COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT BY Alexander Roberts D.D., With Explanations OF THE Appendix. RvaMe7nher of ike American Comnilftee. tW^^M^m :tr:^i' ^7* ■m & M a- Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/companiontorevisedOOroberich COMPA NION TO THE RevisedVersion OF THE New Testament, EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGES MADE ON THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. BY alex./r obe rts, d.d, PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY, ST. ANDREW's, AND MEMBER OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY. WITH SUPPLEME.VT, BY A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. AUTHORIZED EDITION. NEW YORK : CASSELL, PETTER, GALPIN & CO. Copyright, iSSi, Cy I. K. Funk & Co. and O. M. Dunham. PRESS OF J. J. LITTLE «. CO., KOS. 10 TO 20 ASTOR PLACE, NEW VORK. As CONTENTS. \t^} PART I. N ^(o CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TEXT, CHAP. PAGE I. Various Readings in the New Testament i II. Sources of Various Readings in the New Testament 16 III. History and Character of the Greek Text on which the Authorised Version was founded 34 IV. Examples of Minor Changes caused by a Change of Text 46 V. More Important Changes due to a Change of Text 60 PART II. CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TRANSLATION. I. Correction of Mistakes in the Meaning of Greek Words 75 II. Correction of Mistakes in Greek Grammar 89 III. Correction of Archaisms, Ambiguities, and the Rendering of Proper Names and Technical Expressions 105 IV. Correction of the Unnecessary Confounding of one Greek Word with another in Translation 118 V. Correction of Needless Variations in the Translation of the same Greek words 135 iv;i278479 iv Contents. PART III. THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REVISION. By an American Reviser. PAGE I. The English Version of i6i 1 154 II. The Canterbury Revision of 1870 162 III. American Co-operation 165 IV. Constitution of the American Committee 168 V. Relation of the American and English Committees. 170 VI. The American Part in the Joint Work 175 VII. Some American Suggestions adopted 181 VIII. The Points of Agreement 188 IX. The American Appendix ig2 X. Points of Variation 194 T. Titles and Headings of Books 194 2. Archaic Forms 196 3. Rendering of Terms denoting Coins 199 4. More Accurate Renderings 202 Conclusion 204 Index of Texts 207 PREFACE. — ♦ The object of this little work is to explain to the English reader the general grounds of those many departures from the Authorised Version which he will find in the Revised translation. Not one of these alterations has been made without what ap- peared to a majority of the Revisers an adequate reason. They are all to be traced to one or other of two causes— either to a change of the Greek text which it was found necessary to adopt, or to a change of translation which stricter fidelity to the original seemed to require. Under these two heads, all necessary explanations (so far as space permitted), will be found in the following pages. For the sake of those who are acquainted with the original, the Greek words referred to have been some- times given at the bottom of the page, but the text will be perfectly intelligible without these to the Eng- lish reader. It is scarcely needful to add that for what is here Avritten the author alone is responsible. S^. Andrews. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Dr. Roberts, a member of the English Commit- tee of Revision, has prepared a " Companion to the Revised Version of the English New Testament." This is an instructive and useful explanation of the departures from the Authorized Version, but is silent about the American Appendix and the relation of the American Committee to the whole work. It is therefore desirable to supply this defect by such additional information as can be published, without a breach of confidence, in the interest of both Com- mittees, which have so far harmoniously and success- fully completed their joint task. The writer has been urged to prepare this pam.phlet by a number of friends and fellow- revisers, but is alone responsible for the opinions expressed, and disclaims any official authority. The New Testa- ment Company has adjourned sine die, and is not likely to convene again unless a special emergency should call them together. An official history of the whole movement cannot be issued until the Revision of the Old Testament is completed. New York, May, 1881. PART I. CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TEXT. COMPANION TO THE CHAPTER I. VARIOUS READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. The number of various readings in the New Testa- ment has been differently estimated at different times. Nor could this have been otherwise. Every new manuscript which is discovered increases the amount, and every more accurate examination of already known manuscripts tends to the same result. Hence, while the varieties of reading in the New Testament were reckoned at about 30,000 in the last century, they are generally referred to as amounting to no less than 150,000 at the present day. This is a statement which is apt at first to be felt alarming by those unacquainted with the science of Biblical criticism. They are naturally disposed to ask — When so many differences of reading exist, must not the sacred text be very uncertain? But, B 2 Ccmpantoti to the Revised VersioJi of happily, this is a question which can be very easily and satisfactorily answered. For, in the first place, the vast majority of the various readings are of no practical importance. Multitudes of them are mere errors in spelling into which the writer has fallen, either from his ear having deceived him if he wrote from dictation, or his eye having mistaken one letter for another in the manu- script which lay before him. Others consist of the substitution of one synonymous word for another, or of a mere change of order without any appreciable distinction of sense. As in English the meaning is the same, whether we say, " He went forth," or " He went out," " Let us go on," or '' Let us proceed," " The enemy escaped," or " The enemy made their escape," so is it very frequently in the Greek. And, just as it makes no difference in our language, whether we say *' Paul the Apostle," or " The Apostle Paul," " The poet Milton," or " Milton the poet," so too is it with a large number of those variations which occur in the text of the New Testament. But, in the second place, so far from the immense variety of readings which have been collected giving rise to uncertainty, the very fact that we possess these constitutes our best hope of being able to approach to certainty with respect to the original text. This may appear a paradoxical statement, but it admits of The Englhh Nav Testament, 3 easy demonstration. For, let us refer to any of those ancient writings, in the printed text of which tliere exist no various readings. Are such texts trustworthy and pure ? Nay, the very opposite is the case ; they are all hopelessly corrupt, and the reason is evident. There are no varieties of reading, simply because these works have come down to us in a single manuscript only. That manuscript is the sole authority to which appeal can be made as to their text. And, of course, if every printed edition is taken from that, without conjecture venturing to make any changes, all the copies will be exactly alike. But nothinjT could be more calamitous to an ancient author than such a circumstance. His w^ork having been transcribed so often, in the course of many centuries, has, of necessity, become disfigured w^ith numerous errors. And, as it survives in only one manuscript, there is no possibility of comparison, and no means of correction, except by the arbitrary process of conjecture, which will always vary with different minds. The consequence is, that all sorts of guesses are made by editors as to the true text of these unfortunate writings. While there are, for the reason stated, no various readings, there is the utmost variety of conjectures. Every one feels that the existing text is in multitudes of passages corrupt, and from want of documentary evidence has B 2 4 Cofnpanion to the Revised Fers'on of no resource but to proceed to correct it just as his caprice or judgment may suggest. How different does the case stand in regard to the New Testament ! No miracle has been wrought to preserve its text as it came from the pens of the inspired writers. That would have been a thing altogether out of harmony with God's method of governing the world. The manuscripts containing a record of the divine will have been left, like others, to suffer from those causes of error which will presently be mentioned. But a gracious providence has, nevertheless, been exerted in connection with the text of the New Testament. It has been so ordered that vastly more copies of the sacred volume have come down to us in manuscript than of any other ancient writing. We learn from the best authorities on the subject that no fewer than 1,760 manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in parts, are known to scholars in our day.* The most important of these will be afterwards described. But it is enough at present simply to note the existence of such a wealth of material, in order to feel how abundant is the means with which it has pleased God to furnish us for ascertaining, through careful exami- nation and comparison, the true text of the New Testament. • Scrivener's Introduction, 2nd ed., p. 269. The English New Testa me ? it. 5 We may now proceed to a consideration of the causes which have given rise to the vast variety of readings that has been mentioned. These causes may perhaps all be embraced under one or other of the following heads. First, there are those differences of reading which have sprung/;-^;;/ ////r mistake. As universal experience has proved, nothing is more difficult than to get any large amount of mere copying work done with absolute correctness. The transcriber may be careless or incompetent, and then, of course, his work will be badly done. No doubt this has given rise to not a few of the mistakes which appear in manuscripts of the New Testament. Some of the copyists knew very little of what tliey were doing, while others disliked the drudgery; and so, from ignorance or weariness, they fell into error. But even the most skilful and patient of them might easily go astray in the work of transcription. One word might be mistaken for another. This is often found even in printed books at the present day. It is need- less to quote examples, as all are familiar with them.* But much more liable to this kind of error were * A long list of mistakes which have occurred in the printing of some editions of the Scriptures is given by Dr. Eadie — The English Bible, II. 318. Among them are such as these— " en lice J in every- thing," for "enriched in everything" ''leadeth them not," for " ieadeth them out ; " " eject/' for " elect," ike. 6 Coinpaiiton to the Revised Version of transcribers than printers. We find, accordingly, numerous examples of various readings due to such mistakes. It is, for instance, owing to tliis that we read in the Authorised English Version, at i Tim. i. 4, these words, "rather than godly edifying which is in faith," instead of "rather than a dispensation of God which is in faith," as in the Revised Version. There is in Greek only the difference of a single letter between the word meaning " edification," and the word meaning " dispensation,"* so that copyists readily mistook the one for the other. Sometimes a mistake of this kind has taken place without any efiect upon the sense, as at Mark v. 14, where the change made in the Greek textf has led to no change in the Revised Version. Again, transcribers were frequently betrayed into error by those words of like ending which occurred in the manuscripts. An illustration in English may be found at Matt. v. 8, 9. Both these verses end \vith the word " God," and it is easy to imagine that the eye of a copyist might light on that word at the end of verse 9 instead of verse 8, and thus, after tran- scribing the one verse, be led to omit the next following. This has been a very fruitful cause of omission in even the best Greek manuscripts. Thus, • The two Greek words are otKodoiilau and oiKoi/ofiiav. f airijyyeav is now read instead of affj-yyeiKau. The English New Testament. 7 in perhaps the veiy oldest copy of the New Testa- ment which we possess — Codex B, to be afterwards described — we find that the whole of the verse, Matt, xii. 47, has been left out. And the reason is quite obvious. Both verse 46 and verse 47 end with the same Greek word.* The copyist looking up at his exemplar, after having written verse 46, had his eye attracted by the word at the end of verse 47, and, fancying that he had just transcribed that verse, was led to pass it over altogedier. There can be no question that this is the reason why the second clause in I John ii. 23, is omitted in several manuscripts, so as to stand marked in the Authorised Version of doubtful authority. The three last words of both the first and second clauses are exactly the same in Greek ; and hence the second clause had been over- looked by some transcribers. There is now no hesitation among Biblical scholars as to the genuine- ness of the clause; and it consequently stands unchallenged — a weighty doctrinal utterance— in the Revised Version. Further, mere glosses, doxologies, or liturgical formularies, written on the margin of manuscripts, were sometimes inadvertently introduced by tran- scribers into the text. Thus, an unwarranted ex- planation has been admitted at John v. 3, 4; the * Both verses end with KaXTiaai. 8 Cotnpanioti to the Revised Version of omission of which in the Revised Version, on good grounds of evidence, relieves the passage of an obvious difficulty. The doxology of the Lord's prayer, Matt, vi. 13, which seems to have been quite unknown to the early Fathers of the Church, probably crept into the text from the margin in like manner. And there can hardly be a doubt that the ecclesiastical foi'mtda, Acts viii. 37, found in many manuscripts, but certainly not genuine, owed its place to a similar mistake. Nothing could be more natural than that additions from the margin — explanatory, doxological, or rubrical — should occasionally fmd their way into the body of some of the manuscripts, while yet the mass of authorities remained uncorrupted, and still enable us at the present day to discover for ourselves the original text. Once more, under this head, error would some- times arise from the unconscious working of the mind of the copyist on the passage before him. Few tran- scribers could act the part of mere machines. Their minds accompanied their pens : they thought about what they were doing ; and this sometimes proved fatal to the perfect accuracy of their work. Supple- mentary expressions, due to the exercise of their own mental powers, slipped in without their perceiving it Thus at Matt, xviii. 28, the true reading is simply, ** Pay what thou owesfc," but it was most natural for a The English Nen^ Testament. 9 copyist to insert a pronoun, so as to read as in the text represented by the Authorised Version, " Pay me what thou owest." Thus, again, the reading of the Revised Version at Luke xxiv. 53 is, " were con- tinually in the temple, blessing God," but in not a few manuscripts we find, " praising and blessing God." There is no reason, in such cases, to imagine that the variation arose from design on the part of the tran- scribers. They were men and not machines, and sometimes, all unconsciously, left the impress of their own thoughts upon their work. Judging by constant experience, nothing is more certain than that unin- tended supplements would, in this way, be made to the text; and, unless he were constantly on the watch, there was even all the more risk that a transcriber would thus be led to deviate from correctness the farther he rose above a mere piece of mechanism, and executed his work with interest and intelligence. Hitherto we have been dealing with errors due to pure accident — errors with which the will of the copyists had nothing to do, and from which, we may believe, they would have gladly kept free if they could. But we have now tj notice — Secondly, those differences of reading which have arisen /r^;;/ intention on the part of the transcribers. Unusual expressions were altered. A transcriber meeting with an uncommon word or an ungrammati- 10 Companion to the Revised Version of cal construction, was strongly tempted to change that into a form with which he was famiUar. It might naturally enough occur to him that, in such a case, his predecessor in the work of copying had made a mistake, and that he ought to remove the blemish thus introduced into the sacred text. This tendency to correction has been a very fruitful source of various readings. It opeiated in many ways. For instance, seeming harshnesses were smoothed. Thus, at Matt. XXV. 3, we read in the Revised Version, *'For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them." But the initial " for " in the Greek, not being liked or understood, was exchanged for the reading represented in the Authorised Version. Again, rare forms of words were rejected in favour of the more usual. An example occurs at Rom. xiv. 4, without having any effect upon the sense.* Grammatical corrections, too, were made, as at Matt. xiii. 16, Rev. iv. i,t and in many other places. Moreover, changes were sometimes introduced, in order to remove real or apparent difficulties. Thus, at Mark i. 2 the true reading is given in tne Revised Version — " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet." But, inasmuch as the quotation which follows is not wholly from Isaiah, but * Zwaru is now read instead of 5vi ar^s icmv. + oLKovei has been substituted for the true reading aKoiovffiVf and Aeyovaa for \4yuVt The English New Testament. ii partly also from Malachi, the words of the Evangelist were corrected into " As it is written in the prophets." And yet again, additions to the text seem at times to have been made with the mistaken view of promoting edification. Thus, at i Cor. vi. 20, the Revised Version simply reads, ''Glorify God, therefore, in your body ; " but in some manuscripts we find the addition represented by these words in English — " and in your spirit, which are God's." However excellent the motive which may have prompted the appending of these words, they are wholly out of place, and only serve to blunt the point of the Apostle's exhortation. This must be plain to every one who considers the context. The same thing appears in several other passages, and very markedly at Rom. viii. i, where the insertion of the second clause does away with the grand simplicity of the conclusion stated by St. Paul, w^hen he announces as the result of all his previous reasonings — " There is, therefore, now no condemna- tion to them which are in Christ Jesus." In view of what has just been said, Biblical critics have adopted two great principles as guides to a decision with respect to the true text of Scripture. The first is, that a dif^cult or obscure expression, nay, even an almost unintelligible term, or a wholly un- grammatical construction, is generally to be regarded as the genuine reading, in preference to another which 12 Companion to the Revised Version of is easy, familiar, and correct. The reason is clear, since a transcriber was far more likely to change what he did not like or understand into something which he thought better, than to substitute for a common word or a correct construction that which was unusual or irregular. The other general principle is, for the most part to prefer a shorter to a longer reading. As we have seen above, additions were apt in various ways to steal into the text, so that, where there are conflicting readings, the briefer form has, probably, the stronger claim to be accepted. Of course, how- ever, these principles cannot be carried out in every case, or in any hard, mechanical way, but must always be applied in subordination to a cautious and dis- criminating judgment. Next, a widely operative cause of various readings has been the practice of conforming one parallel passage to another. As was to be expected, from the amount of common matter which they present, this is found most frequently in the Gospels. In fact, the tendency might be largely illustrated from almost every chapter of the first three Evangelists. But the following examples will suffice. The true reading at Mark i. 1 1 is, " Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased ; " but this has been so far conformed to the text of Matt. iii. 17, as to stand, "in whom I am well pleased." Again, the true reading at Matt. The EngliiJi New Testaine7it. 13 xvii. 4 is, " If thou wilt, / will make here three taber- nacles ; " but it has been brought into harmony with Mark ix. v., and Luke ix. -^iZ-i so as to become, " Let us make." Once more, the true reading at Luke viii. 34 is, "And when they that fed them saw what had come to pass, they fled, and told it," &c. ; but two words have been inserted in the Greek, that it might be the same as in Matt. viii. 2>l — " ^^1 '^^^^ ^'^^ went and told," &c. Now, as was most natural — and, indeed, without a constant miracle, inevitable — the Synoptics,* with all the wonderful verbal agreement which they exhibit, also differ occasionally in tlie reports which they give of the words of Christ and others. And it is most important that the charac- teristic readings of their respective texts should in every place be restored. This will be evident when it is considered that these minute differences clearly prove that the Evangelists did not copy from each other, as has often been maintained, but were original wTiters, and therefore independent witnesses to the Gospel history. In the Epistles the same tendency on the part of transcribers to secure a verbal har- mony between parallel or similar passages may also to some extent be detected. Thus we find Col. i. 14 conformed to Eph. i. 7, so as to stand, " In whom we * By this convenient e-cpression is meant the first three Evan- gelists as distinguished from the fourth. 14 CoinJ^anion to the Reinsed Version of have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," while the true reading is, " In whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." Many other examples of correction for the sake of uniformity might be quoted from these Epistles. This was, no doubt, deemed a gain by the copyists. But it was, on the contrary, a loss ; for every Biblical student at the present day will acknowledge that, though the two Epistles are strikingly coincident both in thought and expression, a real interest attaches to the distinctive forms by which they are respectively distinguished. Lastly, some various readings have probably been due to doctrinal bias on the part of transcribers. Considering the many and violent controversies which have agitated the Church in the course of her history, this could scarcely fail to be the case. A doctrine will often hinge upon a single word. Whether, for example, Christ is spoken of as God at Acts xx. 28, seems to involve the chief point at issue between the Orthodox and the Arians or Socinians. A strong temptation was thus presented to copyists to tamper with the text according to their own predi- lections. But upon the whole this temptation was very successfully resisted. We have every reason to believe that the ancient transcribers in general performed their solemn task with the utmost fidelity. It is pretty clear, indeed, that the substitution of The English Neiv Tcstamait. 15 "Joseph "for "His father," at Luke ii. 2)1)'> ^^^ again of " Joseph and Mary," for " His parents," at verse 41 of the same chapter, was made in the presumed interests of a very vital doctrine, that of the miracu- lous conception. And it might seem that the insertion in the text of i John v. 7, 8, was plainly due to a desire to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet this famous passage may, after all, have been at first a mere marginal gloss, which was, at length, admitted to the text through inadvertence. We are unwilling to charge wilful perversion upon those men to whom we are indebted for the many manuscripts of the New Testament which have reached our day. Readers of the Revised Version will be able to judge for themselves how many or few of such alternative readings as have been placed on the margin can be ascribed to prejudice or unfaithfulness. For myself, I believe that these are exceedingly rare. And now having had before us the amount, the nature, and the causes of the various readings,* we proceed in the next chapter to consider their soiuxes, as found in manuscripts, ancient versions, and Patris- tic quotations, of the New Testament. * Additional illustrations of the causes of various readings treated of in this chapter will be found in Chapters iv. and v. of this Part. 1 6 Companion to the Revised Version of CHAPTER II. SOURCES OF VARIOUS READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. The most immediate and important source of various readings, in other words, of the materials for comparative criticism, is, of course, that found in still- existing manuscripts of the New Testament. As has been already suggested, a very great number of these are available for the settlement of the sacred text at the present day. There is a striking contrast in this respect between the New Testament and other ancient writings. While we have no manuscript of Sophocles and other classical authors that can be dated higher than the tenth century of our era, there are, in our possession, as will immediately be shown, manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the fourth and fifth centuries. And, while, in the case of the Greek and Latin classics we sometimes feel reduced to only one manuscript as the fountain-head from which all the others have been derived, we have, in the case of the New Testament, multitudes of independent copies, which enable us, with far greater certainty than can The English New Testament. 17 be felt in regard to other ancient writings, to determine the original text. T^iejmanuscripts of the New Testament are divided into two classes, according to the manner in which they are written. For many centuries after the Chris- tian era capital letters were employed throughout, hardly any distinction being made at the beginning of sentences, and no space being left between the words. The following verse in English characters will give the reader some idea of the appearance presented by these ancient manuscripts. THEBOOKOFTHEGENERATIONOFJESUS CHRISTTHESONOFDAVIDTHESONOFABRA HAM. Matt. i. I. Manuscripts thus written have been styled Ujictals, while the others, written more in the form common among ourselves, are called Cursives. The line be- tween the two modes of writing may be drawn some- where about the tenth century. When we rise beyond that date few indeed are the manuscripts to which we can appeal for the materials of criticism. Besides some very precious fragments, there are only.j^ve .copies of the New Testament at all complete which can be referred to a higher antiquity. These are to be dated, as we shall see, between the fourth and the sixth century. c 1 8 Companioji to the Revised Version of Biblical scholars have adopted the practice of de- signating the ancient manuscripts of the New Testa- ment by the letters of the alphabet. This is a concise and convenient mode of referring to them, and has been generally accepted throughout the Christian world. It is only to be regretted that the several letters have not been assigned to the manuscripts on any fixed principle, but simply as, in the progress of textual criticism, they happened to be applied. Neither the value nor antiquity of the Codices is indicated by the letters naming them, or by the order in which they thus, naturally, fall to be described. A, or the Alexandrian Manuscript, This is a very complete copy of the Greek Scriptures. It is bound in four volumes, of which the first three contain the Septuagint Version, and the fourth the New Testa- ment. The only passages in which this manuscript is defective are St. Matthew's Gospel up to chap. XXV. 6, beginning with the Greek word which corre- sponds to the English " Go ye out ;" St. John's Gospel, from " that a man," chap. vi. 50, to " thou sayest," chap. viii. 52 ; and / Corinthians, from " I beHeve," chap. iv. 13, to "of me," chap. xii. 6. The Book of Revelation, so apt to suffer in the manuscripts, has, happily, been preserved entire in the Alexandrian Codex, from the circumstance of its being followed by the Epistles of the Roman Clement. This was The English New Testament. 19 the first really valuable manuscript made use of for the purposes of criticism, and has been published in fae-simile. It was brought to this country in 1628, having been sent in that year by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, as a present to Charles I. It is preserved in the British Museum. Scholars are now agreed that the Alexandrian manuscript is to be dated in the fifth century. Many have thought that its birthplace was Egypt, but the reasons assigned for this are not conclusive. It need not be doubted, however, that it was, at one time, at Alexandria, whence it has derived its name. Cyril was patriarch of that city before being transferred to Constantinople, and probably took the manuscript with him on his removal. We shall afterwards have occasion to notice the testimony of this Codex with respect to the famous passage i Tim. iii. 16. B, or the Vatican manuscript. This is a most in- teresting and precious manuscript. Its external history cannot be traced further back than the year 1475, when it appears in the first published catalogue of the Vatican Library. For a long time this manuscript, notwithstanding its known value, was but little used for the criticism of Scripture. In fact, it was not accessible to scholars. Many efibrts were, from tmie to time, made to have it fully collated, but in vain. The history of these attempts has imparted a romantic C 2 20 Cotnpaiiion to the Revised Version of but somewhat painful interest to the manuscript. Like many other treasures of art and literature, it was removed from Rome to Paris by the first Napoleon. But no fully competent critic had then an opportunity of examining it ; and on being restored to the Papal authorities it was very jealously guarded. At last Cardinal Mai prepared an edition of it, and this was 'issued in 1859. But \{ was found to have been con- structed on the most uncritical principles, and conse- quently to be full of errors. Biblical critics were thus still left in doubt as to the true reading of this manu- script in many passages. This continued till the year 1868, when the New Testament text of the Codex was published in facsimile by two eminent scholars, under the auspices of Pio Nono. This splendid edition was executed with the greatest care, and seems to leave little more to be desired in connection with the queen of all the manuscripts of the New Testament. There is no hesitation among scholars in dating the Vatican manuscript at least as high as the fourth century. Some think that it may even lay claim to a still higher antiquity. The late eminent palaeographer, Dr. Tregelles, remarks : — "How much older this manu script may be than the middle of the fourdi century we have no means of determining."* It is certain that the letters in which it is written bear a striking resemblance * Introduction to the Nnv Testament, p. i6i. The English New Testament. 21 to those in some of the Greek rolls found at Hercula- neum. And all the other features which it presents testify to its great age. Unfortunately, it now wants the Epistle to the Hebrews from chap. ix. 14, all the Pastoral Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The witness which it bears to the true text in some inter- esting and important passages will be adverted to in a subsequent chapter. C, or the Ephraem 7}ianuscript. This is what is called a palimpsest^ that is a manuscript in which two different works are found, the one having been written over the other. The practice originated in the scarcity and dearness of parchment during the middle ages. And valuable works were, in this way, often sacrificed to others which were comparatively worthless. It need hardly be said how ignorant were the copyists of those times. Most of the clergy, even, knew scarcely anything about the Scriptures. According to George Buchanan, it was usual for the priests of his day to affirm that Luther had been the author of a book called the New Testament ! * When we take this profound ignorance into account, we are less surprised than we might otherwise be at finding that the sacred text itself was sometimes buried beneath a different work. In the case of the Ephraem Codex, it was some of the Greek writings of the Syrian divine * Eadie's Enj^Hsh Bible, ii. 311. 22 CompaJiion to the Revised Version of Ephraem, which had been preferred to the New Testament, and hence the name given to the manu- script. It was not for a considerable period that the sacred text was discovered, and only in 1834 was it rendered generall)^ legible by the application of a chemical tincture. The manuscript was soon after- wards published. It is believed that this manuscript is to be dated at least as early in the fifth century as the Alexandrian manuscript. Little is known of its history beyond the fact that it once belonged to a nephew of Leo X. It is now preserved in the National Library at Paris. So far as it has survived it is a very valuable copy of the New Testament. But gaps frequently occur in it, and two whole epistles, second Thessalonians and second John, have been altogether lost. D, or the manicscript of Beza. This manuscript once belonged to the eminent reformer Beza, and hence its name. It was presented by him in the year 1 58 1 to the University of Cambridge, and on that account is sometimes referred to as the Cambridge manuscript. Beza tells us that he found it in 1562 lying neglected in the monastery of St. Irenreus at Lyons. This manuscript seems to have been slightly used by Stephens in the preparation of his third edition, which came out in 1550. Nothing whatever is known of its previous history. A The English Nciv Tcstmncnt. 23 The Codex of Beza is generally referred by critics to the sixth century. It contains only the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, with a few verses in Latin (v. 11 — 15), from the Third Epistle of John. Many strange interpolations and manifest corruptions occur in it, but it is nevertheless of great value. The University published a facsimile edition of it in 1793 ; and a very scholarly edition was issued in common type in 1864. This manuscript is remarkable as '/^ being the oldest which contains the section John vii. 53 — viii. 1 1., a passage to be afterwards considered. K, or the Sinai tic 7nanuscript. The late Professor Tischendorf discovered this manuscript in the most singular manner. Being in 1844 at the convent of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, his attention was one day caught by some leaves of vellum set aside with others for lighting the stove. His quick and practised eye detected their antiquity, and he found on examination that they contained a portion of the Septuagint. These leaves he easily obtained from the monks, and soon afterwards published. But it was not till 1859 that he first saw the great manuscript of which they formed a part. He was that year travelling under the patronage of the Emperor of Russia. And being once more at the above-named monastery, he had on the 4th of February the whole manuscript which he had so ardently desired to find 24 Companion to the Revised Version of put into his hands. He looked at it with almost overwhelming joy and surprise. And the brethren could refuse nothing to one who was so highly- honoured by their great patron and protector the Czar. Permission was readily accorded to him to copy the manuscript, and the Codex itself was soon afterwards sent as a present to Alexander II. It is now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, and was published in 1862 as a fitting memorial of the thousandth anniversary of the Russian Empire. This is an unspeakably precious manuscript. For one thing, it has the advantage over all the others of containing the New Testament complete. It also comprises the Greek text of the Epistle of Barnabas, and part of that of the writings of Hermas, two of the Apostolic Fathers whose works had previously been known as a whole only through a Latin translation. Tischendorf was naturally disposed to exaggerate somewhat both the antiquity and value of his wonderful discovery. He even placed the Sinaitic earlier than the Vatican manuscript, but in this few scholars are inclined to follow him. He also adopted some impossible readings on the sole authority of this Codex, and, in general, allowed it undue weight in the establishment of the New Testament text. But avoiding these extremes, the value of the manuscript is universally and gratefuHx The English New Testament 25 admitted by scholars. It cannot be dated very much later than the Vatican Codex, belonging undoubtedly to the fourth century. And though it contains many obvious errors, it yields assistance of a kind most precious towards the settlement of the true text of the New Testament. Such are by far the most important of the Uncial manuscripts^ and it is unnecessary here to describe any of the rest. Nor shall I enter on any description of the Cursives. As has been already stated, these are very numerous ; and though as a rule they are far less important than the more ancient manuscripts, some of them are, nevertheless, exceedingly valuable. It is, of course, quite conceivable that a Cursive manuscript should present a text really better than that of any existing Uncial. For, though a manuscript may date, say from the eleventh century, it might have been accurately copied from one belonging to the second. This is possible, though such may not be found actually to have been the case. And, therefore, all the Cursives, no less than the Uncials, must be most carefully examined and duly appreciated by the textual critic while he pursues those arduous labours which have it for their object to approximate as closely as possible to the original text of Holy Scripture. The next most important source of various readings 26 Companmi to the Revised Versh?i of is that furnished by ancient versions of the New Testa- ment. We have the utmost certainty that some of these were made at a date considerably higher than can be claimed for any manuscript at present known to exist. They thus furnish proof with regard to the prevailing text of the New Testament at a very early period in the history of Christianity. The foUowing are the ancient versions which are less or more available for the purposes of textual criti- cism. Some special drawbacks which exist to their use in this respect will be afterwards briefly noticed. Syriac Versions. Of these the most important are the Peshito, the Philoxenian, the Harclean, and the Curetonian. By far the best of these is the Peshito (/.^., Simple), which is truly an admirable translation. There is no doubt that it was made in the second century, and were we sure that we possessed it in its original form it would thus be of the very highest authority. The other Syriac versions do not rank high as translations, and the Curetonian embraces only fragments of the Gospels. Latin Versions. So prevalent was the Greek language in Rome for several generations after the commencement of our era, that no need of a transla- tion was felt by the inhabitants of that city. Accord- ingly, the first Latin version appears to have been made not in Italy but in North Africa. We know The English Neiu Testament. 27 nothing of its history. It was used by Tertullian and others about the beginning of the third century. Some excellent manuscripts containing it still exist. The very learned St. Jerome set himself to the re- vision of this version about the end of the fourth century. He improved it greatly both in regard to style and fidelity to the original ; but it was not till two centuries had elapsed that his work took the place of the Old Latin, and became the Vulgate of the Roman Church. Gothic Ve?'sion. This version was made by Bishop Ulphilas about the middle of the fourth century. It is not now known to exist in its original completeness. There is a celebrated " Silver Manuscript " of the Gospels preserved in the University of Upsala. The letters of this handsome manuscript are marvellously uniform, and its name is derived from the fact that they are written throughout in silver, except the initial letters of sections, which are written in gold. Belong- ing, as the version of Ulphilas does, to so high an antiquity as the fourth century, it is possessed of great weight in determining the text which had then become prevalent in the Church. Egyptian Versions. There are two Egyptian ver- sions, which are now known respectively as the J/tv;/- pliitic and the Thebaic. Before the fact of their inde- pendence was established, they both went under the 28 Conipamo?i fo the Revised Version of common name of Coptic. This appellation was de- rived from Coptos, a very ancient city of Upper Egypt. The term Memphitic points out the version which was used in Lower Egypt, and was taken from the capital city of the district ; while Thebaic indicates the version used in Upper Egypt, and was, in like manner, derived from the chief town of the country. The Thebaic version is supposed, on good grounds, to have been formed in the first half of the third century, and to have been followed by the Memphitic not much later. Both versions will be found more and more valuable for the purposes of criticism the more fully they are studied. Besides these, there are some fragments of a version which has been called the Bash- muric, and which was evidently related to the Thebaic. The Armenian Version. This version cannot be placed higher than the fifth century. It seems to have been begun soon after the Council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. Up to that period the Armenian Christians appear to have used the Syriac version; but two native scholars who had attended the Council brought home with them the New Testament in Greek, and from that a translation was made into the language of the country. The Armenian version cannot be deemed of very great importance in textual criticism. The Aithiopic Version. This is a translation of the Scriptures in the ancient language of Abyssinia. It The English N'eio Testament. 29 seems to have been formed about the sixth or seventh century. There is every reason to believe that it was taken immediately from the Greek, though the mean- ing of the original was frequently mistaken. No very exact edition has yet been issued, and the version is not possessed of much authority. The other ancient versions of the New Testament are the Georgian (sixth century), the Arabic (several recensions, the most ancient belonging to the eighth century), Slavonic (ninth century), Anglo-Saxon (from the Latin, eighth to eleventh century), and Persian versions (of varying and doubtful dates). These versions, with all later ones, though taken from the Greek, are too modern to have much weight in the settlement of the true text. The deductions which must ' be made from the value of even the most ancient versions as testifying to the true text of Scripture are many and serious. First, their genuine readings are often doubtful. It is obvious that they were as liable to corruption in the process of being transcribed as the New Testament itself, or even more so, since greater pains would naturally be taken in copying the sacred original than a mere translation. Again, there is reason to believe that some of the most valuable versions, such as the Syriac Peshito, do not now exist in their primitive condition. They seem to have been conformed to 30 Companion to the Revised Version of the prevalent text of the fourth century, and thus fail us as witnesses to that which was more ancient. On this account we cannot confidently press the authority of the existing Peshito in behalf, for example, of the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer. Again, in some few instances the authors of the versions appear from doctrinal bias to have departed from the orighial text. Thus Ulphilas, who had adopted Arian views, has inserted in the Gothic version at Philipp. ii. 6, the words " likeness to God," which would never suggest the true Greek text implying "equality with God," Lastly, even the best versions have frequently mis- taken the meaning of the original, and may thus tend only to mislead as respects the genuine text. Suppose, in illustration, that a question were to arise with regard to the Greek expression corresponding to the English words " in the bush," at Mark xii. 26, and Luke XX. 37. In that case, the Authorised Version would inevitably suggest a wrong preposition, since it has here quite mistranslated the Greek. The mean- ing of the original is not " in the bush," as if referring to locality, but " at the Bush," denoting that portion of the Old Testament which was known among the Jews under the tide of "the Bush." On all these grounds, therefore, the Biblical scholar must use the ancient versions as witnesses to the genuine text of Scripture with great caution and discrimination. The English New Testament. 31 The only remaining source of various readings in tlie New Testament is that found in the citations of its text by ancient writers. And here it might at first be thought that we have access to more primitive and therefore more vaUiable testimony than that which is furnished by either manuscripts or versions. The stream of quotations from the New Testament begins even in the first century, and fiows on with ever-increasing vokune in the succeeding generations. When we reflect that Clement of Rome begins to quote from the sacred writings so early as a.d. 97, when his epistle seems to have been written, and that he is followed by such voluminous writers as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century, as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, in the third century, it might well be imagined that we should thus obtain most valuable and trustworthy guidance as to the primitive text of the New Testament. But here again there are very serious drawbacks. No doubt, these early Fathers quote most copiously rom Scripture, so that the substance of the whole New Testament could easily be collected from their pages. But important deductions must be made from the value of their writings as authorities in textual criticism. For, first, the manuscripts of their works which we possess are comparatively modern — few indeed rising above the tenth century, and thus their 32 Companion to the Revised Version of genuine readings are often doubtful. And, next, they generally quote from memory, not feeling the need, and not possessing the means, of aiming at that verbal exactness called for at the present day. They had none of those facilities of reference which we possess. The turning to a passage and verifying it, would, in their case, have implied an amount of labour, of which, with our Bibles divided into chapters and verses, we can hardly conceive. Besides, there can be no doubt that many passages would come to be loosely and popularly quoted, without any suspicion that a departure was thus made from the true text. This happens constantly among ourselves with respect to the Authorised Version. How often will one see or hear Deut. xxxiii. 25, quoted thus, "As thy day is so shall thy strength be," whereas the true reading is, "As \X\y days, &c."-^ On the whole, then, there is reason for acquiescing in the following judgment with regard to the value, as respects textual criticism, to be attached to the quo- tations made by ancent writers from the New Testa- ment. " Not only is this kind^of testimony fragmentary and not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it often fails where we should most wish for information; but the Fathers were better theologians than critics ; * See for a numerous list of such misquotations Eadie's English Bible, ii. 328 ff. The English New Testament. 33 they frequently quoted loosely or from memory, often no more of a passage than their immediate i)urpose required ; what they actually wrote has been found peculiarly liable to change on the part of copyists and unskilful editors ; they can therefore be implicitly trusted — even as to the manuscripts which lay before them — only in the comparatively i^w places wherein their own direct appeal to their codices, or the course of their argument, or the current of their exposition, renders it manifest what readings they approved. In other cases the same author perpetually cites the self-same text under two or more various forms ; in the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to which of the three earlier ones reference is made; and, on the whole, Scriptural quotations from ecclesi- astical writers are of so much less consideration than ancient translations, that where they are single and unsupported, they may safely be disregarded altogether. An express citation, however, by a really careful Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origcn, for example), if supported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the best versions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the reading which it favours.'' * • • Scrivener's Introduction, p. 368. 34 Companion to the Revised Version oj CHAPTER III. HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE GREEK TEXT ON WHICH THE AUTHORISED VERSION WAS FOUNDED. When an English version of the New Testament is put into our hands as furnishing a transcript in our own language of God's revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ, it is of the most vital importance to be assured of the trustworthiness of the text on which that version has been based. Without this everything else must be comparatively worthless. What we want to know is the exact message which has been addressed to our race by Heaven. And the first essential to this is purity of the original text. It matters not how smoothly a version may read, how pleasing may be its contents, or how venerable even may be the antiquity which it claims. The first and gravest question to be asked regarding it has respect to the faithfulness with which the text on which it was based represented the true and original word of God. How then, Ave anxiously inquire, does the case stand con- cerning this point with the Authorised English Ver- sion ? Before being able to give a full answer to this The English New Testament 35 question it is necessary to trace the history of the earliest printed editions of the Greek New Testament. This history will gradually lead us on to the text which was made use of in the preparation of the Authorised Version, and we shall be enabled to form a judgment respecting its character. We cannot but feel it somewhat remarkable that so long a time elapsed between the invention ot the art of printing and the passing ot an edition of the Greek New Testament through the press. It is well known that the first book ever printed was the Bible, but this was in the form of tlie Vulgate. A Latin edition of the Scriptures, very handsomely got up, issued from the press at Mentz in 1452 ; and a few copies of this interesting and precious publication are known to be still in existence at the present day. The Hebrew Bible was also printed, under the auspices of some wealthy Jews, in 1488. But the century which had witnessed the invention of printing was allowed to close without any attempt having been made to prepare a printed edition of the Greek New Testament Some brief passages of the Gospels from the first chapter of St. Luke — the sacred songs of the Virgin Mary and of Zacharias — had, indeed, been added to a Greek edition of the Psalms printed at Milan in 148 1 ; but no one as yet seems to have conceived the idea of issuing a printed edition of the whole New Testa- D 2 36 Compa7iio7i to the Revised Version of ment. The cause of this probably was that the Greek language was still but very imperfectly known to theologians. The "new learning" was as yet only struggling through many difficulties into acceptance, and gradually winning to itself the admiration and affection of those noble men who aftenvards cultivated it with so much energy and devotedness. To the able and excellent Cardinal Ximenes, Primate of Spain, belongs the honour of having first projected an edition of the entire Greek New Testa- ment. His plan was to embrace it in a Polyglot Bible, intended to incKide both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint version with the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos and the Latin Vulgate. The fifth volume, which is devoted to the New Testa- ment, was first printed, and it bears on its last page as the date of its completion, January, 10, 15 14. But its publication was delayed, apparently, at first, with the view of waiting for the remaining volumes. The last of these, numbered as the fourth, is stated to have been finished on July 10, 1517. But the exemplary prelate who had originated and superintended this great undertaking died soon afterwards (Nov. 8, 1517), and the issue of the volume, was, in consequence, still further delayed. It was not till March 22, 1520, that Pope Leo X. formally sanctioned its publication. Thus came forth at length what is known as the The English New Testament. 37 Complutensian edition of the New Testament, Com- | plutiim being the Latin name for Alcaic, where the 1 work was prepared. Meanwhile, however, important steps had been taken in another quarter. The ilkistrious Erasmus comes into view, a man to whom modern thought is, in so many ways, under such deep and lasting obligations. That great scholar was in England in 15 15, and on April 17th of that year he received a request from Froben, an eminent printer at Basle, to prepare for publication an edition of the Greek New Testament. Though encumbered by other literary labours, Erasmus set about this work with characteristic diligence, and completed it within the too short period of a few months — by February, 15 16. The work was immediately published, and thus the original text of the New Testament was, for the first time, -given to the world. No small eagerness would, naturally, be shown by scholars to possess the sacred text. Accordingly, we find that the demand was, for those days, great. The first edition of Erasmus was reprinted, with corrections amounting to about 200, by Aldus, at Venice, in 15 18. A second edition, with more than 300 improvements, was issued by Erasmus himself in 15 19. This was followed by a third edition in 1522, chiefly remarkable as containing, for the first time, the famous text 38 Companion to the Revised Version of I John V. 7. Erasmus had not till now seen the Com- plutenslan edition, but he was able to avail himself of it in the preparation of his own fourth, which came out in 1527. He died in 1536, having issued a fifth edition in the previous year, differing only in four places from the preceding. The fourth edition of Erasmus is thus the most important, and became the basis of all subsequent texts, until what is known as the " Received Text " was formed. After -the death of Erasmus an edition of the Greek New Testament was published by Colinaeus at Paris in 1543. But, although this edition was cor- rected in more than a hundred places from the authority of additional manuscripts, it may be left out of account as having exercised little subsequent influence. The true successor of Erasmus in this department was Robert Stephens the famous Parisian printer. He issued two editions in 1546 and 1549, having availed himself in these of some manuscripts in the Royal Library, and ot the Complutensian text. But his great edition was the third, issued in 1550. This edition is remarkable as containing the first collection of various readings, amounting, it has been reckoned, to 2,194. But though these had been collected from a considerable number of manuscripts, no critical use was made of them. The text of Erasmus was closely followed, and readings found in The English New Testament. 39 it were even dung to when opposed to the authority of all the manuscripts. The fourth edition of Stephens was published at Geneva in 155 1. In this edition the New Testament is, for the first time, divided into veises — an invention of Stephens. The text remained the same as in the previous edition. Beza, the Reformer, next appears as an editor of the Greek New Testament. He published five editions, the first in 1565, the second in 1576, the third in 1582, the fourth in 1589, and the fifth in 1598. These editions varied somewhat among them- selves, but were based throughout upon the text of Stephens. And now we have reached the interesting and important point of this sketch, as the history of the printed text of the New Testament just given has led us very near the date at which the Authorised Eng- lish Version began to be made. It was commenced about 1604, when the above-named Greek texts were, in one form or another, generally circulated. Which of them, we ask with eagerness, formed the original from which our common English translation was derived ? To this question the answer is, that Beza's edition of 1589 was the one usually followed. It had been based on Stephens's edition of 1550, and that again had been derived from the fourth edition of Erasmus, published in 1527. Such is the parentage 40 Companion to the Revised Version of of the Authorised Version — Beza, Stephens, Erasmus. What manuscript authority, let us ask, is thus repre- sented ? Beginning with Erasmus, we find that his resources were meagre indeed, and that even the materials which he had were not fully utilised. It has already been noticed how hastily his first edition was pre- pared; indeed, he himself said of it that it "was rather tumbled headlong into the world than edited." The manuscripts which he had in his possession are still preserved, one having been recovered some years ago after long being lost. Some of them bear in them- selves the corrections which he made, and show too obvious marks of having been used as " copy " by the printer. They consisted of the following. In the Gospels he principally used a Cursive manuscript of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. This may still be seen at Basle, and is admitted by all to be of a very inferior character. He also possessed another Cursive manuscript of the twelfth century, or earlier, and occasionally referred to it. But though this is an excellent manuscript in the Gospels — one of the very best of the Cursives — Erasmus was ignorant of its value, and made little use of it. In the Acts and Epistles he chiefly followed a Cursive manuscript of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, with occasional reference to another of the fifteenth century. Both The English New Testament. 41 these were of the ordinary type usually exhibited by the later manuscripts. For the Apocalypse he had only one mutilated manuscript. He had thus no documentary materials for publishing a complete edition of the Greek Testament. The consequence would have been that some verses must have been left wanting had not Erasmus taken the Vulgate and conjecturally re-translated the Latin into Greek. Hence has arisen the remarkable fact that in the text from which our Authorised Version was formed, and in the ordinary uncritical editions of the Greek cur- rent at the present day, there were, and are, words in the professed original for which no Divine authority can be pleaded, but which are entirely due to the learning and imagination of Erasmus. As stated above, he availed himself of the Com- plutensian text to some extent in his subsequent editions. Scholars have been unable to ascertain with exactness the manuscripts which were employed in its formation. It was at one time thought that the famous Codex B was one of them. But this has been clearly disproved, and the manuscript authority on which it was based has been shown by internal evidence to have been not ancient, but modern. There is also some ground for suspecting that the editors occasionally, though rarely, allowed an undue influence to the Latin Vulgate. In printing the Old 42 Companion to the Ransed Version of Testament they gave the place of honour in the centre to the Latin, surrounding it on either side by the original Hebrew and the Septuagint translation. On this they make the curious and somewhat suggestive remark, that the Latin thus placed was like Christ crucified between the two thieves ! The one thief was the Greek Church, which they regarded as here- tical ; and the other was the nation of the Jews, who were charged with having corrupted the Hebrew text wherever it differed from the Latin. Stephens, who succeeded Erasmus in the work of editing the Greek Testament, had, as we have seen, a number of additional manuscripts at his command. Among these was one at least undoubtedly ancient, Codex D, formerly described. But he made very little use either of it or of any of the others in his possession. Almost the only important departure which Stephens made from the Erasmian text was in the Apocalypse, in which book he took advantage of the far better readings supplied by the Complutensian edition. Beza received from Stephens a collection of various readings derived from no fewer than some five-and- twenty manuscripts, but he made little or no critical use of them. He was totally unaware of the value of the manuscript which bears his name, and thought that its publication was rather to be deprecated. He left the The English New Testament. 43 text substantially as he had received it from Stephens, who, again, for his part, rarely deserts the fifth edition of Erasmus. Thus, then, stood the text of the Greek New Testament when the revisers of the Bishops' Bible set themselves to form from it our present Authorised English Version. Not one of the four most ancient manuscripts was then known to be in existence. Even Codex D, which was known, had scarcely any weight assigned to it, and the whole Greek text had been based upon a very few modern manuscripts. The ancient versions had not been examined. No careful investigation had been made into the testimony to the primitive text borne by the Fathers. Textual criticism was still in its infancy, the materials for it had not been gathered, the principles of the science had not been studied, and the labours of Mill, Bentley, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and other great scholars, to secure the purity of the text of the New Testament, were as yet unheard of, and only to be put forth in the course of many future genera- tions. In these circumstances can it be wondered at that vast multitudes of changes will be found in the Revised English Version, owing to an amended text? The wonder really is that they are so few, or, at least, that they are, in general, of such small importance. When 44 Companion to the Revised Version of we trace, as has been briefly done, the parentage of our Enghsh Bible, and when we see on what a slender basis of authority it rests, when we confront with this the enormous wealth of materials for settling the true Greek text which we possess at the present day, and the amount of labour which has been expended in applying them, we might well fear that the alterations requiring to be made in the Bible with which we have all our days been familiar should be of the most revo- lutionary character. But, blessed be God, such is not the case. No doctrine of the faith is in the slightest degree affected. False supports of important doctrines may be removed, and true defences of them may be supplied, but that is all. The Bible remains, for all practical purposes, totally unaffected. That is one grand result of the labours of the New Testament Revision Company, for which all English Christians have good reason to be thankful. They now know the utmost that Biblical science demands. No suspicion need in future haunt them that the Scriptural truths which they love are insecure. These have been proved to rest on an immovable foundation, and they will endure as long as the Divine Word that reveals them, " which liveth and abideth for ever." But more than this, every loyal Christian heart should surely rejoice to have access, in as pure a form as possible, to the message sent us by our Father in The English New Testament. 45 heaven. That is the great positive work which has been aimed at by the New Testament Company, and the fulfihiient of which is presented in the Revised Version. English readers of the Scriptures have now the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the New Testament in a form more nearly representing ^the primitive text than they ever had before. IMost of the changes made hardly affect the sense, but many even of these alterations are highly interesting. Some few others are of great importance, and will naturally attract more attention from readers of the Revised Version. To these two classes of changes which have been required by an amendment of the text we shall advert at some length in the two following chapters. 46 Companion to the Revised Version of CHAPTER IV. EXAMPLES OF MINOR CHANGES CAUSED BY A CHANGE OF TEXT. IT may be that at first not a few of the changes or omissions in the Revised Version, due to a change in the original text, will be felt disagreeable by the Eng- lish reader. The old familiar rhythm is disturbed, and the ear longs for the words to which it has been accustomed. It must be owned, too, that there are some changes and omissions due to the cause referred to which may worthily seem matter of regret. Thus, we can hardly exchange the beautiful precept, "Be courteous," found at i Pet. iii. 8, in the Authorised Version, for the apparently tamer expression, "humble- minded," in the Revised Version, without feeling that some loss has been incurred. And we cannot read Mark ix. 3, or Mark ix. 24, without wishing that the words " as snow " and " with tears," which add to the graphic style of the narrative, had been retained. In the majority of cases, however, the changes caused by a change of text, will, on consideration, commend themselves as improvements. They will be found to impart greater clearness, terseness, or force, to the The English New Testament. 47 Version. Thus, there is a vividness at Mark i. 27, "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this ? a new teaching ! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him," which does not belong to the Authorised Version. Thus, again, it will be felt to be with the remarkable variation which occurs at 2 Cor. i. 20, where we read in the Revised Version, "For how many soever be the promises of God, in him is the yea : wherefore also through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us." As has been well observed, the "7m " here " denotes the fulfilment of the promise on the part of God, and ' Amen ' the recognition and thanksgiving on the part of the Church, a distinction which is obliterated by the received reading." * So, at i John V. 13, it is an obvious gain to get rid of the clumsy and almost absurd repetition which occurs in the Authorised Version, and to read simply, "These things have I written unto you, that ye may know ye have eternal life, unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God." But whether the true read- ings be deemed improvements or not, they should always be welcomed simply on the ground of their genuineness. To find out what is true is the supreme object of Biblical science ; and while, no doubt, there * Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, p. 32. 48 Compajiion to the Revised Version of may often seem an artificial attractiveness about what is erroneous, there should always be felt a sovereign majesty in truth. With these remarks, let us look at some of the minor changes which have been made in the Revised Version owing to a change of text. I shall first take a few from each of the Gospels, and then some from the other books of the New Testament St. Matthew's Gospel. At chap. v. 22, the Revised Version omits the words " without a cause." The evidence from manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, is here not quite conclusive, but the internal evidence is clear. It is obvious that a strong temptation pre- sented itself to transcribers to insert the words, in order to soften the apparent harshness of the precept, whereas, had they existed in the primitive text, it is scarcely possible to account for their having been dropped. There is little, if any, doubt, therefore, that they ought to disappear. At chap. xrni. 1 7 we read y 1 ^ in the Revised Version, " Why askest thou me of that which is good ? One there is who is good : but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the command- ments." The external evidence is decidedly in favour of this reading, embracing, as it does, k, B, D, &c., but it is the internal evidence which is conclusive. We formerly saw how prone copyists were to conform parallel passages, and here St. Matthew's text, as re- The E7tglish New Testament. 49 presented in the Authorised Version, has been harmo- nised with those of St. Mark and St. Luke. Besides the question of the young ruler, " What good thing shall I do ? " is aptly answered by the words, " Why askest thou me of that which is good?" At chaiit XXV. 6 we read in the Revised Version, " But at mid- night a cry is made, Behold the bridegroom : come ye forth to meet him." The word "cometh"is omitted on overwhelming authority ; it had evidently slipped in as a supplement from the working of the mind ot the transcriber on the passage before him. St. Mark's Gospel. At chap. vi. 20 we read in the Revised Version, *' Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and a holy, and kept him safe ; V \ and when he heard him, he was much perplexed, and /- - heard him gladly." Here the common reading, "And did many things," is undoubtedly supported by many of the best authorities ; but the case is such that we cannot conceive of the unusual Greek word for " per- plexed " being substituted for the very common word for " did," while the converse supposition that a tran- scriber here meeting with an unfamiliar expression changed it into one with which he was well acquainted, is easy and natural. At chap. ix. 22, 23, we read in the Revised Version, " If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst ! all things are possible to him that £ 5© Companion to the Revised Version of believeth." This is a beautiful emendation. Jesus takes up the doubting words of the father, and, after repeating them, adds that strong assertion of the power of faith which follows. The change is abundantly- supported by ancient authority ; and it is obvious that the enfeebling "believe" of the common text has somehow slipped in as a supplement. St. Luke's Gospel. At chap. xvi. 9 we find the interesting change of " it " for " ye," and read in the Revised Version, " Make to yourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they (the friends whom you have thus made) may receive you into the eternal tabernacles." At chap, xxiv. 17 a somewhat different turn is given to the narrative by the insertion of a Greek verb in the text, and we read thus in the Revised Version, " What communications are these that ye have one with another as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad." Again, at verse 46 of the same chapter, the proper reading is, " Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer," the common text having been derived from verse 26, according to a process famihar to transcribers. St. John^s Gospel. At chap. vi. 1 1 we find in the common text an obvious case of accommodation to the parallel passage in Matt. xiv. 19, and the verse properly runs as in the Revised Version, "Jesus there- The Efiglish New Testament. 51 fore took the loaves, and having given thanks, he dis- tributed to them that were set down/' At chap. xiii. 24 we have in the Revised Version a characteristic utterance of St. Peter which is lost in the ordinary text. He seems to have imagined that John, as specially the confidant of Christ, would know what the disciples wished to ascertain, and exclaimed, " Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh." At chap. xx. 16 the amended text has restored the expression •' in the Hebrew tongue," which, by the exception which it specially marks out, serves to indicate the language generally made use of in public intercourse by Christ and His disciples. The Acts of the Apostles, At chap. xv. 23 we find an interesting example of the alteration which may take place in the meaning from a very slight change in the text. The words " and the " are simply omitted, and we then read, " The apostles and the elder brethren," instead of " The apostles, and the elders, and the brethren." At chap. xvi. 7 we find an exception to the general rule that a shorter reading is to be preferred to a longer, for the true text un- doubtedly is, " the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not." At chap, xviii. 5 we find a striking illustration of the tendency to replace what was unusual or not under- stood by what was common and familiar ; for " Paul was pressed in the spirit " has there taken £ 2 52 ComJ>anmt io the Revised Version of the place of the true text, " Paul was constrained by the word." The Epistle to the Romans. A very remarkable change has been made at chap. iv. 19. In accordance with all the great Uncials, the negative in the verse is omitted, so as to read, " he considered his own body now become dead," the point being that, though he fully took into account his own state, yet he did not stumble at the Divine promise. At chap. v. i, after long hesitation, criticism has clearly decided that instead of " we have," the true reading is " let us have." The text of B in this passage is now certainly known to be in favour of that which stands in the Revised Version, and it is supported by A, C, D, k, the most important versions, and many of the Fathers. At chap. vii. 6 a reading was introduced by Beza into his third edition, which was a mere conjecture of his own, and is supported by not a single manuscript or version. It stands, however, in the common English Bible, which translates it, " that being dead wherein we were held," instead of the true text as rendered in the Revised Version, " having died to that wherein we were holden." At chap. xvi. 5 we should certainly read " the first fruits of Asia," instead of " the first fruits of Achaia," the mistaken reading having probably arisen from the transcriber having i Cor. xvi. 15 in his mind. The English New Testament 53 The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The most interesting changes in this Epistle are those which have been made in the eleventh chapter, which con- tains an account of the institution of the Lord's Sapper. At ver. 24 the words *' Take, eat," have been omitted, as having scarcely a shadow of authority. They were doubdess interpolated from Matt. xxvi. 26. In the same verse the word "broken" is also left out; it was probably a supplement intro- duced by the copyists. In ver. 26 " this cup " becomes " the cup " in the Revised Version ; the common text was due to a desire for uniformity in the two clauses. In ver. 29 the word translated "unworthily" has been omitted as certainly spurious; it was brought in from ver. 27, where it is as certainly genuine. At chap. xiii. 3 a various reading occurs, which, though very properly not placed in the text, will be found in the margin of the Revised Version as having very great support from excellent authorities. It deserves notice as illustrating how one Greek word might be mistaken for another which it closely re- sembled. Here a difference of only a single letter leads to the so great difference of rendering in English, as, "that I may be burned," and "that I may glory."* The Second Epistle to the Cori?ithians. There are • The two Greek words are KavOrjffcofiai and Kavx^ffc^iiau. 54 Co7npanion to the Revised Version of no very noticeable alterations made in this Epistle owing to a change of text. Perhaps the most inter- esting is at chap. xii. 19, where quite a different turn is given to the passage in the Revised Version, in consequence of one word being altered in the original. The Apostle knew well that his elaborate vindication of himself might be misunderstood by the Corinthians, as if he were anxious to gain their favourable judgment on his conduct, and to meet this mistake he says : — *' Ye think all this time that we are excusing ourselves unto you. In the sight of God speak we in Christ. But all things, beloved, are for your edifying." The Epistles to the Galatians^ Ephesians, Philippians^ Colossiafis, At Gal. iv. 14 a new turn is given to the passage by the pronoun being changed in the original. St. Paul, instead of there speaking of " 7ny temptation," says, "that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not nor rejected," surely far more in accord- ance with the context. At Eph. v. 29 we get rid in the Revised Version of the strange declaration, "of his flesh, and of his bones," and read simply, in accordance with the true text, " we are members of his body." At Philipp. i. 16, 17, the two verses must, by overwhelming authority, be transposed, and read as in the Revised Version. At Col. ii. 18 we come upon a v^ssage presenting great difficulty both as to the t/ e text and the right interpretation. But evidence TJie English Neiu Testament 55 leads us clearly to reject the "not" found before *'seen" in the common text. The Apostle is blaming those who dwell in the region of sense rather than that of faith, and this is the meaning given to his words in the Revised Version. It is evident that the ancient copyists did not understand the passage, and that the insertion of the negative was due to their desire of making it, as they thought, intelligible. The Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles. Few changes worth notice have been made in the Epistles to the Thessalonians on account of a change of text. It may be noted, however, that the usual designation of our Saviour in these Epistles is "our Lord Jesus," and not "our Lord Jesus Christ." See I Thess. ii. 19, iii. 11, iii. 13 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 (first clause) ; and compare ii. 8 in the Revised Version. The full title occurs at i Thess. i. i, v. 28, 2 Thess. i. 2, &c., but the shorter form seems characteristic of these Epistles. On the other hand, " Christ Jesus," and not "Jesus Christ," appears as the favourite appellation for our Lord in the Pastoral Epistles. Compare with Authorised Version i Tim. iv. 6, v. 21, 2 Tim. i. r, ii. 3, Tit. i. 4, in the Revised Version. It deserves in this connection to be noticed further that the two versions are coincident in the use of the form "Christ Jesus" in the following passages : i Tim. i. 12, i. 14, ii. 5, iii. 13, vi. 13; 2 Tim. i. i (second 56 Companion to Vie Revised Version of clause), i. 2, i. 9, i. 13, ii. i, ii. 10, iii. 12, iii. 15. The title "Christ Jesus" thus seems in its very frequent use a marked peculiarity of the Pastoral Epistles, and serves as a sort of ?iexus to bind them all together. The Epistle to Phileuion and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Almost the only changes of any interest in the Epistle to Philemon are at ver. 2, where we read, "and to Apphia our sister," for "and to our beloved Apphia,'' the epithet " beloved " having apparently been substituted to correspond to ver. i ; and "I had," for "we have," in ver. 7, in which some critics also read "grace" instead of "joy," but with- out sufficient authority. At Heb. iv. 2 overwhelming critical evidence compels us to accept the somewhat strange rendering of the Revised Version. Many critics of high name have been tempted to abide by the apparently far simpler and more satisfactory reading which is represented in the Authorised Ver- sion ; but faithfulness to the laws of evidence and grammar will not permit of such a course. At chap. X. 34, the personal reference to the writer of the Epistle is exchanged for the general reference to " them that were in bonds," and this change has an important bearing on the very difficult question of authorship. At chap. xi. 13 the Greek words rendered " and were persuaded of them " have no The English New Testament. 57 right whatever to a place in the text. The beautiful and exact rendering of the original here given in the Revised Version will be noticed afterwards, when we come to treat of mistakes of translation in the Authorised Version. The Catholic Epistles. In the Epistle of James the remarkable change which is found in the Revised Version at chap. i. 19 is due to the change of a single letter in the Greek.* The evidence is decisive ; and the principle here applies that a more difficult reading is to be preferred to one that is easy and frequent. In the first Epistle of Peter, at chap. ii. 21, the con- fusion of the pronouns found in the Authorised Version, which reads, " Christ also suffered for ?/^, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps," is, by a change of text, escaped in the Revised Version. The change made at 2 Pet. iii. 2, which cannot fail to strike the reader, has the sanction of all the great Uncials, and of the best versions. In like manner the insertion of the words "and we are," in i John iii. I, rests on the most decisive manuscript and Patristic authority. In 2 John ver. 8 the confusion of pro- nouns again found in the Authorised Version is by a change of text corrected in the Revised Version. In 3 John ver. 12 the glaring incongruity of addressing in the plural Gaius, to whom the Epistle is addressed, * The two Greek words are tar^ and ScTe, 58 Compatiion to the Revised Version of is removed by the adoption of the correct reading, *'thoii knowest." In the Epistle of Jude ver. i, through a mistake of one Greek word for another,* there is read in the Authorised Version, " sanctified by God the Father," instead of ^^ beloved in God the Father." The Apocalypse, As might be inferred from what has been said in the preceding chapter the text of the Book of Revelation on which the Authorised Version rests was of the most unsatisfactory character. Accordingly, numerous corrections of the original have led to change in the Revised Version. One of the most important of these alterations is found at chap. xvii. 8. The Authorised Version refers at the close of this verse to " the beast, that was, and is not, and yet is " — truly an enigmatical declaration — but by substitution of the true text we attain to the more intelligible statement which the reader will here find in the Revised Version. Some interesting changes have also been made in the concluding chapter of the Book. Thus, in the third clause of the eleventh verse a very puzzling reading of the common text — which, by the way, ought not to be rendered as in the Authorised Version, but can only mean, "let him he justified still" — has been exchanged for one which * The two words which have been confounded are r)yaT7]jii€uois and ijyiaa-jxeuois. The English New Testament. 59 yields a plain and satisfoctory sense — " let him do righteousness still." And in the fourteenth ver^e, instead of these words of the Authorised Version, *' Blessed are they that do his commatidnwits, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city," we must read, far more in accordance with the analogy of Scripture, *' Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city." 6o 'Compaftion to the Revised Version of CHAPTER V. MORE IMPORTANT CHANGES DUE TO A CHANGE OF TEXT. Probably the first great change which will strike the reader of the Revised Version is the entire omission of the doxology of the Lord's Prayer at Matt. vi. 13. The reasons for this omission are conclusive. First, the clause is not found in any of the great Uncials, x, B, D, which contain the passage. Secondly, it is not noticed by the earliest Fathers in their expositions of the Lord's Prayer. True, Chrysostom and others recognise it in the fourth century, but this cannot outweigh the fact that it is wholly unnoticed by Origen in the third. The internal evidence, too, is somewhat against it, as an interruption of the context. There is, indeed, one weighty argument in its favour. It is found in most of the ancient versions, such as the ^Ethiopic, the Armenian, the Gothic, and, above all, the Syriac. Versions, it is obvious, are far more valuable as witnesses to the existence of clauses than they can be in regard to individual words. And could we be sure that the doxology existed from the first in such an ancient version as the Peshito Syriac, 'The English Nctv Testament. 6i its genuineness would perhaps no longer be disputed. But, as was formerly remarked, we cannot insist on the authority of the Syriac in support of the passage. This is felt all the more from the varying form which is presented by the doxology in the Curetonian version, which omits altogether the words " and the power." Besides, it does not exist in the Latin Vulgate, a very important witness. Upon the whole, criticism must pronounce decidedly against the clause as forming part of the original text; and it is, accordingly, not admitted into the Revised Version. Mark xvi. 9 — 20. The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed on the margin con- taining a brief explanation of this, but it may be well here to say something more respecting such an impor- tant section of the Evangelical history. The case, then, stands as follows. It cannot be denied that there is something peculiar about the paragraph. We find that it has no place in x, B, the two oldest manu- scripts in our possession. It is true that the writer of B has left a blank space at the end of St. Mark's Gospel, clearly indicating that he knew of something more that iJiight be inserted, but the fact remains that he did not insert it. Again, as Tregelles has remarked, 62 Companion to the Revised Version of "Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies/' * Moreover, it must, I think, be admitted that the style of the passage is not that of the Evangelist. Not only are there seventeen words in the compass of only twelve verses which are nowhere else made use of by St. Mark, but the general complexion of the paragraph is unlike that of the gospel. This much may be urged against the genuineness. But, on the other hand, in support of it we are told to reflect how improbable it is that a writer of the Gospel history would abruptly end his narrative with the statement contained in verse 8. That may be admitted, and yet there may have been circumstances unknown to us that compelled the author to make such a sudden termination. How many works might be referred to, such as Macaulay's " History of England," which close abrupdy, for the too-sufficient reason that death arrested the pen of the writer ! But again it is argued that Irenaeus quotes the passage, without the slightest misgiving, in the second century. True, and that is most weighty proof of the authority assigned to the passage even from the earliest times, but does by no means prove the authorship of St. Mark. Nor * Introduction, p. 435. The English Neio Testauwit. 63 can the evidence of versions be deemed conclusive, for reasons which have been already stated. On the whole, a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems to lead us to these conclusions : first, that the passage is not the immediate production of St, Mark ; and secondly, that it is, nevertheless, possessed of full canonical authority. We cannot ascertain its author, but we are sure he must have been one who belonged to the circle of the Apostles. And, in accordance with this view of the paragraph, it is marked otY from the words with which, for some unknown reason, the Gospel of St. J\lark ended ; while, at the same time, it is inserted, without the least misgiving, as an appendix to that gospel in the Revised Version. John vii. 53 — viii. it. This section of the Gospel narrative stands on much the same footing with that just considered. It is enclosed within brackets in the Revised Version, and is accompanied by an ex- planatory note on the margin. More, however, than that note is necessary to set forth the real authority belonging to the passage. It is not found in any one of the first-rate Uncials, nor in the Syriac and other ancient versions. There is no evidence that it was known to Origen, Chrysostom, and others of the early Fathers. It is obelised as doubtful by many of the manuscripts which contain it. The texts in which it has come down to us vary exceedingly among them- 64 Companion to the Revised Version of selves. And, lastly, as against its being an integral portion of St. John's Gospel, it has no connection with the context, and its style is totally different from that of the Evangelist. On the other hand, it is found in the ancient Uncial D, though in a text which varies much from the received. It was known to St. Jerome in the fourth century, who expressly testifies that it existed in his days *' in many manu- scripts both Greek and Latin." Augustine about the same date affirms that " some of but weak faith, or rather enemies of the true faith," had expunged it from their copies of the New Testament, and adds that they did so with an ethical purpose, fearing lest the passage might seem to grant impunity to sin. It would appear from Eusebius that even Papias, who lived in the early part of the second century, was familiar with the story, though that of course does not prove that he knew it as existing in St. John's Gospel. Finally, the narrative itself breathes the very spirit oi Christ and Christianity. Now, in these circumstances, what judgment can criticism pronounce regarding it ? The right conclusion probably is that it is no part of St John's Gospel, and yet is a perfecdy true narrative which has descended to us from the Apostolic age. Some critics think that its proper place would be at the end of Luke xxi., where it is really placed in some of the best of the Cursive manuscripts. Such being The English New Testament, 65 the facts of the case as regards this famous paragraph, it has properly been inserted in the text, but marked off from the context and enclosed in brackets in the Revised Version. Coloss. ii. 2. A very important departure has here been made, on textual grounds, from the Autho- rised Version. But, as the reader will observe from the note on the margin, this has not been done with much confidence. The fact is that, in the present conflicting state of the evidence^ it is impossible to say, with any approach to certainty, what was here the original text. There are many varieties of reading. First, we find the very short form, " to the acknowledg- ment of the mystery of God," without any reference to Christ at all. Next, we have " to the acknowledg- ment of the mystery of God, Christ," nothing being interposed between the words " God " and " Christ." Thirdly, there is the form, " to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, which is Christ." Fourthly, some good manuscripts read "to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, the Father of Christ." And lastly, there is the reading of the mass of the Cursives represented in our Authorised Version, "to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." The three last readings are, by the general consent of criUcs, set aside, as manifest amplifications of the original text. We are, therefore, left F 66 Companion to the Revised Version of to choose between the first and second forms. Such choice is by no means easy, and critics are greatly divided on the point. According to a principle often already alluded to, the shorter form should, other things being equal, obtain the preference. But in this case there is scarcely equality. The curt form " of God" is supported only by one late Uncial, and some good Cursives. The longer form " of God, Christ," has the weighty authority of B, and of Hilary among the Fathers. The fourth form mentioned above is supported by k. A, C, and thus has perhaps more external evidence than any of the rest, but can scarcely be accepted on account of internal considerations. In these circumstances, we conclude with some confidence that the true text of the passage is that represented in the Revised Version. I Ti7n. iii. i6. The English reader will probably be startled to find that the familiar text, " And with- out controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh," has been exchanged in the Revised Version for the following, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness ; He who was manifested in the flesh." A note on the margin states that "the word God^ in place of Z^ w//^, rests on no sufficient ancient authority ;" and it may be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case. The EiigUsh New Testament. 67 What, then, let us inquire, is the amount of evidence which can be produced in support of the reading "6^^^/.^'* This is soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very ancient versions support it. No Uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception of A. The most diverse opinions have been expressed by critics as to the true text of this manuscript. To let the reader under- stand how this should be, it must be stated that the difference between two such similar forms as O C and Q decides whether the reading shall be " who " or " God." Now, it cannot be wondered at that in a manuscript not less than fourteen hundred years old, it is difficult to say whether the decisive lines exist or not. But this difficulty has been greatly increased by an unfortunate attempt to escape from it altogether. Some very orthodox but presumptuous hand has drawn a dark line in the middle of the O? so as to render it certain that '' God '' is the reading of the manuscript. But the effort must now be made to overlook that modern touch entirely, and decide whether or not there is any trace of an original line in the heart of 0- Hence the diversity of opinion among critics. Bishop Ellicott declares for C " indisj)ufab/y, after minute personal inspection."^ Dr. Scrivener, on the other hand says, " I have always felt convinced with * Comm. on i Tim., p. 51. F 2 68 Cojnpanion to the Revised Version of Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. A read C-"* The truth probably is, that in the now worn condition of the leaf containing the passage, it is im- possible for any one by personal inspection at the present day to determine the original reading of the manuscript. Much weight, however, is due to the opinion of those who had an opportunity of examining the Codex soon after it was brought to England, and when it must have been far easier to decide the question at issue. Now, these appear to be almost unanimous that the reading was i^ C- But even granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of " God," far more evidence can be produced in support of "who." «< and pro- bably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative *' w^ho," is a far more difficult reading than "God," and could hardly have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we conclude that this interesting and important passage must stand as it has been given in the Revised Version. I Peter \\\. 15. The importance of the departure here made from the Authorised Version may not at first be obvious to the reader, but will become so on a very little consideration. It amounts to nothing less * Introducticn, p. 553, The English New Testament. 69 than tlie identification of Christ with Jehovah. For, as all admit, the Apostle here borrows his language from Isa. viii. 13, where we read "Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself" Since, therefore, the language made use of in the Old Testament with respect to Jehovah is liere applied by St. Peter to Christ, there could not be a clearer attestation to the deity of our Redeemer than that which is furnished by this passage as read in the Revised Version. And the necessity of the change here made in the text admits of no question. For the reading of the Authorised Version there are only a few manuscripts and Fathers; while for that of the Revised there are all the great Uncials, several of the Fathers, and all the best versions. This instance of clear gain by rectification of the text tends all the more to reconcile us to the apparent loss which now comes to be mentioned. I John V. 7, 8. The whole of these verses bearing upon what is known as " the heavenly witnesses," has been omitted in the Revised Version. This omission is one of the most indubitable results of textual criticism. The words left out can be proved to have no claim whatever to a place in the text of Scripture. None of the Uncial manuscripts contain them. None of the ancient versions represent them. None of the Fathers quote them, even when arguing on the subject of the Trinity. There are, indeed, two passages in 70 Companion to the Revised Version of Cyprian which seem to indicate an acquaintance with verse 7, but even though that be granted, the fact goes for nothing against such powerful counter- evidence. As was formerly noticed, Erasmus omitted the words in his first two editions. But, as they had long stood in the Vulgate, he was, of course, subjected to much odium for so doing. To disarm his malignant assail- ants, he promised that in future editions he would insert the words if they were found in a single Greek manuscript. One was discovered in Britain which did contain them, and therefore Erasmus admitted them into the text of his third edition. But it is now agreed by all scholars that the " British manuscript," on whose authority the words were inserted, was not more ancient than the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It once belonged to a Dr. Montfort, of Cambridge, and from him it has derived its name^ being still preserved under the title of the Codex Montfortia7ius in Trinity College, Dublin. Erasmus himself suspected that the disputed words contained in this manuscript had been translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate, and this is now the fixed opinion of critics. The same thing must be said respecting the only other Greek manuscript known to contain the passage. It belongs to the fifteenth century, and is preserved in the Vatican library. The text it offers varies considerably in the verses referred to from that of the manuscript The English New Tesfamoit. 71 already spoken of, but was also undoubtedly derived from the Latin. The same seems clearly to have been the case with the Complutensian edition of the New Testament. That contained in Greek the disputed w^ords, and Stunica, its leading editor, severely censured Erasmus for omitting them. But when the great scholar asked him to state on what authority he had inserted the passage in the text, Stunica appealed only to the Vulgate. He maintained that the Latin repre- sented the true original of Scripture, and that the Greek copies had been corrupted, a pretty conclusive proof that the words in question owed their place in his text not to their having been found in any Greek manuscripts, but simply to their having been translated into Greek from the Vulgate. No defender of the genuineness of i John 7, 8, will probably arise in the future. The controversy regarding the passage is finished, and will never be re- newed. But the literary history to which it has given rise will not be forgotten. A small library might be formed of the books and pamphlets which have been written for or against the words. Among the authors of these works some very celebrated names appear. That of the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton has a place in the list. He wrote against the genuineness of the words, and thus did good service in the cause of truth. But by far the most memorable event in this lengthened 72 Companion to Revised Version of Nciv Test anient. and often bitter controversy was the publication of the letters of Professor Porson to Archdeacon Travis. These letters, by their acuteness and ability, whatever may be thought of their spirit, virtually settled the case against the genuineness of the passage. And although since then the voices of some zealous friends of Scripture — Bishops, Cardinals, and others — have been unwisely lifted up in defence of "the three heavenly witnesses," yet so decidedly have the minds of all scholars now been made up as to the spurious- ness of the words, that they have been omitted in the Revised Version without a line even on the margin to indicate that they had ever been admitted to a place in the sacred text. PART II CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TRANSLATION. CHAPTER I. CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN THE MEANING OF GREEK WORDS. There are not very many instances in which the Authorised Version has positively mistaken the import of the original. The translators had before them the labours of many able predecessors, and upon the whole turned to good account the advantages which they thus enjoyed. Still, there are cases in which they "have gone quite astray in the meaning assigned to the Greek, and to the chief of these we now proceed to direct our attention. Matt. X. 4 and Mark iii. i8. In these passages we read in the Authorised Version of "Simon the Canaanitey This naturally suggests to an English reader the idea that one of the Apostles did not belong to the family of Abraham, but to the race of the Canaanites. Such a notion, however, rests upon an utter mistake. The epithet applied to Simon is taken from the Aramaic /<7/^«, then commonly spoken in Palestine. It is replaced by the Greek word 76 Companion to the Revised Version of meaning "Zealot" at Luke vi. 15 and Acts i. 13, just as the same Evangelist gives the Greek equivalent at Luke viii. 54 for the Aramaic words in Mark v. 41. The meaning, therefore, is that Simon had, before he became a follower of Christ, belonged to the Jewish faction of the Zealots. Accordingly, this explanation • has been given on the margin of the Revised Version at Matt. X. 4, and Mark iii. 18, while Cananaean has taken the place of the erroneous and misleading form " Canaanite," in the text. Matt. xiv. 8. Here we read in the Authorised Version, "She, being bcfoi'e instructed oi\\QX mother," &c. But it is certain that this is a mistake. The Greek verb made use of has never any reference to time, but can only mean " urged on," or " impelled." As Archbishop Trench has remarked, " We may conceive the unhappy girl, with all her vanity and levity, yet shrinking from the petition of blood which her mother would put into her lips, and needing to be urged on or pushed forward before she could be induced to make it; and this is implied in the word."* Hence the rendering "put forward" in the "Revised Version. Matt. XV. 27. The Greek will not here allow of the rendering "yet," which occurs in the Authorised Version. And it completely perverts the meaning. * On Authorised Version, p. 115, The EfigHsh New Testament 77 The argument of the woman is derived from tliat very- appellation which our Lord had given her. Granting its truthfulness, she saw it opened a door of hope before her, so that, instead of being driven by Christ's words to despair, she ventured to rest her whole case upon them, and exclaimed, as in the Revised Version, ** Yea, Lord,y^r even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table." Matt. xxvi. 15. An interesting correction has been made in this verse. We cannot, indeed, affirm that the translation " covenanted," here found in the Authorised Version, is absolutely impossible. But it entirely breaks the connection between this passage and Zech. xi. 12. We there find the very same Greek verb in the Septuagint as here occurs in the Gospel. The Old Testament rendering is, " They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." And so it should be here, as in the Revised Version, " They weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver." Mark iv. 29. Here the expression "is brought forth," in the Authorised Version, is a very inexact rendering of the Greek verb. The proper translation, " is ripe," will be found in the text of the Revised Version. Luke iii. 23. Here we find in the Authorised Version the singular statement that "Jesus himself 78 Companion to the Revised Version of began to be about thirty years of age." The Greek gives no countenance to such a translation. It ought to be rendered as in the Revised Version, "And Jesus himself, when he began (to teach), was about thirty years of age." Luke ix. 32. This verse is quite misrepresented by the Authorised Version, "But Peter, and they that were with him, were heavy with sleep ; and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." It ought to be rendered as in the Revised Version, "But Peter, and they that were with him, were heavy with sleep -jjet having remained aiuake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." Lukey:si\\\. 12. Here the word "possess " in the Authorised Version is quite an impossible rendering of the Greek. It ought to be " acquire " or " get," as in the Revised Version. Tithes were paid not on what was laid up or possessed, but on what was gained in the way of increase. Hence the Pharisee says, " I give tithes of all that I get." Lnke xxii. 56. The exact and graphic force of the original is here missed in the Authorised Version. " But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire : and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him." The real meaning is, t'lat she recognised him when a flash of the smouldering fire The English New Testament. 79 fell upon his countenance. This is brought out in the Revised Version. *'And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light (of the fire), and earnestly looking upon him, said, This man also was with him." LuJze xxiv. 25. Many readers must have been struck by the harshness of the words, " O fools," here found in the Authorised Version. Such an opening of his discourse seems quite out of keeping with the tender and affectionate way in which Christ dealt with these two disciples. No such incongruity appears in the original. It simply denotes want of understanding and reflection, and the Authorised Version has been softened in the Revised by the simple emendation, '' O foolish men." Johii ix. 17. Here the Authorised Version is scarcely intelligible. " They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes?" The meaning is made plain in the Revised Version merely by inserting " in," thus — • *' They say therefore unto the blind man again. What sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes? And he said. He is a prophet." John X. 14, 15. The connection between these two verses is totally destroyed in the Authorised Version, which runs thus : " I am the good Sheplierd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the 8o Companion to the Revised Ve?'ston of Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep/' The verses should be read as in the Revised Version : " I am the good Shepherd, and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me and I know the Father ; and I lay down my life for the sheep." John xi. 20. The supplementary word "still" here inserted in the Authorised Version : " but Mary sat still in the house," is apt to produce an erroneous impression. By simply transposing it in the Revised Version, the true meaning of the tense employed in the original is brought out ; " but Mary still sat in the house." Ads ii. 3. The Authorised Version is here quite wrong : " And there appeared unto them cloven tongues^ -like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." The symbolical meaning of the appearance is thus quite missed. We must render, as in the Revised Version, *' And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder (or, parting among them), like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." Acts iii. 19, 20. An impossible translation here occurs in the Authorised Version, in which we read : "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, wheji the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord ; and he The Endish Neiv Testament. shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you." For eschatological reasons it is most important that the true rendering of this passage should be presented. It is thus given in the Revised Version : *' Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so seasons of refresh- ing may come from the presence of the Lord ; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you (even), Jesus." Acts xxvi. 28. It is with some reluctance that we here abandon the rendering of the AutlK)rised Version, ''''Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." This is a text from which many eloquent and edifying sermons have been preached, but the Greek will not tolerate it. Quite a different expression must have been used for " almost ; " and the true rendering of the original, as it stands, seems to be that of the Revised Version : " With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian." Rom. iii. 25. The Authorised translation of this verse is, " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous- ness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." But, besides being almost unintelligible, this is an utterly impossible version of the Greek. The original can only be fairly represented in some such translation as that of the Revised G S2 Companioti to the Revised Version of Version : "Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to shew his righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God." Rom. xi. 7, 25. It is remarkable that the Greek words which the Authorised Version translates in these verses, and at 2 Cor. iii. 14, Eph. iv. 18, as " blinded " and " blindness," are in the Gospels (Mark iii. 5, vi. 52; John xii. 40) rendered "hardened'' and " hardness." The latter is their proper meaning, and, as such, it has been consistently maintained in the Revised Version. I Cor. iv. 4. This verse stands as follows in the Authorised Version, " For I know nothing by myself ; yet am I not hereby justified ; but he that judgeth me is the Lord." As thus translated, the passage is constantly misunderstood. Even intelligent readers imagine that the Apostle here means to state that he was dependent for all the knowledge he had on the favour of God. But this is a total misapprehension of the meaning. The true sense is brought out in the Revised Version, " For I know nothing against f?iyself; yet am I not hereby justified : but he that judgeth me is the Lord." This passage might, perhaps, have been more justly classed with those archaisms which require adjustment to present-day usage than with mistakes in translation. Yet the misunderstanding of the words The English New Testament. 83 is so great, that it seemed important to notice them here. Some have deemed the expression " by my- self" a mere provinciahsm, which was, through over- sight, admitted into the Authorised Version, but the phrase seems once to have been good EngUsh. Thus, " Cranmcr says to Henry VIII., ' I am exceedingly sorry that such faults can be proved by the queen,' that is, against her."* The x\postle means that though he was not conscious of having done any wrong in reference to the Corinthians, yet, after all, it was only God that could truly judge and thoroughly justify him. 2 Cor. ii. 14. Here the rendering, "Now thanivs be unto God, which always causeth ics to triumph in Christ," seems to rest on a mistake as to the meaning of the Greek. Indeed, the Authorised Version con- tradicts itself, for the same word occurs again at Col. ii. 15, and is there translated " triumphing over them." The correct rendering is that of the Revised Version, " But thanks be unto God, which always leadeth us in triumph in Christ," on which Bishop Lightfoot remarks, that here "the image of the believer made captive and chained to the car of Christ is most expressive, while the paradox of the Apostle's thanksgiving over his own spiritual defeat and thraldom is at once sig- nificant and characteristic." t * Eadie, The English Bible, ii. 374. t Revision of the New Testuineni, p. 135. G 2 $4 Companion to the Revised Version of Gal. V. 17. The Authorised Version here reads, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." By this rendering the flesh is represented as the master-principle, which succeeds in preventing believers from doing the things which they would. But the very opposite is impHed in the Greek. The Spirit who dwells in believers is represented as enabling them successfully to resist those tendencies to evil which naturally exist within them ; and the correct rendering is that of the Revised Version, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other ; that ye may not do the things that ye would^^ Eph. iv. 29. Here again the Authorised Version presents the following impossible translation, " Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying^ that it may minister grace unto the hearers." The Hteral meaning of the Greek is " to the building up of the need," and its real import is, that hearers are to be addressed, not in commonplace generalities, but in special terms, as their necessities require. This is expressed in the Revised Version, " Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but that which is The English New Testament. 85 good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear." Philipp. iv. 2, 3. The Authorised Version here reads, " I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I intreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women which laboured with me in the Gospel," &c. It would seem from this rendering that Euodias and Syntyche are referred to only in the second verse, and that the women afterwards spoken of are different. But the original shows that this is not the case, and the proper translation is that of the Revised Version, " I beseech Euodias, and I beseech Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yea, I intreat thee also, true yoke- fellow, help those 7vomenfor they laboured with me in the Gospel," &c. Col. ii. 8. If it cannot be said that the Authorised Version here is positively erroneous, it is certainly liable to grave misconstruction. The true meaning is clearly brought out, when instead of " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit," we read as in the Revised Version, " Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit." 2 Thess. ii. i. Here the Authorised Version errs, in common with many others, in the rendering, *'Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming S6 Coinpauio7i to the Revised Version of of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. It should be, as in the Revised Version, "Now we beseech you, brethren, in regard of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. I Tim. MX. 5. Here the rendering of the Author- ised Version, " supposing that gain is godliness," is not only erroneous but absurd. How it could have ever found acceptance is very difficult to understand. As the original clearly indicates, " godliness " is the subject, and "gain" the predicate, so that the correct rendering is that of the Revised Version, " supposing that godliness is a ivay of gain r "' Hei). xi. 13. This verse is spoiled in the Author- ised Version, which runs thus, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them and em- braced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." It was formerly remarked that the clause "and were persuaded of them" has no right to stand in the text. We have now to notice that the translation, "and embraced them," is incorrect. The image, as Chrysostom long ago remarked, is that of sailors who, catching a glimpse of the shores they wish to reach, salute them from a distance. It will be remembered how the poet notices this in our own language, when, speaking of a promontory by the sea, he says — The English Neiv Testament. 87 " His hoary head Conspicuous many a league, the mariner. Bound homeward, and in hope already there, Greets with three cheers exulting." * Such is the attitude assigned in this passage to the Old Testament saints, and the verse ought to be translated as in the Revised Version, " These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them, and greeted tJienifrom afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." I Fet. iii. 21. It is certain that the Authorised Version is here wrong in translating the original as meaning " the ansiver of a good conscience towards God." The exact meaning of the clause is difficult to determine. It probably is the seeking after God with an earnest heart, as the great spiritual idea in Christian baptism implies. The Revised Version, with certainly a far nearer approach to truth than the Authorised, inserts somewhat doubtfully in the text, " the interro- gation of a good conscience toward God," while " inquiry " and " appeal " stand on the margin. Rev.'w. 6, 7, 8, 9; V. 6, 8, 11, 14; vi. 1,3,5.6,7; vii. II ; xiv. 3 ; xv. 7 ; xix. 4. Every one must have heard the word "beast" or "beasts," which is the translation of the Authorised Version in these passages, quietly corrected into "living creature" or "creatures." * Cowper's Task, Book I. 88 Companion to the Revised Version of The word in the original is totally different from that which is found in such passages as Rev. xiii. i, xiv. 9, &c., where the rendering ''beast" is quite proper. The terms will be found properly discriminated in the Revised Version. The English New Testa7ne?it 89 CHAPTER 11. CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN GREEK GRAMMAR. Here a very wide field opens up before us. The Authorised Version is often most inexact in regard to grammatical points. This comes out in many ways, and will here be illustrated with reference to the article, the tenses of the Greek verb, and the senses assigned to several prepositions. It need hardly be said how great is the difference of meaning imparted to a clause or sentence in our language, according as one word in it is without an article, or has the indefinite or definite article. Thus, if we read, " God gave life to inan^'' that is felt to have a very distinct sense from " God gave life to a man/' and the latter again to be very different in meaning from, "God gave life to the man." Perhaps no better illustration could be adduced of the difference of significntion caused in English by the use of the indefinite or definite articles respectively than is fur- nished in the remark said to have been made by Charles Fox, when, comparing his own fluency with that of William Pitt, he said, " I never want a word, 90 Companio7i to the Reviscu Version of but Pitt never wants ihe word." These examples will sufficiently suggest to the reader how much may- depend on the coiTect use of the article in our language. But in the Authorised Version this point of accuracy has been almost entirely neglected. The Greek language has a definite article, and its omission or insertion in a passage often has the weightiest effect upon the sense. Yet our translators seem to have been ignorant of this fact, and have treated the article as if it were not of the slightest importance. They have been guilty of every possible variety of error in connection with it. As will immediately appear, they have omitted it in their version where it existed in the original ; they have inserted it where it had no place in the Greek ; and they have sometimes over-translated it by giving it the force of a demon- strative pronoun. Let us look at some instances of their blundering under each of these three heads. First — The Authorised Version has frequently omitted the article where it existed in the Greek. There are, no doubt, cases in which the English idiom will not tolerate the use of an article where it is found in the original. This is especially true when it stands before proper names and abstract nouns. But, with these exceptions, it is generally important that the definite article should be represented in English when The English New Testament. 91 it stands in the Greek. This comes out very strikingly in connection with the word Christ. That term is never used in the Gospels as a proper name, but always as an official title. Only once is it connected with the personal appellation Jesus, namely, at John xvii. 3, in which passage the Saviour stations himself, as it were, in the future, when his claim to be regarded as Messiah shall have been demonstrated by the resurrection. After that event, the term Christ might be used as synonymous with Jesus^ but not before. Accordingly, we find that in the Gospels the word has, with very few exceptions, the article prefixed, and should therefore be translated "///^ Christ." Thus, at Matt. ii. 4, where the Authorised Version has "he demanded of them where Christ should be born," the proper rendering is the Christ, the promised Messiah. And so throughout. Many other examples of the improper and hurtful omission of the article by the Authorised Version might be quoted. I shall notice only these two — 2 Thess. ii. 3. where, instead of " a falling away," and " that man of sin," we should read " except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed," and Heb. xi. 10, where the right rendering is, " he looked for the city which hath the foundations," the reference being to the well-known and often-alluded-to foundations, in other words, he looked for the New Jerusalem, of which it had been 92 Companion to the Revised Version of already said, " Her foundations are in the holy mountains" (Ps. Ixxxvii. i ; cf. Isa. xxviii. i6); even as in the Apocalypse great things are spoken of these glorious foundations of the heavenly city (Rev. xxi. 14, 19, 20)."* Proper regard to the insertion of the definite article where it occurs in the Greek will be found one of the marked characteristics of the Revised Version. Secondly, the Authorised Version has inserted the definite article where it had no place in the Greek. This is not such a frequent error as that just noticed, but still not a few examples are to be found. Thus, at I Tim. vi. 10, the Authorised Version makes St. Paul declare that " the love of money is the root of all evil," an exaggerated statement which could not be seriously maintained, whereas the true rendering is, " the love of money is a root of all evil," a sad truth which universal experience has confirmed. So again, at Luke iii. 14, we should read, "and soldiers also asked him ; " at 2 Cor. iii. 15, ^'- a veil lieth upon their heart;" at Gal. iv. 31, "children of a handmaid ; " at Philipp. iii. 5, "a Hebrew of Hebrews;" and thus in several other passages which will be noticed by readers of the Revised Version. Thirdly, the Authorised Version has sometimes over-transfated the article by giving it the force of a * Abp. Trench, On the Authorised Version, p. 86. The English JVeiu Testa ni en f. 93 demonstrative pronoun. Examples of this error occur at John i. 21, where we find, ''Art thou thai prophet ? '* instead of "Art thou the prophet?" iv. 37, ^^ that saying '^ for ** //^^ saying ; " vi. 32, "//i^/ bread" for "//^^ bread;" at Acts xix. 9, ^Uhat way" for ^^ the way;" 2 Cor. iii. 17, "///^/Spirit" for ''the Spirit;" vii. II, "in this matter " for " in the matter ; " Rev. i. 3, " words of this prophecy " for " words of the prophecy ; " and so in some other passages which have been corrected in the Revised Version. Finally, in connection with this point there are several passages which serve to prove that the trans- lators of the Authorised Version attached little or no importance to the occurrence of the article either in Greek or English. Thus, at James v. 20 they trans- lated the Greek by "« multitude of sins," while at I Peter iv. 8 they render the very same words 'Uhe multitude of sins." Thus, too, at Matt. viii. 20 we find the article which stands in the original given in English, " The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests," whereas at Luke ix. 58 the very same Greek is rendered without the article — " Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests." How detri- mental to the bringing out of the true meaning of Scripture in many passages was this unscholarly and inconsistent treatment of the article has already been sufficiently evinced. 94 Companion to the Revised Version of The next point of grammatical incorrectness which calls for notice in the Authorised Version respects the rendering of the tenses of the Greek verb. Here, as in regard to the article, the translators were, no doubt, misled by their greater familiarity with the Latin than the Greek language. The Latin has no article, definite or indefinite, nor does it possess the elaborate tense system of the Greek. In particular, Latin has no means of distinguishing between momentary past action for ever finished and con- tinuous past action just completed, but which may still be carried on. The Latin perfect tense must serve both purposes, and hence it was natural that men who were accustomed to speak and write in that language, with its one tense denoting both varieties of past action, should fail to discriminate between the two tenses employed to express the two kinds of past action in the sister tongue. We find, accordingly, that little attention is paid in the Authorised Version to the difference between the Greek aorist and the Greek perfect. They are interchanged very much at random in the translation. Thus, at Matt. ii. 2 an aorist is translated as a perfect — "we have seen" for "we saw;" while at Lukexiii. 2 a pisrfect is translated as an aorist — " they suffered " for " they have suffered." The clear principle which ought to be observed in regard to this matter is that The English New Testament. 95 the Greek tenses should ahvays be rendered with strict grammatical precision in English, whenever the genius of our language will admit of it. But there are, undoubtedly, many occasions on which English idiom will not tolerate a strict rendering of the aorist. Instead of the bare and hard past tense, a perfect or even pluperfect rendering brings out the meaning better in our language. Thus at Matt. xix. 20 an aorist occurs in the Greek, yet the Revised Version, no less than the Authorised, renders it by a perfect — "All these things have I obsej-ved'' It is quite impossible to act upon the rule that the Greek aorist must always be rendered by the English past tense ; and, that being so, differences of opinion will ne- cessarily arise with respect to particular passages. But, while this is admitted, there is at the same time no doubt that the strict grammatical meaning of the tense has often been departed from in the Authorised Version, not only without necessity, but even to the detriment of the sense. Thus, at Matt. ii. 15, instead of " I have called," we ought to read " I called," the reference being to a historic fact in the distant past. So at Acts xix. 2 the meaning is quite obscured by the rendering — " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" It ought to be, " Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed ? " Once more, at 2 Pet. i. 14 the striking reference by the Apostle to 96 Companion to the Revised Version of the scene described in John xxi. 18, 19, is quite lost by the substitution of a perfect tense for the aorist of the original. The verse has only to be read as it stands in the Authorised and Revised Versions re- spectively to feel that such is the case. In the one we find the following words : " Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me," as if the communica- tion had just been made. In the other we read, *' Knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swifdy, even as our Lord Jesus Christ shewed me " — the mind being thus at once transported to the shore of the Lake of Galilee, where Christ had so long ago forewarned his Apostle " by what manner of death he should glorify God." These are only a few examples of the many grammatical correc- tions which have been made with respect to the aorist in the Revised Version. Again, as has been said, perfects are translated as if they had been aorists. This also sometimes greatly mars the sense, as at i Cor. xv. 4. In the first clause of that verse an aorist occurs, and in the second a perfect ; but both are translated as past tenses in the Authorised Version, thus, " And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." The beautiful discrimination indicated in the original between the fact of Christ's burial and that The English New Testament. 97 of his resurrection is thus lost. The former event was simply historical, and has passed away for ever; the latter is more than historical, for Christ still exists as a living Person who has risen again from the dead. The perfect, therefore, should have its proper meaning assigned to it, and the verse should stand thus, " And that he was buried, and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." There are numerous other instances in which the use of the perfect in the Greek has a special beauty which is lost ^n our English version. Thus, the proper rendering at John v. 33 imparts great additional vividness to the passage — " Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth.'* Of course, the perfect may frequently be expressed by "is" as well as by "has;" we may say either "my time is not yet come,'' or, "my time has not yet come." Sometimes the one form is to be preferred in our language and sometimes the other; but in one way or another, the perfect, where it occurs in the Greek, may generally be expressed in English. Thus we read at Matt. xxv. 6, "At midnight a cry is made," and not " was made;" at John viii. 2iZi " have never been^^ and not " 7ve7'e never," and so in other places which will be observed in reading the Revised Version. The imperfect tense often expresses delicate shades of meaning in the original which cannot always be H 98 Companion to the Revised Version of represented in our language. But certainly much more may in this respect be accomplished than is attempted in the Authorised Version. Thus at Matt, iii. 14, the word "forbad" is a very coarse rendering of an imperfect tense in the Greek. The meaning is that John laboured for a time to avoid what he thought the unseemliness of baptising his superior, and this has been expressed in the Revised Version by the words, "John would have hindered him." Again, at Luke i. 59, there is a mis-statement of fact owing to the neglect of the imperfect tense. It is stated that "they called him Zacharias," but this is not true, since they were prevented by the interposition of his mother from doing so. The passage simply implies that they in- tended to name the child Zacharias, and this is ex- pressed by the translation, " they would have called him." Once more, at Luke v. 6, we read in the Authorised Version that " their net brake,'' where the proper rendering is ^'' was breaking'' — the process had begun. Sometimes the aorist and the imperfect stand in the same verse, and the force of the latter is then very obvious, yet has not unfrequently been missed. Thus at Luke viii. 23 we read that "there came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy;'^ but while the tense of the first verb denotes completed past action, that of the second implies that the threatened result was not The English Nav Testament. 99 yet accomplished, and the translation should be "they were filling with water." The manner in which the Greek tenses are rendered in the Authorised Version does indeed exhibit strange inconsistency and confusion. Present tenses are represented by pasts^ as at Heb. ix. 6, " the priests 7ve7it" for "the priests go,' at Rev. vii. 14, " these are they which came,'' for "these are they which come,'' and in other places ; and by futures, as at Matt. xxiv. 40 and 41, "the one shall be taken, and the other left," for "one is taken, and one is left;" John vii. 41, ''Shall Christ come out of Galilee?" for ''Doth the Christ come out of Galilee ? " and in several other passages. Future tenses are rendered as imperatives: thus, at Matt, v, 48, we find, '^ Be ye perfect," for "Ye shall be perfect, and at i Tim. vi. 8, we read, much to the injury of the passage, " Having food and raiment let us be therewith content," for " we shall be therewith content." While the Authorised Version is thus so very in- exact in its rendering of the tenses, we cannot expect to find it free from error in various other particulars connected with the Greek verb. Some writers have, accordingly, noted that it occasionally mis-translates the middle or passive voice, by assigning it a meaning which belongs only to the active. Thus, at Philipp. ii. 15, we find "among whom^'y the Father ; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." The great theological truth is thus obscured that the Father is the fountain of life, while the Son again is the source of all life to created beings, and specially of the highest life to His people ; and the verse should be rendered as follows, "As the living Father sent me, and I live beeause of t\\Q Father; so he that eateth me shall live beeause of me." At Heb. vi. 7 we read " bringeth forth herbs meet for I02 Compaiiion to the Revised Version of them by whom it is dressed," instead of the only correct rendering '"'•for whose sake it is dressed." Numerous other examples of the way in which the two perfectly distinct meanings of the preposition, according to the case by which it is followed, are confounded, might be produced, but that is not the only error which our translators have committed in respect to it. They have rendered it " at " in Matt. vii. 13, where the usual " by " would have been more correct; "for" at i Cor. vii. 26, where "by reason of " is the clearer translation; "for" again at Rom. XV. 30, where, with a different case, " by " is the only proper equivalent ; and even " to " instead of " by " at 2 Pet. i. 3, where they must have been in despair as to the meaning before they adopted such an im- possible translation. They clearly show that they had no principles to guide them in the rendering they gave of this preposition, sometimes placing the wrong translation in the text and the right one in tlie margin, or vice vei'sd, and being apparently induced to choose one English term rather than another, simply by what seemed to them best to suit the context. Not to dwell at any length on mis-translations of other prepositions, the following erroneous renderings may simply be noted as specimens. At Luke xxiii. 42 we have the very serious mistake of " Lord, re- The Eiiglish Ncio Testament. 103 member me when thou comest into thy kingdom,'' for " Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy king- dom" — in the full possession of Thy mediatorial sovereignty. At Matt, xxviii. 19, instead of ''baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," the true rendering is *' baptizing them into the name," just as at i Cor. x. 2 we read " baptized into Moses," and as should be read at Acts viii. 16, ^^into the name of the Lord Jesus," and at I Cor. i. 13, ^^ into the name of Paul." At Matt. xxiv. 30 the translation should be ^^ on the clouds," and not " in the clouds ;" and so in other passages where the same preposition is used. In the important doctrinal passage, i Cor. viii. 6, instead of " in him," we should read " unto him ;" and the verse runs thus in the Revised Version : " To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." It deserves also to be noticed that prepositions are sometimes mis-translated when in composition with verbs. Thus, to give only one striking example, we read in the Authorised Version, at Heb. iv. 14, "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." But this is an im- possible translation of the preposition here used with I04 Companion to the Revised Vej'sion of the verb, and the only correct rendering is, " Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession." This expression, " hath passed through the heavens," may at first appear strange to us, but it will gain in significance the more it is pondered, denoting, as it probably does, that "as the earthly high priest passed through the veil into the holiest place, so the great High Priest through the heavens to God's throne."* Many other examples of less or more inaccuracy might be noticed as existing in our common English translation, but the above must suffice as illustra- tions ; and the rest will suggest themselves to every careful reader of the Revised Version. • Alford on Heb. iv. 14. The English New Testament, 105 CHAPTER III. CORRECTION OF ARCHAISMS, AMBIGUITIES, AND THE RENDERING OF PROPER NAMES AND TECHNICAL EXPRESSIONS. No attempt has been made to modernise the style ot the Authorised Version. On the contrary, "innocent archaisms" — to use an expression which was fre- quently on the lips of the Company — have invariably been allowed to stand. It was felt that these tend to give a dignity and solemnity to a translation of the Scriptures, and that to change them into the language of present every-day life would have been to ensure loss instead of gain. As has been well remarked, "These (archaisms), shedding round the sacred volume the reverence of age, removing it from the ignoble associa- tions which will often cleave to the language of the day, should on no account be touched, but rather thankfully accepted and carefully preserved. For, indeed, it is good that the phraseology of Scripture should not be exactly that of our common life : should be removed from the vulgarities, and even the fami- liarities, of this ; just as there is a sense of fitness io6 Companion to the Revised Version of which dictates that the architecture of a church should be different from that of a house."* In accordance with these sentiments, the same antique air which belongs to the Authorised Version will be found also to distinguish the Revised Trans- lation. Every archaism that still continues generally intelligible has been left untouched. Hence, such forms as Jiath^ whiles^ throughIy\ holpen, &c., have been retained, and the relative " which " has been allowed to stand, as in old English, when the antece- dent is a person. But it is manifest that an archaism ceases to be innocent when it has become altogether obsolete, or has wholly or to a considerable degree changed its meaning. And not a few such words or phrases are to be found in the Authorised Version. They are now either quite unintelligible or seriously misleading; and to substitute other expressions for them was clearly one of the plainest duties to be kept in view in preparing the Revised Version. Tlie following words may be given as examples of those that have, of necessity, been replaced by others. "Let" now means to permit, but is used with exactly the opposite meaning of hinder at Rom. i. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 7. '^Worship" is now used only with reference to the service of God, but occurs in the * Abp. Trench On the AuiJiorised Version, p. 22. The English Nciv Testa mmf. 107 sense of respect show fi to ??ia?i at Luke xiv. 10; while "room," now meaning apartment^ is used in the same verse to denote a seat. "Wealth" reads strangely indeed at i Cor. x. 24, " Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth^' where the word means welfare. " Prevent " now means to hinder^ but at Matt. xvii. 25 and i Thess. iv. 15 it is used in the sense of anticipate or precede. " Quick " is used for livings as at Heb. iv. 1 2, and is barely intelligible to the ordinary reader of that passage. "Ensue" is quite obsolete in the sense oi pursue^ which it has at I Peter iii. 1 1. The word " conversation," as used in the Authorised Version, is a most fruitful cause of mistake. It always means conduct^ except at Philipp. iii. 20, where it is translated "citizenship" in the Revised Version, and might perhaps mean " city " or *'home." The dreadful word "damnation," which stands at i Cor. xi. 29, has had the very worst con- sequences in many cases, and means no more than judgment. " Honest," at Philip, iv. 8, is a Latinism, meaning honourable ; and the same is true of Rom. xii. 17, though the Greek is there different. "Affect," at Gal. iv. 17, is used for court, and "allow," at Luke xi. 48, means approve — senses of the words which would never occur to a modern English reader. The Vv'ords " offend " and " offence " are very misleading, but it is not easy, to substitute for them others that io8 Companion to the Revised Version of shall be in every respect preferable. The Revised Version has adopted cause to stumble and stumbling- block for "oifend" and "offence" in some passages, as Matt. V. 29, xvi. 23, but in others has not been able to get rid of the obnoxious words. " Virtue," at Mark V. 30 and Luke vi. 19, vii. 46, simply means /^7<:/^r. In the word "usury," at Matt. xxv. 27, there is no objectionable meaning, and it has been replaced by interest^ as our language now requires. " Nephews," at I Tim. V. 4, really means grandchildren ; and when Moses is called "a proper child," at Heb. xi. 23, the meaning is what we now express by such a word as goodly. The singular expression " occupy," found at Luke xix. 13 means traffic^ and "by-and-by," which occurs at Matt. xiii. 21 and several other passages in the Gospels, means immediately. " Writing table," at Luke i. 63, denotes writing tablet, while " devotions," at Acts xvii.' 23, means "objects of worship." To mention only one other example of the many misleading archaisms which exist in the Authorised Version, the word "debate " is used at Rom. i. 29 in the sense of strife ; 3iX\d so liable is this to be misunderstood that we are told " a worthy member of a Scottish Church court once warned its members not to call their deliberations a 'debate,' for debate was one of the rank sins condemned by the inspired apostle ! "* * Eadie's English Bible, ii. 374. The English Nciu Testament. 109 As specimens of archaic phrases or modes of ex- pression which are very apt at the present day to be mistaken the following will suffice. At Matt. vi. 34 the injunction, "Take no thought for the morrow," occurs, and has proved very hurtful in modern times. It was a faithful enough representation of the original two and a half centuries ago, for " thought " was then used in the sense of anxiety. But the word has now no such meaning, and the consequence is that the precept of our Lord as it stands has perplexed many a humble believer, while it has been used by unbelievers as a charge against Christ's teaching, which, they affirm, encourages iuiprovide7ice. But the Greek really means, " Be not anxious for the morrow," and is so rendered in the Revised Version. Again, to take an instance of a different kind, what a ludicrous notion are these words at Acts xxi. 15 fitted to suggest : " And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem." Persons of education will doubdess run little risk of mistaking the meaning of the passage. But it should ever be remembered that the Bible is, above all other volumes, the people's book, and that, it possible, not a single expression should be left in any translation of it which is at all likely to stumble or perplex the plainest reader. In the case before us, a very slight change, 'Sve took up our baggage,'^ makes the meaning clear. Some strange stories have been no Companioti to the Revised Version of told in connection with the words " we fetched a compass," which occur at Acts xxviii. 13, and whether these be true or not, much is gained by the rendering, '' we made a circuit," adopted in the Revised Version. Some ambiguities which occur in the Authorised Version also deserve to be noticed. One of the most puzzling of these, if regard be had only to the ap- parently grammatical import of the words, occurs at 2 Cor. V. 21, " He hath made him to be sin for us, who kneui 710 sin^^ where it might seem that the sinlessness of mankind was proclaimed. This possible misconception is very simply but effectually obviated in the Revised Version, by rendering, in exact ac- cordance with the order of the Greek, '' Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf." At Luke iv. 20 the statement " He closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister " might suggest the idea of a president or preacher in the synagogue, instead of the attendant or officer who had charge of the sacred books. At Eph. vi. 12 the rendering, " spiritual wickedness in high places," is clearly ambiguous, as it might seem to refer (and has, indeed, been so taken) to the wickedness of persons high in rank or authority, whereas the true meaning is "in the heavenly places," as in other passages of the Epistle. There is an obvious misplacement of the word " also " at Heb. xii. I, to the obscuring of the sense : " Wherefore The English Naa Testament. 1 1 1 seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside," &c., as if the believers named in the previous chapter were, like us, " compassed about," while they, in fact, are them- selves "the cloud of witnesses ; " and the verse should run, " Let us also," &c. Finally, James ii. i, " My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," is rendered clearer by translating '• hold not," &c. ; and so at chap. iii. i, " My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemna- tion," has, with advantage, been exchanged for, " Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive a greater judgment," in the Revised Version. We now proceed to consider the rendering of proper- fianies. The common-sense principle to be observed in regard to these is that one form should be preserved throughout Scripture for the same person, so that there may be no doubt as to identity. But, as need hardly be said, this rule is grossly violated in the Authorised Version. We find such varieties as Noah and Noe, Korah and Core, Hosea and Osee, Sinai and Sina, Midian and Madian, Miletus and Miletum, &c., made use of in referring to the same persons or places. This is most confusing to the reader, and may sometimes entail serious disadvantage. *' Let us just seek,"' it 112 Companion to the Revised Version of has been well said, "to realise to ourselves the difference in the amount of awakened attention among a country congregation which Matt. xvii. lo would create if it were read thus : 'And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come ? ' as compared with what it now is likely to create."* The procedure of our translators in regard to this matter of proper names is truly in- comprehensible. Not only do they vary the forms in the Old and New Testament, but they do so in the New Testament itself, even in the same books, yea, in the same chapters. Thus we find '' Mark " at Acts xii. 12, 25 and 2 Tim. iv. it, but "Marcus" at Col. iv. lb, Philem. ver, 24, i Peter v. 13 ; " Cretes " at Acts ii. II, but "Cretians" at Tit. i. 12; "Simon, son of Jona," at John i. 42, but " Simon, son of Jonas," at John xxi. 15, 16, 17; "Luke" at Col. iv. 14, 2 Tim. iv. II, but "Lucas" at Philem. ver. 24; "Jeremy" at Matt. ii. 17, but "Jeremias" at Matt, xvi. 14, and "Jeremy" again at Matt, xxvii. 9; " Timotheus" at Acts xvi. i, but "Timothy" at Heb. xiii. 21, and, most strange of all, " Timothy " at 2 Cor. i. I, but " Timotheus," at ver. 19 of the same chapter. It is no slight gain that these and similar inconsis- tencies have been corrected in the Revised Version. But there is another name which here calls for * Trench On the Authorised Version, p. 41. The English Neio Testament. 113 special notice — even the "name that is above every name." The Greek form of Joshua is Jesus, and for that very insufficient reason Jesus stands in two passages of the Authorised Version where Joshua^ the leader of Israel, is intended. These are Acts vii. 45 and Heb. iv. 8, and in both passages the introduc- tion of the name of Jesus must have proved very puzzling to plain English readers. When they tind it stated that " if Jesus had given them rest, then would he (David) not afterwards have spoken of another day," their minds are certain to form some confused notion of the Saviour, who is the author of rest to His people. And thus is a passage of Scripture obscured and perverted by the use of the name Jesus, instead of Joshua, to designate the illustrious captain of the children of Israel. The extraordinary inconsistency of the Authorised Version in regard to proper names admits of still further illustration. At Acts xvii. 19 we find the term "Areopagus," but only three verses after the same spot is referred to as " Mars' hill ;" the form " Judea" occurs at Matt. ii. i, and most other places, but for some inconceivable reason the name appears as " Jewry " at Luke xxiii. 5 and John vii. i ; so, again, " Judas " is the usual form in the New Testament for the "Judah" of the Old, but the name appears as *' Juda " :^t Mark vi. 3, &c., and as " Jude " in the first 114 Companion to the Revised Version of verse of the Epistle written by that Apostle. It is hardly possible to say a word in defence of such capricious variations, and, as a matter of course, they are not to be found in the Revised Version. With regard to all such names, the really important points are that the form which has through circum- stances become most familiar should be adopted, and that then this form should be adhered to with strict, unvarying consistency. On now turning to the consideration of technical expressions, we find much to object to in the Authorised Version. Several, indeed, of the render- ings it has given of them involve more or less of positive error. Thus is it with the term "deputy,^' which occurs at Acts xiii. 7, 8, 12, and xix. 38; it should always be translated " proconsul." Again, the rendering " certain of the chief of Asia," at Acts xix. 3 1, suggests quite a false impression. It is an official title, and should have either been transferred from the Greek, like "tetrarch," so as to read "Asiarchs," or translated "presidents," as in the Revised Version. At Mark vi. 27 the word rendered "executioner" really signifies *' a soldier of the guard ; " and at Rom. xvi. 23 " treasurer of the city " is a preferable render- ing to " chamberlain " It is very difiicult to decide what course should be The Endish New Testament. followed in translating the names of coins, weights and measures. As need hardly be said, there are, as regards these, no words in our language exactly corresponding to the original ; and it would never do to present them in a strictly equivalent version, so as to read "a measure of wheat for eightpence-half- penny," or " six pounds five shillings would not purchase bread sufficient." On the other hand, every one feels that the " penny " and " pence " which occur so often in the Authorised Version are awkward and misleading. Still, nothing better could be found. The word in the original, "denarion," might indeed have been transferred from the Greek into English, and so with all the other terms in question. But this would have been felt almost intolerable, and such words could have conveyed no meaning to the English reader. For the most part, therefore, they have been left unaltered in the Revised Version. Bui in some passages greater definiteness has been given to the translation. Thus at Matt. xvii. 24, instead ot the general word " tribute," there is read, " Doth not your master pay the half-shekdV And at ver. 27 of the same chapter, for the unmeaning "piece of money," we read " the shekel,'' which, being exactly double the amount mentioned before, throws light on the mimediately following words of our Lord to St. Peter, " that take, and give unto ih^m f 07- me and thee.''* I 2 ii6 Companion to the Revised Version of It may here simply be noted that the expression *' Easter," which occurs once in the Authorised Ver- sion, is quite indefensible. Our translators struck it out from many other places in which it stood in the earlier English versions, and it was probably retained at Acts xii. 4 by mere oversight. The word ought to be rendered there, as everywhere else, "passover. " There is one word not occurring at all in the Authorised Version that has simply been transplanted from Greek into English in the Revised Translation. This is the term ^' Hades," denoting the invisible world. Immense gain has been secured in several passages by the adoption of this word. Thus is it very markedly at Acts ii. 27, where these words are quoted from Ps. xvi. in reference to Christ : " Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption." The common rendering "hell" is here wholly unsuitable. That word has in the Revised Version been reserved for a totally different term (Gche7i7ia) in the original. Before concluding this chapter, I may notice the correction of an error in the Authorised Version which seems to have been due at first simply to a misprint. It occurs at Matt, xxiii. 24 : " Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The correct rendering is " strain oiit^' and so, doubtless, the trans- lators intended their text to be, but in some way or The English Neiv Testament, 117 other, at instead of out found a place in the verse. We are told by scholars who have carefully examined the first edition of the Authorised Version, issued in 161 1, that it is by no means correctly printed. The errors which it contained have been gradually removed in subsequent editions, so that the text is now very accurate ; but strangely enough, while other mistakes have been perceived and corrected, this " strain at " for " strain out " has maintained its place down to the present day. ii8 Companion to the Revised Version of CHAPTER IV. CORRECTION OF THE UNNECESSARY CONFOUNDING OF ONE GREEK WORD WITH ANOTHER IN TRANSLATION. Here it must at once be admitted that not a few distinctions which are well marked in the original cannot be exhibited in English. Strive as we may to the contrary, we are compelled to use the same word for different Greek expressions. This results from the comparative poverty of our tongue. It has been justly said that Greek can draw a clear line where other languages can only make a blot ; and wc vuust, therefore, as a matter of necessity, abandon in traub- lation many of those fine distinctions which exist ia the original. It is, for instance, impossible to present in English the delicate shades of difference in meaning which appear in the Greek between the two* verbs both rendered "love" at John xxi. 15 — 17. Yet the beauty of the passage is much impaired by the necessity which is felt in our language of translating the two words by one and the same in English. The word * a707raa) and ^ikiw. The English New Testaifient. 119 first employed by Christ is a very common one in the New Testament, and specially denotes a pure, spiritual affection. It is used of God's love to man, as at John iii. 16 — "God so ^m/ the world," &c. — and of man's love to God, as at Matt. xxii. 37—" Thou shalt love the Tord thy God," &c. The other word more par- ticularly implies that warmth of feeling which exists between friends. Thus, it is used respecting Lazarus at John xi. 3 : " Behold, he whom thou lovest is sick ;" and again, at John xx. 2, of St. John himself, when he is spoken of as "the disciple whom Jesus lauedV Now, the use of the one word at first by Christ serves to remind St. Peter of the claim which his Divine Master had upon his deep, reverential love. But the Apostle, now profoundly sensible of his own weakness, does not venture to promise this, yet, feeling his whole heart flowing out to Christ, he makes use of the other word, and assures the Saviour at least of a fervent personal affection. Christ then repeats His question, still using the same verb, and Peter replies as before. But on asking the question for the third time, Christ graciously adopts the term employed by the Apostle : He speaks to him again as a friend ; He clasps the now happy disciple afresh to His own loving heart. Now, all this we must, of necessity, lose through the meagreness of our language. In like manner, we miss the delicacy of the Greek in regard to the use of I20 Companion to the Revised Version of the same two verbs at John xi. 3 and 5. And so is it in many other cases. When we observe that there are no fewer than seven Greek words wliich it has been found possible to translate as " child " in the Authorised Version, no fewer than ten which have been rendered "appoint," no fewer than fourteen which stand for "give," and no fewer than twefity-ojie which correspond to " depart," enough has been said to suggest how frequently subtle distinctions which exist in the original must be lost in every English translation. But this should only render the desire more earnest that where differences indicated in the Greek can be preserved in our language the opportunity should not be neglected. In many instances, indeed, there may not be much, if any, practical advantage resulting from such care in translation. Yet even then it is interesting and proper that distinctions observed in the original should, as far as possible, appear in the version. And, as will immediately be shown, it is sometimes most important, for the right understanding of passages, that distinctions should be clearly brought out which have been obliterated in the Authorised Version. Let us look, for instance, at the two words* both rendered " fold" in John x. 16, and observe how the * avKr] and ttol/u.i'T}. The English N'civ Tesfanient. 121 force of the passage comes out when they are distinguished, as they should be, in translation. The common Version runs thus: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." But the Revised Version renders the last clause thus : " And they shall become one Jlock, one shepherd." The Jewish Church constituted a special fold^ with its strict enclosure, but our Lord's words tell of the time when this exclusiveness should be done away, and when, instead of the narrowness of a fold, there should be the wide-spreading freedom of a Jlocky with one shepherd caring for them all. An interesting distinction of gender which exists at John i. 1 1 should not have been suppressed under the rendering ''his own," adopted in both clauses of the verse. In the first clause the neuter plural is found, and in the second the mascult7ie^'^ a difference which has been indicated by this rendering in the Revised Version : " He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not." Two different words | are, in common, translated " temple " in the Authorised Version, and in most passages their confusion is not of much consequence. But there is a clear difference of meaning between * Ttt tSm and oUZiOi. \ rh Upou and 5 va6s. 122 Coinpaiiio7i to the Revised Version of them, and it is sometimes important that this should be brought out. The one is more general, embracing house and courts — the whole, indeed, of the sacred enclosure — and is consequently used in such passages as John x. 23, " Jesus walked in the te??iple" and Acts V. 20, " Go, stand and speak in the te7nple to the people." The other is more restricted, denoting the temple proper, the building or sanctuary, once called, at Luke xi. 51, 'Hhe house." Now, unless these two meanings of the word '' temple" be borne in mind, such a statement as that which occurs at Matt, xxiii. 35 will not be understood. Our Lord there speaks to His hearers of " the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.'^ In the wide sense of the word, the altar was within the temple, standing, as it did, in the court of the priests. But it is the more restricted term which is here used -, and the reader will have no difficulty in understanding the passage when he reads it, as in the Revised Version, " whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar y At I Cor. xiv. 20 the force of the Apostle's exhortation is weakened by two different words* being both rendered '' children." The second expression is better rendered " babes ;" and thus we learn how far St. Paul would have Christians go in their abnegation of all wickedness. " Be not children in mind," he * /tr/ 7rat5/a ylveaOe and i/rjirid^eTe. The English New Testament. 123 says : *' howbeit in malice be ye babes ^^ guileless and innocuous as infants. There are three words rendered " son " in the Authorised Version, but there is a cluster of passages on which it is important that one* of these should rather be translated " servant." This is the meaning sometimes properly assigned it, as at Matt. viii. 6, Luke XV. 26 ; but in the passages referred to — Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30 — it is translated "son," or "child." But it is not to the sonship of Christ that these passages point. It is rather to the obedience which, as the servant of the Father, He rendered upon earth, and by bringing this out an important connection is established between the Old and New Testaments. As Archbishop Trench has remarked : " Every student of prophecy must have noticed how much there is in Isaiah prophesying of Christ under the aspect of ' the servant of the Lord,' ' Israel my servant^ ' my servant whom I uphold' (Isa. xlii. i — 7, xlix. i — 12, Iii. 13, liii. 12). But it is quite certain from the inner harmonies of the Old Testament and the New that wherever there is a large group of prophecies in the Old there is some allusion to them in the New."f The Authorised Version does to some extent indicate the connection between fulfilment and prophecy in this matter by translating the word " servant " at Matt. » TTOi^. t On the Authorised Version, p. 68. 124 Companion to the Revised Version of xii. 1 8, where Isa. xlii. i is quoted; but the same rendering should have been adopted in the Acts, and this has been done in the Revised Version. There are two words, both translated "repent,"* in the Authorised Version which it is most desirable to distinguish wherever that is possible. The one word means simply to "rue" or "regret," a course which has been followed; the other implies that thorough change of mind which is implied in Christian repent- ance. Accordingly, the first term is applied, at Matt, xxvii. 3, to Judas, and denotes remorse rather than re- pentance; while the second is constantly used in such passages as Luke xv. lo : "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repent ethP Unfortunately, it is not always possible to express the distinction in our language, but this has been done at 2 Cor. vii. 8, lo, in the Revised Version, where "regret" has been introduced instead of "repent," and the distinction has been made clear between the sorrow which is felt for having simply made a mistake and that which is experienced from a sense of un- worthiness and guilt. In accordance with the differ- ence of meaning thus indicated, it has been remarked that the second verb is frequently used in the impera- tive, the first never. While the substantive for " unbelief" and the verb * ^era^eAo^at and jxerauoew. The English Neiv Testament. 125 for " to believe not " are always correctly rendered in the Authorised Version, there are two other related words * sometimes confounded with these that should invariably be translated "disobedience" and ''to obey not." This is the rendering given at Eph. ii. 2, I Peter ii. 8, and other passages ; but at Heb. iv. 6, Rom. xi. 30, &c., we find them translated "unbehef" and " believe not." This inconsistency has been cor- rected throughout the Revised Version ; and the point is of some importance, since unbelief and disobedience are not identical, but the one is the source of the other. In one passage, John xiii. 10, the rendering of two different verbs f by the same English word has led to an almost complete obscuration of the sense. Let any one read the Authorised Version, " He that is washed needeth not save to luash his feet," and scarcely any point will be seen in the words. But let him turn to the Revised Version, and read, "He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet," and the force of our Lord's statement will at once be apprehended. He will see that as, literally, the man who has been bathed needs only to wash his feet from the defile- ment which has been contracted since leaving the bath, so, spiritually, the believer in Christ, who has been cleansed from guilt by faith, needs not to have that process repeated, but simply requires, from day to * d7rei9eia and aituQiu. f K^Kovixivos and yixpaaOai. 126 Companion to the Revised Version of day, to be freed from the pollution which is contracted as he journeys through the world. There are two nouns translated " knowledge," and two related verbs translated " know," * which it is sometimes important to distinguish. The one form of the words is simple, the other is a compound with a preposition. The compound words denote full Christian knowledge. In one passage, 2 Cor. vi. 9, the Authorised Version acknowledges the intensified meaning given to the verb by the preposition : " as un- known, and yet well known /" but in other passages, as I Cor. xiii. 12, this is overlooked. We ought also to read at Eph, i. 17, as in the Revised Version, " the ///// k?iowledge of him," as being the great object of the Apostle's desire for those who already have come to a saving knowledge of the truth. In other passages the necessity for change is not so obvious. Much obscurity results from the manner in which the word "will" is used in the Authorised Version. It is, of course, the sign of the English future, but besides that it does service as the representative of two different Greek verbs, t These verbs cannot always be distinguished in our language, but at least it may be made sure that they are not mistaken for the mere sign of the future. Thus the important text, * yi'uici.s and iniyvooffis ; yiyuxriccc and iTnyiV(.-.cnc(c, f 0€Aco and QovXouai. The English New Testament. 127 John vii. 17, becomes much clearer to the English reader Avhen it is read, as in the Revised Version, " It any man wiUetJi to do his will, he shall know of the teaching," &c. So the meaning of i Tim. vi. 9 becomes more obvious when we read instead of "they that will be rich," ''they that desire to be rich." Some other passages, as Matt. v. 40, are made clearer by the use of "would" instead of "will." See again Acts xxii. 28, &c. The word* most frequently rendered "miracle," or "miracles," occurs seventeen times in St. John's Gospel, thirteen times in St. Matthew, eleven times in St. Luke, and seven times in St. Mark. Now, it is a curious fact that, while this word is rendered " miracle," or " miracles," thirteen times in St. John's Gospel, that rendering is not once given it in the other Gospels, except at Luke xxiii. 8. In every other passage it is translated sign^ or signs ; and such is the rendering which should have been preserved throughout. The wordf which properly means "miracles," /.d, marvellous works, occurs but three times in the Gospels — Matt. xxiv. 24, Mark xiii. 2i'^^ John iv. 48 — and never with reference to the works which Christ performed. It is, therefore, to be re- gretted that a word which simply suggests what is strange or wonderful should have such prominence * i, " There was dark- ness over the whole land until the ninth hour," and of The English New Testament. 139 Luke xxlii. 44, " There was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour," would imagine that the original of both passages is exactly the same? The one Evangelist is made to differ from the other in a most important particular by the totally uncalled for and unwarrantable variety of rendering which is adopted. Either " land " or " earth " (doubtless, I think, the former) ought manifestly to be chosen in both passages, as well as at Matt, xxvii. 45. One other example of the darkening effect of a needless variation of rendering is found at Rev. iv. 4. The Authorised Version there reads, " And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment ; and they had on their heads crowns of gold." Under the influence of a timidity which shrank from appearing to make creatures equal in dignity to the great Creator, our translators have here failed to do justice to the original. The word rendered "throne " and "seats " is the same in Greek, so that we ought to read, " And round about the throne were four and twenty thrones^^ the great Scriptural truth being thus illustrated that Christ's redeemed not only see His glory, but share in it — they "reign together with him" (2 Tim. ii. 12). A like mistaken scrupulousness has prevented the proper rendering " throne " being given at Rev. ii. 13 and xvi. 10. Instead of " Satan's seat " and " the seat I40 Companion to the Revised Version of of the beast," we ought to read, " Satan's throne^'' and "the throne of the beast," for this rendering is in keeping with the fact that in the Apocalypse, " as nowhere else in Scripture, is set forth the hellish parody of the heavenly kingdom : the conflict between the true King of the earth and the usurping king ; ''* the mimicking by Satan, in his presumptuous vain-glory of that real and eternal majesty which is possessed by Christ. Let us now turn to some passages in which a needless variety of rendering is apt to suggest a baseless idea to the English reader, or at least to blunt for him the force of the original. When these words are read at Matt. xxv. 46, " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life eternal^^^ the English reader can hardly fail to suppose that some diversity exists in the original, and thus, perhaps, is led to perplex himself as to the difference of meaning between "everlasting" and "eternal." But since the Greek word is the same in both clauses the translation evidently ought to be consistent, as in the Revised Version. Again, it has frequently been noticed how capricious and hurtful are the varieties of rendering given in the fourth chapter of Romans to the one Greek word translated, first of all, " counted " in verse 3. The word occurs * Trench, On Authorised Version^ p. 54. The English New Testament. 141 no fewer than eleven times in the course of the chapter, and is variously translated " count" (ver. 3, 5)^ *' reckon " (ver. 4, 9, 10), "impute" (ver. 6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24), the version turning from one expression to another in the most arbitrary and unaccountable manner. It is needless to say how the English reader is apt to be confused by such changes, and how much is gained in point of clearness by the retention of the same rendering throughout. In the seventh chapter of the same Epistle the force of the argument in ver. 7, 8 is greatly weakened through want of uniformity in the rendering. Words radically the same in the original are variously rendered '* lust," *' covet," " concupiscence," in the Authorised Version : thus, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law : for I had not known /nst^ except the law had said. Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead." How much more clear and satisfactory does the argument appear when we read, " What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law : for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, finding an occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting. For 142 Compaiiion to the Revised Version of apart from the law sin is dead." The same injurious effect of what was, no doubt, intended as an agreeable variety of rendering is noticeable in the second Epistle to the Corinthians. That Epistle is remarkable for the use of key-words (if we may so call them) occurring one after the other. In the first chapter the two antithetic expressions " comfort " and " affliction " are repeated again and again (ver. 4, 6, &c.) by the Apostle; but the impression thus made on a reader of the original is weakened to an English reader by the capricious substitution of "tribulation " for " affliction," and " consolation " for " comfort." So, again, where the Apostle introduces the word " veil " or its derivatives, at chap. iii. 15, 18, iv. 3, the connection between the verses is obliterated by the renderings " with open face " instead of " with unveiled face," and *'if our gospel be hid^^ for ''if our gospel is veiled.^* So at several other passages of the Epistle. With regard to quotations from the Old Testament, it is obvious that where these are made in the same words in the Greek they ought to be similarly given in English. But this is far from being the case in the Authorised Version. Thus, the great text, Gen. xv. 6, is quoted four times by St. Paul in the very same manner (Rom. iv. 3, 9, 22 ; Gal. iii. 6), and each time is somewhat varied in the translation: (i) "was counted unto him for righteousness," (2) " was reckoned The English New Testa fiient, 143 to Abraham for righteousness," (3) "was impuica to him for righteousness," (4) " was accounted to him for righteousness." Again, Deut. xxxii. 35 is twice quoted (Rom. xii. 19 ; Heb. x. 30) in the very same words, yet it is thus variously rendered in the two passages : (i) "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord," (2) "Vengeance (belongeth) unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." Once more, the same arbitrary variation of texts quoted from the Old Testament in exactly the same words occurs in passages so near each other as Heb. iii. 11 and Heb. iv. 3. The words are rendered, (i) "So I sware in my wrath. They shall not enter into my rest," and (2) "As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest ; " while the last clause is repeated in the same form at ver. 5, " If they shall enter into my rest." It is well known that this latter form of expression, unintelligible in English, is, according to Hebrew idiom, equivalent to a strong negative, so that the clause should always be rendered, " They shall not enter into my rest." Not a word need be said in support of the position that parallel passages in the Gospels and other parts of Scripture, which are expressed in the same words in Greek, ought to be similarly given in English. Any other course almost amounts to unfaithfulness to the original and cannot fail to mislead the reader. Yet 144 Companion to the Revised Version of the Authorised Version is a very great offender in this respect. The lollowing examples out of many may be quoted. At Matt. iv. 6 we find ''''concerning thee," while at Luke iv. lo the very same words are rendered " over thee ; " and, in like manner, exactly coincident expressions are translated at Matt. iv. 19, ''^Follow me," at Mark i. 17, ^^ Come ye after mt ]^' at Matt. x. 14, "the dust," at Luke ix. 5, " the zwj dust ; " at Matt. X. 22, " but he that endureth to the end shall be saved," at Mark xiii. 13, "but he that shall endure the same shall be saved;" at Matt. xi. 19, "behold a man gluttonous," at Luke vii. 34, " behold a gluttonous man;" at Matt. xvii. 19, "apart," at Mark ix. 28, ** privately;" at Matt. xix. 7, " a writing," at Mark x. 4, "a bill;" at Matt. xxvi. 41, " Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak," at Mark xiv. t,?>, " Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak." And so in a mul- titude of other places, there not being a single chapter in the first three Gospels treating of the same subjects in which this needless and hurtful tendency to varia- tion is not perceptible. So is it, to some extent, with parallel passages in the Epistles. Ephesians and Colossians, 2 Peter and Jude, have many points of connection between themselves, but these are con- siderably obscured to the English reader by varieties The English New Testament. 145 of rendering which are adopted for the same words in the several Epistles. Thus, the word which is trans- lated " working" at Eph. i. 9 is given as " operation " at Col. ii. 12 ; "lowliness" at Eph. iv. 2 is "humble- ness of mind " at Col. iii. 12;" compacted " at Eph. iv. 6 is " knit together" at Col. ii. 19 ; "be obedient" at Eph. vi. 5 is "obey" at Col. iii. 22; "govern- ment" at 2 Pet. ii. 10 is "dominion" at Jude, ver. 8; and "mist" at 2 Pet. ii. 17 is "blackness" at Jude, ver. 13. It is evident to how great disadvantage the English reader is thus subjected in seeking to compare Scripture with Scripture, and to derive light from one passage for the full understanding of another. If not practically very important, it is at least interesting and desirable that uniformity of rendering should be preserved in regard to expressions which are fitted to suggest the individuality of the sacred writers to an English reader. They have all a more or less marked style of their own. St. Matthew's Gospel is distinguished by a strong Hebrew colouring, St. Mark's by a somewhat rude yet graphic character, St. Luke's by a comparatively close approach to classical models of composition, and St. John's by the softness and fulness of its diction. Each of the Evangelists also displays a predilection for certain forms of expression. St. Matthew generally uses the K 146 CompanioJi to the Revised Version of phrase, "kingdom oi heaven J^ where the other Evange- Hsts have "kingdom of God ;" the formula "gospel of the kingdom " is also peculiar to him, and he is very- partial to the use of the Greek particle, for "then," which occurs no less than Jiinety times in his Gospel — oftener, that is, than in all the other Gospels taken together. St. Mark's favourite expression is "straightway," which is found more than y^r// times in his Gospel— that is, again, oftener than in all the other Gospels put to- gether. Now, it is obvious that such marked features in the first two Gospels should be preserved, as they easily may be, in translation. But the Authorised Version has, to a considerable extent, failed to do this in the case of St. Mark, by giving the one word which he so constantly uses such varying translations as " straightway," " immediately," " forthwith," " anon," " as soon as," while the first of these renderings might have been preserved throughout. St. Luke evinces no very striking fondness for any particular term or form of expression : his vocabulary is far wider than that of the other Evangelists ; but it may be remarked that while he is no such mannerist as St. Matthew or St. Mark, the Greek preposition for " with " appears in his Gospel oftener than in all the others. St. John, again, is at once seen to delight in the repetition of certain words, such as to abide, and to bear ivitness. The former verb occurs over forty times in his Gospel, The English New Testament. 147 and the latter over thirty times, while its cognate sub- stantive is ioMW^ fourteen times. But this is, to a great extent, hidden from an English reader through the variety of renderings admitted in the Authorised Ver- sion. For "abide" we have "remain," "tarry," "endure," "dwell," "continue," "being present," while in almost every passage "abide" is quite a satisfactory translation. For " witness," again, we find the need- less variations, " bear witness," " testify," " bear record," "gave " (in the first Epistle of St. John), and "hath good report" (in third Epistle), while the con- nected substantive, " witness," is every now and then replaced by "record" or " testimony." With respect to St. Paul, it has been observed how readily he catches up and uses for his own purpose an expres- sion which has fallen from the lips of an opponent. This may be illustrated by a reference to Acts xxvi. 24, 25, though the point is lost in our common English version. The same word is used in both verses ; and if instead of, " Paul, thou art beside thy- self," we read, " Paul, thou art 7nad^'' we then feel the force of the Apostle's reply : " I am not mad, most excellent Festus ; but speak forth words of truth and soberness." All such minute accuracies, though they may be deemed trifling, should be carefully attended to in translation. It is strange to notice what different degrees of K2 148 ComJ^anion to the Revised Version of force are given to the same word in different passages of the Authorised Version. Thus, what is " beloved " in Matt. xvii. 5 and Mark ix. 7 becomes "dear' in Eph. V. 1, while it ascends into "well-beloved" at Mark xii. 6, and " dearly beloved " at Rom. xii. 19. No English reader would imagine that it is the same word in the original which is thus rendered with such varying degrees of intensity. So the term which means "palsied" (Luke v. 18, &c.) sinks into "feeble" at Heb. xii. 12. Tl^is sort of caprice may sometimes be found in two successive verses. The word, for instance, which is translated simply at Gal. iv. 8 "did service " rises in the following verse to this rendering, " to be in bondage." In parallel passages, again, we find a varying force given to the very same words. Thus, what is "much displeased" at Mark x. 41 is represented by " moved with indignation " at Matt. XX. 24, and what is simply "chief" at Matt. xx. 27 becomes " chiefest " at Mark x. 44. A reflecting English reader cannot fail to be puzzled by such groundless variations. Much inconsistency exists in the Authorised Ver- sion with respect to the translation given of the terms Rabbi and Rabboni. Sometimes the original word is retained, as at Matt, xxiii. 7, John i. 2)^^ &:c.; at other times it is rendered "Master," as at Matt. xxvi. 25 • John iv. 31, &c. j while Rabbo7ii is preserved at John The English New Testament. 149 XX. 16, but translated "Lord" at Mark x. 51. Being a well-known title of respect among the Jews, the term *' Rabbi " should have been preserved throughout; and this seems specially important at Matt. xxvi. 49, Mark XV. 45, as suggesting the profound dissimulation of Judas, who spoke to Christ in this style of compli- mentary address while in the very act of betraying Him. There are two closely related words, which occur at Acts xix. 37 and Rom. ii. 22, which are so differendy rendered in the Authorised Version that no English reader would ever suspect any connection between them. In the first passage we find "robbers of churches,'^ and in the second " dost thou commit sacrilege V* Heathen temples are in both cases referred to, so that the respective renderings should be " robbers of temples " and " dost thou rob temples ? " Another passage may be referred to, in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, in which variation of rendering has broken the unity and connection of the Apostle's train of thought. Having spoken of the solemn issues which hung on the acceptance or rejec- tion of the Gospel by those who heard it, he exclaims, at chap. ii. 16, "And who is sufficient for these things ? " After some intervening remarks, introduced in his own characteristic way, the Apostle returns, at chap. T50 Companion to the Revised Version of iii. 5, to the consideration of the "sufficiency" refen-ed to, and gives an answer to his own solemn question in these words : — *' Not that we are sufficient of our- selves to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God, who also ?nade us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant," &c. The translation in the Authorised Version of the last clause as *' who also hath 7nade us able ministers of the New Testament," completely mars the harmony of the passage. The above examples are sufficient to show how capricious, and often hurtful, are the different renderings often given to the same Greek word or phrase in the ordinary English version. Many of the variations are harmless so far as the meaning is con- cerned, but are, nevertheless, to be regretted as misleading to a reader who cannot consult the original. When such a reader finds at James ii. 2 the expression "goodly apparel," and in the very next verse "gay clothing," would he ever imagine that these different terms are a translation of the very same Greek words ? Again, would the thought ever occur to him that the word rendered "rule" and "line of things" represented the same original in the following enigmatical passage as it stands in the Authorised Version ? — "Not boasting of things with- out our measure, that is, of other men's labours ; but The English New Testament. 151 having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you, according to our rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's Hue oj things made ready to our hand " (2 Cor. X. 15, 16). After all that has been said, no sufficient idea will have been conveyed to readers unacquainted with the subject of the vast amount of unnecessary variation in the translation of the same Greek words which exists in the Authorised Version. Pages might be filled with additional examples. The most arbitrary and uncalled-for changes will frequently be found in the compass of a few verses, or even of the same verse. Thus, the word rendered " profession " in i Tim. vi. 12 is changed into " confession '^ in ver. 13; "jailor," in Acts xvi. 23, gives place to "keeper of the prison" in ver. 27. "God, even the Father," at Rom. XV. 6, &c., becomes " God and the Father " at Col. iii. 17, and "the God and Father" at i Pet. i. 3, &c. The word rendered " truth " in the parenthetical clause of i Tim. ii. 7 appears as " verity " at the close of the verse ; and so on, in almost innumerable cases, the variations generally having no ground of advan- tage or necessity, and serving only to bewilder and mislead the English reader. The great object to be kept in view in every 152 Covipanioii to the Revised Version of translation is to place the reader of it as nearly as possible on a footing of equality with one who has access to the original. This is especially desirable in regard to a version of the Holy Scriptures. Those who have the privilege of reading God's Word in the form in which it came from Himself ought to recog- nise it as their bounden duty to do their utmost that their less favoured brethren may have as exact and accurate a transcript of the original in their own language as can be furnished. To secure this object, scholarship may worthily put forth all its powers and diligence strain its efforts to the uttermost. The plain man's Bible— though it cannot be all to him that the original is to the scholar — should, at least, contain no obscurities or errors which erudition and pains- taking are able to remove. It should be such, for example, as that he shall have it in his power, through consistency of translation, to form an opinion re- specting the questions discussed in connection with the verbal agreements and differences found in the first three Evangelists. It should be such that he will be able, by means of a Concordance, to compare passages in which the same word occurs, and thus to make them mutually explanatory of each other. For the reasons that have been stated this cannot be done with any certainty while using the ordinary English translation, since in it there is, on the one hand, an The English New Testament. 153 unnecessary confounding of one Greek word with another in the rendering which is given ; while, on the other hand, there is a vast amount of needless varia- tion in the translation of the same Greek words ; but both these causes of possible, or certain, mistake have been guarded against in the Revised Version. PART III. THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REVISION. I. — THE ENGLISH VERSION OF 161I. The English version of the Holy Scriptures now in common use was prepared, on the basis of previous versions, by a large body of divines and scholars of the Church of England, appointed by King James the First, whose name it bears. His connection with it, however, is only nominal. He accepted at the Hamp- ton Court Conference, in January, 1604 (from vanity and policy, rather than from any higher motive), the suggestion of Dr. Reynolds (President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford), but gave the work no pecu- niary aid, and no sanction after it was finished. By granting the request for a new version he pleased the Puritan party ; and, by abusing the Geneva version, with its alleged "seditious and traitorous notes," as *' the worst " ever made, he conciliated the Conform- ists and allayed their suspicion. Both parties heartily acquiesced, and united in what proved to be a neces- sary and most useful work. 154 The English New Testament. 155 The revisers (nominally fifty-four, but actually forty-seven in number) were divided into six com- panies, each being assigned a certain portion of the Scriptures, under the restriction of fifteen rules, and met, two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. They received no compensation, ex- cept indirectly by way of preferments, and the nec- essary expenses were mostly paid by the publisher, Robert Barker. Their names are now forgotten, but their work still lives, and will never die. They left us no official record of their labors. " Never " (says Dr. Scrivener) " was a great enterprise like the production of our Authorized Version carried out with less knowledge handed down to posterity of the laborers, their method and order of working." Sel- den, in his '' Table Talk," has preserved a hint as to the mode of proceeding, saying : '' The translation in King James' time took an excellent w^ay. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue (as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downs), and then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc. ; if they found any fault, they spoke ; if not, he read on." It is rather strange that among the modern versions he should have omitted Luther's German version, vdiich is cer- 156 Companion to the Revised Version of tainly far more important than the ItaHan and Span- ish. The translation of the vv^hole Bible appeared at London in 161 1, seven years after the Hampton Court Conference, where it originated, in a large folio volume, printed in black letter, with an adu- latory dedication '' to the Most High and IMighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith," etc., and with a long and learned preface by Dr. Miles Smith, one of the translators. It gradually superseded all older translations by its superior mer- its, without formal authorization either by King, Privy Council, or Parliament, or Convocation. It derives its authority from the verdict of the Christian public. This is the best kind of authority. In forming a just estimate of this greatest achieve- ment of the English Church, we must first of all remember that it is not a personal and sectional, but a truly national and catholic work. It cannot be traced to any single author or authors, like Wiclif 's Bible and Luther's Bible. It resembles in this re- spect the Apostles' Creed and the Anglican Liturgy. It is the mature result of three generations of the Reformation period. It gathers up the ripe fruits of the previous labors of Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, Cranmer, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, and The English New Testament. 157 the Rheims New Testament. It is especially in- debted to William Tyndale (1525-1535) ^or its idiom and vocabulary, and to the Geneva translators (1560) for its accuracy.* * In this respect the king's instructions and his contempt for the Geneva version were happily overruled by the better knowl- edge and judgment of his translators. He ordered the " Bish- ops' Bible," prepared in the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1568 and 1572), to be made the basis, but it exercised far less influence than the more popular " Geneva Bible," which was prepared by English exiles and confessors in Geneva under the eyes of Calvin and Beza, directly from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout (1557 and 1560), and issued in more than a hundred editions. The Roman Catholic translation of the New Testa- ment from the Latin Vulgate, M'hich appeared at Rheims in 1582 (followed by the translation of the Old Testament at Douay in 1610), is not even mentioned in the instructions, and yet was evidently of great use. The examples of mistransla- tions which Dr. Reynolds quoted at the Hampton Court Con- ference as arguments for the need of a new version, are all taken from the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, and were corrected in the Geneva Bible. "It is obvious," says Dr. Moulton (" History of the English Bible," p. 207), " that the Genevan and Rhemish versions have exercised much greater influence than the Great, and Bishops' Bible." He gives as a specimen a passage from Isa. 54: 11-17, which contains 182 words ; of these, 86 words are the same in five or six English versions ; 96 vary, and among these variations more than 60 are taken from the Geneva Bible, and only 12 from the Bishops' Bible (pp. 201-206). No authority was more frequently fol- 158 Companion to the Revised Version of But upon the whole the version of 161 1 surpassed all its predecessors. It is probably the best version ever made for pubHc use. It is not simply a transla- tion, but a living reproduction of the original Scrip- tures in idiomatic English, by men as reverent and devout as they were learned. It reads like an orig- inal work, such as the prophets and apostles might have written in the seventeenth century for English lowed, both for text and interpretation, than Beza of Geneva, whose Greek Testament (the fourth edition, 1589, and the fifth edition, 1598) was the chief basis of the Authorized Version, as Dr. Ezra Abbot has shown (in Schafif's essay on Revision, pp. xxviii. sq. ). Dr. Wes tcott (in his ' ' History of the English Bible, " pp. 294 sqq.) has proved by a careful comparison the great and beneficial influence of Beza, both upon the Geneva Version and the Authorized Version. The University of Cambridge, in thanking Beza for the valuable gift of Codex D of the New Testament in 1581, acknowledges its preference for him and John Calvin above any man that ever lived since the days of the apostles. (See Dr. Scrivener, "Codex Bezae," Introd. p. vi., and " Introd. to the Critic, of the N. Test." 2d ed., p. 112). A number of errors, as well as excellencies, can be traced to Beza, and some have found an injurious effect of his strong pre- destinarianism in the rendering of a few passages (Matt. 20 : 23 ; Acts 2 : 47 ; Heb. 10 : 38) ; but this may be disputed. Upon the whole, the revisers could not do better than follow Calvin and Beza, who were undoubtedly the ablest biblical scholars of the Reformed Church in the sixteenth century. Comp. Eadie, " The English Bible," vol. ii. 16 sqq., 30. The English New Testament 159 readers. It reveals an easy mastery of the rich re- sources of the EngHsh language, the most cosmopol- itan of all modern languages, and blends with singular felicity Saxon force and Latin melody. Even its prose reads like poetry, and sounds like music. It is the first of English classics, and the greatest modern authors have drawn inspiration from this " pure well of English undefiled." Its best recommendation is its universal adoption and use in every Protestant church and household that speaks the English tongue. It has admirably served its purpose for more than two hundred and fifty years, and is so interwoven with English and American literature that it can never be entirely superseded. Next to Christianity itself, the version of 161 1 is the greatest boon which a kind Providence has bestowed upon the English race. It carries with it to the ends of the globe all . * . .... that is truly valuable m our civilization, and gives strength, beauty, and happiness to our domestic, so- cial, and national life. But with all its acknowledged excellencies, it is the product of imperfect men, and has innumerable minor errors and defects.* This has long since been "■ The first two editions of 161 1 had also a large number of serious typographical errors, such as "Judas " for " Jesus " (in Matt. 26: 36); "serve thee" for "serve me" (Ex. 9: 13); " hoops " for "hooks"; " plaine " for "plague"; "ye shall i6o Companion to the Revised Version of felt by those who know it best and love it most. It may be greatly improved without sacrificing any of its merits. God has not seen fit to provide the Church, by a miracle, with infallible translators any more than with mfallible transcribers, printers, and readers. He desires a worship in spirit and in truth, not an idolatry of the letter. The translators had sound principles, except that of unnecessary varia- tions in rendering, and they made the best use of their resources. But the resources of the seventeenth century were limited : biblical philology, geography, and archaeology were yet in their infancy, and com- parative philology and textual criticism were not yet born. Since that time biblical scholarship in all its branches has made vast progress, especially within the last fifty years. The Greek and Hebrew languages, with all their cognate dialects, are better known now not eat "for "ye shall eat;" "shewed" for "hewed," etc. See a long list in Dr. Eadie's " The English Bible," vol. ii. 291 sqq. A great many typographical blunders and variations crept in in subsequent editions. A committee of the American Bible Society, in examining six different editions of the Authorized Version, discovered nearly 24,000 variations in the text and punctuation. See " Report of the History and Recent Colla- tion of the English Version of the Bible, presented by the Com- mittee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, and adopted May ist, 1851 " (printed in the American Bible House, p. 31). The English New Testament, i6i than ever before. The oldest and best uncial manu- scripts of the Greek Testament have recently been discovered and thoroughly examined, together with the ancient versions and patristic quotations. The lands of the Bible have been made as familiar to scholars as their native country, and the Land and the Book illustrate each other to the present genera- tion as they did to the original readers on the banks of the Nile, at the foot of Mount Sinai, on the shores of Lake Gennesareth, and the top of Mount Olivet. Hence the growing demand in England and Amer- ica for a thorough, yet conservative revision, that shall be faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, and yet faithful also to the idiom and vocabulary of the Authorized Version, so as to read like a new book, with all the charms and sacred as- sociations of the old. In other words, the age calls for such a revision as shall purge the old version of its errors and inconsistencies, adapt it to the lan- guage and scholarship of the nineteenth century, command the confidence of all English-speaking churches, and be a new bond of union and strength among them. This is the sole object of the revision, which was undertaken as a common work for the benefit of all the English readers of the Word of God, and which has been carried on for the last ten years by about II 1 62 Companio?i to the Revised Version of eighty biblical scholars of England and the United States. II. THE CANTERBURY REVISION OF 1870. The Anglo-American Revision originated, after long and thorough discussion of the subject, in the Convocation of Canterbury, the mother church of Anglo-Saxon Christendom ; but by a rare combi- nation of circumstances it assumed at the very out- set an oecumenical character, co-extensive with the English-speaking community of the old and new world. It was first intrusted to a commission of six- teen biblical scholars — eight bishops and eight pres- byters—of the Church of England, appointed by Convocation, May 6th, 1870, under certain rules of a conservative, yet more liberal character than those of King James. The Church of England is the mother of the Authorized Version, and has an un- doubted right to take the lead in any movement for an improvement of the same. She still represents the largest membership, the strongest institutions, the richest Hterature, among those ecclesiastical or- ganizations which have sprung from the common English stock. She would never accept a revision made by any other denomination. She has all the necessary qualifications of learning and piety to pro- The English New Testa me7it. 163 duce, without foreign aid, as good a version for our age as King James' revisers produced for their age. But, on the other hand, it is equally clear that a revision of exclusively Anglican authorship could not command the confidence and secure the acceptance of other denominations. No sectarian version can succeed even within sectarian limits. There is a commonwealth of Christian life and scholarship which transcends all sectarian boundaries, however useful and necessary they may be in their own place. Times have considerably changed since the reign of King James, who could conceive of no State with- out a king, and of no Church without a bishop, and who, at the Hampton Court Conference, laid down his short method with Dissenters in these words : " I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse, just hang them, that is all." English Christendom has wonderfully spread, and embraces now two powerful nations, which have an equal inheritance in the Eng- lish Bible, and can justly claim a share in its revision for their own use. The British and American Bible Societies distribute more Bibles now in one year than were previously circulated in a whole century. This was felt by the originators of the movement. The Anglican Committee was therefore clothed, at the time of its appointment, with power " to invite the co- 164 Compaiiion to the Revised Version of operation of any eminent for scholarship, to ivhatever nation or religious body they may belong.'' Under this wise and liberal rule even Roman Catholics and Jews might be invited, but catholicity has its limits in the extent of sympathy and the laws of co-operation. We must aim at what is attainable, and not waste time and strength on Utopian schemes. Accordingly, at the first meeting of the Committee of Convocation, under the presidency of the late Dr. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester, it was resolved to enlarge the Committee by appointing about forty distinguished biblical scholars of the va- rious Churches of Great Britain. A few declined (among them Cardinal Newman and Dr. Pusey), but most of them accepted, and others were added. Several changes have taken place by death and resignation. The Committee was divided into two Com.panies, one for the revision of the Old Testament (presided over by the Bishop of Winchester), the other for the revision of the New (under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol). They held regu- lar monthly meetings in the Jerusalem Chamber of historic fame, and in the Chapter Library, belonging to the Deanery of Westminster. The members co- operated on terms of equality ; but the Episcopal members are, as may be expected, largely in the ma- The English New Testament, 165 jority. The whole number of EngUsh revisers in 1880 amounted to 52 (27 in the Old Testament Com- pany, 25 in the New Testament Company). More than two-thirds belong to the Church of England. The Independents, the Wesleyans, the Baptists, and the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland (which had no share in the Authorized Version except as the disowned mother of King James), are well repre- sented in the Committee. Among these revisers are several of the ablest and soundest biblical scholars of the age, who would be selected by all competent judges as preeminently fitted for the task. III. — AMERICAN CO-OPERATION. Soon after the organization of the English Com- mittee, a courteous invitation was extended to Amer- ican scholars to co-operate with them in this work of common interest. 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 formed in 1871, and en- tered upon active work in October, 1872, when the first revision of the synoptical Gospels was received. It was likewise divided into two Companies, which 1 66 Co?npamon to the Revised Ve?'sion of met every month (except in July and August) in the Bible House at New York (but without any connec- tion with the American Bible Society), and co-oper- ated with their English brethren on the same princi- ples and with the intention of bringing out one and the same revision for both countries. Ex-President Dr. Woolsey, of New Haven, acted as permanent chairman of the New Testament Company ; Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, as chairman of the Old Testament Company. The two Committees ex- changed the results of their labors in confidential communications. The New Testament was com- pleted in October, 1880, just five hundred years after the first English translation of the whole Bible by Wiclif. The revision of the Old Testament is still in progress on both sides of the Atlantic, and will be finished in three or four years. If it be asked by what authority the American Committee was appointed, we can only say, by the authority of the British Committee which was vested in it from the beginning by the Convocation of Can- terbury. The American Churches were not con- sulted, except the Protestant Episcopal Church, which 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 denominations The English New Testament. 167 and theological institutions of the country, within the necessary limits of convenience for united work. Experience and public sentiment, as far as expressed have approved the choice. There never was a more faithful and harmonious body of competent scholars engaged in a more im- portant work on the American Continent. Repre- sentatives of half a dozen different denominations — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Bap- tists, Methodists, Reformed, also one Unitarian, one Friend, and one Lutheran— have met for eight years, and are still meeting every month, at great personal inconvenience and without prospect of reward, dis- cussing innumerable differences of text and render- ing. Their simple purpose was to give to the people the nearest equivalent in idiomatic English for the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, on the basis of the idiom and vocabulary of the Authorized Version. Christian courtesy, kindness, and genuine catholicity of» spirit have characterized all their proceedings. They will ever look back upon these monthly meet- ings in the Bible House with unmingled satisfaction and thanks to God who gave them health and grace to go through such a difficult and laborious task with unbroken and ever-deepening friendship. After con- cluding their work (Oct. 22, 1880) the members of the New Testament Company parted almost in tears i68 Companion to the Revised Version of with mingled feelings of joy and sadness. Four of their number (the Rev. Drs. Horatio B. Hackett, Henry B. Smith, Charles Hodge, and Professor James Hadley,) had died before, one (the Rev. Dr. Washburn) died soon after the completion, others are near the end of their earthly labors. But all hope to meet again where faith will be lost in vision, and where love and harmony will reign forever. The funds for the necessary expenses of travelling, printing, room-rent, books, and clerical aid were cheerfully contributed by liberal donors, who will receive in return a handsome memorial copy of the first and best University edition of the Revised New Testament as soon as issued. IV. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE. The Constitution of the American Committee was first submitted in draft by its President to several leading members of the English Committee, in the summer of 187 1, and adopted, with some modifica- tions, at the meeting for organization on December 7th, 1 87 1. It is as follows : " I. The American Committee, invited by the British Committee engaged in the revision of the Authorized English Version of the Holy Scrip- The English New Testament. 169 tures 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 Secretary, and a Treasurer. The President shall conduct the official correspondence with the British revisers. The Secretary shall con- duct the home correspondence. " IV. New members of the Committee and corre- sponding members must be nominated at a previous meeting, and elected unanimously by ballot. "V. The American Committee shall co-operate with the British Companies on the basis of the prin- ciples and rules of revision adopted by the British Committee. " VI. The American Committee shall consist of two Companies : the one for the revision of the Au- thorized Version of the Old Testament, the other for the revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament. " VII. Each Company shall elect its own Chair- man and Recording Secretary. " VIII. The British Companies will submit to the American Companies from time to time, such portions of their work as have passed the first revision, and lyo Companion to the Revised Version of the American Companies will transmit their criticisms and suggestions to the British Companies before the second revision. " IX. A joint meeting of the American and British Companies shall be held, if possible, in London, be- fore final action. '' X. The American Committee, to pay their own expenses, and to have the ownership and control of the copyright of the Revised Version in the United States of America." The last article, as far as it refers to the publica- tion of the revision, was abandoned, by the Ameri- can Committee in the course of negotiations with the British Universities, for sufficient reasons, as will be shown below. V. THE RELATION OF THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH COMMITTEES. The Americans, as may be inferred from the pre- ceding Constitution, accepted the invitation and entered upon the work with a clear understanding that they were to be fellow-revisers with equal rights and responsibilities as the members of the English Committee appointed under the rule of Convocation. No respectable scholars could have been found to bestow ten years' labor on any other terms ; nor The English New Tesfa?nenf. 171 would the American churches, representing a larger population than that of England, ever accept a re- vision of their Bible in which they had no positive share and influence. The friends of revision con- tributed towards the expenses of the work expecting it to be a joint work of both Committees. The whole American community had the same understanding of the relation of the two Committees, and this alone accounts for the enormous demand of the Revised New Testament in the country, which has no paral- lel in the history of the book trade.* The natural mode of exercising the full right of membership is by voting on the changes to be adopted. But absent members cannot vote, and the intervening ocean made it impossible for the two Committees to meet jointly. The 9th Article of the American Constitution contemplates " a joint meet- ing " to be held in London before final action, " if possible." But such a meeting was found imprac- ticable, and is superseded by another and better arrangement. *We learn from the New York agent of the Oxford Univer- sity Press that he has good reason to expect orders for 200,000 copies of the Oxford editions of the revised New Testament, befoj-e the date of publication (May 17), notwithstanding the fact that half a dozen cheap reprints have already been an- nounced all over the country. 172 Companion to the Revised Version of Here, then, was a difficulty, which made itself felt at an early stage of the work. It led to confidential negotiations which we need not follow. They re- sulted at last in an agreement with the English Com- mittee and the Delegates and Syndics of the Uni- versity Presses of Oxford and Cambridge, as the authorized publishers of the new Revision. This agreement, dated August 3d, 1877, seems upon the whole to be the best compromise that could be made in justice to all the parties concerned. It is in sub- stance as follows : The English Revisers promise to send confiden- tially their revision in its various stages to the Amer- ican Revisers, to take all the American suggestions into special consideration before the conclusion of their labors, to furnish them before publication with copies of the Revision in its final form, and to allow them to present, in an Appendix to the Revised Scriptures, all the remaining differences of reading and rendering of importance, which the English Committee should decline to adopt ; while, on the other hand, the American Revisers pledge them- selves to give their moral support to the authorized editions of the University Presses, with a view to their freest circulation within the United States, and not to issue a rival edition for a term of fourteen years. The English New Testament. 173 By this arrangement the Americans secured the full recognition of their rights as fellow-revisers. In a joint meeting in London the changes proposed in the appendix would probably all be voted down, for the English Committee is much more numerous, and knows best what public opinion and taste in England require and can bear. On the other hand, the Amer- icans may claim the same advantage as regards the views of their countrymen. In consideration 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 ex- pediency of securing a copyright for the purpose of protecting the purity and integrity of the text against irresponsible reprints, and also as a means to defray the necessary expenses of the work, hoping to make an arrangement with an American publisher similar to that of the English Committee with the University Presses, instead of relying on voluntary contributions of friends. Beyond this they had no interest in a copyright, and never thought for a moment of using it for their own benefit. But after careful discussion and reflection it was deemed best to abandon the plan of legal protection, even for the appendix (v>hich is exclusively their own literary property), and to give the revised Scriptures free to the American pub- 174 Companion to the Revised Version of lie. The University Presses which are the authorized pubHshers of King James's Version in Great Britain, have the best possible facilities of publication, and will issue the revised New Testament at once, with the greatest typographical accuracy, in half a dozen different sizes, and at prices (from sixteen dollars down to fifteen cents) to suit all purchasers. They have, moreover, a strong claim on the public patron- age, in view of their large outlay not only for print- ing and publishing, but also for the payment of the expenses ($100,000) of the British Committee, which they assumed at a time when the success of the en- terprise was altogether uncertain. The American Revisers, having paid their own expenses from vol- untary contributions, are under no obligation to any publishing firm. The new version, then, stands precisely on the same footing with the old version as to copyright. It is protected bylaw in England; it is free in America. The American Revisers have already been blamed in some quarters for abandoning their undoubted right to issue an authorized American edition, and to protect their own work against inevitable piracy and mutilation. But would they not be still more blamed if they had given any publisher a monopoly over all the rest ? And what would the Revisers do with such a golden elephant as the copy money for a book of The English New Testament. 175 which millions will be sold within a few years ? It would be sufficient to start a new Bible Society ; but one national Bible Society is enough for America. The people at large have certainly no reason to complain. They will reap the benefit from the plan adopted, which is undoubtedly the best for the widest and cheapest possible circulation of the Revised Scriptures throughout America and the world. Several American reprints have been already ex- tensively announced, and will no doubt likewise have a very large circulation. We learn that even daily papers intend to publish the Revised New Testament in their Sunday issues at four or five cents. There will be more reading and comparative study of the Bible within the next few years than there has ever been in the history of Christianity. The publication of the Revised New Testament will be a republica- tion of the Gospel. This result alone will abundantly compensate for all the time and labor spent upon the Revision. VI. THE AMERICAN PART IN THE JOINT WORK. The Revised New Testament, as authoritatively printed and published by the two English Univer- sity Presses, is the joint work of both Committees. The English Revisers began a year earlier, and the 176 Coifipanion to the Revised Version of American Revisers worked on the basis of the first English Revision, but they had to go precisely through the same process of textual criticism and exegesis, to examine the same authorities, ancient and modern, and to discuss the same differences of rendering. They have spent probably the same amount of time and labor since they began to co- operate. They transmitted to England only the points of difference and suggestions of new changes. These were printed from time to time for the exclu- sive use of the Revisers, and would make altogether an octavo volume of about four hundred pages. Oc- casionally an elaborate essay was included in justifi- cation of a particular point, as the difference of read- ing in John 1:18 {piovoyerrji ^eoi, or vwi) ; on Acts 20 : 28 {Beov, or KVpiov) ; on Tit. 2:13, and 2 Pet. 1:1. But in a great majority of cases the re- sult only was stated. In order to form a just estimate of the American share of the work, and the degree of harmony of the two Committees, it is necessary to compare those parts which were done independently. For such an estimate we have the materials on hand. When the communication between the two Com- mittees was interrupted for a few months in 1877, the American Committee took up the first revision of a portion of Isaiah and of the Epistle to the Hebrews, The English New Testament. 177 and finished them before the first EngUsh revision of the same books was received. On a comparison it was found that in about one half of the changes the two Committees had arrived at the same conclusion. The result as to the Epistle to the Hebrews is more particularly stated in the fol- lowing letter from the venerable Bishop Lee, D.D., LL.D., a member of the New Testament Company : "Wilmington, Del., April 25, 1881. " My Dear Sir : My examination of the inde- pendent revisions of the Epistle to the Hebrews by the English and the American Companies, resulted in the estimate that out of 913 changes made by the American Company, 476 were exactly coincident with those of the English. There were others sub- stantially the same, but not precisely identical. " The variations were largely in punctuation and minor points. " I do not claim, of course, perfect accuracy, but I think this statement is not far from the truth. "My estimate of the American suggestions adopted is, in The Gospels 3^8 Acts 186 Epistles and Revelation 400 904 12 lyS Companion to the Revised Version of " In the calculation I aimed to count each new suggestion but once, although in many cases it was often repeated — as food for vieat^ hades for hell^ tomb for sepulchre^ etc. I omitted returns to the Authorized Version, differences of punctuation, except in a few important instances, and metrical arrangements, pre- suming that these would have been done by the British Company even without our calling their atten- tion 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 truly yours, '' Alfred Lee." Again, in the year 1880, the American Old Testa- ment Company went through the first revision of the Book of Job, and printed it (for private use) before the first English revision of the same book was re- ceived. Copies were transmitted by the President to the Secretary of the British Old Testament Company, February 4th, 1881, with the remark: "I send you to-day by European express twenty-seven copies of the American revision of Job, for distribution among the members of your Company. The revision was completed before your revision came to hand. Hence it has been printed in full, which will give you a better The English New Testament. 179 idea of the character of our work and the measure of its agreement with yours." A careful comparison was made between the Eng- lish and the American revision of Job by the Rev. Professor Mead, of Andover, Mass., a member of the Old Testament Company, and the result is stated in the following letter addressed to the Chairman of the Old Testament Company : ''Andover, Feb. 5, 1881. " My dear 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 being often difficult to determine how to designate a change, or to decide how far to analyze a change — /. in 204 Co77ipanion to the Revised Version of the phrases " to cast out devils," " tobe possessed with a devil," " to have a devil." The Bible knows only of one devil, but of a great many evil spirits. The English Revision acknowl- edges the distinction in the margin, but not in the text, which will continue to mislead the reader not acquainted with Greek. The two Committees had a similar conflict about ''hades" and "hell." The Americans insisted from the start on the restoration of the important distinc- tion between hades ^ i. e.^ the spirit- world or the realm of the dead,' Sind^ehefina, i. e.^ the state and place of torment, or hell — a distinction which is obliterated in King James' Version, so that the fearful word hell oc- curs twice as often in it as it does in the Greek Testa- ment. The English Revisers, from conservative re- gard to old usage, opposed the insertion of "hades" and persistently retained " hell " until they reached the Apocalypse, when the American suggestion was adopted. Habit is strong, but truth is stronger, and will prevail at last. CONCLUSION. The Appendix is subject to the verdict of the American Christian community. If approved by public opinion, it will ultimately be incori)oraled in . ^ J The English New Te statue fit 205 the text of the American editions ; if not, it will still retain a certain literary and historical value. The American Bible Society, with its present constitution, is confined to the circulation of the Authorized Eng- lish Version, and cannot publish the Revision. But this constitution can be changed, and will be changed whenever the churches which support the Society adopt the Revision. Then will be the proper time to make the American Appendix practically available, if deemed wise and expedient. This will not be the issue of a rival Revision, but only an American recension of one and the same Revision : and the changes will no more affect the unity of the Revision than the differ- ences of English and American spelling 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 unessential details. Wor- shipers of the letter may take offense, but worshipers of the spirit of the Bible will rejoice. But whatever may be the ultimate fate of the American Appendix, it is of very little account as com- pared with the substantial agreement. It is a matter of wonder and congratulation that two Committees, divided by the ocean and representing two indepen- dent and high-minded nations sensitive of their honor, should, after several years of unbroken and conscien- tious labor, have arrived at such a substantial har- 2o6 Revised Version of the English New Testame7it. mony in the translation of their most sacred book, which is recognized by both as their infaUible guide in all matters of Christian faith and duty. The Anglo-American Revision is the noblest mon- ument of Christian union and co-operation in this nineteenth century. And herein is the finger of Providence, and the best guarantee of success. INDEX OF TEXTS. Matthew Matthew continnect). PACK PAGB i. I ... ... 17 X. 22 ... ... 144 ii. I ... ... "3 -\i. 19 ... .. 144 2 ... ... 94 xii. 41 ... ... 133 4 ... ... 91 47 ... ... 7 15 ... ... 93 xiii. 16 ... ... 10 17 ... ... 112 21 ... ... 108 iii. 14 ... ... 98 47 ... ... 137 17 ... ... 12 52 ... ... 130 iv. I ... ... 131 xiv. 2 ... ... 128 6 ... ... 144 8 ... ... 76 19 ... ... 144 19 ... 50 V. 4 ... ... 137 XV. 27 ... ... 76 8, 9... ... 6 xvi. 14 ... ... 112 22 ... 48 23 ... ... 108 29 ... ... 108 xvii. 4 ... ... 13 40 ... ... 127 5 ... 148 48 ... ... 99 10 ... ... 112 vi. 13 ... ... S, 60 19 ... ... 144 34 ... ... 109 24 ... ... 115 Aii. 13 ... 102 25 ... ... 107 viii. 5 ... ... 137 27 ... ... "5 6 ... ... 123 xviil. 17 ... ... 48 20 ... ... 93 28 ... ... 8 33 ... ... 13 xix. 7 ... ... 144 X. 4 ... ... 75 20 ... ... 95 14 ... ... 144 XX. 24 ... ... 148 203 Index of Texts, Matthew [coniinuid) Mark [continued). PAGE PAGB XX 27 ... ... 148 vi. 20 ... 49 xxii. 37 ..• ... 119 27 ... ... 1X4 xxiii 7 ... ... 148 52 ... ... 82 24 ... ... 116 ix. 3 ... ... 46 33 ... ... 133 5 ... ... 13 35 ... ... 122 7 ... ... 148 xxiv. 24 ... ... 127 22, 23 ... 49 30 ... ... 103 24 ... ... 46 40, 41 ... 99 28 ... ... 144 XXV. 3 ... ... 10 39 ... ... 128 6 ... ... 18, 49- 97 x. 4 ... ... 144 27 ... ... 108 41 ... ... 148 46 ... ... 140 44 ... ... 148 xxvi. 15 ... ... 77 51 ... ... 149 25 ... ... 148 xii. 6 ... ... 148 26 ... ... 53 26 ... ... 30 41 ... ... 144 40 ... ... 133 49 ... ... 149 xiii. 13 ... ... 144 xxvii. 3 ... ... 124 32 ... ... 127 9 ... ... 112 xiv. 38 ... ... 144 45 ... 139 XV. 33 ... ... 138 57 ... 130 45 ... ... 149 xxviii. 19 ... ... 103 xvi. 16 ... ... 133 9- -20 130 9- -20 ... 61 M \RK. Luke. i. 2 ... ... 10 i. 59 ... ... 98 II ... ... 12 63 ... ... 108 17 ... ... 144 ii. 33 ... ... 15 27 ... ... 47 41 ... ... IS iii. 5 ... ... 82 iii. 14 ... ... 92 18 ... ... 75 23 ... ... 77 iv. 29 ... ... 77 iv. 10 ... ... 144 V. 30 ... ... 108 20 ... ... no 41 ... ... 76 V. 6 ... 98 vi. 3 ... ... 113 18 ... ... 148 5 ... ... 127 vi. 15 ... ... 76 14 ... ... 127 19 ... ... io3 Index of Texts. 209 Luke [contimied). vii. 34 . viii. 23 34 . 46 . 54 . ix. s . T5 0- • 33 . 58 . xi. 48 . SI . xiii. 2 xiv. 10 XV. 10 , 26 . xvi. 9 . xviii. 12 xix. 13 . XX. 37 . xxii. S6 . xxiii. 5 . 8 . 42 . 44 . xxiv. 17 . 25 . 46 . S3 . !. IX . 21 38 . 42 . iii. 16 . 17, 18 iv. 31 . John. 144 98 13 108 76 144 78 13 93 107 122 94 107 124 123 50 78 108 30 78 113 127 102 139 50 79 50 9 117 93 148 112 119 133 148 John {contin iv. 37 ... 48 ... ued) PAGE 93 127 V. 3, 4... ... 7 33 vi. II ... ... 97 SO 32 ... ... 93 50 ... ... 18 57 ... ... lOI vii. I ... ... 113 17 ... ... 127 20 ... ... 130 41 ... ... 99 53- -viii. II ... 63 viii. 33 52 58 :: ... 97 18 129 ix. 17 ... ... 79 X. 14, 16 IS ... 79 120 23 ... ... 122 xi. 3. 20 s... ... 119 80 xii. 40 ..• ... 82 xiii. 2 •.• ... 131 10 ... ... 125 24 ... ... SI xvii. 3 12 ... ... 91 128 XX. 2 ... ... 119 16 xxi. 15, 16, 17 ... SI. 149 112, 118 18, 19 ... 96 Acts. i. 13 "• 3 II 76 80 113 2 lO Index of Texts, Acts [cmitit ii. 27 iii. 13, 26 uect, FAGK 116 123 i 13 29 Romans. PAGE 106 108 19. 20 ... 80 ii. 22 ... 149 iv. 27, 30 ... 123 iii. 25 ... ... 81 V. 20 ... ... 112 iv. 3. &c. ... 140, 143 vii. 13 ... ... 137 19 ... ... 52 45 ... ... 113 v. I ... ... 52 viii. 9 ... ... 129 vi. 2 ... ... 134 16 ... ... 103 vii. 6 ... ... 52 37 ... ... 8 7, 8... ... 141 X. 38 xii. 4 ... ... 132 116 viii . xi. I 7, 25 ... II 82 12, 25 ... 112 30 ... ... 125 xiii. 7, 8,12 ... 114 xii. 2 ... ... 131 xiv. 21 ... ... 130 17 ... ... 107 XV. C3 ... ... 51 19 ... ... 143, 148 xvi. I ... ... 112 xiv. 4 ... ... 10 7 21 ... ... 51 130 XV. 23 6 ::: ... 133 23. 27 ... 151 30 ... ... 102 xvii. 19 ... ... 113 xvi. 5 ... ... 52 23 28 xviii. 5 ... ... 108 138 SI 23 I 114 CORINTHIAl^IS. xix. 2 ... ... 95 i. 13 ... 103 9 II 31 ... ... 93 128 114 iii. iv. 17 3, 4 4,5 " T38 133 82 37 38 XX. 28 ... ... 149 114 14 vi. vii. 13 20 26 ... ... 18 II 102 xxi. 15 ... ... 109 viii. 6 ... ... 103 xxii. 28 ... ... 127 X. 2 ... ... 103 XXV. 26 ... ... 133 24 ... ... 107 xxvi. 13 24, 25 ... 134 147 xi. 24 26 ... ... 53 53 28 ... ... 81 29 ... ... 53. 107 jcviii. 13 ... ... no 31 ... ... 133 Index of Texts. I Corinthians (^continitecf). Ephes lANS. PAGE PAGE xii. 6 18 i. 7 ... ... 13 29 ... 128 9 ... ... 145 xiii, 3 ... S3 17 ... ... 126 12 ... 126 ii. 2 ... ... 125 xiv. 20 ... 122 iv. 2 ... ... 145 XV. 4 ... 96 6 ... ... 145 xvi. 15 ... 52 18 29 ... ... 82 ... 84 2 Corinthians. V. I ... ... 148 i. I 29 ... ... 54 It2 ... ... vi. S ... ... 14s 4, 6 ... ... 142 12 ... no 19 ... ... 112 20 ... ... 47 Philippians. ii. 14 ... ... 83 i. 16, 17 ... 54 r6 ... ... 149 ic. 6 ... 3<5 iii. 5 ... ... 149 14 82 IS ... ... 99 IS ... ... 92 iii. S 20 ... ... 92 ... 107 15, 18 ... 142 iv. 2, 3 ••• ... 85 17 iv. 3 *.*.'. *.'.*. 93 ■ 142 8 ... 107 V. 10 ... ... 100 Colossians. 14 ... ... 134 2£ liO I. ^4 ... ... 13 id. 2 ... ... 65 vi. 9 ... ... 126 8 ... ... 8s vii. 8. ro ... 124 12 .« .. 145 ZI ... ,,, 93 X. IS. 16 ... 153 18 ... ... 54 xii. 19 ... 54 19 ... ... 145 iii. 12 ... ... 145 Galatians. 17 ... ... 151 22 ... ... 145 iii. 6 ... ... 142 iv. 10 ... 112 iv. 8 ..< ... 148 14 ... ... 112 14 ... ... 54 17 ... ... 107 I Thessalonians. 31 ... ... 92 i. I ... 55 V. E7 ... ... 24 ii. C9 ... ... ^% 212 Index of Texts. I TheSSALONIANS {coHf-n?ted). 2 Timothy {continuecf). PAGE PAGH iii. II ... ... 55 3 ... ... 55 13 ... ... 55 10 ... ... 56 iv. IS ... ... 107 12 ... ... 139 V. 28 ... ... 55 iii. 12 15 ... ... 56 56 2 THESSALONIANS. V. II ... 1X2 I. 2 ... 55 Ti TUS. 12 ... 55 4 ... 55 ii. I 3 ... 85 91 12 ... ... 112 7 ... 106 Philemon 8 ... 55, 134 2 7 ... ... 56 56 1 Timothy. 24 ... X12 i 4 6 Hebrews 12 ... ... 55 14 ... ... 55 i. 3 ... 134 ii. 5 ,„ ... 55 iii. II ... 143 7 ... ... 151 iv. 2 ... 56 iii. 13 ... ... 55 3, 5-.. 143 16 ... ... 19, 66 6 ... 125 iv. 6 ... ... 55 8 ... "3 V. 4 ... ... 108 12 ... 107 21 ... ... 55 14 ... 103 vl 5 ... ... 86 "!"■ 7 ... lOI 8 ... ... 99 IX. 6 ... 99 9 ... ... 127 X. 30 ... 143 10 ... ... 92 34 ... 56 12, 13 ... 151 xi. 10 ... 91 13 ... 55 13 23 ::: 56. 86 108 2 Timothy. xii. I ... no 12 ... 148 i. 1 2 ... 55 56 xiii. 21 112 9 ... ... 56 James. >3 ... ... 56 i. 6 ... ... 131 Index of Texts. 213 James {continued). 2 John. PAGB PAGE 19 ... ... 57 8 ... 57 ii. I ... ... III 2 ... ... 150 3 John. iii. I ... ... III V. 20 ... ... 93 13 ... ... 57 I Peter, Jude. 1. 3 ii. 8 ... 151 125 I 8 ... ... 58. "4 145 21 ... ... 57 13 ... ... 145 iii. II ... ... 107 15 ... ... 63 Revelation. 21 ... ... 87 i. 3 ... ... 93 iv. 8 ... ... 93 ii. 13 ... ... 139 V. I ... ... 137 iv I ... ... 10 13 ... 113 4 ... ... 139 6&C. ... 87 a Peter. V. 6& c. ... 87 vi. I&C. 87 J. 3 ... ... I03 vii. II 87 14 ... ... 95 ii. 10 145 14 ... ... 99 xiii. I ... 88 17 ... ... 145 xiv. 3 87 iii. 3 ... ... 57 XV. 9 7 ... ... 88 87 I John. xn. 10 ... ... 139 ii. 23 ... ... 151 xvii. 8 ... ... 58 iu. I ... 57 xix. 4 ... ... 87 V. 7. 8 ... ... 15,69 xxii. n ... ... 58 13 ,.. ... 47 14 ... ... 59 CISSEIL'S POPEAE LIBRAEY. Messrs. CASSELL, PETTER, GALPIN & CO. have the pleasure to announce that thej^ have made arrangements for the issue, under the above title, of a Series of NEW AND ORIGINAL WORKS On subjects of widespread interesi, by well-known Aulhors. These volumes being issued in a popular, portable, and readable form, at a price which brings them within the reach of all, it is believed that an opportunity will be thus afforded of securing a Library which will be an unfailing source of entertainment to old and young in their hours of leisure and recreation. History of tie Free-Trafle Movemeit in MM. By AUGUSTUS MONGREDIEN. THE SCOTTISH COVENANTERS. By JAMES TAYLOR, D.D., F.A.S.E. BOSWELL AND JOHNSON. By J. F. WALLER, LL.D. Paper Cover, - 25 cents. Cloth, - - - SO cents. TJie following volumes, to be issued in this series, are in active preparation. Rowland Hill. American Humorists. The Life of Wesley. Domestic Folk-Lore. If not for sale by your Bookseller, vill be sent, prepaid, on receipt of th3 price. Oassell, Fetter, Galpin and Co., 739 & 741 BROA.DWAT, NEW YORK, SEND TO Cassell, Petter,Galpin & Co., 739 & 741 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, FOR THEIR COMPLETE CATALOGUE VALUABLE (BOOKS IN Every Department of Literature. ^ g 5- H a* d o ^ 0- 5j g S 3o > > •P- C^ ^^ g 2 r a ii ^ K L^ n i,^ fa- K s i ^ >d JL w ^ o' o ri i^ ^ 51 o ^ k: i i ivi278479 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY