T'ntTOciuct^ OT^. to c\ -r\e vv t-ru^nsl at i Q-p. oT ■'cne. ^ '-H ^reeK T^st ume'Ynx. w\tW Y^ctes b y La-nce'iot 5Wc\c^we\\ ** PRINCETON, N. J. ^ Division nUmJ^tm/..^ O ' ( Section \. . >»./.. sJ.k^ INTEODIJCTION NEW TRANSLATION I GEEEK TESTAMENT WITH NOTES LANCELOT SHADWELL, ESQ. T.ATE TELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBTIIDGE. I LONDON: #; PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR: AND SOLD BY i ARTHUR HALL, VIRTUE, & CO. 25, PATERNOSTER ROW. LONDON : W. EGLISGTOK, PRINTER, ALDERSGATE STREET. INTEODUCTION. The Book of the New Covenant of Jehovah, is a Literary Treasure of incomparably greater value than all other Literature in the World. It may be compared to an inexhaustible Mine, rich to overflowing in precious metal : aflfording an abundant supply to every age, time, place, and condition of Man : with this singular and wonderful property, that, the more the Mine is worked, the richer it becomes : the more is taken from it, the more remains to be taken. As, when Jesus Christ had fed five thousand men and more, out of five loaves and two fishes, the surplus of broken food was gi-eater than the original quantity ; so the written Word of God is renewed by the progress of time, and becomes richer to man by the use that he makes of it. Worthy of the precious subject matter, is the Greek language in which the Book is written : that wonderful language, which, although no longer spoken by living man, is yet full of life and fire : which, although many of its treasures have perished in the wreck of time, is yet rich, beyond all others, in every species of literary composition : that wonderful language, whose Poetry, written with every appearance of ease and freedom, is full of grace and sweetness, of living firej and of exquisite modulation, such as no other tongue can imitate : while its Prose is, for the purposes of history, description, definition, argument, and demonstration, a very model of clearness and precision. Nevertheless the Greek Testament^ as it is commonly called, seems to have met with less attention from Scholars than it has iv INTRODUCTION. deserved. "We hear it commonly said that the Greek Testament is a good book, but not a good Greek book. But that obser- vation betrays an imperfect acquaintance with the subject. The Scholar, who, after acquiring a thorough knowledge of the Greek Language, has turned his attention in earnest to the study of the Greek Testament, is alone able to see and to appreciate its incomparable beauties : he then finds out that this treasure, the last that was added to the Greek language, is worth more than all the rest put together : that the Greek language is the Casket, created by Jehovah, to contain the Book of the New Covenant between God and Man : and that the best reward of Greek Scholarship, is to be found by reading the Book of the New Covenant in its own language. But as there are, and always will be, many who cannot read Greek, therefore every language ought to possess a good trans- lation of the New Covenant, or, as it is commonly called, New Testament. Such a thing is wholly wanting in English. The Established Version, as it is commonly called, of the New Testa- ment, is a very bad translation indeed. And for this reason : the Translators knew nothing of Greek. Their ignorance of the language out of which they professed to translate, shews itself in every page, to an extent which in another work would be ridi- culous : but which, in a Translation of Scripture, executed under Royal Authority, and having the character of a national work, is no laughing matter. Besides which, the Established Versioners were saddled with another difficulty. They were under Royal Mandate to translate wrong : i. e. to translate in compliance with the following RegHlations : 1. That they keep as close as possible to the Bishops' Bible. 2. That the old Ecclesiastical words be kept, as Church not to be translated Congregation, &c. 3. That when a word has divers significations, that be kept tohich has been most commonly used by the fathers. It is difl&cult to repress a smile, when we read of such a work, undertaken under such restrictions. We might as well imagine a man undertaking to write an exposition of the metres of Greek Lyric Poets, but under this restriction. That nothing be said which shall militate against the authority of the Antient Metrical Scholiasts. There is also another fault which is peculiar to the Established Version of N. T. They have not always been careful to identify the INTRODUCTION. v names of the same persons, with the names in the Old Testa- ment. Thus Isaiah of V.T. is called Esaias in N.T. ; Joshua is called Jesus ; Kish is called Cis, &c. This has sometimes misled those who cannot read the original language. Nevertheless, the translators seem to have wished to do their duty honestly, where they could. In the Gospels, in places where the construction of the Greek is easy, and where the translators were not hampered by Royal Mandate, the language of the translation is often grave and dignified, simple and unaffected : such as may perhaps allow us to believe that the translators would have done much better, if they could. But the factitious reputation which the Established Version of N.T. enjoys, is at the present day a very serious evil. ]\rany clergymen of the Church of England are wholly unacquainted with Greek ; many more are unable to take up the Greek Testament and read it off into English easily and fluently, as one would read off a column of the Times newspaper. Thus the men whose duty is to teach the people, themselves require to be taught. Unable to read the Greek, they go for their texts to E.V: there they find some wrong translation on an important doctrinal point : then they write a sermon upon it, and build their arguments on the words of E. V : and thus miserable error may be substituted for the pure Word of God. But, bad as E.V. is, we must not be hasty to suppose that every departure from it, is a change for the better. There is a work now in progress, which professes to be a Revision of E. V. One portion of it bears the following title : The Gospel according to St. John, after the Authorized Version : newhj compared tcith the original Greek, and revised: by Five Clergymen. It is painful to witness the feeble performance of the Five Clergymen. They alter but little in E. V. and yet alter for the worse. To give one instance : John xxi. 14, etpapepaOr] 6 'irjaovs. This in E. V. is rendered quite right, Jesus shewed himself. But for this excellent rendering, the Revising Clergymen have substituted, Jesus was manifested ; a miserable alteration, which shews an entire misap- prehension of the genius of the Greek Language, and of Scripture. ^E(f>avep(ji6r] means the same as ((pavepaaep eavrov, which words John had used just before, speaking of the same event. Besides which, Jesus, after he was glorified, could not be manifested, unless vi INTRODUCTION. by his own act. He miglit sheio himself iohifi disciples if he thought proper : but no other than himself, could manifest Jehovah. The Revising Clergymen say, that every one of them has in his turn been overruled by a majority of his colleagues : and in this way they shelter themselves from individual responsibility. And some of them appear to be able and learned men. But one of them, ambitious of individual distinction, has taken upon himself to edit the Greek Testament. This is a most extra- ordinary work : one of the wonders of the present day. The Scholar who has enjoyed himself over Bentley's incomparable Emendations on Menander and Philemon, will be surprised and amused to find, that the Spirit of John Clericus, is now, by a sort of literary fieTefj-yp-vxtoa-is, alive again in the person of The Very Reverend Henri/ Alford, Bean of Canterhunj ; a man, who, knowing about as much of Greek as Clericus did, has undertaken a work for which he is no more fit, than Clericus was to edit Menander and Philemon. In order to put this matter fully before the Reader, I must go back to the year 1849. In that year, Tischendorp gave to the public his second Leipsic edition of the Greek Testament. After- wards, in the same year, Alford published the fii'st volume of his Greek Testament, with the following title : The Greek Testament : with a critically revised text : a digest of various readings : marginal references to verbal and idiomatic usage : prolegomena : and a copious critical and exegetical covinientury. For the use of Theological Students and Ministers. In the following year, 1850, Tischendorf published a stereotype edition of his Greek Testament. There, after reciting the title of Alford's work, Tischendorf makes the fol- lowing remark : Quibus tituli ornamentis nostrates theologi videani ne de libri pretio decipiantur. Certe enim quod rem textus sacri criticam attinet, AXiov&ms, tarn par um studii,Judicii,religionisq\iepro/javit, ut vix in scholaruni usum scripsisse censendus sit. Tamen editionem meam recentissimam ubi primum nactus erat, omni modo neque vero sine mala fide suam in rem convertit. This warning, however, was thrown away upon Alford. He seems to have calculated upon the igno- rance of the Theological Students and Ministers, for whose use he professes to write. He has since put forth a second and a third volume, and is said to be preparing a fourth and last. The character of this extraordinary work may be summed up INTRODUCTION. vii in a few words said by Tischendorf of another performance : Optis est incredihili inscitia, socordia, perfidia. The Scholar who has become a purchaser of Alford's book before reading it, expected to find therein a treasure of theological learning : but after reading a few pages of Alford's notes, he lifts up his head in astonishment, and says to him, 'Y-raipe, e(ji a Tvapei ; irv StSacr- K€is rjixas; fJ-aivfi. Qvk eVrt ao\ ju-epls ovSe KXfjpos eVroj Ao'yco rovrw' Koi yap T] 'kakia crov drjXov ere ttouZ 'Apov to ahv koX vnaye' li/a firj Xeipov TL (701 yevrjTai.. Alford's text is almost entirely taken from Tischendorf, whom he has followed in the most servile manner, even to inserting the paragogic N where the following word begins with a consonant ; a j)eculiarity of writing, which is found in divers MSS. of N. T. and which seems to have arisen partly from an affectation of singularity, and partly from a desire to increase the quantity of writing : for the Stationer would be paid according to the length of his copy. But in a work like that of Tischendorf, whose sole object is to determine the Greek text on principles of sound criticism, it is absolutely necessary to lay before his reader the actual words and letters of the MSS. On the other hand, in a work that is accompanied by an exegetical commentary for the use of Students, all whimsical peculiarities of writing and spelling the words of the Greek text, ought to be avoided. This is what Alford could not see. In some instances, Alford departs from the reading of Tischendorf, and gives his reasons, such as they are, for so doing. But of Greek Criticism, Alford knov.^s abso- lutely nothing. Whether he approves, or disajiproves, of any particular reading, is a matter of no moment to the Scholar and to the Critic. Alford's various readings are in a great measure taken from Tischendorf ; but with some ampUfication : and this is in favour of the reader ; for Tischendorf s ,S'<"/7/)^?o-«e Compendia are sometimes painfuUy short and obscure. Let this be placed to Alford's credit : for he has need of it. But Alford, contrary to the usage of Scholars, has, in a most extraordinary way, mixed up his own dicta with the various readings which he exhibits. Alford writes as if he knew by inspiration the whole history of the Greek text, the mei-its of every reading, and the reason why it was written. Here is to be seen the difference between viii INTRODUCTION, Tischendorf and Alford. In Tischendorf, we read sound criticism : in Alford, empty trifling and pompous egotism. Let not Tischen- dorf imagine that Alford will rob him of the honour which is due to him: Non ohtusa adeo gestamus corda Britanni : Non ignoramus quid distent aera lupinis. Alford has not put on the Lion's skin so cleverly, that he will pass for Hercules among learned men. The Scholar looks at Alford, and is forced to exclaim, aXX' ovx oios T ei'/x' airocrofi^aai rbv •yeXwi', opmv XeovTTJp inl KpoKcora Keifievrjv. But the richest part of Alford's work, is his Critical and Exegetical Commentary. This is a fund of everlasting amusement to the Scholar. It is difficult to imagine how such a man as Alford could have been induced to undertake such a work. For he must have known before he began, that he knew nothing about the matter. His ignorance of Greek, shews itself when- ever he speaks. Alford was formerly Minister of Quebec Chapel, London, and there acquired the reputation of a popular Preacher, and attracted numerous hearers ; and this seems to have turned his head. For in his notes on N. T. he speaks as if he were still in the Pulpit of Quebec Chapel, where he had all the talk to himself, and no one could reply upon him. The reader of our notes on Matthew will find some illustrations of the merits of Alford's performance. But one of Alford's notes is so tran- scendently good, that it deserves to be taken out of its turn. Sedpara te, Lector, ut rem paene incredihilem digne mirere. Acts XX. 13. avr]x6w^v f^' 7^" "Ao-o-oi/. LTpon which Alford has the following note : " "Ao-o-op] A seaport in Mysia or Troas, built on a high cliff above the sea, with a descent so precipitous as to have prompted a line of Stratonicus, the Lyric Poet," " k(T(jov W, (Off Kev Bacrcrov okedpov rrelpad' iKTjai. Strabo. 13. ' Here is multum in parvo. The Dean of Canterbury has squeezed an almost incredible number of mistakes into the compass of a few words. The name of Stratonicus is famiUar to the Greek Scholar: but who ever heard of Stratonicus, the Lyric Poet? Then again, is it usual for a Lyric Poet to write in hexameter verse? Or did Alford not recognise that noble metre? If Alford's note were shewn to an Eton boy, he might recognise a INTRODUCTION. ix line, not of any Lyric Poet, but of the Father of Poetry : Z. 143. But in order that the merits of Alford's note may be duly appre- ciated, we must here write out the words of Strabo, 610. B : to wit, eoTt Se 17 'Ao-o-o? epvfjLvrj kol evTfixV^} ^''''^ 6a\d(Tar]s Ka\ tov Xcfjievos opOiav Koi fiaKpav dvajiacriv e)(ovs ov ereKe tov vlov. Upon which Alford writes, " As to the expression, compare the remarkable parallel, Diog. Laert. iii. 1, 2, where he says of the father of Plato, KaBapdv ydfiov 7n of Ai^ston : afia Se t^s 'Keyop.ivrjs ApicTTCovi, rw liXarcovos Trarpi, yeveadai Kaff vnvov o\j/€a>s koi cjiavijs aTrayopevova-rjs fir) cvyyevecrdai rfj yvvaiKi, /x»;Se a'<\ra(x6ai, 8eKa fxrjpav, ep.vr}p.6vev(Tev. The meaning of this is clear. The parentage of Plato was, for his literary merit, facetiously ascribed to Apollo. Much in the same way, Aristophanes attributes thunder and lightning to Pericles : evTevdev opyfj UepiKXerjs ovXii/jlttios rjarpoTTT, fjipopTa, ^vveKvKa ti)v 'EXXaSa. Ach. 530 : where the Scholar may observe an allusion to the Homeric expression ^OXvfnrios da-TepoTrrjT'qs. In another place, frost and snow are facetiously attributed to the coldness of the poetry of Theognis : )(p6vov pev ovK av j'jpev ev QpaKrj iroXvv, el pt] KaTevv^e ;(ioVi rfjv QpanTjv oXrjv, Koi rovs TTorapovi eTfr]^ , vtt avrov tov xpovov or' ev6a8l QeoyvLS tjycuvi^eTo. (did. 136. For a like reason, the prologues of the Comic Poet Diphilos are said to have been used to cool the wine-cellar : VTTfprjdeaJS 8f rt]v KvXiK eKTTtav iKpvci), Koi TO rrapado^ov KaraTtXayels 6 Ai'c^tXos, vi) Ti]v A6rjvav Ka\ deovs ylrvxpov y , * 07) VvdOaiv 'e)^eis rhv Xclkkov opoXoyovpevas. 1] S" eiVe, Ta>v cra>v dpap-drcov yap €7np,eXas (IS avTov ae\ rovs irpoXoyovs epl3aXXop,ev, Machon, Athcn. 580. A. These passages are highly amusing toIs eiSoo-i, but they are of no use Tois pfj eldoaiv, except to lead them into mistakes. So it was with the passage above cited from Laertius. Jerome, who mistranslated the Greek Testament into bad Latin, appears to INTRODUCTION. xi have read the passage in Laertius, and to have taken in sober sadness, what is there said by way of literary pleasantry. Then Alford appears to have been referred to Laertius, by some notes on Jerome, and to have blundered into the same mistake with that Reverend Wiseacre. But there is a very remarkable parallel, which Alford did not see : which is, not between Matthew and Laertius, but between Laertius and Alford. Both were triflers, both were ignorant of Greek, both affected to write upon subjects which they did not understand. We have had a sample of Alford's trifling : now let us look at Laertius. In his Life of Socrates, he tells us that Socrates iBoKei crvinroieiv Evptnldr]' o6ev .Mvria-iXox^os ovto) 0>?O"t, <^pvyfs eVrt Kuivhv Bpajia tovt 'Evpnridov, co Koi 'EcoKpa.Trjs ra (^pvyav viroTidrjariv. Here it may be observed, that Laertius has made a Comic Poet out of Mnesilochos, the friend of Euripides : a mistake so gross and absurd, that if we did not know it, we could not believe it. For Mnesilochos is one of the principal characters in the Q€apoy i^rjypofxr^v. But such trifling is unworthy of refutation. If Matthew had intended the time of the star ichich was apjyearing, he would have said rbv XP°^°^ '''^^ darepos rod (f)aivofievov. But Alford knows nothing about the matter. And it is important to make this observation. For one of the worst faults in E. V. is their utter ignorance of the use and meaning of the Greek Article : a fault for which they were without excuse ; for if they knew nothing of Greek, they ought not to have attempted to translate the Greek Testament. But we must not attribute this fault to the age in which they lived : for Greek was Greek in their time, and a knowledge of Greek might have been acquired then, as it may now, by reading Greek. And there is no other way now, nor ever was. It is true that the labours of modern Scholars have added many excellent helps to the Student of Greek : but a man may become a Greek Scholar without using any of those helps ; and moreover, all those helps will fail to make a Scholar, if a man does not know how to use them. Thus the translators of E. V. were ignorant of the use of the Greek Article : but not more so than Alford, who has got Winer's Greek Grammar, and Bernhardy s Syntax, and Buttmaiis Lexilorjus, &c, all at his elbow. Books to Alford, are like wigs to a man without a head : he cannot put them on. One more word about Alford's Parallel, Laertius. He has pre- served to us a few fragments of Greek Comic Poets : which in fact is the only value of his work. But how little he understood their merits, may be seen by some miserable verses of his own, ■which he sometimes introduces with the expression, /cat eoru/ ri\xK>v ei? avTiiv. One of these occurs in his life of Euclides, B. ii. p. 61 : to wit, Kpoj/6 AtoSwpe, riff 0"c hai]i.QV(i>v KUKfj advfiia ^vvfipvcrev, Iv avTos avTOV en^aXijs els Tuprapov, St/Xttcows ov Xvcrny (tttj aiVLyp.aT(obr) ; Toiyap ({ipi6r)s Kpuvos encode Tov pa, KaiTTra re. Here is a wretched pun, which makes one laugh, not for its INTRODUCTION. xiii goodness, but for its bitter badness. For where is the wit of telling us that Kpovos had shewn himself ovos ; To say that Kpovos by name, was also Kpovos in fact, might have been worth hearing, if it had been well expressed : but i/m( was a notch above Laer- tius ; he seems to have been not aware that Kpovos involved the meaning of ovos' although he had just before said of the same man, that Kpovos rJKovcrev ev (TKuipparos p-epa' yet SO little did Laertius understand that (TKcofiiJ.a, that he thought to improve upon it by a vile a-Kaptpa of his own. But Kpovos is used by Aristophanes exactly in the same way as we use the repre- sentative in our own language of the word ovos' e. g. ov^t- 8i8d^eis TOVTOV, Kpovos &v. Nub. 929. Koi Tovs rpayahovs (prjaiv aTToSei^eiv Kpovovs Tovs vvv, 8iop)(Tj(T6p,evos oKiyov vcrrepov. Vesp. 1480.