">■■■— -*^- ■'■"■■'■■: 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ~m* 
 
 "IG 
 
 MS 
 
 J UNITED STATBS OF AMEEICA. 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 

THE WOKDS 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
EDINBURGH : PRINTED BY MUIR AND PATERSON 
 FOR 
 
 T. AND T. CLARK. 
 
 LONDON, 
 DUBLIN, 
 NEW YORK, . 
 
 HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 
 JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 
 SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. 
 
THE WORDS 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 AS ALTERED BY TRANSMISSION AND ASCERTAINED 
 BY MODERN CRITICISM. 
 
 FOR POPULAR USE. 
 
 REV. WILLIAM MILLIGAK", D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY .AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ABERDEEN: 
 
 REV. ALEX. ROBERTS, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY, ST. ANDREWS. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 
 1873. 
 

 <F 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The following pages are meant to supply what the 
 writers believe to be a strongly felt want. While many 
 useful manuals exist, fitted to convey to general readers 
 an acquaintance with the outlines of such sciences as 
 Astronomy, Geology, or Botany, scarcely anything of 
 the kind has been attempted in connexion with the 
 science of Biblical Criticism. Xot a few valuable 
 treatises have indeed been issued on the subject ; but 
 these are of by far too technical a character to meet the 
 wants of the public at large. They appeal only to pro- 
 fessed scholars or to those who are supposed to have 
 already a considerable amount of information. The 
 consequence is that multitudes of highly intelligent 
 men who are well versed in the leading principles and 
 results of other sciences, know very little of the objects, 
 methods, or achievements of sacred criticism. It is to 
 meet the wants of such that the present volume has 
 
vi Preface,. 
 
 been prepared; and the writers trust that what they 
 have been enabled to state will be felt to be both in- 
 teresting and important, without the use of language 
 unsuited to the general reader. 
 
 The prospect which the British public have of soon 
 obtaining a revised version of the Sacred Scriptures is 
 naturally attracting more than ordinary attention to the 
 topics handled in this work. Many of the changes of 
 the Authorized Version made in that revision must be 
 founded on previous changes of the Greek text. It 
 seems desirable that the great body of educated persons 
 who are watching with so lively an interest the pro- 
 ceedings of the New Testament Eevision Company, 
 now sitting at Westminster, but who have neither 
 the necessary time nor acquirements for entering 
 deeply into the studies of the Biblical critic, should 
 yet be able to form to themselves an intelligent idea of 
 the need of a revision of the text, of the principles on 
 which it should be conducted, and of the results that 
 may be expected from it. They will thus be in a better 
 position than they can be at present for judging of the 
 merits of the revision when it appears. 
 
 It is not indeed to be supposed that a correct impres- 
 sion of what the revised translation will contain can be 
 gathered from anything here said. Even the readings 
 
Preface. vii 
 
 for which the writers have expressed a preference will 
 doubtless differ in numerous instances from those 
 adopted by the Revision Company; while that Com- 
 pany must certainly introduce into the text many 
 more changes than those spoken of by them. The 
 writers of this book must be understood to deal only 
 with the principles of textual criticism that appear to 
 themselves to be correct ; and for the opinions indicated 
 they alone are responsible. 
 
 It may be proper to add that the first part of this 
 work has been written by Professor Roberts, the second 
 by Professor Milligan. The third part is a joint pro- 
 duction ; Professor Milligan treating the texts referred 
 to in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, Professor 
 Eoberts those in the other books of the New Testament. 
 
 1st May 1873. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAET FIKST. 
 
 THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 
 
 HAP. 
 
 I. Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament, 
 II. Nature and Amount of the Various Readings, 
 
 III. Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament, 
 
 IV. Ancient Versions of the New Testament, 
 
 V. Quotations from the Books of the New Testament by- 
 Ancient Writers, 
 
 VI. Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 3 
 18 
 
 26 
 47 
 
 60 
 
 67 
 
 PAET SECOND. 
 
 MODE OF DEALING WITH THE FACTS. 
 
 I. Introductory, .... 
 
 II. First Step in Classification, . 
 
 III. Second Step in Classification, 
 
 IV. Third Step in Classification. — Part I., 
 V. Third Step in Classification. — Part II., 
 
 83 
 
 89 
 
 95 
 
 101 
 
 109 
 
Contents. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 VI. General Result of Classification, 
 VII. The Principle of Grouping, 
 VIII. Determination of the Text. — Part I., 
 IX. Determination of the Text. — Part II., 
 X. General Summary, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 116 
 121 
 129 
 138 
 148 
 
 PAET THIED. 
 
 RESULTS. 
 
 I. Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon important 
 
 Texts of the New Testament, . . . . .155 
 II. Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the Text of 
 
 the New Testament in its Successive Books, . . 173 
 
PART FIRST. 
 
 THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 
 
PART FIRST. 
 
 THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 jjjHE autographs of the sacred writers have 
 long since disappeared or perished. 
 
 This being so, there is, of necessity, scope 
 for critical researches in connection with the 
 text of the New Testament. Unless God had continued 
 from age to age to exercise a miraculous care over the 
 original text — a thing totally out of harmony with the 
 usual course of His Providence — nothing could be more 
 certain than that slight alterations and errors would 
 creep into it with the lapse of time. Even at the 
 present day it is a matter of extreme difficulty to get 
 a work printed with absolute accuracy. Probably, in 
 spite of all the care which has been taken, there never 
 yet was an edition of the Scriptures published in any 
 language which did not contain some errors. The 
 curious misprints which have occurred in some of the 
 most carefully watched editions are well known to all 
 
4 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 
 
 that have devoted any attention to this subject, and 
 serve to prove how difficult, if not impossible, it is to 
 secure unblemished correctness in passing the Scriptures 
 through the press. 
 
 Now, if this is the case even in the days of printing, 
 much more must the liability to error have existed 
 when copies of the New Testament could be multiplied 
 only by transcription. Every one who has much copy- 
 ing work to do feels how very difficult it is, for any 
 considerable time, to preserve perfect accuracy. The 
 mind can scarcely be drilled into fulfilling that merely 
 mechanical process which is all that, in such circum- 
 stances, it is called to accomplish. It will exercise 
 itself about the subject before it ; and thus, instead of 
 rigidly copying the document under transcription, it is 
 apt, every now and then, to allow its own thoughts or 
 fancies to find a place upon the page. Suppose, for 
 instance, that one is transcribing a sentence which ends 
 with the words " twenty centuries." The first part of 
 the sentence is perhaps copied with literal accuracy; 
 but, while the fact stated at the close of the period is 
 retained in the memory, a change in the mode of 
 expressing it has been unconsciously effected in the 
 mind of the transcriber, so that, instead of writing 
 u twenty centuries/' he sets down "two thousand years." 
 In this way the very intelligence of a copyist will 
 sometimes betray him into mistakes. He may substi- 
 tute one synonymous word for another, or exchange a 
 name which occurs in the document before him for 
 another name by which the individual referred to is 
 
Causes of Various Headings in the New Testament. 5 
 
 equally well known in history. Thus, instead of 
 "king'' lie may write "sovereign" or ''monarch;" for 
 "Hildebrancl" he may substitute " Gregory VII. ;" in place 
 of "Lord Bacon" he may be led to say * c: Lord Yerulam;"' 
 and so on, — the danger of falling into such mistakes 
 berno; all the greater the farther a transcriber rises 
 above the character of a mere copying-machine and 
 is himself possessed of knowledge and intelligence. 
 
 This general remark will, of itself, account for not a 
 few of those variations which are found in Manuscripts 
 of the Xew Testament. Again and again has a word or 
 phrase been slipped in by the transcriber which had 
 no existence in his copy, but which was due to the 
 working of his own mind on the subject before him. 
 On this ground we easily explain, for example, the 
 frequent introduction of our Lord's name into the text 
 where a simple pronoun existed in the original copy, 
 or where the nominative was left to be supplied from 
 the context. Thus, at Mark viii. 1, John vi. 14, and 
 in a vast number of other passages, we find Jesus where 
 He is the correct reading. On the same ground we 
 account for those differences in the order of words 
 which are often to be found in the manuscripts. One 
 will read " Jesus Christ,"' and another " Christ Jesus," 
 just as the names happened to present themselves to 
 the minds of transcribers. And there are other readings 
 of considerably greater interest which are probably to 
 be traced to the same cause. We may refer to Matt, 
 xxv. 6 for an example. The true reading there is, 
 "Behold the bridegroom;" the reading which has crept 
 
6 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 
 
 into the text is, "Behold the bridegroom cometh;" and 
 we may, without much risk of mistake, ascribe this 
 addition simply to the working of the mind of a copyist 
 on the passage before him. So, at Luke i. 29, the in- 
 sertion of "when she saw him " will be naturally enough 
 accounted for on the same ground ; while we feel that 
 it would be scarcely possible to transcribe Eorn. viii. 26 
 without interpolating the words "for us," which are 
 nevertheless destitute of any adequate authority. These 
 illustrations may suffice to show how various readings 
 would, in many cases, arise, not from any intention on 
 the part of transcribers, but simply from the exercise 
 of their own minds on the subject which happened for 
 the time to engage their consideration. 
 
 O^O'' 
 
 But, in multitudes of other cases, the various readings 
 must be ascribed to intention on the part of transcribers. 
 Several motives may be detected as having influenced 
 them in the alterations which they introduced into the 
 text of the New Testament. 
 
 For one thing, many passages which presented difficult 
 constructions have been changed to the more usual 
 forms. In such cases, the copyist has either naturally 
 glided into the style of expression with which he was 
 familiar, or has supposed that his predecessor in the 
 work of transcription had made a mistake which it was 
 his duty to correct. This has been a very fertile source 
 of various readings ; and, in dealing with cases of the 
 kind referred to, Biblical critics have laid down the rule 
 that an obscure expression, or a harsh and ungrammati- 
 
Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 7 
 
 cal construction, is generally to be chosen as probably 
 the correct reading, rather than another which is clear, 
 or familiar and correct. It may seem strange at first 
 that such a principle should be adopted — that a reading 
 which it is almost impossible to construe or interpret 
 should be preferred to one which presents no difficulty. 
 But the reason is obvious. A transcriber was much more 
 likely to supplant an obscure or unintelligible expres- 
 sion by one that was usual and easy than to follow the 
 opposite course. He was far more strongly tempted to 
 consider the rugged idiom or the unaccustomed phrase 
 before him an error which had crept into the manuscript 
 from which he copied, than to change what was common 
 and intelligible into what was unusual and incompre- 
 hensible. Of course occasions might occur on w r hich, 
 from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render 
 a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear 
 and correct in his exemplar ; but it is manifest that, so 
 far as intentional alteration was concerned, the tempta- 
 tion all lay in the opposite direction. 
 
 A familiar illustration of the manner in which various 
 readings would originate, as just indicated, may be found 
 in a reference to the text of Shakespeare. Again and 
 again have words or phrases which were not understood 
 by editors been changed into forms with which they were 
 familiar, and which they regarded as yielding a satis- 
 factory sense. The text of our great dramatist has thus 
 been loaded with numerous expressions which we are 
 perfectly certain he never wrote. It is only through 
 much labour, and by means of a thorough study of 
 
8 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament 
 
 the contemporary Elizabethan literature, that Shakes- 
 pearian critics are gradually succeeding in extruding 
 those erroneous readings which have, for the sake of 
 apparently greater clearness, been foisted into the text 
 of their author, and in restoring, with tolerable certainty, 
 the genuine text. We can easily conceive that, while 
 this process of rectification is pursued, it should some- 
 times happen, in regard to the works of Shakespeare, as 
 in the case of the New Testament, that readings have to 
 be sacrificed with which one is loath to part. Suppose, 
 for instance, our highest critical authorities should com- 
 bine against Theobald's famous emendation in Scene 3, 
 Act II. of King Henry V. They might insist that 
 evidence is decidedly in favour of the old folio reading 
 of the passage. In that case, we could not resign with- 
 out regret what has been deemed such an exquisite 
 touch of nature, when we are told of the dying Falstaff 
 that " he babbled of green fields/' Yet, if it became the 
 settled judgment of critics that the phrase referred to is 
 simply a happy guess, and was never written by Shakes- 
 peare, every reasonable man would give it up, however 
 prosaic or unintelligible might be the wortls substituted 
 in its place. So it may be matter of regret to have to 
 accept at 1 Pet. iii. 8 the somewhat commonplace 
 exhortation "Be humble" for the beautiful precept 
 " Be courteous," which stands in our present Authorized 
 Version. But still, if authority so determine, we must 
 not hesitate. There may often be an artificial beauty 
 about error, but there is always an inestimable precious- 
 ness in truth. 
 
Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 9 
 
 The following examples may be given of the way in 
 which various readings have arisen in the text of the 
 New Testament, from a desire on the part of the copyists 
 to remove or lessen difficulties. At Matt. xvi. 11 the 
 true reading is, " How is it that ye do not understand 
 that I spake not to you concerning bread ? But beware 
 of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The 
 imperative in the second clause of this verse being either 
 not liked or not understood, the passage has, in defiance 
 of all authority, been made to run as follows — " How is 
 it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you 
 concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of 
 the Pharisees and of the Sadducees ?" At Mark vii. 31 
 the true reading is, " And again, going from the borders 
 of Tyre, He came through Sidon unto the Sea of Galilee, 
 through the midst of the borders of Decapolis." But, in 
 order to escape the fancied difficulty involved in the 
 long circuit which these words describe as having been 
 made by Christ, the verse has been altered to read as 
 follows : — " And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre 
 and Sidon, He came unto the Sea of Galilee, through the 
 midst of the coasts of Decapolis." At Luke xiv. 5 the 
 true reading in all probability is, " And He said unto 
 them, Which of you shall have a son or an ox fallen 
 into a well, and will not straightway draw him out on 
 the sabbath day?" Here, however, the word "son" was 
 deemed unsuitable, as not being consistent with the 
 supposed argument from the less to the greater, and was 
 therefore changed into " ass " (which is found at chap. 
 xiii. 15), so that the verse runs thus — " Which of you 
 
10 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 
 
 shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not 
 straightway pull him out on the sabbath day ?" 
 
 Under the same head may properly be ranked some 
 of those additions which have been made to the true text 
 of the New Testament. An example occurs at Eom. 
 viii. 1. The genuine reading in that passage is simply, 
 " There is therefore now no condemnation to them 
 which are in Christ Jesus." The longer this statement 
 is considered the more it will be felt an admirably satis- 
 factory conclusion to the previous reasoning of the 
 Apostle. But many copyists seem to have been dissatis- 
 fied with its brevity and simplicity. They desiderated 
 the introduction of the personal and practical element, 
 and therefore (although the argument of the Apostle is 
 thus anticipated and obscured) inserted from verse 4 the 
 words, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the 
 spirit." 
 
 To the same desire on the part of transcribers to 
 correct and improve the text before them are unquestion- 
 ably to be ascribed many of those various readings which 
 occur in the Book of Revelation. As is well known to 
 all acquainted with the original, that portion of the New 
 Testament is remarkable for the number of ungram- 
 matical expressions which it contains. There is no 
 great difficulty in suggesting satisfactory reasons, his- 
 torical and psychological, why this should be the case. 
 But it is evident what a temptation to correct was thus 
 presented to transcribers. The very respect and affection 
 which may be entertained for a writer will lead to the 
 wish that as few blemishes as possible should appear in 
 
Causes of Various Headings in the New Testament. 11 
 
 his works. These blemishes will be made the subject 
 of earnest regret, and will, if opportunity is offered, be 
 carefully removed. Who can doubt, for instance, the 
 pain which Bishop Hurd felt in pointing out obscurities 
 and inelegancies in the text of his favourite Addison ? 
 Never did editor more love or esteem his author than 
 did the worthy bishop. He dilates with his whole 
 heart, and most justly, on the "purity and grace of 
 expression " displayed by Addison. Yet every now and 
 then a word or a whole sentence occurs which offends 
 the taste of the bishop, and which he wishes had been 
 different from what it is. Now, this same feeling existed 
 in the minds of transcribers towards the sacred writers, 
 and led them in many cases to replace an inaccurate 
 form of expression by another which was correct. Hence 
 alterations for the sake of grammar have been introduced 
 into the Greek text at Eev. ii. 20, iv. 1, &c. ; but such 
 changes are without effect upon the English Version. 
 
 There must also be noticed under this head the 
 numerous cases in which parallel passages have been 
 made verbally to correspond with one another. These 
 cases are, of course, most frequent in the Gospels. Thus 
 the true reading both at Matt. ix. 13 and Mark ii. 17 
 is, " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." Both 
 passages, however, have been conformed to the text of 
 Luke v. 32, so that in all three Gospels we read, "I 
 came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." 
 Such cases of harmonizing, though far more common, 
 as was to have been expected, in the Gospels, may also 
 be found in the Epistles. Thus 1 Tim. i. 17 has been 
 
12 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 
 
 made to conform to Eom. xvi. 27 by the insertion of the 
 word " wise." As the epithet " only " occurs before God 
 in both passages, the two doxologies have been harmon- 
 ized by the interpolation of the missing " wise " in the 
 passage in Timothy, which ought to be read, " Unto the 
 King eternal [or, " of the ages "], the incorruptible, the 
 invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and 
 ever. Amen." The reason of such changes in the text 
 is happily so evident that corruptions of the kind referred 
 to cause little trouble to Biblical critics. 
 
 There is still another cause of various readings 
 which falls under the head of intention on the part of 
 transcribers; but it is of so grave a character as to 
 demand special and separate consideration. We refer 
 to the changes which, it is supposed, have in some 
 cases been made on the text from doctrinal views or 
 predilections. 
 
 Wq rejoice to believe that there is no necessity for 
 ascribing many of the various readings in the New 
 Testament to this cause. The ancient copyists seem 
 to have done their work with the utmost sincerity. 
 Perhaps every one of the readings which have some- 
 times been attributed to doctrinal bias admits of being 
 explained on grounds which imply no suspicion of bad 
 faith on the part of the transcribers. Still, there are 
 certain passages in which the variation which exists 
 may possibly have been due to the dogmatic opinions 
 held by various transcribers, and to some of the chief 
 of these we shall now briefly direct attention. 
 
Causes of Various Headings in the New Testament. 13 
 
 It need not be said how often a single word carries 
 in its bosom an important doctrine ; and, bearing this 
 in mind, we shall easily understand how strong, accord- 
 ing to the bias of the copyist, may have been the 
 temptation to tamper with the text. Thus, the whole 
 controversy between the Church Catholic and the 
 Arians or the Socinians may be said to be involved in 
 the reading which is to be adopted at Acts xx. 28. If 
 we are to read that verse as it stands in our Authorized 
 English Version, " Feed the Church of God which He 
 hath purchased with His own blood," there can no 
 longer be the slightest doubt as to the supreme divinity 
 of our Eedeemer. But then ancient authority is greatly 
 divided on the point as to whether or not God, is here 
 the correct expression; and many modern critics prefer 
 to read the verse thus — "feed the Church of the Lord 
 which He hath purchased with His own blood ;" a 
 statement which cannot be held decisive, one way or 
 another, of the controversy in question. 1 
 
 The same remarks apply to the alternative readings 
 found at John i. 18. Some copies read that verse as in 
 our common Version — c, 'Xo man hath seen God at any 
 time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of 
 the Father, Fie hath declared Him." But many others 
 have the verse as follows — u Xo man hath seen God at 
 any time : the only begotten God, which is in the bosom 
 of the Father, He hath declared Him." The important 
 
 1 This passage and those that follow are referred to at present 
 simply for the sake of illustration ; they will be found discussed 
 afterwards in Parts Second and Third. 
 
14 Causes of Various Headings in the New Testament. 
 
 doctrinal inference to be derived from the latter reading 
 is too obvious to require remark. 
 
 Again, it is evident liow the famous passage, around 
 which such controversy has raged, 1 John v. 7, 8 (" in 
 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and 
 these three are one. And there are three that bear 
 witness in earth"), may have been introduced into the 
 text without authority, in order to give a fancied 
 support to the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other 
 hand, it has been urged that the Arians may have 
 designedly omitted the passage, from their dislike to the 
 truth which it seems so manifestly to set forth. 
 
 As a specimen of the less celebrated passages in 
 which doctrinal considerations are thought to have 
 affected readings, we may refer to Heb. i. 3. The 
 latter part of that verse is read by modern critics as 
 follows — "When He had made a purification of sins, 
 He sat down on the right hand of Majesty on high." 
 And it is thought that the insertion of "our" before 
 " sins " was due to a desire on the part of some 
 transcribers to show that the sins for which He suffered 
 were not His own. 
 
 There only remains to be noticed, as another cause of 
 various readings in the New Testament, the occurrence 
 of oversight or mistake on the part of transcribers. 
 This may be illustrated by a reference to several par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 A very frequent cause of error was found in those 
 ^ords of like ending which occurred in the manuscripts. 
 
Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 15 
 
 Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that a transcriber 
 is copying a passage in which the word u disciples " is 
 read at the end of two successive verses. He tran- 
 scribes the first verse, and then, looking up from his 
 work to the copy before him, his eye unfortunately 
 lights upon the end of the second verse, no part of 
 which has yet been written. He sees the word 
 "disciples" which his pen has just traced; and, not 
 perceiving that the second verse in which it occurs still 
 remains untranscribed, he proceeds with his work, and 
 leaves out that verse altogether. This has been a very 
 fruitful source of error in manuscripts of the New 
 Testament. For an example we may refer to Matt, 
 xii. 46. That verse is entirely omitted in some excel- 
 lent manuscripts. And, for a very obvious reason. It 
 ends in the Greek with exactly the same word as the 
 preceding verse, and has thus, in some cases, been 
 altogether overlooked by transcribers. Similar mistakes 
 abound in the manuscripts. 
 
 As;ain, one word was often mistaken for another 
 which strongly resembled it. This error frequently 
 occurs even in printed books at the present day. We 
 have seen ''humour'' substituted for '''human,'"' and 
 "antimonies" standing where "antinomies'" 5 was in- 
 tended. Now, in Greek there is only the difference of 
 a single letter between the word meaning " edification " 
 and the word meaning " dispensation." Hence, at 
 1 Tim. i. 4 we find in the Authorized Version "godly 
 edifying which is in faith," instead of the true reading, 
 "God's dispensation which is in faith." Copyists have 
 
16 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament, 
 
 also sometimes confounded the Greek for " they took " 
 with the Greek for " they cast," the two words con- 
 sisting of exactly the same letters with a very slight 
 difference of arrangement. 
 
 Errors have also arisen from the style of writing 
 characteristic of the most ancient manuscripts. These 
 are written throughout in uncial or capital letters, without 
 division or interpunction. Hence a different sense 
 from the true one might sometimes be attached by 
 copyists to the words. The following illustration may 
 be given: — If we write NOWHEEE without any 
 separation between the letters, either "now here" or 
 " no where " may be understood to be the words in- 
 tended. In like manner, some various readings have 
 arisen in the New Testament from the possibility w 7 hich 
 exists in several passages of dividing the Greek in 
 different ways, and from one of these being preferred 
 by one transcriber and another by another. 
 
 Lastly, some important various readings have arisen 
 from transcribers admitting glosses and marginal notes 
 into the text. Examples of this kind are furnished in 
 the insertion of these words at John v. 3, 4, "waiting 
 for the moving of the water. For an angel went down 
 at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the 
 water : whosoever then first, after the troubling of the 
 water, stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever disease 
 he had;" and in the insertion of Acts viii. 37, "And 
 Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou 
 mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The first of these 
 
Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 17 
 
 passages was probably a marginal gloss explanatory of 
 the popular belief on the subject referred to, and the 
 second a regular baptismal formula — both in course of 
 time finding their way into the text. Doxologies too 
 were apt to creep in from the constant use made of them 
 in the services of the Church ; and various particulars, 
 having once obtained a place on the margin of the 
 manuscripts, by and by succeeded in intruding them- 
 selves into the text. This fact has led Biblical 
 critics to adopt as another great general principle by 
 which they are influenced in seeking to restore the 
 genuine words of the New Testament — that, in most 
 cases, the shorter reading is to be preferred to the 
 longer, as having been, in all probability, the form 
 which the text exhibited . in the autograph of the 
 sacred writers. 
 
CHAPTEE II. 
 
 NATURE AND AMOUNT OF THE VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 | S the result of those causes enumerated and 
 explained in the preceding Chapter, and 
 perhaps of some other minor influences, the 
 amount of variation existing in manuscripts 
 of the New Testament is very great. It is not a little 
 startling at first to be told, as Biblical critics do tell us, 
 that there are no fewer than 150,000 various readings 
 within the compass of the New Testament. This fact 
 has, of course, been laid hold of by the enemies of divine 
 revelation, and has at times caused no small alarm to its 
 friends. Like geology in our own day, Biblical criti- 
 cism was formerly appealed to by one class as destructive 
 of the authority of the New Testament, and was feared 
 and discountenanced by another class as being really 
 hostile to the interests of sacred truth. 
 
 As a specimen of the one class, we may refer to 
 Collins, one of the English Deists of the last century. 
 In his book entitled Discourse of Freethinking, pub- 
 lished in 1713, he endeavoured to throw discredit 
 
Nature and Amount of the Various Headings. 19 
 
 upon the New Testament from the great variety of read- 
 ings which existed in its text. Uncertainty as to the 
 doctrines which it taught was represented as being the 
 necessary result. Freethinkers, as Collins alleged, w T ere 
 thus absolved from the duty of paying any regard to the 
 claims of revelation. They might safely, according to 
 him, ignore the very existence of the New Testament, 
 until its friends agreed among themselves as to the 
 genuine text. The same line of argument has been 
 followed by some sceptical writers in more recent times, 
 though, for very sufficient reasons, which will soon be 
 brought forward, it is rarely adopted by any intelligent 
 reasoners at the present day. 
 
 As specimens of the other class referred to, we may 
 mention the names of Drs. Owen and Whitby. It forms 
 a grievous blot on the memory of the former that he 
 assailed the very learned Brian Walton and his friends 
 in such language of vituperation for having employed 
 their " unwilling leisure," after being deprived of their 
 livings under the Commonwealth, in cultivating the 
 science of sacred criticism, and bringing to light the 
 discrepancies which existed among the manuscripts of 
 the New Testament. In venturing to deal with this 
 subject, the great Puritan only displayed his own ignor- 
 ance and narrowness of comprehension. The same may 
 be said regarding Whitby in the assault which he made 
 on the New Testament of Dr. John Mill. This learned 
 work appeared in 1707, and was distinguished from all 
 the editions which had preceded it by the number of 
 various readings which it contained. On this ground it 
 
20 Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 
 
 was attacked by Dr. Whitby, and its author was accused 
 of having rendered the text of Scripture precarious. 
 The obvious fact was overlooked that Mill had not 
 invented the variations, but simply revealed them ; and, 
 instead of the honour which should have been paid to 
 that illustrious scholar for his painstaking labour of 
 thirty years on the sacred text, a most unworthy attempt 
 was made to load his memory with obloquy, and to 
 represent his life-long work as having tended to the 
 weakening instead of the support of the cause of 
 divine revelation. 
 
 Drs. Owen and Whitby, in their sincere and zealous 
 but unintelligent attempts to defend Scripture against a 
 fancied danger to which it was exposed, have, unfortun- 
 ately, proved the types of not a few equally earnest but 
 short-sighted friends of the Bible. There have been 
 those, even down to our own day, who have been 
 ever ready to tremble for the Word of God when con- 
 fronted with the discoveries of science. Such persons 
 forget that it is high treason to the truth to doubt that 
 it will survive every assault which can be made against 
 it ; while, in their ardent but narrow-minded zeal, they 
 have sometimes had recourse to abuse instead of argu- 
 ment, and have thus given an advantage to their 
 opponents, which no discovery, critical, philosophical, or 
 scientific, could ever have furnished, 
 
 When we come to examine the matter, we find that 
 the vast array of various readings which has been men- 
 tioned, and which appears at first sight so formidable, 
 loses all power to discompose the Christian, and even 
 
Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 21 
 
 becomes to him a source of congratulation and rejoicing. 
 At least nine out of every ten of these readings are of 
 no practical importance whatsoever. .They involve the 
 mere substitution of one synonymous word for another; 
 or the use of a compound instead of a simple term ; or 
 a change of the order in which different words or clauses 
 are to be read ; and have thus scarcely any perceptible 
 influence on the meaning of the text. Sometimes, for 
 example, in one manuscript, one Greek word is used for 
 the copulative conjunction and, while in a second a 
 different, but perfectly synonymous, particle is employed, 
 and in a third the word may be wanting altogether. 
 Sometimes our Lord is in one manuscript referred to 
 under the name of Jesus ; while in a second He is spoken 
 of at the same place as Christ ; in a third He may be 
 styled Jesus Christ ; and in a fourth He may be men- 
 tioned as Christ Jesus. These are specimens of by far 
 the greater number of the various readings, and are 
 enough to show how unimportant they are in general 
 to our faith as Christians, and how little reason there is 
 either for the unbeliever to boast, or the believer to fear, 
 on account of the mere number of them which have been 
 collected. 
 
 We may here cite the words of one of the greatest 
 scholars and critics that England ever produced. The 
 illustrious Eichard Bentley thus writes in his reply to 
 the w r ork of Collins above mentioned : — " The real text 
 of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals 
 have been so long lost) lie in "any manuscript or edition, 
 but is dispersed in them all. 'Tis competently exact 
 
22 Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 
 
 indeed in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is 
 one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or 
 lost in them — choose as awkwardly as you will, choose 
 the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings." 
 And again: — "Make your 30,000 (various readings) as 
 many more, if number of copies can ever reach that 
 sum : all the better to a knowing and a serious 
 reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select 
 what he sees genuine. But even put them into the 
 hands of a knave or a fool, and yet, with the most 
 sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extin- 
 guish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise 
 Christianity, but that every feature of it will still 
 be the same." 1 
 
 The truth of the matter is, as has been hinted, that it 
 constitutes the security of our faith as Christians, that 
 such a vast collection of various readings could possibly 
 have been formed. Unless God had deemed it proper 
 to exert a miraculous power over the New Testament, so 
 as to preserve it from all risk of change and error, the 
 only way in which He could bestow upon us the means 
 of discovering the true text was by furnishing us in His 
 Providence with many different sources to which we 
 might repair in seeking to ascertain it. As in other 
 cases, He has left room here for human industry ; and 
 in the many manuscripts of the New Testament still 
 extant (all of course more ancient than the date of the 
 general employment of printing) we are presented with 
 
 1 Remarks upon a late Discourse of Freethinking, in a Letter to 
 F. H. y D.D., by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, Part i. § 32. 
 
Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 23 
 
 the field on which our diligence is to be exercised in 
 seeking to recover the very words of evangelists and 
 apostles. The multitude of manuscripts of necessity 
 increases the number of various readings, but in that 
 very number is found the assurance that our labour in 
 seeking after the original text shall not be in vain. 
 This point will be made abundantly plain by the follow- 
 ing illustrations. 
 
 There are some of the classical writers in the printed 
 editions of whose works not a single various reading is 
 to be found. And do scholars rejoice on that account, 
 or is the text therefore to be regarded as free from 
 corruption? Nay: the very opposite is the case. 
 With respect, for instance, to the Eoman historian 
 Velleius Paterculus, we are told that only one manu- 
 script of his work has ever been discovered. Accord- 
 ingly, no varieties of reading are to be found in the 
 published editions of Paterculus, except what conjecture 
 may have introduced. But the consequence is that 
 the text of his narrative is in a state of the most 
 hopeless confusion. Many parts of it are totally 
 unintelligible, and, simply for want of additional 
 manuscripts to furnish different readings, no means 
 whatever exist of letting in any light upon the obscu- 
 rities which abound. 
 
 Again, only one ancient manuscript is known to 
 scholars which contains the last six books (xi.-xvi.) of 
 the Annals of Tacitus. The result is that the text of 
 these books remains in the most corrupt and mutilated 
 state. The only way of repairing and restoring it is by 
 
24 Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 
 
 the exercise of conjectural criticism. Abundant scope 
 for this is still found, and every fresh editor indulges in 
 some attempts at emendation, just as his judgment or 
 fancy suggests. Now, let it be carefully noted that 
 conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field 
 of the New Testament. And why ? Simply because 
 all sober critics feel that there is no need for it. The 
 wealth at their command in the multitude of copies of 
 the sacred text still extant is so enormous, and the means 
 of ascertaining, by painstaking effort, the genuine read- 
 ings, is so ample and satisfactory, that no one would 
 have a chance of being listened to at the present day 
 who should propose to introduce any conjectural emen- 
 dation into the Scriptures. It matters not how ingenious 
 or plausible any such conjecture might appear. There 
 is neither room nor need for it in dealing with the text 
 of the New Testament. So deeply fixed is this principle 
 in the minds of Biblical critics, that were any one 
 simply to suggest, in connection with a single word of 
 Scripture, that the region of fact should be left and the 
 realm of imagination entered, he would, by so doing, be 
 felt and declared to have excluded himself from among 
 the number of those who have a right to be heard upon 
 the subject. 
 
 It will be seen, then, that the very fact of our possess- 
 ing so many varieties of reading in the books of the 
 New Testament, implies the vast resources which we 
 have at command for ascertaining the true text, and is 
 itself a reason for gratitude to that gracious Providence 
 
Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 25 
 
 which has thus preserved to us the means of discover- 
 ing, through diligent inquiry, what were the exact 
 words which "holy men of old" employed, when 
 they spoke and wrote u as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost/' 
 
CHAPTEE III. 
 
 EXISTING MANUSCKIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 |HE three great sources whence various read- 
 ings are derived, and to which we must 
 repair in seeking to fix the genuine text 
 of Scripture, are : (1) the manuscripts of the 
 New Testament still known to exist ; (2) the ancient 
 versions which have come down to us ; and (3) those 
 quotations from the sacred books which occur in the 
 works of ancient writers. No one of these guides to a 
 knowledge of the original text can be implicitly trusted. 
 Even the most valuable manuscripts contain important 
 and obvious errors. The best versions also have at 
 times mistaken the sense of the original, and are there- 
 fore to be used with care and discrimination. And 
 very many of those quotations of Scripture which occur 
 in the writings of the Fathers have been loosely made, 
 memory having been trusted to for giving the substance 
 of the passage quoted, while the exact words of the 
 sacred text were not sought to be preserved. Illustra- 
 tions of the various kinds of errors thus indicated will 
 be given in the sequel. 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament 27 
 
 The most direct and important source of textual 
 criticism is, of course, that furnished in still existing 
 and available manuscripts. To a description of the 
 most valuable of these the present Chapter will be 
 devoted. 
 
 The manuscripts of the New Testament have been 
 divided into two classes, which are known as Uncials 
 and Cursives, according to the manner in which they 
 are written. The Uncials are so called because they 
 are written throughout in Greek capital letters. The Cur- 
 sives, again, correspond more with the mode of writing 
 in common use among ourselves, having capitals only at 
 the beginning of sentences or paragraphs, and being 
 otherwise written in small characters. The Uncials are 
 more ancient, and, of course, much less numerous than 
 the Cursives. The line between the two may be drawn 
 about the tenth century; and while existing manuscripts 
 of the New Testament anterior to that date can be 
 counted only by tens, those belonging to the period 
 extending from the tenth to the sixteenth century are 
 to be reckoned by hundreds. 
 
 As we rise to an antiquity beyond the tenth century, 
 the number of manuscripts to which we can make 
 appeal becomes rapidly diminished. In addition to 
 some precious fragments, there are only five manuscripts 
 of the New Testament having any pretension to com- 
 pleteness that can be assigned to so ancient a date as 
 between the fourth and the sixth century. To a brief 
 account of these most interesting and valuable transcripts 
 
28 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 of the New Testament what remains of the present 
 Chapter will be given. 
 
 And who could let his eye rest upon the yellow 
 parchments in which the sacred words of our Lord and 
 His disciples have been preserved in these ancient 
 documents, without having emotions of no ordinary 
 kind excited within him ? Long have the hands which 
 traced these antique characters mouldered into dust. 
 Before the darkness of the mediaeval ages had obscured 
 the glory of ancient literature and civilisation were 
 some of them written. Beyond all the struggles of 
 modern times — beyond all the changes flowing, in suc- 
 cession, from the breaking up of the Boman Empire, the 
 domination of ecclesiastical Borne, the religious and 
 intellectual emancipation of individuals and nations 
 effected by the Beformation — are we carried by the 
 inspection of any one of these witnesses to our faith as 
 Christians. While thrones have been overturned, and 
 empires have been founded; while learning has died 
 and been buried, and again enjoyed a happy resurrec- 
 tion ; while the tide of conquest has surged from shore 
 to shore, and one nation after another become the 
 leading people upon earth, — it has pleased God to 
 preserve in these perishable pages the record of His love 
 to man, and of the provision which He has made for 
 the salvation of sinners. It is with a kind of reverence 
 that we gaze upon these faded yet still legible transcripts 
 of the word of God. We find in them the very same 
 counsels, instructions, and promises, as are contained in 
 those printed copies of the Bible with which we are all 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 29 
 
 familiar ; but there seems a, solemnity about their utter- 
 ances which can belong to no modern volume. It is 
 almost felt, while lingering over their contents, as if we 
 actually listened to the voice of John, or Peter, or Paul; 
 and, far removed from the stormy contentions of those 
 rival sects which have risen up in the modern Christian 
 world, were privileged to hear, as within the solemn 
 silence of some vast cathedral, or under the quietude of 
 a starlit sky, the words of eternal life. We draw near, 
 therefore, with a kind of awe as well as interest, to 
 inspect those treasures of this kind which time has 
 spared, if, on any occasion, such a privilege is afforded 
 us. And if, as must be the case with most, we never 
 have an opportunity of actually looking with our own 
 eyes on these precious documents, we cannot but be 
 glad to have them, as it were, brought before us 
 through the descriptions of them which have been 
 given by the faithful and diligent pens of textual 
 critics. 
 
 It is usual anions Biblical scholars to distinguish the 
 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament by the use 
 of the letters of the alphabet. The designations thus 
 given them have been accepted throughout Christendom, 
 and furnish an easy as well as concise means of 
 reference. 
 
 A, OK THE ALEXAXDPJAX CODEX. 
 
 This manuscript is preserved in the British Museum, 
 and constitutes one of the most precious literary 
 treasures belonging to our country. As in the case 
 
30 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 of the other ancient manuscripts, very little is known 
 of its history. It has been in this country since the 
 year 1628, having been sent, in that year, through the 
 English ambassador in Turkey, as a present to Charles I. 
 from Cyril, then Patriarch of Constantinople. A short 
 account of the previous history of the manuscript was 
 also transmitted by Cyril, and is still prefixed to its 
 first volume. We learn from this notice that the 
 manuscript was w 7 ritten by one named Thecla, who is 
 described as having suffered martyrdom, but when or 
 where is utterly unknown. It has been supposed, from 
 some peculiarities in the orthography, that Egypt was 
 the country in which the manuscript was written, but 
 this is a point exceedingly doubtful. There need be no 
 question, however, that it was brought by Cyril from 
 Alexandria; and, on this account, it is generally 
 spoken of as the Codex Alexandrinus, or Alexandrian 
 Manuscript. 
 
 Several considerations lead us to the conclusion that 
 this manuscript is not less than 1400 years old, belong- 
 ing to a date about the middle of the fifth century. 
 As already stated, it is written throughout in capital 
 letters, and this of itself is a mark of high antiquity. 
 The letters are in general of uniform size, the excep- 
 tions being at the commencement of a new section, 
 where a larger character is used, and in places, chiefly 
 at the end of lines, in w T hich the transcriber, being 
 pressed for space, has made use of smaller letters. 
 Another indication of the very ancient date of the 
 manuscript is found in the fact that no division occurs 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament 31 
 
 between the words ; and that, except at the close of the 
 sentences or paragraphs, no punctuation exists. This 
 peculiarity, common to all the most ancient manuscripts, 
 causes at first no small difficulty to the reader. Every 
 one will understand this by glancing at the following 
 familiar verse, given in English in imitation of the 
 fashion followed in Greek by the early uncial manuscripts. 
 
 INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWOEDAKDTHE 
 WOEDWASWITHGODAKDTHEWOEDWASGOD. 
 
 John i. 1. 
 
 The eye, it will be felt, requires considerable practice 
 before it is able readily to separate words which all 
 seem to run together in the writing, and which are only 
 to be distinguished by a familiar acquaintance with the 
 language and by the sense of the passage. 
 
 In addition to these marks of great antiquity, there 
 are other features presented by the Alexandrian manu- 
 script which lead us to assign it to the date that has 
 been above suggested. One of these is that it does not 
 contain those divisions of the Acts and Epistles — 
 generally ascribed to Euthalius, Bishop of Sulce, and 
 corresponding in effect to our modern chapters, which 
 came into common use about the middle of the fifth 
 century. This fact pretty plainly indicates that the 
 manuscript must have been written before the date 
 just mentioned. On the other hand, as the manuscript 
 does contain both the Ammonian sections and the 
 Eusebian canons — earlier modes of dividing the sacred 
 text, which date respectively from the third and fourth 
 
32 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 centuries — we are thus precluded from claiming for it any 
 considerably higher age than that which has been stated. 
 
 Another mark of the antiquity of the Alexandrian 
 manuscript is, that it comprises the Epistle of Clement 
 among the canonical books. This Clement, who is 
 referred to by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the 
 Philippians (chap. iv. 4) in terms of high commen- 
 dation, wrote, about the end of the first century, an 
 epistle to the Corinthians, which was, for a considerable 
 time, held by manjr churches as of canonical authority. 
 It is a very beautiful composition, breathing throughout 
 a spirit of Gospel love and holiness, but disfigured by 
 some fantastical interpretations of Scripture, and admit- 
 ting some superstitious and erroneous notions. Com- 
 pared with the inspired writings, it is feeble and 
 unimpressive, and it makes no claim to speak with the 
 authority pertaining to the word of God. But from 
 the high position occupied by its author, as one of the 
 most esteemed friends of St. Paul, and as Bishop of 
 Eome, it secured for a time great respect, and was, 
 during the first few centuries, read in many churches as 
 part of the New Testament Canon. This fact accounts 
 for its being found in the Alexandrian Codex (which we 
 may remark in passing contains the sole copy of the 
 Epistle known to exist), and confirms the opinion, 
 formed on other grounds, as to the antiquity of that 
 manuscript. 
 
 All considerations indeed — whether those arising from 
 the form of the letters, the method of writing, the 
 marginal references, the order in which the books are 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 33 
 
 arranged, or the contents of the manuscript — lead us to 
 the conclusion stated above, that in this precious docu- 
 ment we have a copy of the New Testament written 
 about the time of the fall of the Eoman Empire of the 
 West ; and that thus, more lasting than the sovereignty 
 established by Eomulus, which, dating from the foundation 
 of Eome 753 B.C. to the subversion of the Empire towards 
 the end of the fifth century, had survived about 1200 
 years, this monument of our faith has already braved 
 the ravages of time for nearly a millennium and a half: 
 while we are sure that now, under the watchful care of the 
 librarians of the British Museum, it will be preserved as 
 far as possible from further alteration or injury, and will 
 be handed down for the gratification and delight of 
 succeeding generations. 
 
 The manuscript just described is, upon the whole, very 
 complete. It is preserved in four quarto volumes, the 
 first three of which contain the Septuagint Version of 
 the Old Testament nearly entire. The fourth volume, em- 
 bracing the New Testament, has unfortunately suffered 
 more. St. Matthew's Gospel begins with the Greek for 
 "Go ye out," in chap. xxv. 6, all that precedes having been 
 lost. In St. John's Gospel, two leaves have perished, 
 which had included the text from the words " that a 
 man," chap. vi. 50, to the words "thou sayest," chap, 
 viii. 52. Again, three leaves have disappeared from the 
 second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, embracing 
 the text from these words, " I believed," chap. iv. 13, to 
 the words " of me," chap. xii. 6. "With these exceptions, 
 
 the text of the New Testament is complete. 
 
 c 
 
34 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 It only remains to be noticed further with respect to 
 the Alexandrian manuscript, that a facsimile edition of 
 the New Testament portion of it was published in 1799 
 by Dr. Woide, and that the Old Testament was issued 
 in like manner in 1816-28 under the care of Mr. Baber. 
 These truly magnificent works may be consulted at any 
 time by those having access to the reading-room of the 
 Museum, and furnish, upon the whole, a very fair 
 representation of the original. The manuscript itself 
 is, of course, jealously guarded; but a volume of it is to 
 be seen under glass on any of the days on which the 
 Museum is open to the public, and may worthily attract 
 the attention of all that have, at any time, an oppor- 
 tunity of inspecting the literary treasures belonging to 
 th,at great national institution. 
 
 B, or the Vatican Codex. 
 
 The manuscript known as B is still more interesting 
 and precious than that which has already been described. 
 It is preserved in the Vatican Library at Eome, and is, 
 on that account, generally referred to as the Codex Vati- 
 canus, or Vatican Manuscript. Scarcely anything is 
 known of its external history. We are sure that for the 
 last four hundred years it has belonged to the Papal 
 library ; but how it was procured, or whence it came, no 
 one has been able to determine. It is written on very 
 fine parchment, in capital letters, which bear a remark- 
 able resemblance to those in some of the manuscripts dis- 
 covered at Herculaneum. This one fact is enough to 
 suggest its high antiquity, and all the other phenomena 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 35 
 
 which it presents are in favour of this conclusion. It 
 is probably at least a century older than the Alexandrian 
 manuscript ; and it has, until lately, been deemed 
 altogether without a rival, in point both of age and 
 value, among existing manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 The intrinsic interest attaching to this precious docu- 
 ment has been not a little increased by the strange 
 history which has attended it. There is an element of 
 romance in Biblical criticism as in other sciences, and 
 this comes out very strongly in connection with the 
 Vatican manuscript. It has been kept very close in its 
 prison at Borne. The greatest difficulty has been 
 experienced by scholars in getting even a look of it. 
 Once indeed, or rather twice, it seemed likely to escape 
 for ever from its cage, and to be fully displayed to the 
 eager eyes of Biblical critics. Among many other 
 treasures, literary and artistic, it was carried by Xapoleon 
 to Paris during his career of triumph; and some friends 
 of sacred science had then an opportunity of inspecting 
 and describing it. But, on the downfall of the great 
 conqueror, it was restored to the Pope ; and, without 
 having been examined by any thoroughly competent 
 critic, it fell once more under the jealous guardianship 
 of the authorities at Eome, An edition of it was often 
 promised, but the hopes thus excited were, from time to 
 time, disappointed. 
 
 Amid the revolutionary troubles of 1848, when the 
 Pope was compelled to flee from Eome, expectation was 
 again raised to a high pitch that this precious manu- 
 script would become more accessible to the learned 
 
36 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 world than it had ever been before. But fortune was 
 once more adverse. His Holiness was speedily restored, 
 and, with his return, hope was again extinguished. 
 
 At length, in 1857, Biblical scholars throughout 
 Christendom were excited by the intelligence that a 
 transcript of the Vatican manuscript was immediately 
 to be published. Cardinal Wiseman, in his work entitled 
 " Recollections of the last Four Popes/' took occasion to 
 refer to this matter, and announced the edition — pre- 
 pared by the late Cardinal Mai and revised by others 
 whom the Papal government had appointed after his 
 death — as being ready for immediate publication. 
 
 It came : but deep was the disappointment which its 
 character immediately caused. Instead of that accurate 
 transcript which had been promised, it was found that 
 the work was full of errors. The most uncritical pro- 
 cesses had been followed in its preparation. Numerous 
 passages had even been inserted without the least 
 authority from the manuscript. The publication was 
 little more than what some scholars in the bitterness of 
 their disappointment styled it — a copy of the Bible 
 according to Borne. So, after all the efforts which had 
 been made, all the labour which had been expended, 
 and all the expectations which had been cherished, 
 students of the sacred text were still left without a 
 reliable copy of the queen of all the manuscripts of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 After the date of Mai's edition, several scholars were 
 successful in obtaining a look of the Vatican manuscript. 
 But in most cases, they scarcely obtained more than 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 37 
 
 a glimpse. Sometimes they were permitted to glance 
 at the manuscript, but not examine it; and at other 
 times they had scarcely begun the work of collation, 
 when liberty of access to the manuscript was withdrawn. 
 Tischendorf, however, was somewhat more fortunate 
 in this matter than other scholars. It seemed indeed, at 
 one time, as if we should obtain a full collation of the 
 manuscript through his labours in connection with it. 
 But disappointment yet again was experienced. Instead 
 of unlimited access to the manuscript, which seemed 
 at first to have been granted him in February 1866, 
 it turned out that he was allowed to use it only for 
 some forty hours. Admirably was the time employed. 
 Within the brief period named, he examined all the 
 passages in the New Testament in which the readings of 
 the manuscript were still doubtful; he made a full colla- 
 tion of nearly the whole of the first three Gospels : and he 
 copied in facsimile some twenty pages of the manuscript. 
 Subsequent events have explained and perhaps 
 justified the arrest thus put upon the labours of Tischen- 
 dorf. The Pope assured him at the time that a fac- 
 simile edition of the manuscript was just about to 
 be published. And, in accordance with this promise, 
 the work did come out in 1868 from the Papal press at 
 Eome. Pleasing is it to be able to add that this edition 
 seems to leave nothing more to be desired. It is in five 
 large volumes, the first four containing theSeptuagint Ver- 
 sion of the Old Testament, and the last comprising what 
 remains of the New Testament. The ideal aimed at in 
 Pio Nono's edition, as this one may be called, was very 
 
38 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 different from that adopted by Cardinal Mai, being 
 nothing less than to reproduce the very "form, lines, 
 letters, strokes, marks " of the manuscript itself. This 
 high standard appears to have been scrupulously ad- 
 hered to throughout. The editors were two eminent 
 Biblical scholars, Vercellone and Cozza ; and they seem 
 to have done all that human care and erudition could 
 effect to present to the world a faithful representation of 
 the famous Vatican manuscript. 
 
 It will not be the least of the glories of Pio 
 Nemo's pontificate, that, under his auspices, a facsimile 
 edition of this precious document has at length been 
 presented to the world. And, considering how nobly the 
 assurance given to Tischendorf has been fulfilled, w^e 
 readily forgive the hindrances which were placed in the 
 way of that indefatigable explorer, when he sought 
 to copy page after page of the manuscript. It was 
 right that the honour of giving it to the world should 
 belong to the Papal court. We hail with gratitude the 
 boon conferred on textual criticism by the splendid and 
 apparently most satisfactory edition of 1868 ; and we 
 rejoice that critics will no longer be thwarted or 
 tantalized in their efforts to obtain an accurate acquaint- 
 ance with the contents of one of the most valuable 
 witnesses to the genuine text of the New Testament. 
 
 C, or the Codex of Ephraem. 
 We find in this manuscript some features of interest 
 peculiarly its own. It is a palimpsest, that is, a 
 manuscript containing two different works, the one 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament 39 
 
 written over the other. Owing to the scarcity and high 
 price of parchment, it was not unusual for writers of the 
 Middle Ages to have recourse to such an expedient. 
 Often in this way did they sacrifice some valuable work, 
 in order to find material on which to inscribe a monkish 
 legend or an ecclesiastical writing of very secondary 
 importance. Some of the masterpieces of ancient 
 eloquence have been discovered under the literary 
 lumber thus superinduced upon them. A strange per- 
 versity of taste seems to have seized these mediaeval 
 transcribers, when they buried such works as those of 
 Cicero beneath the barbarous jargon of some subtle dis- 
 putant, or the mystical speculations of some reputed saint. 
 In regard to the manuscript under consideration, it 
 is one of the writings of the Syrian hymnologist and 
 theologian Ephraem that had been chosen to overlay 
 the text of the New Testament. On this account, 
 the manuscript is generally spoken of as the Codex 
 Ephraemi, when not referred to simply under the desig- 
 nation of C. It is preserved in the National Library 
 in Paris. We know that it was brought into France 
 by Catherine de Medici, and that it previously be- 
 longed to Cardinal Eidolfi, nephew of Pope Leo X. 
 Its history cannot be traced with any certainty to a 
 more remote date. But Tischendorf has conjectured, 
 with great probability, that it is one of the manuscripts 
 which were obtained by Andrew Lascaris, who, on 
 the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, was sent 
 into the East by Lorenzo cle Medici to collect any such 
 ancient writings as had escaped their ravages. 
 
40 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 A lengthened period elapsed before the true value of 
 this manuscript was discovered. Not until near the end 
 of the seventeenth century did any one observe the sacred 
 text under the more recent transcript of the treatise of 
 Ephraem. But when the discovery was at last made by 
 Allix, scholars soon recognised the vast importance of the 
 treasure thus unveiled. Every effort was made to restore 
 the ancient writing, and at length, by the aid of a 
 chemical preparation, this was done with great success. 
 In the year 1834 a particular tincture was applied to 
 the parchment, which has had the effect of greatly dis- 
 colouring it, but has, at the same time, rendered much 
 of the original writing legible, which could not be de- 
 ciphered before. Nearly two-thirds of the New Testa- 
 ment, along with portions of the Greek translation of 
 the Old Testament, are preserved in this manuscript. 
 So far as it goes, C is a most valuable aid to the textual 
 critic. It had evidently been written with great care, 
 comparing favourably in this respect with the Alex- 
 andrian or even the Vatican manuscript ; and it un- 
 doubtedly belongs to a date not much, if anything, below 
 the early part of the fifth century. 
 
 D, or the Codex of Beza. 
 
 There is yet another Biblical manuscript of the first 
 class which it is the honour of our country to possess — 
 that known as D, or the Codex Bezce, preserved in the 
 University of Cambridge. As its name indicates, this 
 manuscript was formerly the property of the celebrated 
 Eeformer Beza. It was presented by him in the year 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 41 
 
 1581 to the Academic body who still possess it. Before 
 that date, it had been in the hands of Beza about twenty 
 years, and was obtained by him, as he himself tells 
 us, during the French civil wars of the sixteenth century, 
 having then been found in the Monastery of St. Irenseus 
 at Lyons. We cannot trace its history farther back, but 
 the palseographic and other internal indications which it 
 presents have led scholars pretty generally to ascribe it 
 to the sixth century. It is the least valuable of all the 
 manuscripts yet noticed. Only the Gospels and Acts in 
 Greek and Latin are preserved in it. There are also 
 many manifest corruptions and interpolations which 
 have been introduced into its text. Still, from the un- 
 doubted antiquity of the manuscript, it has strong 
 claims on the careful consideration of Biblical critics. 
 It was published in facsimile at the expense of the 
 University of Cambridge in 1793 ; and in accordance 
 w T ith the liberal spirit of the body who possess it, the 
 manuscript has often been examined and employed by 
 critical editors of the New Testament. 
 
 N, or the Codex Sinaiticus. 
 
 Until very recently, the four manuscripts now de- 
 scribed were all the very ancient copies of any consider- 
 able portion of the New Testament known to exist. 
 But some years ago the learned world, received the 
 very unexpected but most agreeable intelligence that 
 a manuscript had been found supposed to be as ancient 
 as the Codex Vaticanus, and more complete than any 
 one previously known, The story of its discovery is 
 
42 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament 
 
 curious, and may, in some particulars, be regarded as 
 romantic. 
 
 First of all, forty-three leaves of the manuscript were ob- 
 tained in 1844. Professor Tischendorf was travelling in 
 the East during that year in quest of ancient manuscripts. 
 While at the convent of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, 
 his eye was one day caught by a number of vellum 
 leaves intended to be used in lighting the stove. He 
 picked these out from a heap of other papers destined 
 for the same purpose, and soon perceived that they con- 
 tained portions of the Septuagint Version of the Old 
 Testament. It did not require much examination from 
 his practised eyes to convince him of the great antiquity 
 of the fragments ; and he lost no time in securing them. 
 But. though the monks had been easily induced to part 
 with these stray leaves in utter ignorance of their value, 
 they resolutely refused to let him see any more of the 
 work to which they belonged, now that he had told 
 them that it was probably as ancient as the fourth cen- 
 tury. Accordingly, on his return to Europe, he pub- 
 lished the portion he had procured (embracing the 
 entire books of Esther and Nehemiah, with some portions 
 of 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah) under the title of Codex 
 Frederico-Augustanus, that designation being adopted 
 because he had obtained these fragments while travel- 
 ling under the auspices of his own monarch, Frederick 
 Augustus of Saxony. 
 
 Tischendorf was once more at the same monastery in 
 1853, and did not forget to inquire after the precious 
 manuscript of which he had discovered some traces in 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 43 
 
 1844. But he could learn nothing regarding it. As 
 was afterwards found, it had been seen by two visitors 
 in the interval ; but Teschendorf, knowing nothing of 
 this, concluded that, in some way or other, it had dis- 
 appeared, and abandoned all hope of ever hearing more 
 respecting it. 
 
 But he was, for the third time, at the convent of St. 
 Catharine in the early part of the year 1859. And there, 
 on the 4th of February, his grand discovery was made. 
 He had put into his hands by the steward of the con- 
 vent a manuscript which he at once recognised as the 
 long-sought treasure. The communication in which 
 Professor Teschendorf conveyed the intelligence of this 
 inestimable discovery to Biblical scholars in Europe, 
 bore evidence of the emotion which it had excited in his 
 own heart, and of the devout eagerness with which he 
 set himself to examine its contents. Having glanced 
 over the work, he immediately took pen in hand, and, 
 insensible to fatigue, he, that very night, copied out of 
 it the Epistle of Barnabas in full — an apocryphal writing 
 belonging to the early part of the second century, the 
 first portion of which had not till then been known in 
 the original Greek to modern scholars. Soon afterwards, 
 Tischendorf succeeded in obtaining permission to copy 
 the whole manuscript, while, better still, he by and by 
 persuaded the brethren of St. Catharine to present the 
 precious document as a fitting and dutiful offering to 
 their great head and patron the Emperor of Bussia. Ac- 
 cordingly, it was without delay transmitted to Alexander 
 II., and is now preserved in the Imperial Library at St. 
 
44 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 Petersburg. A splendid edition of it, consisting of 300 
 copies, was published in 1862, as a suitable memorial 
 of the thousandth anniversary of the empire of the Czars ; 
 and these, with other less expensive and smaller copies, 
 are now in the possession of various learned men and 
 public bodies throughout the world. 
 
 Every internal mark presented by the Sinaitic manu- 
 script points, in the estimation of the most eminent 
 palaeographers, to the fourth, or at latest the fifth, century, 
 as the time when it was written. It is thus perhaps as 
 old as the Vatican manuscript, and has even been sup- 
 posed, on some not improbable grounds, to be one of the 
 fifty copies of Scripture which Eusebius, Bishop of 
 Csesarea, prepared in a.d. 331, by order of the Emperor 
 Constantine, forthe use of hisnew capital,Constantinople. 
 Be this as it may, the Sinaitic manuscript has one great 
 and undoubted advantage over all the other ancient 
 manuscripts, in containing the New Testament complete. 
 The Alexandrian manuscript is defective throughout the 
 greater part of St. Matthew's Gospel, and also in several 
 other places. The Vatican manuscript wants the Epistle 
 to Philemon, the Pastoral Epistles, the latter part of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. The Codex 
 of Ephraem is still more defective ; while, as has been 
 already noticed, the Codex of Beza contains only the 
 Gospels and Acts in the original Greek, along with a 
 Latin translation. But the Sinaitic Codex comprises 
 the whole of the New Testament without a single omis- 
 sion, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas, and a part bf 
 the Greek text of the writings of Hermas (also belonging 
 
Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 45 
 
 to the second century) — works which, up to the discovery 
 of this unspeakably precious manuscript, had been known 
 as a whole only through an early Latin version. 
 
 It is unnecessary for our present purpose to give a 
 detailed account of any of the other manuscripts of the 
 New Testament. The number of them yet discovered 
 has been computed as follows : — 
 
 Uncials (4th to 10th century) . . 127 
 Cursives (10th to 15th century) . . 1456 
 
 1583 
 
 Such is the manuscript wealth as yet available to 
 scholars for determining the true text of the New Testa- 
 ment. Tt is a deeply interesting question whether or 
 not there is reason to hope that other discoveries similar 
 to that of Tischendorf still remain to be made. For our 
 own part, we cannot help believing that such may be 
 the case. When it is remembered that a great part of 
 Herculaneum is yet unexplored, and that there may be 
 preserved in its hidden chambers not only some works 
 of the classical writers, which scholars have long mourned 
 as lost, but perhaps copies of the Sacred Scriptures them- 
 selves dating almost from the apostolic age : when it is 
 remembered also, that there are supposed still to be in 
 existence at Constantinople vast multitudes of manu- 
 scripts, which have never been examined since the over- 
 throw of the Eastern Empire by the Turks in 1453 : 
 when it is remembered further that, scattered through 
 the Oriental monasteries, there may yet be treasures the 
 
46 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testaments 
 
 existence of which no scholar has hitherto suspected — 
 it does not seem unreasonable to believe that Providence 
 may still have in store for us discoveries that will at once 
 fill our minds with astonishment and our hearts with 
 delight, while they tend more and more to purify the 
 text, and confirm the authority, of that " Word which 
 liveth and abideth for ever." 1 
 
 1 See, in connection with the hope above expressed, De Quincey's 
 Works, art. on Richard Bentley (note), and Sir Henry Holland's 
 Recollections of Past Life, p. 123. 
 
CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 |pST this chapter we are to glance at the second 
 source of textual criticism formerly men- 
 tioned — the ancient versions of the New 
 Testament which have come down to 
 our own day. 
 
 It must be evident at once that valuable aid will often 
 be available from this source for determining the true 
 text of the New Testament. Some of the versions were 
 made at a date considerably more ancient than can be 
 assigned to any manuscript at present known to exist. 
 They thus furnish proof regarding the prevailing text of 
 Scripture at a very early period of our era. 1 
 
 But unfortunately there are several considerations 
 which detract from the value which might be justly 
 claimed for the versions, if their antiquity only were 
 regarded. For one thing, it is clear that they, no less 
 than the Greek New Testament itself, were liable to 
 corruption with the lapse of time. False readings might 
 
 1 The comparative value of versions as testimonies to the text will 
 be found again referred to in Part Second, Chap. II. 
 
48 Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 
 
 creep into translations as easily as into the original ; 
 so that, in order to feel any confidence while using 
 them for the purpose of textual criticism, we must 
 have good reason to believe that they are still in 
 our hands in the genuine form which they at first 
 possessed. 
 
 Moreover, as the idioms or natural characters of dif- 
 ferent languages vary so much, it would obviously be 
 very often precarious, and sometimes certainly erroneous, 
 to infer from a version the exact words which stood in 
 the original. With regard, however, to the genuineness 
 or the spuriousness of clauses, verses, and paragraphs, 
 versions may justly be regarded (so far as unrevised 
 and unaccommodated to later texts) as furnishing most 
 valijable evidence. 
 
 Again, it is obvious that even the best versions may 
 sometimes have mistaken the meaning of the Greek, 
 and thus may tend only to mislead unless used with 
 due discrimination. Errors of the kind referred to are 
 to be found in every translation, and would, if they 
 escaped notice, lead the textual critic entirely astray. 
 Suppose, in illustration, that a doubt were to arise as to 
 one particular Greek phrase used in Acts iii. 19, and 
 that the present authorized English version were 
 appealed to for evidence on the point. We there find 
 these words ascribed to the Apostle — " Eepent ye there- 
 fore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted 
 out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the 
 presence of the Lord." Now this rendering would 
 suggest a totally false idea of the original. No scholar 
 
Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 49 
 
 would ever dream of any such equivalent for the English 
 word "when" as here stands in the original. The 
 passage furnishes a case of sheer mistranslation. It 
 should be rendered — " Eepent ye therefore, and be con- 
 verted, that your sins may be blotted out, in order that 
 times of refreshing may come from the presence of the 
 Lord, and that He may send Jesus, the Christ, which 
 before was appointed for you," the regimen of the phrase 
 translated " in order that" being continued into the fol- 
 lowing verse. The passage as it stands in our English 
 Version would thus be a hindrance, instead of a help, to. 
 the discovery of the original text. This example will 
 perhaps be sufficient to show that, whatever may be 
 the antiquity and general merits of a translation of the 
 New Testament, it must be used with caution in the 
 service of textual criticism. 
 
 But there is still another and more serious drawback 
 on the value of the ancient versions as now considered. 
 There is reason to believe that some of the best of them 
 have not come down to us in their original state, but 
 have been, more or less, conformed to later texts which 
 had obtained ascendancy in the Church. They can 
 thus only be regarded as bearing testimony to the text 
 which was prevalent at the time when the revision took 
 place, although the version itself may be much more 
 ancient. Of course, the farther that critics can go in 
 the way of restoring the original text of the translation, 
 the greater does its value become as a witness to the 
 sacred text. With these preliminary remarks, we now 
 proceed to give a brief account of those versions of the 
 
50 Ancient Versions of the New Testament, 
 
 New Testament which are of most importance in the 
 department of textual criticism. 
 
 Syriac Versions. 
 
 A Syriac version of the New Testament, and probably 
 also of the Old, existed in the second century. Eusebius 
 expresses himself in a way which seems clearly to imply 
 this, and the fact is generally admitted by modern 
 scholars. 
 
 The most important of the Syriac versions is that 
 known as the Peshito, or Simple. As a translation it 
 may claim high rank, being generally very exact in its 
 renderings — equally free from slavish literality on the one 
 side and loose paraphrase on the other. 
 
 As an authority for the text of the Greek New Testa- 
 ment, the Peshito would be possessed of transcendent 
 importance were we warranted in regarding it in its 
 present state as truly representative of the Syriac text 
 of the second century. But there is too good ground for 
 believing that such is not the case. The version appears 
 to have undergone revision in the course of the fourth cen- 
 tury, and to have been conformed to the text which had 
 by that time become generally prevalent in the Church. 
 This suspicion, or rather certainty, prevents us from 
 urging its authority with confidence in the settlement of 
 disputed readings. It contains, for example, the doxo- 
 logy to the Lord's Prayer, which is wanting in so many 
 ancient authorities ; and could we be sure that the ver- 
 sion possessed that clause from the beginning, a most 
 weighty testimony would be obtained in favour of the 
 
Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 51 
 
 genuineness of the words. But no more authority can 
 with certainty be claimed for it, so far as our present 
 knowledge of the version extends, than belongs to a 
 witness of the fourth century. One of the greatest services 
 which any Biblical scholar could render to the cause of 
 textual criticism in our day would be to prepare a criti- 
 cal and trustworthy edition of the Peshito. It is under- 
 stood that manuscripts of the version are available in 
 numbers amply sufficient for this purpose ; and we can- 
 not but deeply regret that such an edition was not 
 brought out before the Eevision of our Authorized 
 Version, at present in progress, was commenced. 
 
 A second Syriac version is that known as the Phi- 
 loxenian. It was produced at the instance of Philoxenus, 
 who was Bishop of Mabug or Hierapolis in Eastern 
 Syria from A.D. 488 to a.d. 518. This version was 
 revised in a.d. 616 by Thomas of Harkel, also Bishop 
 of Hierapolis. Hence it is also known as the Harclean, 
 It is in this latter form that the work is almost exclusively 
 known to us. As a translation, it is of a very wretched 
 character, being marked by a servile adherence to the 
 Greek, which is totally destructive of the Syriac idiom. 
 But this very circumstance constitutes its value as an 
 auxiliary to the textual critic. By its close and even 
 absurd adherence to the Greek we can infer exactly the 
 readings of that text which the translator had before 
 him. It also possesses various readings from older 
 Greek manuscripts in the margin — a fact which adds 
 much to its value. We learn from it very clearly how 
 great was the amount of deflection from the text of the 
 
52 Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 
 
 New Testament as presented in the most ancient 
 authorities which had taken place at the time when it 
 was formed. 
 
 Two other recensions of the sacred text are sometimes 
 cited by critics as independent Syriac versions — named 
 respectively the Jerusalem- Syriac and the Karkaphen- 
 sian. They are of comparatively little importance. 
 
 Some fragments of a Syriac version of the Gospels, 
 differing from those already described, were discovered 
 by Dr. Cureton among the Syrian manuscripts brought 
 by Archdeacon Tattam from the Mtrian monasteries, 
 and now in the British Museum. This fragmentary 
 version was published in 1858, and is known as the 
 Curetonian. Its text is undoubtedly ancient, and on 
 that account interesting and valuable. As a translation 
 it ranks low, having often, in the grossest way, mis- 
 taken the meaning of the original Greek. 
 
 Latin Versions. 
 
 It is generally agreed by scholars at the present day 
 that the first Latin version of the New Testament 
 was made, not in Italy, but in Africa. This statement 
 may naturally surprise those who are not familiar with 
 the linguistic condition of Italy in the generations 
 immediately following the first promulgation of the 
 Gospel. They might conclude, as a matter of course, 
 that it would be felt necessary to translate the sacred 
 books into Latin for the use of the inhabitants of Italy. 
 But we have the amplest evidence that no «uch neces- 
 sity did in reality exist. Greek was then a familiar 
 
Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 53 
 
 lanofua^e throughout that country. Such facts as the 
 following abundantly prove that such was the case. 
 The Apostle Paul (a.d. 58) wrote to the Eomans in 
 Greek. Clement of Eome (a.d. 97) wrote in the same 
 language. Ignatius (a.d. 107), like Paul, addressed the 
 Pioman Christians in Greek. Justin Martyr (about A.D. 
 150), although long resident in Eonie, composed his two 
 Apologies to the Emperor in Greek. From these, and 
 many similar facts which might be quoted, 1 we conclude 
 that no need would be felt in the earliest times for 
 a translation of the Xew Testament into Latin in order 
 to meet the necessities of the inhabitants of Italy. 
 
 Accordingly, the version known as the Vetus Zatina, 
 or " Old Latin," had its origin in aSTorthern Africa. Its 
 history is altogether unknown. But we find it used by 
 the Latin translator of Irenaeus towards the close of the 
 second century, and by Tertullian a little later. Several 
 good manuscripts of this version still exist, dating from 
 the fourth onwards to the eleventh century. 
 
 This old Latin version was revised by Jerome, one of 
 the most learned of the Fathers, towards the close of the 
 fourth century. His principal object was to conform the 
 translation more accurately to the text of the best Greek 
 copies. But he also sought to improve the character of 
 the version. He replaced many barbarisms by ex- 
 pressions more in accordance with classical usage, and 
 in multitudes of passages gave a closer and more satis- 
 factory rendering of the original. 
 
 1 See Roberts' Discussions on the Gospels, part i., chap. ii. ; and Max 
 Miiller's Lectures on Language, First Series, pp. 90-100. 
 
54 Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 
 
 As is always the case with a new revision of Scrip- 
 ture, it was only by slow degrees that the work of 
 Jerome took the place of the Old Latin. Two centuries 
 elapsed before this result was accomplished. Partiality 
 for the old familiar words, and prejudice against the 
 new, thus for a long period prevented the general 
 acceptance of the improved translation. But, as cannot 
 but happen at last, superior excellence at length pre- 
 vailed. From about the end of the sixth century, the 
 version of Jerome became the acknowledged Latin Vul- 
 gate, and substantially remains so at the present day. 
 Just as Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 
 will continue the basis of every version of the Scriptures 
 into our language till the end of time, whatever may be 
 the changes and improvements which are introduced, so 
 the work of Jerome still constitutes the substance of the 
 Latin Bible, notwithstanding the revisions to which 
 it has been subjected. Many errors, of course, crept 
 into the text in the course of the Middle Ages, and when 
 the art of printing came into general use, the necessity 
 of having some trustworthy edition prepared was 
 strongly felt. One was accordingly brought out under 
 the auspices of Pope Sixtus V. in 1590, and to it 
 the title " Authentic " was assigned. But this edition 
 was soon discovered to be very incorrect, and another 
 was issued by Clement VIII. in 1592. The Sixtine 
 and Clementine editions of the Vulgate differ widely 
 between themselves, but neither can be regarded as 
 furnishing a satisfactory text. It is much to be re- 
 gretted that such a valuable manuscript as the Codex 
 
Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 55 
 
 Amiatinus, which dates from about the year a.d. 541, 
 and presents an admirable transcript of the text of 
 Jerome, was not made use of in the preparation of 
 either of the Papal editions. 
 
 These early Latin versions of the New Testament are 
 of much value in the determination of the text. They 
 in general adhere with great closeness to the Greek, 
 the very order of the words in the original being, as far 
 as possible, retained. They thus bear testimony, where 
 still in their primitive condition, to the text of the New 
 Testament as it existed in a very remote antiquity. 
 
 Egyptian Versions. 
 
 There are two complete Egyptian versions of the 
 New Testament available for the purposes of textual 
 criticism. These are known respectively as the Mem- 
 phitic and the Thebaic. There are also some fragments 
 which pass under the name of the Basmuric. 
 
 We are in utter ignorance as to the history of the 
 Egyptian versions. But it is certain that the two are 
 wholly independent of each other. Before this fact was 
 known, Biblical scholars were accustomed to speak of 
 the Coptic as the version of all Egypt — a name derived 
 from Coptos, an ancient city in Upper Egypt. But as it 
 has been proved that the translations current in Lower 
 and Upper Egypt are totally distinct, the versions are 
 now distinguished as above. 
 
 It is well ascertained that two dialects prevailed 
 in Egypt in the centuries which immediately followed 
 the general promulgation of the Gospel. One of these 
 
56 Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 
 
 was in use in Lower Egypt, and was called, from the 
 capital of the country, the Memphitic. The other was 
 employed in Upper Egypt, and was in like manner 
 denominated from the chief town of the district the 
 Thebaic. 
 
 Versions of the New Testament in these dialects un- 
 questionably existed in the fourth century, and probably 
 long before. No doubt Egypt, like the rest of the 
 civilized world, was thoroughly Hellenizecl at the com- 
 mencement of our era, so that the Greek Testament 
 would be generally understood in the original, in Lower 
 Egypt at least, and no need would be felt for a translation. 
 But this state of things did not continue; and we have 
 every reason to believe that the Thebaic version of the 
 New Testament, prevalent in Upper Egypt, was formed 
 not later than the third century, and was followed by 
 the Memphitic at no distant date. These versions have 
 been as yet too little studied to be greatly available for 
 the purposes of textual criticism. Doubtless, as scholar- 
 ship extends its triumphs, good use of them will yet be 
 made. 
 
 The Basmuric fragments present a text evidently 
 moulded upon the Thebaic. They are valuable only as 
 supplying evidence as to the text in some small portions 
 in which the Thebaic no longer exists. 
 
 The Gothic Version. 
 
 This is a very interesting and not unimportant version 
 of the New Testament, though, unfortunately, it has not 
 yet been found in a complete state. It was made by 
 
Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 57 
 
 Ulpliilas, who became Bishop of the Goths in a.d. 348. 
 He had adopted Arianism, and died while on a visit to 
 Constantinople (a.d. 388), whither he had gone to 
 defend his creed. But no trace of his doctrinal views 
 appears in his great work, except at Philip, ii. 6, where 
 he substitutes likeness to God for equality with God. 
 
 The most celebrated manuscript of this version is the 
 Codex Argenteus, or " Silver Manuscript/' preserved in 
 the University of Upsala. This manuscript derives its 
 name from the fact that its large uncial letters are 
 written in silver throughout, except those at the 
 beginning of sections, which are in gold. It was sent to 
 Stockholm from Prague when this latter city surrendered 
 to the Swedes in 1648. The date of the manuscript is 
 probably about the beginning of the sixth century. It 
 now contains only fragments of the Gospels in the 
 following order (common to it with Manuscript D and 
 some others) — Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. 
 
 As the Gothic version dates from the fourth century, 
 it is another witness to the text then prevalent in the 
 Church. There can be no doubt that it was formed 
 directly from the Greek, as is indicated by peculiar con- 
 structions, and by the very mistakes which it contains. 
 Its readings are of great weight in passages where it 
 supports those of the more ancient authorities. 
 
 The Armenian Version. 
 
 The Armenian Christians seem, for a considerable 
 period, to have had no Bible which could be called dis- 
 tinctively their own. Up to the fifth century, they 
 
58 Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 
 
 appear to have been dependent on the Syriac version. 
 At length, in A.D. 431, two native scholars, who had 
 been present at the Council of Ephesus, brought back 
 with them a copy of the Scriptures in Greek ; and 
 from that a translation was made into the Armenian 
 language. As was to be expected, the Syriac Peshito 
 had an influence which is in some places very per- 
 ceptible over this version. In its more modern form, as 
 published by Uscan in 1666, it has also been suspected 
 of having been conformed to the Latin, but there seems 
 no good ground for this supposition. As Dr. Tregelles 
 has remarked, " Coincidence of reading does not prove 
 Latinizing to be a well-founded charged 
 
 Textual criticism has not as yet made much use of 
 the Armenian version ; and both its date and character 
 prevent us from regarding it as of much importance. 
 
 The iETHiopic Version. 
 
 iEthiopic was formerly the language of Abyssinia, but 
 has now been superseded by a more modern dialect 
 called the Amharic. It is connected with the Syriac, 
 Arabic, and other members of the Semitic family of 
 languages. The Abyssinians were converted to Chris- 
 tianity by Frumentius in the fourth century, but no ver- 
 sion of the sacred writings seems to have been made 
 into their language till a considerably later date — per- 
 haps in the sixth or seventh century. 
 
 The iEthiopic version of the New Testament was 
 evidently formed from the Greek, but by one who had 
 no very accurate acquaintance with that language. 
 
Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 59 
 
 Till a more exact edition lias been issued than we yet 
 possess, little use can be made of the iEthiopic in the 
 service of textual criticism ; and even were such an 
 edition produced, the version itself was formed too late 
 to possess anything more than secondary importance. 
 
 The remaining ancient versions of the iSTew Testa- 
 ment have too little critical weight to call for detailed 
 remark. We simply note their supposed dates as 
 follows, — Georgian Version (sixth century) : Arabic Ver- 
 sions (most ancient, eighth century) : Slavonic Version 
 (ninth century) : Anglo-Saxon versions (from the Latin, 
 eighth to eleventh century) : Persic Versions (from the 
 Syriac and Greek, fourteenth century). Other versions, 
 like the English, though possessing great merit as 
 translations, and though derived immediately from the 
 Greek, are by far too modern to possess any authority 
 in the settlement of the original text. 
 
CHAPTEE V. 
 
 QUOTATIONS FEOM THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY 
 ANCIENT WRITERS. 
 
 VERY copious Christian literature has de- 
 scended to us from the early centuries of our 
 era ; and nothing is more characteristic of 
 that literature than the frequency and ful- 
 ness with which passages of the Sacred Scriptures are 
 cited. It has been said with truth that, had the New 
 Testament as a volume perished, the substance of it 
 could easily have been recovered from the quotations 
 which lie imbedded in the writings of authors who lived 
 before the date of the Mcene or first General Council, 
 in a.d. 325. 
 
 The evidence as to the original text of Scripture 
 which may thus be collected from the extant works of 
 the first Christian Fathers is, so far as it goes, more 
 ancient than can be derived from either manuscripts or 
 versions. Our most venerable manuscripts of the New 
 Testament cannot, as we have seen, be dated farther 
 back than the fourth century, while the earliest versions 
 are to be ascribed probably to the middle of the second. 
 
Quotations from the Boohs of the New Testament. 61 
 
 But in those writers who are known as the " Apostolic 
 Fathers/' we possess witnesses to the text of the jSTew 
 Testament (so far as they can be shown to quote it) at 
 a period which borders upon, if it does not even touch, 
 the apostolic age itself. 
 
 There are, however, several considerations which de- 
 tract seriously from the value which might thus at first 
 seem to belong to patristic citations in the determina- 
 tion of the primitive text of the New Testament. The 
 chief of these may be briefly stated as follows. 1 
 
 The text of such early writers is itself not unfre- 
 quently doubtful. Those manuscripts of their works 
 which have come down to us are of a comparatively 
 modern date. Few of them reach higher than the tench 
 century; and in some cases not more than a single 
 copy of a particular author is known to exist. We are 
 thus at times very uncertain as to the genuine readings 
 of the original ; and there is not unfrequently cause to 
 suspect that, in the course of ages, the text has suffered 
 from changes, intentional or unintentional, introduced 
 by transcribers. 
 
 Again, as was natural, ere the written word assumed 
 that paramount importance which was by and by re- 
 cognised as of right belonging to it, the quotations made 
 from the New Testament by the early Christian writers 
 are often far from verbally accurate. At times some of 
 them seem to be mingled with the oral form in which 
 
 1 This part of the subject will be found more fully noticed when the 
 comparative value of quotations as testimonies to the text is spoken 
 of in Part Second, Chap. II. 
 
62 Quotations from the Books of the 
 
 they had been transmitted. They are often given in a 
 loose and confused way just as memory suggested, or 
 have a special turn assigned them according as the 
 argument of the writer for the moment required. It 
 must be remembered in regard to this whole subject, 
 that these ancient authors had no such facilities of 
 reference as are furnished by our modern Bibles divided 
 into chapters and verses. To verify a quotation would, 
 in their case, often have implied lengthened search and 
 irksome labour. They were thus very strongly tempted 
 to trust for the most part to their general knowledge of 
 Scripture in making their citations. 
 
 Moreover, in multitudes of cases, slight verbal changes 
 would become current in familiar quotations of the New 
 Testament, without giving rise to the slightest suspicion 
 of their being erroneous. The way in which our own 
 English Bible is often misquoted might supply us wuth 
 many an illustration. Perhaps there are few preachers, 
 though familiar during a long course of years with that 
 book, but have fallen into the habit of less or more 
 altering, adding to, or deducting from, particular texts 
 in their citations. In such a passage as, " If we confess 
 our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our 
 sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," one may 
 be in the habit of substituting iniquity for unrighteous- 
 ness, and never dream that he is in error. All are fami- 
 liar with the addition so commonly made to our Lord's 
 promise — " Where two or three are gathered together in 
 my name, there am I in the midst of them" — when, as 
 its fulfilment is pleaded for in prayer, the words are 
 
New Testament by Ancient Writers. 63 
 
 appended " to bless us and to do us good." Nothing is 
 more common than to hear the declaration quoted, 
 " The blood of Jesus Christ clean seth from all sin," 
 instead of the " cleanseth us" of the original ; and every 
 one must have heard 2 Tim. i. 12 quoted as, " I know 
 in ivhom I have believed," &c, although the passage 
 really stands thus — " I know whom I have believed, and 
 am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have 
 committed to Him against that day." 
 
 For various reasons, then, there is good ground for 
 acquiescing in the judgment of Dr. Scrivener on the 
 point in question, when he says : " On the whole, scrip- 
 tural quotations from ecclesiastical writers are of so 
 much less consideration than ancient translations, that 
 where they are single and unsupported they may safely 
 be disregarded altogether. An express citation, however, 
 by a really careful Father of the first four or five cen- 
 turies (as Origen for example), if supported by manu- 
 script authority, and countenanced by the best versions, 
 claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates 
 the reading which it favours." 1 
 
 It may be interesting and useful if we subjoin a list 
 of the principal writers whose works are available for 
 the textual criticism of the New Testament, with the 
 approximate dates at which they composed their writ- 
 ings, and the names of their most important works still 
 extant. 
 
 Clement of Rome. — He wrote an epistle to the Corin- 
 thians about a.d. 97. This epistle has come down to 
 1 Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament , p. 284. 
 
64 Quotations from the Boohs of the 
 
 us in a single manuscript only. It is contained in the 
 Alexandrian manuscript of the New Testament. 
 
 Ignatius of Antioch. — He is supposed to have written 
 a number of short epistles in a.d. 107. 
 
 Barnabas. — An epistle of very early date bears the 
 name of Barnabas. It was probably written about 
 a.d. 130. 
 
 Poly carp of Smyrna. — He wrote a short epistle, still 
 extant, about ad. 150. 
 
 Justin Martyr. — Justin wrote two " Apologies" for 
 the Christians, which were severally addressed to the 
 emperors Antoninus Pius and Aurelius. He also wrote 
 a " Dialogue with Trypho a Jew/' Some other writings 
 are doubtfully ascribed to him. a.d. 150. 
 
 Tatian. — He wrote a number of works, but only one, 
 his "Discourse to the Greeks," is extant, a.d. 166. 
 
 Athenagoras. — This elegant writer has left us two 
 short works — an " Apology," and a "Treatise on the 
 Besurrection." a.d. 170. 
 
 Iren^eus. — One of the most important works of Chris- 
 tian antiquity is the long treatise of Irenseus, " Against 
 Heresies." a.d. 189. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria. — His chief works extant are, 
 " Hortatory Address to the Greeks," the " Teacher," 
 and the "Miscellanies." a.d. 200. 
 
 Tertullian. — A very voluminous author. His prin- 
 cipal works extant are an " Apology," and a treatise 
 " Against Marcion." He quotes from the Old Latin. 
 
 A.D. 210. 
 
 Hipjpolytus. — Only fragments of his works are extant: 
 
New Testament hy Ancient Writers. 65 
 
 the most important is his " Kefutation of all Heresies.'' 
 a.d. 230. 
 
 Oeigex. — By far the most learned of the Ante-Mcene 
 Fathers. Many works from his pen, in whole or in part, 
 still exist, and are very valuable for the purposes of 
 textual criticism. We may name his " Homilies," 
 " Commentaries," and treatise " Against Celsus." a.d. 
 240. 
 
 Gregory Tlianmaturgus. — His " Panegyric on Origen," 
 "Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes," and some other short 
 works, have come down to us. A.r>. 250. 
 
 Cypkian. — A very important writer. His extant 
 works are his "Epistles" and "Treatises" — all most 
 valuable for the light they shed on early ecclesiastical 
 history, as well as for the aid they give in textual 
 criticism, a.d. 252. 
 
 Methodius. — He wrote a large work "Against Por- 
 phyry," now lost. We still possess his " Feast of the 
 Ten Virgins," and some other remains. A.D. 260. 
 
 Arnohius. — His treatise "Against the Gentiles" has 
 come down to us. a.d. 300. 
 
 Lactantius — " The Christian Cicero." His principal 
 extant work is the "Divine Institutions." a.d. 310. 
 
 Eusebius of C^saeea — " The Eather of ecclesiastical 
 history." Besides his " History," several works of his 
 still exist. a.d. 330. 
 
 Athanasius. — The famous opponent of Arianism. 
 His works consist of treatises, letters, and speeches. 
 a.d. 370. 
 
 Ejphraem Syrus. — Syrian theologian and hymnologist. 
 
66 Quotations from the Books of the New Testament, 
 
 His works, consisting of homilies, commentaries, &c, 
 are specially useful in the criticism of the Syriac ver- 
 sions, a.d. 370. 
 
 Epiphanius of Cyprus. — His chief works are "Against 
 Heresies," and a treatise expounding the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, a.d. 400. 
 
 Chrysostom of Antioch. — By far the most eloquent 
 of the Fathers. His works consist of sermons, commen- 
 taries, letters, and treatises. a.d. 405. 
 
 Jerome, or Hieronymus. — A very learned writer. 
 His extant works consist of commentaries, epistles, and 
 treatises, a.d. 410. 
 
 Augustine. — The best known of all the Fathers. His 
 extant works are very numerous. We may name his 
 ". Confessions," " City of God," " Betractations," Com- 
 mentary on the Fsalms, and treatises on the Belagian 
 controversy. a.d. 420. 
 
 It is hardly worth while, for our present purpose, to 
 name any later writers. 
 
CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 [HEBE are few epochs in the history of the 
 world more memorable than that which 
 marks the printing and publishing of the 
 first Greek Xew Testament. As long as the 
 Word of God was confined to manuscripts, it could come 
 into the hands only of a few, and might be explained 
 very much as traditional prejudice had fixed. Very 
 profound was the ignorance of the Scriptures which per- 
 vaded all ranks previous to the great intellectual and 
 spiritual revolution which took place about the beginning 
 of the sixteenth century. Many of the clergy had never 
 seen a copy of the whole Bible ; and the great majority 
 of them could not read a word of the original languages. 
 The extracts which were read in the Breviary day by 
 day were generally regarded by the priests as constitut- 
 ing the entire Word of God ; and even these were, in 
 many cases, repeated without being understood — with- 
 out conveying the slightest glimmering of Gospel-truth 
 to the understanding, or producing the least impression 
 on the conscience or the heart. 
 
68 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 
 
 While this was the condition of the professed 
 teachers of the people, it is needless to say how dense 
 was the ignorance which prevailed among the people 
 themselves. Indeed, when we glance at the state of 
 Christendom towards the close of the Middle Ages, it 
 seems almost miraculous that so great a change speedily 
 passed over it. Looking at Europe for a century pre- 
 vious to the appearing of Luther, we gaze upon a scene 
 similar to that which the prophet witnessed, when he 
 was set down in the midst of the valley which was full 
 of bones, and when, as he declares, " there were very 
 many in the open valley, and lo ! they were very dry." 
 Judging by mere human probability, the speedy awaken- 
 ing and disenthralment of Christendom seemed then as 
 hopeless as to the natural eye must have appeared the 
 resuscitation of these mournful relics of once living men. 
 Only a spirit of faith living in the heart of Ezekiel pre- 
 vented him from at once replying in the negative, when 
 the startling question fell upon his ears from heaven — 
 " Son of man, can these bones live ? " And only a similar 
 spirit could have led any one about the close of the 
 fourteenth century to anticipate that marvellous mental 
 and spiritual awakening which, ere little more than a 
 hundred years had elapsed, was to take place through- 
 out the whole Christian world. 
 
 But when the set time for the accomplishment of 
 His purposes has come, God often effects great results 
 within a very limited period. Soon did a mighty 
 change pass over that scene of desolation and death on 
 which the prophet looked. The profound stillness was 
 
Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 69 
 
 broken; and sound and movement — the harbingers of 
 the great transformation about to occur — were perceived; 
 until at length, in striking contrast to the scene which 
 at first lay before the view of the seer, there started up 
 from that valley of death a vast multitude of living 
 men ; " the breath," says Ezekiel, " came into them, 
 and they lived, and stood up on their feet, an exceeding 
 great army." 
 
 Now, such also appears the mightiness of the change 
 which passed over the Christian world within the period 
 that has been mentioned. And when we inquire into 
 the causes which, under God, led to this great and 
 blessed revolution, we find, as is often the case in the 
 accomplishment of Heaven's designs, that there was a 
 wonderful working together of various agencies and 
 means in order to give rise to the desired result. Chief 
 of all, we note the invention of the art of printing, 
 and then, as a necessary effect of this, the publication of 
 the great literary treasures which had descended from 
 antiquity. It was impossible that these works could be 
 sent forth to the world, without rousing the human 
 mind from that state of stagnation in which it had so 
 long been sunk. But while the dissemination of the 
 classical remains of antiquity w r ould, of itself, have 
 given birth to a mental activity which must have been, 
 in a large degree, fatal to the claims of superstition, and 
 must have led many to throw off those intellectual 
 fetters in which the human soul had so long been bound, 
 something more was needed to initiate that great 
 revival of spiritual life which is the most characteristic 
 
70 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 
 
 feature of the Eeformation. The heathen writers might 
 be sufficient to destroy, but it required the sacred writers 
 to construct. Superstition might fall, yet Christianity, 
 in its apostolic form, might not be established. A 
 blank scepticism might take the place of a long-dominant 
 credulity. The fear of Erasmus that, " with the study 
 of ancient literature, ancient paganism would reappear," 
 might be realized ; and, as has happened in other cases, 
 men might then rush from the slavish acceptance of 
 grovelling superstitions to a bold and impious denial of 
 the most certain and sacred scriptural truths. 
 
 From this danger Christendom was saved, as it only 
 could be saved, by the general circulation of the inspired 
 Word of God. Without this the Eeformation, in its 
 best and highest sense, would have been impossible. 
 The Scriptures alone could form a foundation on which 
 the fabric of primitive Christianity might anew be 
 raised ; and hence there attaches the deepest interest to 
 the printing and publishing of the first Greek New 
 Testament — the issue through the press of that precious 
 volume which was to bear fresh life and peace, instruc- 
 tion and salvation, to the world. 
 
 The first portions of the Greek Testament ever 
 printed were the songs of the Virgin Mary and 
 Zacharias, from the opening chapter of St. Luke's 
 Gospel. These were appended to a Greek edition of 
 the Psalms which appeared at Venice in the year 1486. 
 A considerable period elapsed before any attempt was 
 made to print and publish the whole New Testament. 
 It was not till 1516 — a year so memorable on other 
 
Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 71 
 
 accounts — that Erasmus gave his first edition to the 
 world, and thus did more to facilitate the triumph of 
 Luther in his arduous struggle than could, in any other 
 way, have been accomplished. 
 
 Although, however, the New Testament of Erasmus 
 was the first one actually published, there was another 
 printed, some few years previously, under strictly Eomish 
 influences. It is somewhat remarkable that Spain, so 
 intolerant until recent years of the free circulation 
 of the Bible, has the honour of being the country in 
 which an edition of the Sacred Scriptures was first 
 printed. About the beginning of the sixteenth century, 
 the able and accomplished Cardinal Ximenes began 
 to prepare a Polyglott Bible ; and the work was finished, 
 so far as regards the printing of the New Testament, 
 before Erasmus had even begun to make any prepara- 
 tions for his edition. Some years, however, were allowed 
 to pass before this great work of Ximenes was authorized 
 to be published. It is known as the Complutensian 
 edition, from the place at which it appeared — Com- 
 plutum being the Latin name of Alcala in Spain. There 
 are now hardly any means of ascertaining what were 
 the manuscripts used in the preparation of this New 
 Testament. They seem to have been of no great value, 
 for its readings rarely agree, in controverted passages, 
 with those of the most ancient authorities formerly de- 
 scribed. Moreover, it has been strongly contended by 
 some, though as stoutly denied by others, that the 
 Complutensian editors allowed an undue influence in 
 their work to the Latin Vulgate, which has always been 
 
72 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 
 
 so highly esteemed by the Church of Eome. Some 
 countenance, certainly, seems to be given to this 
 suspicion, by a curious remark and comparison which 
 they make in their preface to the Old Testament. Their 
 plan was to print the Latin in the central column as the 
 place of honour, and to surround it on either side by the 
 Septuagint Greek and the original Hebrew. Eeferring 
 to this, they compare the Vulgate to Christ crucified be- 
 tween the tivo thieves (!) — the one thief being the Greek 
 Church, which was denounced as being heretical, and the 
 other thief being the nation of the Jews, whom they 
 accused of having corrupted the Hebrew as often as 
 it differed from the Latin. 
 
 The Complutensian text, although the first ever 
 printed, has had but small influence on subsequent 
 editions of the New Testament. It possesses therefore 
 comparatively little interest at the present day, and will 
 probably never again be reprinted. 
 
 Very different has it proved with the edition published 
 by Erasmus. That has been the basis of all the ordinary 
 editions of the Scriptures which have since been 
 published, from generation to generation. From it has 
 been derived in substance our oivn Authorized English 
 Testament. It is, therefore, a point of the deepest 
 interest to us to ascertain on w^hat critical authority the 
 edition of Erasmus rests. And on investigating this 
 matter, we are led both to acknowledge the gracious 
 working of Divine Providence in the past, and to see 
 what is our own manifest duty at the present day. 
 "When we remember that our Authorized Version was 
 
Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 73 
 
 formed more than 250 years ago, and that then not one 
 of those ancient and precious manuscripts which have 
 been described was available for the purposes of 
 criticism, we might well entertain the fear lest the 
 Bible known to us from infancy should prove to be 
 seriously misleading, as having been formed from a very 
 erroneous text. And when we ask what were the 
 manuscripts which Erasmus employed at first, and what 
 those were which the editors immediately following him 
 used, till what is known as the " Eeceived Text " was 
 produced, we find that our apprehensions seem to have 
 but too good foundation. It was not for long that the 
 ample materials which we now possess for fixing 
 accurately the true readings of Scripture came into the 
 hands of Biblical scholars. Erasmus, and his followers 
 for a century, had but a few modern manuscripts which 
 they could consult in preparing their editions of the 
 New Testament. They were such as happened to be 
 within their reach; and these were of a character on 
 which no great reliance could be placed. To show how 
 meagre were the resources of Erasmus, it may be 
 mentioned that he had only a single manuscript of the 
 Apocalypse, and that even the one which he possessed 
 was not complete. A part of the New Testament 
 would thus have been altogether wanting in his first 
 edition had he not ventured to supply it by transla- 
 tion from the Latin. He took the Vulgate, and con- 
 jecturally retranslated it into Greek. It thus happens 
 that, in the ordinary editions of the Greek New Testa- 
 ment, there are words still existing, which so far 
 
74 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 
 
 from resting on any manuscript authority, or having 
 any claim to be regarded as inspired, were plainly 
 and confessedly inserted in the text from mere con- 
 jecture. 
 
 Yet. notwithstanding this, and all the more on account 
 • of it, the common text of the Greek New Testament 
 excites our deepest wonder and admiration. We cannot 
 but regard it as a kind of Providential miracle. Although 
 so much has been done since it was formed to throw 
 light upon the true text of Scripture, that which was at 
 first adopted remains, for almost all practical purposes, 
 totally unaffected. God has never interfered w T ith 
 human liberty, yet it is impossible to look back upon 
 the history of the Bible, and especially on the point now 
 under consideration, without being struck with the 
 manner in which He has continually watched over His 
 own holy Word. We may truly and thankfully say that 
 He led Erasmus and his followers " in a way which they 
 knew not/' so as to secure a substantial accuracy in those 
 transcripts of the New Testament which they presented 
 to the world. Many have come after them, and devoted 
 their lives to the discovery and publication of sacred 
 manuscripts ; but largely as the stores of Biblical 
 criticism have been increased since their day, the New 
 Testament remains practically almost the same as it was 
 in the first editions. Changes have indeed been made : 
 doubts respecting numerous passages have been started : 
 fluctuations have taken place in the opinions of scholars 
 as to the true reading in a few important texts ; but, upon 
 the whole, criticism, even in its most rigorous exercise, has 
 
Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 75 
 
 not demanded any great or material alterations in the 
 text. 
 
 This is a very comforting and satisfactory thought to 
 all the friends of Scripture, yet it is surely not one which 
 should lead them to undervalue the labours of those 
 who devote their time and strength to critical pursuits. 
 The object of such students is to discover and present 
 to the Christian world, in as pure a form as possible, 
 that message which our Heavenly Father has addressed 
 to His children upon earth. The more loyal and loving 
 our hearts are towards Him, the more will we feel it our 
 incumbent duty to encourage, in every way w T e can, those 
 scholarly studies which have for their end the noble 
 purpose of freeing the Scriptures from every taint of 
 error that may, through human infirmity, have crept into 
 their text, and restoring that text to the form which 
 it exhibited in the autographs of the sacred writers. 
 
 Let it be remembered also, that to such investigations 
 is due the confidence which we may justly place in our 
 Bibles, as they have been familiar to us all our days ; 
 and that, however little the labours of sacred critics may 
 be heard of by the Christian world at large, yet it is to 
 these that the faith and comfort of all believers are to 
 be ascribed. By these there is a wall of defence drawn 
 around the Bible of the humblest worshipper. By these 
 the enemies of divine truth are prevented from making 
 that assault upon the hopes of the Christian community, 
 which they would not defer for a moment had they the 
 least chance of being successful. By the labour of some 
 scholar whose name perhaps few have ever heard — who 
 
76 Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 
 
 sits buried among books and manuscripts which most 
 men would think repellent and unedifying, and whose 
 life is spent in pursuits which many in their haste might 
 stigmatize as useless — by his labours, Christians in 
 general are protected from the assertion or insinuation 
 that the passage of Scripture which may have cheered 
 their hearts has no valid claim to be regarded as the 
 Word of God. Honour then to those who are wearing 
 health and strength away in the noble work of ascer- 
 taining and elucidating the true text of Scripture! As 
 much as the missionary who leaves home and kindred 
 to bear the glad tidings of salvation to the heathen : as 
 truly as the martyr who seals with his blood the testi- 
 mony he has borne for Christ — are these men doing the 
 the work of God, and earning the reward which will at 
 last be given to all His good and faithful servants. But 
 for them, the message which the missionary bears might 
 be scoffed at as a fable; but for them, the faith for 
 which the martyr dies might be ridiculed as a delu- 
 sion; but for them, the Gospel which the minister 
 preaches might be laughed at as the offspring of human 
 credulity or imposture ; and therefore to them be given 
 that honour which is their due, and let those services be 
 acknowledged and appreciated which are rendered by 
 them, not to a sect, a church, or a nation merely, but to 
 mankind at large, and by which not only the present, 
 but all future ages, are laid under most deep and true 
 and lasting obligations. 
 
 On looking back upon the history of sacred criticism 
 
Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 77 
 
 since the days of Erasmus, it is pleasing to discover that 
 some of the very first and most eminent men who 
 devoted themselves to such studies belonged to our own 
 country. After Beza's editions of the New Testament, 
 which appeared towards the close of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, little was done in textual criticism till the publica- 
 tion of Walton's Polyglott in the year 1657. This great 
 work contained a collection of various readings from 
 numerous important manuscripts, though it still adhered 
 to that text which had now acquired a kind of prescrip- 
 tive right, and which, in the opinion of many, it was 
 sacrilegious to touch. Ignorance is often as irritable 
 as it is clamorous ; and learning must, not unfre- 
 quently, sustain a severe conflict before its conclusions 
 are accepted. Thus it proved in the case now before us. 
 If there is any duty plainly incumbent on Christians, it 
 is surely to see that they possess the Word of God in as 
 pure a form as Providence has placed within their power. 
 And when new manuscripts were brought to light, of a 
 far higher value than those which had been used in the 
 first printed editions of the JSTew Testament, it might 
 have been expected that some gratitude would be dis- 
 played to those scholars who had discovered them, and 
 who sought by their aid to present to the Christian 
 world a closer approximation to the genuine text of 
 Scripture. But as has happened in many similar cases, 
 and as will doubtless happen again, very different was 
 the result. Men allowed their own notions of expe- 
 diency to outweigh all considerations of truth and duty. 
 The established text with all its corruptions was clung 
 
78 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 
 
 to, in preference to that which had so greatly superior 
 claims to acceptance ; and those scholars who ventured 
 to call attention to the various readings furnished by 
 newly-discovered manuscripts, instead of being thanked 
 for their pains, were (as we formerly saw) branded 
 as the .enemies of revelation. Future ages, however, 
 have acknowledged the value of those labours which 
 were at first so much decried; and the names of 
 Walton, Mill, and Bentley will ever be names of 
 which England will be proud in connection with the 
 pursuit of sacred learning and the advancement of 
 textual criticism. 
 
 After this period, the glory of devotedness to Biblical 
 science passed away from Britain, and rested on a 
 country to which the whole Christian world is now under 
 the' deepest obligation. However much we may deplore 
 some of the phases which both faith and unbelief have 
 assumed in Germany, it is but fair that we should also 
 acknowledge the incalculable service which German 
 scholarship has rendered to the cause of divine truth. 
 In regard, more especially, to the text of Scripture, the 
 names of Bengel and Griesbach need only to be men- 
 tioned in order to suggest how much we owe to the 
 former labours of Continental critics. Nor have German 
 scholars ceased to toil in our behalf at the present day. 
 Not to weary the reader with a long list of names, we may 
 simply mention that of Tischendorf, who has had the hon- 
 our of finding more manuscripts of the New Testament 
 than any other labourer in this field, and whose previous 
 discoveries have (as formerly described) all been sur- 
 
Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 79 
 
 passed and crowned by his bringing to light a manu- 
 script which carries us back at least to the days of 
 Augustine and Jerome, and whose worth it is scarcely 
 possible to overestimate. 
 
 It is gratifying to be able to add that our own country 
 has recently been reoccupying the honourable position 
 which she formerly held in the department of textual 
 criticism. No labourers in this field have ever surpassed 
 Dr. Tregelles and Dr. Scrivener in the zeal, diligence, 
 and painstaking accuracy with which they have devoted 
 their lives to this study. Others also, like the late 
 lamented Dean Alford, have done much to give a stimu- 
 lus to such pursuits. There are not a few cheering evi- 
 dences that a taste for the study of textual criticism is 
 reviving in our country ; and if this taste is duly fostered 
 and properly directed, we may augur from it the happiest- 
 results. 
 
 The New Testament .Revision Company, now sitting 
 periodically at Westminster, of necessity give their 
 most careful attention to the settlement of the true text. 
 This is the very first duty which they have to discharge. 
 It w r ould be vain to make an improved translation, how- 
 ever excellent, if that w r ere founded on a corrupt or 
 uncertain text. The primary aim therefore of the Com- 
 pany is, by the most patient, and even anxious, weighing 
 of all available evidence, to make as near an approach 
 to certainty as can be made with respect to the genuine 
 text of the New Testament. If English readers of the 
 new version feel startled at first by finding words or 
 clauses omitted to which they have been long accustomed, 
 
80 Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 
 
 and changes of translation introduced owing to a change 
 of reading which has been adopted in the Greek, they 
 may rest assured that not a single alteration has been 
 adopted without the most serious deliberation, or from 
 any other motive than the earnest desire of making the 
 nearest possible approach to the primitive form of that 
 inspired Word which God has given us to be " a lamp 
 unto our feet, and a light unto our path." 
 
PART SECOND. 
 
 MODE OF DEALING WITH THE FACTS. 
 
PART SECOND. 
 
 MODE OF DEALING WITH THE EACTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 HE facts of the case are now before us, and 
 we are next met by the inquiry, What are 
 we to do with them ? What are the principles 
 that are to guide us in selecting from the 
 great mass of various readings in existence those which 
 we may have best reason to suppose were the original 
 words of the inspired penmen ? 
 
 It is too generally imagined that we have no prin- 
 ciples at all. Even intelligent persons are frequently 
 under the impression that the science of textual criti- 
 cism is a mere collection of undigested facts, that the 
 textual critic has no fixed laws to regulate his procedure, 
 that he works at random, and that the text eventually 
 constructed by him is the result of arbitrary hypothesis 
 or unregulated caprice. It will be our effort to show 
 that this is not the case ; and that, whatever uncertainty 
 may still rest upon some parts of our subject, enough is 
 
84 Introductory. 
 
 known to make it strictly a science. We shall en- 
 deavour so to look at the task we have in hand as 
 gradually to draw a line with ever-increasing closeness 
 around the correct readings of which we are in search. 
 
 It has been already stated that there are three sources 
 from which these readings are to be derived, manuscripts, 
 versions, and citations from Scripture in the writings of 
 the early Fathers of the Church. Had we reason to 
 believe that all these authorities were of equal value 
 our course would be a simple one. Looking at them as 
 so many witnesses, each entitled to the same degree of 
 credit, we should simply reckon up the number upon 
 opposing sides of the point at issue, and pronounce our 
 verdict according to the numerical majority. Such a 
 state of things, however, is never exhibited in a court of 
 justice. The value of evidence there given by different 
 witnesses very materially differs. Some have had better 
 opportunities of observation than others. Some have 
 made a better use of opportunities in themselves equally 
 good. One. is better able than another to give his evi- 
 dence in a clear, distinct, and intelligible manner. The 
 statements made by one accord better than those made 
 by others with circumstances already known to us. All 
 these things affect the value of evidence. It is the duty 
 of a judge to attend to them, and he may often have to 
 decide the case before him by the evidence of the few 
 instead of the many. Hence the legal maxim, than 
 which there is none more thoroughly established, that 
 testimonies are to be weighed, not numbered. 
 
 The same principle comes into operation in the 
 
Introductory. 85 
 
 inquiry with which we are engaged. One of the first 
 things that strikes the student of the text of the New 
 Testament is the degree to which the many witnesses 
 that have something to say regarding it differ from one 
 another in the points now mentioned. They have not 
 had the same opportunities of observation, for one 
 belongs to a period much nearer that at which the 
 Apostles wrote than another ; and this, though, when 
 taken by itself, by no means conclusive as to the higher 
 value of his evidence, is yet at first sight something in 
 its favour. They have not made the same use of oppor- 
 tunities equally good; for one of two who lived in the 
 same age may have obtained his information from sources 
 manifestly inferior to those that were employed by his 
 contemporary. The same pains have not been taken by 
 them to ascertain the facts ; for one may show that he 
 has yielded without further inquiry to a first impression, 
 while another has looked into the matter, viewed it 
 from different sides, argued it with himself, and made 
 up his mind after careful and anxious deliberation. 
 Finally, they may not give evidence with the same direct 
 bearing on the point at issue ; for one may speak to us 
 in the original lan^ua^e of the New Testament, another 
 through the more uncertain medium of a translation. 
 It is clear then that merely to number our witnesses 
 will not do. We must distinguish between their 
 separate values. We must arrange and classify them. 
 
 Before proceeding further it may be well to illustrate 
 what has now been said by an example. We take two 
 interesting various readings in the first few verses of 
 
86 Introductory. 
 
 the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew. In our 
 English version of the first verse of that chapter we 
 read, " Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, 
 to be seen of them," and again at the close of the fourth, 
 the sixth, and the eighteenth verses, we find the clause, 
 " And thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward 
 thee openly." In all these cases the words of the Eng- 
 lish Bible are a faithful rendering of the standard Greek 
 text. Many manuscripts and other authorities, how- 
 ever, read in v. 1, "Take heed that ye do not your 
 righteousness before men," and at the close of each of 
 the three other verses referred to they omit the word 
 " openly." Which is correct ? Of which have we most 
 reason to think that it gives the form of the sentences 
 as originally spoken by our Lord and written by the 
 Evangelist ? Were we to be guided by the number of 
 witnesses on either side, we should at once have to 
 determine in favour of the received text. The number 
 giving evidence on its behalf vastly preponderates. 
 The number in favour of the other readings is compara- 
 tively small. Yet it is conceivable that, if justice is to 
 be done, the smaller number may be entitled to more 
 consideration than the larger, and that the verdict 
 should be with it. In point of fact it really proves to 
 be so. All editors of note come to this conclusion ; and 
 English readers who have Alford's New Testament in 
 their hands will see, on turning up the passage, that he 
 reads without remark in v. 1, " But take heed that ye 
 do not your righteousness before men," and that at the 
 close of verses 4 and 6 he brackets the " openly," while at 
 
Introductory. 8*7 
 
 the end of v. 18 he omits it. It is too soon to explain 
 the grounds of this judgment. We advert to it only as 
 a fact ; but. to confirm its correctness it may be said, 
 that the force and meaning of these verses are brought 
 by it into a much clearer light. The word " alms" in 
 v. 1 confines our attention to the first illustration of the 
 outward and hypocritical spirit spoken of by our Lord, 
 almsgiving. The word "righteousness" extends to all 
 the three, almsgiving, prayer, and fasting ; and the first 
 verse of the chapter becomes a general precept, finding 
 its illustration not in one only but in each of these. 
 The omission of the word "openly" is of even greater 
 importance. Its insertion spoils the whole meaning of 
 the passage, leading us to think that the promise of the 
 Saviour is that, if we serve God in secret, that is 
 sincerely, without pretence or show, for His own sake 
 and not for the sake of human applause, then God will 
 reward us even in this world, in the very sight and pre- 
 sence of those who gave us no credit for piety, who per- 
 haps condemned us for the want of it. No such lesson 
 is intended ; our Saviour designing only to teach us 
 that, however men may despise the spirit of humble 
 piety and honour ostentation, there is Another and a 
 Higher who will judge us justly, even that Father in 
 heaven who seeth in secret. Men may condemn, He 
 will "requite" or rather "recompense" us. ISTo selfish 
 thought of earthly triumph over foes is thus allowed to 
 mingle with our hope of reward. In purity and un- 
 selfishness of spirit we anticipate only the approbation 
 of our Father in heaven. 
 
88 Introductory. 
 
 These examples may suffice to show how much a de- 
 cision in favour of a minority of witnesses may after- 
 wards commend itself to the spiritually enlightened 
 judgment. If so, they answer the end for which they 
 are at present quoted. They will confirm to our minds 
 the necessity of such a classification of our witnesses 
 as that to which reference has been made. To this 
 classification we now proceed. 
 
 -.■-. 
 
CHAPTER It 
 
 FIKST STEP IN CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 5,T has been said that the three classes of 
 witnesses to which we have to appeal for 
 the determination of the true text of the 
 New Testament, are manuscripts of the 
 Greek text, translations into other languages made from 
 that text, and citations in the Fathers of the Church. 
 We ha^e first to make a comparative estimate of these 
 three classes. 
 
 Of the three it will appear that we must look first 
 and chiefly to manuscripts of the Greek text. For, 
 
 1. As to citations in the writings of the Fathers, 
 these labour in many respects under the same and even 
 greater defects than those that have to be contended 
 with in the case of manuscripts. The works of the 
 Fathers, like the Sacred Writings themselves, were com- 
 posed centuries before the art of printing was known. 
 The autographs have long since perished. It cannot be 
 doubted that, in their transcription, all the liabilities to 
 error which affected the transcription of the inspired 
 autographs would not only exist, but would exist in 
 
90 First Step in Classification. 
 
 even greater force. No such profound reverence was 
 entertained for them as for Scripture, It was no such 
 labour of earnest and loving zeal to copy them, with all 
 those marks of interest which still testify to the anxiety 
 manifested by the copyists of the Sacred Books to do their 
 work faithfully and well. No such scruples would be 
 felt by a copyist in altering the text that was beneath 
 his eye. Nay, there is every reason to think that he 
 would often be tempted by his very reverence for Scrip- 
 ture to alter what he read. A quotation given by a 
 Father, let us suppose, was different from what the tran- 
 scriber found in the manuscripts he was himself accus- 
 tomed to reverence as divine. How natural the supposi- 
 tion that the Father had quoted wrong, and that justice, 
 both to the Bible and to him, required that the error 
 sholild be corrected. Add to this that, in the case of the 
 Fathers, we possess, with one or two exceptions, no 
 manuscripts reaching so near the time when their books 
 were written as in the case of the New Testament, and 
 that even the whole amount of our manuscripts of their 
 writings is but small, and it will be at once observed 
 that, if it be difficult to determine the text of Scripture, 
 it must often be still more difficult to determine that of 
 those Fathers, the earlv era of whose life renders their 
 testimony in this matter of peculiar value. 
 
 This however is not all. Even supposing that we 
 could determine exactly what an early Christian Father 
 gave as a citation from Scripture, the question would 
 still remain, Has Scripture in that citation been ade- 
 quately represented ? In very many cases it would be 
 
First Step in Classification. 9 
 
 impossible to affirm this with confidence. The Fathers 
 were not unfrequently extremely loose in their quota- 
 tions from Scripture. Whether it was that they pos- 
 sessed little critical skill and so were careless ; or that 
 they found it difficult to turn up the passage they were 
 quoting in the rolls which were then in use ; or that, 
 depending largely on a still living tradition, they were 
 less particular about written words than we are ; what- 
 ever may have been the cause — and probably all the 
 causes now mentioned tended more or less to the result 
 — they were often satisfied if they gave the meaning of 
 a passage without seeming to concern themselves 
 whether or not they quoted with literal exactness. Nay, 
 the same Father is found to quote the same text in dif- 
 ferent ways in different parts of his writings. Numerous 
 examples of this may be met with in any critical edition 
 of the New Testament. We refer only to one. It is a 
 question of very great importance whether in Mark i. 2 
 we should read " as it is written in the prophets," or 
 " as it is written in Isaiah the prophet," and the evidence 
 of Irenaeus, a writer of the second half of the second 
 century, would be here of peculiar value. That Father 
 quotes the text at one time in the one form, at another 
 in the other. 
 
 The value of patristic citations is indeed sometimes 
 very high. It may happen that New Testament passages 
 are cited with the express intention of giving the words 
 of the original, that the whole course of the writer's 
 argument may be dependent on the fact that he found a 
 particular word in the text before him, or that he may 
 
92 First Step in Classification, 
 
 even discuss the merits of different readings, and de- 
 liberately give the preference to one. In such cases the 
 value of citations is so great that they become to a large 
 degree, in a manner to be afterwards considered by 
 us, tests of the value of those manuscripts in which 
 similar or different readings occur. But this is not their 
 general character. Neither ought it to be forgotten that 
 they may often be useful as corroborative authorities. 
 The weight which they have not of themselves they may 
 receive from their agreement with other witnesses ; and, 
 agreeing with them, they may confirm their evidence. 
 It must be obvious, however, from all that has been said, 
 that the highest position that can be assigned to cita- 
 tions in general is that of being subsidiary aids in 
 fixing the true reading of disputed passages. First 
 authorities they are not. Our circle is narrower than 
 it was. 
 
 2. As to versions, or translations of the Greek text 
 into other languages, their value in bearing testimony to 
 the general purity and integrity of the form in which 
 the New Testament has come down to us cannot be too 
 highly spoken of; nor is it possible to admire too much 
 the providential arrangement which led to the Bible's 
 being early translated into many different tongues, so 
 that its corruption, to any large extent, became almost, if 
 not altogether, an impossibility. That, however, is not 
 the point with which we are at present dealing. We 
 desire to know what is the relation of versions to 
 manuscripts in fixing particular words or clauses of the 
 Greek text. It cannot be doubted for a moment that, 
 
First Step in Classification. 93 
 
 just as in the case of citations, their position is sub- 
 ordinate. 
 
 At once the old difficulty meets us. What is the true 
 text of the version itself? Exposed in its early con- 
 dition to all the mischances that befell the sacred text, 
 the recovery of the original text of the one may be a 
 problem hardly less difficult of solution than the re- 
 covery of the original text of the other ; while, in 
 addition to a deterioration arising from the unavoidable 
 infirmities of copyists, we are exposed to the highly 
 probable danger that the transcriber of a version would 
 often be tempted to correct it by the authority of the 
 Greek text that he possessed. Again, even supposing 
 that we have the version in its original condition, it 
 may be that it is in a language widely different in its 
 genius from the Greek ; that a translator was anxious 
 to be elegant rather than accurate ; that, even if desirous 
 to be accurate, he mistook the sense of the words that 
 he translated. 
 
 On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that there 
 are some points in regard to which the evidence of 
 versions is entitled to the greatest weight. The pre- 
 sence or absence of whole clauses, for example, is a 
 point to which they can clearly testify. It not un- 
 frequently happened that they were made with such an 
 excessive literalness that, disregarding the idiom of their 
 own tongue, they followed the order and construction of 
 the words in their original, or simply transferred Greek 
 words to their own page in the letters used by them- 
 selves. In such cases their bearing on any question at 
 
94 First Step in Classification. 
 
 issue is direct. We have versions too belonging to parts 
 of the world widely removed from one another, so that 
 collusion of testimony was impossible. Finally, it 
 greatly heightens our sense of their importance, when we 
 remember that some of them were made at an a^e Ions: 
 anterior to the date of our oldest manuscripts. Not- 
 withstanding this, however, it must be evident that the 
 use of versions in the critical emendation of the text is 
 encompassed with difficulties peculiarly its owm. Ver- 
 sions may preserve a true reading long before it has 
 been discovered in any Greek manuscript, as the 
 Vulgate preserved the fine reading of Luke ii. 14, " Glory 
 to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of 
 His good pleasure," that is, among men whom He hath 
 loved. They may be a powerful aid in settling dis- 
 puted texts ; but they cannot be depended on as first 
 authorities. Our circle has again been narrowed. 
 
 We are thus for first authorities thrown back upon 
 manuscripts of the Greek text itself, upon documents 
 professing to give us directly that text as it stood in 
 the infancy of the Christian Church. Other readings 
 than those presented there we may find in patristic 
 citations, or we may infer from versions; but the 
 instances must be rare indeed, if they are even in any 
 case to be regarded as legitimate, when we draw a read- 
 ing from any other source than a Greek manuscript. 
 
CHAPTEE III. 
 
 SECOND STEP IN CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 IT the point now reached we have only 
 manuscripts before us as the primal source 
 whence the readings of the Greek New 
 Testament are to be drawn. Not that we 
 have laid citations and versions entirely aside. We 
 shall have by and by to return to them when the 
 whole evidence in any particular case is to be taken 
 into account. But, in the meantime, while engaged in 
 classifying our witnesses, we have seen reason to 
 believe that they do not occupy the first rank. Greek 
 manuscripts alone do that. These, however, are ex- 
 tremely numerous, and it is quite possible that they 
 may not all be of the same value. Can anything be 
 done then towards classifying them ? 
 
 In endeavouring to answer this question, it is of 
 importance to bear distinctly in mind what it is that 
 we are in search of. It is the original, and therefore the 
 most ancient text. It might seem, therefore, at first 
 sight that the nearer any manuscripts approach to it 
 in date, the more valuable will they be; and that, 
 
96 Second Step in Classification. 
 
 inasmuch as the uncial manuscripts, whose distinction 
 from the cursive is already known to our readers, are 
 our oldest group, we should be justified in at once 
 placing our dependence mainly upon them. Here, 
 however, we are met by the important fact that there is 
 a very great difference between the oldness of a manu- 
 script and the oldness of its text. The mechanical act 
 of writing, and the substance of what is written, may 
 belong to very different dates. It would not be so were 
 we dealing only with original compositions. An ori- 
 ginal book belongs in substance as well as form to the 
 exact period at which its author lived and wrote, If we 
 know the date of the form, we know also that of the 
 substance. But we are now occupied, not with originals 
 but with copies, and other considerations play their part. 
 A cursive manuscript written, for example, in the 
 eleventh century, may quite well present to us a text 
 belonging to the fourth, or perhaps even an earlier cen- 
 tury. It might be one of the manuscripts of that 
 century, now lost, from which it was copied. Whether 
 it was so is to be determined by considerations of which 
 we have not yet spoken; but if there be good ground 
 for believing that it was so, it is clear that it is not to 
 have its value diminished by the unimportant circum- 
 stance that it is written in cursive, not in uncial, letters. 
 No doubt if a witness present himself to us in uncial 
 clothing, we have for the most part, though not even 
 then always, reason to believe both that he is old and 
 that his text is old; whereas, in the case of one who 
 appears in cursive clothing, it is a matter for inquiry 
 
Second Step in Classification. 97 
 
 whether, though the fashion of his garb be modern, the 
 substance of the garb, in other words the text itself, 
 may not be as old as in the former case. Still the out- 
 ward appearance of the witness is not decisive. We 
 must dismiss the idea that the style in which a manu- 
 script is written is conclusive either as to its value or 
 its worthlessness. 
 
 Have we then any means of classifying our witnesses 
 upon the principle of more or less ancientness of text ? 
 A little consideration of the matter will show us that we 
 have ; and, when we have done it, a second step in 
 classification will have been gained. 
 
 In the first place, we can separate our most ancient 
 uncial manuscripts from the rest, and determine 
 from them the general character of an ancient text. 
 What is in them testifies to the state of the text in 
 their day, and must be old simply because they are old. 
 We can then institute a comparison between this text 
 and that of our more modern manuscripts. If, in doing 
 so, it can be shown that there is a very great resem- 
 blance, and that the various readings presented, not- 
 withstanding this resemblance, by the moderns, can 
 only be accounted for by the supposition that they ex- 
 isted in the Church at a very early period, and that they 
 have no connection w T ith the mere flux of time and its 
 changes, we at once pronounce these modern manuscripts 
 to be old in text though not in lettering. If, on the 
 other hand, the differences are obviously produced, not 
 by the faithful handing down of other ancient readings, 
 but by that gradual process of change, sometimes more 
 
 G 
 
98 Second Step in Classification. 
 
 sometimes less conscious, which is inseparable from re- 
 peated copyings, especially where the copyists differ in 
 training and taste, we must regard the manuscripts con- 
 taining these differences as modern, not only in form but 
 in text. Now it is often possible to trace differences of 
 this latter class. We can almost see the process of 
 change going on, alterations finding their way into the 
 text, roughnesses softened down, difficulties cleared 
 away, anomalous turns of language removed, the whole 
 character of the text becoming different from what it 
 was. Wherever this can be done, we have gained the 
 line of demarcation we are in search of. We are en- 
 titled to say that manuscripts upon which such changes 
 have been produced are not so worthy of reliance as 
 those by which the changes have been escaped. 
 
 In the second place, we can go even further than has 
 now been said, and can determine with still greater pre- 
 cision whether the text of any manuscript before us, be 
 it uncial or cursive, is ancient or not. We know from 
 entirely independent testimony, of a kind to be more 
 fully spoken of when we reach our next point, how 
 certain passages of Scripture were read in ancient times. 
 By these we can test our witnesses. One comes before 
 us with all the appearance of antiquity. We ask him, 
 How do you read such and such passages ? If he answer 
 us as, by the supposition, we know that they were read 
 in ancient times ; well. It is so far at least a proof that 
 he is what he claims to be. But if he answer us as we 
 know that they were read only in modern not in ancient 
 times, we at once say, You do not sustain your profes- 
 
Second Step in Classification. 99 
 
 sion; you look as if you belonged to the Fathers; in 
 reality, you are one of their late descendants. Again, 
 one comes before us with all the appearance of being a 
 modern. We apply the same test. He may show that, 
 so far as our main purpose is concerned, he belongs to a 
 remote antiquity. 
 
 In the third place, such a separation as that of which 
 we have been speaking has actually been made in 
 certain cases with the consent of all. Inquirers differ 
 as to the value they attach to the classes thus separated 
 from each other. They do not deny that the classes 
 exist. There are modern manuscripts which all allow 
 to possess an ancient text, and to be in this respect dis- 
 tinguished from the great mass of their fellows. 
 
 It is no doubt possible that even manuscripts, not 
 exhibiting what may be called an ancient text upon the 
 whole, may occasionally preserve an apostolic word or 
 phrase that somehow or other has dropped out of their 
 more ancient companions. That they have preserved 
 much that is apostolic is obvious, for in much all our 
 witnesses agree, and that must be apostolic. They may 
 therefore have preserved more. The difficulty is to 
 make sure that they have done so. JsTo agreement 
 among themselves can be sufficient to convince us, for 
 they may have been led astray by some common cause. 
 No mere number witnessing the same thing can be of 
 the least avail. Unless we are satisfied that each indi- 
 vidual of the number would be a good witness though 
 he stood alone, the mere bringing them together as a 
 multitude may disturb, but cannot convince. They 
 
100 Second Step in Classification. 
 
 must prove their title to be heard ; and appearances 
 being certainly against them, inasmuch as they differ 
 from our older witnesses, we are entitled to ask that the 
 proof they offer us shall be unambiguous and weighty. 
 
 Thus then we have taken another step, and one most 
 fruitful of results. It is a demonstrated fact, that the 
 great mass of manuscripts belonging to the later centuries 
 of the Christian Church cannot stand the tests of which 
 we have been speaking. We shall not say that they 
 are therefore to be put wholly aside, but certainly they 
 are not primary authorities. Our circle has again been 
 greatly narrowed. 
 
CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THIRD STEP IN CLASSIFICATION. — PART I. 
 
 |T the process of classification hitherto pursued 
 we have been enabled to diminish greatly 
 the number of our primary witnesses to the 
 Greek text of the New Testament. "We 
 have also been able to secure that all those to whose 
 evidence we are chiefly to attend have an ancient text, 
 a text at least ancient in its general character. It may 
 be thought that this should be enough for us ; but it 
 must be borne in mind that the oldest of our manuscripts 
 does not go back to a point of time older than the first 
 half of the fourth century, and that the texts therefore 
 hitherto mainly used by us take us only to that date, a 
 date three centuries later than that at which the sacred 
 autographs were written. This indeed would be a 
 matter of no consequence if two conditions affecting the 
 question before us could be fulfilled. First, had we 
 reason to believe that, up to the period to which our 
 oldest manuscripts belong, the text of the New Testa- 
 ment had remained pure and free from error, then those 
 witnesses, bearing testimony to its condition in their 
 
102 Third Step in Classification, 
 
 own day, would at the same time testify to what it was 
 in the days of the Apostles. Secondly, were our wit- 
 nesses agreed in their testimony, we should at once and 
 without further difficulty be able to determine the pre- 
 cise words that were read by them as Scripture, and a 
 very strong presumption would be given in their behalf. 
 Unfortunately neither of these two conditions is com- 
 plied with. 
 
 As to the first, we know that the text of the New 
 Testament, so far from having continued pure during 
 the first three centuries of its existence, had fallen into 
 a state of remarkable confusion long before that period 
 expired. Several circumstances combine to show this. 
 The differences among our ancient witnesses themselves, 
 a point as yet only alluded to, and to be immediately 
 spoken of more fully, are a clear proof of the fact. Had 
 the text been preserved in its original condition they 
 could not all at once have exhibited the diversity that 
 we actually meet with. It was one at the first; it 
 would have been one then. Again, although we have 
 no manuscripts older than the early part of the fourth 
 century, we have translations of the New Testament 
 made into other languages nearly two centuries earlier, 
 together with quotations from it embodied in writings 
 of the Fathers belonging to as remote an age ; and these 
 translations and quotations leave no doubt that, when 
 they were made, very many passages were read in their 
 particular districts quite otherwise than we find them in 
 our oldest manuscripts. Still further, we can see from 
 the works of the early Fathers of the Church that they 
 
Third Step in Classification. 103 
 
 were often greatly perplexed by the variety of readings 
 that came under their notice. They speak of it con- 
 tinually, and often in tones of much hesitation and 
 doubt. They refer to manuscripts even then older than 
 others. They describe some manuscripts as being more 
 accurate than others. They blame opponents for wil- 
 fully falsifying the text. They discuss the probabilities 
 of different claims. In short, they find themselves 
 largely compelled to pursue the same course of argu- 
 ment pursued by Biblical critics at the present day. 
 Finally, we have the express testimony of some of the 
 most learned of their number, of some who devoted 
 much pains to the study of the text upon this very 
 point. We shall refer only to two, the most learned, the 
 most critical of them all, one of whom flourished in the 
 third century, the other in the fourth. The first, Origen, 
 commenting upon Matt. xix. 19, where words occur 
 falsely thought by him to be corrupt, says, " It might 
 appear madness in me to consider these words as an 
 addition to the text, were there not also in many other 
 things such a variety in the copies of the Gospels, that 
 neither do those of Matthew correspond with one 
 another nor with those of the other Evangelists. But 
 now the diversity of copies is become truly great, 
 whether through the carelessness of the copyists or 
 through the wilful daring of those who are occupied in 
 correcting what is copied, or through those again who 
 venture to make improvements upon their own judg- 
 ment, sometimes adding, and at other times blotting 
 out." The second, Jerome, says, in his epistle to Pope 
 
104 Third Step in Classification. 
 
 Daniasus, " If confidence is to be placed in the Latin 
 texts, let them tell us in which ; for the texts are almost 
 as numerous as the copies/' It is true that Jerome is 
 here speaking of the Latin texts, but the simple fact 
 that they were thus corrupt is evidence enough that the 
 variations in different manuscripts of the original must 
 have been great. 
 
 To w^hat causes this corruption of the text about the 
 beginning of the fourth century is to be ascribed it 
 would be extremely difficult to say. The natural, the 
 inevitable causes spoken of in the former part of this 
 work, undoubtedly contributed to it, but they are not of 
 themselves, by any means, a sufficient explanation, The 
 fact, however, without going into this, is sufficient for 
 our present purpose. It evidently presents a very 
 serious difficulty when we would proceed to estimate 
 the merits of our ancient witnesses who belong to that 
 
 ■*& 
 
 The second difficulty alluded to is not less great. 
 "When we examine our ancient witnesses, we find that 
 they are very far indeed from being unanimous in the 
 testimony given by them. They are constantly at 
 variance with one another. We take one or two of 
 them that seem to approach most closely; and for a 
 time, as we travel with them, we find nothing but a 
 delightful harmony of statement. All at once they 
 diverge. First the one and then the other joins a 
 different group. But attachment to the new companions 
 does not continue long. Divergence from them speedily 
 appears. And so they go on in ever- varying combina- 
 
Third Step in Classification. 105 
 
 tions, till the impression is apt to be produced on us 
 that anything like a well-grounded verdict on our part 
 is impossible. 
 
 And so it would be, were all our ancient authorities 
 regarded by us as equally worthy of reliance. But 
 there cannot be a greater mistake than to think so. 
 Two manuscripts of the fourth .century may differ from 
 each other in worth quite as much as two of the 
 sixteenth. All the main causes that operate in bringing 
 about a distinction in the latter operate also in the 
 former case. The old were copies like the young. They 
 may have been copied from bad originals. They may 
 have been carelessly copied. Age alone cannot be 
 accepted as decisive of their value. It will thus be seen 
 that we are brought back to the point from which we 
 started in this chapter. The two conditions that would 
 have saved us from any effort to discriminate between 
 our ancient witnesses cannot be complied with. Nothing 
 remains but that we make up our minds as to their 
 relative value, and the weight to be attached to them. 
 
 Here one of the most interesting and important pro- 
 blems connected with our inquiry opens on our view. 
 How shall we decide between the conflicting claims 
 of manuscripts all presenting so far at least an ancient 
 text ? We shall explain the principle of the process to 
 be resorted to, and shall then confirm and illustrate it in 
 a separate chapter by one or two examples. 
 
 The great fact to be borne in mind is this, that we 
 have in early versions of the New Testament, and 
 especially in early quotations from it in the writings of 
 
106 Third Step in Classification. 
 
 the Church Fathers, evidence as to the manner in which 
 a large number of important texts were read at a date 
 much more remote than that of the oldest of our exist- 
 ing manuscripts. It is true that this evidence is not 
 free from the influences that have weakened the effect 
 of the evidence of our manuscripts themselves. The 
 text of translations and of quotations has been affected 
 by time as well as their text. The editions of them 
 that have been published are not unfrequently far from 
 being so critical and correct as to entitle them to be 
 confidently relied on. We may often be as uncertain as 
 to the readings they presented at the time when the 
 manuscripts containing them appeared, for they too 
 were once known only in that form, as we are with 
 regard to the readings we would deduce from the 
 manuscripts of the New Testament itself. Still, after 
 making all allowance for these chances of error, a 
 sufficient amount of certainty remains to enable us to 
 come to a definite conclusion as to the manner in which 
 a large number of important texts w T ere read, at a 
 date long anterior to that from which any manuscript 
 evidence has come down to us. But we are not confined 
 to the sources now referred to for the certainty of which 
 we speak. Other considerations come also into play. 
 Arguments as to the original reading of the texts we are 
 selecting may be drawn from the general verdict of 
 manuscript authority regarding them; for although that 
 authority is later than the evidence of early versions 
 and quotations, it may often carry us back, by way 
 of confirmation, to what these testify. Internal evidence 
 
Third Step in Classification. 107 
 
 too, springing from such, things as the context of the 
 passage, the style of the writer, or the analogy of Scrip- 
 ture, may be taken into account. Each of these has some 
 weight, and forms a legitimate part of the proof by 
 which we settle with ourselves the manner in which the 
 texts we have fixed on were read in the first or second 
 century, if not at the very first. "We establish these 
 readings then ; and pursuing the same course as that 
 already indicated in the last chapter, only now with 
 much greater minuteness and particularity than were 
 then necessary, we test by means of them the value of 
 each of the ancient manuscripts in our hands. If it 
 contain them in the form we expect it is a proof that it 
 is good. If it do not contain them in that form we con- 
 clude that it is of inferior value. 
 
 It will be at once seen that the principle now ad- 
 vocated is thoroughly sound, and that, not only in so 
 far as it applies to the reading of the particular texts 
 that have been under examination, but in relation to the 
 general value of each of our manuscripts as a whole. 
 Upon the first of these two points there can be no 
 doubt. We used all available evidence in settling the 
 reading of our characteristic texts, and the judgment 
 of the single manuscript we are examining will, if it 
 dissent from that evidence, not disturb, if it agree with 
 it, will confirm our conclusion. But the second point 
 is equally indisputable ; for surely it will not be denied 
 that proved value in regard to a number of texts, and 
 these characteristic and important ones, is a fair test of 
 the value of a manuscript in general. Proved veracity 
 
108 Third Step in Classification. 
 
 in a witness upon many points is a reason why we 
 should not only believe him upon these points, but why 
 we should accept him as a generally credible witness. 
 Let us refuse to acknowledge this, and a fundamental 
 law of evidence is overthrown. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THIRD STEP IN CLASSIFICATION. — PART II. 
 
 E have explained the principle by which the 
 relative value of ancient manuscripts, all 
 possessing great claims on our regard, is to 
 be tested, and we proceed now to give one 
 or two illustrations of the process. 
 
 Let us take first a test to which reference has been 
 already made, Matt. vi. 4, " And thy Father, which seeth 
 in secret, shall reward thee openly." The word "openly" 
 is found in several ancient manuscripts, but it is 
 omitted in three of the most ancient. It is evidently 
 necessary that we should know whether the former or 
 the latter are most worthy of our confidence before we 
 venture to decide between them. Now in connection 
 with this text it happens that we have the means of 
 doing so. One of the most celebrated of the Fathers 
 directed his particular attention to the question whether 
 the word " openly " should stand in the text or not, and at 
 last excluded it on the ground that, though found in 
 many Latin translations of his day, it was not found in 
 the Greek manuscripts, which were earlier in date. 
 
110 Third Step in Classification. 
 
 This testimony is very strong. We turn to the most 
 ancient Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, 
 and the word is not found in them. It is also wanting 
 in two or three important translations, and in citations 
 of the text given by several of the Fathers. Farther, as 
 already pointed out in a previous chapter, the insertion 
 of the word mars the sense of the passage, and leads to 
 a different idea from that which our Lord evidently 
 intended to convey. In these circumstances it is an 
 easy conclusion from the evidence that " openly " ought 
 to be omitted. That, however, is not what we have 
 at present in view. We rather lay aside one of the 
 ancient manuscripts testifying to the omission. Our 
 verdict on this point will not be affected. There is abun- 
 dant evidence without it. We determine fully that the 
 omission should be made. We then take up the old 
 manuscript laid aside, and as yet supposed to be unex- 
 amined. Has it, or has it not, the word ? It wants it. 
 Thus we have a proof so far, though one text will of 
 course go but a little way in such an inquiry, that that 
 manuscript is right, and more worthy of being relied on 
 than any manuscript, even though an ancient one, in 
 which the word occurs. 
 
 Again, we take another very interesting text, Matt, 
 v. 22. The reading of our English Bibles is, " But I 
 say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother 
 without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." 
 Now we know from the express testimony of the two 
 most celebrated critical Fathers of the Early Church, 
 that the words " without a cause" were not found in the 
 
Third Step in Classification. Ill 
 
 best manuscripts then existing, and that in their opinion, 
 therefore, they ought to be excluded. " In some manu- 
 scripts/' says one of them, '"without a cause' is added; 
 but, in the true ones, the sentence is made quite ex- 
 clusive, and anger is completely taken away. 'Without 
 a cause,' therefore, ought to be banished from the text." 
 "But some think," says the other, "that we may be 
 angry reasonably, improperly adding 'without a cause' 
 to what we find in the Gospel, according as it is said, 
 'whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger 
 of the judgment,' for some read ' whosoever is angry 
 with his brother without a cause.'" As before, this 
 testimony that the phrase should be omitted is very 
 strong. With all their varied learning and great oppor- 
 tunities, these Fathers had considered the matter, and 
 come to a clear and unhesitating decision. The phrase 
 is also wanting in two of our oldest manuscripts, in 
 several valuable translations, and in others of the 
 Fathers besides the two now cited. Internal evidence is 
 also against it. So soon as we have reason to doubt the 
 propriety of its presence, we see that it has all the 
 appearance of a word inserted to avoid the apparent 
 harshness of the precept without it ; while, if it was an 
 original portion of Scripture, it is very difficult to give 
 satisfactory reasons for the removal, the difficulty of the 
 passage being thereby unquestionably increased. On 
 the other hand, the precept, if we omit the phrase, is in 
 striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, 
 almost paradoxical character of various other precepts of 
 the Sermon on the Mount. Although, therefore, we do 
 
112 Third Step in Classification. 
 
 find the phrase in a good many uncials, including in 
 this case one of the oldest, in the great mass of cursives, 
 in several versions and Fathers, it is not difficult to 
 decide that it ought to go out of the text. As before, 
 however, that is not what we have at present in view. 
 "We rather lay aside one of the ancient manuscripts 
 testifying to the omission, if possible, and.it is here pos- 
 sible, the same one as before. Our verdict on the point of 
 omission will not be affected. There is abundant evi- 
 dence without it. We determine fully that the omission 
 should be made. We then take up the old manuscript 
 laid aside, and as yet supposed to be unexamined, has it, 
 or has it not, the words (one word in Greek) ? It wants 
 them. Thus we have again so far a proof that that 
 manuscript is right, and worthy of being relied on. 
 
 "We take still another text from the Gospel of St. Mat- 
 thew, xxviii. 9, " And as they went to tell His disciples, 
 behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came 
 and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." The 
 words here, " as they went to tell His disciples," are found 
 in some uncial manuscripts, but not in others. We desire 
 to know upon which of these we may most rely. We 
 pursue therefore exactly the same process as before. 
 Several of the Fathers bear distinct witness to the fact 
 that these words should not be there, and so do two of 
 our most ancient manuscripts (the one that we are 
 testing being in the meanwhile laid aside), together with 
 many other important authorities. So far therefore as 
 that point is concerned we can without difficulty come 
 to a conclusion. The words have no right to their 
 
Third Step in Classification. 113 
 
 position in the text. We turn up the manuscript under 
 examination. Does it have, or does it want, them ? It 
 wants them. The conclusion as to its trustworthiness 
 drawn in the two previous instances must be drawn 
 again. 
 
 Once more, we take a very interesting passage from 
 the Gospel of St. John, vi. 11. It occurs in the account 
 given by that Apostle of the multiplying of the bread, 
 " And Jesus took the loaves ; and when He had given 
 thanks, He distributed to the disciples, and the disciples 
 to them that were set down." Such is the reading of 
 some of our authorities ; but others, omitting a portion 
 of the sentence, read, " And Jesus took the loaves, and 
 when He had given thanks, He distributed to them that 
 were set down." The difference, it will be observed, is 
 that, according to the latter reading, Jesus directly dis- 
 tributes the bread Himself; that, according to the former, 
 He does it by means of His disciples. Now we find that 
 all the most important versions, and all the most trust- 
 worthy Fathers who allude to the verse, so decidedly 
 support the first of these two views, that we can have 
 no hesitation in adopting it. The verse ought to read, 
 " He distributed to them that were set down." We 
 return to the particular manuscript we are testing. 
 How does the case stand with it ? It wants the words ; 
 and we have fresh confirmation of its value. 
 
 One other example taken from the Epistles may fitly 
 close this list. We take 1 Cor. vi. 20, " Therefore glorify 
 God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 
 We can establish wuthout the use of the manuscript 
 
 H 
 
114 Third Step in Classification. 
 
 with which we are dealing, that all the words here met 
 with after " body " have no right to a place in the text, 
 which ought to read simply, " therefore glorify God in 
 your body." We turn to our manuscript as before. It 
 wants the words, and we are strengthened in our old 
 conclusion. 
 
 The same process has to be applied to each of our 
 ancient manuscripts in succession, testing each by the 
 mode in which it reads texts whose true reading we have 
 been able to ascertain without it. In proportion as it 
 agrees with them its value is enhanced ; in proportion 
 as it differs from them it is diminished. In the five 
 texts now selected one manuscript was found to stand 
 the test of each. It is certainly more valuable, so far as 
 five texts can help us to a conclusion, than one that could 
 stand the test only twice, or thrice, or not at all. 
 
 The illustrations now given ought sufficiently to ex- 
 plain the general nature of the method resorted to for 
 the purpose of determining the point that we have had 
 before us, How we are to arrange and classify those an- 
 cient manuscripts that unfortunately so often differ from 
 one another. Our illustrations convey of course no idea 
 of the very large number of texts to which the process must 
 be applied, or of the complications that have often to be 
 met before a final decision can be come to. Yet enough 
 ought to have been said to show that, when critics of the 
 text of Scripture make an alteration in the standard text 
 they do not make it at random. They know what they are 
 about. By long, laborious, anxious study they have been 
 able to establish certain principles by which they can 
 
Third Step in Classification. 115 
 
 • 
 decide as to the character of the witnesses "before them; 
 
 and they are thus prepared for giving their verdict upon 
 the whole case in the calm judicial spirit of a judge upon 
 the bench. 
 
 The effect also of the procedure now advocated upon 
 the mass of our materials for judging of the true text of 
 the Xew Testament will be at once apparent. It is a 
 fact admitting of no contradiction, that the number even 
 of our ancient manuscripts capable of standing well the 
 test of which we have been speaking is but small. We 
 have to add to them indeed those of our modern manu- 
 scripts that pass with equal credit through the trial, for 
 we have already seen that in such an event the modern 
 manuscript is, as having an ancient text, to be ranked 
 for our purpose along with the ancients themselves. 
 Again, however, this number is not great. Both ancients 
 and moderns together, able to vindicate their right to 
 occupy the highest place in the list of tested manuscripts, 
 are but few in number. Our circle of primary authorities 
 has been still more narrowed. 
 
CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 GENERAL RESULT OF CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 ^^^SEFOEE proceeding further, it will be well for 
 |j^*|^! us to pause for a moment, and to consider 
 lijsfjjl the result that we have reached. We have 
 been endeavouring so to classify our wit- 
 nesses to the text of the New Testament that we may- 
 distinguish their various merits, not putting any of them 
 absolutely aside, but arranging them according to what 
 seem their different degrees of credibility. We have 
 been doing this too with the view of narrowing, if pos- 
 sible, our circle of primary authorities, so that we 
 may not lose ourselves in what would otherwise be a 
 labyrinth of confusion, through whose windings we have 
 no clue to guide us. We have seen that versions and 
 quotations are less valuable than manuscripts of the text; 
 that manuscripts possessing an ancient text have a 
 greater claim on our attention than those whose text is 
 comparatively modern ; although if a modern manu- 
 script possess, as some of them actually do, an ancient 
 type of text, the mere fact of its being modern in form 
 does not detract from its value. Eor the purpose that 
 
General Result of Classification. 117 
 
 we have in hand it is really ancient, and must take its 
 place along with those that are so both in form and in 
 substance. We have also seen that we are in possession 
 of a principle by which we can determine that certain 
 even of the ancients are better witnesses than others, 
 because they have preserved for us readings that we 
 have independent authority for believing to have existed 
 at the nearest date to the time of the Apostles, as to 
 which Ave have any evidence at all. 
 
 The result of the principles now advocated is so 
 important, and at the same time so unexpected, that it is 
 necessary to pause over it for a moment, and to see 
 whether, in the presence of that result, we are prepared 
 to abide by our conclusion. The result is that, notwith- 
 standing the enormous mass of evidence that we have in 
 our hands as to the text of the Xew Testament, our 
 primary authorities are reduced to a very small number. 
 It is an admitted fact, in particular with regard to 
 manuscripts on which, as Ave have seen, our dependence 
 is mainly to be placed, that by far the larger part of them 
 do present a text differing to no inconsiderable degree 
 from that found in the few to which we have urged that 
 a decided preference should be given. 
 
 Formidable objection is therefore taken to this result. 
 It is pleaded that the resolution to follow it up in the 
 actual construction of the text is unfair to the great 
 numerical preponderance of witnesses on the other side. 
 It is conceded that character, not number, should prevail ; 
 but the number against our few is, in the present instance, 
 so very considerable that it is supposed to require a 
 
118 General Result of Classification. 
 
 certain modification of a principle usually sound. There 
 is against us a unanimity so extensive and so long 
 continued that, when it is described even in language 
 against which no charge of exaggeration can be brought, 
 it is apt to leave an almost ineffaceable impression on 
 many a mind that we ought to defer to it more than we 
 have done. 
 
 If we reflect upon the matter for an instant we shall 
 see that the idea thus entertained is distinctly to be 
 repudiated. It is true that our witnesses stand by 
 hundreds on the one side ; by tens, or rather units, on 
 the other. If then we have reason to believe that the 
 former are as good as the latter, their evidence will 
 probably be, as surely it ought to be, conclusive. 
 Numbers, in such a case, it would be entirely out of the 
 question to disregard. But it can hardly be said that 
 the presence of numbers, however great, makes us 
 independent of investigating quality. In no inquiry 
 that we can engage in is the character of a witness 
 exposed to so many deteriorating influences as here. 
 We must satisfy ourselves therefore whether each, as he 
 comes before us, has suffered in this way or not. The 
 mere assertion of any individual among them taken by 
 itself is nothing, and multiply nothing by hundreds we 
 have still nothing. 
 
 It may be urged indeed that we are entitled to speak 
 in this way only on condition that we can show that 
 this majority of our witnesses have no independent 
 character, that they gathered their information from the 
 few, that they corrupted it in the process, and that we 
 
General Result of Classification. 119 
 
 can learn all we wish to know from the lips of those to 
 whom they in the first instance deferred. No obligation 
 lies on us to show anything of the kind. We are by no 
 means called upon to prove that these witnesses, who 
 come to us in crowds, derived their information from the 
 small number to whom we are disposed to attach 
 supreme importance. Their value as witnesses may 
 have been affected by many other circumstances besides 
 that. There may have been collusion among them. 
 Without deliberate collusion they may have been led, 
 under the pressure of the same powerful authority, to 
 the same utterances. They may have all sprung from 
 some one region of the world in which, owing to peculiar 
 circumstances, some one, and that an imperfect, form of 
 the text had gained supremacy. These things are at least 
 possible. Whether they have actually happened or not 
 demands inquiry. We are entitled to say that the credi- 
 bility of all our witnesses must be tried by tests which 
 every judge applies. If they stand the test they must be 
 listened to, but escape it they cannot. 
 
 It is a matter of no weight whatever then in the present 
 question that it so happens that, by the process we have 
 been pursuing, the great majority of our manuscripts 
 have ultimately to rank lower than the few. The textual 
 critic is not to blame that it should be so. When he 
 begins his labours he has no preference for an ancient 
 over a modern, or for one ancient over another. His 
 first impression would probably be rather in favour of 
 the great majority of modern manuscripts. He has 
 been accustomed to the readings which they supply. 
 
120 General Result of Classification. 
 
 He finds them easier, smoother, less perplexing in the 
 forms and constructions of their words. But the 
 determination of the text of the New Testament is far 
 too important, far too sacred a thing, to permit him to 
 rest in. what is familiar and easy. He must ascertain to 
 the best of his ability what is true. Therefore it is that 
 he is bound to test the value of every witness who 
 comes before him, of all the evidence that is offered 
 him. Whatever his own predilections might be he 
 must follow the course suggested by reason and 
 experience as legitimate, knowing well that, though the 
 result may not be what he himself would wish, " the 
 foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness 
 of God is stronger than men." 
 
CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLE OF GROUPING. 
 
 JP to the point now reached by us we have 
 been speaking almost wholly of manuscripts 
 of the Greek ~New Testament, those witnesses 
 to which we saw, at the outset of our in- 
 quiries, that we must mainly defer. We have found that 
 we can classify them, and that we can thus introduce 
 order where at first there seemed to be nothing but con- 
 fusion. Have we then now simply to arrange these 
 manuscripts upon the plan laid down, and to take from 
 the best of them the text that they contain ? It would 
 be so were they the only authorities with which w r e have 
 to deal, and did the path by which they lead us carry 
 us back as far as the time when the sacred autographs 
 were penned. But neither of these is the case. We 
 have already seen that we have translations of the New 
 Testament and quotations from it in the writings of the 
 Fathers more ancient than any manuscript possessed by 
 us ; and we have seen also that at the point at which 
 our manuscripts stop we are not only three centuries 
 from the age of the Apostles, but that between us and 
 
122 TJie Principle of Grouping. 
 
 them there lies a period when there was no small con- 
 fusion of the text. Nothing remains for us, therefore, 
 except to recall our other witnesses, that we may hear 
 what they also have to say; for, although it is true 
 that they are not primary authorities, they may not he 
 neglected. Is not this, however, to re-introduce, at least 
 to a large extent, the old confusion which we persuaded 
 ourselves we had escaped ? At first sight it almost 
 seems as if it were so. But the phenomenon is far too 
 interesting, far too important, to permit us to be easily 
 discouraged ; and we look about to see if there is nothing 
 else to help us in estimating the value of our evidence 
 when it is presented to us, not in one of its parts only, 
 but in all its parts. 
 
 We turn, then, again to the differences of readings that 
 we have before us about the beginning of the fourth 
 century, and we are met by the fact that groups of these 
 differences appear to have been prevalent in some parts 
 of the Christian world more than in others. There is 
 by no means unmingled confusion, a total want of order 
 in the varieties that exist ; but there is a certain 
 method according to which the differences distribute 
 themselves. Thus, for example, it is found that in 
 Gaul, Italy, and Africa there is a type of variation 
 seemingly different from that which prevails at Alex- 
 andria or Constantinople; that at Constantinople there 
 is a type of text bearing a marked resemblance to what 
 was read by the Fathers who flourished at Antioch in 
 Syria. The question immediately arises, Do the facts 
 bear out the correctness of this impression ? If they 
 
TJie Principle of Grouping. 123 
 
 do, it can hardly fail to have an important bearing on 
 our inquiry, because it is clear that, given two contend- 
 ing readings of a text, the one having the best claim on 
 our acceptance will be the one which has maintained its 
 place in the greatest number of districts, notwithstand- 
 ing the tendency of these districts to introduce changes 
 of their own. Its permanence amidst so much around 
 it that was shifting shows its vitality and power; and 
 even if it has not been accepted everywhere, the more 
 widespread the diffusion, in other words, the greater the 
 permanence, the greater the power. We must look 
 then at this matter somewhat more closely. It may be 
 described as the principle of grouping. 
 
 Had the copies of the sacred autographs been con- 
 fined to one district there would probably have been no 
 scope for this, and no need to make any such attempt. 
 The materials and the need of grouping both arise 
 when these copies are taken into other lands, are tran- 
 scribed there, and are dispersed, partly it may be in the 
 original, but mainly in translations. The inhabitants of 
 one country differ from those of another in thought, in 
 taste, in manner of expression, in occasional choice of 
 words, even when their language is the same. These 
 differences are strengthened when a different language 
 is spoken. The words of one tongue often fail to cover 
 exactly the same field of thought as those of another ; 
 and when we have to reason backwards from a Syriac, 
 an Egyptian, or a Latin translation to a Greek sentence, 
 it may well happen that we shall not always be led to 
 precisely the same result. 
 
124 The Principle of Grouping. 
 
 This, however, is not all. The circumstances amidst 
 which the work of transcription is undertaken in dif- 
 ferent countries also differ. In one there may be but 
 a small demand, and the work may be gone about 
 leisurely, slowly, and in a scholarly spirit. In another 
 the demand may be much larger, and there may be 
 greater haste and imperfection in its supply. There 
 may be no bad faith. All may be done in the strictest 
 honour, and with the most sincere desire to produce 
 faithful copies or accurate translations of the original. 
 The influences leading to change may work quite uncon- 
 sciously in the minds of the transcribers or translators. 
 The important fact is that they are there ; and that it is 
 as impossible to be altogether free from them as it is for 
 a succession of scribes in the same country to exhibit a 
 perfect immunity from those errors of transcription, due 
 to human frailty, that were formerly taken notice of and 
 illustrated. The effect is obvious. In different districts 
 of the world different groups of errors will become pre- 
 valent, and the manuscripts, versions, or quotations con- 
 taining the texts erroneously copied will present a cer- 
 tain family resemblance to one another. Thus, for 
 example, in John ii. 3, in the account of the miracle at 
 Cana of Galilee, we read, " And when they wanted wine," 
 or, as it might be more simply and literally translated, 
 " And when wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto 
 him, They have no wine." In several of our important 
 authorities we find, instead of these words, the following, 
 " And they had no wine, because the wine of the mar- 
 riage feast was finished. Then'the mother of Jesus saith 
 
Tlie Principle of Grouping. 125 
 
 unto him, They have no wine." We do not so much 
 ask at present which of these two readings deserves the 
 preference. We observe rather that the authority for 
 the latter is, with the exception of one Greek manuscript, 
 wholly Latin. It was mainly confined to those parts of 
 the world where the Latin tongue was spoken. It had 
 no hold either of the Syriac or the Greek East, 
 
 It is not indeed to be thought that the grouping now 
 referred to can be strictly carried through all our 
 authorities as to the text of Scripture. We cannot 
 definitely assign them all to particular families. Neither 
 manuscripts nor translations were confined to any one 
 region of the Church. They passed from country to 
 country and from city to city through that interchange 
 of letters, books, and visits which forms one of the 
 most interesting characteristics of the early Christians. 
 Mixed manuscripts thus came into existence — manu- 
 scripts showing traces of different districts, and bridging 
 over the gulf that would otherwise have separated them. 
 Yet in very many cases the lines of demarcation are 
 sufficiently distinct to entitle the critic to speak of dif- 
 ferent styles of text corresponding to different regions 
 of the Church. 
 
 Let us proceed to the bearing of what has now been 
 said. It is highly important in the following respects. 
 
 1. In the first place, mere number of manuscripts 
 belonging to any group is of comparatively little moment; 
 because, whatever the number of such manuscripts, they 
 mainly testify to the one manuscript the head of the 
 local family from which they sprang, and that head of 
 
126 The Principle of Grouping. 
 
 the family can only count as one. "Wherever, therefore, 
 we have reason to think that we have a group of authori- 
 ties, that group must count as one stream of evidence, 
 without reference to the number of individuals of which 
 it is composed. 
 
 2. In the second place, the greater the number of 
 streams of evidence flowing from different quarters of 
 the world and testifying to the same reading, the more 
 likely is that reading to be correct. This is something 
 entirely different from the number of individual manu- 
 scripts, of which one stream may exhibit many more 
 than another. The evidence of all flowing in each stream 
 is taken as a whole ; and then the more streams we have 
 of the same character the greater the confidence with 
 which we infer that the reading floating on their surface 
 comes from the head fountain of the waters. It is clear 
 that it must be so. How do we know that any reading 
 is absolutely correct ? By the confluence of all our 
 streams. " In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God." What 
 is it that assures us that this sublime opening of the 
 Gospel of St. John really came from the pen of the be- 
 loved disciple ? That it was everywhere and at all 
 times read. In every region of the earth to which a 
 manuscript of the Gospel was taken these words were 
 copied from it exactly as they stand. Gaul, Italy, 
 Africa, Alexandria, Palestine, Syria, Constantinople, all 
 read them as we read them now. Many another text in 
 the same Gospel underwent great and different changes. 
 These words underwent none ; and the only possible ex- 
 
The Principle of Grouping. 127 
 
 planation is, that they existed in the Apostle's auto- 
 graph. The same principle leads to the just preference 
 of two agreeing streams of evidence to one, for that 
 agreement is a testimony to the fact that, at a date an- 
 terior to the decay and corruption of the text, the reading 
 given was more widely spread abroad than any other 
 with which it has to contend. The only probable explan- 
 ation again of this diffusion is that the reading came 
 from the original, and possessed sufficient power to resist 
 the influences that were producing change. 
 
 Let us illustrate what has been said by a reading in 
 John i. 51. There we find the Saviour saying, in our 
 English version, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Here- 
 after," or rather, Frorn henceforth "ye shall see heaven 
 opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending 
 upon the Son of Man." The words " From henceforth " 
 are found in one of the leading Greek manuscripts, in 
 several other uncials, in the whole family of manuscripts 
 of a later date, whose headquarters were the Byzantine 
 Empire, in two Latin versions of a later type than the 
 earliest, in the Syriac, and in two or three of the later 
 Lathers. At the best, therefore, if read at all in early 
 times, they w^ere read only in Syria, and in Constanti- 
 nople, which w 7 as dependent upon it. On the other hand, 
 the words are omitted in three of the oldest and most 
 valuable Greek manuscripts, in all the best Latin ver- 
 sions, in the version of Lower Egypt, in the Armenian 
 and iEthiopic versions, and in some of the most valuable 
 patristic writings that we possess. "We have thus one 
 region of the Church alone against all the rest, and that 
 
128 The Principle of Grouping. 
 
 the region where we know from other evidence that 
 manuscripts underwent most change in the hands of 
 hasty, if not imperfectly informed scribes. There can be 
 no doubt that the reading of the verse without them is 
 the true reading of what the Saviour said ; although, if 
 number of individual manuscripts were to be considered, 
 the majority in their favour would be overwhelming. It 
 is worth while to observe that, in this case, we can dis- 
 cover without much difficulty how the words in ques- 
 tion got their way into the text. The scribe had in his 
 mind the language of Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 64, "Jesus 
 saith unto him, Thou hast said : nevertheless, I say unto 
 you, Hereafter/' or as it should be, From henceforth "ye 
 shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of 
 power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The two 
 verses have a great similarity of tone. " From hence- 
 forth'' was met with in the last and most familiar one ; it 
 easily slipped into the first and less familiar. 
 
 We add only, in conclusion, upon this point, that it 
 does not matter, though, as in the example now given, 
 all the individuals in each of the groups which har- 
 monize upon the whole do not bear witness to what w^e 
 accept as true. That so many of them do agree has to 
 be accounted for, and the only explanation being that 
 in each case they had drawn the reading from some 
 common progenitor, the fact that these progenitors in 
 different regions of the world had, at a much earlier date, 
 borne the same testimony, is a presumption of the 
 strongest kind that they correctly represent the one 
 original. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 DETERMINATION OF THE TEXT. — PART I. 
 
 jjUR witnesses are now classified and grouped, 
 and we have to turn to the interesting and 
 important task, to which all that has been 
 hitherto said has been preparatory, — the 
 hearing of the evidence, and the determination, by means 
 of it, of those words in which we are to find the light 
 of life. 
 
 At the point at which we stand it is to be observed, 
 that we suppose ourselves to be absolutely ignorant of 
 the words of the ISTew Testament. We are not in the 
 position of one who has that volume in his hands, and 
 who, having heard that the reading of some of its pas- 
 sages is disputed, is about to examine a number of 
 witnesses as to what they have to say upon that point. 
 For more than two centuries after the Eeformation, 
 indeed down to the third decade of the present century, 
 this was the position of successive editors of the New 
 Testament. The "Beceived Text," as it was called, had 
 acquired such authority, that the utmost they ventured 
 to attempt was to make such emendations upon it as 
 
130 Determination of the Text 
 
 seemed to be required by the ever-increasing knowledge 
 of manuscripts and other sources of evidence. The 
 greatest advance made by any of them was to ask, Is 
 there reason to depart from the ordinary reading, and, if 
 there was, to make that departure without hesitation ? 
 At the date, however, of which we have spoken, one of 
 the most distinguished of the noble band of scholars 
 who have devoted themselves to inquiries connected 
 with our present subject, Professor Lachmann of Berlin, 
 took another and decisive step. He started with the 
 question, Is there any reason to depart, not from the 
 Eeceived Text, but from the readings that are best 
 established ? His predecessors might have shown their 
 modesty by adopting no new reading they were unable 
 to . defend. It escaped their notice, according to him, 
 that it was unreasonable to admit any reading at all into 
 the text, evidence of whose value they had not ob- 
 tained. They, in short, had made the "Eeceived Text" 
 their point of departure. He threw it wholly aside. 
 He would gather his whole New Testament text from 
 the original witnesses, and from them alone. 
 
 This principle, undoubtedly just, is now universally 
 accepted, and hence the interest and importance of the 
 point that we have reached. From the witnesses whom 
 we suppose to be before us, the whole text of our New 
 Testament is to be gathered. 
 
 In estimating the value of their evidence certain 
 principles or rules of judging must be taken into account. 
 They may be conveniently divided into External and 
 Internal 
 
Determination of the Text 131 
 
 I. Principles of External Evidence. 
 
 1. The first and simplest principle by which we are 
 
 to be guided is, that, where all our authorities agree, the 
 evidence must be accepted as conclusive. It is needless 
 to enlarge upon this principle, which can admit of no 
 dispute. Depending upon these authorities alone for 
 our text, we have obviously no alternative but to accept 
 what they with one voice proclaim to be correct. So 
 much of the New Testament is guaranteed to us upon 
 this principle that the disputed parts form only an ex- 
 ceedingly small portion of the whole. 
 
 2. Witnesses thoroughly tested in the manner pre- 
 viously explained are entitled to a hearing in every case 
 equally respectful. It .may be true that an ancient 
 manuscript possesses a certain advantage over a modern 
 
 . one in that, having been less frequently copied, it has 
 probably escaped some of the changes which the mere 
 act of copying is certain to introduce. Wherever, there- 
 fore, the departure of a recent manuscript from the read- 
 ing of the older appears to be owing to frequency of 
 transcription, the latter ought to be deferred to. But 
 when the difference seems to have no connection with 
 this source of error, when the variation is so distinct 
 that it must be held to have belonged to the manuscript 
 from which the more recent one was copied, it is impos- 
 sible to allow that the greater age of an opponent shall 
 alone decide the controversy in its favour. We have 
 tested the one as well as the other by the tests with 
 which we started as the best and most trustworthy that 
 
132 Determination of the Text. 
 
 could be devised. The one as well as the other has 
 stood the test, and is therefore not to be undervalued 
 because it may be written in cursive rather than uncial 
 letters, or may be marked by numerals rather than the 
 capital letters of the alphabet. The principle of the rule 
 is evidently indisputable, but it is not unnecessary to 
 point out that it ought to be adhered to. Any one con- 
 sulting the critical apparatus, the lists of authorities, 
 found in a critical edition of the New Testament, will 
 soon learn that he is in constant danger of ascribing 
 undue weight to manuscripts that have only a higher 
 antiquity or a more imposing notation than that of 
 many others to commend them. 
 
 3. In manuscripts thus tested the element of number 
 is an important consideration. For it will be observed 
 that we have not now number versus authority, the 
 multitude against the " fit though few." By the sup- 
 position all have been proved credible witnesses, and 
 although even then there will be many minute circum- 
 stances leading us to think one more credible than 
 another, yet to put number out of view altogether were 
 to neglect the principles of evidence upon which judicial 
 questions are settled every day. But, 
 
 4. Mere number of the witnesses in general, without 
 regard to the fact of their being or not being tested, is of 
 no weight whatever. We have already seen that the 
 coming forward of many in their numbers and with their 
 unanimity may be the very best reason for rejecting them 
 all without compunction. 
 
 5. The relative weight of manuscripts, versions, and 
 
Determination of the Text. 133 
 
 citations must be duly observed. However true it may be 
 that by the latter two branches of evidence we test in 
 no small degree the value of the first, it is not the less 
 true that as a general branch of evidence the first is, 
 when attested, entitled to the preference even over those 
 by which it has been tried. The circumstance, however, 
 that it is tried by them shows that there are certain 
 cases in which they may claim to bear away the palm. 
 Such cases must be carefully adverted to, and errors 
 must be distinguished into their different classes, as for 
 example of addition or omission, when we would know 
 the special value attaching to each of our three great 
 classes of authorities. 
 
 6. In judging of the balance of evidence, great impor- 
 tance is to be attached to the meeting of different streams 
 of evidence, to the concurrence, that is, of authorities 
 from different quarters of the world, to the combination 
 in favour of the same reading of such groups as were 
 previously described. 
 
 7. It is not to be forgotten that if any of these groups 
 combine in favour of what we have reason to suppose 
 to be the more ancient text, their verdict must be accepted 
 as conclusive. We have already seen that the simple 
 fact that a reading is ancient does not prove it to be 
 good. It may be a presumption in its favour, but that 
 is all. But when, being thus ancient, it is supported by 
 authorities from different quarters of the world ; in other 
 words, when a group of authorities unite in favour of 
 what we can otherwise prove to be ancient, we have 
 exactly the consideration added that was wanting to 
 
134 Determination of the Text. 
 
 prove that it was not only ancient but correct. The 
 wide diffusion of the ancient reading is established; 
 that diffusion was owing to its vitality; and vitality 
 is best explained by the supposition of originality and 
 truth. 
 
 We have now pointed out what seem to us the most 
 important principles of external evidence. Other writers 
 have sometimes given others, or have arranged them in 
 a different order. Indeed most critics who endeavour to 
 edit a text of the New Testament have to some extent 
 at least rules or principles of their own. 
 
 Before passing on it may be well to illustrate in a few 
 sentences the application, in part at least, of the rules 
 now laid down. 
 
 We take a strong case first, the famous text regarding 
 the three heavenly witnesses in 1 John v. 7, 8. As read 
 in our English Version we find these words, a portion of 
 which we shall enclose in brackets, "For there are three 
 that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and 
 the Holy G-host ; and these three are one. And there 
 are three that bear witness in earth], the spirit, and the 
 water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." 
 The question is, Whether the words enclosed by us in 
 brackets are genuine, or whether the text ought not 
 rather simply to read, "For there are three that bear 
 record, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these 
 three agree in one." 
 
 With the exception of two manuscripts, the one 
 belonging to the fifteenth, and the other to the sixteenth 
 century, the whole body of Greek manuscript evidence 
 
Determination of the Text 135 
 
 rejects the bracketed words in the above verses. These 
 two manuscripts also do not stand the tests by which 
 alone they can be shown to be worthy of much regard. 
 Manuscript evidence could not be more decisive. We 
 turn to versions. The suspicious words are wanting in 
 every version except the Vulgate, nearly all the manu- 
 scripts of which exhibit theni, those failing to do so 
 being however generally recognized as the oldest and 
 best. Even where given, too, they are given with very 
 considerable variations ; and such variations are always 
 a proof of the doubtfulness of the authorities whence 
 the words were taken. The evidence of versions is here 
 as decided as that of Greek manuscripts. Lastly, we 
 look at citations from the Fathers. ISTo Greek Father is 
 known to quote the passage, while several of the most 
 important, in arguing on the subject of the Trinity, to 
 which it has so direct a relation, refer both to what 
 precedes and to what follows, but do not make the 
 slightest allusion to the disputed words. Nothing could 
 more clearly show that they were unacquainted with 
 them. The most ancient and eminent Latin Fathers 
 have likewise no knowledge of the words, and it is only 
 in some of the later and more unimportant that they 
 are discovered. The evidence of citations clearly ac- 
 companies that of manuscripts and versions. 
 
 In a case such as this it is obvious too, from what has 
 been said, that all our streams of evidence . combine, 
 and that even in point of numbers the vast majority of 
 the witnesses, including every one proved and tested, are 
 on one side. The application of every rule or principle 
 
136 Determination of the Text. 
 
 of External Evidence leads to the exclusion of the dis- 
 puted words. 
 
 We take another case, Acts yiii. 37. In our English 
 Version we read, "And Philip said, If thou believest 
 with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered 
 and said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God." The 
 question is, Whether these words ought to stand in the 
 text, or to be excluded from it ? 
 
 They are wanting in four out of the five chief witnesses 
 described in the earlier part of this book : of the fifth 
 nothing can be said, that portion of the manuscript 
 having been unfortunately lost. They are wanting also 
 in a large number of other manuscripts. They are 
 found in one uncial manuscript alone, although in a 
 considerable number of cursives. The case is by no 
 means so decided as the last ; but our principles hardly 
 admit of any other conclusion than one unfavourable to 
 the presence of the words. We turn to versions. The 
 verse is wanting in the best codices of the Vulgate, in 
 two Syriac versions, in the versions of both Upper and 
 Lower Egypt, and in the ^Ethiopia It is found in a 
 codex of the Vulgate as well as in its printed text, in 
 one of the Syriac versions, though there marked with an 
 asterisk, and in the Armenian. Our first conclusion 
 unfavourable to the verse is thus so far confirmed. 
 Lastly, we look at citations from the Fathers. The 
 verse was known to one or two of the Latin Fathers, 
 but we have positive assurance that it was not re- 
 cognized in any of the writings of Greek Fathers 
 that have reached us, until, we come to one who 
 
Determination of the Text. 137 
 
 flourished in the eleventh, and another who belongs to 
 the twelfth century. That it should appear in the 
 writings of the former need not surprise us, when we 
 remember that the Latin versions are the chief authority 
 for the words. That it should be wanting in the writ- 
 ings of the latter is strong confirmatory evidence that it 
 was unknown in Greek. Here again, therefore, the 
 evidence of citations leads to the same conclusion as 
 that of manuscripts and versions. 
 
 The argument however is not in the present instance 
 quite so strong as in the last. We ask therefore with 
 more interest than then, What is the teaching of our 
 groups of witnesses ? In one district of the world only 
 does the verse appear to have been read, and that a 
 district where we know from other evidence that there 
 was a strong tendency to interpolate. Our groups there- 
 fore deliver the same sentence as our individual witnesses. 
 Finally, the number of tested witnesses against the 
 words is greater than that upon their side. We sum 
 up the evidence as a whole, and there can be no doubt 
 that the verdict ought to be for the exclusion of the verse. 
 
OHAPTEE IX. 
 
 DETERMINATION OF THE TEXT. — PAET II. 
 
 RAVING- considered those principles of Ex- 
 ternal Evidence by which the various read- 
 ings of Scripture are to be judged, it remains 
 for us to turn our thoughts to those prin- 
 ciples of Internal Evidence which are neither less neces- 
 sary nor important. 
 
 II. Principles of Internal Evidence. 
 
 Were the External Evidence on behalf of a parti- 
 cular reading in every case complete and satisfactory, we 
 should have little occasion to depend on anything but 
 it. The contest would at once be settled by an over- 
 whelming balance of testimony, either on the one side or 
 on the other. It is rare, however, to find this in any dis- 
 puted reading of much interest or importance. There is 
 then almost always a decided difference of testimony. 
 "Weighty arguments on their right to have a place in 
 the text are urged by different claimants, and the 
 balance of external authority is not unfrequently nearly 
 equal. The application of Internal Evidence thus 
 becomes indispensable. 
 
Determination of the Text. 139 
 
 It is so in that ordinary administration of law, the 
 processes of which, as we have seen, afford the best 
 analogy to the course which the Biblical critic has to 
 pursue. A judge can rarely, if ever, settle a dispute 
 between two parties by external evidence alone. It is 
 the mind that sees, and not the eye. It is the mind 
 that hears, and not the ear ; and according to the light 
 in which different assertions present themselves to the 
 judge's mind will be the judgment that he forms. The 
 probabilities of the case, and the internal coherence of 
 the narrative, must always influence his decision ; and 
 his verdict is to be viewed as the hypothesis that takes 
 up and explains all the phenomena connected with the 
 dispute. It is true that this necessity of reasoning on 
 probabilities may often degenerate into mere subjec- 
 tivity or wilfulness, and that a judge may carry out 
 some theory of his own in such a manner as to set 
 at naught well-established facts ; but therein lies the 
 highest trial of the judge's skill. Therein judicial tact, 
 ability, genius prove their infinite superiority to mere 
 mechanical administration. Tor ten men who can learn 
 rules, and apply them with accuracy to a case before 
 them, we may be thankful to find one who, not acting 
 apart from rule, can yet stand superior to rule, and can 
 mould, in the fire of his own genius, both the external 
 facts and the internal probabilities into one harmonious 
 whole. It is the same in the criticism of the text of 
 Scripture. External evidence is not only valuable ; it 
 forms the very ground of our proceedings ; it sets before 
 us the facts of which we are to judge. But then we 
 
140 Determination of the Text. 
 
 must judge. The danger to which we are exposed of 
 giving way to prepossessions, to subjective feelings, 
 must be met ; and in the establishing of sound general 
 principles, in the cultivation of a sound mind, lies the 
 critic's power. This much at least is certain, that no 
 editor of the Greek text of the New Testament, except 
 one, who gave it distinctly to be understood that his 
 aim was special and provisional in its character, has 
 attempted to construct his text upon grounds of external 
 authority alone. Over and above such grounds, the 
 resort to internal evidence has been always found to be 
 necessary. 
 
 To these principles of Internal Evidence then we 
 now proceed. The more important are the following: — 
 
 1. That reading is to be preferred which seems to 
 have suggested the others, or out of which it is most 
 easy to suppose that the others would arise. The 
 reason of the rule is obvious. By the supposition we 
 have two or three different readings of a passage, with 
 external evidence not sufficiently precise to remove all 
 doubt as to which the preference is due. Our first 
 object must evidently be to determine as far as we 
 can their history, in other words, to ask how they 
 severally arose. In doing so it is reasonable to conclude 
 that the reading by whose existence the origin of the 
 others is most easily explained is the correct one. Thus, 
 for example — 
 
 In John i. 37 we have three readings consisting in 
 three different arrangements of the same words. One of 
 these gives the translation of our English Version, 
 
Determination of the Text. 141 
 
 "And the two disciples heard Him speak, and they 
 followed Jesus." Another gives the translation, " And 
 
 His two disciples heard Him speak, and they followed 
 Jesus." The third puts the pronoun in such a position 
 in the Greek that the meaning is ambiguous ; it might 
 be either of the two just mentioned. Which of the 
 three may be best regarded as the parent of the other 
 two ? Not the first ; for there was nothing to make a 
 scribe naturally slip into the second, while the ambiguity 
 of the third is precisely what he would avoid. Not the 
 second, for with it before him a scribe would be under 
 no temptation to change it to the first, and as before, the 
 ambiguity of the third would prevent his thinking of it. 
 The third, however, at once meets the necessities of the 
 case. It is ambiguous. One scribe therefore, who 
 viewed it in the first light, put down the words in the 
 order there given. Another, who viewed it in the 
 second light, made the order correspond to his im- 
 pression of the sense. The third then is most probably 
 the true reading. 
 
 Another illustration of this rule is taken by Dr. 
 Davidson from the celebrated text in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and 
 it is so suitable to the purpose that we shall again use 
 it here. Three readings meet us in the first clause of 
 that verse, that of our English version, " Great is the 
 mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh,"' or 
 rather, "was manifested in flesh ;" "who was manifested 
 in flesh ; " " which was manifested in flesh." The 
 external evidence in favour of one of these rather than 
 the others is no doubt strong, but it is not so over- 
 
142 Determination of the Text 
 
 whelming as to make us independent of the probabilities 
 of the case. We ask then, How does our present rule 
 apply ? Let us suppose that " God " was the original 
 reading. It is difficult to imagine how, with a reading 
 the sense of which is in strict conformity with the 
 teaching of the New Testament, a scribe should think of 
 substituting " who," which, it will be observed, is then 
 a relative without an antecedent. It is still more 
 difficult to imagine how the important word " God " 
 could pass into the neuter relative " which." The word 
 " mystery" no doubt supplies an antecedent in this latter 
 case, but the change is too great to have been made inad- 
 vertently. Again, let us suppose that "which" was the 
 original, it could neither pass easily into "who" without 
 an antecedent while itself has one, nor into "God," which 
 involves a change of the greatest magnitude. Finally, 
 let us suppose that the original reading was " who." We 
 see at once, even without taking into account some parti- 
 culars connected with the style of writing which greatly 
 strengthen the inference, how it could pass into " God." 
 "God manifest in flesh" was known to be "the great 
 mystery of godliness." It was most natural to express it. 
 In the hands of another scribe "who" might pass with 
 equal ease into "which." The change of one letter only was 
 involved, the sense was not altered, an antecedent was 
 obtained where the want of one could not fail to be felt. 
 "Who" therefore, as giving rise most simply to the other 
 two, is the true reading. It is interesting to observe in 
 connection with this case, that, after long and keen dis- 
 cussions, scholars are now generally agreed that even 
 
Determination of the Text. 143 
 
 external evidence, when at least we depend mainly on 
 those authorities whose high importance we have advo- 
 cated in these pages, leads to the same conclusion. We 
 have thus our confidence in the soundness of what has 
 been said both as to them and as to our present rule 
 much strengthened. 
 
 2. A second most important and universally recognized 
 rule of InternalEvidence is that the more difficult reading 
 is to be preferred to the more easy. The critic, (Bengel), 
 not less distinguished for his piety than his talents, who 
 first suggested this rule, has himself said that he regards 
 it as but one application of the far wider principle, that 
 good is difficult and evil easy of attainment. The reason 
 of the rule is obvious. A scribe was far more likely 
 to substitute an easy for a difficult than a difficult for an 
 easy reading. In speaking in the earlier part of this 
 volume of the causes of yarious readings, allusion was 
 made to the point now before us. But if, as then ex- 
 plained, a scribe was apt in copying a manuscript to 
 substitute a simple for a hard expression, the converse 
 must hold good that, in restoring the true text in cases of 
 dispute, the hard is entitled to the preference. Let us 
 illustrate what has been said by one or two simple 
 examples of different classes belonging to the one 
 general principle. 
 
 (1) A reading at first sight obscure is to be preferred 
 to one that is plain and easily understood. Thus, in 
 John vii. 39, we read in our English Version, "Tor the 
 Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was 
 not yet glorified." It will be observed that the word 
 
144 Determination of the Text 
 
 "given" is in italic letters, showing that it did not exist 
 in the Greek text from which our version was taken, and 
 many most important authorities present this as the 
 true reading. Many others however add the Greek 
 word for " given," and we have to decide between them. 
 Our present rule comes to our aid. When we read without 
 the "given" the text is much more difficult to under- 
 stand than when we read with it. A scribe, therefore, 
 was less likely to omit it if he found it in the text before 
 him than to insert it if it was not there. The conclusion 
 is that in the original it probably did not exist. 
 
 (2) A reading presenting a historical difficulty is to be 
 preferred to one from which the difficulty is removed. 
 Thus, in Mark ii. 26, we read in our English Bibles of 
 David, "how he entered into the house of God in the 
 days of Abiathar the high-priest." Various important 
 authorities, however, omit these last words altogether, 
 while others, retaining them, substitute the word "priest" 
 for " high-priest." Both changes obviate the serious 
 difficulty arising from a comparison of this passage with 
 1 Samuel xxi. 1, where the incident in David's life here 
 referred to is related in the words, "Then came David 
 to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest." Precisely on that 
 ground, however, are these authorities to be suspected. 
 A scribe knowing the difficulty would be much more 
 ready to omit them if they had a place in his text than 
 to insert them if they had not. 
 
 (3) A reading in one Gospel which seems to convey 
 a sense different from that of a parallel passage in 
 another Gospel is to be preferred to one which makes 
 
Determination of the Text. 145 
 
 the two Gospels strictly harmonize. Thus in Matt. ix. 
 13 we read, " For I am not come to call the righteous, but 
 sinners to repentance/'' The last two words, however, 
 "to repentance," are frequently omitted. Shall we read 
 them, or shall we not? Looking at the question for the 
 present only in the light of Internal Evidence, Ave have 
 to consider that the words are found in the parallel 
 passage, Luke v. 37, where they are certainly genuine. 
 The probability is, that from that text they found their 
 way into St. Matthew. 
 
 We notice only one additional rule of Internal Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 3. The style of writing characteristic of particular 
 writers, or what we know of their modes of thought, is to 
 be taken into account in judging of the various readings 
 of their text. Thus in John xiii. 24 we read in our 
 Authorized Version, " Simon Peter therefore beckoned to 
 him that lie should ask who it should be of whom He 
 spake." But there is much authority for Greek words 
 that give us the translation, " Simon Peter therefore 
 beckoneth to him, and saith to him, Tell us who it is ot 
 whom He speaketh." The former reading requires the 
 verb "should be" to be in the Greek optative mood; but 
 St. John never uses the optative. It is not likely there- 
 fore that he would depart on the present occasion from 
 his usual practice: and. the last of the two readings 
 mentioned thus finds corroborative evidence in its 
 support. 
 
 Or, let us take an example in which mode of thought 
 rather than merely literary style becomes the object of 
 
146 Determination of the Text 
 
 consideration. John vi. 11, formerly considered in 
 another aspect, will supply an illustration. The question 
 there, it will be remembered, is as to the omission of 
 certain words, the effect of omitting which is to represent 
 Jesus Himself as distributing the bread to the multitude, 
 while the common reading brings in the intervention of 
 the disciples. It is disputed which of these two readings 
 is the right one. Let us bear in mind that the great 
 object of S. John's Gospel is to set forth the glory of the 
 Eedeemer, to present Him to us in His single and 
 unapproachable majesty as the Giver of all good, and we 
 are at once led to conclude that the reading which 
 favours this idea is most likely to be correct. It is 
 needless to do more than say that either reading is 
 equally consistent with the facts of the case. There is 
 simply a slight difference in the point of view from 
 which the writer speaks. 
 
 Other rules of Internal Evidence are given by 
 different writers additional to those now mentioned. 
 But even were they of more value than they are, we have 
 said enough to convey to our readers an impression of 
 the character of that part of the New Testament critic's 
 work that is now before us. 
 
 It has only to be observed, in conclusion, regarding 
 these rules, that each may easily be pushed too far, and 
 may be used by the critic to reach his conclusion with 
 too great rapidity. It may well happen in many a case 
 that the reading which seems most naturally to present 
 itself to us as the parent of the others is not really so ; 
 that the plain reading may have been, by the ignorance of 
 
Determination of the Text. 147 
 
 some scribe, transformed into the obscure instead of the 
 obscure into the plain ; that from the same cause a his- 
 torical difficulty may have found its way into a copy when 
 there was none in the original ; that parallel passages 
 which really correspond may have been brought to differ, 
 instead of parallels that differ having been brought to 
 correspond ; that a writer may at times use a method of 
 expression different from his common one. All these 
 things are possible, and the too rigid application of any 
 one rule might thus easily betray us. The lesson to be 
 learned is one of caution, and that probabilities must be 
 balanced one against another if we would hope to reach 
 a conclusion on all sides capable of defence. 
 
 Finally, it has to be noted that rules such as those Ave 
 have been considering must never be so applied as to 
 overbear External Evidence. They are not guides in all 
 cases, but helps in cases of difficulty. They aid in 
 determining our scales to one side rather than another, 
 when, but for them, the balance would be too equally 
 poised or too uncertain. Even when not absolutely 
 needed, they often confirm the verdict drawn forth by 
 External Evidence alone ; and, in doing so, leave no 
 doubt upon our minds that we have the very words 
 before us in which the Almighty revealed His will to 
 man. 
 
CHAPTEE X. 
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 
 
 jjX the two previous chapters we have con- 
 sidered the leading principles or rules by 
 which we are to be guided in estimating the 
 weight due to the evidence laid before us, 
 with respect to disputed readings of the New Testa- 
 ment, One or two general remarks may fitly close the 
 subject, 
 
 1. Such definite principles as those that have been 
 laid down are absolutely essential to the right prose- 
 cution of the task of which we have been speaking. 
 jSTo task can be named in which there is Greater danger 
 of hasty or haphazard judgments, of judgments founded 
 upon prejudice or determined by inclination. And cer- 
 tainly none can be named in which we are more bound 
 to avoid with the utmost care every influence of the 
 kind, and to come to our conclusion only by steps, every 
 one of which has been taken with the utmost delibera- 
 tion, and in a way that we feel ourselves able to defend. 
 Our rules are a valuable aid in enabling us to do so. 
 They are not arbitrary. They are founded upon a wide 
 
General Summary. 149 
 
 induction of particulars. They shape themselves ac- 
 cording to reason and the nature of the case. The 
 knowledge of them thus directs us to a higher and more 
 correct exercise of our powers than we could have made 
 without them. We are taught to avoid many mistakes 
 into which we might otherwise fall. We gain the 
 feeling of security that belongs not to instinct but to 
 intelligence ; and even where our rules are insufficient 
 of themselves to lead us to our verdict, they indicate 
 certain principles which the verdict, when we reach it, 
 must not contravene. 
 
 2. They are not to be thought of only as individual 
 rules, to be applied one at one time and another at 
 another, in an outward and formal manner. It may 
 often happen, no doubt, that one is sufficient for our 
 purpose. But the instances are far more frequent where 
 many or even all of them must be applied. They must 
 be held therefore in combination. They must thoroughly 
 penetrate and pervade the mind, so as to exercise a 
 modifying and restraining influence upon each other, 
 and to be ready for use, either singly or in ever-varying 
 combinations, according to the nature of each particular 
 case. 
 
 jSTothing indeed will force itself more upon the mind 
 of the textual critic of the Xew Testament, as he 
 pursues his labours, than the impossibility of coming to 
 a satisfactory conclusion in innumerable cases of dispute 
 by the mere reckoning up of witnesses, or such mere 
 calculations of probability as formal rules supply. The 
 evidence is so large in quantity, the witnesses that agree 
 
150 General Summary, 
 
 as to one text so often differ as to another, the internal 
 considerations that must be taken into account strike 
 different minds, and even the same mind at different 
 times, in such a different way, that anything like a fixed 
 mechanical application of rules will be found in practice 
 to be impossible. Every particular case needs to be 
 considered in itself. Every witness needs to be weighed 
 not simply as a whole but in the particular book in 
 which the text under examination occurs. Every sug- 
 gestion arising from internal probabilities needs to be 
 balanced by its opposite. The history of all the changes 
 that have taken place on the original reading must as far 
 as possible be discovered, so that that original reading, 
 when decided on, shall contain, in itself a solution of the 
 problem, How what was one at the first came to assume 
 so many varying forms in different countries and at the 
 hands of successive scribes. 
 
 All this, it is evident, demands extensive knowledge, 
 great calmness and impartiality of judgment, and the tact 
 w T hich, when not a happy natural endowment, can be 
 gained only by long practical experience. In point of 
 fact, accordingly, successful editors of the text of the 
 New Testament have been very few in number. Had 
 the work been one of formal rule they would have been 
 many; but the demands which it makes are so great that 
 a comparatively small number have attempted it, and 
 of these only one or two have gained a lasting fame. 
 
 3. Yet it does not follow that the ordinary minister 
 of the Gospel, the student of divinity, or even the cul- 
 tivated private Christian, ought to leave the whole 
 
General Summary. 151 
 
 matter of deciding on the text of the New Testament in 
 the hands of the few who can devote to it the whole 
 labour of their lives, and feel that even that is too little 
 to accomplish what they undertake. Where we cannot 
 discover we may yet follow with delight the discoveries 
 of others. Where we cannot make original suggestions 
 we can in a great degree estimate the value of sugges- 
 tions that are made to us. Where we cannot combine 
 the steps of an intricate proposition, we can judge of the 
 accuracy of the combination set before us. We can 
 analyze where we cannot create, and verify where we 
 cannot produce. In so doing, we share at least some 
 part of the pleasure experienced by creative minds ; we 
 enter into fellowship with them ; we learn to know the 
 principles upon which they work; and we catch, 
 although it may be afar off', some of the gleams of their 
 inspiration. Nor is our imperfect knowledge without 
 even a wholesome influence upon them. It is a check 
 to what might otherwise be their onesidedness. It 
 spurs them to exertion and rewards their toil. 
 
 No mistake therefore can be greater than to think 
 that, because the private Christian cannot do all in the 
 work of textual criticism, he should do nothing. If, 
 by studying its resources, its aims, and its principles, he 
 gain no more than the conviction that it is really a 
 science, the gain will be of the highest advantage both 
 to himself and to the Church of Christ. With this 
 confidence we now proceed to the third and last division 
 of our subject. 
 
PART THIRD. 
 
 RESULTS. 
 
PART THIRD. 
 
 RESULTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 EFFECT PRODUCED BY TEXTUAL CRITICISM UPON IMPORTANT 
 TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 1 AVING examined the principles upon which 
 the text of the New Testament is to be 
 determined, it may be i satisfactory to our 
 readers if we set before them the most im- 
 portant results which flow from an application of these 
 principles. For this purpose, we shall, in the first place, 
 direct attention to a few texts peculiarly interesting on 
 doctrinal or other grounds, and shall briefly discuss the 
 readings which in these cases seem to have the best claim 
 to be accepted. To this the present chapter will be de- 
 voted. We shall then, in the chapter which follows, pass 
 successively through the books of the New Testament, 
 and note in each chapter, without entering into argument, 
 all the changes of any importance which require to be 
 made in the received text. Our readers will thus have 
 before them the leading " results " of textual criticism. 
 
156 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 Matthew xi. 19. 
 
 In the last clause of this verse we read in the received 
 text, " But Wisdom is justified of her children/' and this 
 is the undoubted reading in the parallel passage in Luke 
 vii. 35, except that the word " all " is inserted there, 
 " But Wisdom is justified of all her children." In the 
 passage before us, however, a very important variation 
 claims attention, " But Wisdom is justified of " or " by 
 her works." The evidence in favour of the received 
 reading is strong — B as corrected by a later hand, all 
 uncial manuscripts except two, nearly all later manu- 
 scripts, most of the old Latin versions, the Vulgate, the 
 Curetonian Syriac, the Gothic, and the Armenian as 
 edited. Two or three Fathers also bear similar testi- 
 mony, although in the case of the two most ancient it is 
 doubtful whether their quotations may not be taken from 
 the. Gospel of St. Luke. On the other side we have 
 two uncial manuscripts, and these the most ancient 
 and valuable possessed by us N and B, one cursive 
 manuscript, together with the testimony of Jerome that 
 " works " was found in some of the Gospels in his day, 
 the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian in its codices, iEthiopic, 
 and Persic versions. The mass of evidence may therefore 
 be said to be in favour of the common text. But various 
 important considerations have to be taken into account. 
 
 (1.) Constant experience shows that a reading sup- 
 ported by ^ and B together is not to be set aside, 
 except on very strong grounds. 
 
 (2.) The point before us is one to which versions can 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 157 
 
 bear valuable testimony, and the balance of 
 evidence from this source is in favour of "works/ 3 
 
 (3.) The reading of the iEthiopic codices is peculiarly 
 interesting. It combines the two, u of her works 
 and of her children/' evidently in the circum- 
 stances a composite reading of which the first 
 part is most probably the foundation. 
 
 (4.) The well-established rule, that a reading in one 
 Gospel different from that of the parallel passage 
 in another Gospel is more likely to be correct 
 than one exactly similar, is in favour of " works." 1 
 
 (5.) The equally well-established rule that the more 
 difficult is to be preferred to the more easy 
 reading leads to the same conclusion. If 
 " children " were the original reading, it is not 
 easy to account for a change to " works." If 
 " works " were the original, the substitution of 
 " children " can at once be understood. 2 
 
 (6.) In the sense thus afforded there is nothing ob- 
 jectionable. Those who see here a doctrine 
 similar to that of a sinner's justification by works, 
 fail to notice that it is not a sinner but heavenly 
 wisdom that is spoken of, as well as the fact that 
 the Greek verb to justify is never used in its 
 theological sense with the Greek preposition 
 found in this verse. On the other hand, to say 
 that " Wisdom is justified of her works " is in 
 striking harmony with the whole tone of the 
 passage. The life of Jesus and the life of John 
 
 1 Comp. p. 14-1. 2 Comp. p. 143. 
 
158 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 are both among the works of Wisdom acting 
 differently in different circumstances; and by 
 both is Wisdom justified, commended to every 
 open eye, vindicated as being what she really is. 
 (7.) What has been last said is strengthened, if we 
 observe that the correct translation of the Greek 
 verb is " was" not " is justified," carrying us back 
 in thought to the moment when Wisdom's works 
 were planned, and not leading us to think only 
 of the present instant, when the children of God 
 approve what the children of the world cannot 
 comprehend. 
 We decide therefore in favour of the reading, — 
 " But Wisdom was justified of her works." 
 
 Mark in. 29. 
 
 We take next a text from the Gospel of St. Mark. 
 In iii. 29, we read in the received version, " But he that 
 shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never for- 
 giveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." The 
 reading "damnation" or rather "judgment" here is 
 supported by A and by a corrector of C, by several 
 other uncials, by the mass of cursives, by the Syriac, and 
 by two valuable manuscripts representing, or nearly so, 
 the Latin as revised by Jerome. On the other hand the 
 word " sin" is read instead of "judgment" by N, B, by 
 one or two other uncials, and cursives with an ancient 
 text, by the old Latin versions except one, by the Vul- 
 gate, and manuscripts representing Jerome's revision of 
 it except one, by the Coptic, Armenian, and Gothic, and 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 159 
 
 by one or two Fathers both in the East and in the West. 
 The evidence seems at first sight more equally divided 
 than in our last example. But again, as there, several 
 considerations have to be taken into account. 
 
 (1.) We have the same important conjunction of N 
 and B as met us in the last case, but backed 
 here by a larger number of uncials. 
 (2.) Another word for " sin," applying to sin in its 
 more general character rather than as a particular 
 offence, is found in C (as appears), D, and two or 
 three cursives, thus showing; that the reading " sin" 
 was both well known and felt to be difficult. 
 (3.) The evidence of versions, both numerous and 
 
 widespread, is in favour of " sin." 
 (4.) The difficulty of the reading "sin" is unques- 
 tionably greater than that of the reading "judg- 
 ment ; " so much so, that we seem to see the 
 gradation by which it passed out of the text; 
 first, the more general word for " sin" being sub- 
 stituted for that denoting a specific act of sin, 
 and then " judgment" coming in as easier still. 
 This consideration lends strong probability to 
 the reading " sin." x 
 (5.) It may be asked, What is the meaning of an 
 eternal sin ? The answ T er most probably is, a sin 
 never to be blotted out, and a sense — not, let it 
 be observed, actual words — is thus given coming 
 much more near that of the parallel passage in 
 Matt. xii. 32 than we should otherwise possess. 
 
 1 Comp. p. 143. 
 
160 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 We decide therefore in favour of the reading, — 
 
 " But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost 
 hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." 
 
 Luke ii. 14. 
 
 We take next a text in the Gospel of St. Luke. The 
 song of the heavenly host at the birth of Jesus is given 
 by that Evangelist in ii. 14, in the following words; 
 " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good 
 will towards men." But there is another reading which 
 greatly changes the aspect of the verse. It is difficult to 
 render it in English, but literally rendered, and we con- 
 tent ourselves with such a rendering for the present, it 
 will run — " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth 
 peace among men of good pleasure " or " good will." 
 The evidence in favour of the received reading is several 
 uncial manuscripts, among which are readings introduced 
 into N and B by later correctors, as it would seem all 
 cursive manuscripts, the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and 
 iEthiopic versions, and a considerable number of the 
 Greek Eathers. On the other side we have four of the 
 most important uncials, itf, B, A, D, the first two, though 
 afterwards corrected, having so read in their original 
 form, the old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Gothic 
 versions, together with at least two very ancient and 
 important Fathers, one belonging to the West the other 
 to the East. Such is the evidence; how shall we 
 decide ? 
 
 (1.) Our two most important manuscripts are here 
 supported by other ancient authority; and so 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 161 
 
 much greater, therefore, is the weight due to 
 them. On the other hand, 
 (2.) The evidence of versions is in favour of the read- 
 ing commonly received. 
 (3.) The important fact meets us that the most learned 
 and critical Greek Father of early Christianity 
 not only knew the reading not received, but that 
 he argues from it, and depends upon it, in 
 establishing a point he has in view. 
 (-4.) The long rejected reading is by much the more 
 difficult of the two. We can see at once how a 
 transcriber of the Greek should have substituted 
 the one now familiar to us for the other. How 
 the contrary course should have been taken by 
 any it is most difficult to conceive. 
 These considerations lead to the conclusion that the 
 received reading is to be rejected and the other put into 
 its place. It may be said, Is not the parallelism thus 
 destroyed ? We answer, ISTo. It is preserved. The 
 Greek has only two members, not three. There is no 
 copula between the two which are generally considered 
 to be the second and the third members of the group. 
 The word "and" divides the whole sentence into its 
 parts, and unless what follows that word can be gathered 
 into one clause the parallelism is broken. The new 
 reading enables us to do so ; and, bearing in mind that 
 "good will" or "good pleasure" here is not a humap 
 virtue, but the Divine benevolence or love, the merciful 
 purpose of God towards His people, the passage as a 
 whole will run : — 
 
 L 
 
1(32 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 11 Glory to God, in the highest, 
 
 and 
 On earth peace, in men whom in His good pleasure 
 He hath chosen." 
 
 John i. 1 8. 
 
 From the Gospel of St. John we select the very 
 important text, i. 18. There we read in our English 
 Bible, " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only 
 begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He 
 hath declared Him." Another reading, however, presents 
 itself to our notice in the substitution of the word 
 14 God" for the word " Son," together with the dropping 
 of the definite article before " only begotten," thus giving 
 us the text in the form, " No man hath seen God at any 
 time ; an (or the) only begotten God which is in the 
 bosom of the Father hath declared Him." 
 
 For the received text we have the authority of A, 
 a late corrector of C, and several other uncials, almost 
 all cursives, several of the old Latin versions, the Vul- 
 gate, the Curetonian, the Philoxenian, and the Jerusalem 
 Syriac, the Armenian, and one edition of the iEthiopic, 
 the old Latin interpreter of Irenseus, Origen, and several 
 other Greek and Latin Fathers. For the reading " God " 
 we have the authority of N, B, the original hand of C, 
 another highly important uncial not spoken of in our 
 previous pages, one cursive with an ancient text, the 
 Coptic version, the common Syriac version as edited by 
 two different scholars, one edition of the iEthiopic, the 
 Latin interpreter of Irenseus in other passages than 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 163 
 
 those referred to under the previous head, Origen also 
 in other passages than those spoken of, and several, 
 especially Greek, Fathers, among whom we find Arius 
 and writers of the Valentinian school. 
 
 In reviewing this evidence it is to be observed — 
 
 (1.) That the weight of manuscript authority is de- 
 cidedly in favour of the reading " God." 
 
 (2.) That versions testify to a wider range of this 
 reading than of the other in the early Church. 
 
 [o.) That the Fathers cannot be implicitly relied on, 
 as the more important of them may be quoted 
 on both sides. 
 
 (4.) That, notwithstanding this, there is a degree of 
 distinctness and precision in their references to 
 " God," as the reading, that we do not find in 
 their references to " Son." 
 5.) Besides this, it was quite natural that they should 
 often speak of " the only begotten Son," for the 
 term u Son" was that commonly used of Jesus. 
 It was not so natural that they should speak of 
 " the only begotten God," for the language is not 
 only strange in itself, but the term " God" was 
 commonly used of the Father. It is impossible 
 therefore to account for their use of this latter 
 expression at all unless they were thoroughly 
 satisfied that it was the true reading. "Son" 
 was to them the appropriate designation of Jesus, 
 and their argument is, that this " Son" is called 
 " God" in the passage of St. John now before us. 
 
 (6.) This argument is strengthened by the fact that 
 
164 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 the Valentinian heretics read u God/' a circum- 
 stance which would tend to make the Church 
 suspicious of it unless convinced that the read- 
 ing was correct. 
 
 (7.) It is to be noticed that there were other variations 
 of the reading known besides that which we are 
 considering, such as " the only begotten Son of 
 God," "the only begotten Son God," "the only be- 
 gotten." These variations unquestionably point 
 to "God" as the original and fundamental reading. 
 that out of which, and the difficulties connected 
 with which, they would most naturally arise. 1 
 
 (8.) " God" is by much the more difficult of the 
 two readings. We can at once understand how 
 " Son" should be substituted for it. It is almost 
 impossible to conceive how the contrary substi- 
 tution could take place. Or, if it be thought that 
 the variation began in the margin and from 
 thence passed into the text, we see without diffi- 
 culty how "God" being supposed to be in the 
 latter, " Son" should be placed in the former as 
 an explanatory gloss, but not how " God" should 
 be put into the margin if " Son" were originally 
 in the text. 
 
 (9.) Lastly, the internal evidence is very strongly in 
 favour of reading " God." It is the constant 
 tendency of St. John to return at intervals to 
 what he had placed at the beginning of a section 
 or passage, or to what had been the leading 
 thought upon which he had been dwelling. The 
 1 Comp. p. 140. 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 165 
 
 18th verse of tlie first chapter closes the prelude 
 to his Gospel, and is exactly the place, therefore, 
 where we might expect to meet with such a 
 summary. But in that prelude he had had his 
 mind fixed on two points, that in Jesus we have 
 that Word of God which is God, and that Jesus 
 is the only begotten of the Father. Now, then, 
 as he draws all the sublime statements of this 
 prelude to his Gospel to a close, he sums them 
 up in the words, " Xo man hath seen God at 
 any time : the only begotten God which is in 
 the bosom of the Father hath declared Him." 
 We accept this as the true reading of this most 
 important verse. 
 
 Acts xx. 28. 
 
 Having examined a text from each of the Gospels, we 
 shall now take one from the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 thereafter note one or two more from the other books of 
 the New Testament. We take Acts xx. 28, the words 
 of St. Paul at Miletus, when he urges the elders of 
 Ephesus " to feed the Church of God, which He hath 
 purchased with His own blood." Instead of " God," 
 however, not a few authorities read " the Lord," and 
 the following is the evidence. 
 
 For the reading " the Lord " three important ancient 
 manuscripts, one additional uncial, a good many 
 cursives, the Egyptian, and one of the Syriac versions, 
 the Armenian version, and a considerable number of 
 Fathers. For the reading " God" our two most important 
 
166 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 uncials N and B, and several cursives, the Vulgate, the 
 best codices testifying to the Vulgate as revised by 
 Jerome, the Philoxenian Syriac, and a considerable 
 number of Fathers. It is to be noticed also that varia- 
 tions such as the following meet us : " The Lord and 
 God," " God and the Lord," " the Lord God," " Christ," 
 and in one Latin version " Jesus Christ." This state of 
 the evidence seems to warrant the remarks : — 
 
 (1.) That the most valuable manuscript evidence is 
 
 undoubtedly in favour of the reading " God." 
 (2) Evidence from versions is about equally divided; 
 for if on the one side we have the Egyptian 
 versions, on the other w^e have the Latin as 
 revised by Jerome. 
 (3.) The evidence of Fathers is also about equally 
 divided, although it leans to the support of 
 " God." 
 We have here evidently a case in which, considering 
 the number of variations that have arisen, much weight 
 is due to the rule explained, p. 140, that the reading 
 which is most probably the parent of all the others 
 is also most probably the true one. We add, therefore, 
 (4.) That all the variations noted by us are much 
 more likely to have sprung from " God " than 
 from " the Lord." Supposing " the Lord " to 
 have been the original reading we cannot under- 
 stand how " and God " should have been added. 
 If " God " were the original we can easily under- 
 stand how changes should have been introduced 
 to soften such an expression as " God, who 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 167 
 
 purchased with His own blood." In proof of 
 this we find that a Latin interpreter of the Greek 
 Ignatius changes an expression of the latter, 
 " the blood of God " into " the blood of Christ 
 God ; " and further, that the Latin translator of 
 Irenseus makes use of the reading a the Lord," 
 while the course of his argument leads to the 
 inference that he had " God " before him in his 
 Greek. 
 
 (5.) The expression " the Church of God " is one 
 common in St. Paul's Epistles, but he never 
 speaks of " the Church of the Lord." 
 
 (6.) The reading " God " is a much more difficult one 
 than " the Lord," when we look at the words 
 immediately following. 
 
 These considerations lead to the adoption of the read- 
 ing— 
 
 " The Church of God, which He hath purchased with 
 His own blood." 
 
 Eom. v. 1. 
 
 By the change of a single letter in the Greek, we here 
 read " let us have," instead of " we have," in the Author- 
 ized Version. The evidence stands as follows : For " let 
 us have" A, B, C, D, X, etc., the earliest versions, 
 Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and many others of 
 the Fathers. For "we have" tw r o or three second-rate 
 uncials, some inferior versions, and a few of the Fathers. 
 The preponderance of authority is therefore distinctly in 
 favour of the former reading, and the verse should run 
 as follows : — 
 
168 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 " Therefore, being justified by faith, let us have peace 
 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 Eom. vm. 1. 
 
 It has been previously observed that the last clause 
 of this verse is an interpolation. For it there are some 
 inferior uncials, a few Fathers, and one or two late 
 versions. Against it there are B, C, D, N, etc., Augustine, 
 Cyril, Athanasius, and others of the Fathers, with some 
 versions. The evidence is thus clearly against the 
 clause, and the verse should read thus : — 
 
 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them 
 which are in Christ Jesus." 
 
 Eph. i. 1. 
 
 The question here is, whether or not the words " in 
 Ephesus" are genuine. It is no easy matter to decide. 
 On the one hand, the great mass of authorities of all kinds 
 is in favour of the words : on the other hand, B and 
 N, the two most ancient manuscripts, are against them. 
 Basil the Great, who lived in the fourth century, declares 
 that they were wanting in ancient copies of the New 
 Testament in his day. There are some other statements 
 of the Fathers to the same effect, so that we can form, 
 in the present state of the evidence, no very decided 
 judgment on either side. It is certainly somewhat diffi- 
 cult to understand how St. Paul could have written an 
 epistle specially addressed to the church at Ephesus, 
 and yet make not a single personal allusion to any in 
 the place where he had lived and laboured so long. If 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 169 
 
 the epistle be regarded as encyclical — that is, as intended 
 to circulate among the several churches of Asia Minor, 
 that difficulty will be removed, and the opening verse 
 will read thus : — 
 
 " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, 
 to those that are saints, and to the faithful in Christ 
 Jesus." 
 
 Heb. ii. 9. 
 
 A singular various reading occurs in this verse. In- 
 stead of the words u by the grace of God" some manu- 
 scripts and a number of the early Fathers read "without" 
 or " apart from God." Origen, in the third century, knew 
 both readings, but the latter seems to have been the 
 dominant one, as he expounds it, and says that "by the 
 grace of God" was found only "in some copies." Theo- 
 doret, in the fifth century, knew of no other reading 
 than " without God," and the same is true of others of 
 the Fathers. Still, although patristic evidence is here 
 strong, there seem good reasons, both external and in- 
 ternal, for adhering to the common text. All the manu- 
 scripts and versions of most weight are in favour of " by 
 the grace of God " and this expression is in analogy 
 with the rest of Scripture, whereas " apart from God " 
 rests on but w T eak manuscript authority, and seems 
 totally unlike any statement to be met with elsewhere 
 in Scripture. 
 
 This verse therefore will stand as in the received 
 text. 
 
170 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon 
 
 1 Pet. hi. 15. 
 
 A very interesting and important various reading 
 occurs in this verse, viz., the substitution of Christ for 
 God. In favour of the text as it stands there are a few 
 uncials, and one or two Fathers, but in support of the 
 reading Christ w T e have A,B, C, N, etc., the best versions, 
 and several of the Fathers. There can be no doubt, 
 therefore, that a change should here be made in the 
 text. And that change is of the greatest importance, 
 for, as the Apostle here applies to Christ language 
 which in the Old Testament is made use of with refer- 
 ence to Jehovah (see Isa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests 
 the supreme Godhead of our Eedeemer. The clause 
 then, will stand thus : — 
 
 " 'But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts." 
 
 1 John ii. 23. 
 
 This verse stands in the Authorized Version as follows : 
 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the 
 Father : [but] he that acknowledged the Son hath the 
 Father also" By the use of italics in the second clause 
 it is suggested that the w-ords rest on doubtful or insuffi- 
 cient authority. But (with the exception of the initial 
 but) textual criticism has fully demonstrated their gen- 
 uineness. They are omitted in some uncial manuscripts, 
 but are found in A, B, C, N, in the versions, and in 
 Clement, Origen, and others of the Fathers. The verse 
 then should, without any hesitation, be read as follows: — 
 
 " Whosoever denieth the Son. the same hath not the 
 
Important Texts of the New Testament. 171 
 
 Father : he that acknowledged the Son hath the Father 
 also." 
 
 1 John hi. 1. 
 
 A remarkable addition should be made to the text in 
 this verse. Against the addition " and we are " there 
 are two or three uncials, the Coptic version, and one or 
 two Fathers. But in favour of the addition there are 
 A, B, C, N, with Augustine and others of the Fathers. 
 The addition therefore should, on all sound critical 
 principles, certainly be made, and the verse will accord- 
 ingly stand thus — 
 
 " Behold, what manner of love the Father hath 
 bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of 
 God ; and we are [such] : therefore the world knoweth 
 us not, because it knew Him not." 
 
 1 John v. 13. 
 
 This verse reads very strangely in the common text : 
 " These things have I written unto you that believe on 
 the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye 
 have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name 
 of the Son of God." Beaders of the epistle are thus 
 declared to do in the first clause what they are exhorted 
 to do in the last. But the balance of authority seems 
 against the verse as it stands. For it there are one or 
 two uncials and a few Fathers ; against it there are B, N, 
 the Syriac versions, and some of the Fathers. A is here 
 peculiar. It omits the clause " that believe on the name 
 f the Son of God." But, in accordance with the evi- 
 
 o 
 
172 Effect produced by Textual Criticism. 
 
 dence just stated, we should probably read the verse 
 thus, — 
 
 " These things have I written unto you, that ye may 
 know that ye have eternal life, ye who believe on the 
 name of the Son of God." 
 
 Eev. xvn. 8. 
 
 The two last clauses of this verse seem flatly to contra- 
 dict each other in the common text. " The beast that 
 thou sawest was, and is not ; and shall ascend out of 
 the bottomless pit, and go into perdition : and they that 
 dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not 
 written in the book of life from the foundation of the 
 world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, 
 and yet is." There is hardly any evidence whatever for 
 this paradoxical reading. A and N combine against it, 
 and support the following, which is also confirmed by 
 patristic authority : — 
 
 " The beast that thou sawest was, and is not ; and 
 shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and goeth into 
 perdition ; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, 
 whose names are not written in the book of life from 
 the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, 
 that he was, and is not, and shall [again] be." 
 
CHAPTEE IT. 
 
 EFFECT PRODUCED BY TEXTUAL CRITICISM UPON THE TEXT 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IX ITS SUCCESSIVE BOOKS. 
 
 IAVTNG pointed out the manner in which the 
 principles of textual criticism explained in 
 the earlier chapters of this book are to be 
 applied to a few of the more important texts 
 of the New Testament, we shall now endeavour to con- 
 vey to our readers some impression of the general effect 
 to be expected from the application of these principles 
 to the Xew Testament as a whole. It will be impossible 
 to note every change of text that ought legitimately to 
 follow from our premisses, and many of them are so 
 trifling that the English reader, especially on first making 
 acquaintance with the subject, cannot be expected to 
 take much interest in them. We shall confine ourselves 
 therefore to such changes as really affect the meaning of 
 the original. 
 
 Gospel oe St. Matthew. 
 
 Chap i. The only change of interest in this chapter 
 v. 25. is in v. 25, where, speaking of the mother of our 
 
L74 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 Lord, the Evangelist ought to be made to say 
 
 " till she brought forth a son/' not " till she 
 
 brought forth her first-born son." 
 
 Chap. ii. The second chapter in like manner affords 
 
 only one change needing to be noted, for in 
 
 v. 18. v. 18 the words "lamentation and" ought to 
 
 be omitted, and the text, thus making a nearer 
 
 approach to the language of the prophet, 
 
 should read, "In Kama was there a voice 
 
 heard, weeping and great mourning." 
 
 Chap. iii. The changes of the third chapter do not call 
 
 for notice. 
 Chap. iv. And the same remark applies to those of 
 
 the fourth. 
 
 Chap. v. In the fifth chapter we ought to read v. 
 
 v. 22. 22, omitting " without cause," " whosoever is 
 
 angry with his brother shall be in danger of the 
 
 v. 27. judgment." 1 In v. 27 the words " by them of 
 
 v. 32. old time " ought to be omitted. In v. 32, 
 
 where our present text gives us " causeth her 
 
 to commit adultery," we should find, " causeth 
 
 adultery to be committed upon her," or 
 
 " causeth her to suffer adultery," that is, treat- 
 
 eth her as though she were an adulteress. In 
 
 v. 44. v. 44 several clauses are to be omitted, and 
 
 the reading ought to be, " but I say unto you, 
 
 Love your enemies, and pray for them which 
 
 /;. 47. persecute you." In v. 47, for the words " do 
 
 not even the publicans," we ought to read " do 
 
 not even the heathen the same ? " And, finally, 
 
 1 Comp. p. no. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 175 
 
 r. 48. in v. 48 we ought to be instructed to be perfect, 
 not as our " Father which is in heaven/' but 
 as our " heavenly Father is perfect." 
 
 Chap. vi. In the sixth chapter the first change that 
 
 r. 1 meets us is that of v. 1, " Take heed that ye do 
 
 not your righteousness " instead of K your alms 
 
 v. 4, 6, before men." Xext, at the end of v. 4, 6, 18, 
 18, we have to omit the word "openly." 1 Then, in 
 
 v. 12. the fifth petition of the Lord's prayer in v. 12, 
 
 we must read. " as w x e have forgiven," not " as 
 
 . we forgive our debtors ; " while the cloxology of 
 
 r. 13. the prayer in v. 13, " for Thine is the kingdom, 
 and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen," 
 must be left out, The only other change in 
 
 c. 33. this chapter calling for notice is that of v. 33, 
 where, wdien we read the verse, as Ave ought to 
 do, in immediate connection with the preceding 
 one, the true reading is much more beautiful 
 than that of our English Version, " But seek ye 
 first His kingdom and His righteousness." 
 
 Chap. vii. In the seventh chapter only one change of 
 importance meets us. It occurs in the last 
 
 ?-. 29. verse of the chapter, which will run, " For He- 
 taught them as one having authority, and not 
 as their scribes." 
 
 Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter the reading of v. 10 
 
 v. 10. becomes much more emphatic than as it stands, 
 " Verily, I say unto you, With no man in Israel 
 have I found so great faith." The grateful 
 feelings of St. Peter's mother-in-law are more 
 
 1 Comp. pp. 86, 109. 
 
176 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 fully brought out when we read, as we ought 
 v. 15. to do, in v. 15, that " she ministered unto Him," 
 v. 25. instead of "them." In v. 25 the true reading, 
 omitting " us," sets before us much more 
 graphically the quick alarmed cry of the dis- 
 v. 31. ciples, " Lord, save; w T e perish." And in v. 31 
 the subjection of the devils to our Lord is 
 more pointed when we find them saying, as 
 the true text requires, not " suffer us to go 
 aw T ay," but " send us away into the herd of 
 swine." 
 Chap, ix. In the ninth chapter the following changes 
 v. 8. may be noted as worthy of regard. In v. 8 
 
 for the " marvelling" of the multitudes we 
 v. 13. ought to read " they were afraid." In v. 13 
 the words of our Lord are simply, '" for I came 
 not to call the righteous, but sinners." 1 In 
 v. 35. v. 35 the words "among the people," which 
 might limit our Lord's miracles of mercy to 
 the theocratic nation, have no right to claim 
 v. 36. their place. And in v. 36 the reading " be- 
 cause they fainted" will give way to one 
 more suitable to the circumstances of the case, 
 " because they were distressed." 
 Chap. x. In the tenth chapter, v. 4 ought to present 
 v. 4. the reading, "Simon the zealot" not "Simon 
 
 v. 23. the Canaanite." In v. 23 the true reading is 
 not " flee ye into another," but " flee ye into 
 the next," thus bringing out the mode in 
 which the persecuted disciples were in their 
 
 1 Comp. p. 144. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 177 
 
 flight not so much to seek safety for them- 
 selves, as rather new and successive fields of 
 labour, that they might thus go over as many 
 as possible of the cities of Israel before the 
 v. 25. Son of Man should come. In v. 25 the true 
 reading is not " if they have called/' but u if 
 they have surnamed the master of the house 
 Beelzebub." 
 Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter the mention of 
 v. 2. "two" of John's disciples in v. 2 ought to be 
 
 omitted, for we are only told that John sent 
 v. 19. "by his disciples." In v. 19 the statement 
 of the true text is, not that " Wisdom is justi- 
 fied of her children," but that "Wisdom is 
 v. 23. justified by her works;" 1 and in v. 23 the 
 graphic force of the Saviour's appeal is greatly 
 heightened if we read, with what appears to be 
 the best authenticated text, interrogatively, 
 " And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted to 
 heaven ? Thou shalt be brought down to hell." 
 Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter little change of im- 
 v. 6. portance is necessary. We note only in v. 6 
 
 the substitution of the neuter for the mascu- 
 line, not " in this place is one greater than 
 the temple," but " that which is greater than 
 v. 8. the temple is here;" in v. 8 the omission of 
 
 v. 35. " even ; " and in v. 35 the substitution of 
 " out of his good treasure" for " out of the 
 good treasure of the heart," a change by which 
 
 1 Comp. p. 156. 
 M 
 
178 Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 the contrast between the good and the evil 
 man is more distinctly brought to view. 
 
 Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter also little change 
 is needed. The words " to hear" are to be 
 
 v. 9. omitted in v. 9, and the verse ought to read 
 
 ?;. 22. " He that hath ears let him hear." In v. 22 
 "the care of this world" ought to give way to 
 
 v. 34. " the care of the world." In v. 34 " and with- 
 out a parable spake He not unto them" ought 
 to be read " and without a parable spake He 
 
 v. 43. nothing unto them." In v. 43 the same change 
 has to be made as in v. 9 ; and lastly, for 
 
 v. 55. " Joses" in v. 55 we ought to read " Joseph;" 
 a reading of no small interest in connection 
 with an inquiry that cannot be entered upon 
 here, as to the personality of James the 
 writer of the Epistle of James in our New 
 Testament canon. 
 
 Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter two slight changes 
 
 v. 12. meet us in v. 12, where "the corpse" ought to 
 be substituted for " the body," and " buried 
 
 v. 25. him" for "buried it." In v. 25 " Jesus came 
 unto them " is better vouched for than " Jesus 
 
 v. 30. went unto them;" and in v. 30 the word 
 " boisterous " ought to be omitted. 
 
 Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter a slight change of 
 
 v. 1. reading ought to be made in v. 1, giving us, 
 
 instead of u Then came to Jesus scribes and 
 Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem," " Then 
 come to Jesus from Jerusalem, Pharisees and 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 179 
 
 v. 6. scribes." The omission of some words in v. 6 
 
 supplies the reading " He shall not honour his 
 father," instead of " And honour not his father 
 or his mother, he shall be free ; " and again in 
 
 v. 8. v. 8 another omission of some words gives us 
 
 simply " This people honoureth me with their 
 
 v. 14. lips, but their heart is far from me." In v. 14 
 we ought to read " they be blind leaders," 
 rather than "they be blind leaders of the 
 
 v. 17. blind;" and in v. 17 "not" falls to be sub- 
 stituted for " not yet." 
 
 Chap. xvi. Tn the sixteenth chapter the words " ye 
 
 v. 3. hypocrites " of v. 3 have properly no place in 
 
 the text, nor the description of Jonah as " the 
 
 vv. 4, 8. prophet " in v. 4. In v. 8 we ought to read 
 " because ye have no bread," and not " because 
 
 v. 13. ye have brought no bread." In v. 13, for 
 " Whom do men say that I the Son of Man 
 am ?" the true text gives us, " Who do men say 
 
 v. 20. that the Son of Man is ? " In v. 20 the word 
 
 v. 26. "Jesus" ought to be omitted; and in v. 26, 
 "for what shall a man be profited ?" is better 
 established than " for what is a man profited ?" 
 
 Chap. xvii. In the seventeenth chapter the words of 
 
 v. 4. Peter in v. 4 are much more characteristic 
 
 when we adopt the true text — not "let us make 
 here," but " I will make here three tabernacles." 
 
 v. 11. In v. 11 the word "first" ought to go out. 
 
 v. 20. In v. 20 we are to read " because of your little 
 faith" rather than " because of your unbelief ; " 
 
180 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 21. and the whole of v. 21, "Howbeit this kind 
 
 goeth not out but by prayer and fasting," is to 
 
 be omitted. 
 
 Chap, xviii. In the eighteenth chapter the whole of 
 
 ot. 11,15. v. 11 ought to disappear; and in v. 15 the 
 
 precept of our Lord receives far greater breadth 
 
 by the omission of the words " against thee/' 
 
 an omission demanded by the evidence. In 
 
 v. 29. v. 29 we ought also to omit "at his feet;'' and 
 
 v. 35. v. 35 ought to close with the word " brother," 
 
 " if ye forgive not every one his brother." 
 Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter the first change 
 v. 17. of importance that meets us is at v. 17, which 
 ought to be read, "Why askest thou me con- 
 cerning that which is good ? There is one 
 that is good. But if thou wouldest enter into 
 v. 20. life keep the commandments." In v. 20 the 
 words "from my youth up" ought to be 
 v. 29. omitted; and in v. 29 the words "or wife." 
 Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter the last clause of 
 v. 7. v. 7 ought to have no place in the text, " and 
 
 whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive;" 
 and the same observation applies to the last 
 v. 16. clause of v. 16, "for many be called, but few 
 v. 19. chosen." In v. 19 the true reading supplies 
 the words "and the third clay He shall be 
 raised up," rather than "and the third day 
 v. 22. He shall rise again." In v. 22 we ought to 
 omit the words " and to be baptized with the 
 baptism that I am baptized with," a remark 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 181 
 
 v. 23. applying also to the similar clause in v. 23. 
 vv. 26, 27. In vv. 26, 27 the imperative form " let him be" 
 ought to be changed for the future form 
 v. 34. " shall be ;" and in v. 34, instead of reading of 
 the blind men just healed that " their eyes 
 received sight," we ought to read " they re- 
 ceived their sight." 
 Chap. xxi. In the twenty-first chapter one change only 
 v. 38. need be noted, where in v. 38 the husbandmen 
 are made to exclaim, " Come, let us kill him, 
 and let us keep his inheritance." 
 Chap. xxii. In the twenty-second chapter we ought to 
 v. 13. read in v. 13, with the omission of a few words 
 from the present text, " Bind him hand and 
 v. 23. foot, and cast him," etc. In v. 23 we are not 
 told of "Sadducees which say," as if the pur- 
 pose were to describe the tenets of the sect, 
 but of " Sadducees saying," the remark being 
 confined to the particular persons introduced 
 v, 40. to us. In v. 40 the true text gives, " on these 
 two commandments hangeth the whole law 
 v. 44. and the prophets ; " and in v. 44 the words 
 given as a quotation from the 110th Psalm are, 
 " till I put thine enemies under thy feet." 
 Chap), xxiii. In the twenty-third chapter the word "for" 
 v. 5. ought to be inserted in v. 5 before "they make 
 
 v. 7. broad their phylacteries." In v. 7 "Babbi" 
 
 v. 8. ought to be read only once ; and in v. 8 the 
 
 words "even Christ" have to be omitted. The 
 vv. 14, 17. whole of v. 14 ought to go out. In v. 17 we 
 
182 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 ought to read not of the temple " which sanc- 
 
 tifieth," but of the temple " which hath sancti- 
 
 v. 19. fied the gold;" and lastly, in v. 19 the words 
 
 " ye fools" have no claim to be in the text. 
 Chap. xxiv. In the twenty-fourth chapter the words 
 v. 7. " and pestilences " in v. 7 have to be left out. 
 
 v. 17. In v. 17 we ought to read, not of taking " any- 
 thing," but of taking " the things " out of the 
 v. 28. house. At the beginning of v. 28 "for" must 
 v. 36. be omitted ; and the latter part of v. 36 ought 
 to read, " no, not the angels of heaven, neither 
 the Son, but the Father only." 
 Chap. xxv. In the twenty-fifth chapter the w r ord "for" 
 v. 3. ought to be inserted at the beginning of v. 3. 
 
 v. 6. In v. 6 the w^ord " cometh " has to be omitted 
 
 after " bridegroom," 1 and the same remark has 
 v. 13. to be made of the last words of v. 13, which 
 properly closes with the word " hour." In v. 
 v. 31. 31 w 7 e ought to read simply of "angels," not 
 v. 41. " holy angels ;" and the words of v. 41 are not 
 "depart from me, ye cursed," but "depart from 
 me, accursed." 
 Chap. xxvi. In the tw^ntj^-sixth chapter there is no 
 v. 3. mention of "the scribes" in v. 3. In v. 26 we 
 
 v. 26. ought to read that Jesus took a " loaf," not 
 v. 27. "bread; " in v. 27 that He took " a cup," not 
 v. 28. "the cup;" and in v. 28 that He spoke only 
 of the "testament," or rather covenant, "in His 
 blood," without describing it as "new." In 
 
 1 Comp. p. 5. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 183 
 
 v. 43. v. 43 the change to be made is important, as 
 
 throwing light on the feelings of the disciples 
 
 at the solemn moment referred to, for we ought 
 
 to read that Jesus "came again and found them 
 
 asleep/' not that He " came and found them 
 
 asleep again ; " their sleep had most probably 
 
 v. 55. continued from the first. In v. 55 the w T ords 
 
 v. 59. " with you" have to be omitted; and in v. 59 
 
 v. 65. the words "and elders." In v. 65 the horror 
 
 of the high priest comes out more forcibly 
 
 when we notice that the last clause of the verse 
 
 ought to read, "behold, now ye have heard 
 
 the," rather than "His, blasphemy;" and in v. 
 
 v. 74. 74 the true reading tells us not that St. Peter 
 
 began to " curse," but that he " began to bind 
 
 himself under a curse," or "to affirm upon oath." 
 
 Cliav. xxvii. In the twenty-seventh chapter the name 
 
 v. 2. "Pontius" prefixed in v. 2 to " Pilate" has to 
 
 v. 5. be dropped. In v. 5 an important emendation 
 
 of the text is found in the change of " in the 
 
 temple" into "into the temple." The part of 
 
 the temple here alluded to is the Holy place, 
 
 into which none but the priests might enter. 
 
 Judas therefore could not be within "the 
 
 temple," but in his remorse and despair he 
 
 rushed to the entrance and cast into the sacred 
 
 in closure his ill-gotten gains, the price of his 
 
 v. 23. Eedeemer's blood. In v. 23 "he" ought to be 
 
 v. 34. substituted for " the governor ;" and in v. 34 
 
 v. 35. "wine" for " vinegar." The whole of v. 35, 
 
184 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 after " casting lots," has to be omitted ; and in 
 v. 42. v. 42 the scornful cry of the people is enhanced 
 
 by the true reading, not " if He be the King of 
 
 Israel," but simply "He is the King of Israel." 
 v. 64. Finally, in v. 64 the words " by night " have 
 
 no proper place. 
 Chap, xxviii. In the twenty-eighth chapter the changes 
 
 to which attention need be called are few. In 
 v. 2. v. 2 the words " from the door " are to be left 
 
 v. 9. out; in v. 9 the words " as they went to tell 
 
 v. 20. His disciples;" 1 and in v. 20 the word " Amen." 
 
 Gospel of St. Maek. 
 
 Chap. i. In the first chapter of this Gospel w T e must 
 
 v. 2. read in v. 2 for " as it is written in the pro- 
 
 phets " the words "as it is written in Isaiah the 
 prophet," while the two last words of the verse, 
 
 v. 11. "before Thee," must be omitted. In v. 11 
 " in Thee I am well pleased," takes the place of 
 
 v. 14. " in whom I am well pleased." In v. 14 we 
 find the interesting expression " the Gospel of 
 God," instead of " the Gospel of the kingdom 
 
 v. 24. of God." In v. 24 the first words of the man 
 with the unclean spirit, " Let us alone," have 
 
 v. 27. no proper place in the text; and in v. 27 the 
 changes to be made on the original lend a 
 power and vividness to the description not 
 otherwise possessed by it, when the people in 
 their amazement are represented as exclaim- 
 
 1 Comp. p. 112. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 185 
 
 ing, " What is this ? A new teaching ! With 
 authority commandeth He even the unclean 
 spirits, and they do obey him." 
 
 Chap. ii. In the second chapter a graphicness similar 
 
 v. 7. to that spoken of in i. 27 is lent to v. 7, when 
 
 we read, as required by the evidence, "Why 
 doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth." 
 
 v. 16. In v. 16 we ought to find the singular expres- 
 sion, throwing fresh light upon the different 
 parties then existing in Jerusalem, " and when 
 the scribes of the Pharisees saw him eat," etc. 
 
 v. 17. In v. 17 the two last words, "to repentance," 
 
 v. 20. must be left out. In v. 20 our Lord's words 
 receive new emphasis by the true reading, " in 
 that day " instead of" in those days ; " and the 
 same remark is applicable to the best authen- 
 
 v. 22. ticated text of v. 22, where we ought to read, 
 not " and the wine is spilled, and the bottles 
 will be marred," but " and the wine perisheth, 
 
 v. 26. and the bottles." Finally, v. 26 is rendered 
 more definite by the correct reading, " in the 
 days when Abiathar was high priest." 1 
 
 Chap. iii. In the third chapter little change is needed. 
 
 v. 15. We note only that in v. 15 the power of cast- 
 ing out devils is alone spoken of in the true 
 
 v. 18. text; that in v. 18 we are told of " Simon the 
 zealot," not of "Simon the Canaanite;" and that 
 
 v. 29. in v. 29 our Lord's words are not, that he who 
 blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost is "in 
 
 1 Comp. p. 144. 
 
186 Effect produced ly Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 danger of eternal damnation/' but that he is 
 " guilty of an eternal sin." 1 
 
 Chap. iv. In the fourth chapter we are told in v. 1 not 
 
 v. 1. only of "a great "but of " a very great multitude." 
 
 v. 10. In v. 10 the true reading is valuable in its bear- 
 ing upon the fragmentary nature of our Gospels, 
 "asked of Him the parables/' not "the parable." 
 
 v. 12. In v. 12 we ought to read, not "lest at any time 
 they should be converted, and their sins should 
 be forgiven them," but, with a special reference 
 to the point immediately in hand, "lest at any 
 time they should be converted, and it should 
 
 v. 40. be forgiven them." In v. 40 we ought to read, 
 not "How is it that ye have no faith?" but, 
 "Have ye not yet faith?" 
 
 Chap. v. In the fifth chapter the changes that require 
 to be made are few and unimportant. We 
 
 v. 18. mention only that, at v. 18, the Evangelist tells 
 us that the man just cured came to our Lord not 
 so much " when He was come into," as " when 
 He was entering into the ship;" and that at 
 
 v. 36. v. 36 the relation of all the parties spoken of 
 to one another is better brought out by attend- 
 ing to what appears to have been the- original 
 statement of the Evangelist, " but Jesus, 
 heeding not the word that was spoken, saith 
 unto the ruler," etc. 
 
 Chap, vi, In the sixth chapter a true reading in v. 2 
 
 v. 2. brings out more clearly that effect of our 
 
 1 Comp. p. 158. 
 
Text of the Nero Testament in its successive Books. 187 
 
 Lord's words on the people, upon which it is 
 characteristic in St. Mark to dwell with a pecu- 
 liar emphasis, not " many hearing/' but " the 
 many hearing Him were astonished." In v. 
 
 v. 11. 11 the latter half, from " verily I say unto you," 
 
 v. 15. ought to be omitted. The difficulty of v. 15 
 is at once removed by reading with the correct 
 text, " It is a prophet as one of the prophets ;" 
 and the still greater difficulty of the second 
 
 v. 20. last clause of v. 20 is equally removed, while the 
 strangely mingled elements in the character of 
 Herod are at the same time powerfully brought 
 out, when we read, not " and when he heard 
 Him he did many things," but, as we ought to 
 read, " and when he heard Him he was greatly 
 
 v. 38. perplexed." In v. 38 the love of graphic delin- 
 eation so characteristic of St. Mark, receives 
 fresh illustration by the omission falling to be 
 made of the copida between "go " and " see," 
 not " go and see," but " go ; see." 
 
 Chap. vii. In the seventh chapter the close of v. 4 
 
 v. 4. ought to read simply " as the washing of cups, 
 
 and pots, and brasen vessels," all mention of 
 " tables " being omitted. The latter half of v. 
 
 v. 8. 8 ought likewise to be omitted, the verse clos- 
 
 ing with "the tradition of men." At the 
 
 v. 12. beginning of v. 12 the word " and " has no 
 claim to be in the text, and it will be observed 
 that, by omitting it, v. 12 will so connect itself 
 with v. 11 as to render the long clause in ita- 
 
188 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 lies at the close of the latter verse unnecessary. 
 
 v. 16. The whole of v. 16 wants authority; and in 
 
 v. 19. v. 19 our Lord's words end with the word 
 " draught/' after which the Evangelist makes 
 the striking and beautiful comment upon what 
 he has recorded, " this He said, making all 
 meats clean." 
 
 Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter any changes required 
 are few and unimportant. The chief are as 
 
 v. 21. follows. In v. 21 the question of our Lord 
 ought to have the simpler form, " Do ye not 
 
 v. 26. yet understand ? " In v. 26 the last clause falls 
 to be omitted, and the charge of Jesus to the 
 man whom he had cured is only " do not even 
 
 v. 37. go into the town ;" while v. 37, connected with 
 the preceding verse by " for " instead of " or," 
 assigns a reason why the whole world should, 
 as compared with the soul, be spoken of as 
 valueless, " For what shall a man give in 
 exchange for his soul V 
 
 Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter the first change re- 
 quired is one that may justly be regretted, 
 depriving us as it does of one of those expres- 
 sions of St. Mark by which the graphicness of 
 his style of narrative is illustrated. It occurs 
 
 v. 3. in v. 3, where the words " as snow " must be 
 
 omitted, and the loss is only partially compen- 
 sated for by the fact that the word " so " ought 
 to be inserted before white, " so as no fuller on 
 
 v. 19. earth can so white them." In v. 19 the words 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 189 
 
 of our Lord ought to appear as an answer not 
 only to the father of the child but to the whole 
 assemblage, " He answereth them/' not " him, 
 v. 20. and saith." In v. 20 the proper reading re- 
 quires a stronger word than "tare ;" we must 
 v. 23. read " tare him greatly." In v. 23 we gain by 
 noting the correct words even more than we 
 lost in v. 3. The word " believe " goes out, 
 and -"if thou canst " is not the direct language 
 of Jesus ; it is the taking up on the part of 
 Jesus of the father's " if thou canst " in the 
 preceding verse. The father says, v. 22, "if 
 thou canst do anything ;" then Jesus replies, 
 " If thou canst ! all things are possible unto 
 v. 24. him that believeth." In v. 24, however, we 
 again lose something by the loss of "with 
 v. 26. tears " and " Lord." In v. 26 we ought to 
 v. 29. read " the many" instead of " many ;" in v. 29 
 v. 42. to omit " and fasting ;" in v. 42 to insert 
 v. 44. "great" before "millstone." Two verses, v. 44 
 vv. 46, 47. and v, 46, go out wholly ; and in v. 47 the 
 last word of the verse, " fire," must be omitted. 
 Chap. x. In the tenth chapter only one or two changes 
 v. 21. need be noted. In v. 21 the words " take 
 v. 29. up the cross " are to be left out. In v. 29 the 
 correct reading presents us with a slightly 
 different order in the mention of the relatives 
 there spoken of, while one of them, " or wife," 
 v. 50. has to be altogether omitted. In v. 50 we 
 ought to find St. Mark's more graphic touch 
 
190 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 in the words, " and he, casting away his gar- 
 ment, leapt up, and came to Jesus." 
 Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter the word " fields " 
 v. 8. requires to be substituted in v. 8 for " trees," 
 
 and thus its true rendering can be given to 
 the Greek word translated in our version 
 " branches." That word properly applies to 
 leaves, and its true sense is much more suitable 
 to the act described. To have thrown down 
 branches in the path of the ass on which our 
 Lord was riding could only have checked its 
 v. 10. progress. In v. 10 we ought to read without 
 the words " in the name of the Lord." In v. 
 v. 24. 24 it is not " believe that ye receive," but 
 v. 26. " believe that ye received them ;" and v. 26 
 
 ought to be omitted. 
 Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter the true reading of v, 
 ?;. 4. 4 is simpler than in our text, " and him they 
 
 wounded on the head and handled shamefully." 
 v. 22. So also in v. 22, " and the seven left no seed." 
 v. 23. In v. 23 the tautology is removed by the cor- 
 rect reading, which omits " when they shall 
 v. 27. rise;" and in v. 27 the increased terseness of 
 the true text at once commends itself, "ye 
 v. 31. greatly err." In v. 31 a certain amount of 
 embarrassment is removed by omitting, as we 
 ought to do, any mention of likeness between 
 the two commandments spoken of, and by 
 reading only " and the second is this." In v. 
 v. 33. 33 the words " and with all the soul " go out; 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 191 
 
 v. 43. and in v. 43 the vividness of the picture is 
 preserved by our finding in the best authenti- 
 cated text, not " all they which have cast/' but 
 " all they which are casting into the treasury." 
 Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter a slight change in 
 v. 3. the reading of v. 3 affords a fresh illustration 
 
 of the character of St. Peter. It is not " Peter, 
 and James, and John, and Andrew asked him 
 privately," but " Peter asked him privately, 
 v. 8. and James, and John, and Andrew." In v. 8 
 
 the copulas ought to be omitted, together with 
 the words " and troubles," the true reading of 
 the verse giving us in English, " For nation 
 shall rise against nation, kingdom against 
 kingdom ; there shall be earthquakes in divers 
 v. 11. places ; there shall be famines." In v. 11 the 
 abuse so often made of the precept of Jesus 
 contained there, is greatly obviated by the 
 omission which should be made of " neither do 
 v. 14. ye premeditate." In v. 14 the words " spoken 
 of by Daniel the prophet" are to be left out ; 
 v. 18. and in v. 18 there is no mention of " flight " in 
 what appears to be the true text, " and pray ye 
 that it be not in the winter." 
 Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter the word "for" is 
 to be substituted for " but" at the beginning of 
 vv. 2, 9. v. 2, and in v. 9 "the," not "this," ought to pre- 
 v. 22. cede the word " gospel." In v. 22 " Take" is to 
 ^.23. be read instead of "Take, eat;" in v. 23 "a cup" 
 v. 24. is to be substituted for " the cup ;" and in v. 24 
 
192 Effect produced ly Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 27. the word " new" is to be omitted. In v. 27 we 
 are to omit " because of me this night." In v. 
 v. 40. 40 the correct reading has the same importance 
 in its bearing upon the conduct of the disciples 
 as that already noticed at Matt. xxvi. 43, not 
 " He found them asleep again/' but " He again 
 found them sleeping ; " and the reason given 
 is not merely that " their eyes were heavy," but 
 
 v. 51. that they were "very heavy." In v. 51 we 
 are to read " and they laid hold on him," instead 
 of " and the young men laid hold on him ; " 
 
 v. 70. and in v. 70 the words of the bystanders to St. 
 Peter close with " Galilean," the remainder of 
 the verse, " and thy speech agreeth thereto," 
 having no sufficient authority. 
 
 Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter, the words of Pilate 
 
 v. 4. in v. 4 are not " behold how many things they 
 
 witness against Thee," but " how many things 
 
 v. 8. they accuse Thee of." In v. 8 the multitude 
 
 is not represented as " crying aloud " but as 
 " going up," in all probability to the tribunal 
 
 v. 14. upon which Pilate sat. In v. 14 "the more" 
 is to be left out before " exceedingly ; " and the 
 
 vv. 28,30. whole of v. 28 is to be omitted. In v. 30 we 
 ought to read "save Thyself, coming down from 
 
 v. 45. the cross ; " and in v. 45 we are told of " the 
 corpse " instead of " the body." 
 
 Chap. xvi. In the sixteenth chapter the word " quickly" 
 
 v. 8. is to be omitted in v. 8. The whole of the 
 
 vv. 9-20. following passage from v. 9 to the end of the 
 
Text of the Nevj Testament in its successive Books. 193 
 
 chapter, can hardly be regarded as a part of 
 the original Gospel of St. Mark. It is rather 
 an addition that had been made to it at a very 
 early age, but whether in the lifetime of the 
 Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say. 
 Although, however, not from the pen of St. 
 Mark himself, it was so soon and so generally 
 recognised by the Church as possessed of can- 
 onical authority, that no hesitation need be 
 felt at allowing it to stand. When we have it 
 where it is, the changes produced on it by the 
 application of the principles of textual criticism 
 are not sufficiently important to require notice. 
 Before leaving this Gospel Ave have only to 
 add, that it contains many narrative passages 
 in which the present ought to be substituted 
 for the past tense ; and that the word " straight- 
 way " or " immediately" has several times been 
 lost sight of in the text received by us. Correc- 
 tion of the text on these two points is important, 
 as increasing the vividness of the narration, and 
 as illustrating the peculiarities of St. Mark. 
 
 Gospel of St. Luke. 
 
 Chap. i. In the first chapter of this Gospel the clos- 
 v. 28. ing words of v. 28, "blessed art thou among 
 v. 29. women," have to be omitted, and in v. 29 " when 
 v. 42. she saw him," as formerly noticed. 1 In v. 42 
 Elisabeth is represented as speaking out with "a 
 
 1 See p. 6. 
 N 
 
194 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 loud cry/' rather than with "a loud voice." 
 v. 66. In v. 66 the last words ought to be connected 
 with those going immediately before by the 
 substitution of " for indeed " for " and ;" and in 
 v. 75. v. 75 the true expression is simpler than that 
 of the English version, " all our days " instead 
 of " all the days of our life." 
 Chap. ii. In the second chapter we ought to read in 
 v. 5. v 5 of Mary "his betrothed" rather than of 
 
 Mary " his espoused wife." The angels' song 
 v. 14. in v. 14 takes the interesting form, " Glory to 
 God in the highest, and on earth peace among 
 men of his good pleasure," i.e. among men 
 v. 33. whom He hath loved. 1 In v. 33 the Evange- 
 list's statement is not that "Joseph and his 
 mother," but that " his father and mother mar- 
 velled at those things which were spoken of 
 v. 38. him." In v. 38 " God " ought to be substi- 
 tuted for " the Lord," and " the redemption of 
 Jerusalem " for " redemption in Jerusalem." 
 v. 40. In v. 40 the words " in spirit " have to 
 v. 43. be omitted ; and in v. 43 a correction similar 
 to that in v. 33 has to be made, " his parents " 
 being substituted for " Joseph and his mother." 
 Chap. iii. In the third chapter little change need be 
 w. 10,12, noted. In v. 10, 12, and 14 we ought to read 
 14. " what must we do " for " what shall we do." 
 v. 17. In v. 17 the object of the "fan" is described 
 when we read with the best authenticated 
 
 1 Comp. pp. 94, 160. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 195 
 
 text, " whose fan is in His hand, thoroughly to 
 v. 19. purge His floor;" and in v. 19 " his brother's 
 wife " is better established than " his brother 
 Philip's, wife/' 
 Cliap. iv. In the fourth chapter it is better to read in 
 v. 1. v. 1 "in the wilderness/' than "into the wil- 
 
 o. 2. derness/' and in v. 2 to omit " afterward." In 
 
 v. 4. v. 4 our Lord's reply to Satan is simply " that 
 
 man shall not live by bread alone," the words 
 that follow having no claim to their place in 
 the text. No mention of a " high mountain " 
 v. 5. belongs to v. 5, the simple statement being 
 
 that " the devil led him up and showed him 
 v. 8. all the kingdoms/' etc. In v. 8 we must omit 
 
 v. 18. " Get thee behind me, Satan, for ;" in v. 18 " to 
 v. 41. heal the broken-hearted ;" and in v. 41 the 
 v. 43. word " Christ" In v. 43 the correct reading- 
 gives us, " for therefore was I sent " rather 
 than " for therefore am I sent." 
 Chap. v. In the fifth chapter the words " by him" in 
 vv. 15,17. v. 15 are to be omitted ; and in v. 17 we ought 
 to read " the power of the Lord w r as present to 
 his healing them." The opening words of v. 
 v. 30. 30 are "But the Pharisees and their scribes;" 
 v. 33. and in v. 33 by omitting " wl^ do " w 7 e have a 
 statement made, not a question asked. In v. 
 6*. 36. 36 the changes requiring to be made lend a 
 fresh light altogether to the verse, " and he 
 spake also a parable unto them ; iSTo man rend- 
 eth a piece from a new garment and putteth it 
 
196 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 upon an old, else he will both rend the new, 
 
 and the piece from the new will not agree 
 
 with the old." A double mischief, it will be 
 
 observed, is thus spoken of by our Lord. The 
 
 unnatural mixture destroys both the old and 
 
 the new, just as, in the next verse, the new 
 
 wine is spilled and the old bottles perish. In 
 
 v. 38. v. 38 the words " and both are preserved," 
 
 are to be omitted, and in like manner the 
 
 v. 39. word " straightway " in v. 39. Finally, in 
 
 this last verse " good " ought to be read for 
 
 " better." 
 
 Chap. vi. In the sixth chapter the difficult expression 
 
 v. 1. of v. 1, " on the second sabbath after the first," 
 
 must yield to the more intelligible "on a sabbath 
 
 v. ID. day." In v. 10 we ought to leave out " whole 
 
 v. 17. as the other." In v. 17 we have to substitute 
 
 " a great company" for "the company" of His 
 
 v. 25, disciples. In v. 25 the word " now " has to be 
 
 v. 36. inserted before " full." In v. 36 the two 
 
 words " therefore " and " also " have to be 
 
 v. 42. omitted, and in v. 42 the word " either." In 
 
 v. 48. v. 48 we must substitute in the last clause, 
 
 " it was well built " for " it was founded upon 
 
 a rock." 
 
 Chap. vii. In the seventh chapter the last words of 
 
 v. 10. v. 10, " that had been sick," must be omitted. 
 
 v. 11. In v. 11 we ought to read " His disciples" 
 
 v. 19. for "many of His disciples." In v. 19 "to the 
 
 Lord " ought to be substituted for " to Jesus," 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 197 
 
 v. 22. and in v. 22 for "Jesus " we should read " He." 
 
 v. 28. In v. 28 "for" at the beginning of the verse 
 
 goes out, and the words that follow, " I say 
 
 unto you," are, " among those that are born of 
 
 Avomen there is not a greater than John." In 
 
 v. 38. v. 38 the true text makes the meaning clearer, 
 
 " and stood behind at His feet, weeping." In 
 
 v. 42. v. 42 the words "Tell me" must be omitted; 
 
 v. 44. and in v. 44 the correct text gives us only 
 
 " with her hair '" instead of " with the hairs of 
 
 her head." 
 
 Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter "unto them" ought to 
 
 vv. 3, 12. be read for " unto him" in v. 3, and in v. 12 
 
 "they that have heard" for "'they that hear." 
 
 In v. 24 " then he awoke " is to be read for 
 
 . "then he arose." In vv. 26 and 37 "Gerasenes" 
 
 is to be substituted for " Gadarenes," and in 
 
 v. 27 " for a long while had worn no clothes" 
 
 for " and ware no clothes." In v. 45 the last 
 
 clause, " and sayest thou, Who touched me ? " 
 
 has to be omitted, and in v. 48 the words " be 
 
 of QXDod comfort." In v. 52 "for" ouoht to be 
 
 inserted after "Weep not;" and in v. 54 the 
 
 clause relating to Christ's putting them all out 
 
 has to be removed, for we read only, " and He 
 
 took her by the hand and called, saying, Maid, 
 
 arise." 
 
 Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter we ought to read in 
 
 vv. 1, 3. v. 1 " He called the twelve together." In v. 3 
 
 " a staff" is to be substituted for " staves." In 
 
 V. 
 
 24. 
 
 vv. 26,3 
 
 v. 
 
 27. 
 
 V. 
 
 45. 
 
 V. 
 
 43. 
 
 V. 
 
 52. 
 
 V. 
 
 54. 
 
198 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 7. v. 7 the words "by him" are to be omitted. 
 
 v. 10. In v. 10 the true reading of the last half of 
 
 the verse is only " and he took them, and 
 
 went aside privately into a city called Beth- 
 p. 11. saida." In v. 11 we are told, not that Jesus 
 
 "received/' but that he "welcomed" them. 
 v. 35. In v. 35 the words spoken out of the cloud 
 v. 48. are, " This is my chosen Son/' In v. 48 the 
 
 last words are, the same " is," not " shall be," 
 v. 49. great. In v. 49 the words of John imply not 
 
 so much that he succeeded in forbidding as 
 
 that he made the effort to forbid, " and we 
 v. 50. were forbidding him/'* In v. 50 "'you" is to 
 
 be twice substituted for "us" in the last clause ; 
 v. 57. and in v. 57 the word " Lord" is to be left out. 
 Chap. x. In the tenth chapter " to our feet " is to be 
 v. 11. substituted for " on us " in v. 11. In v. 15 we 
 ■v. 15. have the same change to make as that already 
 
 made on Matt. xi. 23, "And thou, Capernaum, 
 
 shalt thou be exalted to heaven ? Thou shalt 
 v. 19. be thrust down to hell." In v. 19 we ought to 
 v. 20. read " I have given" for " I give ;" in v. 20 to 
 ?;. 21. omit " rather" before " rejoice ;" and in v. 21 to 
 
 substitute " in the Holy Spirit" for "in spirit." 
 v. 35. In v. 35 the words " when he departed" have 
 v. 39. no claim to be in the text ; and in vv. 39 and 
 v. 41, 41 "the Lord's" and "the Lord" ought to 
 
 take the place of " Jesus' " and " Jesus." 
 Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter, the form of the 
 
 Lord's prayer must undergo considerable mo- 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 199 
 
 dification, for several clauses ought to "be 
 
 v. 2. omitted — in v. 2, " which art in heaven/' to- 
 
 gether with the first word " our," and the third 
 petition, " Thy will be clone, as in heaven, so in 
 
 v, 4z. earth ; " while we must again omit in v. 4 
 
 v. 29. " but deliver us from evil." In v. 29 we ought 
 to read " this generation is an evil generation," 
 and to omit "the prophet" after Jonas. In v. 
 
 x. 34. 34 " thine eye " has to be substituted for " the 
 
 v. 44. eye ; " and in v. 44 " scribes and Pharisees, 
 hypocrites," must be omitted. The words of 
 
 v, 48. Jesus in v. 48 are simply " and ye build," not 
 " and ye build their sepulchres." The opening 
 
 v. 53. words of verse 53 ought to be, "And when He 
 was come out from thence ;" and all that truly 
 
 v. 54. belongs to v. 54 is " laying wait for Him, to 
 catch something out of His mouth." 
 
 Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter we ought to read 
 only " fear not " instead of " fear not therefore" 
 
 vv. 7,15. in v. 7; and in v. 15 to insert "all" before 
 
 v. 29. " covetousness." In v. 29 '* And what ye shall 
 drink " takes the place of " or what ye shall 
 
 v. 31. drink." In v. 31 " His kingdom" is to be sub- 
 stituted for " the kingdom of God," and " all " 
 before "these things" is to be omitted. In 
 
 v. 54. v. 54 we ought to read " in the west" for "out 
 of the west ;" and the question of our Lord in 
 
 v. 56. v. 56 is " How is it that ye do not know how 
 to discern this time ?" 
 
 Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter we ought to read 
 
200 Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 3. in v. 3 "in like manner" for "likewise;" in 
 
 v. 15. v. 15 " ye hypocrites" for " thou hypocrite ;" in 
 v. 24. v. 24 " door " for " gate," a reading by which 
 
 the connection between that and the following 
 
 verse is much more clearly brought out than 
 v. 25. it would otherwise be. In v. 25 " Lord" ought 
 v. 31. only to be read once. In v. 31 the word 
 
 " hour" is to be substituted for " day;" and in 
 v. 35. v. 35 we are to read "your house is left unto 
 
 you " without the addition of " desolate." 
 Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter few changes 
 
 worthy of notice' have to be made. At the 
 v. 3. end of v. 3 "or not" ought to be inserted in 
 
 the question of Jesus there recorded. The 
 v. 5. change of "ass" into "son" in v. 5 has been 
 
 v. 10. already noticed. 1 In v. 10 "all" has to be 
 v. 17. inserted before " them;" while in v. 17 it has to 
 
 be omitted before "things." Lastly, increased 
 v. 27. force is given to v. 27, when we read that the 
 
 follower of Jesus must bear, not " his " cross 
 
 merely, but " his own " cross. 
 Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter also few changes 
 v. 17. are needed. In v. 17 we ought to read in the 
 
 last clause, " and I perish here with hunger ?" 
 v. 22. In v. 22 the word "quickly" ought to be added 
 v. 32. to "bring forth ;" and in v. 32 " again" after 
 
 " alive" is to be omitted. 
 Chap. xvi. The sixteenth chapter also calls for little 
 
 change. The most important is probably that 
 
 1 Comp. page 9. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 201 
 
 v. 9. falling to be made in v. 9, where we ought to 
 
 read not, " that when ye fail," but " that when 
 
 v. 18. it fails." In v. 18 " he that" ought to be sub- 
 
 v. 21. stitutecl for " whosoever." In v. 21 we are told 
 
 not of " the crumbs" but of " the things which 
 
 v. 26. fell from the rich man's table;" and in v. 26 
 
 the last clause of the verse must be read, " and 
 
 that none may pass from thence to us." 
 
 Chap. xvii. In the seventeenth chapter " against thee" 
 
 v. 3. is to be omitted in v. 3 ; " in a day" after the 
 
 v. 4z. second " seven times" in v. 4; and "him ? I 
 
 v. 9. trow not" after "commanded" in v. 9, wdiile 
 
 in this last verse " that servant" is also to be 
 
 v. 21. changed into " his servant," In v. 21 the 
 
 v. 23. second "lo" has to be omitted; and v. 23 
 
 ought to have the simpler reading, " see 
 
 there or here," instead of " see here ; or see 
 
 v. 33. there." In v. 33 we are to read not "to 
 
 save" but " to gain his life." 
 Chap, xviii. In the eighteenth chapter we shall notice 
 only two changes, but both important; the 
 first as making intelligible what has little 
 or no meaning as it stands, the second as add- 
 ing interesting emphasis to the words. The 
 v. 7. first is in v. 7, where for the last clause, "though 
 
 He bear long with them," we ought to read 
 " and is He long suffering in their case ?" The 
 v. 28. second is in v. 28, where Peter's words run, 
 " Lo, we have left our own and followed thee." 
 Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter we ought to 
 
202 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 5. omit " and saw him" in v. 5 ; to read " the 
 
 v. 20. other" for "another" in v. 20; "if these 
 v. 40. shall" for " if these should" in v. 40 ; and 
 "in this day" instead of "in this thy day" 
 w. 42, 45. in v. 42. In v. 45 we are to read only " and 
 He went into the temple, and began to cast 
 out them that sold." 
 Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter " a thing" is to be 
 v. 3. substituted for " one thing" in v. 3. The 
 
 v. 13. last words of v. 13, "when they see him," are 
 to be left out. The same thing is to be done 
 v. 14. with " come " in v. 14 ; with " Why tempt 
 v. 23. ye me ?" in v. 23 ; and with the greater por- 
 v. 30. tion of v. 30, which will then only read, " and 
 v. 40. the second." Lastly, in v. 40 the " and" at 
 the beginning of the verse ought to give place 
 to "for." 
 Chap. xxi. In the twenty-first chapter the word " here" 
 v. 6. ought to be inserted after "left" in v. 6; 
 
 v. 8. while "therefore" in the last clause of v. 8 
 
 v. 25. ought to be omitted. The latter part of v. 25 
 will run, when the necessary textual correc- 
 tion has been made, " distress of nations in 
 perplexity at the roaring of sea and waves;" 
 v. 36. and in v. 36 we shall have to replace "that 
 ye may be accounted worthy" by "that ye 
 may prevail." 
 Chap. xxii. In the twenty-second chapter we are to 
 v. 14. omit the word "twelve" in v. 14; and in v. 
 v. 18. 18 to insert "from henceforth" after "drink." 
 
V. 
 
 30. 
 
 r. 
 
 31. 
 
 v. 
 
 57. 
 
 v. 
 
 60. 
 
 r. 
 
 62. 
 
 V. 
 
 64. 
 
 Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 203 
 
 In v. 30 " and sit" will give way to " and ye 
 shall sit." In v. 31 we are to omit " and the 
 Lord said." In v. 57, when amended, we 
 must read " and he denied, saying, I know 
 him not, woman;" in v. 60 "a cock" for 
 "the cock;" and in v. 62 "he" for " Peter." 
 Finally, in v. 64 we ought, omitting several 
 words, to read " and when they had blindfolded 
 v. 68. Him, they asked Him," etc.; and in v. 68 only 
 
 " and if I also ask you, ye will not answer." 
 
 Chap, xxiii. In the twenty-third chapter, in v. 2, the 
 
 v. 2. best authenticated text sets before us the 
 
 accusation against our Lord in a much more 
 
 forcible manner than is s otherwise the case, for 
 
 we ought to read "our nation" for "the nation," 
 
 and to insert " and " before the last clause, 
 
 " and saying that He Himself is Christ a King." 
 
 In v. 6 we ought to read " it " for " Galilee ; " 
 
 in v. 8 to omit " many things ; " in v. 15 to 
 
 substitute " for he sent him back to us " for 
 
 " for I sent you to him ; " in v. 23 to omit "and 
 
 of the chief priests ;" in v. 35 to omit "with 
 
 them ;" and to reduce v. 38 to the form, " And 
 
 a superscription also was over Him, This is the 
 
 King of the Jews." In v. 42 we have to omit 
 
 " Lord ; " and in v. 51 " also Himself." 
 
 Chap. xxiv. In the twenty-fourth chapter the last 
 
 v. 1. clause of v. 1, " and certain others with them," 
 
 v. 17. is to be omitted. In v. 17 our Lord's question 
 
 ends with the words " as ye walk," and then 
 
 V. 
 
 6. 
 
 V. 
 
 8. 
 
 V. 
 
 15. 
 
 V. 
 
 23. 
 
 V. 
 
 35. 
 
 V. 
 
 38. 
 
 V. 
 
 42. 
 
 V. 
 
 51. 
 
204 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 the Evangelist adds "and they stood sad." In 
 v. 42. v. 42 the words " and of an honeycomb " have 
 v. 4:4:. no just claim to be in the text. In v. 44 the 
 
 Saviour says, " These are my words/' etc. ; and 
 v. 46. in v. 46 he says, " Thus it is written that 
 v. 49. Christ should suffer," etc. In v. 49 we ought 
 v. 50. to omit "of Jerusalem;" in v. 50 to read 
 
 " towards Bethany " for " to Bethany ; " and in 
 v. 53. v. 53 to omit "Amen." 
 
 Gospel of St. John. 
 
 Chap. i. In the first chapter of this Gospel we have to 
 
 v. 16. change "and" at the beginning of v. 16 into 
 
 v. 18. " for." The great change in v. 18 of " the only 
 begotten Son " into " the only begotten God " 
 
 v. 19. has already been discussed. 1 In v. 19 we ought 
 to read " sent unto Him from Jerusalem priests 
 
 v. 24. and Levites." In v. 24 the true reading, one emi- 
 nently characteristic of St. John's tendency to 
 return back on the beginning of his statements, 
 seems to give us, " And they had been sent 
 
 v. 27. from the Pharisees." In v. 27 w r e are to read, 
 " even He that cometh after me, whose shoe's 
 
 v. 28. latchet I am not worthy to unloose." In v. 28 
 "Bethany" must take the place of "Bethabara;" 
 
 v. 39. in v. 39 "ye shall see" of "see;" while the 
 omission of " for " at the beginning of the last 
 clause of this verse, is an illustration of a 
 change needing to be often made in this Gospel, 
 
 1 Comp. page 162. 
 
Teed of the New Testament in its successive Books. 205 
 
 the suppression of the copula, when a short 
 
 statement is added to what went before. In 
 
 r. 41. v. 41 we ought to read, "Christ" instead of (( the 
 
 v. 42. Christ;" in v. 42 " John" instead of "Jona;" 
 
 v. 51. and in v. 51 to omit "hereafter." 1 
 
 Cliap. ii. In the second chapter one change only need 
 
 be noted, that of "hath eaten me up" into 
 
 v. 17. " shall eat me up " in v. 17. 
 
 Chap. iii. In the third chapter a very important change 
 
 v. 13. has to be made in v. 13, where the last words 
 
 of the verse, " which is in heaven," ought to be 
 
 v. 16. omitted. In v. 16 we ought to read, not "His/' 
 
 v. 17. but "the" only begotten Son;" and in v. 17 in 
 
 like manner "the Son" takes the place of "his 
 
 v. 25. Son." In v. 25 we are told not of a question 
 
 between some of John's disciples and "the 
 
 Jews," but of one between them and "a Jew." 
 
 Chap. iv. In the fourth chapter two changes only may 
 
 be mentioned, but both of them important. The 
 
 v. 35. first occurs at v. 35, where the word "already" 
 
 ought to be transferred to the next verse, 
 
 bringing out far more beautifully the real force 
 
 of our Lord's words, which will then run, a 
 
 slight change being made in the form of the 
 
 English present tense, " Lift up your eyes and 
 
 look on the fields, that they are white unto 
 
 harvest ; already he that reapeth is receiving 
 
 wages and gathering fruit unto life eternal." 
 
 v. 42. The second change is at v. 42, where, dropping 
 
 1 Comp. p. 127. 
 
206 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 the words " the Christ," the Samaritans only 
 say that they know that " this is indeed the 
 Saviour of the world." 
 Chap), v. In the fifth chapter important changes have 
 also to be made. Of the first of these, the 
 v. 3. omission of the last words of v. 3 and of the 
 
 v. 4. whole of v. 4, we have already spoken. 1 The 
 
 v. 16. next is the omission in v. 16 of " and sought to 
 v. 30. slay him." Then in v. 30 we are to read " Him" 
 v. 44. instead of " the Father;" and, lastly, in v. 44, 
 " from God only " at the close of the verse 
 ought rather to be " from the only One." 
 Chap. vi. In the sixth chapter the interesting change 
 v. 11. to be made on v. 11 has been already noticed. 2 
 The confusion at present reigning in the pas- 
 ■vv. 22-24. sage, vv. 22-24, is dispelled by one or two slight 
 emendations of the text, leading to the omission 
 of " when" in v. 22 and of " also " in v. 24. Let 
 us make these, put out the brackets of v. 23, 
 and note that the "shipping" of v. 24 refers to the 
 " other boats" of v. 23, and all is clear. At 
 v. 40. the beginning of v. 40 " for " should be intro- 
 duced instead of " and," thus binding this verse 
 v. 47. to that immediately preceding. In v. 47 the 
 words " on me " have to be omitted, as also in 
 v. 51. v. 51 the words "which I will give" coming 
 v. 58. after the word flesh. In v. 58 we ought to 
 read " the fathers " for " your fathers ;" and in 
 v. 65. v. 65 "the Father " instead of "my Father." 
 
 1 Comp. page 16. 2 Comp. pages 113, 146. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 207 
 
 v. 69. The confession of v. 69 should run, " and we 
 believe and are sure that thou art the Holy 
 One of God." 
 
 Chap, vii In the seventh chapter the word "very" 
 
 v. 26. before " Christ " in v. 26 has to be omitted, as 
 
 v. 53. well as the whole of v. 53, which forms the 
 opening verse of the story of the woman taken 
 in adultery. 
 
 Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter by far the most inter- 
 esting and important change to be made is the 
 exclusion from the text of St. John of the story 
 of the woman taken in adultery, extending from 
 
 w. 1-11. the first to the eleventh verse of the chapter. 
 It would be foreign to the object now in hand 
 to argue the question, and it is enough to say 
 that this conclusion is at length adopted by all 
 textual critics. At the same time there is so 
 much reason to believe that the narrative is 
 historical, and its beauty is so great, that it 
 might with all propriety be given in a note. 
 
 v. 14. In v. 14 the last words of the verse ought to 
 be read, " but ye know not whence I come, or 
 
 v. 46. whither I go." In v. 46 the " and " before the 
 last half of the verse is to be omitted ; and in 
 
 o. 59. v. 59 the same has to be said of the concluding- 
 words, " going through the midst of them, and 
 so passed by." 
 
 Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter the emendation of the 
 
 v. 4. text by the best authorities gives us in v. 4 
 
 words beautifully pointing out the identifica- 
 
208 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 tion of the Eedeemer with His people, " We 
 
 must work" instead of " I must work the 
 v. 8. works of Him that sent me." In v. 8 we have 
 
 to substitute "a beggar" for " blind ; " and 
 v. 11. in v. 11 to read simply " Go to Siloam" for 
 
 " Go to the pool of Siloam." Lastly, the im- 
 v. 35. portant emendation has to be made in v. 35, 
 
 " Dost thou believe on the Son of Man ? " for 
 
 " Dost thou believe on the Son of God ? " 
 Chap. x. In the tenth chapter " wdien he putteth 
 v. 4. forth all his own" has to be read in v. 4 for 
 
 " when he putteth forth his own sheep." In 
 v. 14. v. 14, " and know my sheep, and am known of 
 
 mine," must give way to "and know my sheep, 
 v. 26. and my sheep know me." In v. 26 " as I said 
 
 unto you" at the end of the verse has to be 
 v. 38. omitted. In v. 38 " understand" is to be 
 
 substituted for " believe ; " and "I in the 
 
 Father" for " I in Him." 
 Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter not much change 
 
 need be noted. " But I know that even now" 
 v. 22. in v. 22 ought to be changed into " and now 
 17.31. I know 7 ." In v. 31 " saying, she goeth" 
 
 gives place to " supposing that she goeth ; " 
 v. 41. and in v. 41 the w r ords " from the place where 
 
 the dead w T as laid " are to be omitted. 
 Chop. xii. In the twelfth chapter the wrords " which 
 v. 1. had been dead " in v. 1 ought to be left out. 
 
 v. 7. The language of our Lord in v. 7 is not " against 
 
 the day of my burying hath she kept this," 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 209 
 
 but " that she may keep this against the day 
 of my burying." In the words of the Evange- 
 v. 41. list in v. 41 " because" is to be substituted for 
 v. 47. " when ; " and v. 47 ought to read " if any man 
 hear my sayings, and keep them not," instead of 
 " if any man hear my words, and believe not." 
 Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter an important 
 v. 2. emendation occurs in v. 2, v 7 here we have to 
 
 read, not " and supper being ended," but 
 v. 24. " supper having begun." In v. 24 the state- 
 ment of the Evangelist is more graphic than 
 in our English text. It is that Simon Peter 
 beckoned to John, " and saith unto him, Tell 
 us who it is of whom He speaketh." 1 The 
 answer of Jesus to the beloved disciple in v. 
 v. 26. 26 gains also by the true reading in graphic 
 power, " He it is for whom I shall dip the sop, 
 and shall give it to him." 
 Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter the word " for " 
 ought to be inserted before the last clause of 
 vv. 2, 4. v. 2 ; and v. 4 ought to read, " And whither I 
 v. 12. go, ye know the way." In v. 12, as in other 
 passages too numerous to mention, " the 
 Father " takes the place of " my Father ; " and 
 v. 16. in v. 16 the verb " be " is to be substituted for 
 v. 28. " abide." In v. 28 "because I go unto the 
 Father " ought to be read for " because I said, 
 v. 30. I go unto the Father;" and in v. 30 we are 
 told of " the prince of the world " rather than 
 of " the prince of this world." 
 1 Comp. p. 145. 
 
210 Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter " be " is to be sub- 
 
 v. 11. stituted for "remain" in v. 11, and no other 
 change in this chapter need be noted. 
 
 Chap. xvi. In the sixteenth chapter we ought to read 
 
 v. 16. in v. 16 "A little while and ye see me no 
 more " for " a little while and ye shall not see 
 me," and the last words of the verse, " because 
 
 v. 23. I go to the Father," are to be omitted. In v. 23 
 the change called for is important, for we 
 ought to read "And in that day ye shall 
 ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father, He will 
 give it you in my name." 
 
 Chap. xvii. In the seventeenth chapter the last clause 
 
 v. 4. of v. 4 is to be read not with its verb in a 
 
 narrative tense, but in a participle, " having 
 finished the work which Thou gavest me to 
 
 v. 11. do." In v. 11 an important change in the 
 connection of " name " has to be introduced, 
 " Holy Father, keep them in Thy name which 
 Thou hast given me," " name " belonging to the 
 words that follow, not to those that precede ; 
 
 v. 12. and the same remark applies to v. 12, " While 
 I was with them" (omitting "in the world"), 
 " I kept them in Thy name which Thou hast 
 
 v. 20. given me." In v. 20 the present tense "believe " 
 is to be substituted for the future "shall 
 
 v.2\. believe;" and in v. 21 how wonderfully is 
 the meaning of our Lord enhanced, and the 
 thought of the spiritual nature of His kingdom 
 deepened in us, when we find Him praying 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 211 
 
 for His disciples, as the condition of the 
 world's conviction, not " that they also may be 
 one in us," but " that they also may be in us, 
 that the world may believe that Thou hast 
 sent me." 
 
 Cliap. xviii. In the eighteenth chapter we mention 
 only two changes that are demanded by the 
 evidence, but how much the text is improved 
 by them will be at once manifest to every 
 
 v. 11. reader. In v. 11 we ought to find not " Put 
 up thy sword into the sheath," but "Put up 
 
 v. 20. the sword into the sheath ; " and in v. 20 we 
 ought to read, not " in the temple, whither the 
 Jews always resort," but "in the temple, 
 whither all the Jews resort." 
 
 Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter the words " by 
 the law " are to be substituted for " by our 
 
 vv. 7, 17. law" in v. 7; and in v. 17 the true reading 
 gives us, " And He bearing His cross for Him- 
 
 v. 20. self, went forth," etc. In v. 20, instead of words 
 leading to the rendering of our English version, 
 the best authenticated text supplies words that 
 ought to be translated "for the place of the 
 city where Jesus was crucified was nigh." 
 
 Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter there is little 
 
 v. 16. change calling for notice to be made. In v. 16 
 " Eabboni " is said to be " in the Hebrew 
 
 v. 19. tongue;" and in v. 19 the word "assembled" 
 has to go out. 
 
 Chap. xxi. In the twenty-first chapter " immediately " 
 
212 Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 3. ought to be omitted in v. 3; " John" to be 
 
 vv. 15,17. substituted for " Jonas " in vv. 15 and 17; and 
 v. 25. the word " Amen " in v. 25 has no claim to be 
 in the text. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 Chap. i. In the first chapter of this book the word 
 v. 8. "my" ought to be substituted in v. 8 for "unto 
 
 v. 14. me," thus giving us "my witnesses." In v. 14 the 
 words " and supplication " are to 'be omitted; 
 v. 15. and in v. 15 "brethren" is to be substituted 
 
 for " disciples." 
 
 Chap. ii. In the second chapter the words " one to 
 
 v. 7. another " are to be omitted in v. 7 ; the word 
 
 m22,23. " also " in v. 22; and in v. 23 "by the hand 
 
 of the wicked " is to be substituted for " by 
 
 v. 30. wicked hands." In v. 30 we are to read, 
 
 " Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that 
 
 God had sworn with an oath to him, that 
 
 of the fruit of his loins should sit on his 
 
 v. 40. throne." In v. 40 " them " ought to be added 
 
 v. 41. after " exhort;" and in v. 41 "gladly" is to be 
 
 omitted. 
 Chap. iii. In the third chapter the shorter reading 
 v. 11. "he" is to be adopted in v. 11 for "the lame 
 v. 18. man which was healed;" and in v. 18 we are 
 to read " had showed by the mouth of all the 
 prophets that His Christ should suffer." In 
 v. 20. v. 20 "appointed" is to be substituted for 
 v. 21. "preached." In v. 21 "all" is to be omitted. 
 
Text of the Neio Testament in its successive Books. 213 
 
 v. 22. In v. 22 the first clause ought to read simply 
 v. 26. "Moses truly said;" and in v. 26 we are to 
 
 leave out the word " Jesus." 
 Chap. iv. In the fourth chapter we ought to read in 
 v. 8. v. 8 simply of " elders/' not of " elders of 
 
 v. 17. Israel." In v. 17 "straitly" is to be omitted. 
 v. 24. In v. 24 the first words of the prayer there 
 
 given are " Lord, Thou which hast made ; " its 
 v. 25. words in v. 25 have to be changed into " who 
 
 by the mouth of our father thy servant David 
 v. 27. by the Holy Ghost hast said;" and in v. 27, " in 
 
 this city " is to be inserted after " of a truth." 
 v. 36. Lastly, " Joses " in v. 36 is to be changed into 
 
 " Joseph." 
 Chap. v. In the fifth, chapter " these things " in v. 5 is 
 v. 5. to be omitted. The beginning of v. 16 ought 
 
 v. 16. to run, " There came also the multitude from 
 v. 23. the cities round about Jerusalem." In v. 23 
 
 the words " truly " and " without" have no good 
 
 claim to be in the text ; and the same remark 
 
 applies to the mention of " the high priest " in 
 ^.24,34. v. 24. In v. 34 "men" is to be substituted 
 
 for " apostles ; " " overthrow them " for " over- 
 v. 39. throw it" in v. 39; and "the name" for "His 
 v. 41. name " in v. 41. 
 
 Chap. vi. In the sixth chapter two changes only need 
 v. 8. be noted, that in v. 8 Stephen is said to have 
 
 been full of " grace and power " rather than of 
 v. 13. "faith and power; " and that in v. 13 the word 
 
 " blasphemous " has no proper place. 
 
214 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 Chap. vii. In the seventh, chapter we ought to read 
 
 v. 16. in v. 16 "Emmor in Sychem" rather than 
 
 v. 18. "Emmor, the father of Sycliem;" in v. 18 to 
 
 v. 22. add "over Egypt" after "arose;" in v. 22 
 
 to insert "his" before "words and deeds;" in 
 
 v. 30. v. 30 to omit " of the Lord " after " angel ; " in 
 
 v. 37. v. 37 to omit the last words of the verse, " him 
 
 v. 48. shall ye hear ; " and in v. 48 to read that the 
 
 Most High dwelleth not "in what is made 
 
 with hands " rather than " in temples made 
 
 with hands." 
 
 Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter the words in v. 10 of 
 
 v. 10. those who gave heed to Simon are not, " This 
 
 man is the great power of God," but "This 
 
 man is what is called the great power of God." 
 
 v. 12: In v. 12 " the things " after " preaching " ought 
 
 to be omitted. Eor "the Holy Ghost" in 
 
 v. 18. v. 18 we are to read "the Spirit;" for "pray 
 
 0.22, God" in v. 22 "pray the Lord;" and the 
 
 v. 37. whole of v. 37 is to be omitted. 1 
 
 Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter the last words of v. 5 
 
 vv. 5, 6. together with the first part of v. 6 are to be 
 
 left out, so that we shall read "I am Jesus 
 
 whom thou persecutest; but arise," etc. In 
 
 v. 8. v. 8 "nothing" is to be substituted for "no 
 
 v. 20. man;" in v. 20 "Jesus" for "Christ;" and 
 
 v. 31. in v. 31 "the church" for "the churches," 
 
 together with the corresponding change from 
 
 the plural to the singular in the verbs " edified " 
 
 and " multiplied." 
 
 1 Comp. pp. 16, 136. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 215 
 
 Chap. x. In the tenth chapter the last clause-of v. 6, 
 
 v. 6. " he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do," 
 
 v. 11. is to be left out. • In v. 11 we ought to read 
 " and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel 
 descending as a great sheet, by four corners let 
 
 v. 12. down upon the earth;" and in v. 12 the vessel 
 is described as containing " all manner of four- 
 footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, 
 
 v. 30. and fowls of heaven." In v. 30 we must read 
 "Four days ago until this hour I was at the 
 
 v. 33. ninth hour praying," etc. In v. 33 " of the 
 Lord" is to be substituted for " of God;" 
 
 v. 48. and in v. 48 " of Jesus Christ" for " of the 
 Lord." 
 
 Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter the changes to be 
 made are hardly of a kind demanding special 
 notice for our present purpose. 
 
 Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter one change only need 
 be noted, that of "to Jerusalem" for "from 
 
 v. 25. Jerusalem" in v. 25. 
 
 Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter an interesting 
 change, though the evidence is somewhat in- 
 
 v. 18. conclusive, should probably be made in v. 18 
 by the substitution of u he bore them about as 
 a nurse" for " suffered he their manners." 
 
 w. 19, 20. In vv. 19 and 20 the changes to be made lead 
 to a rendering considerably different from that 
 of the authorized text, " and when he had 
 destroyed seven nations in Canaan, he gave 
 them their land as an inheritance for about 
 
216 • Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 four hundred and fifty years ; and after these 
 things he gave them judges until Samuel the 
 
 v. 26. prophet." In v. 26 " us" is to be substituted 
 
 v. 42. for "you" in the last clause. In v. 42 we 
 ought to read " And when they were going 
 
 v. 45. out they besought," etc.; and in v. 45 " con- 
 tradicting and" has to be omitted. 
 
 Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter " you" is to be 
 substituted for " us " and " your " for " our " 
 
 v. 17. in v. 17. Any other changes requiring to be 
 made in this chapter are unimportant. 
 
 Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter "you" is to be 
 
 v. 7. substituted for "us" in v. 7; and "them" in 
 
 vv. 8, 11. v. 8 is to be omitted. In v. 11 we ought to 
 read simply "the Lord Jesus" without the 
 
 ml7,18. addition of " Christ." In v. 17 and 18 we are 
 to read from the close of the former verse, 
 "saith the Lord, Who made these things 
 
 v. 23. known from the beginning." In v. 23 the 
 letter of the Council begins " the apostles and 
 the elders, (who are) brethren, send greeting." 
 
 v. 24. In v. 24 we have first to omit " which went 
 out" after "certain," and then to read the 
 latter part, " subverting your souls, to whom 
 
 v. 33. we gave no commission." In v. 33 we ought 
 to read "those who had sent them" instead of 
 
 v. 34. " the apostles ; " and v. 34 is to be omitted. In 
 
 v. 37. v. 37 we are told that " Barnabas wished," not 
 that he " determined to take with them John;" 
 
 v. 40. and in v. 40 it is "the grace of the Lord" 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 217 
 
 rather than "the grace of God" to which 
 
 Paul is recommended. 
 
 Chap. xvi. In the sixteenth chapter an interesting 
 
 v. 7. change has to be made in v. 7, where we are 
 
 to read in the last clause, " but the spirit of 
 
 v. 13. Jesus suffered them not." In v. 13 the writer 
 
 of the narrative tells us of the place by the 
 
 river side to which they went out, that it was 
 
 one "where we supposed that there was a 
 
 place of prayer." The damsel possessed with 
 
 v. 17, the spirit of divination cries in v. 17 that 
 Paul and his companions show unto " you," 
 not unto " us," the way of salvation ; and in 
 
 v. 31. v. 31 the language of Paul and Silas to the 
 jailer is "believe on the Lord Jesus," rather 
 than " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 Chap. xvii. In the seventeenth chapter we are to omit 
 
 v. 5. in v. 5 the words " which believed not " after 
 
 v. 26. " Jews." In v. 26 two important changes have 
 to be made, by the omission first of the word 
 " blood" after "one," and then of "before" after 
 
 v. 27. "times." In v. 27 "God" is to be substituted 
 for "the Lord." 
 
 Chap, xviii. In the eighteenth chapter an important 
 emendation of the text has to be introduced in 
 
 v. 5. v. 5, where we are told, not that Paul was 
 
 "pressed in the spirit," but that he was 
 
 v. 21. "earnestly occupied with the word." In v. 21 
 the words " must by all means keep this feast 
 that cometh at Jerusalem, but" are to be left out. 
 
218 Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter, in v. 4, we are to 
 v. 4. read, " on Jesus " rather than " on Christ 
 
 v. 33. Jesus;" in v. 33 "they thrust/' not "they drew, 
 v. 37. Alexander out of the multitude ;" and in v. 37 
 
 the town-clerk speaks of Diana not as " your " 
 
 but as "our" goddess. 
 Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter the words " into 
 v. 4. Asia " are to be omitted in v. 4. In v. 7 the 
 
 word " we " is to be substituted for " the dis- 
 v. 8. ciples ;" and again for " they " in v. 8. In v. 
 
 15 the evidence seems to require the omission 
 
 of a clause, for whose introduction into the 
 
 text it is extremely difficult to account, 
 
 "and tarried at Trogy Ilium." 
 Chap. xxi. In the twenty-first chapter we are to omit 
 v. 8. "that were of Paul's company" in v. 8 ; in 
 
 y. 20. v. 20 to read, "they glorified God" for "they 
 v. 25. glorified the Lord;" and in v. 25 to omit 
 
 " that they observe no such thing, save only." 
 Chap. xxii. In the twenty-second chapter we ought to 
 v. 9. omit "and were afraid" in v. 9 ; as also "unto 
 
 w.20,30. his death" in v. 20. In v. 30 we ought to read, 
 
 "all the council" for "all their council." 
 Chap, xxiii. In the twenty-third chapter an interesting 
 v. 6. change has to be made in v. 6, " the son of 
 
 Pharisees" for "the son of a Pharisee." At the 
 v. 9. end of v. 9 we miss, in the received text, the 
 
 graphic and abrupt termination belonging to 
 
 the best authenticated text, in which the 
 
 words "let us not fight against God" do not 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 219 
 
 occur, the cry of the scribes being only " We 
 
 find no evil in this man : but if a spirit or an 
 v. 12. angel hath spoken by him — ." In v. 12 we are 
 
 told that "the Jews," not "certain of the 
 
 Jews," banded together. 
 Chap. xxiv. In the twenty-fourth chapter the latter 
 w. 6, 7. part of v. 6, the whole of v. 7, and the first part 
 v. 8. of v. 8, ought to be left out, so that we pass at 
 
 once from "whom we took" in v. 6 to "by 
 v. 10. examining of whom" in v. 8. In v. 10 "the 
 
 more" before "cheerfully" is also to be left out; 
 v. 24. and in v. 24, the word " Jesus " is to be added 
 
 to "Christ." 
 Chap. xxv. In the twenty-fifth chapter we are told not 
 
 of "the high priest," but of "the high priests" 
 vv. 2, 6. in v. 2 ; and in v. 6, not of "ten," but of "eight 
 
 or ten days." 
 Chap. xxvi. In the twenty-sixth chapter we ought to 
 v. 7. read in v, 7, "accused of Jews" rather than 
 
 v. 17. "accused of the Jew^s;" in v. 17 to omit "now;" 
 v. 21. and in v. 21 to omit, as w T as done in v. 7, the 
 
 definite article before "Jews." 
 Chap, xxvii. In the twenty-seventh chapter the words 
 v. 2. of v. 2 have to undergo some change, " and 
 
 entering into a ship of Adramyttium, which 
 
 was about to sail to the coasts of Asia, we 
 v. 19. launched." In v. 19 "they" has to be substi- 
 v. 34. tuted for "we;" and in v. 34 "perish" for 
 
 "fall." 
 Chap, xxviii. In the twenty-eighth chapter " w T e " has 
 
220 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 1. to take the place of " they " in v. 1 ; and the 
 
 v. 29. whole of v. 29 has to be left out. 
 
 The Epistle to the Eomans. 
 
 Chap. i. The only changes worth noticing in this 
 v. 16. chapter are that in v. 16 we should read "For 
 I am not ashamed of the gospel" instead of "For 
 I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ;" and 
 v. 31. that in v. 31, "implacable" should be omitted. 
 Chap. ii. Instead of the words "Behold, thou art 
 called a Jew," in v. 17, we should read "But 
 if thou art called a Jew." No other change of 
 importance is required. 
 Chap. iii. We should read "But if the truth" instead 
 v. 7. of "For if the truth" in v. 7; and the words "and 
 
 vl 22. upon all" in v. 22 should probably be omitted. 
 Chap. iv. A remarkable various reading occurs in this 
 chapter. A, B, C, N, with some other ancient 
 authorities, omit "not" in v. 19, so that we 
 should probably read " he considered his own 
 body, now become dead," instead of " he con- 
 sidered not," etc. 
 Chap. v. Except the important change already noticed 
 v. 1. as required in v. 1, no alteration of consequence 
 
 is called for in this chapter. 1 
 
 Chap. vi. In this chapter we have simply to notice 
 
 v. 11. that "our Lord" should be omitted in v. 11 ; 
 
 and that instead of "obey it in the lusts 
 
 v. 12. thereof" in v. 12, we should read "obey the 
 
 lusts thereof." 
 
 1 Comp. p. 167. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 221 
 
 Chap. vii. A somewhat interesting change is required 
 
 v. 6. at v. 6. Instead of " that being dead wherein 
 
 we were held" the words should run "we 
 having died to that wherein we were held." 
 
 v. 18. V. 18 should read thus ; "For I know that 
 there dwelleth not in me, that is, in my flesh, 
 any good; for to will is present with me, but 
 to perform that which is good is not." 
 
 Chap. viii. The correct reading of v. 1 has been already 
 spoken of. 1 We should read " helpeth our 
 
 v. 26. infirmity" instead of "infirmities" in v. 26, 
 and, as formerly noticed " for us" in the same 
 verse should be omitted." 2 
 
 Chap. ix. No change calling for notice is required in 
 this chapter. 
 
 Chap. x. We should read " for them " instead of " for 
 
 v. 1. Israel " in v. 1 ; and instead of the common 
 
 v. 15. text in v. 15 there should be read, "How 
 beautiful are the feet of them that brings glad 
 tidings of peace, that bring glad tidings of 
 good things ! " It is somewhat doubtful whether 
 we should substitute "word of Christ" for 
 
 v. 17. "word of God" in v. 17. 
 
 Chap. xi. So, again, it is doubtful whether these words 
 
 v. 6. in v. 6, " but if it is of works, it is no more 
 
 grace: otherwise work is no more work" 
 
 v. 22. should not be omitted. At v. 22, for 
 " tow r ard thee, goodness" read "toward thee, 
 God's goodness." 
 
 1 Corap. p. 168. 2 Comp. p. 6. 
 
222 Effect produced "by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 Chap. xii. The only thing calling for notice in this 
 chapter is that we should probably read " But" 
 v. 20. or "Nay rather/' for "therefore" in v, 20, — 
 " Nay rather, if thine enemy hunger, feed him." 
 Chap. xiii. Instead of " the powers that be " read 
 v. 1. "those that be " in v. 1, and omit the clause 
 
 v. 9. " thou shalt not bear false witness " in v. 9. 
 
 Chap. xiv. Instead of the words " For to this end Christ 
 both died, and rose, and revived, that He might 
 v. 9. be Lord both of the dead and living " in v. 9, 
 
 read simply " For to this end Christ died and 
 lived, that He might be Lord both of the dead 
 v. 10. and of the living." In v. 10, for "judgment- 
 seat of Christ" read "judgment-seat of God." 
 Chap. xv. For " as Christ also received us " read " as 
 v. 7. Christ also received you " in v. 7. Instead of 
 
 v. 8. " Now " read " For " at the beginning of v. 8 : 
 
 vv. 23,24. and read as follows in vv. 23, 24, "But now 
 having no longer place in these parts, and 
 having had these many years a longing to 
 come to you, whenever I take my journey into 
 v. 29. Spain ; for I hope to see you," etc. In v. 29, for 
 " fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ" 
 read simply " fulness of the blessing of Christ." 
 Chap. xvi. Instead of " first-fruits of Achaia " read 
 v. 5. " first-fruits of Asia " in v. 5. For " the churches 
 
 of Christ " read " all the churches of Christ " 
 v. 16. in v. 16. Instead of the words "our Lord Jesus 
 v. 18. Christ read "our Lord Christ" in v. 18: and 
 v. 24. probably omit v. 24 altogether. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 223 
 
 The Fikst Epistle to the Coeixthians. 
 
 Chap. i. In this chapter, for " that I had baptized in 
 v. 15. my own name" in v. 15 read "that ye were 
 v. 20. baptized in my name;" in v. 20, for "the wis- 
 dom of this w r oiid " read " the wisdom of the 
 world;" for "require a sign" read "require 
 v. 22. signs " in v. 22 ; for " unto the Greeks " read 
 v. 23. " unto the Gentiles " in v. 23 ; for " in His 
 v. 29. presence" read "before God" in v. 29. 
 Chap. ii. Instead of " by His Spirit " read " by the 
 v. 10. Spirit" in v. 10; for "the Holy Ghost" read 
 v. 13. "the Spirit" in v. 13. 
 
 Chap. iii. Tor " who then is Paul, and who is Apollos ?" 
 v. 5. in v. 5, read "what then is Paul ? and w 7 hat 
 
 is Apollos ?" 
 Chap. iv. In v. 2 insert " here " so as to read " More- 
 v. 2. over, it is required in stewards here (i.e. on 
 
 v. 6. earth) that a man be found faithful;" in v. 6, 
 
 instead of " that ye might learn in us not to 
 think of men above that which is written," 
 read " that in us ye may learn this, not to go 
 beyond what is written." 
 Chap. v. In v. 1, for "as not so much as named among 
 v. 1. the Gentiles " read " as is not even among the 
 
 v. 7. Gentiles;" in v. 7 omit "therefore;" and in- 
 
 stead of the words " For even Christ our pass- 
 over is sacrificed for us " read " Por our pass- 
 over, even Christ, w r as sacrificed for us;" omit 
 v. 12. " also" in v. 12 ; and likewise omit " therefore" 
 v. 13. in v. 13. 
 
224 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 Chap. vi. Insert " Or" at the beginning of v. 2, and 
 v. 2. read, " Or do ye not know ;" and omit entirely 
 
 v. 20. in v. 20 the words " and in your spirit, which 
 are God's," reading the verse thus — "For ye 
 were bought with a price ; therefore glorify God 
 in your body." 1 
 Chap. vii. Instead of the words "due benevolence" in 
 v. 3. v. 3 read "her due;" for "that ye may give 
 
 yourselves to fasting and prayer ; and come 
 v. 5. together again" in v. 5 read, "that ye may be 
 
 free for prayer, and may be together again ;" 
 instead of "for" read "but" at the beginning 
 v. 7. of v. 7; for the words "the unbelieving wife is 
 
 v. 14, sanctified by the husband" read in v. 14 
 "the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the 
 (believing) brother;" for " the wife is bound by 
 v. 39. the law" in v. 39 read simply " a wife is bound." 
 Chap. viii. In v. 2, for "think that he knoweth anything, 
 v. 2. he knoweth nothing yet" read " think that he 
 
 knoweth anything, he knoweth it not yet ;" in 
 v. 4. v. 4, for " none other God but one," read " no 
 
 v. 7. God but one," in v. 7, for " some with con- 
 
 science of the idol," read, " some through cus r 
 tom with the idol," as the text supported by 
 the oldest authorities. 
 Chap. ix. In v. 1 read, " Am I not free ? am I not an 
 vv. 1, 20. apostle?" in v. 20 insert "not being myself 
 under the law," and read " to them that are 
 under the law, as under the law, not being 
 
 1 Comp. p. 113. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 225 
 
 v. 23. myself under the law;" in v. 23, for "And 
 this" read "And all things." 
 
 Chap. x. In v. 10 omit "also." and read, "as some 
 
 cv. 10,11. of them murmured ;" in v. 11, instead of "for 
 ensamples," read " by way of figure :" in v. 
 
 v. 23. 23 omit "for me," and read "all things are 
 
 v. 24. lawful;" in v. 24 omit " every man," and read 
 the verse thus: "Let no man seek his own, 
 
 v. 28. but his neighbour's good :" in v. 28, omit the 
 words repeated from v. 26, " for the earth is 
 the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 
 
 Chap, xi. "We give at length the solemn account of the 
 Lord's Supper contained in this chapter, as it 
 should stand in the corrected text. The pas- 
 
 vv. 23-29. sage vv. 23-29 will run as follows: "For I 
 received from the Lord that which I also deli- 
 vered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, in the 
 night in which He was betrayed, took bread ; 
 and when He had given thanks, He brake it, 
 and said, This is my body which is for you: this 
 do in remembrance of me. After the same man- 
 ner the cup also, after they had supped, saying, 
 This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this 
 do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 
 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink 
 the cup, ye shew forth the Lord's death till He 
 come. Wherefore, whosoever eateth the bread, 
 or drinketh the cup of the Lord, unworthily, 
 shall be guilty of the body and the blood of 
 the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and 
 
226 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the 
 
 cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth 
 
 and drinketh judgment to himself, should he 
 
 discern not the body." 
 
 Chap. xii. In v. 2 insert " when," and read " Ye know 
 
 vv. 2, 12. that w T hen ye were Gentiles;" in v. 12 omit 
 
 " one," and read " all the members of the 
 
 body." 
 
 Chap. xiii. In v. 3, instead of the w^ords " though I give 
 
 v. 3. my body to be burned," the oldest manuscripts 
 
 read " though I give my body that I may 
 
 boast," which some prefer. There is just a 
 
 difference of one letter in the Greek. 
 
 Chap. xiv. In v. 18 omit "my," and read simply "I 
 
 vv. 18, 25. thank God;" in v. 25 omit "and thus" at 
 
 v. 35. the beginning ; in v. 35 instead of " for 
 
 women" read "for a woman." 
 Chap. xv. In v. 20, omit "and become," and read 
 v. 20. " risen from the dead, the first-fruits ;" in v. 
 v. 44. 44, instead of the w T ords " There is a natu- 
 ral body, and there is a spiritual body" read 
 " If there is a natural body, there is also a 
 v. 47. spiritual ;" in v. 47 omit the w T ords " the Lord," 
 and read " the second man is from heaven ;" 
 v. 55. in v. 55 substitute "0 death" for "0 grave," 
 and read the verse thus — " death, where is 
 thy sting ? death, where is thy victory ?" 
 Chap. xvi. In v. 7, instead of "but I trust," read "for 
 vv. 7, 22. I trust;" in v. 22 omit the words "Jesus 
 Christ," and read " If any man love not the 
 Lord, let him be," etc. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 227 
 
 The Second Epistle to the Coeinthians. 
 
 Chap. i. In v. 12 for " simplicity and godly sincerity" 
 vv. 12,18. read "holiness and godly sincerity;" v. 18 
 should be read as follows — " But God is faith- 
 ful, that our word to you is not yea and nay;" 
 v. 20, v. 20 is to be read thus — "For how many 
 soever be the promises of God, in Him is the 
 Yea : wherefore also by him is the Amen, for 
 glory unto God by us." 
 Chap. ii. In v. 10 read as follows — "to whom ye 
 v. 10. forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed 
 what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven any- 
 thing, for your sakes did I forgive it in the 
 person of Christ." 
 Chap. iii. Instead of the words " not in tables of stone, 
 but in fleshly tables of the heart," read " not 
 on tables of stone, but on fleshy tables, on 
 hearts." 
 Chap. iv. Omit the words "unto them" in v. 4, and 
 v. 4. read, "that the light should not shine forth;" 
 
 v. 6. instead of the words in v. 6, " For God, who 
 
 commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 
 hath shined in our hearts," read " For it is God 
 who said, The light shall shine out of darkness, 
 that shined in our hearts." 
 Chap. v. In v. 5 omit " also," and read " who gave 
 vv. 5, 12. unto us the earnest of the Spirit;" in v. 12 
 omit " For," and read "we are not recommend- 
 v. 17. ing;" in v. 17 omit "all," and read "behold 
 
228 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 21. they are become new:" in v. 21 omit "For," 
 
 and read " Him who knew not sin He made," 
 
 etc. 
 
 Chap. vi. Instead of " and" read " or" in v. 14, " or 
 
 v. 14. what communion." No further change worthy 
 
 of notice is required in this chapter. 
 Chap. vii. Instead of the words " but that our care for 
 you in the sight of God might appear unto 
 v. 12. you" in v. 12, read "but that your zeal for us 
 might be made manifest unto you in the sight 
 of God;" for the words "Therefore we are 
 comforted in your comfort : yea, and exceed- 
 ingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus," 
 v. 13. in v. 13, read " For this cause we are comforted, 
 but in our comfort we joyed the more exceed- 
 ingly for the joy of Titus." 
 Chap.- viii. Instead of the words " praying us with much 
 v. 4. entreaty that we would receive the gift, and 
 
 take upon us the fellowship of the ministering 
 to the saints" in v. 4, read "Praying of us 
 with much entreaty the grace and the partici- 
 pation in the ministering to the saints ;" in v. 
 v. 12. 12 omit the words " a man," and read " that 
 v. 19. which it hath ;" in v. 19, instead of the words 
 " which is administered by us to the glory of 
 the same Lord, and declaration of your ready 
 mind," read "which is administered by us to 
 the glory of the Lord, and to further our zeal." 
 Chap. ix. Omit the words " confident boasting" in v. 4, 
 v. 4. and read " in this confidence :" instead of " both 
 
Text of the Neiv Testament in its successive Books. 229 
 
 v. 10. minister and multiply" in v. 10, read " shall 
 
 minister and multiply." 
 Chap. x. Omit the word " Christ's" at the end of v. 7, 
 v. 7. and read " even so are we." No further change 
 
 is required in this chapter. 
 Chap. xi. Insert " the holiness" in v. 3, and read " from 
 v. 3. the simplicity and the holiness that are towards 
 
 Christ ; " for the words " no man shall stop me 
 
 of this boasting in the regions of Achaia," in 
 v. 10. v. 10, read " this boasting shall not be shut 
 
 against me in the regions of Achaia." 
 Chap. xii. Omit " my" in v. 9, and read " My grace is 
 v. 9. sufficient for thee, for strength is made perfect 
 
 v. 11. in weakness;" omit "in glorying" in v. 11, 
 
 and read " I am become a fool ; " for the words 
 
 "Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves 
 v. 19. unto you?" in v. 19, read "Of a long time 
 
 have ye been thinking that we excuse ourselves 
 
 unto you." 
 Chap. xiii. Instead of the words " though He was 
 v. 4. crucified through weakness " in v. 4, read " for 
 
 indeed He was crucified through weakness ; " 
 v. 7. in v. 7, for the words " jSTow I pray to God," 
 
 read " Now we pray to God." 
 
 The Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
 Chap.i. Omit "for" in v. 10, and read "if I yet 
 v. 10. pleased men ; " instead of the words " to see 
 v. 18. Peter" in v. 18, read "to become acquainted 
 with Cephas." 
 
230 Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 Chap. ii. Instead of " But when Peter was come in," 
 
 v. 11. v. 11, read "But when Cephas was come; " for 
 
 the words " I said unto Peter before them all, 
 
 If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner 
 
 of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why com- 
 
 pellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the 
 
 v. 14. Jews ? " in v. 14, read " I said unto Cephas 
 
 before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest, 
 
 after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the 
 
 Jews, how is it that thou compellest the 
 
 Gentiles to live as do the Jews ? " 
 
 Chap. iii. Omit the w r ords " that you should not obey 
 
 v. 1. the truth," and " among you " in v. 1, and read 
 
 the verse as follows — " foolish Galatians, 
 
 who hath bewitched you, before w 7 hose eyes 
 
 Jesus Christ w 7 as evidently set forth crucified?" 
 
 instead of the words "the man that doeth 
 
 v. 12. them " in v. 12, read " he that hath done 
 
 v. 17. them;" omit the words "in Christ" in v. 17, 
 
 and read " the covenant already confirmed by 
 
 v. 29. God : " omit " and " in v. 29, and read " And if 
 
 ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
 
 heirs according to the promise." 
 
 Chap. iv. Instead of "your hearts" read "our hearts" 
 
 v. 6. in v. 6 ; omit the words " through Christ " in 
 
 v. 7, v. 7, and read " and if a son, also an heir 
 
 through God;" instead of the words, "And 
 
 my temptation which was in my flesh ye 
 
 v. 14. despised not" in v. 14, read "And your 
 
 temptation which was in my flesh ye despised 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 231 
 
 v. 24. not ; " omit " the " in v. 24, and read " these 
 women are two covenants : " omit the words 
 
 v. 26. "of us all" in v. 26, and read "But Jerusalem 
 which is above is free, which is our mother." 
 
 Chap. v. In v. 1 read " For liberty Christ hath made 
 
 v. 1. us free : stand fast therefore, and be not en- 
 
 tangled again in the yoke of bondage ; " for 
 
 v. 16. "Walk in the Spirit" in v. 16, read "Walk 
 by the Spirit ; " omit the word " adultery" in 
 
 v. 19. v. 19. 
 
 Chap. vi. Instead of the words " neither circumcision 
 
 v. 15. availeth anything" in v. 15, read "neither 
 circumcision is anything." 
 
 The Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 
 Chap. i. The reading in v. 1 was formerly noticed : l 
 instead of the words " wherein He hath made 
 
 v. 6. us accepted in the Beloved " in v. 6, read 
 
 "which He freely bestowed upon us in the 
 Beloved;" for "the eyes of your understand- 
 
 v. 18. iug" in v. 18, read "the eyes of your heart," 
 and omit " and " before "what " in the same 
 verse. 
 
 Chap. ii. Instead of " Himself" read " Him" in v. 15 : 
 
 v. 15. insert " ye are " before " fellow-citizens " in 
 
 v. 19. v. 19. 
 
 Chap. iii. Instead of the words " How that by revela- 
 tion He made known unto me the mystery" in 
 
 v. 3. v. 3, read " that by revelation the mystery was 
 
 1 Comp. page 168. 
 
232 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 made known to me;" for " preach among the 
 v. 8. Gentiles " in v. 8, read " preach unto the 
 
 Gentiles;" instead of "fellowship of the mys- 
 v. 9. tery " in v. 9, read " dispensation of the 
 
 mystery/' and omit the words "by Jesus 
 
 Christ" in the end of the verse ; omit " of our 
 v. 14 Lord Jesus Christ " in v. 14, and read simply 
 
 "For this cause I bow my knees unto the 
 
 Father;" instead of "Unto Him be glory in 
 v. 21. the church by Christ Jesus " in v. 21, read 
 
 " Unto Him be the glory in the church and in 
 
 Christ Jesus." 
 Chap. iv. Instead of "in you all" in v. 6, read sim- 
 v. 6. ply "in. all;" omit "first" in v. 9, and read 
 
 v. 9. simply "descended into;" omit "other" in 
 
 v. 17. v. 17, and read " as the Gentiles walk." 
 Chap. v. Instead of "hath loved us" in v. 2, read 
 v. 2. "hath loved you;" insert "being aware" in 
 
 v. 5. v. 5, and read " For this know, being aware ;" 
 
 v. 9. for "Spirit" substitute "light" in v. 9, and 
 
 read "For the fruit of the light is;" for 
 v. 17. " understanding" in v. 17, read " understand;" 
 v. 21. for "fear of God" in v. 21, read "fear of 
 
 Christ;" omit the word "submitting" in v. 
 v. 22. 22, and read " wives to their own husbands, 
 
 as unto the Lord ;" instead of the words " and 
 v. 23. he is the Saviour of the body" in v. 23, read 
 
 " Himself the Saviour of the body;" instead 
 
 of " that He might present it to Himself a 
 v. 27. glorious church," in v. 27, read " that He might 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 233 
 
 Himself present to Himself the clmrcli glori- 
 
 v. 29. ous ;" for " the Lord" in v. 29, read " Christ ;" 
 
 omit the words " of His flesh and of His bones" 
 
 v. 30. in v. 30, and read simply, " because we are 
 
 members of His body." 
 Chap. vi. Instead of the words " knowing that your 
 v. 9. Master also is in heaven," in v. 9, read " know- 
 
 ing that both their Master and yours is in 
 heaven;" for the words "against the rulers 
 v. 12. of the darkness of this world" in v. 12, read 
 " against the rulers of this darkness." 
 
 The Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 Chap. i. Instead of "with the fruits" in v. 11, read 
 v. 11. "with the fruit;" insert "of God" in v. 14, 
 v. 14. and read " to speak the word of God ;" trans- 
 w. 16, 17. pose vv. 16, 17, and read "the one from love, 
 knowing that I am set for the defence of the 
 Gospel ; the other preach Christ, from con- 
 tentiousness, not sincerely, thinking to raise 
 up affliction to my bonds ;" instead of " but 
 v. 28. to you of salvation" in v. 28, read "but of 
 
 your salvation." 
 Chap. ii. Insert "also" in v. 4, and read "on the 
 v. 4. things of others also;" for "let this mind be 
 
 v. 5. in you" in v. 5, read " all of you have this 
 
 mind in you." 
 Chap. iii. Instead of the words " w 7 hich worship God 
 v. 3. in the spirit" in v. 3, read " which worship 
 
 in (or "by") the Spirit of God;" instead of 
 
234 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 11. the words "of the dead" in v. 11, read " from 
 the dead;" instead of the words, "neverthe- 
 less, whereto we have already attained, let us 
 walk by the same rule, let us mind the same 
 
 v. 16. thing " in v. 16, read " nevertheless, whereto 
 we have attained, let us walk by the same 
 [course]." 
 
 Chap. iv. Instead of the words " through Christ which 
 
 v. 13. strengtheneth me" in v. 13, read "through 
 Him which strengtheneth me ; " for " be with 
 
 v. 23. you all" in v. 23, read " be with your spirit." 
 
 The Epistle to the Colossians. 
 
 Chap. i. Omit " and," and read as follows in v. 6, 
 v. 6. "which is present with you, as in all the world; 
 
 it is bringing forth fruit and increasing even 
 v. 7. as in you since," etc. ; omit " also" in v. 7, 
 
 and read " as ye learned ;" and in the same 
 verse, instead of " who is for you," read " who 
 is for us ; " omit " through His blood " in v. 
 v. 14. 14, and read " In whom we have the redemp- 
 tion, the remission of sins;" for "in my 
 v. 24. sufferings " in v. 24, read " in sufferings ; " for 
 v. 28. " perfect in Christ Jesus " in v. 28, read 
 
 " perfect in Christ." 
 Chap. ii. Omit "of the sins" in v. 11, and read "in 
 v. 11. the putting off of the body of the flesh;" in- 
 stead of " having forgiven you all trespasses " 
 v. 13. in v. 13, read "having forgiven us all our tres- 
 passes ;" instead of the words " intruding into 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 235 
 
 v. 18. those things which he hath not seen" in v. 18, 
 
 read " dwelling on (insisting on) the things 
 
 which he hath seen." 
 Chap. iii. Instead of " let the peace of God rule in 
 v. 12. your hearts" in v. 12, read "let the peace of 
 
 Christ rule in your hearts ; " omit " and " in 
 v. 17. v. 17, and read " giving thanks to God the 
 v. 18. Father by him ; " omit " own" in v. 18, and 
 
 read " submit yourselves to your husbands ; " 
 
 instead of " this is well pleasing to the Lord" 
 v. 20. in v. 20, read "this is well pleasing, in the 
 v. 22. Lord ; " instead of " fearing God" , in v. 22, 
 
 read "fearing the Lord;" omit "and" in v. 
 v. 23. 23, and read "whatsoever ye do;" omit "for" 
 v. 24. in v. 24, and read "ye serve (or "serve ye") 
 
 the Lord Christ ;" instead of " But he that 
 v. 25. doeth" in v. 25, read " For he that doeth." 
 Chap. iv. Instead of the words " that ye may stand 
 
 perfect and complete in all the will of God" in 
 v. 12. v. 12, read "that ye may stand perfect and 
 
 fully assured in all the will of God;" for "that 
 v. 13. he hath a great zeal for you " in v. 13, " that 
 
 he hath much labour for you." 
 
 The First Epistle to the Thessaloxians. 
 
 Chap. i. Omit the words " of you" in v. 2, and read 
 v. 2. simply " making mention in our prayers." 
 
 No other change calls for notice in this 
 
 chapter. 
 Chap. ii. Insert "And" in v. 13, so as to read "And 
 
236 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 13. for 1 this cause;" omit "Christ" in v. 19, and 
 v. 19. read "our Lord Jesus." 
 
 Chap. iii. Omit again "Christ" in v. 11, and read 
 v. 11. simply "our Lord Jesus ; " in like manner, omit 
 v. 13. "Christ" in v. 13, and read simply "the coming 
 
 of our Lord Jesus." 
 Chap. iv. Insert "as ye also are walking" in v. 1, and 
 v. 1. read "to please G6d, as ye also are walking, ye 
 
 would abound yet more;" for "But I would 
 v. 13. not" in v. 13, read "But we would not." 
 Chap. v. Insert " For" in v. 5, and read "For ye are 
 v. 5. all." Nothing else requires notice in this 
 
 chapter. 
 
 The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 
 Chap', i. Instead of the words " in all them that be- 
 v. 10. lieve" in v. 10, read "in all them that believed;" 
 v. 12. omit " Christ" in v. 12, and read simply "that 
 
 the name of our Lord Jesus may be." 
 Chap. ii. For " the day of Christ " in v. 2, read " the 
 v. 2. day of the Lord;" omit the words "as God" in 
 
 v. 4c. v. "4, and read, "so that he sitfceth;" instead of 
 
 v. 8. "the Lord" in v. 8, read "the Lord Jesus;" 
 
 v. 11, for "God shall send them" in v. 11, read "God 
 
 sendeth them." 
 Chap. iii. For " by our Lord Jesus Christ " in v. 12, 
 v. 12. read "in the Lord Jesus Christ ;" omit "and" 
 v. 14. in v. 14, and read " note that man, have no 
 
 company with him." 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 237 
 
 The First Epistle to Timothy. 
 
 Chap. i. For "God our Father" in v. 2, read " God 
 v. 2. the Father;" no other change calls for remark 
 
 except those formerly mentioned. 
 Chap. ii. Nothing requires to be noticed in this 
 
 chapter. 
 Chap. iii. Omit the words, "not greedy of filthy lucre" 
 v. 3. in v. 3, and read "no striker, but patient;" no 
 
 other change requires notice except the very 
 
 important one in v. 16, formerly considered. 1 
 Chap. iv. Instead of "Jesus Christ" in v. 6, read 
 v. 6. "Christ Jesus ; " omit the words "in spirit" in 
 
 v. 12. v. 12, and read "in charity, in faith," etc. 
 Chap. v. Omit the words " good and " in v. 5, and 
 v. 5. read simply " this is acceptable before God ; " 
 
 v. 16. probably omit " man or " in v. 16, and read 
 
 " If any woman that believeth have widows ; " 
 v. 21. instead of "Jesus Christ" in v. 21, read 
 
 " Christ Jesus." 
 Chap. vi. Omit the words " from such withdraw thy- 
 ■v. 5. self" in v. 5, and end the verse with "gain," 
 
 ("supposing that godliness is a means of gain;") 
 v. 12. omit "also" in v. 12, and read simply "where- 
 
 unto thou wast called;" omit the words "the 
 v. 17. living" in v. 17, and read simply "but in God;" 
 v. 19. instead of " lay hold of eternal life " in v. 19, 
 
 read "lay hold of the true life." 
 
 1 Corap. p. 141. 
 
238 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 The Second Epistle to Timothy. 
 
 Chap. i. Instead of "Jesus Christ" in v. 1, read 
 
 v. 1. " Christ Jesus," and make the same change in 
 
 v. 10. v. 10. 
 
 Chap. ii. Instead of the words " Thou therefore en- 
 dure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus 
 
 v. 3. Christ " in v. 3, read " Endure afflictions with 
 
 me as a good soldier of Christ Jesus ;" for "the 
 
 v. 7. Lord give thee understanding " in v. 7, read 
 
 " the Lord shall give thee understanding ; " for 
 
 v. 11. "if we deny him " in v. 11, read "if we shall 
 
 v. 13. deny him;" insert "for" in v. 13, and read 
 "for he cannot deny himself;" instead of 
 
 v. 19. "the name of Christ" in v. 19, read "the 
 
 v. 21. name of the Lord;" omit "and" in v. 21, and 
 read " sanctified, meet for the master's use." 
 
 Chap. iii. No change requires to be noted in this 
 chapter. 
 
 Chap. iv. Omit "therefore " in v. 1, and read as fol- 
 
 v. 1. lows, " I charge thee before God and Christ 
 
 Jesus (instead of ' the Lord Jesus Christ '), 
 who shall judge the quick and the dead, and 
 by His appearing and His kingdom " (instead 
 of " at His appearing "). For " the Lord re- 
 
 v. 14. ward him," in v. 14, read "the Lord shall 
 reward him." Omit " and " at the beginning 
 
 v. 18. of v. 18, and read "the Lord." 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 239 
 
 The Epistle to Titus. 
 
 Chap. i. Instead of " the Lord Jesus Christ/' in v. 4, 
 v. 4. read il Christ Jesus." Nothing more requires 
 
 to be noted in this chapter. 
 Chop. ii. Omit " sincerity " in v. 7, and end the verse 
 m. 7, 8. with a gravity ;" for " to say of you/' in v. 8, 
 
 read a to say of us :" instead of " our Saviour 
 v. 13. Jesus Christ/' in v. 13, read " our Saviour 
 
 Christ Jesus." 
 Chap. iii. Xo change required in this chapter. 
 
 The Epistle to Philemon. 
 
 Instead of the words " and to our beloved 
 
 v. 2. Apphia/' in v. 2, read " and to Apphia our sis- 
 
 v. 7. ter." For the words " For vre have " in v. 7, 
 
 read " For I had." Instead of the second " in 
 
 v. 20. the Lord/' in v. 20, read " in Christ." 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebeews. 
 
 Chap. i. Instead of the words u a sceptre of right- 
 eousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom/' in v. 
 
 xx. 8, 3. 8, read " the sceptre/' etc, V. 3 of this chapter 
 was formerly noticed, and nothing else demands 
 our attention. 1 
 
 Chap. ii. Omit (probably) the words " and didst set 
 
 v. 7. Him over the works of Thy hands/' in v. 7. 
 
 v. 9. The remarkable various reading in v. 9 was 
 
 formerly considered. 2 For the words " par- 
 
 1 Comp. p. 14. 2 Corap. p. 169. 
 
240 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 15. takers of flesh and blood/' in v. 15, read "par- 
 takers of Wood and flesh." 
 Chap. iii. Omit the word " Christ " in v. 1, and read 
 v. 1. simply " the Apostle and High Priest of our 
 
 profession, Jesus." Omit (perhaps) " firm unto 
 v. 6. the end/' in v. 6, and close the verse with 
 
 " hope." Instead of the words, " your fathers 
 v. 9. tempted me, proved me," in v. 9, read " your 
 
 fathers tempted by proving (me)." 
 Chap. iv. In this chapter a very remarkable various 
 reading occurs. Instead of the common text, 
 v. 2. " but the word preached did not profit them, 
 
 not being mixed with faith in them that heard 
 it," in v. 2, we are compelled by greatly pre- 
 ponderating evidence to read, " but the word 
 of hearing did not profit them, since they w T ere 
 not mingled by faith with those that heard it." 
 Chap. v. Instead of the words " but he that is called 
 v. 4. of God," in v. 4, read " but being called of 
 
 God." Nothing more calls for notice in this 
 chapter. 
 Chap. vi. Omit the words " and labour of," in v. 10, 
 v. 10. and read " your work, and the love." No other 
 
 change is required. 
 Chap. vii. Instead of the words " concerning priest- 
 v. 14. hood," in v. 14, read " concerning priests." 
 v. 21. Omit (probably) the words " after the order of 
 Melchizedek," in v. 21, and end the verse with 
 v. 26. " for ever." Insert " also " in v. 26, and read 
 " For such an high priest also became us." 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 241 
 
 Chap. viii. Omit " and " in v. 2, and read " the Lord 
 v. 2. pitched, not man." Instead of the words " For 
 
 v. 4. if he were on earth/' in v. 4, read, " If, there- 
 
 fore, he were on earth ;" in the same verse omit 
 the word " priests," and read " there are those 
 that offer." Instead of the words " teach 
 v. 11. every man his neighbour," in v. 11, read "teach 
 every man his fellow-citizen." Omit the words 
 v. 12. "and their iniquities," in v. 12, and read sim- 
 ply " their sins will I remember no more." 
 Chap. ix. Insert " also " in v. 28, and read " so also 
 v. 28. the Christ." Nothing else calls for notice. 
 Chap. x. Instead of " sacrifice and offering " in v. 8, 
 v. 8. read "sacrifices and offerings." Omit the words 
 
 v. 9. " God," in v. 9, and read simply "to do Thy 
 
 v. 15. will." Omit " before " in v. 15, and read sim- 
 ply " after he had said." For the words, " and 
 v. 16. in their minds," in v. 16, read "and in their 
 mind." Instead of " ye had compassion of me 
 v. 34. in my bonds," in v. 34, read " ye had compas- 
 sion of those in bonds ;" in the same verse omit 
 the words "in heaven," and read, "knowing that 
 ye yourselves have a better and an enduring 
 substance." Instead of the w T ords " Now the 
 v. 38. just shall live by faith," in v. 38, read " Now 
 
 my just one shall live by faith." 
 
 Chap. xi. Instead of the w T ords " so that things which 
 
 v. 3. are seen were not made" in v. 3, read " so that 
 
 that which is seen was not made ;" instead of 
 
 " For he looked for a city which hath founda- 
 
 Q 
 
242 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 10. tions" in v. 10, read "For he looked for the 
 
 city which hath the foundations ; " omit the 
 
 v. 11. words " and was delivered of a child" in v. 11, 
 
 and read simply " received strength to conceive 
 
 seed, even when," etc. ; omit the w T ords " and 
 
 v. 13. were persuaded of them" in v. 13, and read 
 
 simply " having seen them from afar, and 
 
 greeted them;" for " treasures in Egypt" in 
 
 v. 26. v. 26, read "treasures of Egypt." 
 
 Chap. xii. Instead of the words " If ye endure chasten- 
 
 v. 7. ing," in v. 7, read " It is for chastisement 
 
 that ye are enduring ; " omit the words "' or 
 
 v. 20. thrust through with a dart" in v. 20, and end 
 
 the verse with " stoned." 
 Chap. xiii. Instead of the words " Be not carried about" 
 v. 9, in v. 9, read " Be not carried away;" omit 
 
 v. 11. the w T ords " for sin" in v. 11, and read simply 
 " by the high priest." 
 
 The Epistle of James. . 
 
 Chap. i. Instead of the words " which the Lord hath 
 v. 12. promised" in v. 12, read "which He pro- 
 mised." A very remarkable reading occurs 
 v. 19. in this chapter at v. 19. Instead of the 
 " wherefore " of the common text, evidence 
 compels us to adopt another word which, in 
 * the Greek differs only by a single letter, but 
 which requires in English some such version 
 as the following, "Know, my beloved brethren, 
 and let every one," etc. ; omit the words 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 243 
 
 v. 26. " among you" in v. 26, and read simply "If 
 
 any one thinks." 
 
 Chap. ii. Omit the words "unto him" in v. 3, and 
 
 v. 3. read simply " and say ; " instead of " the poor 
 
 v. 5. of this world" in v. 5, read "the poor of the 
 
 v. 13. world;" omit "and" in v. 13, and read 
 
 " mercy rejoice th against judgment;" omit 
 
 i\ 18. the word "thy" in v. 18, before "works" and 
 
 "my" before "faith," and read simply "shew 
 
 me thy faith without works ; and I will show 
 
 thee faith by my works ;" omit the word 
 
 v. 24. "then" in v. 24, and read simply "ye see 
 
 that." 
 Chap. iii. Instead of the words u Behold how great a 
 v. 5. matter a little fire kindleth !" in v. 5, read 
 
 " Behold how oreat a forest a little fire kin- 
 v. 6. clleth ! " omit the word " so " in v. 6, and read 
 
 " and the tongue is a fire, that world of ini- 
 quity ! The tongue is the one among our 
 members which defileth the whole body," 
 etc.; instead of the words "it is an unruly 
 v. 8. evil" in v. 8, read "it is a restless evil; " for 
 
 the words " so can no fountain both yield 
 v. 12. salt water and fresh," in v. 12, read " neither 
 can salt water bring forth fresh ; " insert the 
 v. 16. word a also" in v. 16, and read "there also is 
 v. 17. confusion;" omit the word "and" in v. 17, 
 and read simply " without partiality, without 
 hypocrisy." 
 Chap. iv. Omit the word " yet " in v. 2, and read 
 
244 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 2. simply, " ye have not ; " omit the words 
 
 v. 4. " adulterers and " in v. 4, and read simply 
 
 " ye adulteresses ; " insert the word u but " in 
 v. 7. v. 7, and read " submit yourselves therefore to 
 
 v. 11. God, but resist;" instead of "and" in v. 11 
 insert " or/ 5 and read " or judgeth his bro- 
 ther ; " instead of " There is one lawgiver, who 
 is able to save and to destroy ; who art thou 
 v. 12. that judgest another ?" in v. 12, read " There 
 is one lawgiver and judge, he who is aBle to 
 save and to destroy ; but thou, who art thou 
 that judgest thy neighbour ? " 
 
 Omit " as " in v. 5, and read simply " ye 
 nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter ; " 
 instead of " lest ye be condemned " in v. 9, 
 read "lest ye be judged;" instead of " which 
 endure" in v. 11 read " which have endured;" 
 for " lest ye fall into condemnation " in v. 12, 
 read "lest ye fall into judgment;" insert "there- 
 fore" in v. 16, and read "confess therefore ; " 
 insert " my " in v. 19, and read "my brethren." 
 
 The First Epistle of Peter. 
 
 Instead of "honour and glory," in ver. 7, 
 read " glory and honour." Instead of " but 
 unto us," in v. 12, read "but unto you." In- 
 stead of "Be ye holy," in v. 16, read "Ye 
 shall be holy." Instead of the words " who by 
 21. Him do believe in God," in v. 21, read " who 
 through Him are believers in (or faithful 
 
 Chap. v. 
 
 v. 
 
 5. 
 
 v. 
 
 9. 
 
 V. 
 
 11. 
 
 V. 
 
 3 2. 
 
 V. 
 
 16. 
 
 V. 
 
 19. 
 
 Chap. i. 
 
 v. 
 
 7. 
 
 V. 
 
 12. 
 
 V. 
 
 16. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 245 
 
 towards) God." Omit the word "pure," in v. 
 
 v. 22. 22, and read " love one another from the heart 
 fervently/' Omit the words " for ever " in 
 v. 23. v. 23, and read simply " which liveth and 
 abideth." Instead of all the glory of man/' 
 v. 24. in v. 24, read " all the glory thereof." 
 Chap. ii. Insert the words " unto salvation " in v. 2, 
 v. 2. and read " that ye may grow thereby unto sal- 
 
 vation." Instead of the words " Christ also 
 suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye 
 v. 21. should follow His steps," in v. 21, read " Christ 
 also suffered for you, leaving you an example, 
 that ye should follow His steps." Instead of 
 v. 25. " For ye were as sheep going astray," in v. 25, 
 
 read " Tor ye were going astray as sheep." 
 
 Chap. iii. Instead of the words " be courteous," in v. 8, 
 
 xv. 8, 9. read " be humble." Omit " knowing " in v. 9, 
 
 and read " contrariwise blessing, because ye 
 
 are." Instead of " if ye be followers of," in 
 
 v. 13. v. 13, read " if ye be zealous of." As formerly 
 
 v. 15. noticed, instead of " the Lord God," in v. 15, 
 
 read "the Lord Christ;" 1 in the same verse omit 
 
 " and " before " be ready," and read simply 
 
 " being ready;" in the same verse insert " but " 
 
 after " in you," and read " but with meekness 
 
 v. 20. and fear." Omit "once" in v. 20, and read 
 
 simply " when the longsuffering of God was 
 
 waiting." 
 
 Chap. iv. Omit the words "of our life," in v. 3, and 
 
 v. 3. read simply " For the time past." Omit the 
 
 1 Comp. page 170. 
 
246 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 words " on their part he is evil spoken of, but 
 
 v. 14. on your part he is glorified" in v. 14, and end 
 
 the verse with the words "resteth upon you." 
 
 v. 16. For the words "on this behalf" in v. 16, read 
 
 v. 19. "in this name." Omit "as" in v. 19, and 
 
 read simply " unto a faithful Creator." 
 
 Chap. v. Insert " therefore " in v. 1, and read " The 
 
 v. 1. elders therefore." Omit the words " taking 
 
 v. 2. the oversight thereof" in v. 2, and read simply 
 
 " Teed the flock of God which is among you, 
 
 not by constraint," etc. Omit the words " be 
 
 v. 5. subject " in v. 5, and read " Likewise, ye 
 
 younger, submit yourselves unto the elder, yea, 
 
 v. 8. all one to another." Omit " because " in v. 8, 
 
 and read simply " Be sober, be vigilant : your 
 
 v. 1*0. adversary." Instead of "us" in v. 10, insert 
 
 " you," and read the verse as follows — " But 
 
 the God of all grace, who called you into His 
 
 eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after ye have 
 
 suffered a little while, shall himself make you 
 
 perfect, stablish, strengthen (settle) you." 
 
 The Second Epistle of Peter. 
 
 Chap. i. Instead of the words " hath called us to 
 v. 3. glory and virtue " in v. 3, read " called us by 
 
 His own glory and virtue." Instead of 
 v. 12. " Wherefore I will not be negligent " in v. 12, 
 
 read " Wherefore I will take care to." 
 Chap. ii. Instead of the words " And many shall fol- 
 v. 2. low their pernicious ways " in v. 2, read 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 247 
 
 " And many shall follow their licentious ways." 
 
 v. 12. Instead of " shall utterly perish " in v. 12, read 
 
 " shall even perish." Instead of " covetous 
 
 ■v. 14. practices " in v. 14, read " covetous practice." 
 
 Instead of the words " clouds that are carried 
 
 v. 17. with a tempest ' ; in v. 17, read " mists driven 
 
 by a tempest :" probably omit " for ever " in 
 
 the same verse, and end with " is reserved." 
 
 v. 21. Insert "back" in v. 21, and read "to turn 
 
 v. 22. back from." Omit the word " But " in v. 22, 
 
 and read simply, " It is happened." 
 Chap. iii. Instead of the words " and of the command- 
 ment of us the apostles of the Lord and 
 v. 2. Saviour" in v. 2, read " and of the command- 
 
 ment of the Lord and Saviour by your 
 apostles." Insert the words "in scoffing" in 
 v. 3. v. 3, and read "scoffers in [their] scoffing." 
 
 v. 9. Instead of "us-ward" in v. 9, read "you- ward." 
 
 v. 10. Omit the words "in the night" in v. 10, and 
 read simply "will come as a thief." Instead 
 v. 16. of " in which are" in v. 16, insert for the sake 
 of clearness "in which Epistles," as the read- 
 ing of the most ancient authorities requires. 
 
 The Fikst Epistle of John. 
 
 Chap. i. Insert " also " in v. 3, and read " that which 
 v. 3. we have seen and heard declare we unto you 
 
 v. 4. also ; " omit " unto you " in v. 4, and read 
 
 simply " these things write we, that," etc. 
 Chap. ii. Instead of " brethren" in v. 7 read " be- 
 
248 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 7. loved ; " in the same verse omit the second 
 
 " from the beginning/' and end with " heard ;" 
 
 instead of " I write unto you, little children " 
 v. 13. in v. 13, read " I have written unto you, chil- 
 v. 23. dren ; " v. 23 was previously noticed ; x omit 
 v. 24. " therefore " in v. 24, and read simply " let 
 
 that abide ; " instead of the words, " ye shall 
 v. 27. abide in him" in v. 27, read " abide in him." 
 Chap. iii. V. 1 was formerly noticed ; 2 omit " but " in 
 vv. 1, 2. v. 2, and read " what we shall be, we know 
 v. 13. that," etc. ; omit " my " in v. 13, and read 
 
 " marvel not, brethren ; " omit " his brother " 
 v. 14. in v. 14, and read simply " He that loveth not 
 
 abideth in death ; " instead of " we know " in 
 v. 19. v. 19, read " we shall know." 
 Chap. iv. No change calling for notice requires to be 
 
 made in this chapter, except the omission of 
 v. 19. "him" in v. 19. 
 
 Chap. v. The important text vv. 7, 8 was formerly dis- 
 vv. 7, 8. cussed : 3 instead pf the words " for this is the 
 
 witness of God which he hath testified of his 
 v. 9. Son" in v. 9 read " for this is the witness of 
 
 God, that he hath borne witness respecting his 
 v. 13. Son ; " v. 13 was formerly considered. 4 
 
 The Second Epistle of John. 
 
 Instead of " are entered into the world" in 
 
 v. 7. v. 7 ; read " are gone out into the world ; " for 
 
 the words " that Ave lose not those things 
 
 1 Comp. p. 170. 2 Comp. p. 171. 3 Comp. p. 134. 4 Comp. p. 171. 
 
Text of the % New Testament in its successive Books. 249 
 
 which we have wrought, but that we receive a 
 v. 8. full reward" in v. 8, read "that ye lose not 
 
 the things which ye have wrought, but that 
 ye receive a full reward ; " instead of " whoso- 
 v. 9. ever transgresseth " in v. 9, read " whosoever 
 
 goeth forward ; " in the same verse omit the 
 words " of Christ/' and read simply " in the 
 doctrine, he hath both/' etc. 
 
 The Third Epistle of John". 
 
 Instead of the words u whatsoever thou 
 v. 5. doest to the brethren, and to strangers" in v. 5, 
 
 read " whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, 
 
 and that though they are strangers ; " instead 
 v. 7. of " for his name's sake" in v. 7, read "for 
 
 the Name's sake ; " insert the word " some- 
 v. 9. thing" in v. 9, and read " I wrote something 
 
 to the church;" omit the second "but" in v. 
 v. 11. 11, and read simply " is of God, he that," etc. ; 
 v. 12. instead of " ye know " in v. 12, read " thou 
 v. 13. knowest;" insert "unto thee" in v. 13, and 
 
 read " to write unto thee." 
 
 The Epistle of Jude. 
 
 v. 1. Instead of " sanctified by God the Father," 
 
 read " beloved by God the Father ; " for " of 
 
 v. 3. the common salvation" in v. 3, read " of our 
 
 common salvation ; " for " denying the only 
 
 v. 4. Lord God" in v. 4 ; read " denying the only 
 
 Master ; " instead of " how that the Lord, 
 
250 Effect produced hy Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 v. 5. having saved" in v. 5, read "how that Jesus, 
 
 having saved;" and probably in the same 
 verse for " knew this " read " knew all ; " 
 
 v. 12. for "carried about" in v. 12, read "carried 
 away;" omit the- words "among them" in 
 
 v. 15. v. 15, and read simply "all that are ungodly 
 of all their ungodly deeds ;" omit the word 
 
 v. 25. "wise" in v. 25, and insert the words 
 "through Jesus Christ our Lord," so as to 
 read the verse thus, " to the only God our 
 Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be 
 glory, majesty, dominion, and power;" and 
 instead of the words " both now and ever," 
 read " before all time, and now, and for ever. 
 Amen." 
 
 The Book of Eevelatton. 
 
 Chap. i. Instead of " all things that he saw " in v. 2, 
 
 v. 2. read " whatsoever things he saw ; " instead 
 
 vv. 5, 6. of the words in vv. 5, 6, " Unto him that loved 
 
 us, and washed us from our sins in his own 
 
 blood, and hath made us kings and priests 
 
 unto God and his Father ; to him be glory and 
 
 dominion for ever and ever. Amen," read 
 
 " Unto him that loveth us, and washed us 
 
 from our sins in his own blood, and hath 
 
 made us a kingdom, priests unto God and his 
 
 Father, to him be the glory and the dominion 
 
 for ever and ever. Amen;" omit the words 
 
 v. 8. " the beginning and the ending " in v. 8, and 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 251 
 
 in the same verse for " saith the Lord" sub- 
 stitute " saith the Lord God/' so as to read 
 thus, " I am the Alpha, saith the Lord God;" 
 
 v. 9. omit "also" in v. 9; omit "in the;" for 
 
 "Jesus Christ" read simply "Jesus;" omit 
 " for " and " Christ/' so as to read the verse 
 thus, " I John, your brother, and companion 
 in the tribulation and kingdom and patient 
 endurance in Jesus, was in the isle that is 
 called Patmos, on account of the word of God, 
 and the testimony of Jesus ; " omit the words, 
 " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the 
 
 v. 11. last" in v. 11; omit also the words "which 
 are in Asia," and read thus, "saying, What 
 thou seest write in a book, and send to the 
 seven churches; to Ephesus," etc.; omit "unto 
 
 v. 17. me" in v. 17, and read simply "he laid his 
 right hand upon me, saying, Fear not;" omit 
 
 v. 18. the word "Amen" in v. 18, and read simply 
 " evermore, and have ; " instead of the words 
 "keys of hell and of death" in the same 
 verse, read " the keys of death and of Hades ; " 
 
 v. 19. insert "therefore" in v. 19, and read "write 
 therefore ; " omit the words " which thou 
 
 v. 20. sawest " in v. 20, and read "the seven candle- 
 sticks are," etc. 
 
 Chap. ii. Instead of the words "the church of Ephesus" 
 
 v. 1. in v. 1, read " the church in Ephesus ;" instead 
 
 of "And hast borne, and hast patience, and 
 
 v. 3. for my name's sake hast laboured " in v. 3, 
 
252 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 read " And Thou hast patience, and didst bear 
 for my name's sake ; " omit the word " quickly " 
 
 v. 5. in v. 5, and read simply, " I will come unto 
 
 v. 7. thee.; " omit the words " the midst of" in v. 7, 
 
 and read simply, " which is in the paradise of 
 
 v. 10. God;" instead of " Fear none of 5 ' in v. 10, 
 read, " Fear not ; " omit the words " which 
 
 v. 15. thing I hate " in v. 15, and read " the Nicolai- 
 tanes, in like manner ; " insert the word 
 
 v. 16. "therefore" in v. 16, and read " Eepent there- 
 
 v. 17. fore;" omit the words "to eat" in v. 17, and 
 read simply " will I give of the hidden manna;" 
 instead of " I have a few things against thee " 
 
 v. 20. in v. 20, read "I have against thee;" instead 
 of " to teach and seduce " in the same verse, 
 read " and she teacheth and seduceth ; " instead 
 
 v. 21. of " and she repented not " in v. 21, read "and 
 she will not repent," reading the whole verse 
 thus — " And I gave her time that she might 
 repent ; and she will not repent of her forni- 
 
 v. 24. cation ;" omit " and " in v. 24, and read simply 
 "But unto you I say, unto the rest;" omit 
 " and " in the same verse before " which." 
 
 Chap, iii. Instead of " are ready to die " in v. 2, read 
 
 v. 2. "were ready to die;" in the same verse, for 
 
 " before God," read " before my God ; " insert 
 
 v. 4. " But " in v. 4, and read " But thou hast ; " in 
 
 the same verse, omit " even," and read simply 
 "in Sardis;" for "He that overcometh, the 
 
 v. 5. same " in v. 5, read " He that overcometh 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 253 
 
 v. 7. thus ; " for " no man shutteth " in v. 7, read 
 
 " no man shall shut ; " omit " Behold " in v. 
 v. 11. 11, and read simply, "I come quickly;" in- 
 stead of "the church of the Laodiceans" in 
 
 v. 14. v. 14, read "the church in Laodicea," 
 
 Chap. iv. Omit "immediately" in v. 2, and read simply 
 
 v. 2. "I was in the spirit;" omit "they had" in 
 
 v. 4. v. 4, and read simply, " and on their heads 
 
 crowns of gold." Some remarkable varieties of 
 
 v. 8. reading occur in v. 8 ; N reads as follows : — 
 
 " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, 
 Lord God Almighty ; " in B the word " holy " 
 is repeated nine times ; in other manuscripts 
 it is found twice, six times ; and in A, with 
 most others, it occurs three times, which is 
 probably correct ; instead of the words " they 
 
 v. 11. are and were created" in v. 11, read "they 
 were, and were created." 
 
 Chap. v. Instead of the words "to read the book" in 
 
 v. 4. v. 4, read " to open the book ; " for " took the 
 
 v. 7. book out of" in v. 7, read simply "took it out 
 
 of ; " instead of " having every one of them 
 
 v. 8. harps " in v. 8, read " each having a harp ; " 
 
 instead of the words " made us unto our God 
 kings and priests ; and we shall reign on the 
 
 v. 10. earth" in v. 10, read "made them unto our 
 God a kingdom and priests, and they [shall] 
 reign on the earth ; " for " And the four and 
 twenty elders fell down and worshipped Him 
 
 v. 14. that liveth for ever and ever" in v. 14, read 
 
254 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 simply, " And the elders fell down and wor- 
 shipped." 
 Chap. vi. Insert "seven" in v. 1, and read " opened 
 v. 1. one of the seven seals ; " omit probably " and 
 
 see " in the same verse, and read simply 
 " Come ; " in like manner, omit " and see " in 
 v. 3, and read as before " Come ; " so again, in 
 v. 5, omit " and see," and read " Come ; " and 
 once more, omit the same words in v. 7, and 
 read simply " Come ; " instead of " white 
 robes " in v. 11, read " a white robe; " insert 
 " whole " in v. 12, and read " the whole moon." 
 , For " after these things " in v. 1, read " after 
 this ; " omit the words " w T ere sealed " after 
 " Eeuben " in v. 5, and read simply " Of the 
 tribe of Eeuben, twelve thousand;" and so 
 throughout the passage ; for " And cried " in 
 v. 10, read "And they cry; " instead of " living 
 fountains of waters " in v. 17, read "fountains 
 of the waters of life." 
 Chap. viii. Instead of the words, " The first angel 
 v. 7. sounded " in v. 7, read " And the first 
 
 sounded ; " insert the w 7 orcls " and the third 
 part of the earth was burnt up " in the same 
 verse before " and the third part of trees ; " for 
 v. 13. "heard an angel" in v. 13, read "heard an 
 
 eagle." 
 Chap. ix. Omit the word " only " in v. 4, and read 
 v. 4. simply " but those men ; " for " tails like 
 
 unto scorpions, and there w T ere stings in their 
 
 V. 
 
 3. 
 
 V. 
 
 5. 
 
 V. 
 
 7. 
 
 V. 
 
 11. 
 
 V. 
 
 12. 
 
 Chap. vii. 
 
 v. 
 
 1. 
 
 V. 
 
 5. 
 
 V. 
 
 10. 
 
 V. 
 
 17. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 255 
 
 v. 10. tails" in v. 10, read " tails like unto scorpions, 
 and [also] stings ; and in their tails was their 
 
 v. 11. power;" omit "And" in v. 11, and read 
 " They have ; " omit " and " after " thousand " 
 
 v. 16. in v. 16, and read simply " I heard ; " insert 
 
 v. 18. " plagues" in v. 18, and read "By these three 
 plagues ; " for " their power is in their mouth " 
 
 v. 19. in v. 19, read " the power of the horses is in 
 their mouth ; " for " nor of their fornication " 
 
 v. 21. in v. 21, read probably "nor of their wicked- 
 ness." 
 
 Chap. x. For " he had in his hand " in v. 2, read 
 
 v. 2. " having in his hand;" omit " their. voices " in 
 
 v. 4. v. 4, and read "when the seven thunders spoke;" 
 
 omit also " unto me " in the same verse, and 
 read simply "saying;" instead of "the mystery 
 
 v. 7. of God should be finished " in v. 7, read "the 
 
 mystery of God was finished ; " instead of the 
 
 v. 11. words "And he said unto me " in v. 11, read 
 
 " And they say unto me." 
 Chap. xi. Omit the words " and the angel stood " in 
 
 v. 1. v. 1, and read simply " saying " after " rod; " 
 
 v. 4. instead of " before the God " in v. 4, read 
 
 "before the Lord;" for " shall see their dead 
 bodies " in v. 9, read " look upon their dead 
 body;" for " and shall not suffer " in the same 
 verse, read " and suffer not ; " instead of "they 
 that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over 
 v. 10. them, and make merry" in v. 10, read "they 
 that dwell upon the earth rejoice over them, 
 
256 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 and make merry;" for the kingdoms of this 
 v. 15. world" in v. 15, read "The kingdom of this 
 world;" omit the words " and art to come " in 
 v. 17. v. 17, and read simply " which art, and wast." 
 Chap. xii. Instead of " woe to the inhabiters of the 
 v. 12. earth and of the sea " in v. 12, read simply 
 "woe to the earth and the sea;" omit "Christ" 
 v. 17. in v. 17, and read simply " the testimony of 
 
 Jesus." 
 
 Chap. xiii. Instead of the words " And I stood upon 
 
 v. 7. the sand of the sea, and saw " in v. 7, read 
 
 " And he stood upon the sand of the sea ; and 
 
 I saw;" for "having seven heads and ten 
 
 horns " in the same verse, read " having ten 
 
 horns and seven heads;" instead of "which gave 
 
 v. 4. ' power unto the beast " in v. 4, read " because 
 
 he gave the power to the beast;" for "in blas- 
 
 v. 6. phemy" in v. 6, read "in blasphemies;" omit 
 
 "and" in the same verse, and read simply "his 
 
 tabernacle, those that;" insert " and peoples " 
 
 #.7. in v. 7, and read " over all kindreds, and 
 
 v. 16. peoples;" instead of "their foreheads" in v. 16, 
 
 read " their forehead." 
 Chap. xiv. Instead of " And I looked, and lo, a Lamb" 
 v. 1. in v. 1, read " And I looked, and lo, the Lamb;" 
 
 for " having his Father's name written in 
 their foreheads," in the same verse, read 
 " having his name and the name of his Father 
 written in their foreheads ; " for "I heard the 
 voice of harpers harping with their harps" in 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive looks. 257 
 
 v. 2. v. 2, read " the voice which I heard was as 
 
 that of harpers harping with their harps ; " 
 for " And in their mouth was found no guile; 
 for they are without fault before the throne 
 
 v. 5. of God" in v. 5, read simply "And in their 
 
 mouth was found no falsehood ; for they are 
 
 v. 8. blameless ; " insert u a second " in v. 8, and 
 
 read " And there followed another, a second 
 
 v. 9. angel;" in like manner read in v. 9 "And 
 
 there followed them another, a third angel ; h 
 instead of " Here is the patience of the saints ; 
 
 v. 12. here are they that keep" in v. 12, read " Here 
 is the patience of the saints that keep ; " omit 
 
 v. 13. "unto me" in v. 13, and read simply "say- 
 ing, Write ; " instead of " and their works " 
 in the same verse, read " for their works ; " 
 
 v. 15. omit the words "for thee" in v. 15, and read 
 simply " the time is come to reap." 
 
 Chap. xv. Omit the words " and over his mark" in v. 
 
 v. 2. 2, and read simply " and over his image, and 
 
 over the number," etc. ; instead of " thou King 
 
 v. 3. of saints " in v. 3, read "thou King of the na- 
 
 v. 5. tions;" omit "behold" in v. 5, and read simply 
 
 " I looked, and the temple." 
 
 Chap. xvi. Insert "seven" in v. 1 and read "pour out 
 
 v. 1. the seven vials." For "upon the earth" in v. 
 
 v. 2. 2 read " unto the earth." Omit " angel " in v. 
 
 v. 3. 3, and read simply "And the second;" so 
 
 vv. 3, 4, again in vv. 3, 4, etc. throughout ; omit the 
 
 v. 5. words "0 Lord" in v, 5, and read simply 
 
258 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 "Thou art righteous." In the latter part of 
 this verse, the common text is a mere fabrica- 
 tion, and instead of " which art, and wast, and 
 shalt be, because," etc. we should read " which 
 art and wast the Holy One, because/' etc. ; 
 v. 6. omit " for " in v. 6, and read simply " they 
 
 are worthy." Instead of the words " And I 
 v. 7. heard another out of the altar say" in v. 7, read 
 
 "And I heard the altar saying;" omit the 
 v. 14. words " the earth and of " in v. 14, and read 
 simply "kings of the whole world." For 
 v. 17. "into the air" in v. 17 read "upon the air." 
 Chap. xvii. Omit " unto me " in v. 1, and read simply 
 v. 2. "saying;" for the word "filthiness" in v. 2, 
 
 read " impurities;" the reading to be adopted 
 v. 8. in v. 8 was formerly noticed. 1 Omit " And " 
 
 v. 9. in v. 9, and read simply " Here is the mind." 
 
 v. 10. Omit " and" after fallen in v. 10, and read 
 simply " five are fallen, one is." Instead of 
 v. 13. the words "and shall give" in v. 13, read "and 
 give." Instead of " And the ten horns which 
 
 o 
 
 v. 16. thou sawest upon the beast" in v. 16, read "and 
 the ten horns which thou sawest and the beast." 
 Chap, xviii. Omit " and" in v. 1, and read simply 
 v. 1. "after these things;" omit "mightily" in v. 2, 
 
 v. 2. and read " he cried with a strong voice." In- 
 
 stead of "her sins have reached unto heaven" 
 v. 5. in v. 5, read "her sins have cleaved together 
 
 v. 6. even unto heaven." Omit "you" in v. 6, and 
 
 1 Comp. p. 172. 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 259 
 
 read simply, " Bepay her even as she repaid." 
 Instead of the words "who judgeth her" 
 
 v. 8. in v. 8, read " who hath judged her." Insert 
 
 v. 13. the word " spice" in v. 13, and read "and 
 cinnamon, and spice, and odours." Instead of 
 
 v. 14. the second " are departed from thee " in v. 14, 
 read " are perished from thee." In the same 
 verse, for "thou shalt find them no more," read 
 " men shall find them no more." Instead of 
 
 v. 17. " all the company in ships " in v. 17, read 
 " every one that sails to any place." Instead 
 of " thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and 
 
 v. 20. prophets" in v. 20, read "thou heaven, and 
 ye saints, and apostles, and prophets." Omit 
 the words "of whatsoever craft he be" in 
 
 v. 22. v. 22, and read simply " no craftsman shall 
 be found." 
 
 Chap. xix. Omit "and" in v. 1, and read "after these 
 
 v. 1. things." In the same verse insert the words 
 
 " as it were," and read " I heard as it were a 
 great voice." In the same verse omit the 
 word " honour," and read the " salvation, and 
 the glory, and the power are our God's/' In- 
 
 v. 15. stead of "the fierceness and wrath" in v. 15, 
 read " the fierceness of the wrath." Instead 
 of " gather yourselves together unto the supper 
 
 v. 17. of God" in v. 17, read "gather yourselves 
 together with the great supper of God." 
 
 Chap. xx. Omit "and" before "after" in v. 3, and 
 
 v. 3. read simply " after that." Instead of " and I 
 
260 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the 
 
 saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
 v. 12. God" in v. 12, read "and I saw the dead, 
 
 great and small, standing before the throne ;" 
 v. 14. insert the words " the lake of fire" in v. 14, 
 
 and read the verse thus — " And death and 
 
 Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This 
 
 is the second death, the lake of fire." 
 Chap. xxi. Omit the word " John " in v. 2, and read 
 v. 2. simply " and I saw the holy city :" for " a 
 
 v. 3. great voice out of heaven " in v. 3, read " a 
 
 great voice out of the throne ; " instead of 
 v. 5. " true and faithful " in v. 5, read " faithful and 
 
 v. 7. true ;" for " shall inherit all things " in v. 7, 
 
 read " shall inherit these things ; " omit the 
 v. 9. words "unto me" in v. 9, and read simply 
 
 " and there came one of the seven angels ;" 
 v. 11. omit "and" before "her" in v. 11, and read 
 
 simply " having the glory of God : her light ;" 
 v. 13. insert " and " three times in v. 13, and read 
 
 " On the east three gates, and on the north 
 
 three gates, and on the south three gates, and 
 
 on the west three gates ; " insert the word 
 v. 14. "twelve" in v. 14, and read "the twelve 
 
 names of the twelve apostles ; " instead of 
 v. 15. "had a golden reed to measure " in v. 15, read 
 
 " had for a measure a golden reed to measure ; " 
 v. 23. instead of " shine in it " in v. 23, read " shine 
 
 on it ; " omit the words " of them which are 
 v. 24. saved " in v. 24, and read simply " And the 
 
 nations shall walk by the light of it ; " in the 
 
Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 261 
 
 same verse omit the words " and honour/' and 
 read simply " bring their glory into it." 
 
 Chap. xxii. Omit the word "pure" in v. 1, and read 
 
 v. 1. simply ei And he shewed me a river ; " instead 
 
 of "And there shall be no night there," 
 
 v. 5. in v. 5, read " And there shall be no more 
 
 night." Instead of " and the Lord God of the 
 
 v. 6. holy prophets " in v. 6, read "the Lord God 
 
 of the spirits of the prophets." Insert "and" 
 
 v. 7. in v. 7, and read " and behold." Omit "for " 
 
 v. 9. in v. 9, and read simply " I am thy fellow-ser- 
 
 vant." A very important correction falls to be 
 
 v. 11. made in v. 11, where, instead of "he that is 
 righteous, let him be righteous still," read " he 
 that is righteous, let him do righteousness still." 
 
 v. 12. Omit " and" in v. 12, and read simply "Behold, 
 I come quickly ;" in the same verse, for " accord- 
 ing as his work shall be," read " according as 
 his work is." Instead of " the beginning and 
 
 v. 13. the end, the first and the last " in v. 13, read 
 "first and last, the beginning and the end." 
 Another very important correction requires to 
 
 v. 14. be made in v. 14, where, for " Blessed are they 
 that do His commandments," read " Blessed 
 are they that wash their robes." Omit " for " 
 
 v. 15. in v. 15, and read simply " without are." Omit 
 
 v. 17. "and" before "whosoever will" in v. 17. 
 
 v. 18. Omit "for " in v. 18, and read simply "Itestify;" 
 in the same verse, for " shall add unto these 
 things," read " shall add unto them ;" for " God 
 
262 Effect produced by Textual Criticism. 
 
 shall take away his part out of the book of life, 
 and out of the holy city, and from the things 
 
 v. 19. which are written in this book " in v. 19, read 
 " God shall take away his part from the tree 
 of life and from the holy city, which are 
 written in this book." Omit the words " Even 
 
 ^.20 so " in v. 20, and read simply, " Amen : come, 
 Lord Jesus." Instead of " the grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" 
 
 v. 21. in v. 21, read " the grace of the Lord Jesus be 
 with the saints. Amen." 
 
 MUIR AND PATERSON, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. 
 
WORKS PUBLISHED 
 
 BY 
 
 T. Sf T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s., 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE MORAL 
 
 TRUTHS OP CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 The Nature of Christian Morality ; Man ; The Christian and the 
 Christian Virtues ; The Devotional Life of the Christian, and 
 his Attitude, towards the Church ; /Christian Marriage ; The 
 Christian Home ; The State and Christianity ; The Life of the 
 Christian in the State ; Culture and Christianity ; Humanity 
 and Christianity. 
 
 By C. E. LUTHARDT, D.D., Leipsic. 
 
 By the same Author, in crown 8vo, Third Edition, price 6s., 
 
 LECTURES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS 
 
 OP CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 The Antagonistic Views of the World in their Historical Develop- 
 ment ; The Anomalies of Existence ; The Personal God ; The 
 Creation of the World ; Man; Religion; Revelation; History 
 of Revelation — Heathenism and Judaism ; Christianity in 
 History ; The Person of Jesus Christ. 
 "We have never met with a volume better adapted to set forth, the 
 evidences of Christianity in a form suited to the wants of onr day. There 
 is no obscurity in the thoughts or in the style ; the language is simple, the 
 ideas clear, and the argument logical, and generally, to onr mind, conclusive. 
 . . . . The whole of this vast argument is illustrated by various and 
 profound learning in ancient and modern writers, and the notes themselves 
 are an interesting study. We confidently recommend these valuable Lectures 
 both to the student and the general reader, as containing an unusual 
 amount of thought and information conveyed in elegant and forcible 
 language . " — Guar diem. 
 
 By the same Author, Second Edition, in crown 8vo, 6s., 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE SAVING 
 
 TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 The Nature of Christianity ; Sin ; Grace ; The God-Man ; The 
 Work of Jesus Christ ; The Trinity ; The Church ; Holy 
 Scripture ; The Means of Grace ; The Last Things. 
 " These Lectures contain a resume of the doctrines of the Christian faith . 
 The author is a profound thinker, a skilled theologian, a man of wide and 
 varied culture, who knows how to express clearly and sharply what he 
 believes. The principles of the Gospel are expounded with singular force, 
 truth, and gracefulness of diction." — Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 " Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and 
 expresses himself on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, clear- 
 ness, and force." — Litera/ry World. 
 
2 WORKS PUBLISHED BY T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 In Three Volumes, royal 8vo, price 36s., 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., 
 
 Author of " The History of the Apostolic Church." 
 
 From the Birth of Christ to Gregory the Great, a.d. 1-600. 
 
 "Dr. Schaff's book is perhaps, taken all in all, the most convenient, 
 serviceable, and satisfactory of all our general Church histories, especially 
 for students . ' ' — Presbyterian. 
 
 Just published, Third Edition, in crown 8vo, price 6s., 
 THE SINLESSNESS OP JESUS: 
 
 AN EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 By Dr. C. ULLMANN. 
 
 " We welcome it in English as one of the most beautiful productions of 
 G-ermany, as not only readable for an English public, but as possessing, 
 along with not a few defects, many distinguished excellences. . . . We 
 warmly recommend this beautiful work as eminently fitted to diffuse, 
 among those who peruse it, a higher appreciation of the sinlessness and 
 moral eminence of Christ. The work has been blessed already, and may 
 have its use also to an English public." — British and Foreign Evangelical 
 Review. 
 
 Sixth Edition, crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d., 
 
 CHRIST'S SECOND COMING; 
 
 Will it be Pre-Millennial ? 
 
 By Bev. DAVID BBOWN, D.D. 
 
 "This is, in our judgment, one of the most able, comprehensive, and 
 conclusive of the numerous works which the millenarian controversy has 
 called forth." — Watchman. 
 
 Lately published, in crown 8vo, price 3s. 6d., 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 By J. J. VAN OOSTEBZEE, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT. 
 
 I. The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel. 
 II. John and the Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 III. John's Account of Christ's Miracles. 
 
 IV. The Johannean Christ. 
 
 V. Table of Apologetical Literature on John's Gospel. 
 
 " The small volume before us is the production of a strong and cultivated 
 
 mind Nothing could be more able, seasonable, and complete. ' 
 
 — Watchman. 
 
WORKS PUBLISHED BY T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 3 
 
 In crown 8vo, price 5s., 
 
 ROME AND THE COUNCIL, 
 In the Nineteenth Century, 
 
 By FELIX BUNGENEE. 
 
 Translated from the French, with Additions by the Author. 
 
 " We very earnestly commend tins book to the notice of onr readers. It 
 is full and accurate in historic data, lucid in arrangement, pointed and 
 forcible in style, and at the same time calm, dispassionate, and free from 
 exaggeration. It will amply repay a careful perusal." — Evangelical 
 Magazine. 
 
 Just published, in crown 8vo, price 4s. 6cl., 
 
 THE LEADING CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES, 
 
 And the Principles on which to Estimate them. 
 
 By GILBERT WAKDLAW, M.A. 
 
 " . . . . It is with great pleasure that we call the attention of the 
 reading public to this work of Mr. Wardlaw's." — Courant. 
 
 Third Edition, one volume, crown 8vo, price 5s, 
 
 GOTTHOLD'S EMBLEMS; 
 
 Or, Invisible Things understood by things that are Made. 
 
 By CHRISTIAN SCRIYER, 
 
 Minister of Madgebnrg in 1671. 
 
 Translated from the Twenty-eighth German Edition. 
 
 ' ' It is a book for all men, from the beggar on his pallet of straw to the 
 prince npon his throne. With a strangely childish eye and charming lip, 
 Scriver leads ns forth into natnre, as into a vault, of mirrors, from which 
 the image of God everywhere shmes forth." — Clerical Journal. 
 
 In one volume, crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d. Sixth Edition. 
 
 THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR; 
 
 Or, Meditations on the Last Days oe the Sufferings of 
 Christ. 
 
 By Dr. E. W. KBUMMACHEB. 
 
 " We give it preference to everything hitherto produced by the gifted 
 and devoted anthor. It is divinity of the most thoroughly evangelical 
 description. Truth and tenderness have seldom been so successfully com- 
 bined." — Christian Witness. 
 
4 WORKS PUBLISHED BY T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 In crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d., 
 THE WORDS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 As altered by Transmission, and ascertained by Modern Criticism. 
 A BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 By W. MILLIGAN, D.D. 
 
 Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, Aberdeen. 
 
 AND 
 
 ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Humanity, St. Andrews. 
 
 In one volume, handsomely bound, crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d., 
 THE FOOTSTEPS OF CHRIST. 
 Translated from the German of A. Caspers, 
 By A. E. RODHAM. ' 
 
 I. Christ for us. 
 II. Christ in us. 
 
 III. Christ before us. 
 
 IV. Christ through us. 
 
 " There is much cleepty experimental truth and precious spiritual lore in 
 Caspers' book. I do not always agree with his theology, but I own myself 
 much profited by his devout utterances." — The Rev. C. H. Sjpurgeon. 
 
 tj. Cheap Edition. In one volume, crown 8vo, price 6s. , 
 FRIEDRICH WILHBLM KRUMMACHER: 
 
 AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Edited by his Daughter, and Translated by Bev. M. G. Easton, 
 M.A. Second Edition, revised, with a New Biographical 
 Supplement by the Editor, and a Preface by Eev. Dr. Cairns, 
 Berwick. 
 
 "This is one of the most charming of autobiographies; thoroughly 
 German, but simple, loving, and faithful, abounding in sketches of well- 
 known literary and theological characters, and rich in spiritual thought and 
 experience. " — Record. 
 
 In one volume, crown 8vo, price 5s. Third Edition, 
 
 LIGHT FROM THE CROSS: 
 
 Sermons on the Passion of our Lord. 
 
 Translated from the German of A. Tholuck, D.D., Professor of 
 Theology in the University of Halle. 
 
 By the Eev. B. C. LUNDIN BBOWN, M.A. 
 
 "With no ordinary confidence and pleasure we commend these most 
 nohle, solemnizing, and touching discourses." — British and Foreign Evan- 
 gelical Revietv. 
 
z 
 
 
IB 
 
 H 
 
 '.>.*' 
 
 m 
 
 I ■ • 
 
 I 'V.**i^ 1 1 
 
 , • ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Q| 
 
 022 009 294 A 
 
 
 H 
 
 mi 
 
 fflffi 111 
 
 mem tsm 
 
 wmm 
 
 ^9