\\\\\\\Vv\VSS\\\>^\\NS\N\\\\\N\V\\\^^^
UC-NRLF
v^vw^^woccw^^^\w^^^^
BERKf LEY
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA .
. rmttzif^.
f TTTTTTT T TTTT TTTT TTTm T I T I I 1 T TTTTTTTTT q
^. JVugvt^tu^ @re^i:sc.
?TTTITTTT11 I1 TTTTI II1 TTTTTTTTY TTTTTTTTT>I
COMPANION
TO THE
jKefaisieii Wtvmn ot^tdSnQli^f) ^eU) ^Testament.
COMPANION
TO THE
3Rebi£(eti Wtv^ion of m iBnsliii) ^t\ij Cesftamtnt*
BY
ALEX. ROBERTS, D.D.,
NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY.
Cassell, Fetter, Galpin & Co.:
LONDON, PARIS ., Simple),' which is truly an admirable translation.
There is no doubt that it was made in the second
century, and were we sure that we possessed it in its
original form it would thus be of the very highest
authority. The other Syriac versions do not rank
high as translations, and the Curetonian embraces
only fragments of the Gospels.
Latin Versions, So prevalent was the Greek
language in Rome for several generations after the
commencement of our era, that no need of a transla-
tion was felt by the inhabitants of that city. Accord-
ingly, the first Latin version appears to have been
made not in Italy but in North Africa. We know
The English New Testament, 27
nothing of its history. It was used by Tertullian and
others about the beginning of the third century.
Some excellent manuscripts- containing it still exist.
The very learned St. Jerome set himself to the re-
vision of this version about the end of the fourth
century. He improved it greatly both in regard to
style and fidelity to the original ; but it was not till
two centuries had elapsed that his work took the place
of the Old Latin^ and became the Vulgate of the
Roman Church.
Gothic Version. This version was made by Bishop
Ulphilas about the middle of the fourth century. It
is not now known to exist in its original completeness.
There is a celebrated "Silver Manuscript" of the
Gospels preserved in the University of Upsala. The
letters of this handsome manuscript are marvellously
uniform, and its name is derived from the fact that
they are written throughout in silver, except the initial
letters of sections, which are written in gold. Belong-
ing, as the version of Ulphilas does, to so high an
antiquity as the fourth century, it is possessed of great
weight in determining the text which had then become
prevalent in the Church.
Egyptian Versions, There are two Egyptian ver-
sions, which are now known respectively as the Mem-
phitic and the Thebaic. Before the fact of their inde-
pendence was established, they both went under the
28 Companion to the Revised Version of
common name of Coptic, This appellation was de-
rived from Coptos, a very ancient city of Upper
Egypt The term Memphitic points out the version
which was used in Lower Egypt, and was taken from
the capital city of the district ; while Thebaic indicates
the version used in Upper Egypt, and was, in like
manner, derived from the chief town of the country.
The Thebaic version is supposed, on good grounds,
to have been formed in the first half of the third
century, and to have been followed by the Memphitic
not much later. Both versions will be found more and
more valuable for the purposes of criticism the more
fully they are studied. Besides these, there are some
fragments of a version which has been called the Bash-
muric, and which was evidently related to the Thebaic.
The Arme7iian Version. This version cannot be
placed higher than the fifth century. It seems to have
been begun soon after the Council of Ephesus, a.d. 431.
Up to that period the Armenian Christians appear to
have used the Syriac version; but two native scholars
who had attended the Council brought home with
them the New Testament in Greek, and from that a
translation was made into theJanguage of the country.
The Armenian version cannot be deemed of very
great importance in textual criticism.
The yEthiopic Versiofi. This is a translation of the
Scriptures in the ancient language of Abyssinia. It
The English New Testament. 29
seems to have been fomied about the sixth or seventh
century. There is every reason to believe that it was
taken immediately from the Greek, though the mean-
ing of the original v/as frequently mistaken. No very
exact edition has yet been issued, and the version is
not possessed of much authority.
The other ancient versions of the New Testament
are the Georgian (sixth century), the Arabic (several
recensions, the most ancient belonging to the eighth
century), Slavonic (ninth century), Anglo-Saxon (from
the Latin, eighth to eleventh century), and Persian
versions (of varying and doubtful dates). These
versions, with all later ones, though taken from the
Greek, are too modem to have much weight in the
settlement of the true text.
The deductions which must be made from the
value of even the most ancient versions as testifying
to the true text of Scripture are many and serious.
First, their genuine readings are often doubtful. It is
obvious that they were as liable to corruption in the
process of being transcribed as the New Testament
itself, or even more so, since greater pains would
naturally be taken in copying the sacred original than
a mere translation. Again, there is reason to believe
that some of the most valuable versions, such as the
Syriac Peshito, do not now exist in their primitive
condition. They seem to have been conformed to
30 Companion to the Revised Version of
the prevalent text of the fourth century, and thus fail
us as witnesses to that which was more ancient. On
this account we cannot confidently press the authority
. of the existing Peshito in behalf, for example, of the
Doxology of the Lord's Prayer. Again, in some few
instances the authors of the versions appear from
doctrinal bias to have departed from the original text.
Thus Ulphilas, who had adopted Arian views, has
inserted in the Gothic version at Philipp. ii. 6, the
words *' likeness to God," which would never suggest
the true Greek text implying "equality with God."
Lastly, even the best versions have frequently mis-
taken the meaning of the original, and may thus tend
only to mislead as respects the genuine text. Suppose,
in illustration, that a question were to arise with
regard to the Greek expression corresponding to the
English words " in the bush," at Mark xii. 26, and
Luke XX. 37. In that case, the Authorised Version
would inevitably suggest a wrong preposition, since it
has here quite mistranslated the Greek. The mean-
ing of the original is not " i7i the bush," as if referring
to locality, but ^^ at the Bush," denoting that portion
of the Old Testament which was known among the
Jews under the tide of "the Bush." On all these
grounds, therefore, the Biblical scholar must use the
ancient versions as witnesses to the genuine text of
Scripture with great caution and discrimination.
The English New Testament, 31
The only remaining source of various readings in
the New Testament is that found in the citations of
its text by ancient writers. And here it might at first
be thought that we have access to more primitive and
therefore more valuable testimony than that which is
furnished by either manuscripts or versions. The stream
of quotations from the New Testament begins even in
the first century, and flows on with ever-increasing
volume in the succeeding generations. When we
reflect that Clement of Rome begins to quote from
the sacred writings so early as a.d. 97, when his
epistle seems to have been written, and that he is
followed by such voluminous writers as Justin Martyr
and Irenseus in the second century, as Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, in the
third century, it might well be imagined that we should
thus obtain most valuable and trustworthy guidance
as to the primitive text of the New Testament.
But here again there are very serious drawbacks.
No doubt, these early Fathers quote most copiously
from Scripture, so that the substance of the whole
New Testament could easily be collected from their
pages. But important deductions must be made from
the value of their writings as authorities in textual
criticism. For, first, the manuscripts of their works
which we possess are comparatively modern — few
indeed rising above the tenth century, and thus their
32 Companmi to the Revised Version of
genuine readings are often doublful. And, next, they
generally quote from memory, not feeling the need,
and not possessing the means, of aiming at that
verbal exactness called for at the present day. They
had none of those facilities of reference which we
possess. The turning to a passage and verifying it,
would, in their case, have implied an amount of labour,
of which, with our Bibles divided into chapters and
verses, we can hardly conceive. Besides, there can
be no doubt that many passages would come to be
loosely and popularly quoted, without any suspicion
that a departure was thus made from the true text.
This happens constantly among ourselves with respect
to the Authorised Version. How often will one see
or hear Deut xxxiiL 25, quoted thus, " As thy day is
so shall thy strength be," whereas the true reading is,
**Asthy^^>'j, &c."*
On the whole, then, there is reason for acquiescing
in the following judgment with regard to the value, as
respects textual criticism, to be attached to the quo-
tations made by ancient writers from the New Testa-
ment " Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary
and not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it
often fails where we should most wish for information;
but the Fathers were better theologians than critics ;
* See for a numerous list of such misquotations Eadie's English
Bible, ii. 328 ff.
The English New Testament 33
they frequently quoted loosely or from memory, often
no more of a passage than their immediate purpose
required ; what they actually wrote has been found
peculiarly liable to change on the part of copyists and
unskilful editors ; they can therefore be implicitly
trusted — even as to the manuscripts which lay before
them — only in the comparatively few places wherein
their own direct appeal to their codices, or the course
of their argument, or the current of their exposition,
renders it manifest what readings they approved. In
other cases the same author perpetually cites the
self-same text under two or more various forms ; in
the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to
which of the three earlier ones reference is made;
and, on the whole. Scriptural quotations from ecclesi-
astical writers are of so much less consideration than
ancient translations, that where they are single and
unsupported, they may safely be disregarded altogether.
An express citation, however, by a really careful
Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen,
for example), if supported by manuscript authority,
and countenanced by the best versions, claims our
respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the
reading which it favours.' ' *
* Scrivener's Introduction^ p. 368.
34 Companion to the Revised Version of
CHAPTER III.
HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE GREEK TEXT ON
WHICH THE AUTHORISED VERSION WAS FOUNDED.
When an English version of the New Testament is put
into our hands as furnishing a transcript in our own
language of God's revelation of Himself through Jesus
Christ, it is of the most vital importance to be assured
of the trustworthiness of the text on which that
version has been based. Without this everything
else must be comparatively worthless. What we want
to know is the exact message which has been addressed
to our race by Heaven. And the first essential to
this is purity of the original text. It matters not how
smoothly a version may read, how pleasing may be
its contents, or how venerable even may be the
antiquity which it claims. The first and gravest
question to be asked regarding it has respect to the
faithfulness with which the text on which it was based
represented the true and original word of God. How
then, we anxiously inquire, does the case stand con-
cerning this point with the Authorised English Ver-
sion?
Before being able to give a full answer to this
The English New Testament, 35
question it is necessary to trace the history of the
earliest printed editions of the Greek New Testament.
This history will gradually lead us on to the text
which was made use of in the preparation of the
Authorised Version, and we shall be enabled to form
a judgment respecting its character.
We cannot but feel it somewhat remarkable that so
long a time elapsed between the invention ot the art
of printing and the passing ot an edition of the
Greek New Testament through the press. It is well
known that the first book ever printed was the Bible,
but this was in the form of the Vulgate. A Latin
edition of the Scriptures, very handsomely got up,
issued from the press at Mentz in 1452 ; and a few
copies of this interesting and precious publication are
known to be still in existence at the present day. The
Hebrew Bible was also printed, under the auspices of
some wealthy Jews, in 1488. But the century which
had witnessed the invention of printing was allowed
to close without any attempt having been made to
prepare a printed edition of the Greek New Testament.
Some brief passages of the Gospels from the first
chapter of St. Luke — the sacred songs of the Virgin
Mary and of Zacharias — had, indeed, been added to a
Greek edition of the Psalms printed at Milan in 148 1 ;
but no one as yet seems to have conceived the idea
of issuing a printed edition of the whole New Testa*
D 2
36 Companion to the Rnnsed Version of
ment. The cause of this probably was that the Greek
language was still but very imperfectly known to
theologians. The "new learning^' was as yet only
struggling through many difficulties into acceptance,
and gradually winning to itself the admiration and
affection of those noble men who afterwards cultivated
it with so much energy and devotedness.
To the able and excellent Cardinal Ximenes,
Primate of Spain, belongs the honour of having first
projected an edition of the entire Greek New Testa-
ment. His plan was to embrace it in a Polyglot
Bible, intended to include both the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint version with
the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos and the Latin Vulgate.
The fifth volume, which is devoted to the New Testa-
ment, was first printed, and it bears on its last page
as the date of its completion, January, 10, 15 14. But
its publication was delayed, apparently, at first, with
the view of waiting for the remaining volumes. The
last of these, numbered as the fourth, is stated to have
been finished on July 10, 15 17. But the exemplary
prelate who had originated and superintended this
great undertaking died soon afterwards (Nov. 8, 15 17),
and the issue of the volume, was, in consequence, still
further delayed. It was not till March 22, 1520, that
Pope Leo X. formally sanctioned its publication.
Thus came forth at length what is known as the
The English Ne7U Testament 37
Complutensian edition of the New Testament, Com-
plutum being the Latin name for Alcala, where the
work was prepared.
Meanwhile, however, important steps had been
taken m another quarter. The ilkistrious Erasmus
comes into view, a man to whom modern thought is,
in so many ways, under such deep and lasting
obligations. That great scholar was in England in
15 1 5, and on April 17th of that year he received a
request from Froben, an eminent printer at Basle, to
prepare for publication an edition of the Greek New
Testament. Though encumbered by other literary
labours, Erasmus set about this work with characteristic
diligence, and completed it within the too short
period of a few months — by February, 15 16. The
work was immediately published, and thus the original
text of the New Testament was, for the first time,
given to the world.
No small eagerness would, naturally, be shown by
scholars to possess the sacred text. Accordingly, we
find that the demand was, for those days, great. The
first edition of Erasmus was reprinted, with corrections
amounting to about 200, by Aldus, at Venice, in 15 18.
A second edition, with more than 300 improvements,
was issued by Erasmus himself in 15 19. This was
followed by a third edition in 1522, chiefly remarkable
as containing, for the first time, the famous text
38 Co7npanion id the kevised Veisidu of
I John V. 7. Erasmus had not till now seen the Com*
plutensian edition, but he was able to avail himself of
it in the preparation of his own fourth, which came
out in 1527. He died in 1536, having issued a fifth
edition in the previous year, differing only in four
places from the preceding. The fourth edition of
Erasmus is thus the most important, and became the
basis of all subsequent texts, until what is known as
the " Received Text " was formed.
After the death ot Erasmus an edition of the
Greek New Testament was published by Colinaeus at
Paris in 1543. But, although this edition was cor-
rected in more than a hundred places from the
authority of additional manuscripts, it may be left out
of account as having exercised little subsequent
influence. The true successor of Erasmus in this
department was Robert Stephens the famous Parisian
printer. He issued two editions in 1546 and 1549,
having availed himself in these of some manuscripts in
the Royal Library, and ot the Complutensian text.
But his great edition was the third, issued in 1550.
This edition is remarkable as containing the first
collection of various readings, amounting, it has been
reckoned, to 2,194. But though these had been
collected from a considerable number of manuscripts,
no critical use was made of them. The text of
Erasmus was closely followed, and readings found in
The English New Testament, 39
it were even clung to when opposed to the authority
of all the manuscripts. The fourth edition of
Stephens was published at Geneva in 155 1. In this
edition the New Testament is, for the first time,
divided into verses — an invention of Stephens. The
text remained the same as in the previous edition.
Beza, the Reformer, next appears as an editor of
the Greek New Testament. He published five
editions, the first in 1565, the second in 1576, the
third in 1582, the fourth in 1589, and the fifth in
1598. These editions varied somewhat among them-
selves, but were based throughout upon the text of
Stephens.
And now we have reached the interesting and
important point of this sketch, as the history of the
printed text of the New Testament just given has led
us very near the date at which the Authorised Eng-
lish Version began to be made. It was commenced
about 1604, when the above-named Greek texts were,
in one form or another, generally circulated. Which
of them, we ask with eagerness, formed the original
from which our common English translation was
derived ? To this question the answer is, that Beza's
edition of 1589 was the one usually followed. It had
been based on Stephens's edition of 1550, and that
again had been derived from the fourth edition of
Erasmus, published in 1527. Such is the parentage
40 Companion to the Revised Version of
of the Authorised Version — Beza, Stephens, Erasmus.
What manuscript authority, let us ask, is thus repre-
sented ?
Beginning with Erasmus, we find that his resources
were meagre indeed, and that even the materials
which he had were not fully utilised. It has already
been noticed how hastily his first edition was pre-
pared; indeed, he himself said of it that it "was rather
tumbled headlong into the world than edited." The
manuscripts which he had in his possession are still
preserved, one having been recovered some years ago
after long being lost. Some of them bear in them-
selves the corrections which he made, and show too
obvious marks of having been used as " copy ^\ by the
printer. They consisted of the following. In the
Gospels he principally used a Cursive manuscript of
the fifteenth or sixteenth century. This may still be
seen at Basic, and is admitted by all to be of a very
inferior character. He also possessed another Cursive
manuscript of the twelfth century, or earlier, and
occasionally referred to it. But though this is an
excellent manuscript in the Gospels — one of the very
best of the Cursives — Erasmus was ignorant of its
value, and made litde use of it. In the Acts and
Epistles he chiefly followed a Cursive manuscript of
the thirteenth or fourteenth century, with occasional
reference to another of the fifteenth century. Both
The English New Testament. 41
these were of the ordinary type usually exhibited by
the later manuscripts. For the Apocalypse he had
only one mutilated manuscript. He had thus no
documentary materials for publishing a complete
edition of the Greek Testament. The consequence
would have been that some verses must have been
left wanting had not Erasmus taken the Vulgate and
conjecturally re-translated the Latin into Greek.
Hence has arisen the remarkable fact that in the text
from which our Authorised Version was formed, and
in the ordinary uncritical editions of the Greek cur-
rent at the present day, there were, and are, words in
the professed original for which no Divine authority
can be pleaded, but which are entirely due to the
learning and imagination of Erasmus.
As stated above, he availed himself of the Com-
plutensian text to some extent in his subsequent
editions. Scholars have been unable to ascertain
with exactness the manuscripts which were employed
in its formation. It was at one time thought that the
famous Codex B was one of them. But this has
been clearly disproved, and the manuscript authority
on which it was based has been shown by internal
evidence to have been not ancient, but modern.
There is also some ground for suspecting that the
editors occasionally, though rarely, allowed an undue
influence to the Latin Vulgate. In printing the Old
42 Companion to the Ransed Version of
Testament they gave the place of honour in the
centre to the Latin, surrounding it on either side by the
original Hebrew and the Septuagint translation. On
this they make the curious and somewhat suggestive
remark, that the Latin thus placed was like Christ
crucified between the two thieves ! The one thief
was the Greek Church, which they regarded as here-
tical ; and the other was the nation of the Jews, who
were charged with having corrupted the Hebrew text
wherever it differed from the Latin.
Stephens, who succeeded Erasmus in the work of
editing the Greek Testament, had, as we have seen, a
number of additional manuscripts at his command.
Among these was one at least undoubtedly ancient.
Codex D, formerly described. But he made very
little use either of it or of any of the others in his
possession. Almost the only important departure
which Stephens made from the Erasmian text was in
the Apocalypse, in which book he took advantage of
the far better readings supplied by the Complutensian
edition.
Beza received from Stephens a collection of various
readings derived from no fewer than some five-and-
twenty manuscripts, but he made little or no critical
use of them. He was totally unaware of the value of the
manuscript which bears his name, and thought that its
publication was rather to be deprecated. He left the
The English New Testament 43
text substantially as he had received it from Stephens,
who, again, for his part, rarely deserts the fifth edition
of Erasmus.
Thus, then, stood the text of the Greek New
Testament when the revisers of the Bishops' Bible set
themselves to form from it our present Authorised
English Version. Not one of the four most ancient
manuscripts was then known to be in existence. Even
Codex D, which was known, had scarcely any weight
assigned to it, and the whole Greek text had been
based upon a very few modern manuscripts. The
ancient versions had not been examined. No careful
investigation had been made into the testimony to the
primitive text borne by the Fathers. Textual criticism
was still in its infancy, the materials for it had not
been gathered, the principles of the science had not
been studied, and the labours of Mill, Bentley,
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and
other great scholars, to secure the purity of the text of
the New Testament, were as yet unheard of, and only
to be put forth in the course of many future genera
tions.
In these circumstances can it be wondered at that
vast multitudes of changes will be found in the Revised
English Version, owing to an amended text? The
wonder really is that they are so few, or, at least, that
they are, in general, of such small importance. When
44 Compaiiioji to the Revised Version of
we trace, as has been briefly done, the parentage of
our English Bible, and when we see on what a slender
basis of authority it rests, when we confront with this
the enormous wealth of materials for settling the true
Greek text which we possess at the present day, and
the amount of labour which has been expended in
applying them, we might well fear that the alterations
requiring to be made in the Bible with which we have
all our days been familiar should be of the most revo-
lutionary character. But, blessed be God, such is not
the case. No doctrine of the faith is in the slightest
degree affected. False supports of important doctrines
may be removed, and true defences of them may be
supplied, but that is all. The Bible remains, for all
practical purposes, totally unaffected. That is one
grand result of the labours of the New Testament
Revision Company, for which all English Christians
have good reason to be thankful. They now know the
utmost that Biblical science demands. No suspicion
need in future haunt them that the Scriptural truths
which they love are insecure. These have been
proved to rest on an immovable foundation, and they
will endure as long as the Divine Word that reveals
them, ** which liveth and abideth for ever,"
But more than this, every loyal Christian heart
should surely rejoice to have access, in as pure a form
as possible, to the message sent us by our Father in
The English New Testament. 45
heaven. That is the great positive work which has
been aimed at by the New Testament Company, and
the fulfilment of which is presented in the Revised
Version. English readers of the Scriptures have now
the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with
the New Testament in a form more nearly representing
the primitive text than they ever had before. Most of
the changes made hardly affect the sense, but many
even of these alterations are highly interesting. Some
few others are of great importance, and will naturally
attract more attention from readers of the Revised
Version. To these two classes of changes which have
been required by an amendment of the text we shall
advert at some length in the two following chapters.
46 Companmi to the Revised Version of
CHAPTER IV.
liXAMPLES OF MINOR CHANGES CAUSED BY A CHANGE
OF TEXT.
It may be that at first not a few of the changes or
omissions in the Revised Version, due to a change in
the original text, will be felt disagreeable by the Eng-
lish reader. The old familiar rhythm is disturbed,
and the ear longs for the words to which it has been
accustomed. It must be owned, too, that there are
some changes and omissions due to the cause referred
to which may worthily seem matter of regret. Thus,
we can hardly exchange the beautiful precept, **Be
courteous," found at i Pet. iii. 8, in the Authorised
Version, for the apparently tamer expression, "humble-
minded," in the Revised Version, without feeling that
some loss has been incurred. And we cannot read
Mark ix. 3, or Mark ix. 24, without wishing that the
words " as snow " and " with tears," which add to the
graphic style of the narrative, had been retained. In
the majority of cases, however, the changes caused
by a change of text, will, on consideration, commend
themselves as improvements. They will be found to
impart greater clearness, terseness, or force, to the
The English New Tesiafnent, 47
Version. Thus, there is a vividness at Mark i. 27,
"And they were all amazed, insomuch that they
questioned among themselves, saying. What is this ?
a new teaching ! with authority he commandeth even
the unclean spirits, and they obey him," which does
not belong to the Authorised Version. Thus, again, it
will be felt to be with the remarkable variation
which occurs at 2 Cor. i. 20, where we read in the
Revised Version, "For how many soever be the
promises of God, in him is the yea : wherefore also
through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through
us.'* As has been well observed, the ^^ yea " here
" denotes the fulfilment of the promise on the part
of God, and ' Amen ' the recognition and thanksgiving
on the part of the Church, a distinction which is
obliterated by the received reading."* So, at i John
v. 13, it is an obvious gain to get rid of the clumsy
and almost absurd repetition which occurs in the
Authorised Version, and to read simply, "These
things have I written unto you, that ye may know
ye have eternal life, unto you that believe on the
name of the Son of God." But whether the frue read-
ings be deemed improvements or not, they should
always be welcomed simply on the ground of their
genuineness. To find out what is true is the supreme
object of Biblical science ; and while, no doubt, there
* Ughtfoot, On a fresh I^eyisiQn of the New Testament, p. 52.
48 Companion to the Revised Version of
may often seem an artificial attractiveness about what
is erroneous, there should always be felt a sovereign
majesty in truth.
With these remarks, let us look at some of the
minor changes which have been made in the Revised
Version owing to a change of text. I shall first take
a few from each of the Gospels, and then some from
the other books of the New Testament
St. Afatthe7v''s Gospel. At chap. v. 22, the Revised
Version omits the words " without a cause. '^ The
evidence from manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, is
here not quite conclusive, but the internal evidence
is clear. It is obvious that a strong temptation pre-
sented itself to transcribers to insert the words, in
order to soften the apparent harshness of the precept,
whereas, had they existed in the primitive text, it is
scarcely possible to account for their having been
dropped. There is little, if any, doubt, therefore, that
they ought to disappear. At chap, xviii. 17 we read
in the Revised Version, " Why askest thou me of that
which is good ? One there is who is good : but if
thou wouldest enter into life, keep the command-
ments." The external evidence is decidedly in favour
of this reading, embracing, as it does, k, B, D, &c.,
but it is the internal evidence which is conclusive.
We formerly saw how prone copyists were to conform
parallel passages, and here St. Matthew's text, as re-
The English New Testament. 49
presented in the Authorised Version, has been harmo-
nised with those of St. Mark and St. Luke. Besides
the question of the young ruler, " What good thing
shall I do ? " is aptly answered by the words, " Why
askest thou me of that which is good?'' At chap.
XXV. 6 we read in the Revised Version, " But at mid-
night a cry is made. Behold the bridegroom : come
ye forth to meet him." The word "cometh'^is omitted
on overwhelming authority ; it had evidently slipped
in as a supplement from the working of the mind of
the transcriber on the passage before him.
^i^. Mark's Gospel, At chap. vi. 20 we read in
the Revised Version, " Herod feared John, knowing
that he was a just man and a holy, and kept him safe ;
and when he heard him, he was much perplexed^ and
heard him gladly." Here the common reading, *'And
did many things," is undoubtedly supported by many
of the best authorities ; but the case is such that we
cannot conceive of the unusual Greek word for " per-
plexed " being substituted for the very common word
for " did," while the converse supposition that a tran-
scriber here meeting with an unfamiliar expression
changed it into one with which he was well acquainted,
is easy and natural. At chap. ix. 22, 23, we read in
the Revised Version, " If thou canst do anything, have
compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus said unto
him, If thou canst ! all things are possible to him that
£
50 Covipanlon to the Revised V^ersion of
believeth." This is a beautiful emendation. Jesus
takes up the doubting words of the father, and, after
repeating them, adds that strong assertion of the
power of faith which follows. The change is abundantly
supported by ancient authority ; and it is obvious that
the enfeebling " believe " of the common text has
somehow slipped in as a supplement.
St. LtMs Gospel, At chap. xvi. 9 we find the
interesting change of " it " for " ye,'' and read in the
Revised Version^ *' Make to yourselves friends out of
the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall
fail, they (the friends whom you have thus made) may
receive you into the eternal tabernacles.'' At chap,
xxiv. 17 a somewhat different turn is given to the
narrative by the insertion of a Greek verb in the text,
and we read thus in the Revised Version, " What
communications are these that ye have one with
another as ye walk? And they stood still, looking
sad." Again, at verse 46 of the same chapter, the
proper reading is, ** Thus it is written that the Christ
should suffer," the common text having been derived
from verse 26, according to a process familiar to
transcribers.
St. John^s Gospel. At chap. vi. 1 1 we find in the
common text an obvious case of accommodation to
the parallel passage in Matt. xiv. 19, and the verse
properly runs as in the Revised Version, "Jesus there-
The English New Test anient, 51
fore took the loaves, and having given thanks, he dis-
tributed to them that were set down." At chap. xiii.
24 we have in the Revised Version a characteristic
utterance of St. Peter which is lost in the ordinary
text. He seems to have imagined that John, as
specially the confidant of Christ, would know what
the disciples wished to ascertain, and exclaimed, " Tell
us who it is of whom he speaketh." At chap. xx. 16
the amended text has restored the expression " in the
Hebrew tongue," which, by the exception which it
specially marks out, serves to indicate the language
generally made use of in public intercourse by Christ
and His disciples.
The Acts of the Apostles, At chap. xv. 23 we
find an interesting example of the alteration which
may take place in the meaning from a very slight
change in the text. The words " and the " are simply
omitted, and we then read, "The apostles and the
elder brethren," instead of "The apostles, and the
elders, and the brethren." At chap. xvi. 7 we find
an exception to the general rule that a shorter reading
is to be preferred to a longer, for the true text un-
doubtedly is, " the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not."
At chap, xviii. 5 we find a striking illustration of the
tendency to replace what was unusual or not under-
stood by what was common and familiar; for
"Paul was pressed in the spirit" has there taken
£ 2
52 Companion io the Revised Version of
the place of the true text, " Paul was constiuined by
the word."
The Epistle to the Romans. A very remarkable
change has been made at chap. iv. 19. In accordance
with all the great Uncials, the negative in the verse is
omitted, so as to read, " he considered his own body
now become dead," the point being that, though he
fully took into account his own state, yet he did not
stumble at the Divine promise. At chap. v. i, after
long hesitation, criticism has clearly decided that
instead of "we have,'' the true reading is "let us
have.'* The text of B in this passage is now certainly
known to be in favour of that which stands in the
Revised Version, and it is supported by A, C, D, k^
the most important versions, and many of the Fathers.
At chap. vii. 6 a reading was introduced by Beza into
his third edition, which was a mere conjecture of his
own, and is supported by not a single manuscript or
version. It stands, however, in the common English
Bible, which translates it, " that being dead wherein
we were held," instead of the true text as rendered in
the Revised Version, " having died to that wherein we
were holden." At chap. xvi. 5 we should certainly
read " the first fruits of Asia," instead of " the first
fruits of Achaia," the mistaken reading having probably
arisen from the transcriber having i Cor. xvi. 15 in
his mind.
The English New Testament, 53
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The most
interesting changes in this Epistle are those which
have been made in the eleventh chapter, which con-
tains an account of the institution of the Lord's
Supper. At ver. 24 the words "Take, eat," have
been omitted, as having scarcely a shadow of
authority. They were doubtless interpolated from
Matt. xxvi. 26. In the same verse the word "broken"
is also left out; it was probably a supplement intro-
duced by the copyists. In ver. 26 " this cup "
becomes "the cup" in the Revised Version; the
common text was due to a desire for uniformity
in the two clauses. In ver. 29 the word translated
" unworthily " has been omitted as certainly spurious ;
it was brought in from ver. 27, where it is as certainly
genuine. At chap. xiii. 3 a various reading occurs,
which, though very properly not placed in the text,
will be found in the margin of the Revised Version as
having very great support from excellent authorities.
It deserves notice as illustrating how one Greek word
might be mistaken for another which it closely re-
sembled. Here a difference of only a single letter
leads to the so great difference of rendering in
English, as, "that I may be burned," and "that I
may glory.''*
The Scco7id Epistle to the Coriftthia7is, There are
* The two Greek words are /((^u6^uai and «ctvx^'''^A*«*'
54 Companion to the Revised Version of
no very noticeable alterations made in this Epistle
owing to a change of text. Perhaps the most inter-
esting is at chap. xii. 19, where quite a different turn
is given to the passage in the Revised Version, in
consequence of one word being altered in the original.
The Apostle knew well that his elaborate vindication
of himself might be misunderstood by the Corinthians,
as if he were anxious to gain their favourable judgment
on his conduct, and to meet this mistake he says : —
** Ye think all this time that we are excusing ourselves
unto you. In the sight of God speak we in Christ.
But all things, beloved, are for your edifying. ''
The Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians^
Colossians, At Gal. iv. 14 a new turn is given to the
passage by the pronoun being changed in the original.
St Paul, instead of there speaking of " viy temptation,'*
says, " that which was a temptation to you in my flesh
ye despised not nor rejected," surely far more in accord-
ance with the context. At Eph. v. 29 we get rid in
the Revised Version of the strange declaration, "of
his flesh, and of his bones," and read simply, in
accordance with the true text, " we are members of his
body." At Philipp. i. 16, 17, the two verses must, by
overwhelming authority, be transposed, and read as in
the Revised Version. At Col. ii. 18 we come upon
a passage presenting great difficulty both as to the
true text and the right interpretation. But evidence
The English New Testament 55
leads us clearly to reject the "not" found before
" seen " in the common text. The Apostle is blaming
those who dwell in the region of sense rather than
that of faith, and this is the meaning given to his
words in the Revised Version. It is evident that the
ancient copyists did not understand the passage, and
that the insertion of the negative was due to their
desire of making it, as they thought, intelligible.
The Epistles to the Thessalonians^ and the Pastoral
Epistles* Few changes worth notice have been made
in the Epistles to the Thessalonians on account of a
change of text. It may be noted-, however, that the
usual designation of our Saviour in these Epistles is
"our Lord Jesus," and not "our Lord Jesus Christ."
See I Thess. ii. 19, iii. 11, iii. 13 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 (first
clause); and compare ii. 8 in the Revised Version.
The full title occurs at i Thess. i. i, v. 28, 2 Thess.
i. 2, &c., but the shorter form seems characteristic of
these Epistles. On the other hand, " Christ Jesus,"
and not " Jesus Christ," appears as the favourite
appellation for our Lord in the Pastoral Epistles.
Compare with Authorised Version i Tim. iv. 6, v. 21,
2 Tim. i. I, ii. 3, Tit. i. 4, in the Revised Version.
It deserves in this connection to be noticed further
that the two versions are coincident in the use of the
form " Christ Jesus" in the following passages : i Tim.
i. 12, i. 14, ii. 5, iii. 13, vi. 13 ; 2 Tim. i. i (second
56 Compa7iion to the Revised Versio7i of
clause), i. 2, i. 9, i. 13, ii. i, ii. 10, iii. 12, iii.
15. The title "Christ Jesus" thus seems in its very
frequent use a marked peculiarity of the Pastoral
Epistles, and serves as a sort of nexus to bind them all
together.
The Epistle to Philemon and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Almost the only changes of any interest
in the Epistle to Philemon are at ver. 2, where we
read, "and to Apphia our sister," for "and to our
beloved Apphia," the epithet "beloved" having
apparently been substituted to correspond to ver. i ;
and "I had," for "we have," in ver. 7, in which some
critics also read "grace" instead of "joy," but with-
out sufficient authority. At Heb. iv. 2 overwhelming
critical evidence compels us to accept the somewhat
strange rendering of the Revised Version. Many
critics of high name have been tempted to abide by
the apparently far simpler and more satisfactory
reading which is represented in the Authorised Ver-
sion ; but faithfulness to the laws of evidence and
grammar will not permit of such a course. At chap.
X. 34, the personal reference to the writer of the
Epistle is exchanged for the general reference to
" them that were in bonds," and this change has an
important bearing on the very difficult question of
authorship. At chap. xi. 13 the Greek words
rendered " and were persuaded of them " have no
The English New Tesfafnent 57
right whatever to a place in the text. The beautiful
and exact rendering of the original here given in the
Revised Version will be noticed afterwards, when we
come to treat of mistakes of translation in the
Authorised Version,
The Catholic Epistles. In the Epistle of James
the remarkable change which is found in the Revised
Version at chap. i. 19 is due to the change of a single
letter in the Greek.* The evidence is decisive ; and
the principle here applies that a more difficult reading
is to be preferred to one that is easy and frequent.
In the first Epistle of Peter, at chap. ii. 21, the con-
fusion of the pronouns found in the Authorised Version,
which reads, " Christ also suffered for us^ leaving us
an example, that ye should follow his steps," is, by
a change of text, escaped in the Revised Version.
The change made at 2 Pet. iii. 2, which cannot fail to
strike the reader, has the sanction of all the great
Uncials, and of the best versions. In like manner
the insertion of the words ** and we are,'' in i John iii.
I, rests on the most decisive manuscript and Patristic
authority. In 2 John ver. 8 the confusion of pro-
nouns again found in the Authorised Version is by a
change of text corrected in the Revised Version. In
3 John ver. 12 the glaring incongruity of addressing
in the plural Gaius, to whom the Epistle is addressed,
* The two Greek words are itrre and wo-re.
58 Companion to the Revised Version of
is removed by the adoption of the correct reading,
"thou knowest." In the Epistle of Jude ver. i,
through a mistake of one Greek word for another,*
there is read in the Authorised Version, *^ sanctified
by God the Father," instead of ^^ beloved in God the
Father."
The Apocalypse, As might be inferred from what
has been said in the preceding chapter the text of the
Book of Revelation on which the Authorised Version
rests was of the most unsatisfactory character.
Accordingly, numerous corrections of the original
have led to change in the Revised Version. One of
the most important of these alterations is found at
chap. xvii. 8. The Authorised Version refers at the
close of this verse to " the beast, that was, and is not,
and yet is " — truly an enigmatical declaration — ^but by
substitution of the true text we attain to the more
intelligible statement which the reader will here find
in the Revised Version. Some interesting changes
have also been made in the concluding chapter of the
Book. Thus, in the third clause of the eleventh verse
a very puzzling reading of the common text — which,
by the way, ought not to be rendered as in the
Authorised Version, but can only mean, "let him be
justified still" — has been exchanged for one which
* The two words which have been confounded are riyaTTTj/jLivois
and 7iyia.(TiJicvo',s.
The English Ne7v Testament, 59
yields a plain and satisfactory sense — " let him do
righteousness still." And in the fourteenth verse,
instead of these words of the Authorised Version,
'^ Blessed are they that do his conunandments^ that
they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter
in through the gates into the city," we must read, far
more in accordance with the analogy of Scripture,
"Blessed are they that ivash their robes ^ that they
may have the right to come to the tree of life, and
may enter in by the gates into the city/'
6o Companion to the Revised Version of
CHAPTER V.
MORE IMPORTANT CHANGES DUE TO A CHANGE
OF TEXT.
Probably the first great change which will strike the
reader of the Revised Version is the entire omission
of the doxology of the Lord's Prayer at Matt. vi. 13.
The reasons for this omission are conclusive. First,
the clause is not found in any of the great Uncials, m,
B, D, which contain the passage. Secondly, it is
not noticed by the earliest Fathers in their expositions
of the Lord's Prayer. True, Chrysostom and others
recognise it in the fourth century, but this cannot
outweigh the fact that it is wholly unnoticed by
Origen in the third. The internal evidence, too, is
somewhat against it, as an interruption of the context.
There is, indeed, one weighty argument in its favour.
It is found in most of the ancient versions, such as
the ^thiopic, the Armenian, the Gothic, and, above
all, the Syriac. Versions, it is obvious, are far more
valuable as witnesses to the existence of clauses than
they can be in regard to individual words. And
could we be sure that the doxology existed from the
first in such an ancient version as the Peshito Syriac,
The Efiglish New Testament 6i
its genuineness would perhaps no longer be disputed.
But, as was formerly remarked, we cannot insist on
the authority of the Syriac in support of the passage.
This is felt all the more from the varying form which
is presented by the doxologyin the Curetonian
version, which omits altogether the words " and the
power." Besides, it does not exist in the Latin
Vulgate, a very important witness. Upon the whole,
criticism must pronounce decidedly against the clause
as forming part of the original text; and it is,
accordingly, not admitted into the Revised Version.
Mark xvi. 9 — 20. The reader will be struck by
the appearance which this long paragraph presents in
the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked
off by a considerable space from the rest of the
Gospel. A note is also placed on the margin con-
taining a brief explanation of this, but it may be well
here to say something more respecting such an impor-
tant section of the Evangelical history. The case,
then, stands as follows. It cannot be denied that
there is something peculiar about the paragraph. We
find that it has no place in k, B, the two oldest manu-
scripts in our possession. It is true that the writer of
B has left a blank space at the end of St. Mark's
Gospel, clearly indicating that he knew of something
more that might be inserted, but the fact remains that
he did not insert it; Again, as Tregelles has remarked,
62 Companion to the Revised Version of
"Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antiocli>
Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers,
especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not
written by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies/' *
Moreover, it must, I think, be admitted that the
style of the passage is not that of the Evangelist.
Not only are there seventeen words in the compass of
only twelve verses which are nowhere else made use
of by St. Mark, but the general complexion of the
paragraph is unlike that of the gospel. This much
may be urged against the genuineness. But, on the
other hand, in support of it we are told to reflect how
improbable it is that a writer of the Gospel history
would abruptly end his narrative with the statement
contained in verse 8. That may be admitted, and
yet there may have been circumstances unknown to
us that compelled the author to make such a sudden
termination. How many works might be referred to,
such as Macaulay's " History of England," which
close abruptly, for the too-sufficient reason that death
arrested the pen of the writer ! But again it is
argued that Irenaeus quotes the passage, without the
slightest misgiving, in the second century. True, and
that is most weighty proof of the atcthority assigned to
the passage even from the earliest times, but does by
no means prove the authorship of St. Mark. Nor
* Introduction ^ p. 435,
The English Neio Testament, d^i
can the evidence of versions be deemed conclusive,
for reasons which have been ah'eady stated. On the
whole, a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems
to lead us to these conclusions : first, that the passage
is not the immediate production of St. Mark ; and
secondly, that it is, nevertheless, possessed of full
canonical authority. We cannot ascertain its author,
but we are sure he must have been one who belonged
to the circle of the Apostles. And, in accordance
with this view of the paragraph, it is marked off from
the words with which, for some unknown reason, the
Gospel of St. Mark ended ; while, at the same time,
it is inserted, without the least misgiving, as an
appendix to that gospel in the Revised Version:
John vii. 53 — viii. 11. This section of the Gospel
narrative stands on much the same footing with that
just considered. It is enclosed within brackets in the
Revised Version, and is accompanied by an ex-
planatory note on the margin; More, however, than
that note is necessary to set forth the real authority
belonging to the passage. It is not found in any one
of the first-rate Uncials, nor in the Syriac and other
ancient versions. There is no evidence that it was
known to Origen, Chrysostom, and others of the
early Fathers. It is obelised as doubtful by many of
the manuscripts which contain it; The texts in which
it has come down to us vary exceedingly among them-
64 Companion to the Revised Version of
selves. And, lastly, as against its being an integral
portion of St; John's Gospel, it has no connection
with the context, and its style is totally different from
that of the Evangelist. On the other hand, it is found
in the ancient Uncial D, though in a text which
varies much from the received. It was known to
St. Jerome in the fourth century, who expressly
testifies that it existed in his days " in many manu-
scripts both Greek and Latin." Augustine about the
same date affirms that " some of but weak faith, or
rather enemies of the true faith," had expunged it
from their copies of the New Testament, and adds
that they did so with an ethical purpose, fearing lest
the passage might seem to grant impunity to sin.
It would appear from Eusebius that even Papias, who
lived in the early part of the second century, was
famihar with the story, though that of course does not
prove that he knew it as existing in St. John's Gospel.
Finally, the narrative itself breathes the very spirit ot
Christ and Christianity. Now, in these circumstances,
what judgment can criticism pronounce regarding it ?
The right conclusion probably is that it is no part of
St John's Gospel, and yet is a perfectly true narrative
which has descended to us from the Apostolic age.
Some critics think that its proper place would be at
the end of Luke xxi., where it is really placed in some
of the best of the Cursive manuscripts. Such being
The English New Testament, 65
the facts of the case as regards this famous paragraph,
it has properly been inserted in the text, but marked
off from the context and enclosed in brackets in the
Revised Version.
Coloss, ii. 2. A very important departure has here
been made, on textual grounds, from the Autho-
rised Version. But, as the reader will observe from
the note on the margin, this has not been done with
much confidence. The fact is that, in the present
conflicting state of the evidence, it is impossible to
say, with any approach to certainty, what was here the
original text. There are many varieties of reading.
First, we find the very short form, " to the acknowledg-
ment of the mystery of God," without any reference
to Christ at all. Next, we have " to the acknowledg-
ment of the mystery of God, Christ," nothing being
interposed between the words " God " and " Christ."
Thirdly, there is the form, " to the acknowledgment
of the mystery of God, which is Christ." Fourthly,
some good manuscripts read " to the acknowledgment
of the mystery of God, the Father of Christ." And
lastly, there is the reading of the mass of the Cursives
represented in our Authorised Version, "to the
acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the
Father, ana of Chrisv.'' The three last readings are, by
the general consent of critics, set aside, as manifest
amplifications of the original text. We are, therefore, left
F
66 Companion to the Revised Version of
to choose between the first and second forms. Such
choice is by no means easy, and critics are greatly
divided on the point According to a principle often
already alluded to, the shorter form should, other
things being equal, obtain the preference. But in
this case there is scarcely equality. The curt form
" of God " is supported only by one late Uncial, and
some good Cursives. The longer form "of God,
Christ," has the weighty authority of B, and of Hilary
among the Fathers. The fourth form mentioned above
is supported by k, A, C, and thus has perhaps more
external evidence than any of the rest, but can scarcely
be accepted on account of internal considerations. In
these circumstances, we conclude with some confidence
that the true text of the passage is that represented in
the Revised Version.
I Tim, iii. i6. The English reader will probably
be startled to find that the familiar text, "And with-
out controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God
was manifest in the flesh," has been exchanged in the
Revised Version for the following, "And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness ; He
who was manifested in the flesh." A note on the
margin states that " the word God^ in place of He who,
rests on no sufficient ancient authority ;" and it may
be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the
reader should be convinced that such is the case.
The English New Testament, 67
What, then, let us inquire, is the amount of evidence
which can be produced in support of the reading ^' Godf
This is soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers
can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very
ancient versions support it. No Uncial witnesses to
it, with the doubtful exception of A. The most diverse
opinions have been expressed by critics as to the
true text of this manuscript. To let the reader under-
stand how this should be, it must be stated that the
difference between two such similar forms as O C
and 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 " indispiUably^ after minute
personal inspection."^ Dr. Scrivener, on the other
hand says, " I have always felt convinced with
* Coftim. on I Tim.^ p. 51.
F 2
68 Companion to the Revised Version of
Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. A read
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 C- But even
granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian
manuscript is in favour of " God," far more evidence
can be produced in support of "who." x and pro-
bably C witness to this reading, and it has also
powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers.
Moreover, the relative " who," is a far more difficult
reading than "God," and could hardly have been
substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore,
we conclude that this interesting and important
passage must stand as it has been given in the Revised
Version.
I Peter \\L 15. The importance of the departure
here made from the Authorised Version may not at
first be obvious to the reader, but will become so on a
very little consideration. It amounts to nothing less
* Introduction, p. 553.
The English New Testament. 69
than the identification of Christ with Jehovah, For,
as all admit, the Apostle here borrows his language
from Isa, viii. 13, where we read "Sanctify the Lord
of Hosts himself." Since, therefore, the language made
use of in the Old Testament with respect to Jehovah
is here applied by St. Peter to Christ, there could not
be a clearer attestation to the deity of our Redeemer
than that w^hich is furnished by this passage as read in
the Revised Version. And the necessity of the change
here made in the text admits of no question. For the
reading of the Authorised Version there are only a
few manuscripts and Fathers; while for that of the
Revised there are all the great Uncials, several of
the Fathers, and all the best versions. This instance
of clear gain by rectification of the text tends all the
more to reconcile us to the apparent loss which now
comes to be mentioned.
I Johji V. 7,8. The whole of these verses bearing
upon what is known as " the heavenly witnesses," has
been omitted in the Revised Version. This omission
is one of the most indubitable results of textual
criticism. The words left out can be proved to have
no claim whatever to a place in the text of Scripture.
None of the Uncial manuscripts contain them. None
of the ancient versions represent them. None of the
Fathers quote them, even when arguing on the subject
of the Trinity. There are, indeed, two passages in
70 Companion to the Rroised Version of
Cyprian which seem to indicate an acquaintance with
verse 7, but even though that be granted, the fact goes
for nothing against such powerful counter-evidence.
As was formerly noticed, Erasmus omitted the words
in his first two editions. But, as they had long stood
in the Vulgate, he was, of course, subjected to much
odium for so doing. To disarm his malignant assail-
ants, he promised that in future editions he would
insert the words if they were found in a single Greek
manuscript. One was discovered in Britain which did
contain them, and therefore Erasmus admitted them
into the text of his third edition. But it is now agreed
by all scholars that the ** British manuscript," on whose
authority the words were inserted, was not more
ancient than the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It
once belonged to a Dr. Montfort, of Cambridge, and
from him it has derived its name^ being still preserved
under the title of the Codex Montfortianus in Trinity
College, Dublin. Erasmus himself suspected that the
disputed words contained in this manuscript had been
translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate, and
this is now the fixed opinion of critics. The same
thing must be said respecting the only other Greek
manuscript known to contain the passage. It belongs
to the fifteenth century, and is preserved in the
Vatican library. The text it offers varies considerably
in the verses referred to from that of the manuscript
The English New Testament 71
already spoken of, but was also undoubtedly derived
from the Latin. The same seems clearly to have been
the case with the Complutensian edition of the New
Testament. That contained in Greek the disputed
words, and Stunica, its leading editor, severely
censured Erasmus for omitting them. But when the
great scholar asked him to state on what authority he had
inserted the passage in the text, Stunica appealed only
to the Vulgate. He maintained that the Latin repre-
sented the true original of Scripture, and that the
Greek copies had been corrupted, a pretty conclusive
proof that the words in question owed their place in
his text not to their having been found in any Greek
manuscripts, but simply to their having been translated
into Greek from the Vulgate.
No defender of the genuineness of i John 7, 8,
will probably arise in the future. The controversy
regarding the passage is finished, and will never be re-
newed. But the literary history to which it has given
rise will not be forgotten. A small library might be
formed of the books and pamphlets which have been
written for or against the words. Among the authors
of these works some very celebrated names appear.
That of the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton has a place in
the list. He wrote against the genuineness of the
words, and thus did good service in the cause of truth.
But by far the most memorable event in this lengthened
72 Companion to Revised Version of New TesfamenL
and often bitter controversy was the publication of the
letters of Professor Porson to Archdeacon Travis.
These letters, by their acuteness and ability, whatever
may be thought of their spirit, virtually settled the
case against the genuineness of the passage. And
although since then the voices of some zealous friends
of Scripture — Bishops, Cardinals, and others — have
been unwisely lifted up in defence of "the three
heavenly witnesses," yet so decidedly have the minds
of all scholars now been made up as to the spurious-
ness of the words, that they have been omitted in the
Revised Version without a line even on the margin to
indicate that they had ever been admitted to a place
in the sacred text.
PART II.
CHANGES ARISING FROM AN
AMENDED TRANSLATION.
CHAPTER I.
CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN THE MEANING OF
GREEK WORDS.
There are not very many instances in which the
Authorised Version has positively mistaken the import
of the original. The translators had before them the
labours of many able predecessors, and upon the
whole turned to good account the advantages which
they thus enjoyed. Still, there are cases in which
they have gone quite astray in the meaning assigned
to the Greek, and to the chief of these we now proceed
to direct our attention.
Matt. X. 4 and Mark iii. i8. In these passages
we read in the Authorised Version of "Simon the
Catjaanite.'' This naturally suggests to an English
reader the idea that one of the Apostles did not
belong to the family of Abraham, but to the race of
the Canaanites. Such a notion, however, rests upon
an utter mistake. The epithet applied to Simon is
taken from the Aramaic /^/^/^, then commonly spoken
in Palestine. It is replaced by the Greek word
76 Companion to the Revised Version of
meaning " Zealot" at Luke vi. 15 and Acts i. 13, just
as the same Evangelist gives the Greek equivalent at
Luke viii. 54 for the Aramaic words in Mark v. 41.
The meaning, therefore, is that Simon had, before he
became a follower of Christ, belonged to the Jewish
faction of the Zealots. Accordingly, this explanation
has been given on the margin of the Revised Version
at Matt. X. 4, and Mark iii. 18, while Cananaean has
taken the place of the erroneous and misleading form
" Canaanite," in the text.
Matt. xiv. 8. Here we read in the Authorised
Version, "She, being before instructed oi\\Qr mother," &c.
But it is certain that this is a mistake. The Greek
verb made use of has never any reference to time, but
can only mean "urged on," or "impelled." As
Archbishop Trench has remarked, " We may conceive
the unhappy girl, with all her vanity and levity,
yet shrinking from the petition of blood which her
mother would put into her lips, and needing to be
urged on or pushed forward before she could be
induced to make it; and this is implied in the
word."* Hence the rendering "put forward" in the
Revised Version.
Matt, XV. 27. The Greek will not here allow of
the rendering "yet," which occurs in the Authorised
Version. And it completely perverts the meaning.
* On Authorised Versioti, p. 115.
The English New Testament. 77
The argument of the woman is derived from that very
appellation which our Lord had given her. Granting
its truthfulness, she saw it opened a door of hope
before her, so that, instead of being driven by Christ's
words to despair, she ventured to rest her whole case
upon them, and exclaimed, as in the Revised Version,
" Yea, luox^y for even the dogs eat of the crumbs which
fall from their master's table."
Matt. xxvi. 15. An interesting correction has
been made in this verse. We cannot, indeed, affirm
that the translation "covenanted," here found
in the Authorised Version, is absolutely impossible.
But it entirely breaks the connection between this
passage and Zech. xi. 12. We there find the very
same Greek verb in the Septuagint as here occurs
in the Gospel. The Old Testament rendering is,
" They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.''
And so it should be here, as in the Revised
Version, "They weighed unto him thirty pieces of
silver."
Mark iv. 29. Here the expression "is brought
forth," in the Authorised Version, is a very inexact
rendering of the Greek verb. The proper translation,
" is ripe,'* will be found in the text of the Revised
Version.
Luke iii. 23. Here we find in the Authorised
Version the singular statement that "Jesus himself
78 Companion to the Revised Version of
began to be about thirty years of age." The Greek
gives no countenance to such a translation. It ought
to be rendered as in the Revised Version, "And
, Jesus himself, when he began (to teach), was about
thirty years of age."
Luke ix. 32. This verse is quite misrepresented by
the Authorised Version, "But Peter, and they that
were with him, were heavy with sleep ; and when they
were awake^ they saw his glory, and the two men that
stood with him." It ought to be rendered as in the
Revised Version, " But Peter, and they that were with
him, were heavy with sleep \ yet having remained awake ^
they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with
him."
Lukey^M\\\. 12. Here the word " possess " in the
Authorised Version is quite an impossible rendering
of the Greek. It ought to be "acquire" or "get," as
in the Revised Version. Tithes were paid not on
what was laid up or possessed^ but on what was gained
in the way of increase. Hence the Pharisee says, " I
give tithes of all that I get."
Luke xxii. 56. The exact and graphic force of
the original is here missed in the Authorised Version.
** But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire :
and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man
was also with him." The real meaning is, that she
recognised him when a flash of the smouldering fire
The English Neto Testament, 79
fell upon his countenance. This is brought out in the
Revised Version. "And a certain maid seeing him
as he sat in the light (of the fire), and earnestly
looking upon him, said, This man also was with
him."
Ltike xxiv. 25. Many readers must have been
struck by the harshness of the words, " O fools," here
found in the Authorised Version. Such an opening
of his discourse seems quite out of keeping with the
tender and affectionate way in which Christ dealt with
these two disciples. No such incongruity appears in
the original. It simply denotes want of understanding
and reflection, and the Authorised Version has been
softened in the Revised by the simple emendation,
" O foolish men."
John ix. 17. Here the Authorised Version is
scarcely intelligible. " They say unto the blind man
again. What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened
thine eyes?" The meaning is made plain in the
Revised Version merely by inserting "in," thus —
" They say therefore unto the blind man again, What
sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes?
And he said, He is a prophet."
John X. 14, 15. The connection between these
two verses is totally destroyed in the Authorised
Version, which runs thus : " I am the good Shepherd,
and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the
So Companion to the Revised Version of
Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father;
and I lay down my life for the sheep." The verses
should be read as in the Revised Version : " I
am the good Shepherd, and I know mine own, and
mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me
and I know the Father ; and I lay down my life for
the sheep."
John xi. 20. The supplementary word "still"
here inserted in the Authorised Version : " but Mary
sat still in the house," is apt to produce an erroneous
impression. By simply transposing it in the Revised
Version, the true meaning of the tense employed in
the original is brought out : " but Mary still sat in the
house."
Acts ii. 3. The Authorised Version is here quite
wrong ; " And there appeared unto them cloven tongues^
like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.'' The
symbolical meaning of the appearance is thus quite
missed. We must render, as in the Revised Version,
"And there appeared unto them tongues parting
asunder (or, partifig among them), like as of fire, and
it sat upon each of them."
Acts iii. 19, 20. An impossible translation here
occurs in the Authorised Version, in which we read :
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your
sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing
shall come from the presence of the Lord ; and he
The English New Testament. 8i
shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached
unto you." For eschatological reasons it is most
important that the true rendering of this passage
should be presented. It is thus given in the Revised
Version : *' Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that
your sins may be blotted out, that so seasons of refresh-
ing may come from the presence of the Lord ; and
that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed
for you (even), Jesus."
Acts xxvi. 28. It is with some reluctance that we
here abandon the rendering of the Authorised Version,
^^ Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."
This is a text from which many eloquent and edifying
sermons have been preached, but the Greek will not
tolerate it. Quite a different expression must have
been used for " almost ; " and the true rendering of
the original, as it stands, seems to be that of the
Revised Version : " With hict little persuasion thou
wouldest fain make me a Christian."
Rom. iii. 25. The Authorised translation of this
verse is, " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitia-
tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous-
ness for the remission of sins that are past, through
the forbearance of God." But, besides being almost
unintelligible, this is an utterly impossible version of
the Greek. The original can only be fairly represented
in some such translation as that of the Revised
G
82 Companion to the Revised Version of
Version : ** Whom God set forth to be a propitiation,
through faith, by his blood, to shew his righteousness,
because of the passing over of tJie sins done aforetime, in
the forbearance of God."
Ro7n. xi. 7, 25. It is remarkable that the Greek
words which the Authorised Version translates in
these verses, and at 2 Cor. iii. 14, Eph. iv. 18, as
" blinded " and ** blindness," are in the Gospels (Mark
iii. 5, vi. 52; John xii. 40) rendered *' hardened^'
and *' hardness." The latter is their proper meaning,
and, as such, it has been consistently maintained in
the Revised Version.
I Cor. iv. 4. This verse stands as follows in the
Authorised Version, *^ For I know nothing by myself ;
yet am I not hereby justified ; but- he that judgeth
me is the Lord." As thus translated, the passage is
constantly misunderstood. Even intelligent readers
imagine that the Apostle here means to state that he
was dependent for all the knowledge he had on the
favour of God. But this is a total misapprehension
of the meaning. The true sense is brought out in the
Revised Version, '^ For I know nothing against myself;
yet am I not hereby justified : but he that judgeth me
is the Lord." This passage might, perhaps, have been
more justly classed mth those archaisms which require
adjustment to present-day usage than with mistakes
in translation. Yet the misunderstanding of the words
The English Neiu Testament. 83
is so great, that it seemed important to notice them
here. Some have deemed the expression " by my-
self " a mere provinciaHsm, which was, through over-
sight, admitted into the Authorised Version, but the
phrase seems once to have been good EngUsh. Thus,
" Cranmer says to Henry VIII., * I am exceedingly
sorry that such faults can be proved by the queen,'
that is, against her."* The Aposde means that though
he was not conscious of having done any wrong in
reference to the Corinthians, yet, after all, it was only
God that could truly judge and thoroughly justify him.
2 Co7'. ii. 14. Here the rendering, "Now thanks
be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in
Christ," seems to rest on a mistake as to the meaning
of the Greek. Indeed, the Authorised Version con-
tradicts itself, for the same word occurs again at Col.
ii. 15, and is there translated " triumphing over them."
The correct rendering is that of the Revised Version,
" But thanks be unto God, which always leadeth us in
triumph in Christ,'' on which Bishop Lightfoot remarks,
that here ^'the image of the believer made captive
and chained to the car of Christ is most expressive,
while the paradox of the Apostle's thanksgiving over
his own spiritual defeat and thraldom is at once sig-
nificant and characteristic." t
* Eadie, The English Bible, ii. 374,
t Revision of the New Testament, p. 135,
G 2
84 Companion to the Revised Version of
Gal, V. 17. The Authorised Version here reads,
" For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh ; and these are contrary the one to
the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye
would.'' By this rendering the flesh is represented
as the master-principle, which succeeds in preventing
believers from doing the things which they would.
But the very opposite is implied in the Greek.
The Spirit who dwells in believers is represented as
enabling them successfully to resist those tendencies
to evil which naturally exist within them ; and the
correct rendering is that of the Revised Version,
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the
one to the other ; that ye may not do the things that
ye would^^
Eph, iv. 29. Here again the Authorised Version
presents the following impossible translation, " Let no
corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,
but that which is good to the use of edifying^ that it
may minister grace unto the hearers." The literal
meaning of the Greek is " to the building up of the
need," and its real import is, that hearers are to be
addressed, not in commonplace generalities, but in
special terms, as their necessities require. This is
expressed in the Revised Version, " Let no corrupt
speech proceed out of your mouth, but that which is
The English New Testament 85
good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give
grace to them that hear/'
Fhilipp. iv. 2, 3. The Authorised Version here
reads, *'I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche,
that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I
intreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women
which laboured with me in the Gospel," &c. It would
seem from this rendering that Euodias and Syntyche
are referred to only in the second verse, and that the
women afterwards spoken of are different. But the
original shows that this is not the case, and the proper
translatfcn is that of the Revised Version, " I beseech
Euodias, and I beseech Syntyche to be of the same
mind in the Lord. Yea, I intreat thee also, true yoke-
fellow, help those women for they laboured with me in
the Gospel," &c.
Col ii. 8. If it cannot be said that the Authorised
Version here is positively erroneous, it is certainly
liable to grave misconstruction. The true meaning is
clearly brought out, when instead of " Beware lest any
man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,'^ we
read as in the Revised Version, " Take heed lest there
shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his
philosophy and vain deceit."
2 Thess, ii. i. Here the Authorised Version
errs, in common with many others, in the rendering,
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming
86 Companion to the Revised Version of
of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. It should be, as
in the Revised Version, "Now we beseech you,
brethren, in regard of the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ,'' &c.
I Tim, vi. 5. Here the rendering of the Author-
ised Version, "supposing that gain is godliness," is
not only erroneous but absurd. How it could have
ever found acceptance is very difficult to understand.
As the original clearly indicates, " godliness " is the
subject, and "gain" the predicate, so that the correct
rendering is that of the Revised Version, " supposing
that godliness is a way of gain P
Heh. xi. 13. This verse is spoiled in the Author-
ised Version, which runs thus, "These all died in faith,
not having received the promises, but having seen
them afar off, and were persuaded of them and em-
braced them, and confessed that they were strangers
and pilgrims on the earth." It was formerly remarked
that the clause " and were persuaded of them " has no
right to stand in the text. We have now to notice
that the translation, "and embraced them," is incorrect.
The image, as Chrysostom long ago remarked, is that
of sailors who, catching a glimpse of the shores they
wish to reach, salute them from a distance. It will be
remembered how the poet notices this in our own
language, when, speaking of a promontory by the sea,
he says—
The English New Testament, 87
" His hoary head
Conspicuous many a league, the mariner,
Bound homeward, and in hope already there,
Greets with three cheers exulting." -
Such is the attitude assigned in this passage to the Old
Testament saints, and the verse ought to be translated
as in the Revised Version, " These all died in faith,
not having received the promises, but having seen
them, and greeted them from afar, and having confessed
that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
I Fet. iii. 21. It is certain that the Authorised
Version is here wrong in translating the original as
meaning " the answer of a good conscience towards
God." The exact meaning of the clause is difficult to
determine. It probably is the seeking after God with
an earnest heart, as the great spiritual idea in Christian
baptism implies. The Revised Version, with certainly
a far nearer approach to truth than the Authorised,
inserts somewhat doubtfully in the text, " the interro-
gation of a good conscience toward God," while
" inquiry " and " appeal " stand on the margin.
Rev. iv. 6, 7, 8, 9; V. 6, 8, 11, 14; vi. i, 3, 5, 6, 7;
vii. 1 1 ; xiv. 3 ; xv. 7 ; xix. 4. Every one must have
heard the word "beast" or "beasts," which is the
translation of the Authorised Version in these passages,
quietly corrected into "living creature" or "creatures."
* Cowper's Task, Book I.
88 Covipanion to the Revised Version of
The word in the original is totally different from that
which is found in such passages as Rev. xiii. i, xiv. 9,
&c., where the rendering ''beast" is quite proper.
The terms will be found properly discriminated in the
Revised Version.
The English New Testament, 89
CHAPTER II.
CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN GREEK GRAMMAR.
Here a very wide field opens up before us. The
Authorised Version is often most inexact in regard to
grammatical points. This comes out in many ways,
and will here be illustrated with reference to the article,
the tenses of the Greek verb, and the senses assigned
to several prepositions.
It need hardly be said how great is the difference
of meaning imparted to a clause or sentence in our
language, according as one word in it is without an
article, or has the indefinite or definite article. Thus,
if we read, " God gave life to inan^^ that is felt to have
a very distinct sense from " God gave life to a man,"
and the latter again to be very difi"erent in meaning
from, " God gave life to the man." Perhaps no better
illustration could be adduced of the difference of
signification caused in English by the use of the
indefinite or definite articles respectively than is fur-
nished in the remark said to have been made by
Charles Fox, when^ comparing his own fluency with
that of William Pitt, he said, " I never want a word,
90 Compajiio7i to iJie Radsed Version of
but Pitt never wants ike word.'* These examples will
sufficiently suggest to the reader how much may
depend on the coiTect use of the article in our
language.
But in the Authorised Version this point of accuracy
has been almost entirely neglected. The Greek
language has a definite article, and its omission or
insertion in a passage often has the weightiest effect
upon the sense. Yet our translators seem to have
been ignorant of this fact, and have treated the
article as if it were not of the slightest importance.
They have been guilty of every possible variety of
error in connection with it. As will immediately
appear, they have omitted it in their version where it
existed in the original ; they have inserted it where it
had no place in the Greek ; and they have sometimes
over-translated it by giving it the force of a demon-
strative pronoun. Let us look at some instances of
their blundering under each of these three heads.
First — The Authorised Version has frequently
omitted the article where it existed in the Greek.
There are, no doubt, cases in which the English idiom
will not tolerate the use of an article where it is found
in the original. This is especially true when it stands
before proper names and abstract nouns. But, with
these exceptions, it is generally important that the
definite article should be represented in English when
The English Nav Testament, 91
it stands in the Greek. This comes out very strikingly
in connection with the word Christ, That term is
never used in the Gospels as a proper name, but
always as an official title. Only once is it connected
with the personal appellation Jesus, namely, at John
xvii. 3, in which passage the Saviour stations himself,
as it were, in the future, when his claim to be regarded
as Messiah shall have been demonstrated by the
resurrection. After that event, the term Christ might
be used as synonymous with Jesus, but not before.
Accordingly, we find that in the Gospels the word
has, with very few exceptions, the article prefixed, and
should therefore be translated ^' the Christ." Thus, at
Matt. ii. 4, where the Authorised Version has ^*he
demanded of them where Christ should be born,"
the proper rendering is the Ch7'ist, the promised
Messiah. And so throughout. Many other examples
of the improper and hurtful omission of the article by
the Authorised Version might be quoted. I shall
notice only these two — 2 Thess. ii. 3, where, instead
of " a falling away,'' and " that man of sin," we should
read " except the falling away come first, and the man
of sin be revealed," and Heb. xi. 10, where the right
rendering is, " he looked for the city which hath the
foundations," the reference being to the Avell-known
and often-alluded-to foundations, in other words, he
looked for the New Jerusalem, of which it had been
92 Companion to the Revised Version of
already said, "Her foundations are in the holy
mountains" (Ps. Ixxxvii. i ; cf. Isa. xxviii. i6); even
as in the Apocalypse great things are spoken of these
glorious foundations of the heavenly city (Rev. xxi. 14,
19, 20)."* Proper regard to the insertion of the
definite article where it occurs in the Greek will be
found one of the marked characteristics of the Revised
Version.
Secondly, the Authorised Version has ijiserted the
definite article where it had no place in the Greek.
This is not such a frequent error as that just noticed,
but still not a few examples are to be found. Thus,
at I Tim. vi. 10, the Authorised Version makes St.
Paul declare that " the love of money is the root of all
evil," an exaggerated statement which could not be
seriously maintained, whereas the true rendering is,
" the love of money is a root of all evil," a sad truth
which universal experience has confirmed. So again,
at Luke iii. 14, we should read, " and soldiers also
asked him ; " at 2 Cor. iii. 15, " ^ veil lieth upon their
heart;" at Gal. iv. 31, "children of a handmaid ; " at
Philipp. iii. 5, "a Hebrew of Hebrews;" and thus in
several other passages which will be noticed by readers
of the Revised Version.
* Thirdly, the Authorised Version has sometimes
over-translated the article by giving it the force of a
* Abp. Trench, 0?i the Authorised Version, p. 86.
The English New Testament, 93
demonstrative pronoun. Examples of this error occur
at John i. 21, where we find, ^^Art thou that prophet ? "
instead of "Art thou the prophet?" iv. 37, ^Uhat
saying" for "///?A*aTtfeo'0ai and /JLcra/jLopcpovo-dai.
f did^oXos and hai^oviovj or Sai/xwy.
J 2
132 CompanioJi to the Revised Version of
is the word which is literally *' daemon," and which is
so often used in connection with those unhappy beings
who are described as daemonized^ or "possessed of
devils." This "possession was a disease like epi-
lepsy, for the victim was * healed,' and some kind of
insanity, for the * right mind ' was restored. But it
was something more — the intrusion of an alien force
into the nervous system, impeding sensation, so that
the patient was deaf and dumb ; with perfect organs,
but without power to use them ; his will overlorded
(Acts X. 2i^) by an alien might, which created the
confusion of an apparently dual consciousness. The
rendering of the two distinct terms by the same word
obliterates a very marked distinction to the English
reader."* It is, indeed, much to be regretted that the
word " daemon " was not introduced into the earliest
versions of the New Testament which were made
into our language. Had that been done, the ex-
pression would soon have established itself as clearly
marking a distinction between the evil spirits so named
and the great adversary — the devil. In the Revised
Version the common rendering has been retained as
now almost a matter of necessity, but wherever the
word " daemon" has been translated "devil " the fact
is indicated on the margin.
There is a simple Greek verb which is usually
* Eadie's English Bible^ ii. 433.
The English New Testame?tt 133
and properly translated " judge," but it is erroneously
rendered "condemn'' at John iii. 17, 18. In like
manner, the simple substantives connected with it are
generally represented by ^'judgment " in English, but
improperly by " damnation " at Matt, xxiii. 33, Mark
xii. 40, and other places. On the other hand, a com-
pound of the verb referred to with a preposition is
somewhat inexactly rendered by " judge " at i Cor.
iv- 3> 4j 5, although all that has there been done in
the Revised Version is to place another translation on
the margin. The reference seems to be to the pre-
liminary examination of accused persons — what is
known in Scotch law as a " precognition." We have
an example of this at Acts xxv. 26 ; but, however
useful this may be in human affairs, the Apostle pro-
tests against it in matters spiritual as an unwarrantable
anticipation of the judgment of the great day. There
is another compound of the same verb which is also
improperly rendered "judge" at i Cor. xi. 31; it
should be translated "discern," as in ver. 29. A third*
compound is correctly rendered "condemn," as at
Matt. xii. 41 and most other passages, but "damned,"
which occurs at Mark xvi. 16 and Rom. xiv. 23, is
now too strong an expression, and has been avoided
in the Revised Version.
* The several Greek terms are Kpivu, Kpi^a, Kpicris, avaKplvv
ZiaKpivw, KaraKpivQ),
134 Conipanio7i to the Revised Version of
Three words'^ are in common translated *' bright-
ness " in the Authorised Version which, nevertheless,
admit of being easily distinguished. One of the ex-
pressions occurs in that striking passage, Heb. i. 3,
in which we read of Christ, " Who being the brightness
of his glory," &c. Here the word might be mistakenly
supposed to mean a reflected splendour, but the true
meaning is a radiance which is flashed forth; and
therefore the translation ^* effulgence " has been
adopted in the Revised Version. At Acts xxvi. 13,
on the other hand, " brightness '' is the exact trans-
lation of the Greek, while at 2 Thess. ii. 8 it is totally
\vrong, and must give place to some such word as
" manifestation."
The Greek words which denote the act of dying
and the state of death respectively have not unfre-
quently been confounded in the Authorised Version,
sometimes to the great obscuration of the sense. Thus,
the constantly recurring words "are dead," in Rom.
vi. 2, &c., should be translated "died." This emen-
dation is specially important at 2 Cor. v. 14, where
the common rendering, " We thus judge, that if one
died for all, then were all dead, ^^ completely ruins the
sense. It should be, " We thus judge, that one died
for all, therefore all died^^\ — that is, all believers died
in and with Christ.
* aTravya(riJ.a, Aa^UTrporr^y, *Trianton to the Revised Version of
force are given to the same word in different passages
of the Authorised Version. Thus, what is " beloved "
in Matt. xvii. 5 and Mark ix. 7 becomes "dear'' in
Eph. V. 1, while it ascends into " well-beloved " at
Mark xii. 6, and " dearly beloved " at Rom. xii. 19.
No English reader would imagine that it is the same
word in the original which is thus rendered with such
varying degrees of intensity. So the term which
means "palsied" (Luke v. 18, &c.) sinks into "feeble'*
at Heb. xii. 12. This sort of caprice may sometimes
be found in two successive verses. The word, for
instance, which is translated simply at Gal. iv. 8 "did
service '' rises in the following verse to this rendering,
" to be in bondage." In parallel passages, again, we
find a varying force given to the very same words.
Thus, what is "much displeased" at Mark x. 41 is
represented by " moved with indignation " at Matt.
XX. 24, and what is simply "chief" at Matt. xx. 27
becomes "chiefest" at Mark x. 44. A reflecting
English reader cannot fail to be puzzled by such
groundless variations.
Much inconsistency exists in the Authorised Ver-
sion with respect to the translation given of the terms
Rahbi and Rabboni, Sometimes the original word is
retained, as at Matt, xxiii. 7, John i. ^Z^ &c. ; at other
times it is rendered "Master," as at Matt. xxvi. 25 .
John iv. 31, &c. j while Rabboiii is preserved at John
The Erigtish New Testament. 149
XX. 16, but translated "Lord" at Mark x. 51. Being
a well-kno\vn title of respect among the Jews, the term
"Rabbi " should have been preserved throughout; and
this seems specially important at Matt. xxvi. 49, Mark
XV. 45, as suggesting the profound dissimulation of
Judas, who spoke to Christ in this style of compli-
mentary address while in the very act of betraying
Him.
There are two closely related words, which occur
at Acts xix. 37 and Rom. ii. 22, which are so
differently rendered in the Authorised Version that no
English reader would ever suspect any connection
between them. In the first passage we find " robbers
of churches^^ and in the second " dost thou commit
sacrilege V Heathen temples are in both cases
referred to, so that the respective renderings should
be " robbers of temples " and " dost thou rob
temples ? "
Another passage may be referred to, in the second
Epistle to the Corinthians, in which variation of
rendering has broken the unity and connection of the
Apostle's train of thought. Having spoken of the
solemn issues which hung on the acceptance or rejec-
tion of the Gospel by those who heard it, he exclaims,
at chap. ii. 16, "And who is sufficient for these things ? "
After some intervening remarks, introduced in his
own characteristic way, the Apostle returns, at chap.
t^o Companion to the Revised Vers ion of
m. 5, to the consideration of the " sufficiency" referred
to, and gives an answer to his own solemn question
in these words : — " Not that we are sufficient of our-
selves to account any thing as from ourselves ; but our
sufficiency is of God, who also made us sufficient as
ministers of a new "covenant," &c. The translation
in the Authorised Version of the last clause as
"who also hath made us able ministers of the New
Testament," completely mars the harmony of the
passage.
The above examples are sufficient to show how
capricious, and often hurtful, are the different
renderings often given to the same Greek word or
phrase in the ordinary English version. Many of the
variations are harmless so far as the meaning is con-
cerned, but are, nevertheless, to be regretted as
misleading to a reader who cannot consult the
original. When such a reader finds at James ii. 2 the
expression "goodly apparel," and in the very next
verse "gay clothing," would he ever imagine that
these different terms are a translation of the very
same Greek words ? Again, would the thought ever
occur to him that the word rendered "rule" and
"line of things" represented the same original in the
following enigmatical passage as it stands in the
Authorised Version ? — " Not boasting of things with-
out our measure, that is, of other men's labours ; but
The English Neiv Testament. 151
having hope, when your faith is increased, that
we shall be enlarged by you, according to our
rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel in the
regions beyond you, and not to boast in another
man's line of things made ready to our hand" (2 Cor.
X. IS, 16).
After all that has been said, no sufficient idea will
have been conveyed to readers unacquainted with the
subject of the vast amount of unnecessary variation in
the translation of the same Greek words which exists
in the Authorised Version. Pages might be filled
with additional examples. The most arbitrary and
uncalled-for changes will frequently be found in the
compass of a few verses, or even of the same verse.
Thus, the word rendered "profession" in i Tim.
vi. 12 is changed into "confession" in ver. 13;
"jailor," in Acts xvi. 23, gives place to "keeper of
the prison" in ver. 27. "God, even the Father," at
Rom. XV. 6, &c., becomes "God and the Father" at
Col. iii. 17, and "the God and Father" at i Pet. i. 3,
&c. The word rendered " truth " in the parenthetical
clause of i Tim. ii. 7 appears as " verity '' at the close
of the verse \ and so on, in almost innumerable cases,
the variations generally having no ground of advan-
tage or necessity, and serving only to bewilder and
mislead the English reader.
The great object to be kept in view in every
152 Companion to the Revised Version of
translation is to place the reader of it as nearly as
possible on a footing of equality with one who has
access to the original. This is especially desirable in
regard to a version of the Holy Scriptures. Those
who have the privilege of reading God's Word in the
form in which it came from Himself ought to recog-
nise it as their bounden duty to do their utmost that
their less favoured brethren may have as exact and
accurate a transcript of the original in their own
language as can be furnished. To secure this object,
scholarship may worthily put forth all its powers and
diligence strain its efforts to the uttermost. The
plain man's Bible— though it cannot be all to him that
the original is to the scholar — should, at least, contain
no obscurities or errors which erudition and pains-
taking are able to remove. It should be such, for
example, as that he shall have it in his power, through
consistency of translation, to form an opinion re-
specting the questions discussed in connection with
the verbal agreements and differences found in the
first three Evangelists. It should be such that he will
be able, by means of a Concordance, to compare
passages in which the same word occurs, and thus to
make them mutually explanatory of each other. For
the reasons that have been stated this cannot be done
with any certainty while using the ordinary English
translation, since in it there iS; on the one hand, an
The English New Testament. 153
unnecessary confounding of one Greek word with
another in the rendering which is given ; while, on the
other hand, there is a vast amount of needless varia-
tion in the translation of the same Greek words \ but
both these causes of possible, or certain, mistake
have been guarded against in the Revised Version.
INDEX OF TEXTS.
Matthew.
Matthew (contintud).
PAGE
PAGE
i. I
17
X. 22
... 144
ii. I
"3
xi. 19
.. 144
2
94
xii. 41
... 133
4
91
47 -
... 7
IS
95
xiii. 16
10
17
112
21
... 108
iii. 14
98
47 ...
... 137
17
12
52 ...
... 130
iv. I
131
xiv. 2 ...
... 128
6
144
8 ...
... 76
19
144
19 ...
... 50
V. 4
137
XV. 27
... 76
8,
9 6
xvi. 14
... 112
22
48
23 ...
... 108
29
108
xvii. 4 ...
... 13
40
127
5 ...
... 148
48
99
10
... 112
vi. 13
8, 60
19 ...
... 144
34
109
24 ...
... 115
vii. 13
102
25 ...
... 107
viii. 5
137
27 ...
... IIS
6
123
xviii. 17
... 48
20
93
28 ...
... 8
33
13
xix. 7
... 144
X. 4
75
20 ...
... 95
14
144
XX. 24 ...
... 148
Index of Texts,
Matthew
{coniinurd)
Mark {conibmei
i\
PAGE
PAGE
XX. 27
... 148
vi. 20
49
xxii. 37 ...
... 119
27
114
xxiii. 7
... 148
52
82
24 ...
... 1x6
ix. 3
46
33 ...
... 133
5
13
35 ...
... 122
7
148
xxiv. 24
... 127
22, 23
49
30 ...
... 103
24
46
40.41
... 99
28
144
XXV, 3
10
39
128
6 ...
... 18, 49. 97
X. 4
144
27 ...
... 108
41
148
46 ...
... 140
44
148
xxvi. 15
... 77
51
149
25 ...
... 148
xii. 6
148
26 ...
... 53
26
30
41 ...
... 144
40
133
49 ...
... 149
xiii. 13
144
xxvii. 3 ...
... 124
32
127
9 ...
... 112
xiv. 38
144
45 ...
.. 139
XV. 33
138
57 ...
... 130
45
149
xxviii. 19
... 103
xvi. 16
133
9—20
... 130
9—20
61
Mark.
Luke.
i. 3 ...
... 10
i. 59
98
II
... 12
63
108
17 ...
... 144
"■ 33
15
27 ...
... 47
4^
15
iii. 5 ...
... 82
iii. 14
92
18 ...
... 75
23
77
iv. 29
... 77
iv. 10
144
V. 30 ...
... 108
20
110
41 ...
... 76
V. 6
98
vi. 3 ...
... 113
18
148
5 ...
... 127
vi. IS
76
14 ...
... 127
19
108
Index of Texts.
IS7
Luke {continued).
PAGE
PAGE
vii. 34 ... ..
144
iv.
37 ...
... 93
viii. 23
98
48 ...
... 127
34
13
V.
3, 4 ...
7
46
108
33 ...
... 97
54
76
vi.
II
... 50
i-^. 5
. 144
32 ...
... 93
32
78
SO ...
... 18
33
13
57 ...
... lOI
53
93
vii.
I ...
... 113
xi. 48
107
17 ...
... 127
SI
122
20
... 130
xiii. 2
94
41 ...
... 99
xiv. 10
107
53— viii. II
... 63
XV. 10
124
- viii.
33 ..
... 97
26
123
52 ...
... 18
xvi. 9
50
58 ...
... 129
xviii. 12
78
ix.
17 ...
... 79
xix. 13
108
X.
14, IS
... 79
XX. 37
30
16 ...
... 120
xxii. 56
78
23 ...
... 122
xxiii. 5 ...
113
xi.
3. 5...
... 119
8
127
20
... 80
42
102
xii.
40 ...
... 82
44
139
xiii.
2
... 131
xxiv. 17
50
10
... 125
25
79
24 ...
... 51
46
SO
xvii.
3 ...
... 91
53
9
12
... 123
XX.
2
16 ...
... 119
51, 149
John.
xxi.
15. 16, 17
... 112, 118
i. 11
117
18, 19
... 95
21
93
38
148
42
112
Acts
iii. 16
119
i.
13 ...
... 76
17, 18
133
ii.
3 ...
... 80
iv. 31
148
II
... 112
John {continued).
iS8
Index of Texts,
Acts [continued).
Romans,
PAGE
PAGB
ii. 27
.. 116
i.
13
...
106
iii. 13,
26
.. 123
29
108
19.
20
.. 80
ii.
22
149
iv. 27,
30
.. 123
iii.
25
81
V. 20
.. 122
iv.
3.
&c.' Z,
140, 142
vii. 13
...
.. 137
19
52
45
...
.. 113
V.
I
52
viii. 9
...
... 129
vi.
2
134
16
.. 103
vii.
6
52
?n
8
7,
8
141
X. 38
...
.. 132
viii.
1
II
xii. 4
...
.. 116
xi.
7,
25
82
12,
25
.. 112
30
125
xiii. 7,
8,12
.. 114
xii.
2
131
xiv. 21
.. 130
17
107
XV. 23
...
.. 51
19
143, 148
xvi. I
...
.. 112
xiv.
4
10
7
...
.. SI
23
133
21
.. 130
XV.
6
151
23.
27
.. 151
30
...
102
xvii. 19
...
... 113
xvi.
5
52
23
...
.. 108
23
114
28
.. 138
xviii. 5
...
.. 51
I
Corinthians.
xix. 2
...
..« 95
i.
13
103
9
...
.. 93
iii.
17
138
11
.. 128
iv.
3,
4,5
133
31
...
.. 114
4
82
37
...
.. 149
13
18
38
...
.. 114
vi.
20
II
XX. 28
...
.. 14
vii.
26
...
102
xxi. 15
...
.. 109
viii.
6
103
xxii. 28
.. 127
X.
2
103
XXV. 26
.. 133
24
107
xxvi. 13
...
.. 134
xi.
24
53
24.
25
.. 147
26
53
28
...
.. 81
29
53, 107
jcxviii. 13
...
.. no
31
133
bidex of Texts.
IS9
1 Corinthians {continued),
PAGE
xii. 6 i8
29 128
xiii. 3 53
12 126
xiv. 20 ... ... 122
XV. 4 96
xvi. 15 52
2 Corinthians.
i. I
112
4,6
142
19
112
20
47
ii. 14
83
16
149
iii. S
149
14
82
15
92
15, 18
142
17
93
iv. 3
142
V. 10
100
14
134
21
no
vi. 9
126
vii. 8, 10
124
II
93
X. IS, 16
ISO
xii. 19
54
Galatians.
iii. 6
142
iv. 8
148
14
54
17
107
31
92
V. 17
84
Ephesians.
PAGE
i. 7
13
9
14s
17
126
ii. 2
125
iv. 2
14s
6
I4S
18
82
29
84
V. I
148
29
54
vi. 5
145
12
no
Philippians.
i. 16,
17 ... 54
ii. 6
30
IS
99
iii. 5
92
20
107
iv. 2,
3 8s
8
107
Colossians.
i. 14
13
ii. 2
6s
8
85
12
14s
18
54
19
14s
iii. 12
145
17
151
22
145
iv. 10
112
14
112
I Thessalonians.
i. I
55
ii. 19
55
i6o
Index of Texts,
Thessalonians
{continued).
2 Timothy {continued).
PAGE
PAGE
iii. II
.. 55
ii. 3
55
13 ...
.. 55
10
56
iv. 15 ...
.. 107
12
139
V. 28 ...
.. 55
iii. 12
56
15
56
2 Thessalonians. |
V. II
112
i. 2 ...
.. 55
Titus.
12
.. 55
4
55
ii. I
.. 85
12
112
3 ...
... 91
7 ...
... 106
Philemon.
8 ...
-. 55, 134
2
56
7
56
I Timothy.
24
112
I 4 ...
... 6
Hebrews.
12 ...
... 55
14 ...
... 55
i. 3
134
ii. 5 ...
... 55
iii. II
143
7 ...
... 151
iv. 2
5^
iii. 13 ...
... 55
3,
5 143
16 ...
... 19, 66
6
125
iv. 6 ...
... 55
8
"3
V. 4 ...
... 108
I?
107
21
... 55
14
103
vi S ...
... 86
vi. 7
lOI
8 ...
... 99
ix. 6
99
9 ...
... 127
X. 30
143
10
... 92
34
5^
12, 13
13 .••
... 151
... 55
xi. 10
13
23
91
56. 85
108
xii. I
no
2 Timothy.
12
148
L I ...
... 55
xiii. 21
112
2
... 56
9 ...
... 56
James.
13 ...
... 56
i. 6
131
Index of Texts,
i6i
James [continued).
PACK
2
John.
PAGE
19
57
8
57
ii. I
III
2
150
3 John.
iii. I
V. 20
I Peter.
III
93
12
JUDE.
57
i- 3
ii. 8
21
151
125
57
I
8
13
58, 114
145
145
iii. II
15
107
68
Revelation.
21
87
i.
3
93
iv. 8
93
ii.
13
139
V. I
137
iv
I
10
13
112
4
6 &c.
139
87
2 Peter.
V.
6 &c.
87
i. 3
14
ii. 10
17
iii. 2
102
95
145
145
57
vi.
vii.
xiii.
xiv.
I&C.
II
T4 ..
I
3 ••
9 ..
87
87
99
88
87
88
I John.
XV.
xvi.
7 ..
10
87
139
ii. 23
151
xvii.
8 ..
58
iii. I
57
xix.
4 ..
87
V. 7.
8
15,69
xxii.
II
58
13
47
14 ..
59
CASSELL, FETTER, GALPIN & CO., BELLE SAUVAGE WORKS, LONDON, E-C.
SELECTIONS FROM
Messrs. Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co.'s Publications.
The Life and Work of St. Paul.
By the Rev. F. W.FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S. ; Canon of Westminster ;
and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen Seventeenth Thoitsand.
Two Volumes, demy 8vo, cloth, 24J. ; or handsomely bound in
morocco, £2 2s.
*'The real excellences of the book are such as to warrant our recommending its
careful study to those who desire to obtain an adequate view of the moral grandeur and
complex variety of the Apostle's character, and of the extent and fruitfulness of his
labours. " — Guardian.
" Dr. Farrar will for ever take his place among * the masters in English theology,'
and * the classic preachers of the English Church.' " — IVatc/tmau.
" Not only the author's literary chef-d'cBuvre^ but is also out of sight the best
English work of its class." — British Quarterly Review,
The Life of Christ.
By the Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S., Canon of Westminster,
and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen.
Library Editio7t. Tiventy- eighth Edition. Two Vols., demy 8vo,
cloth, 24J-. ; or morocco, £2 2s.
Illustrated Edition. With about 300 Illustrations. 4to, cloth, gilt
edges, 2\s. ; calf or morocco, £2 2s.
" No thoughtful mind will rise from the perusal of this book without feeling that it
reveals a beautiful and an harmonious conception. It will serve to raise the mind from
mere objections in detail to a comprehensive view of the whole subject, and it will at
least assist candid objectors to do justice to the Christian tradition." — Times. ^
" Many of the illustrations are extremely beautiful ; all of them serve a distinct pur
pose.." — Pall Mall Gazette,
THE NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY.
A New Testament Commentary for English
Readers. Edited by C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Lord Bishop oi
Gloucester and Bristol.
Volume I.J price 21s., contains —
St.Matthew. ByRev.E. H.Plumptre, I St. Luke. ByRev.E. H. Plumptre,D.D.
D.D. St. John. By Ven. Archdeacon Watk ins,
St.Mark. ByRev.E. H.Plumptre, D.D. | M.A.
Volume II. f price 21s. , contains —
The Acts of the Apostles. By Rev.
E. H. Plumptre, D.D.
Romans. ByRev.W.SANDAV,M.A.,D.D.
Corinthians I. By Rev. T. T. Shore,
M.A.
Corinthians II. By Rev. E. H.
Plumptre, D.D.
Galatians. By Rev. W. Sanday, M.A ,
D.D.
Volume Ill.f price 21s. , contains—
Ephesians. By Rev. Canon Barry, D.D.
Philippians. ByRev. Canon Barry, D.D.
CoLOSSiANS. ByRev. Canon Barry, D.D.
Thessalonians I. & II. By Rev. Canon
Mason, M.A.
Timothy I.&II. ByRev. Canon Spence,
M.A.
Titus. By Rev. Canon Spence, M.A.
Philemon. ByRev. Canon Barry, D.D.
Hebrews. ByRev.W. F. Moulton, D.D,
St.James. ByRev. E.G. Punchard,M.A.
St. Peter I . By Rev. Canon Mason, M.A.
St. Peter II. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A.
St. John I., II., and III. ByRev.W.M.
Sinclair, M.A.
St. Jude. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A.
The Revelation. By Rev. W. B.
Carpenter, M.A.
Cassell, Petter, Galpin 6^ Co. : Ludgate Hill, London ; Paris ; and New York.
5 B— 581
Selections from Messrs > Cassell^ Petier, Gcdpin 6^ Co,U Publications {continued).
The Bible Educator.
Edited by the Rev. E. H. PlumpTre, D.D., assisted by some of our
most eminent Scholars and Divines. Containing about 400 lUustra-
. tions and Maps. Complete in Four Vols. , cloth, 6j. each ; or Two
Double Vols., cloth, 2.\s.\ half-calf, 31^. 6d,
The Family Bible.
With 900 Illustrations, References, Concordance, Critical and
Explanatory Notes, &c. Printed on Fine Toned Paper, leather, gilt
^^g^s, ;^2 loj. ; morocco, £'}, \os.\ best morocco, ,7^3 15J.
The Guinea Bible.
With 900 Illustrations. Royal 4to, 1,476 pages. Cloth gilt, gilt
edges, 2IJ. ; or 25J. strongly bound in leather.
The Half-Guinea Illustrated Bible.
With 900 Original Illustrations, executed specially for this Edition.
Printed in clear type, with References, &c. Crown 4to, cloth, loj. dd.
Can be also' had in Leather Bindings in great variety.
The Dore Bible.
Royal 4to Edition. Complete in Two Vols., with 220 Illustrations
by GuSTAVE Dor£. Plain morocco, £\ 45-.; best morocco, £(^ ds.
The Bible Dictionary.
With nearly 600 Illustrations. 1,100 pages, imperial 8 vo. One
Volume, cloth, 21^.; morocco, 40J. ; cr Two Volumes, cloth, 25 j".
The Church at Home.
A Series of Short Sermons, with Collect and Scripture for Sundays,
Saints' Days, and Special Occasions. By the Right Rev. Rowley
Hill, D.D., Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. Price 5^.
The Child's Bible."^ "
With 200 Original Illustrations, Being a Selection from the
Holy Bible, in the Words of the Authorised Version. Cloth, gilt
edges, £\ \s,
Christ our Redeemer :
Thoughts and Meditations on our Lord's Life. Selected by Henry
SouTHGATE. Price y. 6d.
The Christian in his Relations to the Church,
the World, and the Family. By the Rev. Daniel Moore,
M.A. IS. 6d.
Cassellf Peiter^ Galpin &= Co. : Ludgate Hill^ London ; Paris ; and New York,
Selections from Messrs. Cassell, Fetter, Galpin 6^ Co.'' s Publications (contimted).
Companion to the Revised Version of the New
Testament. By Alexander Roberts, D.D., Professor of
Humanity, St. Andrews, and Member of the New Testament Com-
pany. Price 2s. 6d. ,
The Quiver.
An Illustrated Religious Magazine. Yearly Volumes, 7^-. 6cl.; also
Monthly Parts, 6d.
The History of Protestantism.
By the Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL.D. Complete in Three Vols., con-
taining upwards of 600 Illustrations. Extra crown 4to, cloth, 2'js,
Keble's Christian Year.
With Illustrations on nearly every page. Reprinted from the
Original Edition. Cloth, "js. 6d. ; cloth, gilt edges, los. 6d.
The History of the EngHsh Bible.
By the Rev. F. W. Moulton, M.A., D.D. Reprinted, with
Additions and Corrections, from " The Bible Educator." 3^. 6d.
Christ Bearing Witness to Himself.
Being the Donnellan Lectures for 1878-9. By the Rev. G. A.
Chadwick, B.D. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5^-.
Daily Devotion for the Household.
Containing a Prayer, with Hymn and Portion of Scripture, for Every
Morning and Evening in the Year. Illustrated. Royal 4to, £1 i^s.
The Family Prayer Book.
Edited by the Rev. Canon Garbett, M.A., and the Rev. Samuel
Martin. Demy 4to, 398 pages, cloth, ^s. 6d. ; cloth, gilt edges, gs.
The Dore Scripture Gallery of Illustrations.
Containing 250 Drawings of Scripture Subjects, by Gustave Dor£.
Complete in Two Vols.,;^5 loj.; or Four Vols., ;^6 6s.
Some Difficulties of Belief.
By the Rev. T. Teignmouth Shore, M.A., Incumbent of Berkeley
Chapel, Mayfair, Hon. Chaplain to the Queen. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s.
The Life of the World to Come, and other
Subjects. By the Rev. T. Teignmouth Shore, M. A. Cloth, ^s.
Sunday.
Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation, considered in the Bampton
Lectures (i860). By Archdeacon Hessey, D.C.L. 6s.
Cassell, Fetter, Galpin ^ Co. : Ludgate Bill, London ; Faris ; and New York.
Selectio7ts froffi Messrs, Cassell, Petter^ Galpin (Sr* Co.h Publications (continued).
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Holy War.
With 200 Wood Engravings and Twelve Chromo Plates. Demy 4to,
cloth, gilt edges, ;i^i 5^.
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
With 100 Illustrations by Selous and Priolo. Cloth, 7^-. dd,
Bunyan's Holy War.
With 100 Illustrations by Selous and Priolo. Cloth, *is. 6d.
Young Man in the Battle of Life.
By the Rev. Dr. Land els. Cloth, 3J. 6d.
The True Glory of Woman.
By the Rev. Dr. Landels. Cloth gilt, gilt edges, 3s. 6d.
The Patriarchs.
By the Rev. W. Hanna, D.D., and the Rev. Canon NoRRis, B.D.
With Coloured Map. Reprinted, with Revisions, from the "Bible
Educator." Cloth, 3J-. 6d.
The Music of the Bible.
With an Account of the Development of Modern Musical Instruments
from Ancient Types. By John Stainer, M.A., Mus.Doc. Cloth,
3J. Reprinted, with Revisions, from the **'Bible Educator."
Flowers from the Garden of God.
A Book for Children. By the Rev. Gordon Calthrop, M.A.
Cloth gilt, 2s. 6d.
History of the Waldenses.
Reprinted from the ** History of Protestantism." By the Rev. J. A.
Wylie, LL.D. With Illustrations. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Voice of Time.
By John Stroud. New Edition. Cloth gilt, is.
Shall We Know One Another }
By the Right Rev. J. C. Ryle, M.A., Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
New Edition. Cloth gilt, is.
Complete Catalogues of messrs. cassell, petter,
galpin & Co.'s PUBLICATIONS, containing a List 0/ Several Hundred Volunies.
ittchiding Bibles a7id Religious H'orks, Fine-Art Volumes, Children's Books, Dictiofiaries
Ediccaiional Works, History, Natural History, Hotisehold and Domestic Treatises, Hand-
Boo ks and Guides, Science. Serials. Travels, ^\^N^<^^v^\\^^K^.^>^^^>^';^^^\^^
^«