testimony " ; and ver, 9, vi, 9,
16. "went" : pro. "went forth" : ad. "proceeded"
19, "after thera" : "hereafter" ; and so iv. 1.
IL 19. "faith and love " : "love and faith"
III, 2, " perfect " : pro, " perfected " : ad. " fulfiUed "
IV. 1. "open" : "opened"
V. 1. " sitteth " : " sat " ; and v, 7.
9. " out of every tribe " : " men of every tribe "
VI. 8. " sat thereon " : " sat upon him "
9. " beneath the altar " : " underneath the altar "
VII. 12. "all blessing" : pro. "the blessing" from margin : ad.
blessing"
"unto our God" : "be unto our God"

LIST OF CHANGES. 603
VII. 15, " tabernacle among them ":" spread his tabernacle over
thera " ; from margin.
IX, 6. " mankind shall seek " : " men shall seek "
XL 4. "whicharebeforetheLordof the earth, and i/iO'c stand":
" which stand (standing) before the Lord of the earth "

II. SUGGESTIONS OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE PUT
IN MAEGIN.
Matthew.
I. 1. " The book of generation " : " The genealogy "
11, 12, 17. " carrying away " : " removal "
V. 35. " by " Jerusalem : add marg. " Or, toward "
VI. 19. "break through" : Gr., "dig through" ; and xxiv. 48.
VIIL 8. " say in a word " (E. L) : Gr., " with a word "
20. " nests " : Gr., " lodging places "
IX. 6, 8. " power " : " authority "
X. 21. "cause them to be put to death" : add marg. "Or, put
thera to death " ; and so Luke xxi. 16 ; Mark xiii. 12.
XI. 17. did not "mourn" : Gr., "beat the breast"
XIL 32. "world" : add marg. "Or, age" ; so elsewhere.
XIV. 19. "sit down" : Gr., "recUne" ; iind so elsewhere.
Thia explanation becomea important in such passages as
, Luke vii. 38 and John xiii. 23.
XVII. 4. " tabernacles " : add marg. " Or, booths " ; and Mark ix. 5.
XXIIL 23, " anise ": add marg. " Or, diU "
XXVI, 41, add margin, "Watc)i ye, and pray that ye enter not" ;
and so Mark xiv, 88,
XXVIL 28. " stripped " : Some ancient authorities read " clothed "
Mark.
XIV. 68. " porch " : Gr., " forecourt "
Luke.
IL 19,51. " sayinga ": add raarg. " Or, thinga "
49. restore in marg. "about my Father's business"
VL 35. (A. V.) " hoping for nothing again " (E. L) : " never de
spairing " ; add margin, as a vaiious reading, " de
spairing of no man "
XV, 16, "husks" : Gr,, "pods of tho carob tree". '

604 LIST OF CHANGES.
XVIL 18, "stranger" : "alien"
XX. 16. " God forbid " : Gr., " Be it not so "
John,
II, 19, 20, 21, "temple" : add marg. " Or, sanctuary " ; and so
in other places where vaoe occurs.
VII, 20, 21. " marvel. For this cause hath Moses given " : " mar
vel because of this. Moses hath given "
VIIL 58. " Abraham was " : " was born " : ad. marg, " Gr., was
born "
XL 38. "against it" : add marg. "Or, upon it"
45. " that which " : Many ancient authorities read " the
things which "
XIL 27. "hour" : add marg. "Or, hour?"
XVIII. 12. "chief captain" : add marg. " Or, military tribune ; Gr.,
chUiarch " ; and so elsewhere.
XIX. 23. "coat" : add marg. "Or, tunic"
XX. 17, "Touchmenot" : add marg. " Or, Take not hold on me "
Acts,
II, 23, " lawless men " : add marg, " Or, men without the law "
IIL 13, "Servant" : add maig. "Or, Child," etc.
22. " like unto me " : " as /ic raised up aie" : text in marg,
V. 6, " young ":" younger " ''
VI. 2. "fit" : "pleasing" : marg. "Gr., pleasing" ,
VII. 35. "deliverer",: "redeemer ": marg. "Gr., redeemer"
XIV. 16. "passions " : "nature" ; and so James v. 17.
XVIL 31. "tlie man": "aman"
XVIII. 4. . " persuaded " : pro. " exhorted " : with marg. " Or, strove
to perauade " : ad. marg, " Gr,, sought to persuade "
XXI. 15. "put up our baggage" : "made ready" eta
XXIV. 17. "many" : "some"
18. " amidst which " : add marg, " Or, in presenting whioh "
25, "temperance" : add marg. " Or, self-control " ; and so
Gal. V. 23 ; 2 Pet, i, 6.
Romans.
I. 20. " that they may be" : add raarg, "Or, so that they are"
II. 13. "just" : add marg. " Or, righteous "
"justified" : add marg. " Or, accounted righteous"

LIST OF CHANGES. 605
1 Corinthians.
IX. 26. "fight": Gr., "box"
XV. 2. " in vain " : add marg. " Or, without cause "
2 Corinthians.
V. 17. "he is a new creature" : add marg. "Or, there is a new
creation "
XIL 1. Some ancient authorities read, " Now to glory is not expe
dient, but I will come "
Galatians.
I. 18. " visit " : " become acquainted with "
Ephesians,
I. 4, 5. add marg, "Or, him : having in love foreordained us"
10. " in the heavens " : Gr., " upon " etc,
Philippians.
IL 15. "lights": Gr., " luminaries "
IV. 20, " for ever and ever" : Gr,, " unto the ages of the ages "
1 Thessalo.nians.
IV. 14. add. marg. " Or, will God through Jesus "
1 Timotht.
in, 16, "he who" : Some dncient authorities read "which"
'' Philemon.
4, " thy love, and of the faith " ; " thy love and faith "
Hebrews,
IL 7, 9, add marg, " Or, for a little while lower "
18, Or, "For having been himself tempted in that wherein he
hath suffered "
V. 11. "of whom " : add marg. "Or, of which "
VI, 11. "fulness" : "full assurance" ; and so x. 22.
IX. 15, 17, The Greek word here used signifies both covenant and
testament.

606 LIST OF CHANGES.
IX. 26. "by the sacrifice. of himself" : "by his sacrifice"
X. 11. "priest" : Some ancient authorities read, "high priest"
12. Or, " sins, for ever sat down " :
88. " my righteous one " : Some ancient authorities read, " the
righteous one "
XIII. 7. " life " : Gr., " manner of life "
James.
L 18. "of God" : "from God" : ad. marg. "Gr.,from"
II. 4. " are ye not divided in your own mind " : " do ye not make
distinctions among yourselves "
III. 15. add to margin, "Or, animal" ; and Jude 19.
V. 7. " it receive " : add marg. " Or, he receive "
1 Peter.
I. 28. Or, " God who liveth "
II. 24. "bare our sins . . . upon the tree" : "carried up our
sins . . . upon (to) the tree "
2 Peter.
I. 4, " the divine nature " : " a divine nature "
17. "excellent glory " ¦ "majestic glory "
II. 20, Many ancient authorities read, " our Lord "
1 John,
IIL 2, Or, "it shall be raanifested "
2 John,
8. Many ancient authorities read, "ye have wrought"
Jude.
4. add marg. " Or, the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ "
22. "who are in doubt" : "while they dispute m^/i ^oi* "
Revelation.
VI. 1. Some ancient authorities read, " Come and see." So ver.
3, 6, 7.
8. " death " : add marg. " Or, pestilence "

APPENDIX V.

ADOPTION OF THE EEVISION BY THE
BAPTISTS.
A FEW days atter this book was corapleted an important event took
place — the first formal act of adoption of the Revised Version by an
ecclesiastical body.
The American Baptists, the raost numerous denomination in the
United Statea next to the Methodiata, and the pioneers in the Bible
Revision work, who spent much raoney and labor on a revision of
their own for raore than thirty years, held a Bible Convention in
Saratoga in May, 1883 — the raost widely representative Baptist Conven
tion ever held ; and after a full discussion of the whole subject, came
to the unanimous conclusion to adopt and circulate through their
Publication and Missionary Societies tlie Anglo- Amei-i can Revision,
with the American changes incorporated in the text, together with the
Authorized Version and that of the Baptist "American Bible Union"
(Dr. Conant's), according to the desire of the purchasers and donors.
The scene of rejoicing over this unexpected result of a long and ex
cited contest was reraarkable ; and the assembly which crowded the
church sang "Blessed the tie that binds," and "Praise God from
whom all blessings flow," with an enthusiasm rarely witnessed.
The action was undoubtedly the wisest that could be taken by that
body. Let the three versions be used together in friendly rivalry and
co-operation, until the best will supei-sede the others, or a stUl raore
perfect one will take the place of all. A liberal gentleraan has already
donated to the Baptist Board of Publication electrotype plates of an
Americanized edition of the Revised New Testament of 1881, and
much money has been contributed towards its gratuitous circulation.
It is also extensively used in the pulpits. The Baptists have broken
the ice and showed the way to other denominations. '
The following is the adopting act, as furnished to me on the spot
by the Secretary, the Rev. Dr. Morgan :

608 ADOPTION OF THE EEVISION BY THE BAPTISTS.
" At a meeting of The Baptiat Bible Convention, held in Saratoga,
N. Y., May 22, 23, 1883, at which there were present and voting four
hundred and thirty-six delegates, the following resolution was adopted
unanimously :
" ' Mesolved (4th), That, while in the judgraent of the Convention
the work of revision is not yet completed, whatever organization or
organizations shall be designated as the inost desirable for the prose
cution of Home Bible work among American Baptists should now
circulate the comraonly received version-. The New Revised Version,
with the corrections of tlie American Revisers incorporated in the text,
and the translation of " The Araerican Bible Union," according to de
mand; and that all moneys specially designated for circulation of
either of these versions should be faithfully appropriated in keeping
with the wish of the donor.'
"Attest: Thomas J. Morgan, Secretary,"

ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

A.
Abbot, Dr. Ezra, 84, 101 sq., 103
(note), 191 (note), 241 (note),
252, 260, 366,, 676.
Abbott, T. K., 102.
Adler, 252.
jEthiopic Version, 159 sq.
Aiken, Dr., 575.
.A.leph, Codex. Sce Siuaitic IIS.
Alexander, Dr. W. Lindsay, 384,
572.
Alexander IL, connection with
Sinaitic MS., 103, 108, 261.
Alexandrian or Egyptian text, 273.
Alexandrian MS. (A), 111 sq.
Alford, Dr. Henry, 88, 266 sqq.,
383, 367, 467, 578.
Alter, F. C, 263.
Americau Bible Society, 392.
American Revision Committee,
when and how appointed, 391 ;
constitution, 396 ; relation to
British Committee and Univer
sity Presses, 398 ; share in the
work, 478 ; Appendix, 482 ; list
of members, 575-577 ; list of
changes adopted, 579-606.
American Editions of Revised
New Testament, 371.
American Episcopal Church, en
dorsed King James's Version,
338 ; invited to co-operate with
Revision, 394.
Anderson, Christopher, 299.
Andrewes, Bishop, 820, 332.
39

Angus, Dr., 384, 392, 491,574. -
Anthem, the angelic (Lulic ii. 14),
195.
Apocalypse, style of, 75 sqq.
Apocrypha, revision of, 390.
Apostle, 486.
Apostles and the Greek Language,
16 sq.
Apostolic Greek, 25 sqq.
Archaisms, 342 sq., 456 sqq.
Armenian Version, 163.
Augustin, St., 144, 115.
Authorized Version, 299, 303; ori
gin, 312; instructions to the
translators, 817; reception, 325;
merits, 337 ; English stvle, 343 ;
defects, 847. B.
Bagster's Hexapla, 299.
Bancroft, Bishop, 313 sq., 317,319.
Barker, printer of Authorized Ver
sion, 319, 329.
Bashrauric Version, 159.
Beckett, Sir Edmund, 378, 474.
Bengel, 246 sq., 263.
Bensly, Robert L., 572.
Bentley, Eichard, 244 sqq.
Beza, 237 sqq.
Bezs, Codex (D), 122 sq.
Bible and Christianity, 305.
Bibliographical Works on the
English Bible, 300.
Bickersteth, Dr. E. H., 383, 573.
Birch, 232.
Birrell, Prof., 572.

610

INDEX.

Blackie, on the Greek article, 470,
472.
Blakesley, Dean, 673.
Blayney's Revision, 325.
British Committee, organization
and rules of, 382 sqq.; work
of, 387. sqq  ...
Broughton, Hugh, 291 sq., 826.
Brown, Dr. David, 384, 574.
Browne, Bishop, 383, 571. --
Bruder's Concordance, 3.
Burgon, Dean, 84, 108, 119 sq.,
191,293 sq., 378,425,491.
Burr, Dr., 576.
Buttmann, Alexander, 2.
C.
Cambridge Paragraph Bible, 304.
Canterbury Convocation, action
of, 380 sqq.
Chambers, Dr., 575.
Chance, Frank, 572.
Chase, ProL, 576.
Chenery, Thomas, 384, 572.
Cheyne, Thomas Kelly, 572.
Christ aud the Greek Language,
12 sqq.
Christian Element in New Testa
ment Greek, 39 sqq.
Christian Opinion aud Revision
ist, 379.
Chrysostom, 165, 168.
Codex . Alexandrinus ( A ), 111;
Bezae (D), 122; Claromonta
nus (Dj), 124; Ephrajmi (C),
120; Sinaiticus (x), 103; Vati
canus (B), 113. iSee Manuscripts.
Coins, rendering of, 487 sqq.
CoUnffius, 236,
Complutensian Polvglot, 232 sqq.
Conant, Dr., 299, 575.
Conant, Mrs. H. C, 299 sqq.
Concordances of the Revised Ver
sion, 373 sqq.
Condit, 800.
Convocation of Canterbury, action
on Revision, 380 sqq.

Cook, Canon, 191, 365, 378, 384,
419, 423 sqq,, 491.
Coverdale, 303, 338, 839.
Cremer's Lexicon, 2,
Critical Rules, 202 sqq.
Crooks, Dr., 576.
Crosby, Dr., 343, 576,
Curetonian Syriac, 156,
Cursive Manuscripts, 133 sqq.
D,
Davies, Benjamin, 366, 884, 572,
Davidson, Andrew Bruce, 572.
Davidson, Randall T., 382.
Davidson, Sarauel, 83, 866, 884.
Day, Dr., 893, 575.
Delitzsch, 4, 18.
De Witt, Dr., 576.
Diodati, 3.
Douglas, Principal, 572.
Doxology of the Lord's Praver,
186.
Driver, Samnel R., 572.
Dwight, Dr. Timothy, 483, 376.
E.
Eadie, Dr., 300, 324, 825, 329, 346,
384, 574.
Egyptian Versions, 157 sqq.
EUicott, Bishop, 85,'297, 374, 376,
383, 392, 573.
Elzevir, 240 sq.
English Bible, literature on the
history of the, 299,
English Style of the Authorized
Version, 345 sqq. ; of the Re
vised Version, 455 sqq,
Ephrsemi, Codex, 120 sq.
Erasmus, 229 sqq.
Eusebius, 165, 168.
Evidential Value of the Language
ot the Greek Testament, 80.
Ewald, 297, 312. F.
Faber, F. WilUam, on the Author
ized Version, 346.

INDEX.

611

Fairbairn, Dr., 384, 572.
Farrar, Canon, 65, 85.
Field, Dr,, 375, 334, 572.
Five Anglican Clergymen, 367.
Foreign Words in New Testament,
number and valiie of, 38 sq.
Forshall, 302.
Frv, 301, 302, 808,
Fuller, Thomas, 8 15, 3 16, 328, 330.
G.
Gardiner, F., 84.
Gebhardt, Oscar von, 1, 84, 2 )5.
. Geden, ProL, 572.
Gell, Robert, 327.
Genealogical Method, 208 sqq.
Geneva Bible, 828, 332.
Ginsburg, Dr., 384, 572.
"God" manifested in the flesh,
199.
Godet, Dr., 68.
Goethe, 45, 312.
Gospel, meaning of, 40.
Gotch, Dr., 366, 384, 572.
Gothic Version, 160 sqq.
Greek and English compared,
17 sqq,
Greek Fathers, quotations of,
167 sqq. .
Greek Lahguage, spread of, 4 sqq.
Greek Testament, style of, 43 sqq. ;
evidential value of, 80 sqq.
Greek Text of the Revised Ver-
- slop, 420 sqq.
Green,Dr.WilUaraHonrv,480,575.
Green, Samuel G., 2,393.
Green, Thomas Sheldon, 2, 84.
Gregory, Dr. C. R., 44, 82, 260,
Griesbach, 82, 250 sqq.
Grimm, C. L. W., 2.
Grimm, Jacob, 18.
Guillemard, 4. il.
Hackett, Dr., 576.
Hadlev, Prof., 4, 676.
Hall, Dr. L H., 187 sqq., 497-524.

Hiillam, on the Authorized Ver
sion, 345.
Hararaond, 84.
Harapton Court Conference, 312
sqq.
Hare, Dr., 575.
Harrison, Archdeacon, 571,
Hebraisras in the New Testament,
27 sqq.
Hellenistic Dialect, 22 sq.
Hervey, Bishop, 38,3, 671.
Hitchcock, Dr., Editor of Revised
Version, 372. '
Hobart, on the Medical Language
of Luke, 54.
Hodge, Dr. Charles, 576.
Holtzmann, 44.
Hort, 120, 123, 183, 194, 268,
280, 384, 574. Hec Westcott
and Hort.
Hudson's Concordance, 3.
Hug, 3, 11, 251, 258.
Humphry, 377, 384, 491, 674.

Itala, 144 sqq.

James, King, 312 sqq.
James's Version. >&c Authorized
Version.
Jebb, Canon, 572.
Jerorae, 1, 148 .sq., 170 and passim.
Jerusalem Chamber, 388 sq.
Jerusalem Syriac, 157.
Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judasorum,
4 sqq.
Jews and the Greek Language,
8 sqq. ¦ . .
John, style of, 66 sqq.
Josephus, 11, ' ' ¦
K.
K,iy, Dr., 578.
Keira, 67.
Kendrick, Dr., 677.
Kennedv, Dr., 376, 384, 574.

612

INDEX.-

Krauth, Dr., 573.
Kuenen, 83,
Kiister, 244,

Lachmann, 1, 82, 254 sqq.
Lange's Commentary, 866 (note).
Latin Fathers, quotations of, 169
sq.
Latinisms, 85 sqq.
Latin Versions, 144 sqq.
Law and the law, 472,
Leary, 378.
Leathes, 384, 572.
Lee, Archdeacon, 884, 674.
Lee, Bishop,376, 479,677,579-606.
Leo Judse, 323.
Lewis, Dr. Tayler, 675.
Lightfoot, Bishop, 331, 373, 384,
487, 673.
Lightfoot, John, 326.
Lincoln, Bishop of. See Words
worth,
Loftie, 301.
London Times, 367.
Luke, style of, 54 sqq,
Lumby, Dr., 672,
Liinemann, 1.
Luther, 323. M.
Macedonian Dialect, 19 sqq.
MoClell.an, John Brown, 366,
McGill, Prof., 672,
Madden, 302,
Malan, S, C, 379.
Manuscripts, Uncial, 82 sqq. ;
specimens' of, 91, sq.; descrip
tion of, 93 sqq.; Cursive, 133
sqq,
Mark, style of, 61, sqq. ; last
versea of, 189 sq. '
Marsh, Dr. G. P., 845.
Martin, Gregory, 326,
MattliBci, 232.
Matthew, style of, 46 sqq.
Matthew's Biblc, 303.

McGill, 384, 572.
Mead, Dr., 480, 678.
Medical Vocabulary of Luke, 54.
Memphitic Veraion,158,
Merivale, Dean, 573,
Merrill, 84.
Middleton, on the Greek article,
472,
Mill, 244.
Milligan, 375, 384, 674,
Mitchell, 84.
Moberiy, Bishop, 383, 573,
Moldenhawer, 262,
Mombert, Dr., 300,
Montfortianus, Codex, 136,
Moon, G, Washington, 378.
Moulton, Dr. W. F., 1, 300, 339,
384, 470, 574. N.
Nautical Vocabulary of Luke, 60
sq.
Neutral Text, 275 sqq,
Newman, Cardinal, 384.
Newth, Dr., 375, 384, 674.
Nicholson, Edward Byron, 376.
Nicolson, VV. MiUar, 873.
Norton, Andrews,.366.
Noyes, G, R,, 366. 0,
O'Callaghan, 301, 329 (note).
Ollivant, 383, 57L
Origen, 164, 165, 168 and passim.
Osborne, 377.
Osgood, Dr., 575,
Overall, 320.
Oxford and Cambridge University
Editions of Revised NewTesta-
ment, 871,

Packard, Dr., 675.
Palmer, Archdeacon, 86, 285, 297,
876, 674.
Papias, 51.
Patristic Quotations, 164 sqq.

INDEX.

613

Paul, style of, 62 sqq.
Peculiarities of style of New Tes-
'. tainent writers, 48 sqq.
Penny, 487 sqq,
Peshito Version, 152 sqq.
Perowne, 384, 571,
Pfannkuche, 3.
Philoxenian or Harclean Version,
154,
Pluraptre, 384, 571.
Porter, J. Scott, 83,
Pressense, 66.
Public Opinion, 879.
Pusey, 384.
Printed Text of the Greek Testa
ment, history of, 225 sqq.
R.
Renan, on Luke, 64 ; on Paul, 66.
Reuss, 4, 84,
Eevision, preparations for, 364 ;
booka on, 374; publication,
403; criticised, 411 sqq.
Eeynolds, Dr., 313 sqq., 320.
Eiddle, Dr., 365, 577.
Roberts, Alexander, 4, 375, 384,
574.
Robertson,F. W., 311.
Robinson, Edward, 2.
Ronsch, 144.
Rose, Archdeacon, 571.
Eossanensis Codex, 131 sq.
Eossi, G. Bern, de, 3.
Eules, critical, 202 sqq. ; of Au
thorized Version, 317; of Ee
vised Version, 382, 883.

Saint, in the titles, 484.
Samson, 379.
Sanday, 86.
Saravia, 320,
Sayce, Prof,, 572,
Schaff, Dr., 375, 393, 577.
Schirlitz, 2.
Scholz, 82, 253 sq.
Scott, Dean, 384, 573.

Scrivener, Dr., 83, 96, 104, 120,
192, 282 sqq., 804, 321, 324,
325, 384, 390, 419, 423, 574.
Scrivener and Palmer, 282 sqq.
Selden, John, on the Authorized
Vei'sion, 322.
Selwyn, W., 369, 572.
Semler, 249.
Selborne, Lord,' 337; letter on
Authorized Version, 336.
Septuagint, 23 sqq.
Shea, 301.
Short, Dr., 376, 397, 576.
Sinaitic MS., 103 sqq., 425 sqq.
See Tischendorf.
Smith, Dr. Henry Boynton, 577.
Smith, George Vance, Prof., 574.
Smith, Miles, Bishop, 321, 323,
359.
Smith, Eobert Payne, Dean, 384,
571.
Smith, W. Robertson, Prof., 573.
Stanley, Dean, 383, 389, 573.
Stephanus (Stephens), 236 sq.
Stoughton, John, 300, 347.
Stowe, Dr., 676.
Strong, Dr., 576.
Stunica, 233.
Syriac Versions, 152 sqq.
Syrian aud Antiochian Text, 271
sqq.

Tavorner'a Bible, 308,
Text, sources of the New Testa
raent, 85 sqq. ; of the Revision,
420 sqq.
Textual Criticism, 171 sqq.
Textus Eeceptus, 205 sq., 228 sqq.
Thayer, Dr., 1, 2, 576.
Thebaic Version, 159.
ThirlwaU, Bishop, 382, 571.
Thoras, Concordance of the Ee
vised Version, 373 sq,
Thorpe, 301.
Tischendorf, 1, 82, 84, 103 sqq.,
IOS sqq., 257 sqq., 265.

614

INDEX,

TregeUes, 1, 82, 83, 122, 256,262
sqq., 265, 574.
Trench, Archbishop, 39, 42, 327,
345, 374 sq., 573.
Troutbeck, Canon, 574.
Tyler, W. S., 470, 472, 492,
Tyndale, 290, 302, 338.
U.
UlphUas, 160.
Uncial MSS., 98 sqq.; list of,
139 sq. ; priraary, 102 ; second
ary, 124,
University Presses, agreement
with, 398, V.
Van Dyck, Dr., 576.
Variations, Classes of, 1 83 sqq. ;
origin of, 173 sqq. ; in tlic R. V.,
473 sqq.
Vatican MS., 113 sqq., 425 sqq.
Vaughan, Dr., 376, 384, 574.
"Vercellone, 117, 161.
Versions, value of, 142 sqq. ;
iEthiopic, 159 sqq. ; Armenian,
163; Gothic, 160 sqq.; Latin,
144 sqq. ; Old Egyptian or
Coptic, 1 57 sqq. ; Syriac,152 sqq.
Vulgate, Latin, 148 sqq.
W.
Walton's Polvglot, 241 sqq.
Warfield, Benjamin B., 85, 208
sqq., 280.
Warren, Dr. W, F,, 577.
Washburn, Dr,, 577.

Wayland, 311.
Weir, Prof., 573.
Weiss, Bernhard, on the style of
John, 68.
Wendell, Rufus,' 872,
Wetstein, 82, 247 aqq,
Westcott, 4, 44, 71, 84, 291, 384,
574. Sce Westcott aud Hort. .
Westcott and Hort, 1, 83, 118, 268
sqq., 279 sq.
Western Text, 274 sqq.
Wiclif, 289.
Wigram, 3. . ,
Wilberforce, Bishop, 381, 385, 894,
673.
Winer's Gramraar, 1, 470, and
passim.
Witnesses, Three Heavenly, pas
sage on the, 136 sqq., 192.
Woolsey, Dr., 398, 478, 576.
Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln,
310,834,476,476,571.
Wordsworth, Bishop of St. An
drews, «84, 573.
Wright, Williara, ProL, 673.
Wright, AV. Aldis, 884, 573.
'Woman Taken in Adulteryj sec
tion of, 188 sq. ¦

Ximenes, Cardinal, 232.

Young, Robert, 378. Z.
I Zezschwitz, G, von, 4,

SCRIPTURE PASSAGES EXPLAINED.

Page
M.itt. i. 18, 434
" i. 20, 435
" i. 22, 357,485
" i. 23, 485
" i. 25, 428
" ii. 2, 355,485
" ii.4, 351
" ii.6,17, 23, 357
" ii. 6, 435
" ii, 11, 433
" ii. 16, 17, 436
" ii. 18, 428
" iii. 3, 357,436
" iii. 4, -436
" iii. 6, 436
" iii, 7, 436
" iii. 11, 436
" iii, 12, 437
" iii, 13, 437
" iii, 15, 487
" iii,17, 437
" iv, 14, • 857
« iv.21, 22, 4.37
" V. 10, 855
" V. 18, 342
" V. 15, 4.37
" V, 21, 438
" V. 35, 467
" V.44, 428
" vi.2, 5, 438
" vi, 9-13, 438
" vi. 12, • 478
" vi,13,184sq,,464
" vi. 25, 442
" vi. 26, 474
" vn, 6, 471

Page

Page

Matt, viii. 20,

.471

Mark

XV. 34,

14

" ix. 17,

241

it

xvi. 9-20,

" x,4,
432
189 sq
,431
" xi. 23,
442
" xiii. 37-39,
468
Luke
i. 6, 59,
336
" xiv. 8, "
442
.(
i. 28,
430
" XV, 24,
355
((
ii. 2,
444
" XV. '27,
442
u
ii. 14, 195 sq..
" xvi. 13,
442
857, 482
" xvi. 15,
342
u
ii. 49,
444
" xvi. 26,
442
i(
iii. 23,
444
" .xi.x. 17,
431
u
vii. 2,
444
" XX. 16,
428
ii
vn. 6,
356
" xxi. 41, 47
443
u
viii. 23,
356
" xxii. 1-14,
363
'((
xiv. 34,
342
" xxii. 37,
49
1(
xvi. 8,
337
" xxiii. 24,
443
((
xviii. 3, 13,
336
" xxv. 8, 3.^5
,443
u
.\x. 16,
.342
" XXV.46, 861,443
u
xxii. 59,
13
" xxvi. 28,
443
"
xxiii. 0,
13
" xxvi. 73,
13
((
xxiii. 15,
444
" xxvn. 3,
364
"
xxiii. 38,
428
" xxvii. 46,
14
u
xxiii. 42,
357
" xxviii. 19,
337,
432
John 11
i, 16,
i.l8, 193
356
sqq..
Mark i. 2, 202
432
432
" Ui. 17,
13
ll
iii. 33, 34,
356
" iii. 18,
431
11
iv. 9,
. 13
" iii. 29,
432
11
v,3,4, 187 sq..
" v. 41,
14
430
" vii, 34,
14
It
V. 35,
444
" vui. 27, 29,
342
tt
V 39,
444
" ix. 50,
342
"
vi. 17,
356
" i. 51,
13
11
vi. 57,
357
" xiv. 70,
13
tl
vi, 65,
365
616

SCEIPTUEE PASSAGES EXPLAINED.

Page

Page

Page
John
vii. 49,
342
Rora.
vi. 2, 15, 342
Col.
i. 6,
433
i(
vii. 52,
13
"
vi. 11, 357
11
ii, 20,
365
((
vii. 53-viii. 188 sq
11,
,431
It
vi. 17, 451
vii. 6, 356
It
ill. 1, 3,
355
i(
viii. 52,
356
11
vii. 7, 13, 342
1 ThcsE
. iv. 1,
433
t(
viii, 58,
445
"
viii, 1, 2, 357,
iv. 15,
467
tt
X, 16,
446
429
tt
xiii, 2,
446
.tf
ix,l, 867
1 Tim
iii. 16, 199,483
((
xiv. 16, 26,
362,
tl
ix, 1, 11, 842
It
V.4,
454
446
It
xi. 2, 357
tl
vi. 5j
vi,10,35
454
"
XV. 26,
362
fi
Xli. 15, 362
tl
2,4,54
t(
xvi. 7,
362
i.
xii. 2, 341,451
"¦
xvii. 24,
467
"
xiii. 2, 451
Heb.
ii, 16,36
5,4.54
(t
XX. 31,
351
"
xiv, 14, 857
tt
ix. 27,
454
1
11
XV, 17, 357
tt
xi. 13,
454
Acts
ii. 3,
446
"
xi. 19,
467
11
ii,31.
446
ICor
iv, 4, 4'52
((
xii. 13,
467
"
ii. 47,
446
(t
iv. 8, 842
"
iii. 19, 20,
447
"
vi. 15, 842
Jas.
iv, 12,
434
11
iii. 21,
447
tf
vii. 5, 357
It
iv. 27,
433
«
xi. 24, 429
iPet.
ii. 2,
434
"
viii, 10,
433
"
xi. 29, 452
(t
ii. 12,
367
ft
viii, 37, 191 sq.,
({
xii.3,9,13,357
t(
iii. 16,
357
431
tc
xii. 13, 355
t(
iii. 21,
454
11
ix. 5, 6,
428
xii. 8-10, 468
It
xii. 4,
362
"
xiii. 1-13, 452
2 Pet.
i. .6-7,
357
"
xvi. 14,
15
tt
i.7,
467
11
xvi. 17,
483
2 Cor.
iv. 8, 355, 452
11
xvii, 22,
447
tt
V. 14, 356
1 John
ii. 1,
362
11
XX, 4,
433
ft
V. 18, 19, 362
(1
ii. 23,
483
"
XX. 28, 197,361,
tc
V. 20, 358
"
iii. 1,
434
447
((
v.7,8, 192 sq.,
x.xvi, 28,
341
Gal. t(
i. 1, 351
1,13,23, 356
429
Rom
i. 1, 3,
ii. 12,
351356
t(
ii. 17, 342
ii. 19, 365
Judo
25,
434
11
iii. 4, 6, 31,
342
((
ii. 20, 355,
Rev.
i. 8, 430
,434
"
iii. 23,
356
338, 453
"
i. 11,
430
11
iii. 25,
449
tt
iv. 18,357,453
((
iii. 2,
434
It
V. 1, 197, 433
(t
vi. 11, 453
"
V. 8,
474
11
v.ll.
362
((
¦vi. 6-9,
453
11
V. 12,
449
Phil.
i. 1, 361
(t
viii. 7,
434
ti
V. 15-18,
449,
It
ii. 6, 7, 463
tt
xii. 2,
355
460
.11
ii. 10, 454
it
xiv. 1,
434
tt
vi. 2, 7, 8,
355,
tt
iii. 20, 454
tt
xvii, 8,202,433
451
tt
iii. 21, 454
tt
XX. 14,
434
Tie New TestaiDt in fc Oriiial W.
The New Testament in the Original Greek. The Text Re
vised by Brooke Foss "Westcott, D,D., Regius Professor
of Divinity, Canon of Peterborough; and F. J. A. Hoet,
D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge. American Edition. "With an Introduc
tion by Philip Schaff, D.D. , LL.D. Two Volumes, VoL
L Text. Vol. II. Introduction and Appendix. Post Svo,
Cloth, $2 00 each.
It is the resnlt of the best scholarship of a day wliich has reached a meas
ure of exact knowledge of the Greek, and of the New Testament dialect
and times, never reached before. * • * Every preacher of the Gospel owes it
to his Master, eveu much more thau to himself, to master this latest contri
bution to an exact and thoroughly defensible knowledge of what the Word
of God actually teaches. — Congregationalist, Bostou.
A text over whose formatiou learning and irapartial candor have pre
sided, and to which the Biblical student may give implicit trast.— Church
man, N. Y.
We say to all ministera and students who wish to search the New Testa
ment oracles of God iu their original language, get Westcott and Hort.—
Christian Advocate, N. T.
We regard this edition ofthe Greek Testament as snperseding all others
hitherto published.— .Episcopal Register, Philadelphia.
The best aud flnest text of the Greek Testament. * * * Dr. Schaft-'s intro-
dactiou condenses into seventy or eighty pages, with astonishing clearness,
all the latest results of Biblical investigation and criticism. — jV, F. World.
A trustworthy edition of the Greek Testament, which could be accepted
by ministers generally as practically flnal, has been a great desideratum,
and this need seems to us to be well supplied by the edition before ns.
* * * The present is by far the purest and best edition of the Greek Testa
ment in existence. — Christian Union, N. T.
Should be iu the hands of all who criticise the present English transla
tion of the New Testament.— Cftrisfion Observer, Louisville.
Revisei GreetEiiiM New Testament.
Revised Greek-English New Testament. Being "W"estcott &
Hort's, Revised Text op the New Testament in the
Original Grees, and the RE-yisED English Version op
the New Testament, printed on opposite pages. Crown
Svo, Half Leather, $3 50.

Pl-BLiSHEK BY HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.
'" Sent by inail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on
receipt- of the price.

THE REVISED VERSION
OP
THE NEW TESTAMENT OP
OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR
JESUS CHRIST
TRANSLATED OUT OF THE GREEK:
Being tlie Version set forth A.B. 1611, com/pared irith the moit
Ancient Authorities and Revised A.B. 1881.
HAEPEE'S AMEEICAN EDITIONS.
I. Prankiin Square Library, 4to, Brevier, 20 cents.
II. Brevier, 16mo, Black Cloth, 45 cents ; Pull Leather, Flexi
ble, wjth Gilt Edges, 90 cents.
III. Brevier, ISmo, Cloth, 60 cents,
IV, Pica, Svo, Cloth, $3 00.
"V", Pica, Svo, Divinity Circuit, Full Morocco, Flexible, with
Flaps, $7 ao.
In Harper's Editions of the Eevised Version of the New Testament, the
Jteadings and Renderings preferred by the Ameiican Revisers (which were
consigned to an Appendix by the English Committee) ave placed as foot
notes—thus facilitating reference and comparison. All Harper's Editions
bave marginal notes.
Reyision of tlie Englisli Version of the New Testament,
THE REVISION OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE
NE"W TESTAMENT. "With an Introduction by the Rev,
Philip Schapp, D.D., LL.D, 61S pages, Crown Svo, Cloth,
t3 00.
This work embraces in one volume :
1. ON A FRESH EEVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTA
MENT. By J. B. LimiTFOOT, D.D, Second Edition, Eevised.
2. ON THE AUTHORIZED VEESION OP THE NEW TESTA
MENT, iu Connection with some Recent Proposals fur its Eevision.
By EiOHAitD CuENKVix Tbrhou, D.D., Archbishop of Dnl)lin.
3. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE EEVISION OP THE ENGLISH
VERSION OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. By J. C. Ellioott, D.D.

Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.
= Salt by mail, postage pi-epaid, to any pari of the United States, on
receipt of the pi-ice,

THE CBEEDS OF CMSTEIOM.

Bibliotlieca Symh^^lca Ecclesim XTniter salis. The Creeds of
Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes. By the
Rev. Philip Schapp, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblical
Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y. Three
Volumes. Vpl. L The History of Creeds. Vol. II. The
Greek and Latin Greeds, with Translations. Vol. III. The
Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, Svo,
Cloth, $15 00,
No worlj from the pen of Dr. Schaff needs commendation. His reputa
tion for ability, learning, aud accuracy is thoroughly established. The work
consists of three large octavo volumes, elegantly priuted. The flrst contains
the history, analysis, and critical judgment of the creeds of the great histor
ical churches. The second aud third volumes contain the creeds themselves.
Every theologian needs to have access to the authentic and acknowledged
doctrines of the great bodies iuto whioh Cliristendom has been divided.
Familiarity with these diflTerent phases of belief enlarges and, within due
bounds, liberalizes the mind, by showing that " the precious faith of God's
elect " underlies all these great historical symbols,- Eev. Cujibi.es Houob,
D.D., LL.D., Princeton, A'. J,
These volumes appear to me immensely valuable. Wherever I have
dipped I have found the author's statements carefully and accurately made.
They will help ns very much in our lectures in the university. — Eev. C. A.
Swainson, D.D., Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, England.
There is nothing like it in comprehensiveness of plan and execution in
the English language. It contains matter which it would be very difficult
even for the professional scholar to find elsewhere, and places withiu reach
of the ordinary reader immense stores of infonnation, which, so far as I
know, are alone to be seen gathered together in this treasure-house of
learning and painstaking research.— The Kt. Eev. Geokqe F. Seymode, D.D,,
Bishop of Springfield.
No work has appeared for years of more importance than this. It is a
history of the Church expressed in its most vital form— the doctrinal. The
life-blood of the Cburch flowf through the channel of creed. * " • It was a
wise thought to bring tliese ^liths together, to see wherein they agree and
wherein they differ, to fiud oiit what must be eliminated to bring about a
universal consensus of Christendom, and what mnst be retained to make this
cmsensus Christian. Dr. Schafi' has done the Church and the world his
best service in making thia collection. Here, at last, are gathered the mate
rials for a ti'ue comparative theology.— CArisfe'on Advocate, N.T. .

The Creeds of Ohristendom.

After a careful reading of these volumes, we have come to the couclusiou
that no work of greater interest aud importance for the study of theology
has issued from the press iu our generation. . Dr. Schafi' has, by his thor
ough, careful, and discriminating "History ofthe Creeds of Christendom,"
fllled a blank in our theological literature, and conferred a priceless boon
on all students of theology, — Daily Review, Edinburgh.
A better apparatus for studying the "symbols " of Christendom no reader
cau desire. * * " Never was there so complete a collection. The work is
unique, and everything has been done by skilful arrangement, by schol
arship, by notes and indexes, to make it available and helpful both for
scholars and for ordinary readers. — British and Foreign Quarterly Review,
London. We cordially commend the compiler's workmanship. His notices of the
times and authors of the creeds, as well as of the circumstances in which they
originated, are accurate and good. * • • The work before us fllls a blank
in ecclesiastical literatme.— Athenceum, London,
This is the most elaborate and complete work of its kind in the En
glish language, and as such deserves careful attention at the hands of all
who call themselves Christians, • * * Dr. Schaff has given not only the full
est and most complete account of the various confeBsious of faith, but also
oue of the most reliable as well as the most readable, * * * His tone is
manly, and his words of praise are freely and happily expressed,— Cftwcc/i-
man, N. Y.
The flrst volume is really a doctrinal history of the Church, so far as doc
trine has taken shape in dogma, and will be found not only extremely help
ful in regard to past centuries, but especially valuable for the minuteness
aud exactness ofits later chapters- We should uot know where else to go
to flnd many of the details, for example, which are given here with regard
to the Old Catholic and Eeformed Episcopal movements, and those later
Eomanist developments connected with the Vatican Council of 1810. It is
an important feature of this work that it is so full and so late iu Its details
iu these respects— extending eveu to the pointing out of articles in magazines
aud reviews, shedding light upon questions at issue  Dr, Dexteb, iu The
Congregationalist, Boston.
The book is a most complete work of reference to a vast and various lit
erature. We know not whether to admire most the great erudition and
wide theological learning, the sound judgment, or the faculty of compressed
exposition which has reduced that heap of material into an orderly whole.
Nothing of importance is left out, the narrative flows on clear aud lucid,
moving with swift precision to its destined end.— Scotsman, Edinburgh.

Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.
" Sent by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on
receipt of the price.