^^»^ .1 * »'•%«. 4;^°"' PRINCETON, N. J. ^/^^^^//fe//^~Vro^~P^u\ ^^(AY^"^Ve.;3)3^, Division . . Si'i'/iofi ... Shelf. Numb, r . !^...J (ltd ^^^^ t Ob) character. Contrasted with Tregelles's statement. 1. He pro- poses (in his Printed Text) to give a text on the oldest authorities, so as to present as far as possible that com- monly received in the 4th centur3^ 2. In cases in which we have certain proofs which carry us still nearer the Apostolic age to use the data so afforded. 3d. In cases 17 where tlie oldest documents agree in certain error, to state the reading so supported, but not to follow it, and to give the ground on which another reading- is preferred. 4th. In matters altogether doubtful, to state distinctl}' the conflicting evidence, and then approximate a true text. Tregelles calls both exegetical judgment, and modern MSS. conjecture. The principle seems to difter more than the results. It is a matter of evidence. In majority of cases all agree. And there is growing agreement in the majority of doubtful cases. The following are examples of some of the more important changes proposed. Students may collect the evidence in each case from the books at his command, and apply the principles above stated. Matt, xvi. 9-20 ; Lk. xxiv. 57 ; Matt. vi. 12, 13 ; John v. 3, 4 ; John vii. 53 ; viii. 11 ; John i, 18: John iii. 13 ; Acts viii. 23 ; Acts ix. 28; 1. John V. 7, 8 ; I. Tim. iii, 16 ; I. Pet. iii. 15 : I. John iv. 2, 3. The English Bible Books. Westcott's History. Eadie's History. 1876. — Lightfoot. EUicott and Trench on revision, repub- lished with Introduction by Dr. Schaff". Earlier Translations. "^ In 8th century; Psalms in Anglo Saxon. St. John by Bede. In 9th century 10 comdts. and fragments by Alfred. In 10th the Gospel and O T. Books. In 14tli century three versions of the Baltic. Wycklifte in 1356— tinislied N. T. in 1380, and whole Bible in 1384. Revised by J. Penney, 1388— widely circulated till printing. Wm. Tyndall born 1484. Hamburgh 1524 published Mtt. and Mk. In Cologne finished N. T. in 4to. But escaped to Worms and issued an 8vo. to elude the authori- ties. These reached EnoJand 1526. Proscribed by Henry VIH. By 1530, 6 editions introduced into Eng- land, 15,000 cop"ies, of which less than half a dozen re- main. Pentateuch in 1530. In 1534 Jonah, and after- wards " Epistles from the O. T." Second revised edition 1534. 1536 first edition published in England, year of Tyudall's death. Westcott's collations showing internal history of the translation. Mistakes of Hallam and Froude. Proved independence of Tyndall. Shew also how much remained in A. V. e. g. ^-^ I. John f Eph. Style and vocabulary. 18 Coverdak. 1534 convocation of Canterbury pra_yecl thekingforatranslation. Coverdale appointed. Fronde's mistake corrected. Basis N. T. Tyndale, and Pent. Other parts O. T. Zurich Bible 1524. Payninus, Luther and Vulg. Polished the translation, and restored Eccle- siastical terms. Psalms in Eng. Prayer Book, 1st edi- tion 1534. 2d 1537. Free circulation. Matthews. Posthumous translation by Tyndall from Joshua to II. Chron. in liands of John Rogers, com- posite edition from Tyndale, using Coverdale for rest of O. T. and N. T. Tyndale last edition. Sanctioned by Henry, though identical with that before proscribed. Basis for subsequent. The Great Bible. Objection to doctrinal prologue and margin in Matthews. Edited by Coverdale. Copy to be set up in every church. Bible readers. Six editions in 1540. 1541 — Basedan. Revision ot Matthews with Minister, and in K T. by Erasmus. Reaction. 1543 reading prohibited. 1547 Henry died. Under Edward in six years 13 editions Bible, and 35 of N. T. .Persecutions under Mary 1553-1557. Geneva Bible. Refugees in Geneva 1556 issued Bible Founded 0. T. on Great Bible. Corrected by Beza, Leo Judes, Pellican, Payninus. N". T. text Tyndale directly- emended by Beza. Small 4to. — in Roman letters, and verses separated. Copious notes. Continued Bible of England for | century. Slowly yielding to A. V. IVie Bishop's Bible. In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign there were therefore two Bibles in use, in the church and among the people, the great Bible and the Genevan. Hence a new attempt at uniformity. Eight Bishops employed under Archbp. Barker. Published in 1568, 2d Ed. 1572. Authorized to be used in churches, but never supplanted the Genevan. So that at the close of Elizabeth's reign there were still two Bibles. The Authorized Version. James I. personally pro- moted the work. Nearly 50 scholars appointed, divided into six companies, two in Westminster, two in Oxford, two in Cambridge. Bishop's Bible the text. Preface by Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards Bp. Gloucester. Printed 1611 by Barker. But standard text in Cambridge Ed. 19 of 1638. Did not displace the Genevan in popular use till the middle of ihe century. Called authorized, and was so practically, altho' no evidence of any decree to that effect either by church or state. Much improvement over previous translations based on the Bishop's, with use of Genevan, Rhemes and Douay, Tremellius, Jiezu and earlier Latin Versions. |- said to be due to Tyndale. Illustrations of need of revision from Trench, Elli- cott and Lightfoot. XjEGTTJK/EIS. CHAPTER I. Authorities on the subject are : g ^^ f Tregelles's History of the Printed Text. ■ \ Scrivener's Introduction totheStudy of the N. T. TBissell's Historic Origin of the Bible. 12 mo.<| Scrivener's Six Lectures. (Milligan and Roberts' Lectures. ^P f Hammond's x^. T. Criticism. ^^ """^-"^ Smith's Diet. art. " N'ew Test." Wescott. There are four subjects which properly belong to this department, two of which Dr. Alexander treats in outline — the Canon and Philology. This leaves for us The Text and Textual Criticism ; and I must confine myself to things of immediate practical use to you. By text is meant the ipsissinia verba. Criticism is that science wliich establishes the ipsissima verba. The term criticism has a wide application. Technically itis applied to the words, not the meaning of the words.' There is a prejudice that criticism tends to infidelity ; on the contrary investiga- tion builds a firm foundation for faith. The question is, what has God done? not what ought he to have done? There is an inconsistency in the matter; those most thoroughly attached to the doctrine of inspiration are most conservative ; they ought to be in the fore front. The more thorough the investigation the more grounds for believing we have the very words. What are we to say of verbal inspiration v^'hen the church cannot agree as to the words of the text? Thorough investigation tends to do away with difficulties. Serious difficulties exist only in very few points. It is a matter of wonder that the church can agree upon as many as it does. The result of investigation is to bring about agreement. ""^ There is not an inaccessible and recondite stud}^ but only so in some respects. We have not the manuscripts, it is true, but modern science gives us them, and we must judge upon them. The first question is, What can be said about the original copies of tlie N. Testament as they came from the hands of the apostles? can any satisfac- tory explanation be given of their loss? The gospel of Mark, it is stated, was written at Rome, but we hctve no trustworthy evidence of it; in the 5th century the auto- graph of Matthew was said to have been found ; also that of St. John at Ephesus. These statements are unsup- ported by proof. None of the fathers knew anything of autographs or originals ; they never referred any dis[)Ute to any authoritative standard. This fact shows they had none. Certain exceptions to this statement have been drawn from Ignatius of Antioch, who says, " Some will not believe unless they see the Archia ;" but he meant either the O. T. or examples of the early church. So Tertullian speaks of " literas aulhenticas," referring to copies read in the churches ; but he only contrasts Greek texts with defective translations. If then, no trace of originals is found, how are we to account for their loss ? I. These writings did not hold so exclusive a place in the estimation of the early Christians as in our times. They had better opportunities for oral instruction. The gospel was oral ; questions were referred to tlie ajjostles for adjudication. So long as the immediate scholars of the apostles lived they were the personal resort. So the book did not cnme to be the standard for a long time. Therefore the importance of it was not realized, and during this time the fatal lapse occurred. II. Copies were early made for distribution, and read in the churches. The originals were worn out and lost sight of, and the necessity for an authentic standard was only felt after it was too late. III. The originals were probably not written in auto- graphs, but by clerks. Gal. 6 : 11. IV. The great expense of parchment and poverty of the early Christians make it probable that these were written and copied on Egyptian paper, or papyrus, which wore out rapidly. But a single specimen has come to us. John alludes to this 2 John, 12. Jerome speaks of an effort to restore the Bible of Csesarea less than a century after its collection. V. The persecution of the early Christiajis extended to their books. The '■'■ iraditores" saved themselves by 2:iving up their books. The earliest IST. T. manuscripts belong to the period of Constantine. Fifty copies were made on fine parch- ment. The oldest copies which are preserved differ from one another. Some of these variations are not^nim- portant. In many cases there are 2, 3 or 4 alternatives. Scrivener enumerates not less than 120,000. The vast majority of this number relate to the order of the words in a sentence ; some, to the change of a letter or two — something which scarcely affects the meaning at all. About 1600-2000 are enumerated where there is doubt upon the true reading — including minor cases. In the vast majority of cases the true reading may be established by consent of scholars. Tlie 0. T. has great advantage in this matter, as its text was protected by uniform tradition. It was tlie business of the scribes to get the exact fac-simile. TheN. T. manuscripts are older than those of the O. T. Variations are of course corruptions. The classification of the sources of corruption still in vogue is due to Origen, that of intentional and unintentional errors. Tregelles has substitutions, additions and omissions. Hammond has 8 divisions reducible to conscious and unconscious. Scrivener makes 20 classes by breaking up some of the matter into detail. Origen's division is good as anybody's and is respectable for its age. Intentional. Among the causes of intentional errors are, 1. Supposed corrections in orthography ; altering words to save Hebraisms; to solve historical difficulties. Only a few manuscripts have escaped change. Exam- ples : Mark 13: 23 has an additional zeugma. Matt. 27 : 9. This is not in Jeremiah but Zachariah ; the ex- planation of the passage in Zachariali is based on one in Jeremiah, and Matthew quotes the latter. 2. The next source of intentional error is the attempt to harmonize the different gospels with the epistles. So also in quotations from the O. T. 3. Alteration was with doctrinaV intent, either in sup- port of ortliodox views or opposing them. The altera- tions in support of heresy, however, are not important. Not many in support of doctrines elsewhere taught. Ex. I. John V, 7, 8. The charges against heretics are on minor points, and relate rather to the history of the canon 88 a whole. While it is true that most corruptions arose from copying, yet any intentional alteration to introduce a new doctrine would be absolutely impossible. If copies had b'^en bought up and large numbers altered, such thii^gs miglit have been done. Examples of errors ; Matt. xix. 17, cited by Scrivener, has two reading; one of the most prominent is John 1. 18, " only begotten Son," or " the only begotten God," which has a very gnostic sound ; Acts xvi. 7 ; Acts xx. 28. 4. Liturgical altercations, dividing portions for read- ing in the churches, as lectionaries. Passages were thus separated from their context; in some cases the intro- ductory words would be harsh and needed others to ex- plain them ; then continuous manuscripts copied from them. e. g. Luke ii. 41, Mary was inserted as the sub- ject ; Acts iii. 11. The most important is the doxology of the Lord's prayer, which according to tlie best author- ity, is not written in the text. Acts viii. 37 ; the w^hole verse is considered spurious by the best authorities. Probably a form of confession common in baptismal ser- vice. This whole class arose from a desire to improve the text. Unintentional. These comprise, 1. errors of the senses; 2. errors of memory; 3. errors of judgment. 1. Errors of the eye consisted in dropping or transposing letters, repeating or catching the vvrong word. These manuscripts were written without division of words and all in capital letters. Suppose a newspaper to be written in this manner. The old uncial letters were very similar in some cases, e. g. I. Tim. iii. 16; " God was manifest in the flesh " is liable to be read," " he was manifest in the flesh ; " Mark iv. 22. 2. Errors of the ear. No doubt many MSS. were originally composed from dictation, and hence arose fre- quent errors. 3. Errors of the memory. Copjnsts writitisf either by eye or ear must hold the words in the memory, under the liability to sabstitnte for some word its synonym ; especially prepositions and particles might easily be in- terchanged. The great mass of the eiTors arises fron> this. Also, quoting a familiar verse, he might substitute a parallel tor it. 4. Errors of judgment without bad intention, (a) A large number arose from using abbreviations, e. g. I. Tim. iv. 3. The oldest and best manuscripts have frequent abbreviations, (b) Division of words, e. g. Philippians i. 1. The identical letters may be differently divided. (c) Another source of errors of judgment was maro^inal annotations or explanations. These crept into the text at times. Though there are numerous variations, there is no reading which materially affects the integrity of the book or the doctrine; important texts are altered, but enough remains to fix the sense in every case. Thorough \u- quiry increases the evidence for the truth. That this is not ihe case with regard to profane authors is shown by Prof. Morton. This proves the hand of God in the preservation of his work. Criticism satisfactorily an- swers the question as to what the words of the N. T. are. These corrections are not equally distributed among the books; the best text is the writings of John, next Paul, next the first three gospels, next the catholic epis- tles. Acts and Apocalypse are the worst text. The lat- ter is accounted for by the discredit it once suffered, but we are not certain concerning the Acts. CHAPTER II. MEANS OF RECOVERY OF THE TRUE TEXT. There are four sources, 1. manuscripts, 2. quotations from the ancient fathers, 3. versions or translations, 4. conjectures. These last must be resorted to even in the 0. Testament. I^ot so necessary in the iST. T. Reason- ing from the context, which has an important place in the classics, is not needed where there is choice of reading. I. Manuscripts are the fundamental source. No read- ing is to be accepted vvliich is not based on MS. author- ity as the primary basis. The earliest Greek MSS. be- lo"ngtothe4th century; quotations go back to the apostolic fathers at the beginning of the 1st century; versions were made in the latter part of the second. Of course MSS. are the main dependence. Scrivener numbers 1800 — 2000 MSS. Their number has doubled since this lecture was written. Of those only about 30 contain the complete N. T. About 20 date from the 4th, 5th and 6t]i centuries, 30 from the 7th, 8th and 9th ; these are the Very old MSS. The mass is more recent. Greek litera- ture does not afibrd one-tenth of the manuscripts that the N. T. does. Tischendorf makes 40 uncials ; Scrive- ner gives 623 cursires (later MSS.) For Acts and the catholic epistles there are 10 old MSS. and 14 cursives; for the Pauline epistles 15 uncials, 1 almost entire, 7 with large portions, 283 cursives ; Apocalypse, 5 uncials, 105 cursives — much less than the other books; Gospels, three or four times as many as Acts and the Oath. Epis- tles. Some MSS. are bilingual, being written in Greek and Latin. While the 0. T. MSS. are nearly all of equal author- ity, those of the N, T. are of individual authority, and therefore widely differ in value; the O. T. has the ad- vantage of more uniformity, the N. T. the advantage of age in the MSS. No O. T. MS. is older than the 6th— perhaps the 9th century, while several of the N. T. date from the 4th. The antiquity of a manuscript is an element of im- portance. Other things being equal, the older the better. Yet this is not absolutely so. The determination of the age is one of the prime objects. The 1st. Criterion is the material on which it is written. The oldest are on parchment. On account of the expense of the parchment, the early Christians used Egyptian paper down to the time of Constantine the G^-eat, when MSS. came to us in the best shape. Parch- ment is of two kinds, that made from the skin of young calves ; the earliest were on this though it was rough, e. g. Charta Pergamena of the king of Pergamus, 150 B. C. But the oldest N.T. MS. the Siiuutic,is on vellum of the finest antelope. The Vaticun and the Alexan- drian are on beautiful vellum. I^hey varj' in color ; there are some purple dyed fragments of the 6th century which onl}' the microscope can distinguish from paper. Manuscripts were frequently erased by the monks to get paper for their purposes, but the erasure was never perfect, and they were written either across the lines or between the lines. Some of the oldest are ixiUmpsests. Attempts have been made to restore the original inscrip- tion by chemical process, erasing the new with prussiate of potash. Ancient ink had no metallic base, hence it turned red and faded. The pen was a reed if the mate- rial was papyrus, but the impression on the parchment MSS. shows that the stylus was used for them. Punc- tures show that needle points were used for measuring columns and lines. Besides these, paper was manufac- tured in the 9th century as appears from some copies still extant at St. Petersburg. Those on linen paper were subsequent to the 13th century. 2nd. A more accurate method of determining an- tiquity is by the character in which they are written. The uncial letter is the oldest. The IS". T. cursive writ- ing does not appear until the 7tli century, and in the 10th it supersedes tlie uncial, at which time illuminated MSS. came into use, and from which time they usually bear date. Now of those prior to the 9th century : the shape of the uncial letter gives one of the simplest and surest clews to the age. (Comparison with ancient inscriptions on stone, coins, papyri of Herculaneum.) At first the letters were slightly rounded and elegant; later, angular and turreted. (See Scrivener's larger work.) Only two principles need to be remembered ; first, the upright uncial is more ancient than the oblong and leaning; second, the simpler the style the older the probable date. 3d. The divisions in the text. The ancient MSS. were written without division, pointing, accents or breath- ings ; the iota subscript or ad-cript had become obsolete, but it came in again with the cursives. Some say the breathings and accents were found in the Alexandrian MSS. at'first hand, but the oldest are without addition 8 to the letters. Criticism has the right to discover what are the letters. There is evidence of punctuation and perhaps of accents having been known to the ancients, but they were not popular. The first break was made by Euthalius of Alexandria in the 5th century ; he divided the text of Acts and the Epistles into lines con- sisting of a clause or so many words as could be pronounced together. This was a great relief to the reader. Many copies thus made, but few are now extant. But this method occasioned a waste of space, you see; so they began to write continuously and to separate these axiyoc by points. Gradually other points came into use, but the text was not punctuated as we have it until after the invention of printing. This same Euthalius first divided into paragraphs with marginal divisions, so that the whole could be read in a year. The Vatican MS., how- ever, has divisions which are said to be older than those of Euthalius. In the Gospels a division into chapters is ascribed to the 2nd century, but the oldest MSS. do not have them. More important, however, are the sections made A. D. 220 by Ammonius, adopted and revised by Eusebius ; they belong only to the Gospels, and were used for the 8ake of harmony. They were marked by numbers re- ferring to parallel passages. In addition to these there are the Eusebian Canons of the Gospels, ten in number, referring to the same but giving a list of parallel pass- ages ; 1165 of these passages in the Gospels — usually put in colored ink. There were other divisions known to the fathers, but they are not uniform. Cardinal Hugo, making a concordance of the Latin Vulgate in 1262, had to make divisions into chapters in the Vulgate. These were not adopted till the 15th cen- tury. Hence come our divisions. Division into verses is entirely modern, first appearing in the edition of Robert Stephens at Geneva in 1551. This is said to have been made while on a journey frm Paris to Lyons. Though they are of no exegetical importance, they have had a wonderful influence upon us, and we always picture the Bible under this torm. The superscriptions or titles of the books do not be- long to the MSS., but were evident!}' caused from the additions in different MSS. Paul would not mark an epistle I., till he had written a second. The subscrip- tions are also later ; in some cases erroneous. Xothing but the letters of the Greek text are of binding authority. (See Scrivener.) 4th. The number of columns on a page. The most ancient in the form of rolls are now lost, in which the writing was in parallel columns. When the volume was adopted this columnar arrangement was naturally pre- served, especially on a large page. A few MSS. are in large folio ; most of them, however, are small, some even 8 vo. The sheets of papyrus were 4 or 5 inches long, and fastened together at the side to make a roll. The Sinaitic MS. has 4, the Vatican 3 columns. 5th. The text. The antiquity of the MSS. and the antiquity of the text are nut necessarily the same thing. We may have a copy of a copy. There are other cri- terions besides the age of the MSS. ; a distinction is to be made between the age of the MSS. and additions made at 2nd, 3d, 4th and even 5th and 6th hand. These em- endations to which nearly all have been subjected are known by the difference in the ink and the hand. Tisch- endorf says the Codex Sinaiticus has gone through 6 hands. Now a MS. must be older than its corrections. List of MSS. : K. Sinaitic Gospels Paul's Epis. A.Alexandrian L.Regius D. Claromontauus B. Vatican %. Xifriensis E. Sangermanensis C. Ephraemi J. Sangallensis F. Augiensis D. Cambridge Acts, Cath. Epis. It. Boernesiauus E. Laudianus Apocalypse Cursives. B 33 of Gospels, 13 Acts, 17 Paul Porphyrianus 69 " 31 " 37 Apoc. 14. The same letters do not always refer to the same MSS.; the uncials are known by capital letters, cursives by figures, versions by small letters. 10 Tlie Codex Alexandrinus was given by Cyril Lycaris to Charles I. in 1628, and was placed in the British Museum at its founding in 1753. It contains the whole N". T. ex- cept a few passages : begins with Matt. xxv. 6, and wants part of three chapters in John, viz. : vii. 50 — vii. 52 ; lacks these leaves of being complete in both Old and New T. It contains also the epistles of Clement of Rome. Four quarto volumes about 13 inches high ; large initial letters in colored inks. It is the earliest MS. with Am- monian sections and Eusel)ian canons complete ; and is written in beautiful upright letters without division of words. It is generally believed to have been copied in Alexandria earlier tlian the 5th century. It has inde- pendent value because itdifters from the Vatican and the Sinaitic MS. The st3'le of writing and letters is the first aid in determining the age. The Eusebian canons indi- cate A. D. 458. The best judges place it early in the 5th century. Of course where it agrees with « O'' B the evidence is peculiarly strong; the combination of awith the oldest is the liighest authority. The ink is worn away in many places, and it is never touched except for good purpose. In proof of its Egyptian origin are the ornamental baskets of fruits appended. These MSS. are edited in Greek, the- errors copied, and thus the whole is given to scholars. B. Codex Vatican us gives the O. T. with certain breaks and the N. T. with several exceptions, whi^h are added in a different hand and at a more recent time. It is on delicate thin vellum, quarto s-hape, three columns to the page. It wants the capitals that are frequent in the Alexandrian. The Aramonian sections and Eusebian canons are wanting. In many places it is retraced and retouched by a hand in the 8th century. The character points to the 4th century. Even the small letters crowded in at the end of the line indicate the 4th cen- tury. A few accents are inserted by a second hand. Dates from about the close of the 2nd century. It has been jealously guarded by the Pope. In the 18th cen- tury some collations of its readings were made, but they were extremely inaccurate. No access to its was per- mitted for a hundred years. During the French Revo- 11 hition it was in Paris for a while. In 1843 Tischendorf was allowed to examine it for 6 hours ; in '45 Tregelles was allowed to see it but not to transcribe any part of it. In 1866, after Tisehendorf's discovery of the Sinaitic, the Pope being delighted, allowed him for a while to see this manuscript. But Tischendorf was caught copying 16 pages of it, and he was limited to 3 hours a day for two weeks to consult certain passages without pencil or paper, with two witnesses to interrupt him. The excuse they made was that they wanted to edit the MS. themselves. Part of it has been published, but the Romans do not understand it, and their work is not ot much value. Quite lately access to it has been obtained and Tischen- dorf based his edition upon it. The difficulty is to de- termine w^hat are the readiijg and what are the re-touch- ings. There is difference of opinion as to its value ; it is remarkable for its omission of words; some scribes add, some drop; where the tendency is to omit its read- ing is more probable. This text standing alone is the strongest, and with x constitutes the best authority. C, Codex Ephraemi is a rescript palimpsest whicli once belonged to the Medici family. It contains parts of the Septuagint, and the whole of the IST. T. is represented in a fragmentary way — altogether f N. T. given. It has the interpunction, Ammonian sections — is now in Paris — and belongs to the 5th century. Chemical restoration was tried on'it in 1834, but it was injured by the process. It has capitals like the Alexandrian, but the vellum is not so tine. It has had three corrections, C*, C** and C***, from the 6th— 9th centuries. D. Codex BezfB is at the library of Cambridge — Gospels and Acts — with stichoi. It was found by Beza. It is the oldest version presenting large letters after a pause in the middle of the lines, showing a tendency to capitals. It has had 8 or 9 correctors, and is celebrated for its various readings ; in 600 places in the book of Acts it differs from the others ; e. g. Act viii. 24 has, " Simon Magus ceased not to shed bitter tears;" Luke vi. 4, " he beheld a certain man working on the Sab- bath," is introduced as the words of Christ ; " Blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest, and cursed if 12 not." It date? probably from the 6th century. Many important MSS. lie hidden in the convents of Europe. (See Tischendorf s Travels in the East.) X, Codex Sinaiticus. In 1844 Tischendorf visited the convent of St. Catharine on Mt. Sinai and found an ancient copy of the Septuagint, but the monks would not give it up. He made another visit in 1859 but could not find the copy; when about to leave the Superior pre- sented him another MS. This Tischendorf pronounced the very oldest Greek MS. It is on antelope skin and is now in the library at St. Petersburg. Two editions have been made, one very expensive, having 50 or 60 facsimile pages, plates and types being cut to produce them. It characteristically agrees with the Vatican MS., often with A. The letters are slight!}- rounded, in the same style as the papyri MSS., no capitals, no breath- ings, many pages not even diacritically pointed. It has 4 columns on a page, the Vatican, 3. Hebrews is incor- porated with the Epistles but comes atter 2nd Thessa- lonians, indicating that it was made before the common order was fixed. It gives the Greek text ot the epistle of Barnabas, furnishing evidence to the canon not found elsewhere. The text indicates a very early date; it has the Eusebian divisions introduced by a second hand; Barnabas and Pastor are admitted which were condemned 364. Scrivener and Tregelles say there is no use in drawing a distinction between the Vatican and n, they are so nearly of the same age. L. (Gospels) Regius is a quarto in the Paris library — published by Tisch. in 1846. It is one of the principal MSS. — has breathings, apostrophe, capitals and titles, resembles B and Origen's quotations, and abounds in ^lexandrianisms. R. (Gospels) JSTitriensis was brought to England from a convent in the Nitrian desert north of Cairo. It is a Palimpsest. In the same volume are bound 4,000 lines of the Iliad. J (Gospels) Sangallensis was named from St. Gall in Switzerland where it was made about the 9th century; it is complete except a few verses of John. Resembles G. of Paul's Epis. 13 E. (Acts and Cath. Epis.) Lauclianus, presenter] hy Archbisliop Laud in 1636, is the most remarkable of tliis class. It is a Latinized version of the 6th or 7th cen- tury ; interesting because used by venerable Bede. This is the first manuscript witness to prove baptism by Philip in Acts. D. (Paul's Epis.) Claromontanus, the most important of Paul's Epis., was found at Clermont, and is inferior to N, A, B, and C. It is on vellum — edited by Tischen- dorf in Paris, 1852. It was found by Beza ; stolen sheets were sold to the Earl of Oxford, but were restored when the theft was discovered. It was stichoi added in the 5th or 6th century. These were first applied in 458. It has initial letters and the African type of Old Latin. ■^^(Paurs Epis.) Sangermanensis was found in an abbey near Paris and removed to St. Petersburg at the beginning of the present century. Believed to be a re- markable copy of the preceding — has no independent value. "F-. (Paul's Epis.) Augiensis is named from Augia, a convent on an island in Lake Constance. Latin and Greek — 9th century. G. (Paul's Epis.) Boernerianus is named from a German professor at Leipsic. This exacth' resembles J of the Gospels, and by some is believed to be part of the same MS. The Cursives are often collated from old MSS., and may have almost tlie autliority of an uncial, as they may be transcribed from an cdd uncial. IL Quotations. The quotations of the early fathers are prior to the 4th century and older than the MSS. themselves. Besides we have early versions older than the MSS. Here, then, is a means of checking and com- pearing not known in other departments of criticism. Yet all this comparison is secondary to the reading of the MS. itself in authority. It is a canon of criticism that no reading is to be absolutely adopted without MS, authority. Quotations bear testimony in two w^ays : 1. They witness the reading of MSS. now lost. 2. Per- haps their chief value is to furnish the mode of deter- mining and classifying MSS. Of course there is a great 14 difference between writers. The Latin fatliers are secondary to the Latin version. The Greeks quote their own language, tlie Latin fathers, the Vulgate. The antiquit}- has much to do witli the authority. If every MS. had been burned we could recover the whole N. T. from tie quotations — the thing has been done— an edition thus acquired has actually been printed. ]SIotso exactly with the 0. T. There are certain drawbacks in quota- tion : 1. There exists no standard text ; each quotation is only a witness from the MS. or family of MSS. with which the writer was familiar. 2. The form of the quotation itself has been in many cases itself altered in the transmission of the quotation. The copyist of a father would try to make him conform to another. They have not been so carefully preserved as the N. T, text, and some of the writings are only fragmentary. 3. The same writer often quotes the same text differently — quotes from the MS. f e happens to be using at the time. 4. The MSS. which bring to us the quotations of the fathers are none of them as old as the N. T. MSS. themselves. The Greek IST. T. MSS. have the advantage in antiquity. No MS. of a father has come down to us as old as the 4th century. Therefore they are secondary. 5. Dis- tinctions between the classes of writings; the lowest authority is given to the controversial writers. To make prominent a single point the father might not make an accurate and complete quotation. The second rank be- longs to devotional writers ; as their purpose did not re- quiie accuracy' they quote from memory. The third class consists of the exegetical writers. Here accuracy is to be expected. Theoldest father of this description and the most copious by far is Origen. The leading critics of the time have devoted themselves to the accuracy of the text of each father, and there is a century of work to be done in the establishment of the text of these fathers. N, T. criticism is a new science really, the work has only begun. (See Tregelles.) III. Versions or translations. Two obvious rules cut off a large number of versions. 1. They must be immediate. 2. They must be ancient. By immediate is meant that they are derived directly from the Greek 15 text. This vastly reduces the number of versions uvail- uble ; only 4 of the 0. T. are considered valuable. TIjey must be ancient; this cuts off" all after the 6th century. The version must be older than the Masoretic text. A version determines the text of the original. (Scrivener's 6th Lecture) The Syriac version, the oldest, was made in the 2nd century. The chief service of Bontly was the restoration of the Latin V^ulgate; by restoring it ho proved its conformity to the oldest Greek text in a mul- titude of cases. Further, tliis evidence from versions is not seriously impaired by the fact that their MSS. are none of them old as the Greek text. They are an independent line of witnesses. The Greek Testament has come down to us from quotations, versions, manuscripts; thus the text of tiie N. T. is better than that of any other book. Versions have three uses : 1. Their critical use, which has been already alluded to ; 2. Their exegetical use you can easily imagine; they are of immense importance; they give not only the opinion of an individual, but tljey give the decision of the whole branch of the church which used the version, — the Peshito, the opinion of the Syriac church, the Vulirate of the Latin, — forming tlie basis of doctrine. 3. Their philological value. They are the basis of comparing languages the literary monuments of which are extremely scarce. With regard to their exegerical value. In private use of the Bible, reading it in languages other than your own is one of the most valuable habits. AH eminent scholars do so. We are so familiar with the English words that the ear is hardened to them. The freshness only comes out when reading in another language; each new idiom brings the text home to the njind in fresh power and suggests much. No commentary after a grammar and a dictionary is so suggestive as arevision. Have a polyglot Bible on your table ; thus the habit of reading in all these languages is easily established. The history of these versions is a very interesting chapter in early church history. They were made to supply the wants of the churches already established. Greek was so generally spoken, especially in the cities, that wherever a man could read he could read Greek. 16 The demand for translations was not immediate and they were only in the hands of scholars ; the Greek language was sufficient at first for the established church. Very soon, however, translations were required, and this ac- counts for the antiquity of those versions which became the standards. Thus the translation of the Bible may be taken as a record of the history of each church. There was a marked difference between the church of the East and that of the West in this respect. In the west the wide use of the Latin made one translation enough, which became a strong bond of union between the Latin portions of the church. Western unity is ex- pressed in the Latin Bible. In the east, on the other hand, many versions arose, and each one became a centre of a separate existence. 1. The Syriac Peshito. The name means simple, de- noting the character of the translation. It is a pure, simple rendering of the Greek. The date is in dispute; church scholars put it at the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the 3d. It was made at 6dessa, which was for many years the chief seat of oriental learning, and especially celebrated for its theological school. In the middle of the 5th century they took part in the Nestorian controversy. The Peshito covers the 0. T. as well as the N. T., and is immediate in both (See Smith's Diet.;) the translation is very exact, adopting some Greek ex- pressions and Latin forms. Ephraim wrote a commen- tary on it in the 4th centur3^ The canon of the Peshito is ot great importance, and its value is enhanced by the fact that it is a translation of the old books; it lacks only II. Peter, II. and III. John and Jude, the tour minor catholic epistles, and probably Revelation ; also I. John V. 7, and the account of the woman taken in adul- tery. Its oldest MS. dates from the 6th century; it was not known in Europe till 1552. This is the great Syriac version. 2. The Curatonian is another Syriac version which was brought from the Nitrian desert in 1847. It is named from the publisher of the MS. ; it is not a church version and hence not authoritative ; it is assigned to the 5th century, and agrees mainly with D. Contains ^^ / J HUUAAMt r^ II fc-- / '' J 'Am, JT /i Myl'U^^^J • ^U[ ^^^Uwii.^ o ^ 17 Matt., Mark, Luke and John except 4 verses which have been lost. 3. Another version known for a good deal longer time is the Harclean of the 6th century — 508 — for a Monophysite bishop named Philoxiana — by Polycarp ; revised 100 years after by Bishop Harcla. The transla- tion is slavishly literal. The translators had the aid of two valuable Greek MSS., which are not extant, and pre- served the various i^eadings on the margin. 4. The version in the Aramaic Syriac belongs to the southern part of Palestine, and was made shortly before the Mohammedan invasion. Not much use was made ot it; the Septuagint was used in parts of Palestine instead of the Hebrew, the Greek had become so popular. It is the only MS. of the lltii century made immediately from the Greek. 5. Egyptian versions are secondary in rank. Chris- tianity arose is Egypt with the decay of Greek influence, after the fall of the Ptolemies or Greek kings. Where the Greeks were not so numerous Christianity effected a foothold among the natives ; by the second century there was an important church, and by the third it had become very numerous. It is remarkable that the coun- try which translated the O. T. into the Greek, should, a few centuries later, need a translation out of the Greek into the vernacular. The word Coptic is of unknown derivation — some suppose it to be a corruption of Aigiqj- tos. At the Mohammedan Invasion there w-ere 30,000 Christian families using this language of the Monophy- site sect. There are two dialects of the Coptic, and each had a translation ; the Thebaic is fragmentary ; the Memphitic is the dialect of Lower Egypt. Very few of these MSS. are older than the 10th century. They are both regarded as good collateral authority for the 2d and 3d centuries. The Memphitic favors n and B ; the other the Latin. Fragments of a 3d Coptic were found in eastern Egypt. 6. Following the proo;ress of Christianity, the Ethiopic versions are next. The N. T. is probably im- j-nediate in this dialect. The language has long since ceased to be spoken ; it is related to the Arabic. A 18 literature is still written in it, and the Bible to this day is read in it, thongh the people do not understand it. This is in Abyssinia. An important version in criticism was the church version of that region — probably of the 4th century. 7. The Armenian version. Armenia was the iirst countrj' where the aristocracy as well as the people era- braced Christianity. The date 'of the version is 411. Though Arian, the church used the language to the be- ginning of the 5th century, wlien a new alphabet was in- vented. This is immediate from the N. T. 8. The Georgian version dates from about the 6th century. " Syrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and the thou- sand other nations have learnefl the Gospel in their own language." — Chrysostom. " At that time the Gospel had penetrated all nations." — Eusebius. 9. At the beginning of the 7tb century tlie churches gave way to Mohammedanism. Syria and Egypt lost their mother tongue, which gave place to the rich and flexible language of the stronger race. Most of them have Arabic translations. In other cases versions were made for churches already established ; one was made in Spain in the 8th centur\. 10 Persian version. Mohammedan energy gave rise to a flourishing literature in Persia while the other na- tions were at their lowest ebb. In this revival of litera- ture the church jiarticipated, however, and translations were made — not all immediate — some from the Peshito. The Fathers mention other versions but they are now- lost. Latin or Western Versions. Tbe Vulgate is not the first, but the whole history of the ante-Vulgate versions is now unknown. When the church was first growing in the west a version was much needed. The Greek was assiduously cultivated, but at the same time a vernacular version was needed. Ter- tullian, in the 2d century, refers to one already extant. Augustine says, " In the early ages any one who pos- sessed a Greek MS. felt qualified to become an inter- preter." Jerome says there were " almost as many copies 19 as MSS," This is the first information we have of the existence of more than one of these Latin versions. Examination proves them to have had a common origin. They are in character literal, rude, and a[)pear to he the woik of half-educated men. 8o:ne of the vindicators of the Vulgate claim that that translation was made by an apostle. These versions were brought to the use of the church by Lachmann, who is still considered high author- ity. The best and most used uf these is the Itala. But what does this mean ? Augustine says, " Among the translations made it is said the Itala is to, be preferred." The name is uncertain ; Augustine writes from north Africa ; this name occurs only in this one place, and seems to designate one among man}'. Bentley sug- gested that Itala should be ilia, that one ; others say he referred to the Vulgate ; but the common opinion is that he had in view a distinct version, so called because made in Italy. Latin Versions — a. Vercellensis, 4th century, at Vercelli. b. Veronensis, 4th or 5th century, at Verona. c. Colbert, 15th century, at . e. Palatinus, 4th or 5th century, at Vienna, ii'. ff. ?. Corbiensis, at the Abbey of Corbey. Thirty-two in all. Vulgate MSS. — Am. Amiatinus — Florence, A. D. 541. fu or ful. Fuldensis, Abbey of Fulda, A. D. 541. harl, Harleian, , 7th century. These are of the first order of antiquity, as they are older than the oldest Greek MSS., and so are to be classed with the Syriac. A, b, etc., are of the primitive African form. Some others represent tlie Italian recen- sions. These were first introduced by Lachmann. In the second half of the 4th century we have in Jerome better evidence. lie had exhausted the resources of knowledge in the school of the west ; he then went east and was a monk at Bethlehem 20 years. He began the N. T. 323A. D. ; his work was very independent and substantially new ; the O. T. he translated de novo from Uit. 20 the Hebrew. But there was a prejudice against innova- tion, and the version could not be introduced as exclu- sive until the time of Gregory the Great, 600 A. D., 200 years after its ])roduction, when it was forced on the church; oven then it did not entirely supersede the other. For 200 years the effort of the church was to reconcile the prejudice against it; to show that they were substantially the same two were often written in the same MS. It was a difficult task to restore the original ; before the invention of printing atieni})ts were made to secure a uniform text; the most remarkable were the labors of Alcuin in the time of Charlemagne, and Lanfranc, of Canterbury, 1089 A. D. The invention of printing ag- gravated the' evil. The Yulgate was the first book printed. In 1546 the Council of Trent issued the fa- mous decree that the Vulgate should be used for all church purposes. The practical effect has been to place the version side by side with the original, and really to make it supersede the original. No two editions of the Vulgate were exactly alike. In 1590 Pope Sixtus Y. prepared an edition, and in a bull commanded it to be used as the true text. Before 200 copies were issued it was found to be full of mistakes, when it was recalled and destroyed. The Papal infallibility was preserved by referring all mistakes to the printer. The MSS. of the Vulgate exceed all others m number, not excepting the Greek Testament. Bentley, the great English scholar, made the restoration of the V. the work of his life. Since his day are Lachmann and Tregelles. The great V. MS. is the Amiatinus ; it contains almost per- fect the whole Bible; it has been published entire by Tischendorf. Tregelles cites only 6 MSS. of the V.; Tischendorf many more. Editions of the Vulgate are cheap and convenient. Northern Versions, The Gothic, made by Ulfilas, in the middle of the 4th century, contains the Gospels, parts of the Epistles, parts of the 0. T., as now extant. Ulfilas' parents were of Cappadocia, and were carried off by the Goths. They M 21 became teachers of Christianity ; by the end of the 4th century a church was established at Constantinople, and Ulfilas became their bishop. He invented an alphabet, and translated the Bible for them. The language died out about the 9th century. At the end of the 16th the MS. was found. This is of high philological interest, as it is the only ancient monument of the family of lan- guages which it represents — the Germanic. It throws light on the formation of our own language. The Slavonic people received their religion from the Greeks in the 9th century. The history of the Bible is the history of civilization, of the church, of language. By the middle of the 15th century there were Bibles translated in France, Italy, England and Germany. CHAPTER III. History of the Printed Text. An eftbrt to procure the pure Greek text was made after the art of printing had taken some start. The first editions of the N. T. are not really critical editions. There were three stages in the publication. 1st. The \4iiiiitm-pnnceps was usually taken from a single MS.; 2d. tlie formation of the textusreceptus ; 3d. the truly critical stage founded on the materials already gathered. It gives the authorities and exhibits the evidence for each reading. The first portions of the Greek Testament ever printed were the .songs of Mary and Zacharias. Luke i. 42-56 — at Venice 1486; next the first six chap- ters of the gospel of John in 1504 were appended to the tomes of Gregory Nazienzis. The first portion inde- pendently published was the first 14 verses of John, in Tubingen. The first complete edition was that which forms the fifth volume of the great Coraplu- tensian Polyglot of Spain, so named from the place where it was printed. It was prepared under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, confessor of Isabella. This polyglot was to commemorate the birth of Chas. V. ; 600 copies were printed at a cost of 50,000 ducats, Jan. 1514, just the date of the early struggles of Luther. Owing tode- 22 lay in receiving sanction it was not published till 1520. The printers claimed to have had MSS. loaned from the Vatican Library, All the ancient MSS. of Xiraenes are now at Madrid. As to those lent from the Vatican by Pope Leo X, it is shown that Leo did not become Pope till March, 1513, while the Complutensian text was fin- ished in 1514; three-fourths of a year is not enough time for the work. The text also agrees with modern MSS., subsequent to the 10th century, rather than with the ancient. Its authority is further impaired, because it alters the text in many places to correspond with the Vulgate. Owing to the delay in publishing the polyglot, the edition of Erasmus anticipated it by four years; hence the dispute arose as to which was the princeps. The work of Erasmus was very hastily done, and was founded on a small number of MSS.; some of them were al- tered in favor of the Vulgate. The one old MS. which he had bothered him so that he threw it aside. Li one instance six solid verses were translated out of the Vul- gate. Consequently there are numerous errors in our common text. The first of these editions was published in 1516. A very fine copy of it is one of the treasures of our library. The second edition, 1519, is that from which Luther's translation was made. The third admits a passage in John about the three witnesses, concerning which Erasmus had a controversy with one of the edit- ors of the Comp. Polyglot, the history of which is in- teresting. He was attacked by the Romanists for alter- ing the Vulgate (I John, v, 7, 8) for, following the MS. authorities, he omitted the interpolated words. Yielding to the pressure, Erasmus at last consented to insert it, provided it could be shown in any MS. Of course one was brought him. This whole MS., which was made for the purpose, is now at Trinity College, Dublin. These words are not genuine. Such was the de- mand for the Greek text that 3300 copies of the first edition were sold. In 1527 a fourth edition was issued, and afterwards a fifth in 1535. He had only 8 MSS., and the best was rejected because it disagreed with the others and was troublesome. f^ VC^€'.iicL4 IS iV ' V 23 But what is the foundation of our common Greek text? A second series of the 5th edition was pnblised by Robert Stephens and his son Henry at Paris, in the time of Francis I. and Henry II. The 3d Stej)hen8 is the important one to fix in the memory ; it was founded on the Erasmian, and published in 1550. In England it is quoted to this day as the English common text. This is the folio Regia. This was the first attempt at giving various readings. In the 4th edition, prepared at Genoa the next year, the division into verses appeared for the first time. In 1552 Robert Stephens moved to Genoa, where he professed Protestant opinions. The number of distinct editions published about this time was great ; 5 editions of Erasmus, 5 of Stephens, 5 of Beza. The date of Beza is commonly given as 1555, but the true date is 1559-1598. Beza first brought to the aid of criticism eastern MSS. His text is founded on the Regia of Stephens. He difl:ers often where he has no authority and does not better it. His work is colored by theological bias. Beza's attempt was the last for a century, until the new impulse of the rise of mod- ern criticism. No important advance has been made on the Stephens folio. The editions of the Elzevirs have become famous for their beauty and accuracy. In 1624 they published a 24 mo.T^. T., and again in 16vS, an edition in which they separated the paragraphs into verses. This edition is their best, and is founded on the Regia. The editor was little more than a proof-reader. Tischendorf gives 150 variations between this one and the Stephens edition. The textus receptus is thus founded on the Regia. This text of Erasmus, really the basis of the common text, was drawn from but eight MSS. ! So small is its au- thcCrity, and so founded on the authority of man, that we are often compelled to use our best judgment as to the true reading. Critical Editions and Principles of Criticism. The common text held undisputed possession of the field for nearly a century. There was an advantage in this w^hen information was scarce. In the latter part of 24 the 17th century a systematic effort was made to recover the true text. The honor of beginning this belongs to England. There were four important steps: l.The London Polyglot, by Walton, afterwards bishop of Chester, in 1657, the time of Cromwell— in 6 folio vol- umes. The text is 3d Stephens, the standard in England. The 6th volume presents the various readings; the 5th hns the K. T., with five oriental versions. This Poly- glot perpetuated critical deceit to a certain extent, as it adopted a reading of a Spanish marquis which is found to have been translated from the Vulgate back to the Greek. In 1658 an Amsterdam edition was published. 2. In 1675, John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, published an elegant octavo edition founded on the text of the pre- vious editions, with 18 new MSS. 3. The third step was the edition of John Mill, 1707, at Oxford. Bishop Fell entrusted all his critical material to the young scholar, who labored 30 years and completed the work just a fortnight before his death. Several critics have died thus. Mill was the first to make regular use of versions and patristic citations. The chief value of this edition was the impulse it gave to the subsequent; it was the standard in England for 100 years. Though he did not alter the common text, but gave the different readii]gs in the margin, so many variations caused great alarm. Whitby wrote a review of Mill's edition "con- demning it, and urging the worth of the common text, and use was made of this by an infidel writer to show that no authority was due the MSS. This argument was answered in the 4th step. Bentley (1652-1742), showed that if these readings existed before discovery, discovery did not alter the facts ; if religion was true before it was true afterwards ; that there were advan- tages in these variations — for without them we would be bound to a single MS., with all its mistakes. The fact of variety is an advantage, for by comparison we may arrive at a conclusion. "He declares that if half the number of MSS. had been compared with half the care for any profane writer the number of variations would have been much greater. The leading idea of Bentley was the fundamental idea of comparison, viz. : the older to/ 'I. iiU'f^ U-i-^ (UiUiC 3 ' liu'i ' h liH-i f tj-u-f J t/lU 'pltu !'f 1 /C<.i/I 'Myt^^tAMj f rather tlian the more numerous MSS. ; comparative criticism is the great authority ; the old form is the original one, because when we get the oldest ,form of the Latin text and the Syriac it agrees with the oldest MSS. Bentley first called attention to this. He says: " Taking 2000 errors out of the Pope's Vulgate and as many out of the common text, I can set out an edition of each without using any book under 900 years old ! " Bentley died in 1742, leaving his work incomplete. Mr. Scrivener, on the other hand, says he did not complete it because he knew he was wrong. This, however, is not the case. Bengel, 1687-1752. Ben,2:el was scholarly, pious and orthodox. He published a quarto in 1744. His merit consisted in two things: 1. The clear recognition and statement of the rule that the more diflicult reading is to be preferred to the easier. The others of course, had acted on this principle, but it had not been formulated. 2. He was the first to observe the similarity in the varia- tions of a great number of MSS., and see that it was possible to classify. He recognized the great divisions of African and Asiatic — the first being the more ancient and authoritative. He was the first also to quote both sides. He had wonderful scholarly insight. The mistake that he made was that of adopting the arbitrary rule of admitting readings that had not been found in any pre- vious edition, except in the Apocalypse, where the foun- dation for the text was so slight. His opponent was Vetstein, who denied any such thing as family likeness in MSS. He was obliged to flee to Amsterdam on account of his lapse from orthodoxy. His edition of 1751, Amsterdam, is still of value to scholars, though his opinions were doubtless warped. He charged the most ancient MSS. with being changed. His edition was the first to use the common notation of MSS. by letters and numbers. (A fine copy is in the library.) Modern Criticism begins with Griesbach (1745- 1812), of Hesse-Darmstadt, a professor at Halle. The materials of criticism had greatly increased, and to them order and system were applied. Griesbach was entirely 26 free from prejudice in his labors, and he had great ac- tivity in theological learning. Thirt}' years ago he was quoted just as Tischendorf is at the present day. He made accurate collections of the readings of Origen; he differed from Vetstien, and agreed with Bentley in dividing the MSS. into African and Asiatic, bat he car- ried the division farther, making of the African two classes, viz : Western, or Alexandrian, and Constanti- nopolitan. These classes he calls recensions, his idea being that they arose from attempt at different times and at different places to get a true text. He considered the Occidental Recension the oldest, but corrupted by glosses and alterations. It is the text of Codex D, of Cambridge, the Vulgate, theltala, and the Latin leathers. The Alexandrian was an attempt to revise the former, he thinks. The standard of this is found in Origen, and A, B and C. The Constantinopolitan Recension he believed to be a combination of the other two ; it arose about the 4th century. This comprises 19-20 of the whole mass of MSS. and extant materials. MSS. testify, therefore, by families, and the greatest weight is given to the Alexandrian. The union of any two of these is sufficient proof of a reading ; if the two oldest, however, disagree, then the place of the Const, was to mediate between them. Griesbach was a conservative thinker ; his somewhat artificial principle really led him right, and his classification proved of immeiise service for a long time. His editions were issued in 1775 and 1806; in the interval much new material was gathered. Some of his rules are still used, viz : 1. No reading to be accepted without support of an- cient testimony. 2. The shorter rather than the longer. 3. The more difficult rather than the easier. 4. Thcit which is a clear proof of orthodox doctrine is usually suspicious. ScHOLZ, a i»eft)T-m«d Roman Catholic, was at one time much copied in England. His inflence was due partly to his activity, partly to his giving authority to the modern MSS. He brought in 118 cursives, but col- lated only 13. His work is now-a-days regarded as h^r / ' W// 27 superficial and full of blunders; nobody takes his au- thority. With him the schools began to divide. He was a reactionist, giving the greater weight to the more numerous MSS. Scholz urged the objection that the ancient MSS. diifer among themselves. To this we may answer — 1. That the fact is disputed. Scrivener insists that this objection is a ground of their authority ; their very difference proves that they are independent testimonies. 2. Modern texts are not true simply because they agree, for they might be multiplied copies of the same stand- ard. The history of the Vulgate illustrates the point, the modern manuscripts agreeing in over 2000 instances where they agree in differing from the older or estab- lished Vulgate text. 3. Where the mass of later cursive MSS, differ from the ancient, comparative criticism is the great appeal, comparing with the ancient Greek all the other sources of versions, quotations, etc. This was Bentley's principle, but he had not the material ; and this is the principle of modern critics. The further we go the nearer we approach the very words of the inspired text. Scholz w^as superficial and unreliable : so all his work had to be done over again. Lachmann holds a high place in modern criticism. First edition, 1831, the next in 1842 (second volume, 1850). This edition is of lasting value. He was accu- rate in collation, so that what he says we may take as matter of fact. He was the first to form a text upon evi- dence alone irrespective of the common text. Ancient authority is the great corner-stone of the school of Lach- mann. He adheres to the ancient sources of evidence, no matter to what that evidence leads. The question commonly asked was, Is there any necessity for depart- ing from the common reading? "This," says Lach- mann, " was the question with Griesbach. With me it is. Is there any necessity for departing from the most ancient authorities ?" His MSS. were A, B and C, with 4 fragments from the 4th to the 9th century. Great credit is due him for the development of materials from the ante-Jerome authorities. What w^as the actual text in the 4th century? was the question with him; he al- 28 f lowed himself no choice of those older than the 4th century, the oldest, he thinks, that we can obtain with certainty of value. This seems like a very formal and absurd principle, and so it is practically. To relieve the difficulty where he was led into error by this, he draws the distinction closely between the recension and the subsequent emendation. The objections to Lachmaiin are: 1. The narrow range of authorities he allows. The only version which he adopts is the old Latin. 2. The rigidness with which he adhered' to his principle, even accepting acknowledged error. 3. The problem which he presents himselt is not really the true problem, viz ; What is the text of the 4th centry ? We want to know what is the true text itsslf. Yet his is a very important contribution. His critical judgment was wonderfully accurate. TiscHENDORF published his first edition in 1841. Three editions in Paris ; then a second Leipsic edition in 1849. The seventh edition was for a time the most complete. He has later commentaries since 1860, the time of the discovery of the Sinaitic MS., and his 8th and last edition was finished just before his death in De- cember, 1874. (He died from paralysis.) He was the great authority of his day, and as good as any in our own time; he did more than any other one man, perhaps; and although his judgment is not always the best, and his temper was bad, his accuracy is acknowl- edged. His principle is to found the text on the most ancient evidence ; to discover what the inspired authors actually wrote the most adequate evidence is the ancient Greek MSS. He has a wider range than Lachmann, and the bases of his criticism are much wider than Lachmann's. His principles are as follows : I. That a reading peculiar to one document is sus- picious, especially if there is any evidence that it has originated in an idiosyncracy or peculiar judgment of some author. n. Readings, however plausible, if errors of copyists, are to be rejected. 29 III. In case of parallel passages, those testimonies are preferable in which precise verbal concordance does not occur. The temptation of copyists is to assimilate. ly.,. The great canon. This is the rule formulated by Bengel, viz : In various readings that must be adopted which accounts for other readings, that which appears to have given occasions for them. After the ad- herence to ancient MSS., this is the most valuable canon of criticism. Bcngel's form of this is open to objection. It would appear that the errors were intentional ; but this is not the chief source of corruptions. " Nonsense is always more difficult than sense," says Dr. Alexander Sometimes the rule would not work. These objections do not lie against the rule as aimounced by Tischendorf. Amid a group of readings there must always be one that will account for the others, and this, according to the rules of common sense, is the true one. But testi- mony is superior to all rules. V. He appeals to the diflerence of style of the N, T. authors and the character of the N. T. Greek. He adheres to those readings which best accord with the N. T. Greek. The common text contains fewer Alexandrian peculiarities than the original text perhaps; these were removed in copying. Various criticisms have been urged against this position. Bishop Ellicott in his intro- duction to some commentaries testifies by his personal knowledge of certain languages that Tischendorf was not acquainted with those languages. Another is the difference of his editions. His 8th edition quotes most against himself, reversing his judgment. Scrivener says his 8th edition differs from his 7th in more than 3000 places. One must always be on his guard in quoting Tischendorf. He says he was always learning; never- theless this throws doubt upon his judgment. Another objection was that after the discovery of the Sinaitic MS. he was so carried away with it that he would allow its readings to overweigh other readings. This was true often, but often it was not true ; in many cases he decides against A and B. Still Tischendorf is per- haps quoted more than any one else. 30 Tregelles, ill 1856, re-wrote that part of Home's Introduction which relates to the K T. He, too, was paralyzed, and died in 1875 while working on Revela- tion, just as Tischendorf had died. He agrees* in the main with the latter. His peculiarities are two : 1. That he started with the impossible notion of giving no evidence at second hand. As a matter of course he would begin with the most important monuments; by the restriction of time his attention would be coniined to a very few; the result is that his readings are pecu- liarly like Lachmann's. But this was not a matter of principle with him. 2. Another peculiarity is that which makes it valuable to the student; instead "of being full of everything, Tregelles selects few readings and" does not burden his book with matter of only secondary im- portance. Another feature of his edition is the special attention paid to the readings of versions under the Fathers, Origen's great depository. Westcott and Hort's edition has been in course of preparation for 25 years, and is still withheld as it is expected to be a standard. It is to give the result of the most careful weighing and judicial examination of evidence. Scrivener is now the greatest living authority. He arose from poverty and became an English clergyman and a great writer. He is somewhat opposed to Lach- mann ; advocates the modern authorities, and gives more and more weight to internal evidence. His Six Lectures on Introduction to Modern Criticism is a most readable book. As the result of the whole matter, critics ?re divided into two schools, one preferring the ancient MSS., the other the modern. There is no standard text ; yet far the most important portions of the N. T. are fixed. The MSS. of the ancient classics are not many; the more popular of the fathers have fared somewhat i3etter, yet there is only one copy of Clement; the best copy of Irenaeusis oneof thelOth century. There are above 1000 MSS. of the Greek N. T., and others are being continu- ally brought to light. When we consider how recent is the rise of criticism, and how much is being done, we 31 can refute the objection that its results are negative ; the very best result we could ask is that the Bibte be left as it is, w^ith a mass of evidence collected to prove its au- thority and authenticity. We can already say that the greater part of the :N". T. never can be discredited on evidence. Becapitulation of the Principles of Criticism. We have, in the first place, three depositories of the text, manu- scripts, versions and quotations, 2nd. Among the whole number of MSS. the oldest is most likely to con- tain the purest text, being nearest to the source. 3d. But this character must not be taken for granted, but supported by actual external evidence; if, in multitudes of cases, examination shows that they are supported by collateral testimony, their superiority is established. 4th. A very few of the cursives, as 33 and 69 Tregelles, bear this test. 5th. If the oldest MSS. had agreed en- tirely there would have been no difficult3^ BiU, even in the first century after the apostles the text had been largely altered, as we know by the various ways in which it is quoted. 6th. What shall decide where authorities differ? The school of Lachmann, including nearly all the modern critics, Tischendorf, Wescott, Hort and nearly all the commentators, say that where the oldest MSS. difi:er, the appeal must be to versions which are older than the MSS. themselves; and that the combina- tion of a few MSS. must be held as conclusive. 7th. More and more weight is given in our day to the princi- ple of grouping as announced by Bengel and carried to extremes by Scholz. Evidence is more important when it accumulates from difterent quarters on the same point. MSS. may agree in style, elegance, tendency to paraphrase, etc. This grouping is not a return to Griesbach's idea of recension, which was that the three families of MSS. were the result of an effort to publish and amend the text at three difterent times. The principle of grouping does not recognize any such thing. If two MSS. char- acteristically difter, they are evidence of independent traditions of the text ; now where such agree the evi- dence is very strong. 8th. Very often the evidence is so balanced that nobody can make up bis mind; then the 32 appeal is to the principles of internal evidence, i. e., to the rules laid down by Tischendorf. Here again, there is great difference between the schools; Tregelles gives less weight to these than Tischendorf; on the other hand, Scrivener attaches great inriportance to them and divides them up into about twenty. His reasons are : Ist. That these rules are too narrow, that they exclude evidence. 2nd. He objects that the agreement of the oldest uncials among themselves is not so great as might be supposed. 3d. When they agree the appeal ought to be made not only to ancient but to modern MSS" He says that the cursives are evidence ot MSS. now lost. 4th. His special appeal is to the judgment on internal evidence. Now just there you will see an objection to this method of appeal to modern authorities; that it may be true for the interpreter or the exegete, but what we want of a critic is to coiifine himself to existing evi- dence, pure, clear and unbiased by any sense of mean- ing. We do not want the critic to go upon analogy of faith. Scrivener's Canons are reducible to the following : I. The text is not to be derived from any one set of authorities, but by comparison of all sources. II. When real agreement exists between the old MSS. up to the 6th century, and the new up to the 9th, they are in all probability correct, but there is a possibility of the old being wrong and the modern correct. III. Where the oldest MSS. disagree the testimony of later uncials and cursives is important. IV. The highest value is to be given to readings coming from remote independent sources. So k and B are not so strong as A and B. He considers B the high- est authority, and B and C the best combination, because they differ ; thus when they combine the evidence is con- clusive. Tregelles, on the other hand, holds : I. The best authority is that of the oldest MSS. and versions, so as to present as far as possible the text re- ceived in the 4th century. II. If we have proof which carries us nearer the apostolic age, use the data. 33 III. In cases in which the oldest documents agree in manifest error, state it but give the grounds for a better reading. IV. In matters altogether doubtful give the best readings, but do not try to settle the difficulty. V. He gives authority to the readings of all the cur- sives and uncials. The two schools difter first on ancient authority, and secondly, on the part left to judgment, or internal evi- dence. The result after all is not so great ; where the ancient testimony from all quarters is concordant all would receive it. Criticism's chief value has been the accumulation of evidence for the great portion of the N. T. where there is no difference. If criticism had done no more than that we still would owe it much for its overwhelming testimony. What better can we ask ? For instance, the first verses of the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John do not difi:er in the several versions. Again, as this is a question of evidence, common-sense minds will agree after a time. In the last twenty years there has been a wonderful growth in enlightenment and agreement, and yet the day when the last word is to be said as to the ancient text has not come. The life- time of a few individuals is not enough to accomplish all. CHAPTER IV. Principal Passages in Dispute. Mark xvi, 9-20, John iii, 13, Luke xxiv, 51, Acts vii, 37, Matt, vi, 12, 13, Acts xx, 28, Johnv, 3, 4, 1 John V, 7, 8, John vii, 53-viii, 11, 1 Timothy iii, 16, John i, 18, 1 Peter iii, 15, 1 John iv, 2, 3. I. The most extended passage in dispute is the last twelve verses of Mark. These verses are omitted in X and B. L. substitutes a shorter passage. About 25 cursives omit them. The Ammonian sections stop with 34 the 8th verse. Of versions, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, atjd one old Latin onfiit them. The last fact is not so conclusive, because many of the best Latin MSS. are defective. Eusebius evidently does not accept them, and Jerome speaks of many Greek MSS. which omit them. This is pretty strong ancient testimony. On the other hand, in their favor is the great mass of the re- mainder of the evidence, A, C, D, all the rest of the uncials, and the great mass of the cursives; among the versions, the I'eshito, the Vulgate and some old Latin ; of the fathers, Irenaeus, liippolytus and the later tatliers generally. So there is an amount of very ancient evi- dence on each side. 'Now what are we to do ? In the first place the appeal is to internal evidence. The argument of those who reject ib this: 1st, That in these 12 verses there is a good deal of phraseology out ot analogy with the rest of the gospel ; and this is of two sorts, negative and positive. Negatively, many of the peculiarities of Mark's language do not occur here; and, positively, many expressions occur here which he never uses else- where, e. g., " the first day of the week " where we would expect •' Sabbath ; " 'o xuptoQ is used absolutely for Christ hei'e and nowhere else in the Gospel. Those who accept the passage slight these and say such things often occur, and that in closing he naturally employs terms he had notused before. Theargumentfromstyleisamong the most precarious of all arguments. On the other hand, the internal evidence is favorable. 1st. The motive for the omission of the passage is apparent, viz., to throw away diificulties. But this is a poor principle. 2nd. The Gospel terminates most abruptly without these verses. 3d. The very difiiculties which they present show that they could not have been added later than the apostolic age. Scrivener is for the passage, Tischendorf against it, and intermediate between them are most critics. The conclusion is, 1st, they probably did not come from the same hand ; and 2nd, they are added and ac- cepted by the apostolic church. Not by Mark, yet canonical. 35 II. Luke xxiv, 51. A, B, several cursives, one old Latin, and an extant passage from Augustine omit these words. Onl}' in the close of Mark and in these words of Luke have we any account of the a.^cension ; it is given by Luke in Acts, but not elsewhere in the Gospels. Tregelles, Scrivener, Westcott and llort retain these words on the authority of all the rest of the MSS. in. Matt, vi, 12, 13. In the 12th verse the aorist '•forgave" is substituted on the authority of A, B, C, Origen, Basil, Gregory Naz. Several uncials give the common text. Dr. Schaff suggests " as we have for- given." More important is the omission of the dox- ology in the 13th verse. All the oldest uncials, five cur- sives, the old Latin, the Vulgate versions, the Greek fathers, Origen, Gregory and all the Latin fathers omit these words. On the other hand, in favor of the pas- sage are the later uncials and the mass of the cursives ; also the Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian and Gothic ver- sions. The probable way of accounting for its reception by the 4th century documents, is that it was a tradition- ary way of closing prayer perhaps derived from the custom of the apostles, perhaps of Christ himself. But in criticism it has no place in Matthew; the great ma- jority agree that the doxology of the Lord's prayer does not belong to the Bible. IV. John v, 3, 4. Against the last clause of the 3d verse are A, JB, C, L, later uncials, a good many cur- sives, and some versions. For it are the Peshito, many Latin MSS., &c. Tertullian clearly refers to it. The 4th verse is omitted by B, C, D, and a few other cursive MSS. A, L, Tertullian, the Peshito, and by degrees the later MSS. accept it. But the old authorities constantly mark it as suspicious. The internal evidence is quite against it, for, 1st. The whole text of the verse is ex- ceedingly varied. 2nd. It contains unusual expressions. 3d. It "has no analogy with the miracles. A standing miracle, a miraculous pool is quite out of analogy with any Scriptural facts. 4th. It originated as a marginal scholium, made perhaps to account for the difficulty. Critics almost universally consent to the erasing of this verse. Some one suggests that it was inserted by the 36 apostle himself, but tliat is the purest guess. The usual feeling of orthodox exegetes is that this passage is bet- ter lost thau saved, because the evidence is so strong against it. V. tfohn vii, 53 — viii, 11 — is wanting in many of the oldest jMSS, a and C are somewhat defective here. In many it is marked doubtful ; it is omitted in the Peshito, etc. ; it is found in the Vulgate, and is mentioned by Jerome and Augustine. The internal ditiaculty is that those MSS., which give it, vary more in this passage than in any other N. T. passage; it also differs in style from John's writings, containing many words not else- where found in John. All these considerations taken together produce the impression that this never came from the pen of John. , Tertullian and others, writing on what should bring this in omit it, and it does not ap- pear in any MSS. earlier than the 4th century. On true critical principles, therefore, it must be rejected. But we do not want to lose this story ; it may be true, though not canonical. Ttie later MSS. accept it, and Eusebius contains such a tradition ; but it is almost uni- versally given up as non-canonical. VI. We will now consider a few passages of theo- logical importance. John i, 18. Instead of ufoc of the common text, B, C, L, 33, etc., support ^eoc. This read- ing may almost be called general among the fathers. The reading of the common text is found in A and the MSS. generally. Here is a troublesome case ; the old- est authorities support ^soc, the widest spread support otb^. For ^eoc on strict critical principles are many of the modern critics. Tischendorf here inconsistently al- lows his exegetical judgment to bias his decision ; he prefers utb^. The prevalent belief among German schol- ars is that 6e6<: is the true reading. It seems very hard to believe — " the only begotten God." VII. John iii, 13. " No man hath ascended up to heaven." This is omitted in A, B, L, and 33. Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, ei al., reject it.; Scrivener glories over retaining it. The verse is genuine and important. VIII. Acts viii, 37. Philip and the eunuch. This verse is opposed lo the combination of all lines of evi- 37 dence. It occurs in one uncial, a few cursives, some old Latin and the Vulo^ate versions, and is quoted by several Latin fathers. It has the very slenderest testimony. IX. Acts XX, 28. " The church of God,'' etc. This is a very good case of balanced external evidence, and of the application of the principles of internal evidence. Some favor dzou, some xopcdb. Ancient testimony' ex- cludes the double reading, althougli it is in the mass of the later cursives, and it is rejected in the common text. Now, ^which reading best accounts for the other ? " Church of God " is the more difficult; and it would account for " Church of the Lord." On the other hand, opposed to the principle of internal evidence is the fact that xofjcoi) is strongly in analogy with the style of Scripture. We do not read of the blood of God. Here is a case where critics cannot agree. Good judgment says xupioi). X. I John, V, 7, 8, is now universally rejected. The scanty evidence in its favor is all Latin, and even that not earlier than the 4th century. Scrivener thinks it is a gloss which arose in ISTorth Africa. There has been a great theological fight over this, but nowadays it is con- ceded that the doctrine of the Trinity rests on other foundations. XI. I Tim. iii, 16. For deo:; there are various read- ings, o'c and 0. This illustrates two principles. All the oldest testimony is for a relative rather than deo^. Many MSS., the Slavonic version and the later Greek fathers favor dso:;. Thus the mass of early testimony is for a relative. Now, is it oc or o? The testimony of the early Greek witnesses is mostl}' for the masculine; and when we take into consideration that oc is the harder reading, that o would be more likely to arise out of o'c, than the converse, and that the reading o'c best accounts for the existence of both the other readings, we conclude that oc is the true reading. XII. I Peter, iii, 15. The question here is whether we are to read " God" or " Christ." For " God " we have only authorities after the 9th century ; while for the reading " Christ " we have the most preponderating evidence. The apostle is quoting from Isaiah viii, 13, 38 whicli is a strong proof from Peter that Christ is God, On such points the LXX. is at variance with both the N. T. and the Hebrew text. CHAPTER V. History of the English Bible. [See an admirable sketch by B. F. Westcott on the External and Internal History of the Bible; and Dr. Eadie-1878— a larger and fuller history of the Bible, giving more internal comparisons.] ^ Westcott's book is the first attempt to exhibit the internal history of the version, by showing by compari- son the dependence of each step on the preceding step. He devotes his strength chiefly to the internal examina- tion of the various transactions, showing by actual com- parison what they contain of previous labor, how much of continental work, how much of Luther, how much of the Swiss Bible, etc. The term growth is appropri- ate to our Bible ; it is acknowledged by English-speak- ing scholars that our version is the best — and it is the work, not of individuals, but of the church. It gathere«l int'-) itself the whole scholarship of the times — of the continent, as well as of England. The fact that it took " England a century to do what Luther did alone," ac- counts for its excellence. The history of the Bible is the history of the church. It sprung from the simple, practical purpose of giving the people the Word as the means of their spiritual life. Its history is associated singularly with the martyrdom of its defenders. Tyn- dale was strangled ; Calvin was persecuted, and Cran- mer, who left us the English Psalter, was blessed with a death of triumphant agony. During the darkest period of the Romish corrup- tions, as early as the 8th century, the Psalms had been translated into Anglo-Saxon, and Bede had translated the Gospel of John, completing the last sentence on the day of his death. In the 9th century Alfred translated the ten commandments; in the 10th, the Gospels, and several books of the O. T. were translated ; and after the Norman invasion a fragmentary translation of the N. T. and Psalms was continued. 39 In the 14th centuiy the struggle for life began. Three translations of the Psalter were made in the early part of that century. AH these MSS. were prior to the art of printing. In 1356 Wicklifte finished the N. T., and in 1384 the whole Bible, making his version from the Vulgate. Being in many particulars unsatisfactory, it was revised in 1388 by John Purvey — still from the Vulgate. This Bible was widely circulated among all classes. Both versions were frequently copied, many of them of small size for convenient carriage, and some of those copies are still extant. They were driven out of circulation into the libraries. To these facts we owe the evidence of contemporaneous literature. Chancer, and the whole class of English authors; the MSS. have been preserved, though many pi'inted editions have passed away. But we have to do with the printed Bible chiefly. Before the end of the 15th century the Bible had been printed in Spanish, French, Butch and Bohemian. The fame of Erasmus as a teacher of Greek drew Tyndale to Cambridge — 1509-24. Tyndale was born in 1484, and educated at Oxford and Cambridge. In 1520 he re- turned to his native Gloucestershire, where he tilled the oflice of private tutor and chaplain in a family of rank. In controversy with a Romish priest he said that if God spared his life he would, ere many years, " cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than the priest." Tyndale devoted himself to this work. In his openness and rashness he reminds us of his name- sake. He came to London lor aid, and happened to preach before a London alderman who was attracted by him, gave him shelter, and supported him for a year ; for which goodness he was at length thrown into the Tower. After a while Tyndale retired to Hamburg on the continent. In 1524 he published the Gospels; passing on to Colossians, he finished the whole N. T., and pro- ceeded to finish a tine quarto edition, when the Dutch scholars heard of it. He escaped with his prepared sheets to Worms, where he commenced a small octavo. Both editions reached England in 1526, and were im- mediately proscribed by Henry VIII. The translation 40 was attacked as monstrous and unscholarly, and burned. By 1530 six editions had been introduced. Of 15,000 there remained of the first edition only a fragment; of the second, one copy and a fragment; of all the rest only two or three copies, so great was the persecution it re- ceived. But Tyndale, on the continent, was still manu- facturing more. In 1530 he completed the Pentateuch, and in '34 the book of Jonah. In 1536 a revised edition of the N. T., on which he had begun labor, was finished. A cop3' which belonged to Anne Boleyn is still extant. In 1536 the first edition was published in England, the year of Tyndale's death. While in prison he revised the N. T. for another edition, a few copies of which remain. Tyndale was heroic, humane, a true genius, and a man of fine scholarship. His single purpose of making the Bible plain to the peojile renders his work permanent ; it is to-day no exaggeration to say that our Bible is substantially Tyndale's, This point is clearly made out by Westcott in his exhibition of the internal history of Tyndale's Bible and those that succeed it. The impor- tant part of Westcott's work is the collation. Marsh states that Tyndale's Bible is a revision of Wicklifte's; but this is a natural mistake to make ; and, again, the enemies of Tyndale had a motive in depreciating his work. Thomas More said it was simply a reproduction of Luther's Bible. There is conclusive proof to the contrary, however. 1. Tyndale never went to Wittem- berg at all. 2. It is true that his Bible was published after Luther's, but he had long before consecrated him- self to the work. 3. Tyndale's own statement was that he was not helped by any one. 4. He had the necessary skill, for this is evinced by his scholarly notes. 5. West- cott compares Tyndale's Bible with the Vulgate, Luther and the original Greek, and shows that it was direct from the Greek. 6. As to its dependence on Wicklifte, the slightest comparison shows there was no such depend- ence. The aid of most service to Tyndale was the Latin translation of Erasmus. Tyndale had been educated under Erasn:ius chiefly. It is perfectly clear from inter- nal comparison that this Latin translation was of more assistance to him than any other; but, after all, it was 41 used as we would use another version, or a commentary, merely for assistance. Still the charge of Tyndale's de- pendence npon Lnther has a certain color, while the originality of his tran_slation is clearly proved. Passa- ges of Tyndale's preface are avowedly taken from Luther, 80 with the prologues, etc. A brief examination of Tyndale's version will show how much of our Bible he furnishes. Westcott esti- mates numerically that in the Epistle of I John -^^ are Tyndale; of Ephesians, |- ; but these are high figures. More than this, from first to last Tyndale's style and in- terpretation are retained. The originality of our ver- sion, its appeal to the universal feeling of English speaking people everywhere, is largely due to the char- acteristics of Tyndale's mind. He establishes a stand- ard of Biblical translation; his spiritanimates the whole. His intluence decided that our Bible should be popular and not hte4Hy, and by its simplicity it should be en- dowed with permanency. His Bible has had a conserva- tive effect on the English, and has enriched our lan- guage and thoughts forever with characteristics of the SSeraite mind. Next is Coverdale's Bible. In 1534 a convocation of Canterbury under Cranmer, prayed the king that the Bible might be translated for tlie people; Coverdale w^as appointed for this work under the patronage of Sir Thomas More and Cromwell. The best of Coverdale is no doubt chiefly Tyndale, although he used several other versions; he introduces changes upon Tyndale from these and other sources. He makes no pretense to going back to the original text ; his work was only a contribution to the future version of the English nation. Coverda e had great taste, nevertheless, and contributed many of the happiest expressions to our Bible, as well as better arrangement and general smoothness of ver- sion. He also restored to the English version the ec- clesiastical terms which Tyndale had removed in trans- lation — terms which, if translated, must be translated for every sect. Where they cover common grounds, the translation is Tyndale as amended by Coverdale. He retained the psalter and liturgy unchanged. His first 42 edition was printed in 1635, and dedicated to the king. It was never formallj- authorized, nor was the second, hut through the inliuence of Crumwell the opposition to it was removed. The next, Matthew's Bible, has a curious history. Tyndale had left a translation extending from Joshua to II Chronicles. With this and Tyndale's Pentateuch, Coverdale's remaining books of the O. T., and Tyndale's N. T., Matthew made a composite Bible. Tyndale's 1535 edition was the basis of his N. T. He made no attempt at revision. Some suppose that "Matti.ew" was a pseudonym. The im])ortance of Matthew's Bible may be due to its being the first authorized by the crown. Cranmer was influential in this. Henry sanctioned it, though he knew that it was substantially the very same Bible he had previously condemned. This became the basis of all subsequent versions until our own, 75 years later. The fourth on the list was the Great Bible. As Mat- thew's Bible was found to contain doubtful passages, Crumwell decided on a revision. The work was begun in Paris, but afterwards transferred to London, where it was carried through by Cranmer and Crumwell. This is the Great Bible of which we read such graphic accounts of crowds collecting around the readers. A copy was placed in every church. There were six edi- tions, 1610-41. Owing to the disgrace of Crumwell and his execution, the last two bear the names of Tunstal and Heath ; Tunstal, who now comes to put his name on the finished edition, although he had so persecuted Tyndale. Again, Westcott shows Coverdale's revision of the N. T., and that they relied on the Latin version chiefly for the O. T. In the N. T. the revision was aided by Erasmus. In I John there are 71 variations from Tyndale; 43 of them are from Coverdale, 17 from the Vulgate, and the rest are from other sources. The orig- inal basis remains substantially. A period of reaction came, and in 1543 private read- ing of the Scriptures was prohibited. There was a great destruction of Bibles. Of the copies which escaped many have the title pages torn out. In 1547 Henry died. > 43 With the accession of Henry VI. came a reaction the other way. During: his rei^n of six years 13 editions of the Bihle and 35 of the N. T. were issued, and private reading was enjoined. During Mary's reign, of course, there was no English edition issued. Cranmer and Rodgers were martyred ; Coverdale and others escaped to the continent. But in 1557 the refugees put forth the N, T., and in 1560 the Bible, which became the house- hold edition. This persecution 'did much to further the work. The Bible prepared by the English refugees in Gen- eva, is the Genevan Bible. In 1557 the brother-in- law of Calvin published the 'N. T., and in 1560 the whole Bible was dedicated to the Queen. The founda- tion of this version was the Great Bible corrected by the labor of Swiss theological students — Beza especially. At the same time in which the work was going on in Geneva, Calvin was revising the French Bible. The N". T. of the Genevan Bible was simply that of Tyndale amended by the labors of Beza and his coadjutors. This Bible had a curious history; it was a- small quarto; it was the first to use the Roman letter, and the first in which the verses were separated in printing, as had been done in the Greek of Stephens' edition. It was furnish- ed with copious notes, and was carefully edited by 'fine scholars. It continued to be the household Bible for a quarter of a century. The Bishop's Bible. In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign there were two rival Bibles. That of Geneva was practically the Bible, but the Great Bible was the one authorized by the church. The former was very much the better; it contained the marginal, doctrinal notes of the Reformation. But these notes were objectional to the ecclesiastics ; so eight bishops, of whom Archbishop Parker was the principal, were employed to popularize tlieir Bible and remove the evident errors. This was done with great fidelity, and in 1568 the Bishop's Bible was published ; and in 1572 the second edition, which became the basis of our Bible. It was authorized to be used in the churches, every cathedral and every church was to have one if possible. Yet 16 years after it had 44 not entirely superseded the Great Bible. ]N"o edition of the latter was printed after 1569. The Bishop's Bible never supplanted the Genevan in the use of the people, so at the end of Elizabeth's reio^n as at the beginning, there were still two rival Bibles. King James' Bible. Shortly after the accession of James I a conference set on foot the final revision, of which the king's literarv tastes made him a promoter. The king proposed to pay for the labor of revision by church preferment and not from the treasurj' ; he after- wards wanted collections to be taken from the different churches for the purpose of remunerating the revisers, but they were never paid and the whole work was done gratuitously. About 50 scholars were employed ; these were separated into six companies, and the several books divided between them. This parcelling out of the work caused some of the difficulties with which we now have to contend. Two of these companies sat at Westminster, two at Oxford, two at Cambridge. The Bishop's Bible was to be the text. Each part of the work was to pass under review of the v.hole committee. After three year's labor the Bible was printed in 1611 by Richard Barker. It was nearly 50 years after the issue of the authorized version that the Genevan Bible was finally displaced, in the troubles during which the throne was perverted, and the Genevan Bible, which was acceptable to the domi- nant party, was nevertheless excb.anged for. the author- ized version — though the Genevan had been the house- hold Bible of that very party for three-quarters of a century. The term authorized version is uniformly ap- plied to King James' version of 1611, although there is no evidence that it was ever publicly sanctioned. It gained currency by the intiuence of church and state combined, and by its own merits. It borrowed the title " authorized." It is not generally known that many improvements, chiefly in language, were adopted from the Catholic version into that of King James. Beza and the Genevan Bible were useful in interpretation. Casps are rare in which the authorized version goes back of an earlier English Bible. Considerable progress had by this time been made in scholarship; e. g., in Isaiah LIII 45 there is scarcely a verse which does not exhibit skill and accuracy of the revisers. As the edition of 1611 con- tained many errors of the press, tliat of 1638 has been adopted by the Bible societies ever since. The Cam- bridge edition of 1638, tlien, is the best standard edition of the English Bible. So our Bible is the work, not of one man but of the church, and of a century. Looking back we may satisfy ourselves that the substance and the spirit are Tyndale's, revised and corrected by the scholarship of a century. Seven-eighths of Tyndale's version we still have. CHAPTER VI. Reasons for Revision. \^See Trench, EUicot^ and Lightfoot.~\ This matter of revision is based on two considera- tions, the text and the translation. I have said all I have to say on the text. The real necessity for correct- ing the translation exists where doctrine is affected. Now, there are no cases where the doctrine of Scripture is affected as to its authority, but the doctrine of a par- ticular clause may be. If we were to cut out any disputed point it would not affect the doctrine of the Bible. The charge that the Bible translation as we have it was made to favor Calvinistic doctrine is unfair. The translation of Romans v, 15, 17, 18, 19, Bentley says, opens the wa}^ for mistakes. Upon the true trans- lation of this passage Universalism bases itself to a great extent. That drops the article in each case, "the many," " the one," etc. Now, commentators agree that " the many " are antitheses to " the one." Sentence of death was passed upon all men, for all men sin; the grace of Jesus Christ hath abounded unto " the many." So again in the 18th verse, " the many " shall be made righteous. This passage teaches Universalism when pushed to the extreme. Words actually were dropped out to free it from this difficulty ; but this is tampering with inspira- tion. The difficulty is to be guarded against by exegesis, 1. from the teaching of the Gospels, and 2. by limiting 46 the univers'-il terms by the idea of the context. If many are dead, that implies that all are not. Universalism on one side and limited atonement on the other. The pas- sage is easier in the Greek than in the English. I Cor. xi, 2'J, is a fruitful source of superstitious fear at the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The word proba- bly never means damjiation, though so translated six times. The condemnation is limited to the specific sin of un- worthily partaking; he condemns himself because he discerns not the Lord's body. This removes a difficulty which has been an injury to our Bible. Hebrews x, 38. Now the just shall live by faith; but if ani/ man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. " Any man " is supplied, whereas the obvious con- struction makes dixacor the subject. This seemed to Coverdale, Cranmer and Tyndale to imply that the just might apostatize. Three considerations favor a strict rendering : 1. The verse is quoted from the lxx, and the quotation inverts the clauses to avoid the mistake. 2. Analogy favors it ; e. g., Heb. vi, where the possibility of falling from grace is discussed. 3. Strict grammati- cal principles ; where the grammatical construction is perfect we have no right to supply a subject. The change was made here for doctrinal purpose. Acts ii, 47. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. The participle is not the future passive. The charge is made that our translators altered the text for the sake of the doctrine of predestination. We cannot translate that into English, but have to para- phrase it. A great deal has been made of this passage. The last two passages are relied upon as proof of Cal- vinistic bias against Armiuianism, but there is no evi- dence of it in either of them. Coloss. ii, 15, The term " spoiled " is peculiarly un- fortunate here, for English readers seeing the word twice would suppose it to mean the same in both cases. The word so translated liere means to strip off from one's self, having always the force of the middle. Ilaving di- vested himself of these before mentioned principalities and powers, etc. The omission of the article is also un- warrantable. 47 Jolm X, 16. Here is an uiuuteiitional inistrPiislatic^n of fold instead of flock, spoiling the strong alliteration at the end of the verse. He means to say there shall be one flock of many folds. Bishop Ellicott's bitter zeal is uncalled-for; he insinnates that some have inserted errors to suit their ideas of orthddox}'. Calvinism did not base itself on the English version of tlie Bible. Matthew xxiii, 24 contains printers' mistakes. So Matt. X, 4. Acts ii, 3, should read distributed, not c/.ovtm. I Thess, V. 22. Abstain from appearance of evil. The Genevan Bible has " all kinds of evil." Ephesians iv, 18. Because of the blindness of their hearts. " Blind- ness " should be "hardness." All such errors will be removed in revision. Minor Inaccuracies. Care should be taken against loss of idiom. For instance, the genitive of qualjty is often translated by an adjective ; e. g., " the children of disobedience " is stronger than " disobedient children." The moods and tenses are to be carefully noted. The prepositions have been translated with a looseness for which there is no excuse; iu has suffered especially, So with the ])articles d/2d, di and xaL So with the article, e. g., " Whosoever marrieth her that is divorced," etc. The Greek has no " her that is." We have no right to introduce so limiting a word. " The love of money is the root of all evil." Paul does not say that; he says it is a root of all evil. In the 4th ch. of Romans the same word is translated "counted," "reckoned," "imputed." " These shall go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.''' This is an example of obscur- ing parallels by difterent translations of the same word. The idea of this revision is not to change everything at once. The version must bear the test of time. Pro- bably a generation will pass away -before it will recom- mend itself as to supersede the familiar vernacular. The generation of ministers to which you belong will be very busy in the matter. CHAPTER VII. History of the Canon. The several parts of the N. T. were composed by 8 difterent persons in the space of about 50 years. Now 48 how were thej brought together ? Our sources of infor- mation are very few. The earliest references are to the separate books rather than to the N. T. .as a whole. In support of its early collection we may notice, 1. The reverence of the early church for the written word. Their possession of the O. T. made the idea of a collec- tion of books familiar to them, and prepared them to accept the N. T. 2. The separate writings of the N. T. itself contain few intimations of the new collection, yet they claim the authority of the Word of God. That claim is implied where it is not explicitly made. I. Tim., iv. 1; II Tliess., iii, 6; Rev., xxii, 19; I Thess., v, 37 Coloss., iv. 16, contains the first intimation we have in the N". T. itself of a collection of the canon. The whole character of the writing proves them to have been in- tended for permanent and universal use. II. Peter, iii, 16, is the first distinct application of the term Scri[tture to the N. T. writings. This is also the only reference to a collection of Paul's epistles. 3. Controversy with the heretics made it imperative to settle the canon. The gradual collection afforded, also, opportunity for apocry- phal writings. 4. The persecutions they suffered. The historj' of the formation of the canon is com- monly divided into three periods: I. The period of the Apostolic Fathers or contem- poraries of the Apostles, from the first writing to 120 A. D., about 70 years. II. The period of the Apologists, 120-170 A. T). At the close of this period is the Peshito. III. From 170 A. D. to the close of the 4th century, the period of Formal Catalogues of the various Fathers. There are three kinds of evidence given by the Apostolic Fathers. 1. They presuppose the canonical Scriptures; the literature of that period — the first three- quarters 2d century — cannot be accounted for unless there did exist such a book as the N, T. This is largely ignored by the Rationalists. They say that, 2. The father must quote the ipsissima verba ; they make a great deal of the fact that we have only three express quota- tions, viz : one by Clement of Rome ; one by Ignatius of Smyrna, and one by Polycarp of Smyrna. 3. We 49 have (a) quotations of tlie very words of Scriptures, and (b) coincidences of lan2:nage and thought not amounting to direct quotation. The Rationalists say that these quotations are very informal, and not preceded by the formula — " it is written." But we find b,y reading them that they are quoted as authority, as final appeal. Allusions are thus made to all the N". T. books except Jude, II Peter and II and III John. Conclusion — All this argues in favor of a collection. If a writer in one part of the church quotes three or four N". T. books, and another writer the same and others, each must have had access to a canon more or less complete. II. The period of the ai)ologists extending from 120- 170, is mostly lost to us except us fragments have been preserved in Eusebius. The principal bearing of the testimony of this period is upon the Gospels. The epistles, especially those of Paul, have a more ancient authentication, as the disputes on doctrinal points, which gave rise to the epistles, would naturally bring them into attention first, for the facts of Gospel history were al- ready known, having been conveyed by oral teaching. In the second period, which is one of the greatest obscur- ity, we find the first recognition of the Gospels by name^ Among the persons who date about this time, and whose lives yuu ought to read, is Papias, of Hierapolis in Phrygia, said by some to have been a deciple of John, but by others to have associated with the elder John of Ephesus. He lived until the middle of the 2d century. He speaks of the Gospel of Matthew, and re- ferences are found to I John, I Peter, and the Apoca- lypse; a testimony which is disputed because he does not refer to the epistles of Paul, some supposing that the school of John passed into the school of Paul. But reason for this omission can be shown in the purpose of Papias to collect material from those who had seen or heard Christ, Almost the foremost name is that of Justin Martyr, the great apologist of 146 A. D., of Flavia Keapolis, near the ancient Shechem. Of his numerous writings only two apologies and a dialogue are undisputed. The 50 name under which he refers to the Gospels is disputed — " Memorials of the Apostles." By the account which he gives it is believed that he can refer to our four Gos- pels, and to these only. Writings " composed," he says, " in part by the Apostles, in part by their companions, called Gospels, and admitted by the church generall3^" Besides the Gospels he refers by name to only the Apo- calypse. In the course of his controversy he evinces clear acquaintance with several of Paul's epistles. Hermus, Irenaeus, etc., I will at present defer. In addition to these is the testimony borne by here- tics. For the. most part they do not disavow the au- thority of the canon, at least not the idea of canonicity. They refer to the books and quote them ; when the doctrine does not suit them they claim that they are not apostolic, and have made books to suit themselves out of canon ; but that does not interfere with the testimony as to what were the books of the church. This is a strong corroboration of the truth of canon. Among the Jiames familiar are the Gnostics ; 125 A. D., Basilides; 140 A. D., Marcion. The first to begin a list of the canon was a Gentile Gnostic, who made a new canon for himself, but all the while gave evidence of wha was the canon of the church. The N. T. books do not always appear in the same order. The four Gospels occur in the order we have in a large number of the MSS. and the Fathers. Some of the MSS. of Beza put John second to Matthew; some give great weight of authoritj- to Acts ; in the Sinaitic, Acts follows Paul — a natural change, for in division for readings the Acts belongs with the epistles, and might be put either first or last ; in another one the Acts ap- pears after the Apocal3'pse. Of the epistles of Paul and the seven Catholic epistles, Eusebius puts l*aul first; so the Latin church follow him. The weight of ancient MSS. authority puts the Catholic epistles first; the Sin. MSS. gives our order, and this is the oldest confirmation of the Eusebian arrangement we have. The order of the epistles of Paul among themselves varies less in the MSS. than in the fathers; A, B, and C put Hebrews im- mediately after Thessalonians and are followed by Ath- 51 anasius and the Council of Laodicea ; doubts have ex- isted as to its Pauline origin, but this seems to ascribe it to Paul. What has been the reason for the order of the Pauline epistles among themselves does not satisfac- torily appear, for no discovered principle of classifica- tion governs it. The order of length is suggested ; or that the fundamental epistle comes first, etc", but there is no principle that will go through all the facts. They were certainly not arranged in chronological order. The Catholic epistles are arranged almost uniformly as in the received text. 'Now this variety is precisely what we should expect from the manner in which the canon was collected. It confirms the belief that there was no author- ized edition in the lifetime of the Apostle Paul. CHAPTER VII. Special Introddction to the Gospels. [See Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels, 5th edition, and Why Four Gospels, by Dr. Gregory, of Wooster, Ohio.] Titles. The titles of the Go!^pels, though found in the oldest MSS., are probably not genuine. This is ex- pressly stated by some of the fathers, e. g., Chrysostoni says : " Moses wrote five books, and nowhere affixed his name, nor did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John." There was little need of them in collecting the canons. In other books the titles vary, but in the Gospels they are always uniform. It is extremely probable that the in- spired writers themselvesgave them the name of Gospels. Euu-yyehov is applied by Chrj'sostom to historj* ; it means, literally, " good tidings," and is used in the Odyssey for the messenger who brings good news; in the plural it means thank offerings ; the Sept. first gives it as good news. In the E". T. it signifies; 1. Good news of salva- tion, or of Christ's appearance; 2. History of his saving truth; but in the IS". T. the word is not applied to the books but to the subject matter contained. In the titles, however, prefixed to the books, it is used evidently in this sense. " The Gospel according to Matthew," im- plies the existence of other Gospels. Irenaeus calls it the Ii'ourfold Gospel. 52 Turning to the Gospel According to Matthew, the first question is, Who is the author? The title has its value though not a part of the inspired text. A very ancient and uniform tradition ascribest it to Matthew, the authorship being no less uniformly established than the canonicity. Of the personal history of Matthew little is known ; he himself mentions only his call to the ministr}^ and Luke gives an account of the feast given by him in honor of the Saviour. He was first called Levi, but he afterwards took a Christian name. Li Mark ii, 14, his father's name, Alpheus, is given, from which some suppose that Matthew was cousin to our Lord ; but this is otherwise entirely without foundation. His calling was that of a publican, a tax-gatherer, an occupation despised by the Jews. A religious feeling was associated with the payment of taxes to a foreign power, and for this reason a Jew who collected such taxes was regarded witli contempt. Scarcely from a reputable walk in life was the first evangelist selected. One reason suggested for the choice of Matthew is his proficiency in keeping accounts, etc. Let us consider some internal facts. Personal liu- mility is characteristic of Matthew; he only refers to his previous occupation ; " Matthew, tlie publican," oc- curs only in Matthew, others did not put that forward against him. Luke says he left all for Christ, sacrificed a position leading to wealth. Matthew does not mention that. He has an occasion to give an account of the re- ception given in his house to our Saviour, but he mentions the fact without giving the name ; he gives prominence to the low esteem in which publicans were held in the expression, " publicans and harlots." Further he shows peculiar sympathy with that aspect of our Lord's charac- ter and work, humiliation. The special characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew is that he is more deeply im- pressed with the sacerdotal than the prophetic or kingly character of the Messiah. fSee an old book now gone out of print, by a Dutch Theologian, DaCosta, on the comparison of the Gospels; it has to be taken with a grain of salt sometimes, but the general outline is correct.] 53 Nothing at all is said of Matthew in tlie book of Acts, excef)t that liis name is given in the list of Apos- tles. Traditional notices are numerous but discordant ; Irenaeus and Eusobius say that he preached the Gospel first to the Hebrews. Clement, of Alexandria, states that he remained in Palestine 15 ^ears after the ascen- sion of our Lord ; a different tradition takes him to Ethiopia. Nothing can be confidently stated about him except that it is probable his ministry was exercised chiefly among the Jews in Palestine itself All those traditions which relate to facts occurring in Palestine are less satisfactory tlian other forms of the tradition, because of the political troubles in that country. 60-70 A. J)., was the time of the death of the greater portion of the Apostles, the time of the composition of tlie Gospels, of the Jewish war, etc. The Alexandrian tra- dition goes up solid and true as far as we can trace it. The best tradition is from Irenaeus, Polycarp, et al., grouping around John. The LANGUAGE in which Matthew wrote origi- \\Q.\\y. It is the common ancient testimony that Mat- thew first wrote in Hebrew, but at last in the vernacular of Palestine. This opinion is commonly held. Skeptical criticism finds in this opportunity for their theory of the Gospel. Matthew, according to the testimony of an- tiquity, wrote a Hebrew Gospel ; the Gospel we have is therefore not the original Matthew ; therefore we are at liberty to judge as to what is original in our Greek Mat- thew and what is to be rejected. The theory of the gradual formation of the Gospels is largely supported by this idea, that there was a primitive apostolic nucleus writ- ten by Mark et al. So Davidson, for instance, follows the skeptical criticism, making our canon formed 169 A. D., thus giving time for the growth of myths and legends which are to be separated from the Gospels. The opin- ion, however, that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew is held by those who adhere to the authority of the Greek Matthew, by the supposition that the Greek is a translation by an inspired man. But the point is just this ; the whole argument for its canouicity relates to it in its Greek form ; so the question of the original Ian- 54 gunge does not necessarily aftect it. In brief, the argu- ment for a tiebrew original derives its chief supportin ancient testimony from Papiad, Irenaens and Origen, all representing that lie wrote first in Hebrew. Papias says tliat Matthew made a collection of the Ao^^a of our Lord ; now, what does he mean hy Xoyca'i One says, our Gos- pels ; another, that he refers to the " words " of Christ. The latter is the opinion of the skeptical critics, as Schleiermacher, et al. On the other hand it is said that X6)'ia means " oracles," which came aftei'wards to be largely synonymous for the Gospels. It is commonly held, however, that Jerome makes the distinct statement that Matthew wrote first in Hebrew. Jerome was a monk in Bethlehem, where he had every opportunity to know. Jerome found a Hebrew Gospel upon which he bases his statement. It is commonlj' held, according to Tischendorf, for instance, that this was a mistake of Je- rome's, arising from his finding a Hebrew version made from our Matthew, and not the Greek Matthew from it. Among tlie successors of the primitive church there were two sects, the Nazarines and the Ebionites, each of which framed a Hebrew Gospel based upon the original Gospel. Now, Jerome coming upon the Hebrew Gospel, might naturally suppose iie had discovered the original form of the Gospel; and this mistake was the subject of the report of Papias. And later in his life he speaks less confidently about it. It is furthei' inferred by com- parison of the quotation that Jerome makes from the Hebrew Matthew, to which nothing corresponds in the canon of the original, that it was one of the sectarian, non-canonical gospels. This illustrates the ancient tes- timony at least. The text of Matthew stands on precisely the same footing as that of the other Goepels. Anyone can re- cognize the difi:erence between reading a translation and reading the original. The former bears the impress of the latter. This appears chiefly in quotations from the O. T., which, if from the Hebrew, would naturally follow the Septuagint ; the translator would naturally nse for his translation the Septuagint. But instead of this the O. T. was quoted freely as the words happened to come 55 into the nieinory, sometimes from the Sept., sometimes fron^ the Hebiew, sometimes altered considerably. Finally, ti.e Greek language was so generally under- stood in Palestine, so universal a medium of communi- cation, as to render a Hebrew Gospel unnecessary. The sum (^f the whole matter, to all intents and purposes, is that the Greek Gospel is tlie original ; there is no trace of the Hebrew left if any ever existed. Date of the Gospel of Matthew. I feel, in entering upon this subject, as if I were going to sea, it is so in- terminable. I can only sketch for you a few of the salient facts whicli may be some in.p4z 1 km ^zi/3 GAYLORD #3523PI Printed in USA