'YALH«¥M¥ISISSinnf-
—»—»¦. uji*» jmimiij  »—*»«.  555555Z5
DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

wtJwnMim .

THE

NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.

BY MEMBERS OP THE AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE.

Reprinted from The Sunday School Times.

CONTENTS.
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION.
By Professor Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D  5
THE ACTS IN THE NEW REVISION.
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D  37
THE PAULINE EPISTLES IN THE NEW REVISION.
By Professor Timothy Dwight, D.D  59
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS IN THE NEW REVISION.
By Professor J. Henry Thayer, D.D  71
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN THE NEW REVISION.
By Professor A. C. Kendrick, D.D., LL.D  : — 88
THE REVELATION IN THE NEW REVISION.
By Chancellor Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D  98

THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION.
i. introductory : the greek text of the revised new
Testament.
BY PROFESSOR EZRA ABBOT, D.D, LL.D.
A very important part of the work of the new revision
has consisted in the settlement of the Greek text to be
followed in the translation. This was a duty which
could not be evaded. To undertake to correct merely
the mistranslations in the common English version,
without reference to the question of the genuineness of the
text, would be equivalent to saying that, while the mis
takes of translators must be rectified, those of transcribers
and editors should be regarded as sacred. It would be
deliberately imposing on the Christian public hundreds
of readings which all intelligent scholars, on the ground
of decisive evidence, now agree in rejecting as spurious.
That there should be many mistakes in our manuscripts
of the Greek New Testament, as there are in all other
manuscripts of ancient authors, and that a portion of
these mistakes should be capable of correction only by
the comparison of many different copies, was inevitable
in the nature of things, unless a perpetual miracle should
be wrought. That such a miracle has not been wrought
is shown by the multitude of "various readings " which
a comparison of copies has actually brought to light, the
number of which was roughly reckoned at thirty thousand
5

6 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
in the days of Mill (1707), and may now be estimated at
not fewer than one hundred thousand.
This host of various readings may startle one who is
not acquainted with the subject, and he may imagine
that the whole text of the New Testament is thus ren
dered uncertain. But a careful analysis will show that
nineteen-twentieths of these are of no more consequence
than the palpable errata in the first proof of a modern
printer ; they have so little authority, or are so maii-
festly false, that they may be at once dismissed from con
sideration. Of those which remain, probably nine-tenths
are of no importance as regards the sense ; the differences
either cannot be represented in a translation, or affect
the form of expression merely, not the essential meaning
of the sentence. Though the corrections made by the
revisers in the Greek text of the New Testament fol
lowed by our translators probably exceed two thousand,
hardly one-tenth of them, perhaps not one-twentieth, will
be noticed by the ordinary reader. Of the small residue,
many are indeed of sufficient interest and importance to
constitute one of the strongest reasons for making a new
revision, which should no longer suffer the known errors
of copyists to take the place of the words of the
evangelists and apostles. But the chief value of the
work accomplished by the self-denying scholars who have
spent so much time and labor in the search for manu
scripts, and in their collation or publication, does not
consist, after all, in the corrections of the text which
have resulted from their researches. These corrections
may affect a few of the passages which have been relied
on for the support of certain doctrines, but not to such
an extent as essentially to alter the state of the argument.
Still less is any question of Christian duty touched by the

THE GOSPELS. 7
multitude of various readings. The greatest service
which the scholars who have devoted themselves to criti
cal studies and the collection of critical materials have
rendered, has been the establishment of the fact that,
on the whole, the New Testament writings have come
Sown to us in a text remarkably free from important
corruptions, even in the late and inferior manuscripts
on which the so-called " received text" was founded ;
while the helps which we now possess for restoring it to
its primitive purity far exceed those which we enjoy in
the case of any important classical author whose works
have come down to us. The multitude of " various
readings/' which to the thoughtless or ignorant Feems so
alarming, is simply the result of the extraordinary rich
ness and variety of our critical resources.
At this point it may be well to illustrate, by a brief
statement, the difference between the position of the
present revisers and King James's translators two hun
dred and seventy years ago, as regards a critical knowl
edge of the Greek text of the New Testament. The
translators or revisers of 1611 followed strictly no one
edition of the Greek Testament, though their revision
seems to agree more closely, on the whole, with Beza's
later editions (1588 and 1598) than with any other. But
Beza's various editions (1565-98, fol, 1565-1604, 8vo)
were founded mainly on Robert Stephens's editions of
1550 and 1551. For those editions Stephens had a very
imperfect collation of fifteen manuscripts from the Eoyal
Library at Paris,and of the Complutensian Polyglott, whose
readings were given in his margin. Of his manuscripts,
ten contained the Gospels, eight the Acts and Epistles,
and two the Apocalypse, Two of these manuscripts of
the Gospels were valuable (D and L), but he made very

8 THE. NE W REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
little use of them; indeed, the manuscript readings
given in his margin seem in general to have served rather
for show than for use. Scrivener has noted one hundred
and nineteen places in which his text is in opposition to
all of them. His text is, in fact, substantially formed
from the last editions of Erasmus (1527-35), which differ
very slightly from each other. Now what was Erasmus's
critical apparatus ? In the Gospels he had, all told, three
manuscripts, — one of the tenth century, and a good one,
but which he hardly ever followed, because its text
seemed so peculiar that he was afraid of it. , He used as
the basis of his text in the Gospels an inferior manu
script of the fifteenth century. In the Acts and Catholic
Epistles he had four modern manuscripts ; in the Pauline
Epistles, five ; in the Revelation, only one, an inaccurate
copy of which was used by the printer. This manuscript
was mutilated, lacking the last six verses of the book,
which Erasmus supplied by translating back from the
Latin Vulgate into pretty bad Greek. This was not all.
In other passages he took the liberty of correcting or
supplementing his text from the Latin Vulgate. Beza
occasionally took a similar liberty; and the result is, that
in a considerable number of cases, not, indeed, in general,
of much importance, the reading of the common English
version is supported by no known Greek manuscript, but
rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza (for example, Acts
9: 5, 6; Rom. 7: 6; 2 Cor. 1: 6 ; 1 Pet. 3 : 20; Rev. 1:
9,11; 2: 3,20,24; 3: 2; 5: 10, 14; 15: 3 ; 16 : 5 ; 17:
8, 16; 18 : 2, etc.) Such is the foundation of the text on
which the so-called Authorized Version was based.
It is impossible, without entering into tedious detail
to give an adequate idea of the immense accession to our
critical resources which has resulted from the lifelong

THE GOSPELS. 9
labors of generations of scholars since our common ver
sion was made. I will merely allude to Mill's edition of
the Greek Testament (1707) on which he spent thirty
years, mainly in collecting materials ; to Bengel (1734),
who did much to establish correct principles of criticism ;
to Wetstein, whose magnificent edition of the Greek
Testament (1751-52), in two folio volumes, represents the
arduous labor of forty years, and who added greatly to
our knowledge of manuscripts, and the quotations of the
Christian fathers; and to the extensive collations of
manuscripts by Alter, Birch, with his associates, and
Matthsei, the latter of whom alone carefully examined
more than one hundred. Above all his predecessors,
Griesbach stands pre-eminent. He not only added much
to the materials already collected, but was the first to
turn them to proper account in the correction of the
received text, and in critical tact has perhaps been
excelled by none, of those who have succeeded him.
After Griesbach, who links the last to the present cen
tury, we may name the Roman Catholic Scholz, a poor
critic, but who brought to light and partially collated
many hundreds of manuscripts before undescribed ;
Lachmann, the eminent classical scholar, whose original
genius gave a new impulse to textual criticism ; Scrivener,
to whom we are indebted for excellent editions of two
important uncial manuscripts (the Codex Bezse or Cam
bridge manuscript of the Gospels and the Acts, and the
Codex Augiensis of the Pauline Epistles), and for the
careful collation of about seventy cursive manuscripts ;
and, above all, Tischendorf and Tregelles, whose inde
fatigable labors have made an epoch in the history of
New Testament criticism. To describe these labors here
in detail is utterly out of the question. It may suffice to"

10 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
say that, for the purpose of enlarging and perfecting our
critical apparatus, Tischendorf visited nearly all the
principal libraries of Europe, collating or copying for
publication the most important manuscripts of the New
Testament whose text had not before been printed.
Besides this, he took three journeys to the East, bring
ing home rich manuscript treasures, and crowning all
with the magnificent discovery of the Sinai manuscript,
of the fourth century, containing the New Testament
absolutely complete. He spent more than eight years in
these travels and collations. His editions of the texts of
biblical manuscripts, published by him for the first time,
or for the first time accurately, comprise no less than
seventeen large quarto and five folio volumes, not count
ing the " Anecdota Sacra et Profana," and the " Notitia
editionis Codicis Sinaitici," two quarto volumes contain
ing descriptions or collations of many new manuscripts.
Many of his collations, or copies of important manu
scripts, still remain unpublished, though used in his last
critical edition of the Greek Testament. Between the
years 1840 and 1873 he issued as many as twenty-four
editions of the Greek New Testament, including the
re-impressions of his stereotyped editio academica. Only
four of these editions, however, those of 1841, 1849, 1859,
and 1869-72, are independently important, as marking
great advances in the acquisition of new materials.
The mere catalogue of Tischendorf's publications, pre
pared by Dr. Gregory for the Bibliotheca Sacra (January,
1876), most of them relating to biblical criticism, covers
more than ten octavo pages.
Dr. Tregelles, like Tischendorf, visited many of the
principal European libraries, making three journeys to
the Continent for this purpose, and collated with extreme

THE GOSPELS. II
care the most important uncial manuscripts, and a num
ber of very valuable cursives. He compared his colla
tions with those of Tischendorf, and, in case of any
discrepancy, settled the question by a re-examination of
the manuscript. The only new manuscript which he pub
lished was the Codex Zacynthius, a palimpsest of great
value belonging to the Library of the British and Foreign
Bible Society, and containing about a third of the Gos
pel of Luke. He issued but one edition of the Greek
Testament (1857-72), and was disabled by paralysis from
personally completing the Prolegomena or Introduction
to this, and from supplying the needful corrections and
additions. His accuracy in the statement of his authori
ties, and the new material incorporated in the notes, give
the work great value, and the arrangement of the matter
is very lucid. But though not to be compared with
Tischendorf in the extent of his contributions to our
stock of critical material, Dr. Tregelles did far more than
his rival to illustrate and enforce the principles on
which a critical edition of the Greek Testament should
be based, and to establish, by what he called " compara
tive criticism," the right of a few of the oldest manu
scripts, in many cases, to outweigh a vast numerical
majority of later authorities. . He did far more, prob
ably, than any other writer, to overcome the blind and
unreasoning prejudice which so long existed in England
in favor of the so-called " received text."
A rough account of the number of Greek manu
scripts of the New Testament now known will give some
idea of the vast enlargement of our critical materials
since the time when the common English version was
made. We have now for the Gospels 60 uncials (reckon
ing the six Psalters, etc., which contain the hymns in

IL' THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
Luke 1: 46-55; 68-79; 2: 29-32), ranging from the fourth
century to the tenth, and more than 600 cursives, dating
from the tenth century to the sixteenth ; for the Acts
and Catholic Epistles, 17 uncials and over 200 cursives ; for
the Pauline Epistles, 20 uncials and over 280 cursives ;
for the Revelation, 5 uncials and about 100 cursives.
To these are to be added over 340 Evangelistaries and
about 80 Praxapostoli ; that is, manuscripts containing
the Lessons from the Gospels and the Acts and Epistles
read in the service of the church. This very rough-
statement, however, requires much qualification to pre
vent a false impression, as more than half of the uncials
are mere fragments, though very valuable fragments, and
most of the others are more or less mutilated ; while a
large majority of the cursives have been but partially
collated, or only inspected. But all of the uncials, incom
parably the most valuable part of the apparatus, have
been thoroughly collated (with the exception of the
recently discovered Codex Rossanensis) ; indeed, the
whole text of the most valuable among them has been
published. There is another very important class of our critical
documents which can be noticed only in the briefest
manner. The translations of the New Testament into
different languages, made at an early date for the benefit
of Christian converts ignorant of Greek, — the ancient
versions as they are commonly termed, — represent the text
current in widely separated regions of the Christian
world, and are often of the highest importance in settling
questions of textual criticism. Two of these versions
the Old Latin and the Curetonian Syriac, belong to the
second century ; two, the Memphitic or Coptic, and the
Thebaic or Sahidic, to the earlier part of the third • four

THE GOSPELS. 13
more, the Peshito Syriac in its present form, the Gothic,
the Latin Vulgate, and the Ethiopic (perhaps) to the
fourth ; two, the Armenian and the Jerusalem Syriac, to
the fifth ; and there are several other later versions of
considerable importance, as the Philoxenian or Harclean
Syriac and the Slavonic. The earlier editors of the
Greek Testament knew none of these except the Vulgate
and the Peshito, and the former only in a very corrupt
text. They made little use of either of them, except
occasionally to corrupt the Greek text from the more
familiar Vulgate. The Curetonian Syriac is a recent dis
covery ; and the value of this and of the other early
versions in textual criticism can hardly be overestimated.
Our knowledge of the Old Latin version or versions has
been very greatly extended by the labors of scholars in
the present century in connection with the discovery of
new manuscripts.
A third and also very important class of our authorities
is the numerous quotations of the New Testament by early
Christian writers, many of them one or two centuries
earlier than the date of our oldest manuscripts. In re
spect to these, though Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Sabatier,
Griesbach, Matthsei, and others, had made extensive col
lections, our critical apparatus has been greatly aug
mented by the labors of Tischendorf and Tregelles.
The most valuable result of these vast accessions to our
critical apparatus has been indirect rather than direct.
It has enabled us to trace the outlines'of the history of
the text ; to determine, approximately, the relative value
of our different authorities and 'their distinguishing
characteristics ; it has enabled us to establish on a solid
foundation certain principles of criticism, which serve as
a guide through the labyrinth of conflicting testimonies.

14 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
II.
A careful study of the occasions of error in copying is
an important preparation for the decision of many ques
tions in textual criticism. The way in which the oldest
manuscripts were generally written, with no spaces
between the words except at the end of a long paragraph
(where a space about half the width of a capital letter
is often left in the Vatican manuscript), no distinction of
the beginning of sentences by larger initial letters, with
very few points, perhaps none for a whole page, and no
accents or breathings, greatly increased the liability to
mistakes in transcription. How easy it is to make such
mistakes, even under favorable circumstances, is well
known to every proof-reader. Many of the occasions
of error in copying manuscripts — mistakes of the eye, the
ear, and of memory — affect in a similar manner the work
of the printer ; so that the critical examination of typo
graphical errors throws no little light on some of the prob
lems presented by the variations in ancient manuscripts.
The proper comparison, indeed, would be between the errors
in a manuscript and those in the compositor's first proof;
but it may not be without interest to illustrate by exam
ples some of the occasions of error common to manu
scripts and printed book
In the year 1833, there was published at Oxio. an
" exact reprint " of what was then supposed to be the
first edition of the common English version of the Bible,
printed in 1611. (Two editions were actually printed
that year ; and which of these is the one represented in
the " exact reprint " is still in dispute. ) To this is pre
fixed a collation of the text with that of one of the
editions of 1613. The variations noted (about 412 in all),

THE GOSPELS. 15
which do not include mere differences in spelling, occupy
seven or eight pages quarto. From these I select a few
illustrations of different classes of mistakes.
The first is an example of omission occasioned by what
is called homceoteleuton, that is, the " like ending " of suc
cessive words or clauses. In the edition of 1611, John
20 : 25 reads thus : — " Except I shall see in his hands the
print of the nailes, and put my finger into the print of the
nailes, and thrust my hand into his side," etc. Here, in
the edition of 1613, the words " and put my finger into
the print of the nailes " are omitted. The compositor
having set up the first clause of the verse, ending with
" the print of the nailes,"glances back to his text, and seeing
the second " print of the nailes," supposes that is what he
has just put in type, and goes on with the " and thrust,"
unconsciously omitting the second clause. This kind of
mistake occurs very frequently in manuscripts. In the
edition of 1613 clauses were also accidentally omitted on
account of the recurrence of the same word in 1 Kings
3 : 15 ; Habakkuk 2:5; Matthew 13 : 8 and 16 : 11, and two
whole verses (vs. 13, 14) were dropped in the sixteenth
chapter of Ecclesiasticus, owing to the fact that verses 12
and 14 each end with the phrase "according to his
workes." In Blayney's edition of 1769, intended to be a
standard, seventeen words were inadvertently omitted
in Revelation 18: 22, on account of the recurrence of the
word " more." In the Sinaitic manuscript, omissions
from this cause are very numerous ; some of the most
remarkable will be found at Matthew 26 : 62, 63 ; Mark
10 : 35, 37 ; Luke 10 : 32 ; John 19 : 20, 21 ; Acts 14 : 20,
21 ; Ephesians 2:7; Revelation 4:3. In the Alexan
drian manuscript, four whole verses (1 Cor. 6: 3-6) arp
omitted on account of the like ending of the last word in
verse 2 and the last in verse 6. In 1 John 2 : 23, in our

16 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
common English version the last clause is printed in
italics as spurious, or of doubtful genuineness. It is un
questionably genuine ; its accidental omission in many
manuscripts being occasioned by the fact that in the
original it ends with the same words as the first clause.
The omission of a small word where the sense is not
materially affected is very common in the English Bible
of 1613 referred to above as compared with the edition
of 1611 ; and it also occurs in some places where the sense
is essentially changed by it ; for example, 2 Timothy 4:16,
where we read, " I pray God that it may be laid to their
charge," instead of " may not be laid." In other pas
sages, as Leviticus 17 : 14; Nehemiah 10 : 31 ; Ezekiel 24:
7 ; 1 Corinthians 11 : 17, this important little word not is
found in one of these editions and not in the other. In
an edition of the English Bible printed in 1632, as is
well known, the word not was omitted from the seventh
commandment ; and another edition reads in 1 Corin
thians 6:9, " Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
inherit the kingdom of God ? "
We have seen how the recurrence of the same word, or
of the same ending of a word, may occasion an omission.
It may also occasion the unconscious repetition of a
clause or sentence. We have a very curious example of
this in Exodus 14 : 10 in the English Bible of 1611 '
according to the Oxford " exact reprint," where twenty-
one words were repeated by accident, thus :

1611
And when Pharaoh drew nigh,
the children of Israel lift vp their
eyes, and behold, the Egyptians
marched after them, and they were
sore afraid; and the chiidren of
Israel lift vp their eyes,and beholde,
the Egyptians marched after them ,
and they were sore afraid : and tho
children of Israel cried out vnto
the Lord.

irj.-:.

And when Pharaoh drew nigh,
the children of Israel lift vp their
eyes, and behold, the Egyptians
marched after them, and theywere
sore afraid: and the children of
Israel cried out vnto the Lord

THE GOSPELS. 17
Here we perceive that the cause of the error, not sur
prising in a first proof, but strangely uncorrected, was the
recurrence of the words " the children of Israel " in two
successive parts of a long sentence. The sleepy composi
tor having set up the verse as far as the second " children
of Israel " (inclusive), looked back tohistext, and seeing
the first " children of Israel," which he supposed was
what he had just put in type, went on with the words
following. There are several remarkable examples of such repeti
tion in the Vatican manuscript ; one in Romans 4 : 4, 5 ;
another in 2 Corinthians 3 : 14, 15 ; in each case the origin
of the error will appear on consulting the Greek. It is for
tunate on one account that these mistakes were made, as
it is only in such duplicated passages that the beautiful
original writing has preserved its primitive form, a later
hand having elsewhere retouched the letters and added
accents and breathings. There is a more extraordinary
case of this kind in the Sinaitic manuscript, 1 Thessalo-
nians 2 : 13, 14, where twenty-five words are repeated on
account of the recurrence of ton Theou, " of God." This
mistake was, however, corrected by the contemporary
reviser of the manuscript. In a few other instances, as
Luke 17 : 16, Ephesians 6 : 3, a verse has been carelessly
repeated in the Codex Sinaiticus.
An unconscious substitution of one word for another
equivalent in meaning, often occurs in copying, and even
in printing. In such cases a familiar or easy form of
expression usually takes the place of one which is harsh
or unusual. Thus in Genesis 27 : 44 the edition of 1611
reads, correctly, " until thy brother's furie turne away ; "
the edition of 1613 substitutes "passe away ; " — Prov. 14:
15, " The simple beleeveth every word" (1611) becomes

18 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
" The simple beleeve every word " (1613) ;— Mark 12 : 13,
"And they send vnto him certaine of the Pharisees,"
reads in the edition of 1613, "they sent," etc. Here the
original settles the true reading of the English version ;
were it otherwise, the maxim, " The more difficult read
ing is to be preferred," would lead to the same result.
More extraordinary substitutions sometimes occur, in
which a word suggested to the mind of the transcriber or
printer by the preceding context is unconsciously set in
the place of the true word. This may be the origin of a
misprint which has usurped the place of the true reading
in all copies of our common English version, namely,
" the profession of our faith," in Hebrews 10 : 23, for " the
profession of our hope." The Greek word here represented
by " faith " is everywhere else in the New Testament
rendered " hope," and has no other meaning. It is so ren
dered in Hebrews 10 : 23 in all the earlier English versions.
It is incredible that our translators, in opposition to the
original, deliberately changed the "hope" of their prede
cessors to " faith." As a misprint, which would easily
escape correction, it may have originated in the expres
sion " assurance of faith " in the preceding verse, putting
the thought of " faith " into the mind of the type-setter,
and thus making it natural for him to substitute the
common expression, " profession of faith," for the un
usual one, " profession of hope." This may also have been
facilitated by the occurrence of the word " faithful " in
the following clause. We have a somewhat similar sub
stitution in the edition of 1613 of " shined through darke-
nesse" fo* walked through darkenesse" in Job 29 : 3,
the word " shined " occurring in the preceding clause.
In John 10 : 25, "I told you, and ye believed not,"
" believed " is doubtless a printer's mistake, very natural

THE GOSPELS. 19
after " told," for " believe." The verb is in the present
tense in the Greek, with no various reading, and all the
earlier English versions read " believe." It cannot be
reasonably supposed that our translators deliberately
altered this correct rendering, while as an unintentional
change after a past tense, it would be more likely to occur
than "sent" for "send," and "said" for "say," which
we find in the Bible of 1613 at Mark 12 : 13, 14.
We find occasional examples of the unconscious addi
tion of words not belonging to the text, but merely sug
gested by the context. In Genesis 14 : 24 in the edition
of 1611 we read — " that which the yong men have eaten,
and the portion of the men that went with mee." The
edition of 1613 reads — " the portion of the olde men that
went with mee." There is no authority for " olde ; " the
mention of the young men suggested by contrast the idea
of old men, and thus the insertion was innocently made.
Perhaps such is the origin in the Greek text of the addi
tion "openly" in Matthew 6:4, 6, 18, rightly rejected
by the Revisers as spurious. In Matthew 25 : 6 the true
text reads, " Behold, the bridegroom I " the addition
" cometh," found in the great mass of the later manu
scripts, was not probably a deliberate interpolation, but
what the mind supplied was unconsciously added to the
text. These illustrations from the English Bible of some
occasions of error in copying have been carried much
further than was intended, and many things which they
suggest must be passed over. An examination of the
whole list of differences between the editions of 1611 and
1613 would show the great value of such a comparison
for the correction of the errors of both. In the case of
variations that affect the sense, the mere comparison,

20 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
without reference to the original Hebrew or Greek, would
in most cases at once determine the true reading. The
addition of another independent early copy, though it
would add to the number of variations, wouldsettlemostof
the remaining questions. Indeed, the grosser errors would
at once suggest their own correction. The analogy be
tween the early printed editions of King James's version as
compared with modern copies, and the oldest manuscripta
of the New Testament as compared with those from six
to twelve hundred years later, obviously fails in many
important respects ; but as no one would dispute the pre
eminent value of these editions in an investigation of the
text of our translators, notwithstanding their gross mis
prints, the pre-eminent value of our oldest manuscripts is
not destroyed by the fact that they each contain many
errors of the scribe. The carelessness of the copyist
impairs the value of a manuscript where its testimony is
single, and especially when the apparent error is one to
which he is proved to have been prone; but a compari
son with other manuscripts, or often the nature of the
error itself, will enable us to correct with confidence these
transcriptural mistakes, and thus reach a text incompar
ably purer than that presented by the great mass of late
manuscripts. Such arguments as writers like Mr. Bur
gon use against the authority of the Sinaitic and Vatican
manuscripts, even if not founded on false premises, as
they are to a large extent, would simply destroy the
authority of all our manuscripts, and a fortiori that of the
ancient versions and the quotations found in early Chris
tian writers. We may learn much from an honest wit
ness even if he is not infallible ; and there can be no
possible doubt that the New Testament scribes were in
general honest.

THE GOSPELS. 21
III.
In considering the principles of criticism which have
governed the Revisers in determining the Greek text, it
will be better to begin with concrete examples which
serve to illustrate them, than to state them baldly before
hand in an abstract form.
An instructive example for our purpose will be found
in the quotations from Isaiah 29 : 13, in Matthew 15 : 8.
This reads in the Revised Version, " This people hon-
oureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;"
in the Common Version, "This people draweth nigh to me
with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but
their heart," etc., the latter agreeing with the Septuagint
in the addition of the words here italicized. The shorter
reading is supported by five uncial manuscripts, Aleph
and B, that is, the Sinaitic and Vatican, of the fourth
century, D (the Codex Beza?) and T<= (sixth century),
and L, of the eighth century, and two cursives, 33
(eleventh century) and- 124 (twelfth century) ; by the
Old Latin version or versions (except the manuscript f,
that is, Codex Brixianus) and the Vulgate, the Cure-
-tonian and Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, Ethiopic,
Armenian and Persic versions ; by the quotations of the
Gnostic Ptolemy in the second century, Clement of Alex
andria, Origen repeatedly, who expressly remarks upon
the reading, Eusebius, Basil the Great (or Pseudo-Basil),
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and of Tertullian,
Cyprian, and the Latin Fathers generally. Clement of
Rome (first century) quotes the passage in the shorter
form, and so it is quoted in the spurious Second Epistle (or
Homily) to the Corinthians ascribed to him (second cen
tury). — On the other side are fourteen uncials, namely,

22 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
C, the Ephraem palimpsest of the fifth century, E of the
eighth century, and the rest of the ninth and tenth cen
turies, with several hundreds of cursives, from the tenth
to the sixteenth centuries ; the Latin manuscript f, repre
senting a late revision of the Old Latin, and the Harclean
Syriac version, of the seventh century.
We observe first that, if the disputed clause be genu
ine, its omission must have been the result either of
accident or of design. But it cannot have been omitted by
accident from authorities so numerous, so independent,
and so wide-spread, representing all the principal regions
of the Christian world. There is no homceoteleuton here.
Nor is there the slightest probability that it was omitted
by design. Should it be suggested that it was omitted
to make the contrast of the second and third clauses
more forcible, it may be replied that there is no evidence
that the scribes dealt in any such way with their manu
scripts, or, rather, abundant evidence that such was not
their habit. Their work was mechanical ; and they had
some respect for the Scriptures. Internal evidence is
thus fatal to the clause ; and we cannot fail to be struck
at once with the immense preponderance of the ancient
evidence, of all sorts, against it.
But how can we explain the arldition ? Very easily ;
it came in from the Septuagint version. In the case of
passages from the Old Testament quoted in the New,
where they are often cited freely, or abridged, it was
customary to note in the margin the differences between
their text in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.
In a similar manner, the report of Christ's sayings or
doings in one Gospel was often supplemented by mar
ginal or interlinear notes derived from the parallel
passages in one or more of the other Gospels. Glosses

THE GOSPELS. 23
or interpretations of difficult words, were often given in
the margin. Words or clauses accidentally omitted by
the scribe were also placed there. Owing to this last
circumstance it frequently happened that in copying
manuscripts containing these various marginal notes and
glosses, the scribe either added them to his text, suppos
ing them to have been accidentally left out by the former
copyist, or substituted them for the true text, supposing
them to be a correction. This has been a main source of
corruption in the later manuscripts of the Gospels, as
will be seen hereafter. Taking all these things into
consideration, we may conclude with absolute confidence
that the shorter reading here is the true one.
The case is equally clear in the quotation from Isaiah 61 :
1 in Luke 4 : 18, 19, where the words " to heal the broken
hearted " are omitted by the Revisers. They are wanting
in the uncial manuscripts Aleph, B, D, L, and the Codex
Zacynthius (eighth century), in the cursives 13, 33, 69, in
most manuscripts of the old Latin version or versions
and the best of the Vulgate, also in the Memphitic,
Ethiopic and Armenian versions, and in the quotations
of Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria.
The omission of the clause cannot be explained as the
result either of accident or design ; it came in from the
Septuagint. — So in Matthew 2 : 18, the words " lamenta
tion and" before " weeping and great. mourning," in the
quotation from Jeremiah 31 (Sept. 38) : 15 are rightly
omitted in the new version on the authority of Aleph,
B, Z, (the Dublin palimpsest, sixth century), the cursives
1, 22, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic,
Peshito Syriac, and Jerusalem Syriac versions, and the
quotation of Justin Martyr (second century). The omis
sion here cannot be explained as the result either of acci-

24 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
dent or design ; and the combination of very ancient_ evi
dence against it, representing all quarters of the Christian
world, is absolutely decisive. It was introduced, as in
the other cases, from the Septuagint version.— Other
instances of the amplification of passages quoted from the
Old Testament will be found in the "received text" in
Romans 13 : 9 and Hebrews 12 : 20, where the clauses
" thou shalt not bear false witness " and " or thrust
through with a dart" are omitted by the Revisers.
Hebrews 2 : 7 may he another case ; see the Revisers'
margin. Looking back now at the documentary evidence in the
three passages examined, we see the great mass of the
cursive manuscripts and all the later uncials agreeing in
readings which are certainly false. It becomes evident,
then, that our manuscripts must be weighed, not counted.
These are only a few out of a vast multitude of examples
in which the force of evidence, internal and external,
compels us to accept a reading supported by a very small
number of our oldest manuscripts in opposition to the
great horde of later authorities. This is particularly the
case in questions of omission or addition.
We have seen the manner in which abridged quota
tions from the Old Testament in the Gospels are supple
mented in the later manuscripts and the received text
from the Septuagint. We shall now notice some examples
of the way in which the text of one Gospel has been
interpolated by the addition of words or clauses which
belong to another, or in which its language has been
assimilated to that used in the parallel passages.
In Matthew 20 : 22 the common version reads :  '• Are
ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of [and to
be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? "1

THE GOSPELS. 25
and in verse 23, " Ye shall indeed drink of my cup [and
be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with."]
The clause3 here bracketed are wanting in Aleph, B, D,
L, Z, in the cursives 1 and 22 (in verse 23 in six othera
besides these), in most of the manuscripts of the Old
Latin version or versions, the Vulgate; the Curetonian
Syriac, the Memphitic, Thebaic, Ethiopic, and Persic
versions, and in the quotations of Origen, Epiphanius,
John of Damascus, and the Latin Fathers generally.
Origen (in the early part of the third century) expressly
notes the fact that they were found in Mark, but not in
Matthew. In Mark 10 : 38, 39, none of the manuscripts
or yersions omit them. But in Matthew C alone contains
them, among our manuscripts of the oldest class ; they are
found in thirteen of the later uncials (all but one of them
belonging to the ninth or tenth century), in the great
mass of cursives, in three manuscripts of the Old Latin, in
the Peshito, Harclean Syriac, and Armenian versions,
and in the quotations of Chrysostom and Basil of Seleu-
cia. (Most of these authorities read " or " for " and " in
verse 22.)
Now if these clauses belonged originally to the text,
they must have been omitted by accident or by design.
They could not have been omitted accidentally in so
many and so independent very early authorities, includ
ing all, so far as we know, that represent the second and
third centuries. In the 23d verse the last word in the
Greek indeed agrees in the last four letters with the word
which ends the preceding clause ; but there is no such
occasion for accidental omission in verse 22. Nor can
we discover any motive for intentional omission of the
clauses. On the other hand, their insertion is readily
explained by their existence in Mark. We conclude

26 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
then, with confidence, that the clauses in question did
not belong to the original text.
Among the numerous examples in which the text fol
lowed in the Common Version has received similar
additions from the parallel passages are Matthew 1 : 25,
where for " her firstborn son" the oldest authorities read
simply " a son," the fuller form coming from Luke 2 : 7,
where all the manuscripts have it ; Matthew 5 : 44, where
"bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you," and " despitefully use you and," are from Luke 6:
27, 28 ; Matthew 8 : 29, where " Jesus " is from Mark 5 :
7, and Luke 8: 28; Matthew 9: 13 and Mark 2: 17,
where the words " to repentance "' are from Luke 5 : 32 ;
Matthew 16 : 3, where " O ye hypocrites " is from Luke
12: 56. Matthew 17: 21, the whole verse, probably,
was introduced from Mark 9 : 29, and Matthew 18 : 11
from Luke 19 : 10. In Matthew 19 : 16, 17, the Revisers'
text omits "good" before "Master," and reads "Why
askest thou me concerning that which is good? One
there is who is good," instead of " Why callest thou me
good ? there is none good but one, that is, God," the
readings of the received text being found without any im
portant variation in the parallel passages, Mark 10 : 17,
18 ; Luke 18 : 18, 19. Here the readings adopted in the
new revision have in their favor a great preponderance
of the most ancient testimony of manuscripts, versions
and fathers, while their origin in accident seems impos
sible, and the only apparent motive for deliberate altera
tion, the avoiding of a theological difficulty, would be
equally strong in the case of the parallel passages in
Mark and Luke, where there is no trace of an attempt to
remove it in that way. The judgment of the Revisers is
accordingly supported by that of a great majority of the

THE GOSPELS. 27
better critics, as Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Green, Westcott and
Hort, Porter, Davidson, Scrivener, De Wette, Meyer,
Weiss, Keil, etc. In Matthew 19 : 20, the words " from
my youth up" are derived from Mark 10 : 20, and Luke
18 : 21 ; " or wife " in Matthew 19 : 29 and Mark 10 : 29
from Luke 18 : 29 ; the verse Matthew 23 : 14 is from
Mark 12 : 40 and Luke 20 : 47; Matthew 27 : 35, " that it
might be fulfilled " to the end, from John 19: 24. In
this last case the question might arise whether the omis
sion was not accidental, on account of the recurrence of
the word " lots ; " but the authorities against the sentence
are so numerous and weighty, including all our uncial
manuscripts but one, a host of cursives, most of the
ancient versions, and the commentators among the
Christian Fathers, that this explanation must be dis
missed. In Mark 3 : 5 and Luke 6 : 10, " whole, as the other "
comes from Matthew 12 : 13 ; in Mark 6 : 11, " Verily I
say unto you," etc., to the end of the verse, from Matthew
10 : 15 ; Mark 7 : 16, " If any man have ears to hear, let
him hear," maybe from Mark 4 : 23, though substantially
the same words occur also in Matthew 11 : 15 ; 13 : 9, 43 ;
Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8; 14 : 35. They appear as an un
questionable interpolation in many manuscripts in Luke
12 : 21 and 21 : 4. Mark 11 : 26 is probably from Mat
thew 6 : 15, though the omission might possibly be
occasioned by the like ending of the preceding verse ;
Mark 15 : 28 is from Luke 22 : 37.
In Luke 4:2, "afterward;" 4, "by every word of
God;" 5, "into a high mountain ; " 8, " get thee behind
me, Satan, for " etc., are from Matthew 4 : 2, 4, 8, 10, and
16: 23; Luke 5 : 38, "and both are preserved," from

28 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
Matthew 9: 17; Luke 8 : 48, "he of good comfort," is
from Matthew 9: 22 ; Luke 8 : 54, "put them all out,
and " is from Mark 5 : 40. In Luke 11 : 2, 4, the words
or clauses in the Lord's Prayer in the common version
which are omitted in the revision are borrowed from
Matthew 6 : 9, 10, 13. We have the express testimony of
Origen that they were wanting in the. manuscripts of
Luke in his day. In Luke 11 : 44, " scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites, " is from Matthew 23 : 27 ; " desolate," in
Luke 13 : 35, from Matthew 23 : 38 ; and the verse Luke
17 : 36 comes doubtless from Matthew 24 : 40. Homceo-
teleuton might indeed operate here, but all the uncial
manuscripts except two omit the verse. Our translators
of 1611 note in their margin that it is "wanting in most
of the Greek copies." They followed Beza against Eras
mus and Stephens.
In John 6 : 69, the true reading is, with little doubt,
" thou art the Holy One of God," instead of " thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God," which comes from
Matthew 16 : 16.
The text has often been amplified from the context, or
from other parts of the same Gospel. In many cases this
might be done by a transcriber unconsciously. So in
Matthew 1:6" the king " has been added to the second
"David " from the preceding clause ; the subject " Jesus,"
for example, is supplied in Matthew 4 : 12, 18 ; 8:3, 5, 7,
and o ften elsewhere ; " by them of old time " (more
properly " to them," etc.) in Matthew 5 : 27 is added from
verse 21 ; " among the people " in Matthew 9 : 35 comes
from 4 : 23 ; " first " before " come," Matthew 17 : 11, is
from verse 10, or perhaps from Mark 9 : 12 ; " idle,"
Matthew 20 : 6, comes from verse 3, and the last two
clauses of verse 7 from verse 4, slightly modified • " for

THE GOSPELS. 29
many be called, but few chosen " in Matthew 20 : 16 is
from Matthew 22: 14. In Matthew 28 : 9(8), "And as
they went to tell his disciples " seems to have been added
from the preceding verses ; but accidental omission from
homceoteleuton is possible. Mark 7:8," as the washing
of pots and cups, and many other such like things ye do,"
is from verses 4 and 13 ; the verses Mark 9 : 44, 46, arc
from verse 48, and the last clause of verse 45 from verse
43 ; " whatsoever he saith," Mark 11 : 23, is from the
beginning of the verse. In Luke 1 : 28 " blessed art thou
among women " is from verse 42 ; in Luke 2 : 40 " in
spirit " comes from 1 : 80 ; "to Jerusalem," Luke 2 : 42, '
from verse 41 ; Luke 6 : 45, " man" and "treasure of his
heart " after " evil " are from the first part of the verse ;
in John 1 : 27 the amplified form of the received text is
from verse 15.
Marginal notes or glosses have often been taken into the
text. Many of the supplements already mentioned were
probably first written in the 'margin. Examples of
glosses or marginal notes added to the text, or substi
tuted for the true reading, are Matthew 5 : 22 (probably)
"without a cause;" 6:1 "alms" (see verse 2) for
"righteousness;" Matthew 25:13, "wherein the Son
of man cometh ; " Mark 7:2, " they found fault "
(inserted to remove a supposed difficulty in the construc
tion) ; Mark 7:5, "unwashen" for "defiled" (literally
common) hands; Luke 10: 35, "when he departed;"
11 : 54, "andseeking" and " that they might accuse him "
(compare Matt. 12 : 10, Mark 3:2); Luke 22 : 64, " struck
him on the face, and ; " Luke 23 : 17, the whole verse ;
John 5: 16, "and sought to slay him"; 8: 59, "going
through the midst of them, and so passed by " (compare

30 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
Luke 4: 30); 11:41, "from the place where the dead
was laid."
The spurious additions to the text which we have thus
far considered are in on?, point of view of little impor
tance, as nearly all of them either grow out of the
context by a natural or necessary inference, or are
unquestionably genuine in the Gospel from which they are
derived. From another point of view, however, they are
pernicious. This assimilation of the parallel passages of
the Gospels by later copyists is very misleading to one
who is carefully studying their relation to one another ;
it makes them appear much less independent than they
really are. The Revisers have greatly aided the English
reader who wishes to compare the different Gospels intel
ligently, first, by the purification of their text, and sec
ondly, by the pains which they have taken to translate
the same Greek words and phrases, when they are found
in parallel passages of the Gospels, in the same way. The
common version is surprisingly faulty in this respect,
often leading the English reader to suppose there is a
difference in the original where there is really an agree
ment, or an agreement where there is a difference.
Butthoughthegreatmajority ofthelater additions to the
text of oui Gospels originated in the way above explained,
a certain number are from a source not yet mentioned.
Our four Gospels are all only fragmentary sketches of the
life and teaching of Jesus (compare John 20 : 20 ; [21 :
25]). Sayings aud doings of his which they have not
recorded would naturally be handed down, in a more or
less imperfect form, by tradition. A considerable num
ber of such sayings, some of them probably genuine are
found in early Christian writings. It would be strange
if some of these traditionary sayings or incidents did not

THE GOSPELS. 31
find their way, in certain manuscripts, into the text of
our Gospels. This has actually been the case, though to
an extent far less than one might have expected. In the
manuscript D of the Gospels, in most manuscripts of the
Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Syriac version, there
is an addition of this kind of considerable length at
Matthew 20 : 28, founded probably on a misreport of the
parable Luke 14 : 7-11. A saying respecting the Sab
bath, ascribed to Christ, is inserted in D (the Codex
Bezse) at Luke 6 : 4.
The longest and the most remarkable of the compara
tively few interpolations of this sort in the received text
of the Gospels is the passage relating to the woman
taken in adultery, John 7 : 53 to 8 : 11 inclusive. The
Revisers have separated this from the context by an extra
space, and enclosed it in brackets with a marginal note
stating the fact that most of the ancient authorities omit
it, and that those which contain it vary much from each
other. An overwhelming preponderance of the weigh
tiest testimony of all kinds, — of our oldest manuscripts,
the ancient versions, and the Christian Fathers who have
commented on the Gospel, is against it; the only manu
script of the oldest class which contains it (D) gives it
in a form differing much from that in the mass of the
later manuscripts, while these vary not a little from one
another. More than ten manuscripts put it at the end of
the Gospel ; one inserts it after John 7 : 36 ; four others
place it at the end of the twenty-first chapter of Luke.
Very many of the manuscripts which have it, including
five of the later uncials, mark it either with asterisks or
obeli as something which ought to he added or omitted ;
many other manuscripts have notes or scholia to the
effect that it is "wanting in most copies," or "in the

32 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
more accurate copies; " or that it is "found in some cop
ies," or, " in the more ancient copies." It Dreaks the
connection, and differs in style from the rest of the Gos
pel. These phenomena are irreconcilable with the sup
position that it belonged originally to the text, and
nearly all critics of reputation agree in rejecting it as a
later addition. This does not prove the story false ; on
the contrary, it has many internal marks of truth.
Another remarkable interpolation is that in John 5 .
3, 4, respecting the descent of the angel at the pool of
Bethesda, where the ancient evidence against the ques
tionable portions is so strong, and the variations among
the authorities that contain them are so numerous, that
there can be no reasonable doubt of their spuriousness,
though they were early added to the text.
Another is the rebuke of James and John by Christ,
as given in the received text in Luke 9 : 55. The evi
dence against the genuineness of the words placed in the
margin by the Revisers is decisive, though in this case
also the addition was made as early as the second cen
tury. But the words bear the stamp of a genuine utter
ance of Christ in their originality and their harmony
with his character. The clause " even as Elijah did " at
the end of verse 54 is also rightly rejected by the Revisers,
as wanting in the best manuscripts and other ancient
authorities, while its omission cannot be reasonably
explained as due either to accident or design.
The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark present
a problem of much interest in connection with this sub
ject. They are retained by the Revisers without brackets,
but are separated by an extra space from the preceding
with a marginal note, mentioning their absence from the
two oldest Greek manuscripts and other'documents and

THE GOSPELS. 33
that some other authorities have a still different ending
of the Gospel. This is not the place for entering into a
discussion of the difficult and complicated question con
cerning the genuineness of these verses, of which the
Rev. (now Very Rev.) Mr. Burgon is the most prominent
advocate. Of the passages of any considerable length in the
Gospels which the Revisers have been constrained to
reject as later additions to the text there remains only,
I believe, the doxology of the Lord's Prayer. Here an
examination of the evidence will satisfy us that the words
could not have been omitted by accident ftorn the
authorities in which they are wanting ; and the beauty
of the doxology is such that it could not have been
omitted by design. On the other hand, its addition from
the liturgical service of the church was most natural. It
is founded on 1 Chronicles 29 : 11. In many of the
manuscripts which contain it, it is written in red ink, to
distinguish it from the proper text ; in others it appears
only in the margin : such manuscripts mark the steps of
its introduction. It is found in the newly discovered
Codex Rossanensis, of the latter part of the sixth, or the
beginning of the seventh century ; but this manuscript,
to judge from the readings which have been published,
though better than the ninth and tenth century uncials,
represents a text far less pure than that of our uncials of
the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, Aleph, B, D, Z, which
omit the doxology (A and C are mutilated here), as do
also the cursives 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, of which 1, 118, and
209 are of exceptional excellence. The testimony of the
Old Latin, Vulgate, and Memphitic versions against it,
and the dead silence respecting it of the early commen
tators on the Prayer, as Origen, Tertullian^

34 THE NEW REVISION 4-W2? ITS STUDY.
of very great weight, while its variations in form in
several of the versions and ancient quotations in which
something like it is found, diminish their authority a&
witnesses in its favor.
This detailed, though incomplete, exhibition of sup
plements to the original text from the Septuagint version
of the Old Testament, from parallel passages in the
Gospels, from the context of the passage itself, or from
similar passages in other parts of the same Gospel, from
marginal notes or glosses, and sometimes from tradition,
is intended to serve several purposes besides that of an
enumeration of remarkable changes of text in the new
revision. A very large part of these changes consists in
the omission of words or clauses, or even whole verses,
which are found in the common text ; in comparatively
few cases have words been added by the Revisers. To
many readers these omissions of familiar words will seem
little less than sacrilege. One little versed in criticism
and unacquainted with manuscripts is likely to say to
himself, " the presumption is altogether in favor of the
fuller text ; transcribers might easily omit words by acci
dent, but they could only add by design ; and we cannot
suppose that any considerable number of them would
willfully interpolate writings which they regarded as
sacred, especially after the warning in Revelation 22 : 18."
This view of the matter is very superficial. We have
seen in the few cases in which the evidence has been
stated, that if the longer form of the passage were the
original we could not rationally explain the omissions as
the result either of accident or design. Very strange
omissions will sometimes occur through accident in a
single manuscript ; but the chances will be perhaps a
thousand to one against another independent copyist's

THE GOSPELS. 35
making the same blunder. In the cases in which the
evidence has not been stated, it would in general be
equally clear, I believe, on examination, that the hy
pothesis that the longer form of the passage was genuine
would leave the omission entirely unaccountable ; while
if the shorter form were the original, we should have a
plausible explanation of the addition. Each repeated
instance of this kind strengthens our conviction that in
this explanation we are on the right track. And we are
confirmed in our view when we find that the tendency to
add rather than to omit characterizes the manuscripts of
ancient classical authors, and that the most eminent
philologists fully recognize the principle to which our
New Testament examples seem irresistibly to lead us.
For example, Porson says in his Letters to Travis (p. 149),
" Perhaps you think it ' an absurd and affected idea ' that
a marginal note can ever creep into the text ; yet I hope
you are not so ignorant as not to know that this has
actually happened, not merely in hundreds, or thousands,
but in millions of places." He then quotes Daille and
Bengel on this point, and adds, " From this known pro
pensity of transcribers to turn everything into text which
they found written in the margin of their manuscripts or
between the lines, so many interpolations have proceeded
that at present the surest canon of criticism is, Prceferatur
lectio brevior. (That is, " The shorter reading is to be
preferred.") The cases which we have noticed are instructive in
other ways. When critically examined, they demonstrate
the superlative value of such manuscripts as B, Aleph,
Z, D, L, C, and Delta in the Gospel of Mark, in questions
of omission or addition, as compared with the mass of
the later uncials and cursives. They show that certain

36 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
cursives are also of exceptional value in such questions.
They illustrate in some measure the process by which the
character of our different witnesses may be tested. We
find that their character is often different in different
books of the New Testament. We find that the value of
their testimony depends much on the nature of the
reading. We perceive that they fall more or less dis
tinctly into certain groups, representing certain tenden
cies, and that this consideration is often important in
weighing evidence. But these and other matters can
only be hinted at. Other classes of readings, which
would also serve to test the relative value and bring out
the characteristics of our different authorities, must be
wholly passed over, at least for the present, as this paper
has already reached an inordinate length.
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

THE ACTS IN THE NEW REVISION.
BY PROFESSOR M. B. RIDDLE, D.D.
The Book of the Acts of the Apostles deals with facts
outside of Judea. Its vocabulary, therefore, presents
peculiarities which led to many minor mistakes on the
part of the earlier English translators. Further, the
Greek text, while in the main correct, requires much care
ful investigation in view of the many and singular varia
tions . presented by the early authorities. What the
revisers have done in preparing the results given in
the Revised Version cannot be accurately measured by the
results themselves. With probably one exception (Luke)
this book is the largest one in the New Testament. Of the
changes made in the Revised Version, more will prob
ably be found in this book than in any one of the others ;
but the number is not, I believe, proportionately greater.
It is difficult to estimate the number of changes made,
since no two persons will count alike. Reckoning each
word or group of connected words as one, I put the num
ber in the Book of Acts at about 1,600. The changes in
the Greek text as compared with Stephens's edition of
1550 (Scrivener), accepted by the revisers, amount to
seven hundred and twenty ; but many of these do not
appear in the Revised Version, and, as is well known, few
alter the sense materially. Still, the fact must be recorded,
to give some idea of the labor expended. For many other
37

38 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
variations were discussed. The text is, therefore, an
independent one, probably resembling most closely that
of Tregelles (among published editions). Of course, the
work was not done on the theory that Stephens's edition
was correct until proven inaccurate.
The principles on which the work was conducted are ,
well known. The object of this, paper is, to illustrate
the application of them by a detailed notice of a few
passages, and to call attention to the more important
changes throughout the entire book. To account for even
a small fraction of the more minute alterations is out of
the question, owing to the necessary limits of this article.
Chapter I. The changes of text accepted are twenty ;
the emendations in all number about sixty. The first two
paragraphs (vs. 1-11) present few changes of importance,
though all of them are in the interest of accuracy, or to
suggest the verbal correspondences of the original. The
only changes of text affecting the English dress, are in
verse 8 (my witnesses) and in verse 11, where looking is
substituted for " gazing up," to indicate that the correct
text gives the same word thus rendered in verse 9. The
next two paragraphs (vs. 12-20) may be discussed in
detail, since they present a fair specimen of the work as
a whole. V. 12. Nigh . . . journey off. This change reproduces
more accurately the form of the Greek, which has two
clauses, the second defining the former.
V. 13. The upper chamber. The definite article is
properly introduced, since the place is a well-known one.
The noun is rendered " upper chamber " in all other
cases ; the change here gives entire uniformity. Another
term occurs twice in the Gospels, which is rendered
"upper room."— They were abiding. The continuous

THE ACTS. 39
form is properly preserved, and " they " inserted as sub
ject. The punctuation is altered to correspond. — In the
list of the Apostles the -Zealot is rightly substituted for
" Zelotes," which is a transfer, not a translation, and in
the text " brother" is replaced by son (so Tyndale), the
former being retained in the margin." A discussion ot
the propriety of this alteration belongs rather to Luke
6 : 16, where it first occurs.
V. 14. " With one accord " is placed before " con
tinued," which is properly strengthened by the addition
of steadfastly. The change in order seemed advisable in
consequence of this addition. — The words " and supplica
tion " are omitted on the authority of the best manu
scripts, versions, and fathers. — The margin, with certain
women, suggests another view of the passage based on the
absence of the article in the Greek.
V. 15. These is substituted for " those," a change which
must frequently be made. — Brethren is the reading of the
four oldest manuscripts, and of other authorities. — And
there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about,
etc. This clause reads literally : " and there was a multi
tude of names together, about," etc. The paraphrase ot
the revisers properly substitutes multitude for " number,"
puts " was " in its correct grammatical relation, gives the
sense of " names " in the text, retaining the literal mean
ing in the margin, and explains " together " strictly in
accordance with the force of the original. The clause
was thus emended in the first revision, and seemed so
well done, that no further modification has been sug
gested during the years of review. None of the earlier
versions hits the exact sense, though the Rhemish is
nearest to it
V. 16. Brethren is the form of address which replaces

40 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
" men and brethren." Those familiar with the original
will understand that the latter is a reproduction of Greek
oratorical usage. It is awkward in English, though many
Bible readers will miss the familiar solecisnf. A similar
change is made twelve times in this book, and it will not
be necessary to refer to it again. — It was needful, etc., is
more literal than " must needs be," and preserves the
past tenseof the original. — " Spake before " is transferred
to give it the emphasis which it has in the Greek. — The
is better sustained than "this." — Who is substituted for
" which " by our English brethren in this case, in accord
ance with their view of a distinction between the two
pronouns when referring to persons. " Was " is literally
became, but no change was accepted.
V. 17. Among is substituted for " with," in consequence
of a change of text, sustained by the six oldest manu
scripts, and many other authorities. — Received his portion
in. " Obtained " is altered, since it better suits the first
verb in verse 18. Portion in brings out the sense of the
phrase, although "the lot of" would be more literal
(compare the margin). Theusageof the word is derived
from the allotment of the inheritance in the land of
Israel. It is the term which underlies our word "clergy,"
and false views respecting its meaning have been fruitful
of evil in the church.
V. 18. Obtained is more exact than " purchased " (see
verse 17).— His is inserted, since the Greek article has
here the force of the possessive pronoun.
V. 19. Became is exact.— To is substituted for "unto;"
the simple dative is better rendered by the former,' a
preposition by the latter. But this distinction could not
be fully carried out.— That is substituted for "as "and
the order changed to prevent two thats from coming

THE A CTS. 41
together. — Their language is more exact than "their
proper tongue." The term answering to "proper" is
not well sustained, while "tongue" is required to render
an entirely different word in the next chapter. "Dia
lect" "is the literal sense here. — Was gives the correct
tense, and Akeldama is probably the correct form of the
Aramaic form here introduced. — •" To say " is omitted as
an unnecessary addition.
V. 20. The citations from the poetic books of the Old
Testament are throughout printed as poetry. — Be made,
literally " become," is an improvement. — Office is substi
tuted for "bishoprick." The former is taken from the mar
gin of the Authorized Version. The latter is found in all
the English versions, from Wicklif to the Rhemish,
except the Genevan, which has " charge " (the alternate
rendering of the margin in King James). The margin
of the Revisers (overseership) is due to an attempt to pre
serve a verbal correspondence with the word usually
translated " bishop." It need hardly be added that these
words presented a knotty point. There was probably far
less difference of opinion as to the thought in each case,
than as to the best way of so presenting it as not to mis
lead the English reader.
In verse 22, "ordained" is incorrect, and properly
replaced by became. — Put forward (v. 23) is a paraphrase
of a word meaning to stand ; here, to set forth as can
didates. — In verse 25, a change of text, abundantly sus
tained by the best authorities, compels the alteration of
"their lots," to lots for them, or, unto them. "Them"
refers to the two persons, and the suggestion of a ballot,
made by the Authorized Version, is removed. Wiclif
has " to them," but all the English Protestant versions
follow the incorrect reading.

42 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
Chapter H. Parting asunder (v. 3) is more «xact than
" cloven ; " the margin suggests other views. — In verse 4,
"Spirit" is put into the text, to preserve the corres
pondence with the last clause of the verse» — This sound
was heard shows that the sound itself, not the news of it,
was heard.
In verses 9, 10, the countries are arranged in pairs, as
in the Greek. — Perplexed (v. 12) does not suggest skepti
cism, as "were in doubt" does. — They are filled (v. 13)
exactly presents the original. — In verses 15, 16, the
punctuation is altered to connect " but this," etc., more
closely with " as ye suppose. " Parentheses might have
been used with propriety. — Inverse 20, the parallelism
of the Hebrew (and Greek) is restored. — In verses 17, 21,
it shall be is more literal than the cumbrous phrase :
" it shall come to pass." — An important change occurs in
verse 23 : by the hand of lawless men, with the margin,
men without the law. It was by the hands of others, not
their own (as the Authorized Version suggests) that they
crucified him. The " lawless men " were Gentiles, the
margin indicates. — In verse 27 Hades is the proper trans
lation, the reference being to the place of the dead, not to
Gehenna, the place of punishment. — Died (v. 29) is the
usual correction, " is dead" spoils the argument : He
died, was buried, and his tomb is with us. In verse 30,
there is an important change of reading, well attested,
which gives the sense : he would set one upon his throne;
in verse 31 the application is made to the Christ. The
corrupted reading weakens the argument. The margin
corresponds closely with Wiclif, who is here more
correct than Tyndale and the later versions. " His soul "
(v. 31) falls out, according to the five oldest manuscripts,
Vulgate, etc.—" Now " (v. 33) is also omitted on critical

THE ACTS. 4S
grounds. — In verse 36 the margin is more exact than the
text, but yields no good sense. The last part of the verse
is modified by a change of order in the correct reading,
and by the effort to preserve the emphasis of the original.
— In verse 38, ye is inserted, because "repent" is plural,
while " be baptized " is singular. The true emphasis is
restored in verse 39, and call unto him is the correct sense
of the Greek verb used. — In verse 41 " gladly " is omitted
and in inserted on critical grounds. — In verse 42 the
margin is more exact, while the article points to definite
religious services. — The second margin in verse 43 pre
sents a reading which Tischendorf adopted after the dis
covery of the Sinaitic manuscript. It has other support,
so that it deserves this recognition. — The emendations in
verse 46 give the vivacious tone of the original. — In
verse 47 those that were being saved preserves the present
tense of the Greek, but suggests a process. The tense
may point to the continuous additions, rather than to the
process in the case of each. Hence the American Com
pany read : those that were saved, putting the other ren
dering in the margin. "To the church" falls out on
critical grounds, and" together," which is placed in
chapter 3 : 1, according to the usual division, is joined
with this verse and paraphrased to them. Here again
Wyclif and the Rhemish are more correct than the
Protestant versions.
Chapter III. Were going (v. 11) gives the force of the
Greek imperfect. In versa 8, the same tense is indicated
by began to walk, a great improvement, as any reader can
see. — Took knowledge (v. 10) is a biblical expression for
" recognize," which is the sense of the Greek. — This man
(v. 12) gives the more probable meaning of the passage,
but the other view is properly retained in the margin. —

44 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
In verse 13, the word Servant is substituted for "Son,"
with a full margin. Here the Revisers could only state
the facts respecting the word, and indicate their prefer
ence. To retain " Son" would be to encourage a wrong
use of the passage. — The Holy and Righteous One is an
obvious improvement. — By (margin, on the ground of)
is substituted for "through," to indicate the peculiar
phrase of the original ; through being placed in the next
clause. — In verse 18 a change of order in the Greek text
gives the forcible phrase his Christ. — Turn again is sub
stituted for " be converted " (v. 19) ; a change that will
be obj ected to. But the Revisers have uniformly made it ;
the word having no suggestion of " conversion " in the
theological sense. (Tyndale and Genevan: "turn.") —
So there may come seasons, etc., fairly presents the sense of
the original, which is that of purpose, not of time. — In
the remaining verses (20-26) there are ten slight changes
on textual grounds, and as many more in the interest of
verbal exactness and uniformity.
Chapter IV. In verses 5, 6, a change of construction
in the correct text is indicated. — The indefinite articles
in verse 9 reproduce the rhetorical force o£ the original.
—The restoration of " in " • throughout Peter's speech
adds to its strength, while verse 12 may be read with
delight in the clearer, more forcible, dress here given it.
In verse 25 there is a perplexing question respecting
the text, but the rendering of the Revisers is based upon the
authority of the earliest uncials, the best cursives, and
sustained by modern critical editors. — The words in this
oity are inserted in verse 27, in accordance with the five
oldest MSS., and most versions. In both these instan
ces Wiclif and the Rhemish follow the correct read
ings, the Great Bible (Cranmer) having them in the

THE ACTS. 45
margin. — The word for, at the beginning of verse 34, is
inserted, not from a change of text, but because it was
overlooked in all the Protestant English versions.
Chapter V. In verse 6 no one can object to the sub
stitution of wrapped him round for "wound him up." —
In verse 10 immediately is preferable to " straightway,"
another word being always represented by the latter in
this version. — Verse 15 now shows that it was Peter that
passed by, not his shadow. — The omission of " unto "
(v. 16) in the correct text modifies the sense slightly. —
In verse 17 jealousy is properly substituted for "indigna
tion" (A. V. marg., "envy," so Wiclif).— <[n verse 20
the Revisers have ventured to print " Life" with a capi
tal letter as in the case of Name (v. 41), and Way, chap.
9 : 2, etc.) — The change in verse 29 : we must obey, etc.,
will displease many, but it unquestionably represents bet
ter the meaning of Peter. The textual changes in verse
32 and the marginal notes will bear study. — Were minded
(v. 33) is a great improvement; "took counsel" is mis
leading. Here Wiclif is more correct than all the suc
ceeding translators. — In the speech of Gamaliel the cor
respondence (vs. 38, 39) of overthrown and overthrow is
restored, while the last clause of the chapter is made to
say what Luke meant : that they preached Jesus [as the
Christ. Chapter VI. In verse 1 the term Grecian Jews (with
the marginal Hellenists) will explain, in part, at least, the
sense of the Greek word. Most readers are not aware
that " Grecians " refers to Greek-speaking Jews, not
to proselytes or Gentiles. The same change is made in
chapter 9 : 29, but in chapter 11 : 20, the correct read
ing is probably Greeks ; the other reading destroys the

46 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
pertinence of the passage. The other emendations- are
mainly of slight importance.
Chapter VII. The Old Testament names in the speech
of Stephen are given in the Old Testament form ; the
changes as a rule, though necessary for the sake of
accuracy, do not require special explanation.
Chapter VIII. In this chapter the advantage of an
arrangement by paragraphs will be apparent. The
account of the meeting of Philip and the eunuch gains
in beauty from the more exact renderings presented by
the Revisers, but discussion will doubtless arise in regard
to verse 37, which is omitted from the text, and inserted
in the margin, with this preface : " Some ancient author
ities insert, wholly or in part, verse 37." This seems to be
a fair statement of the facts. The four oldest manuscripts
omit the verse, as do other authorities; those which insert it
vary somewhat, yet are of sufficient importance to justify
the retention in the margin of so considerable a passage.
That the omission can affect any doctrinal position is
inconceivable. The confession of the eunuch, it can b»
abundantly proven from other passages, must necessarily
have been substantially as recorded in the disputed reading.
But that is only another reason for regarding it with
suspicion, in a critical point of view. What is true is
not necessarily genuine.
Chapter IX. There are two important changes in this
chapter, in addition to the many slight emendations
called for by the general principles already illustrated.
The first of these is the omission of the well-known
passage in verses 5, 6, from "it is hard for thee," etc.,
to "and the Lord said unto him." The critical question
is easily settled. No Greek manuscript suppcr+s the
passage ; the first appearance of it in Greek is in the

THju ACTS. 47
editions of Erasmus. He took it from the Vulgate, into
which it came from the parallel accounts of chapters 26 :
14 ; 22 : 10. But early copies of the Vulgate also omit it.
So plain a case is this, that it would have been dishonest
to have noticed it in the margin. — In verse 31, church is
substituted for " churches," and the verbs changed to the
singular throughout. This emendation is sustained by
the reading of the four oldest manuscripts, as well as by
a multitude of minor authorities. It will prove trouble
some to those who insist that local churches alone are
recognized in the New Testament. Attention should be
called to the many minor improvements in the rendering
of the paragraph, verses 23-25, respecting the escape of
Saul from Damascus. Here the Rhemish is better than
the other versions.
Chapter X. There are here a number of interesting
corrections due to more exact knowledge of the Greek
text, probably an unusual proportion of improved render
ings of Greek verbs and participles. The somewhat
difficult passage in verse 30 has been but slightly altered,
but in a way to give more exactly its sense, while the
speech of Peter (vs. 34-43) is made to correspond more
exactly with- the original form. — In verse 47, the reten
tion of the article in English preserves the emphasis and
suggestiveness of the Greek : " Can any man forbid the
water?" Chapter XI. In verse 1 the position of " also " has
been changed. The Authorized Version is very faulty in
this respect, but the Rhemish is more exact ; compare
the same word in verse 18.
In verse 4, began, and expounded is more correct than
"' rehearsed from the beginning," etc. Here Tyndale and
the G enevan were right, the Authorized Version following

48 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
the mistake of the Great Bible. These small matters are
mentioned as illustrations of large classes of changes. —
The account given by Peter (vs. 5-17) should be carefully
compared with the preceding ones, in order to notice the
minor variations of the Greek, and also the unnecessary
variations of the Authorized Version. — In verse 20 the
reading Greeks is better supported. The earlier versions
so render, but as they fail to discriminate elsewhere
between Greeks and Grecians, it is probable that their
correctness here is due to ignorance. — The preaching to
Greeks marks an epoch. — The margin in verse 23 represents
a Greek reading, which is found in the Vatican manu
script and followed in the Vulgate. The judgment of
many will be against the prominence thus given to it.
Chapter XII. In verse 4 the Passover is properly
substituted for " Easter," this being the only instance of
the latter rendering found in the Authorized Version. —
Cell (v. 7) is one of the few new words introduced by the
Revisers ; the Greek word occurs only here in the New
Testament, and the emendation undoubtedly gives the
correct sense in this connection. — Awoke in the same
verse avoids the seeming discrepancy of "raised him
up" with what follows. — In verse 20, fed from is certainly
more suggestive of the correct sense than " nourished
by."— The marginal reading (v. 25) is well attested,
but other variations and internal considerations seem
decisive in favor of the usual reading. In the same
verse, ministration is substituted for " ministry," to prevent
the reader from referring it to preaching rather than to
the "relief" spoken of in chapter 11: 29, where the
same word occurs (see the margin there).
Chapter XIII. The change in verse 4, from " departed "
to went down, is one of a large class occurring in this

THE ACTS. 49
hook. Luke is remarkably accurate in the terms he
applies to movements in traveling, whether by land or
by sea; here the journey was down to the seaport of
Antioch. — In verse 8, attendant is much preferable to
" minister," which suggests an incorrect idea to the ordi
nary reader. — Proconsul (v. 7) is in accordance with the
general rule of reproducing official titles. In this case
an interesting question of historical accuracy is involved
in Luke's use of the term, which has, as usual, been set
tled in favor of the sacred writer. — A man of understand
ing, in the same verse, is another change, called for by
the misleading term used in the Authorized Version. —
The marginal rendering in verse 11 is the more literal,
but to bring out its exact force would require a para
phrase. — In verse 16, hearken correctly represents what
t.ie Apostle said. Such an orator as he would not have used
so circumlocutory and stilted aphrase as " give audience."
— The reading of the margin, in verse 18, is preferred by
the American company (as stated in the Appendix).
The difference in Greek is that of a single letter only,
not of a long phrase, as the two paraphrases might indi
cate. It will thus appear how much sometimes depends
on literal accuracy. The two oldest manuscripts favor
the common text, but the other authorities (manuscripts,
versions) and critical editors are divided: Tischendorf
adopts the reading preferred by the American company,
against his favorite Sinaitic manuscript, while Tregelles
is on the other side. It would require too much space to
state all the reasons for the preference of the Bible
House company. — In the 19th verse the reading of all
our older manuscripts gives the sense : he gave them their
land for an inheritance, while the authority for the trans
position at the beginning of verse 20 is also very strong.

50 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
—The ungrammatical form (v. 25) "Whom think ye
that I am?" disappears, but in this case a change of
text renders what the proper sense. — Us takes the place
of "you" (v. 26) on critical grounds, and there is an
interesting change of text in verse 42.
Chapter XIV. In verse 10 a change of tense in the
correct text gives the more vivid description : And he
leaped up and walked. — The marginal notes to verse 12
are in accordance with the general principle adopted by
the Revisers in regard to the names of the Greek deities.
— In verse 13 the word temple is properly supplied, the
sense being undoubtedly as thus indicated. The awk
ward form of verse 18 in the Authorized Version is
removed. — In verse 21, made many disciples brings out
the true sense, since*" taught " does not show that they
were successful in their efforts. — In verse 23, instead of
" ordained them elders," the Revised Version reads
appointed for them elders. Perhaps elected would be
nearer the sense, since the word used means to extend
the hand, then to choose by a show of hands. All the
Protestant versions before 1611 render ordained by elec
tion. There is no reference to laying on of hands, and
the verse has been improperly used in discussions about
church polity.
Chapter XV. In this chapter (v. 2) we find one of the
rare cases where a phrase in italics has been introduced
by the Revisers, but the brethren, exactly expresses what
the original implies. In the same verse and verse 7
questioning is given to indicate a less harsh discussion
than is done by " disputation " and " disputing." — The
marginal rendering in verse 7 seems preferable to the
text. — Distinctionis clearer than " difference " (v. 9), and
1he ambiguity (or mistake) of verse 10 is removed by the

THE ACTS. 51
full form ; that ye should put a yoke, etc. Pharisaism, not
God, puts this yoke on men in the Christian dispensation.
— Symeon (v. 14) is the form of Peter's original name,
which several times occurs ; and first is more exact than
" at the first." — The last clause of verse 17 and verse 18
appear in the revision as one clause. The evidence in
favor of the briefer reading is conclusive, but the two
companies differ as to the exact sense. In the Appendix
the American Revisers add the margin : Who doeth these
things which were known of old. The main point of dif
ference is respecting the former half of the rendering,
and the writer feels that the Appendix is more correct.
The reasons for this preference cannot be indicated
here. — In verse 23 the Appendix contributes not a mar
ginal rendering, but one decidedly preferable. The
Authorized Version makes three classes ; but a change of
reading forbids this view. The objections to the render
ing accepted by the English Revisers is not only its
unusual form, but the. fact that "apostles and elders"
have been already named three times in the chapter, and
would probably be referred to here. The account of the
contention between Paul and Barnabas (vs. 36-41) is
much improved in exactness.
Chapter XVT. The English name Timothy (v. 1) is
given throughout instead of " Timotheus." — In verse 7
we have the remarkable reading : the Spirit of Jesus,
which is sustained by the earliest manuscripts and ver
sions. — The description of Philippi (v. 12) is made more
accurate, as also the occurrence in verse 13. — The account
of the conversion of the Philippian jailer has not been
altered very much, but the minute changes are all in the
interest of accuracy.
Chapter XVII. In verse 4 were persuaded is the true

52 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
sense, instead of " believed," while certain vile fellows of
ihe rabble properly displaces the free rendering : " certain
lewd fellows of the baser sort," which is peculiar to the
version of 1611.— The marginal note to verse 6 indicates
that the reference is to the known world of men, not to
the earth itself.—" And searched the scriptures " (v. 11) is
altered for two reasons; first to distinguish examine from
"search" (John v. 39), and then to show by the use of
the participle that this clause is explanatory. — The mis
leading phrase, " as it were to the sea " (v. 14), is cor
rected into as jar as the sea. — The speech of Paul on the
Areopagus is emended in many ways, mainly in accord
ance with the obvious requirements of the corrected text
and of Greek grammar. — But the word " superstitious " is
retained in verse 22, suggesting a rebuke which the origi
nal does not contain. The Appendix suggests as prefer
able very religious, which does not imply too much. On
this point it would be well to consult the commentaries.
Chapter XVIII. There is a slight change of text in
verse 3, indicated by the form they wrought, and a more
important one in verse 5, giving the rendering: con
strained by the word. Titus Justus (v. 7) is the well-sup
ported form retained in the Vulgate. Wiclif renders
thus : " a just man, Tite by name." The briefer reading
accepted in verse 21 is found in the earliest manuscripts
and versions, the longer form having probably arisen from
the influence of similar passages. The description of
Apollos is modified, but in only one point materially. If
any prefer the margin, they have good authority to sus
tain them. The correct reading in verse 25, concerning
Jesus, is much more appropriate ; the received text is
very poorly supported.
Chapter XIX. The account of Paul's interview with

THE ACTS. 53
the imperfectly instructed disciples at Ephesus (v. 1-7)
is emended in some important particulars. The render
ing : whether the Holy Ghost was given, adopted in the
text, is now accepted by the best commentators, and the
English reader will be saved much perplexity by its
appearance in the Revision. — In verse 15 the Revisers
had indicated in the margin that " know " stands for
two different Greek words. It might perhaps have been
better to render : Jesus I know, and with Paul I am
acquainted. — The marginal note to verse 19 suggests more
correctly the sense of the passage. The account of the
uproar at Ephesus is made more intelligible by minor
emendations which give the local and historical coloring
to the English forms.
Chapter XX. This chapter presents many interesting
changes. In the narrative of Paul's travels there is a
marked improvement in accuracy. — Verse 15, which in
the Authorized Version has ~ the next day " three times,
is altered to show that Luke felicitously used three differ-r
ent terms to indicate this idea. — In verse 16 the mislead
ing phrase, " sail by Ephesus," is changed to sail past
Ephesus. — The margin to verse 17 (presbyters) is necessary
that the English readers may know who the bishops are
addressed in verse 28, where, however, the Revisers have
placed " overseers " in the margin. On the whole this
controversial point has been settled in a way to present
fairly the facts. — The speech of Paul (vs. 18-35) gains in
beauty from the emendations, and in several cases much
light is shed upon the meaning. The difficult question
respecting the reading in verse 28 has not been settled by
the Revisers. The English company read in the text,
" God," adding the Lord in the margin, while the Ameri
can company prefer to have the latter in the text and

54 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
the former in the margin. Professor Abbot, of Harvard,
has very ably and fully defended this preference, but the
details cannot be presented here. In any case both read
ings should appear, as every biblical student must admit.
There will doubtless be extended controversy in regard
to the critical question.
Chapter XXI. In the early part of this chapter we
have a fine specimen of the Revisers' work in emending
the account of Paul's journeyings. Here, as elsewhere,
there is a gain in exactness and force by the use of Eng
lish participles and by the alteration of the punctuation;
thus the emphasis is made to rest on the terms to which
the writer himself intended to give prominence. In
verse 15 the awkward phrase, " took up our carriages," is
displaced by took up our baggage, with made ready in the
margin; the latter being, many think, the more probable
sense. It will be impossible to notice the improved form
of the account of the uproar at Jerusalem which led to
the arrest of Paul, but the reader's attention should be
especially directed to verses 37, 38.
Chapter XXII. Here the changes are comparatively
few, but much comment will be excited by the correc
tions in verse 28 : With a great sum obtained I this citizen
ship. And Paul said, But lam a Roman born.
Chapter XXIII. The account of the hearing before
the Sanhedrin is not materially changed, but the minor
variations in the latter part of the chapter, particularly
in the letter of Claudius Lysias are of interest.
Chapter XXIV. From the speech of Tertullus the
earliest manuscripts, together with some early copies
of the Vulgate, omit the passage which the Revisers
place in the margin (vs. 6-8). While the probability
is very strong against the genuineness, the authority is

THE ACTS. 55
sufficient, especially in view of the length of the passage,
to justify the marginal note. — In Paul's defense (vs. 10-21 )
the word sect is substituted for " heresy," the latter being
retained in the margin. This change was required to
preserve the allusion to the words of Tertullus (v. 5),
and also to prevent the misuse made of- the verse so fre
quently. Many would prefer to omit the margin here, or
to add it in verse 5. It is interesting to notice that only
Wiclif and the Rhemish have "sect" in both places,
all the other versions varying. — In verse 10 the phrase
make my defense is the proper translation of the technical
Greek term, and the Revisers have uniformly adopted
this rendering or its equivalent. — The broken yet elo
quent utterance of Paul, as given in verses 18, 19, is
reproduced as closely as possible by the Revisers, greatly
to the gain of the English reader. The latter part of the
chapter is considerably modified, and to the word " tem
perance" the Revisers add, here as everywhere, the mar
ginal rendering self-control; an addition which may
prove fruitful, ultimately, of thought, but for the pres
ent rather of talk. — The change from " Felix trem
bled" to Felix was terrified is altogether defensible, but
will doubtless be stroutly attacked by those who find body
trembling a more striking result of faithful preaching
than mental terror^ Here again the Rhemish is most
correct. Chapter XXV. This chapter, although emended in as
many points as the rest of the book, presents few changes
that deserve special mention. But a minute examina
tion will show that all that have been made are in
accordance with the principles accepted by the Revisers.
Even a cursory reading will give evidence that there has
been a gain in intelligibility.

56 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
Chapter XXVI. Few chapters present so many inter
esting changes as this one. The defense of Paul before
Festus and Agrippa is so well known that emendations
here will be readily noticed and much discussed. Among
the many emendations the following deserve special men
tion. — In verse 8, if God doth raise the dead presents the
question as a matter of fact, not of belief. — The substitu
tion of vote for " voice" in verse 10 shows the English
reader that Paul, when a persecutor, occupied an official
position, probably as a member of the Sanhedrin. The
early versions, from Wiclif to the Rhemish, are quite
incorrect here. — In verse 11, the force of the Greek
imperfect is given by the rendering: I strove to make
them blaspheme. All the previous versions imply that
he had succeeded in making them do so. — Verse 14 i.-i
made intelligible by the use of the word goad, while the
margin shows that the Greek word is plural. — In verse
15 the correct text reads Lord; a beautiful rhetorical
repetition. The difficult Greek construction of verse 23
is indicated in the margin, while there is a gain in the
literal rendering: by the resurrection of the dead. The
verse will bear careful study. — In the dialogue between
Festus and Paul (vs. 24, 25), the Revisers preserve the
verbal correspondences of the Greek. Their rendering
closely follows that of the Rhemish, but with this
improvement that thy is inserted before much learning. —
The colloquy with King Agrippa now reads : With but
little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.
And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little or
with much, not thou only, etc. Few alterations will be
more discussed than this. The American company,
moreover, propose marginal renderings : In a little time,
uaA,both in little and in great,th&t is,in all respects. This

THE ACTS. 57
position has already been defended by Calvin, and is
substantially that of DeWette, Neander, and others. It
may be safely affirmed that both companies object to the
reading of the Authorized Version. The point of dif
ference between them is respecting the exact reference of
the phrases in verses 28, 29, which literally mean : in lit
tle — both in little and in great (" much" is the reading of
the less supported text). The Revision, as it stands,
accepts the reference to little and much effort; the Appen
dix suggests the reference to little time (in v. 28), and
then a verbal play in verse 29. The Authorized Version
refers the whole to degree, which is opposed by two
corrections in the Greek text. The mass of sermons
based upon the passage as it has stood since 1557 (in the
Genevan version) will be a heavy weight to overcome ;
but sooner or later the faulty interpretation must give
way. Chapter XXVII. In the account of the voyage and
shipwreck of Paul, the Revisers have found it necessary
to alter at least forty words of a nautical character. It
may be confidently expected that nine-tenths of the intel
ligent readers of the Revision will accept and rejoice in
these emendations. For this reason it is not necessary
to enter into any detailed explanation on the grounds for
these changes; most of those who have puzzled over the^
misleading language of the Authorized Version have
doubtless consulted commentaries for relief. It is to be
hoped that the straightforward exact narrative of this
eye-witness will now be intelligible without a constant
reference to s"bme bulky volume. Nowhere does Luke
write more graphically, and the effort has simply been to
do justice to his story. It should be noticed that the
American company object to the addition in the margin

58 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
to verse 37. The various reading is easily accounted for,
and the evidence that gives it a place here would crowd
the margin, if given as much weight in all cases.
Chapter XXVIII. The account of the striking scene
at Malta (vs. 1-6) is rendered more vivid by the form
here given it, while that of the voyage from Malta
to Italy (vs. 11-14) becomes intelligible. The voyagers
no longer " fetch a compass, " and the name of the
ship is given in English in the text, and in Greek in the
margin. So too " Appii Forum " becomes The Market of
Appius. It need not be concealed that the questions
respecting such names were perplexing ones. In the
remainder of the chapter occur two important omissions
on critical grounds ; but in each case the authorities for
the longer reading were sufficient to justify its retention
in the margin. The briefer reading in verse 16 is found
in the three oldest manuscripts, in some of the oldestver-
sions. Verse 29 is not found in the four oldest manu
scripts ; the Vulgate now has it, but not the oldest copies
of that version.
In closing this brief review the writer regrets his inabil
ity to call attention to all the emendations made. But the
hope is that as years have been spent in making them,
very many readers will devote years to the study of them.
#In the case of this particular book, it would be wise to
read it through in the Revised Version at one sitting, so
as to get a better impression of it as a whole, then to go
over some favorite passages, comparing them word for
word with the Authorized Version, and, if possible, with
the correct Greek text.
Theological Seminary, Hartford, Connecticut.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES IN THE NEW
REVISION.
BY PBOFESSOE TIMOTHY DWIGHT, D.D.
It was said as long ago as the time of the author of the
Second Epistle of Peter, that St. Paul wrote, in his
letters, many things which are hard to be understood.
To multitudes of readers of the translation of these
letters in the English Version of 1611, it has, doubtless,
oftentimes appeared, that the difficulty of understanding
had only been made greater by the transferrence of the
apostle's thought from the original language to our own.
Perhaps no portion of the New Testament has confess
edly needed the work of careful revision more than this
one, and none surely depends more, for its true influence on
Christian thinking and life, upon its accurate presentation
to the reader's mind. The Revisers, who have been
recently engaged in the work of correcting and improv
ing the old version, have endeavored to fulfill their duty,
here as elsewhere, with all faithfulness. The object of
the present brief article will be to set forth some of the
changes which have been introduced in the translation of
the Pauline Epistles, and to give the reasons for them.
It will be impossible, of course, within the limits allowed
us, to do more than cite a few illustrative examples. But
59

60 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
these we may give under three or four separate divis
ions. 1. In the first place, we call attention to some changes
which are founded upon the Greek text. It is known to
most intelligent readers of the New Testament, that a
very large amount of evidence has now been brought to
light with regard to the true text of the apostolic
writings, as compared with what the translators of 1611
had before them ; we are therefore far better qualified
than they were to determine the very words which the
sacred authors wrote. It is partly because of this fact,
indeed, that the present time has seemed so suitable for
undertaking the great work of revision. In the Pauline
writings, as well as in other parts of the New Testament,
we have this additional knowledge, and find its great
importance as helping us in our work. The results of
textual criticism, however, have not proved, as some have
feared that they would, a source of danger to Christian
faith or doctrine. They have only made us more sure
that the faith, as we have held it, rests upon the apostles
and the Lord; and they have given us, oftentimes, the
thoughts which the apostles left behind them, as the
inheritance for the church, in a richer and more impres
sive form.
The most important textual change in the Pauline
Epistles, which characterizes the Revision as contrasted
with the old version, is found in 1 Timothy 3 : 16. Here
the earlier translation reads " God was manifest in the
flesh, justified in the spirit ; " the later one " He who
was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit." This
alteration may seem, indeed, to contradict what has just
been said concerning the influence of the revised text
upon doctrine. The passage, as given in the translation

THE PA ULINE EPISTLES. 61
of 1611, contains what is equivalent to a declaration that
Jesus Christ is God, while in the other form it does not
set forth this statement. But it is to be noticed that,
while the new translation, following the altered text,
does not formally state the divinity of Christ, it by no
means, on the other hand, says anything inconsistent
with it. This doctrine, like other Christian doctrines, is
not dependent on any single verse. The change of a
word here, or a word there, will not vitally affect it. It
is found in many places, and is interwoven with the en
tire apostolic teaching. The verse before us represents,
with the corrected text, the mystery of godliness as being
that One who was manifested in the flesh. He is the dis
closing of the mystery, the embodiment, as it were, of the
mystery of the life of God in man. But He who was thus
manifested is declared by the Apostle, elsewhere, to be
equal with God, and to be possessed of divine attributes, —
to have, indeed, the fullness of Deity dwelling in him.
When setting forth in this passage simply the fact that
He is the mystery, it is not necessary for Paul to
add, what, in other lines of thought, he is ready to pro
claim as his belief and knowledge; namely, that the
one who is thus the mystery is also divine. The change
-referred to, accordingly, does not in reality affect the doc
trine, which stands strong as before. The evidence with
respect to the Greek text of- this verse — the difference
between the old reading and the new being only in the
words wlio and God, which have much greater similarity
of form in the early manuscripts, than they have in our
English language — is such, at the present time, that
there can be little doubt that the Revisers have adopted
the true text.
As illustrations of changes introduced into the trans-

62 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY. '
lation which are founded npon an altered text, many
passages might be cited in which there has been much
gain in rhetorical emphasis, or even in the clearness and
impressiveness of the sense. We may refer here to
2 Corinthians 1 : 20. This verse in the Authorized Version
reads, " For all the promises of God in him are yea, and
in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." But in the
revision we have, "For how many soever be the prom
ises of God, in him is the yea : wherefore also through
him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us."
The fullness of the apostle's thought is brought out far
more richly in this latter form. The confirmation of the
divine promises, how many soever they are, is in Christ
and his appearance in the world ; for which reason it is
that the assent and belief of the Christian souls are given
to these promises, through Christ, by means of the preach
ing of the apostle and his associates m the great work.
We may refer, again, to Galatians 5 : 1, where, after set
ting forth the freedom from the bondage of the law,
which belongs to the sons of God who have entered into
this relationship through faith, the apostle says " With
freedom" (or, better, as in the American Appendix,
"For freedom") "did Christ set us free. Stand fast,
therefore, and be not entangled again in the yoke of.
bondage." The reader who follows this rendering, as
demanded by the text, will at once feel how forcible is
the appeal of the writer as he closes his argument, and
how much the old text and translation lose, when they
have the words, "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entan
gled again with the yoke of bondage." The true thought
here is that, as the very object for which Christ delivered
us at our conversion was that we might be free, we should

THE PA ULINE- EPISTLES. 63
stand firmly in that freedom. In Colossians 2: 2, we
find the expression answering more completely to the
preceding context, if, instead of reading with the old
version, " the mystery of God, and of the Father, and
of Christ," we adopt the text which the Revisers give us,
and translate, "the mystery of God, even Christ." The
text followed in 1611 is, beyond doubt, an enlargement
upon the original words, made by copyists who found a
difficulty in the earliest reading, or attempted to explain
it. The argument of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 15 :
44, is better filled out by the revised text, " If there is a
natural body, there is also a spiritual Jbody," than it is
by the old reading, "There is a natural body and there
is a spiritual body." And in the fifty-fifth verse of this
same chapter, though the reader may find the repetition
sounding unpleasantly to his ear at the first reading ;
" O death, where is thy victory ? O death, where is thy
sting ? " we think he will persuade himself that this is
the better form, and also the better order of the clauses,
as he bears in mind the fact that the following sentence
speaks of the sting of death, and of that alone. There
can be little doubt that the reversal of the order of
clauses in 1 Corinthians 3 : 5, which the new revision
gives, is more natural and more emphatic than that of
the former text : " What then is Apollos ? and what is
Paul ? " that is, what are these other teachers, I ask, or,
what am I myself; — nothing but servants in and for
God's work. The new text in Romans 5 : 1, is perhaps
the most difficnlt one for the reader to accept, which
can be found anywhere in St. Paul'.s Epistles. The
American revisers, in this case, have proposed, indeed,
to return to the old reading. There can be no doubt
that the words, " let us have peace with God," correspond

64 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
with the text of the earliest manuscripts. But, as it
seems antecedently improbable that the apostle could
here have used this expression, and as the variation in
the Greek is only in a single letter of the verb, the
American Committee have believed that the original
word was in the present indicative, and that the meaning
is, as in the Auth. Vers., Rom. 1 : 20, "we have." After
concluding his argument to prove that justification is by
faith, the apostle seems here to turn to a brief setting
forth of some of the results in blessing of the doctrine.
First among these, he calls attention to the fact that we
have peace with God.
We might continue these examples at much greater
length, but those already given will be sufficient to show
of what character the textual changes in the Epistles
are, — that, on the one hand, they do not alter the Chris
tian teaching; and, on the other, they often make the
sacred words more rich and impressive to the mind.
2. We now turn to consider some of the changes made
in the revision, the ground for which is not found in any
variation of the Greek text, but in the demands of faith
ful translation. Very prominent among the illustrations
under this head is the remarkable passage, Philippians
2 : 6. It is there said of Christ, according to the version
of 1611, that, " being in the form of God, he thought it not
robbery to be equal with God." This rendering does not
answer satisfactorily to the contrast of the following
verse, and it has long been felt that the verse, -as thus
given, involves much difficulty. The English revisers
have here changed the translation so as to read, " who,
being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on
an equality with God ; " and the American committee
have suggested, instead of the word prize, the words a

THE PA ULINE EPISTLES. 65
• thing to be grasped, and they would render the whole
passage harmoniously with itself, " who, existing in the
form of God, counted not the being on an equality with
God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking
the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of
men." How much more expressive, and more in accord
ance with St. Paul's words, is the translation given in the
revision in 1 Corinthians 13 : 12, " For now we see in a
mirror, darkly," than that of the old version, "through
a glass " ! The truth is seen here on earth only as an im
perfect image reflected in a metallic mirror ; hereafter it
will be known as we know the friend whom we see face
to face. The thought of 2 Corinthians 2 : 14, does not
seem to be what the translators of 1611 understood by
the words. The figure is not that of God as causing the
apostolic preachers to triumph, or move on victoriously
in their Christian work; but of his leading them in
triumph, either as participating friends or as conquered
enemies. God himself is pictured as the victor making
his triumphal procession, and the preachers are led on
as a part of the throng that attend him. The Authorized
Version reads, " causeth us to triumph ; " the Revised
Version has "leadeth us in triumph." Paul's triumphant
expression in view of the approaching termination of
his earthly life (2 Timothy 4 : 7, 8), we think all careful
readers will feel to be felicitously, as well as accurately,
rendered by the Revisers, " I have fought the good faith,
I have finished the course, I have kept the faith : hence
forth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness,
which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at
that day ; and not only to me, but also to all them that
have loved his appearing." The substitution of the
definite for the indefinite article ("the course" for "a

66 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
course," "the crown" for "acrown") is what readers of th«
Greek Testament have often desired to see introduced into
the English translation. The change, also, from loved to
have lovedhrings out the actual thought of the writer. The
crown is to be given hereafter to those who have, here in
this life, loved " his appearing." The apostle' did not
pray that his Ephesian fellow-Christians might be " filled
with all the fullness of God," as the Authorized Version
has the words in Ephesians 3 : 19. He goes even beyond
this, in the largeness of his desires and the exaltation of
his feeling, and as he asks for them the comprehension of
what is beyond their comprehension, — to know the love
of Christ which passeth knowledge, — so he asks, also, that
they may be filled unto all the fullness of God. The word
" conversation," in Philippians 1 : 27, has doubtless misled
many as to the meaning of the passage. The revision
makes it clear by rendering the words, " Only let your
manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ," with a
marginal annotation, which states that the Greek literally
means " behave as citizens worthily." In the opening
verse of the Epistle to the Galatians, the Revisers have
aided the English reader very considerably by changing
the prepositions of the Authorized Version, of men, by
man, and substituting for them from men, through man,
and by adding, in the margin, Or, a man. The verse as
it now reads, " Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither
through man, [a man,] but through Jesus Christ, and
God the Father," may lead to the true understanding of
the thought,— which is, that the apostle derived his office
neither from men, as its original and ultimate source, nor
through the instrumental agency of a man, as its inter
mediate source, but from God through Christ. The fact
which the evidence from the creation proves with regard

THE PA ULINE EPISTLES. 67
to God is not " his eternal power and godhead" (Author
ized Version), but his "everlasting power and divinity,"
as the revision reads. The word here used by St. Paul
is one derived from the adjective divine, not from the
substantive God. It is a word of quality. We cannot
but think that the revision has happily brought out the
meaning of Romans 6 : 17, by inserting the word whereas:
" But thanks he to God, that, whereas ye were servants
of sin, ye became obedient to that form of teaching
whereunto ye were delivered." The rendering of the
old version, "But God be thanked, that ye were the
servants of sin, but," etc, involves, to say the least, a
certain degree of obscurity. In the passage of the eighth
chapter of Romans which commences at the eighteenth
verse, very much has been done to clear away the dark
ness; by substituting creation for creature ; of its own viill
for willingly; in hope that for in hope, because; liberty of the
glory for glorious liberty; and in hope were we saved, as
the American committee propose, for by hope were we
saved. It is the creation which the apostle represents as
waiting for the revelation of the glory of the children of
God. The subjection of the creation to vanity, or the
law of decay, wa3 not of its own, will, but by God's will.
The attendant condition of this subjection is hope that
there will bo a deliverance from the bondage of corrup
tion, or decay, and a participation in the freedom from
decay and death which belongs to the glorified state of the
redeemed. The salvation of the Christian, at the time of
his entrance upon the converted state, is not a salvation
in the full realization of it in experience, but a salvation
in hope. The Revision has most strikingly improved the
rendering of this wonderfully beautiful and comforting
passage.

68 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
But the brief space allowed for our article compels us
to bring these illustrations of the second class to a close,
and to direct the mind of the reader to a few remarks
upon the American Appendix.
3. By an arrangement made by the English and Ameri
can committees, the points of difference between them,
which should be found remaining after all consideration
and comparison of views on both sides, were to be placed
at the end of the volume. In accordance with this pro
vision, a comparatively small number of suggestions are
given to the public by the Revisers on this side of the
ocean, and are commended to their attention. It should
be borne in mind, however, by the reader of the Revision,
that these proposed readings and renderings constitute
hut a small portion of those which have been suggested
by the American Company. The entire volume abounds
in the evidences of their work.
In the Pauline Epistles, the Appendix offers a consid
erable number of- annotations, as it does in other parts
of the New Testament. A few of these may be noticed,
the selections being made not because of any special
importance attaching to them, as compared with others,
hut simply as illustrative of the general character of
these notes. The American Revisers propose to make
a paragraph at Romans 3 : 21, — this being the point
where, after the writer has completed his argument to
prove his proposition, he repeats the proposition as already
proved. It would appear that at such a point, if any
where, a new paragraph should begin. They suggest
that the words natural man of 1 Corinthians 2 : 14 should
have a marginal note, which may serve as an explana
tion to the reader. The Greek word does not mean
natural, but, literally, psychical. The Appendix states this

THE PA ULINE EPISTLES. 69
fact, and attempts to give the meaning of natural by the
alternate rendering in the margin. Or, unspiritual. The
words translated in the text of the volume are being
saved, etc., in 2 Corinthians 2 : 15, and elsewhere, the
American company believe to mean are saved, etc., the
present participle of the Greek not denoting a going
through a process, but having simply the force of a descrip
tive adjective, the saved, the lost. InGalatians 6 : 2, they
have held that write should be substituted for have written,
in the text, the latter expression being transferred to the
margin. The probability seems to be a somewhat strong
one, that the apostle refers here only to the closing para
graph of the Epistle, which he writes with his own hand,
while the remainder of it had been written by his
amanuensis. They suggest that, inasmuch as faith can
scarcely, with propriety, be called "the proving of things
not seen" (Heb. 11 : 1), the text which has these words
should be changed so as to read, " a conviction of things
not seen." They suggest that everywhere "Holy Spirit"
should be read instead of "Holy Ghost," that the word
" Saint" should be omitted from the titles of the Gospels ;
that "demons " should take the place of " devils," as the
rendering of the Greek word daimonia; that which, wot,
hale, should give way for who (where a person is referred
to), know, drag,oi drag away/ and that stedfastness should,
in most cases, he inserted as a marginal alternate for
patience. Whether these and other suggestions which are given
in the Appendix will commend themselves so far as to he
generally accepted, the progress of time will show. We
have included a few examples, in our citations from the
American notes, which do not occur within the limits of
the Epistles of St. Paul. But they will serve the purpose

70 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
of giving the reader a view of what the rfotes are, in their
reference both to particular cases and to classes of pas-

The work which has occasioned this brief and imper
fect review is one which has awakened a very deep inter
est in the minds of all Christians who speak the English
language. The object of our writing at the present time
is to give to our readers an idea of the character of the
work so far as it covers the writings of the great apostle
to the Gentiles. Whatever may help the churches to a
clearer and more perfect understanding of his thoughts
and teachings must have a peculiar value to the religious
mind. We believe that.-the students of the New Testa
ment, in its English form, will regard the new revision
as an improvement upon the translation of 1611, and will
give it a favorable reception and a hearty welcome. We
believe that it will be to multitudes of them a means of
unfolding to their thought more fully the mind of the
Spirit, and of bringing them to a deeper appreciation of
the word of God.
Theological Seminary, New Haven, Connecticut.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS IN THE
NEW EEVISION.
BY PROFESSOR, J. HENRY THAYER, D.D.
Some readers may notice that the title of the Epistle
as given above differs from that which it hears in the
authorized editions of the revision by the omission of the
words, " of Paul the Apostle. " This omission accords
with the preference of the American Revisers (as stated
in their Appendix, "Classes of Passages," II. ), and with
the known opinion of such men among their English
associates as Bishops Lightfoot and Ellicott, Dean Stan
ley and Canon Westcott, Professor Plumptre and Dr.
Moulton, and confessedly represents the judgment of the
best biblical scholarship. Whether the retention of the
statement that attributes it to Paul is quite reasonable
on the part of a body of revisers who have not hesitated
to omit the (no more warranted) assertion at the end
of the Epistle that it was " written to the Hebrews from
Italy by Timothy," the Christian public must judge.
What they say in defense of their action will be found
near the close of their Preface, paragraph (e).
The critical authorities on which the text of the Epistle
rests are substantially the same as in the case of the
Pauline epistles, — except that the Parisian palimpsest
known as Codex Ephraemi or C., written probably about
71

72 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
the middle of the fifth century, exhibits (as often else
where) considerable gaps, and that the Vatican manu
script B, the most accurate and possibly the oldest of all
the extant manuscripts, deserts us in the ninth chapter,
breaking off in the fourteenth verse in the middle of the
word rendered " shall . . . cleanse."
In several passages the variations of text are note
worthy ; in a few the phenomena are peculiar and the
true reading hard to determine. The following may be
mentioned : in 4 : 2 the translations given in the text
and margin of A. V., respectively, have been made —
with slight verbal alterations— to exchange places. That
preferred by the Revisers, namely, " because they were
not united by faith with them that heard" (that is,
obeyed) gives a natural thought, and has vastly prepon
derant external authority in its favor. The chief objec
tion to it is the grave logical one that it distributes by
implication the ancient Israelites into two classes,
believers and non-believers ; whereas 3 : 16 and 4 : 6, 8,
showthat the writerregards them as havingfailed in abody
to enter the promised rest, and so as making up but one
class. Hence many commentators agree with Tischen
dorf in adhering to the nominative (as represented in the
marginal rendering), notwithstanding its scanty external
support. In 10 : 34 the text followed by the Revisers
reads, " had compassion on them that were in bonds "
(compare 13 : 3), instead of "had compassion of me in
my bonds,"— a change of some importance in relation to
the question of authorship, as it removes an apparent
allusion to the imprisonment of the apostle Paul. In
the latter part of the verse the explanatory words " in
heaven" disappear, and there stands in the margin a
translation— " that ye have your own selves for a- better

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 73
possession " — which in the main agrees with a marginal
addition to be found in our current Bibles (but not given
in 1611). This translation many regard as representing
the true thought ; but as it is not the necessary construc
tion of the Greek, and involves, moreover, an idea sug
gestive of the heathen philosopher's promise to give his
pupil back to himself, it might well have been omitted.
The insertion of " my " before " righteous one " in the
thirty-eighth verse, agreeably to that form of the text of
the Septuagint which our author elsewhere follows,
removes the passage somewhat from the use which St.
Paul makes of it in Romans 1 : 17 ; Gal. 3 ': 11. In the
fourth verse of chapter 11 there is a perplexing textual
question : the three oldest manuscripts concur in reading
" he [that is, Abel] hearing witness to God over [or " in
respect of"] his gifts ; " but the use of language is so
violent and the thought so incongruous, that although it
has occasioned the marginal statement that the text is
" somewhat uncertain " it is almost unanimously discarded,
especially as a plausible explanation of its origin is at hand.
Chapter 12 : 3 exhibits in the words " such gainsaying of
sinners against themselves" another peculiar reading,
sustained, like the preceding, by the three oldest manu
scripts containing the passage (one of which, however, is
not the same as before), together with the Peshito Syriac
version and other authorities. But it is hard to submit
to them. True, there are no obvious contextual and
grammatical considerations breaking their force (as in
10 : 34) ; nor is the reading in itself meaningless, as some
have been over-hasty to pronounce it ; nor even unbibli-
cal (compare Prov. 8 : 36 ; 15: 32 ; 20: 2, etc.); and
there is, it must be confessed, a general harmony between
it and that in chapter 10 : 34, which lends a certain

74 THE NE W RE VISION AND ITS STUD Y.
plausibility to both ; nevertheless, it is so incongruous
a description of the enemies of Christ, and so at variance
with the aim of the exhortation, that most readers will,
we feel sure, approve of the decision of the American
Revisers, who follow .(with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and
Tregelles) the inferior authorities, and compel the text
and the margin to exchange places. The change of text
at the beginning of verse 7, after much opposition, may
be regarded as having made good its claims to reception.
The Greek wOrd may be translated either as an exhorta
tion, and the emphasis thrown on " endure," or (perhaps
more naturally) as an assertion, "It is for chastening that
ye endure," — the emphasis falling on " chastening," —
the afflictions that, come upon you are disciplinary, the
strokes of a loving Father, and so tokens of sonship. In
verse 18 we encounter another perplexing critical prob
lem. All the better authorities, both manuscripts and
versions, and, in fact, among the Fathers also, concur in
omitting " a mount; " so that the text literally runs as in
the margin "For ye are not come to a palpable [a word
borrowed from the Rhemish translation]- and kindled fire."
The opposite idea of " darkness . . . even darkness
which may be felt" occurs in Exodus 10:21 (compare
Job 12: 25 in the Septuagint). But the unsatisfactoriness
of any literal rendering, together with the antithesis
" Mount Zion '' in verse 22, have led the Revisers to
revert to the bold expedient of inserting " a mount " in
italics. Before leaving this matter of the text, it may not be
out of place to call attention to a. singular error in the
current version which illustrates somewhat the origin of
one class of various readings in the manuscripts. In
chapter 10 : 23 the A. V. runs " Let us hold fast the pro-

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 75
fession of our faith," etc. Now the word " faith " here
is found at the most in only "a single manuscript"
(Scrivener) so obscure as not to be even noted in the
apparatus of any critical edition. Apparently all (other)
authorities, as well as all earlier English translators, have
the correct word "hope" — the reading of A. V. being
doubtless due merely to a slip of the eye (or the mind)
of the compositor, occasioned by the words " he is faith
ful that promised " with which the verse closes.
But the great mass of the changes exhibited in the new
reyision have been made either to remove obscurities and
archaisms in the language, or to embody in the transla
tion the best results of modern exegetical study.
To the former class belong such changes as the substi
tution of "Joshua" for "Jesus" in 4 : 8, where several
of the preceding translators, from Tyndale down, had
given the correct form of the name ; the same unfortu
nate misnomer was again employed, as is well known,
by King James's translators in Acts 7 : 45. The an
tiquated "quick" in 4: 12 has given way to "living,"
and is introduced again in the same verse in its modern
sense. In 6 : 17. the A. V. "willing," which a reader of
the present day might take in the sense of "consenting,"
is supplanted by "being minded," that is, "purposing."
In 7 : 3 the term " descent," which might easily be un
derstood as equivalent to " descendants," but which in
fact is merely a repetition, for substance, of the preceding
"without father, without mother," gives place to the
word " genealogy " (a word as old as Wiclif ), the former
margin " pedigree " having begun to gather about itself
inappropriate suggestions. The " strong meat " of 5 : 12,
14, is superseded by "solid food ; " the "proper child" of
11 : 23 has become a " goodly child ; " and in 13 : 7 " the

76 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
end of their conversation " has been changed into the
intelligible " the issue of their life." The removal of
some other archaisms most readers would gladly have
acquiesced in, — such as (10 : 2) "no more conscience
[that is, consciousness] of sins ; " (6 : 12) "through faith
and patience [that is, patient endurance; compare
" patiently endured," verse 15] inherit the promises ; "
(10 : 36) "ye have need of patience" [that is, stedfastness
or constancy (see Appendix, Class XL)] ; (12 : 1) "let
us run with patience the race," etc. ; and some surprise
will be felt at finding our narrow term "honesty"
(which formerly answered to the Latin honeste) retained
in 13 : 18 (see the Appendix), although the correspond
ing adjective, as the rendering of the cognate Greek
word has been changed by the Revisers in four instances
(Rom. 12 : 17 ; 2 Cor. 8 : 21 ; 17 : 7 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 12) ;
and also the obsolescent phrase " evil entreated " (for
which " ill-treated," or even the comparatively modern
term, maltreated, would have been more tolerable) intro
duced into the Epistle three times (11 : 25, 37; 13 : 3).
And while upon the topic of the vocabulary, notice
may be taken of the uniform substitution of " confession "
for " profession," of which three, instances occur in our
Epistle, namely, 3:1; 4 : 14 ; 10 : 23. This change is
not only in conformity with the earlier meaning and
nobler historic associations of "confession" (note the
phrase "confessors and martyrs "), as well as its use by
A. V. in the palmary instance 1 Timothy 6 : 13 (a use
strangely departed from in that immediate context,
v. 12), but leaves " profession " and its kindred verb free
to denote the making of a public and voluntary, often a
gratuitous or even hollow, show of opinion (compare
1 Tim. 2 : 10; 6 : 21 ; Rom. 1 : 22; Titus 1 : 16).

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 77
At least one word occurs in the Epistle which hitherto
has not been found in our English Bible, namely,
"enacted," chapter 8: 6, "a better covenant, which
hath been enacted [A. V. was established] upon better
promises. "
The remaining class of changes, namely, those relating
more immediately to interpretation, will be most con
veniently noted (so far as our limits permit) hy follow
ing in the main the order of chapter and verse.
Chapter 1, v. 1. " God, having . . . spoken," etc., —
the change indicates the preliminary character of the
former utterances; "by divers portions" — the fragmen
tary nature of the old-time revelation is thus brought out.
— Verses 1, 2, "in the prophets in his Son" discloses
to lis the author's exalted conception of inspiration. —
Verse 3, " being the effulgence of his glory, and the very
image of his substanoe " will strike many readers as
rather an alteration than an improvement. But it is
necessary in order truthfully to represent the philosophic
cast of the author's phraselogy, and, in fact, to guide the
student correctly < to his doctrinal conception, — to say
nothing of the misleading character of the A. V. " per
son " as that word is now understood. — Verse 7, " winds "
a change which not only reveals the pertinence of our
author's argumentative use of the quotation, hut har
monizes with the parallel term " a flame of fire," and
with the whole context of the Psalm from which the pas
sage is taken. The only wonder is that the Revisers
have allowed the misleading " spirits " to remain in the
margin. — Verse 8, " of the Son " indicates a change in
the writer's language from the form of direct address,
employed at the opening of verse 5, to that of indirect
discourse; so again in verse 13 (compare chap. 11 : 18).

78 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
—Verse 14. The change here, though slight, is signifi
cant. The A. V. seems to teach that angels are directly
ministering to men ; accordingly, it is often (wrongly)
quoted "sent forth to minister unto them who shall be
heirs of salvation." But the revision brings out clearly
the biblical thought that, while indirectly benefiting
men, they are in their ministrations serving God.
Chapter 2, v. 1. The A. V. by the words " lest at any
time we should let them slip," starts the idea that Chris
tian truths have naturally an elusive power, and tend to
escape from the grasp ; whereas the biblical figure repre
sents the hearer as swept along by a current, and so,
without vigilance, " drifting away " from the salvation
which he has been taught how to obtain. — Verse 2,
" through [for A. V. " by "] angels" exhibits clearly the
secondary or mediate character of the angelic agency at
the giving of the law (compare Gal. 3 : 19 ; Acts 7 : 53). —
Verse 4. The revision represents God not with A. V.
as " bearing witness to them," but as " bearing joint wit
ness with them to the salvation" which the Lord was the
first to preach. — Verse 9. The words "because of the
suffering of death " the revision connects, not as the A. V.
does with " made a little lower than the angels," but
with the following words, "crowned with glory and
honour ; " Christ's exaltation is thus represented as the
reward of his voluntary humiliation. — Verse 16. The
translation of the Revisers (which is substantially that
of the A. V. margin), although suggesting the true mean
ing, is rendered more explicit in the Appendix : " For
verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth
help to," etc.
Chapter 3, v. 9. By abandoning the needless use of
" this man " in reference to our Lord here, and in 7 : 24 •

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 79
8 : 3, pains have been taken to avoid embarrassing a
reader's doctrinal thoughts. — Verse 6. Here the A. V.,
following the Geneva translation and the Rhemish, sadly
balks the comparison by thrusting in the word " own : "
" Christ as a son over his own house." The house, as
the justifiable marginal note informs us, remains one and
the same throughout the passage, namely, God's house ;
only thus does the contrast between " a servant . . . in "
and " a son . . . over " get its legitimate force. To be a
servant in a palace would be a more exalted station
than to be " over one's own house •" if that house were
a hovel. — Verse 9. The change of the first word " When "
to " Wherewith " will strike the ordinary reader as unin
telligible and the scholar as doubtful ; see Appendix.
The other alteration " by proving me " is due to a change
in the Greek text. — Verse 16. A slight change of Greek
accentuation (which is a matter on which the most
ancient manuscripts throw no light) transforms this verse
(A. V. " For some . . . did provoke : howbeit not all,"
etc. Revision, " For who . . . did provoke? nay, did not
all," etc. ) from a declaration, at variance with the fol
lowing verse (see the argument also in the opening verses
of the next chapter), into a question which harmonizes
with the context, alike in thought and in form.
Chapter 4, v. 1. The transposition of " therefore " —
" Let us fear, therefore " — relieves the word "us " of the
possibility of an incorrect emphasis. The dissonance
of pronouns between the first part of the verse and the
last ("us . . . you") is due to our author's kindly
way of associating himself with his readers when exhort
ing them, — a characteristic illustrated again in 6 : 1 et seq.
10 : 24 et seq.; 12 : 1 et seq. — Verse 2. The translation in
A. V. " unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto

80 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
them " well illustrates the confusion which can be occa
sioned by an unwarrantable use of the definite article.
Often as our writer assumes a substantial accord to exist
between the former dispensation and the present, he
nowhere perplexes his readers by calling the promises
made to ancient Israel "thegospel." (Comp.v. 6.) — Verse
3. Here and in verse 5 the A. V. conceals the thought
by the servile reproduction (after the Greek) of the
Hebrew method of making an impassioned denial : " If
they shall enter into my rest" ("-may I perish," or some
such ellipsis, being supplied to complete the sentence).
In 3 : 11, where the construction in the original is the
same, the translators of 1611 wisely deserted the Genevan
and Rhemish versions and followed the earlier : " They
shall not enter," etc. Our English Bible often imitates
Hebrew idioms. In this way it has made familiar and
intelligible many expressions which to the genius of the
English language are strange, or of doubtful meaning ;
for instance, "blessing I will bless thee," etc. (6: 14).
This process the Revisers have occasionally ventured to
carry still farther, as in " the footstool of thy feet (1 :
13 ; 10 : 13 ) ; but it is not to be tolerated when it darkens
the sense. — Verse 14, "passed into the heavens" is cor
rectly translated " passed through the heavens " (that is,
into the holy of holies ; on the thought, see 6 : 19, 20 ; 7 :
26; 9: 24).
Chapter 5, v. 7. The change of the A. V. " in that he
feared " to " for his godly fear " may seem at first to be
one of form merely, and so hardly worth making. But
the " in that " of the A. V. was not intended here in the
sense of "because of," (as the margin of 1611 "for his
piety " shows), but was shortened from the Genevan " iu
that which." The passage is a difficult one in view of

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 81
the historic facts of the case, even if we adopt the
Revisers' margin and understand the " save him out of
death" as having received fulfillment in the resurrec
tion ; and there are those who think that the translation
'¦ having been heard and delivered from his fear" (which
is philologically defensible) has a claim to recognition.
Chapter 6, v. 1. Interpreters debate whether, the lan
guage here refers to the design of the writer or to the
duty of his readers. The Revisers seem to have chosen
an intermediate rendering ; for although the phrase " let
us cease to speak " is suggestive of teaching, " press on
unto, perfection" points to practice. — Verse 6. The
removal of the hypothetical " If they shall fall away " —
(which goes back to Tyndale) — from this memorable
passage will attract attention, and deprive a certain class
of theologasters of one of their favorite arguments. The
refuge provided for them just afterwards in the marginal
"Or the while" presents too flat a truism to be altogether
welcome. — In verse 16 we have an illustration of the gain
which the revision has made by more careful attention
to the Greek article. The translation "the oath,"
whether understood pictorially of a particular case, or
taken as a reference to the Jewish usage familiar to the
readers, and described in Exodus]22 : 11, adds vividness to
the verse. Other illustrations, still more striking, occur
in 11 : 10, " the city which hath the foundation " (com
pare Rev. 22 : 2 et seq., 14 et seq. ), and 12 : 15, " the many
be defiled ; " that is, the multitude, the Christian body
(but in this passage the article is found only in the criti
cal Greek text).
Chapter 7. In verse 15 et seq. a reader of the A. V.
almost inevitably supposes that the " far more evident"
corresponds to the " evident " of the preceding verse. —

82 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
although what light the statement that follows throws
upon the fact that our Lord "sprang out of Judah"
passes his comprehension. Such a reader cannot fad
gratefully to acknowledge the aid now given him by the
insertion of the italicized words " what we say," and the
substitution of a colon for a period at the end of verse 16.
— Again, by little more than a change of punctuation,
verses 18 and 19 are brought into their proper relations
to one another and to the argument : " For there is a
disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its
weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing
perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better^ hope,
through which we draw nigh unto God. — Verse 27. For the
A. V. " once " the revision gives correctly " once for all."
The change is slight in form but vast in meaning. The
Greek term occurs twice more, and in one instance
(10 : 10) by a lucky accident — for- even Tyndale renders
rightly — was correctly translated by King James's
revisers (yet even there our current Bibles rob them of
their due by putting " for all " in italics, contrary to the
editions of 1611). By it the writer would emphasize the
consummate and final character of the priestly functions
of Christ. The word involves, therefore, the very cardi
nal point in the argument.
Chapter 8, v. 5. The A. V. "who serve unto the
example and shadow of heavenly things " is rid of
obscurity to modern ears by the translation " who serve
that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things."
Chapter 9, v. 1. The opening words "then verily"
are quite misleading, at least to the modern reader, who
naturally understands "then" to refer to time. The
revised "now" etc., exemplifies the improvements
resulting from the careful rendering of the Greek con-

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 83
nectives. "A worldly sanctuary" (A. V.), moreover,
and " a sanctuary of this world " would hardly be synony
mous expressions to most minds. — With the sixth verse
of this chapter we come to a series of inaccuracies in A. V.,
relative to the rendering of the tenses of the Greek verb,
which are extremely infelicitous, and have been often
remarked upon. To a reader of King James's version the
Jewish worship is described as a thing of the past. But
according to the revision we read correctly, " Now these
things having been thus prepared, the priests go in con
tinually ... 7. But into the second [omit A. V., went]
the high priest alone . . . which he offereth . . . 8. . . .
the way into the holy place hath not yet been made mani
fest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing ; 9. which
is a parable for the time now present ; according to which
are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot," etc.;
and again, chapter 10 : 1 " sacrifices which they offer
continually," etc. Whether in this use of present time
the author gives us an indication (as many believe) that
the Epistle was written before the destruction of Jeru
salem, or is merely setting matters forth as they (still)
stand prescribed in the law, is an exegetical question
which it is not our present business to decide. But how
ever it be decided, the A. V. has misrepresented him.
A similar disregard of his mode of speaking of the Mosaic
injunctions as though they were still in force is corrected
by the revision in 10 : 28 : "A man that hath set at
naught Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word
of two or three witnesses."
In chapter 10 : 1, besides the rectification of the tense
which was just now mentioned, the rather unintelligible
expression at the close, "make the comers thereunto
perfect," is superseded by " make perfect them that draw

84 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
nigh " (that is, to God. See 7 : 25). In verse 32, the
translation " illuminated," which A.V. after the Rhemish
version substituted for the earlier "received light," and
which modern associations have rendered infelicitous,
has been made to agree with " enlightened " in 6 : 4.
Chapter 11 : 1 represents a considerable class of pas
sages which, even although demonstrably wrong or (like
the one before us) hardly intelligible as they stand, have
become so consecrated by Christian use that any change
seems unsatisfactory. The embarrassment is still greater
when, as in the present case, the reader is left to make
his choice between various substitutes. In verse 6, " dili
gently seek him " becomes " seek after him ; " according
to the more common meaning of the Greek word and its
similar use in Acts 15 : 17 ; Romans 3 : 11 (chap. 12 : 17
is somewhat different). In verse 8, " Abraham . . .
obeyed to go out unto a place " makes the order of the
English words conform to the obvious construction of
the Greek and the precedent of the earlier versions.
The changes in verse 13 have already called out repeated
comment in the public journals. The Greek for " were
persuaded of them" drops out of the text, and the
translation then runs " having seen them and greeted
them from afar ; " the alleged allusion, however, to a
mariner, while appropriate enough as an illustration,
does not reside in the Greek word. In verse 14, the
rendering " a country of their own " is intended to bring
out the force of the Greek — "a father-land." In verse
19, the " did receive him back " renders it evident that
reference is made not to Isaac's exceptional birth but to
his rescue from a sacrificial death.
Chapter 12 : 1 in A. V. is somewhat difficult rightly
to understand. In its revised form it has been greatly

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 85
helped atthebeginningbya simple transposition of words:
" Therefore let us also [like those ancient heroes of the
faith just commemorated] . . . run with patience [that
is, brave constancy (see above)] the race" etc. But here
the early editions of A. V., after all the antecedent ver
sions except the Genevan, strangely insert " unto " (" unto
the race," etc.), — a reading still retained in certain mod
ern editions ; for example, that in Bagsters' Critical Greek
and English New Testament. The right understanding
of the verse is further embarrassed by the somewhat
misleading term " witnesses," although it is impossible in
the connection to suggest a better word. A reader ordi
narily takes it in the sense of " spectators ; " whereas the
more probable interpretation seems to be that it describes
these ancient worthies not as "witnessing" our achiev-
ments but as witnesses to the faith, and as such having
" had witness borne to them " (see verses 2 and 11 of the
preceding chapter). The adoption (from the margin of
the later editions of A. V.) in verse 10 of the rendering
"as seemed good to them," is felicitous ; for it describes
the fallible and inapposite character of much parental
chastisement, rather than (like " aftertheir own pleasure " )
suggests arbitrariness and delight. In verse 14 "the
santification without which," etc., is one of those instances
of the insertion of the article, which, at first blush to say
the least, will probably strike the majority of readers as
unidiomatic, or even seem to intimate that a particular
kind of " sanctification " is prerequisite to seeing the
Lord. The change proposed by the American Revisers
in verse 17, as indicated by the translation to which they
have given precedence (see Appendix), would afford to
many sensitive minds a grateful relief from the severe
theologic uses to which the passage has at times been

86 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
put ; but considerations connected with the general cast
of the Epistle, and into which this is not the place to enter,
raise grave doubts whether the rendering given in the
text is not the probable one. Verse 28 exhibits in the
use by A. V. of "moved" (after the use of "shake"
and " shaken " in vs. 26, 27) a specimen of those unwar
rantable verbal variations which constitute one of the
greatest blemishes in that version.
Chapter 13, v. 6. The restoration of the correct inter
rogative punctuation (after Psa. 118 : 6) at the end of the
verse adds great Bpirit to the words. — Verse 8 is changed
in a way for which, instead of merited thanks, the Revis
ers will probably receive censure. The Greek idiom,
which leaves the copula unexpressed, gives the statement
an ejaculatory form, which many persons, disregarding
the Authorized Translation, take the liberty to augment
by leaving out the " and " before " to-day." Indeed, the
majority of modern Bibles do away with the period at
the end of the preceding verse, and so render verse 8
merely explanatory of the phrase " the end of their con
versation " ! In reality, the verse gives the reason for
the exhortation just addressed to the readers to imitate
the steadfast faith of their departed teachers : " Jesus
Christ is the same " — their Lord and Redeemer is yours
— " yea and forever will be." [therefore] " Be not carried
away by divers and strange teachings," etc. — the last
clause thus furnishing the basis for the exhortation
which follows in verse 9.
This last passage illustrates a class of inconsiderate
criticisms, resting merely on first impressions and current
associations, which must be expected to prejudice for a
time the popular mind against the New Revision. It is
only by deliberate and dispassionate study that a correct
estimate of it can be formed-

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 87
In certain outward particulars, however, its improve
ment over the present form of the text is obvious — espe
cially in this Epistle. This author's argument more than
that of any other New Testament writer, is made to rest
on the Jewish Scriptures. The ordinary reader is im
mensely aided in discovering that fact by having the
quotations marked as such to the eye. The points of
agreement and of contrast, the links of continuity between
the old religion and the new, are thus made evident to
his understanding to a degree attainable otherwise only
by considerable study. Great pains have also been
taken, as a reader will notice, to make the paragraph
divisions and the punctuation, a guide to the writer's
thought. His elaborateness of style, and the length of
his periods, often render it difficult to follow him — some
times, with nothing but the A. V., quite impossible. But
the attempt is greatly facilitated now, especially by the
judicious use of parentheses ; see, for example, chapter
7 : 2 et seq., 19 ; 9 : 10 ; 10 : 8.
Another conspicuous characteristic of our author,
which has never been forgotten in the work of revision,
consists in the stately sonorousness of his diction and the
rhythmic periodicity of his style. As compared with
Paul's colloquial and unstudied manner of writing, his
composition is an essay rather'than an epistle. He even
occasionally changes the order of words in his biblical
quotations for rhythmic reasons. In 12 : 13 he trans
forms (though perhaps accidentally) a quotation from
the Septuagint into an hexameter verse.
Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN THE NEW
REVISION.
BY PROFESSOR A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., LL.D.
The Catholic, or General, Epistles are those of James,
Peter, John, and Jude. They stand, in the Revised as in
the Authorized Version, between the Epistle to the
Hebrews and the Revelation, and though doctrinally
they may be deemed somewhat less important than the
great epistles of Paul, yet they are well worthy of their
human authors, and of their place in the canon for which
they have as vouchers the oldest and best critical author
ities. They are contained entire in the three great early
uncials, the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrine
manuscripts, nearly entire in the highly important,
though incomplete, Codex Ephraemi ; in the Codex L
(the Bibliotheca Angelica belonging to the Augustinian
monks at Rome,)and the Codex P. (Porphyrianus), the
two latter uncials being of the ninth century, and the
last lacking some small parts of these Epistles. The
number of cursives which contain them, of different ages
and degrees of value, is considerably over two hundred.
The critical apparatus for these Epistles, including early
versions, Patristic citations, etc., is thus very ample.
Among the passages which depend on the criticism of
the text, the most interesting and important is doubtless
the celebrated one in 1 John 4 : 7 regarding the " Heavenly
Witnesses." It is, however, a long time since the genuine-

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 89
ness of this passage has been the subject of any serious
controversy. The Revised Version omits it (including
the words " in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost, and these three are one ; and there are three
that bear witness in earth") with the sanction of all the
highest authorities. The words are found in none of the
uncials, in scarcely any of the cursives, and these of
the poorest quality ; they are wanting in at least a
hundred and eighty-eight of the cursives, besides some
sixty lectionaries ; they are wanting in nearly all the
early versions except the Latin; in the best manu
scripts of the Latin Vulgate ; and, where they occur,
appear with a very suspicious variety of readings.
They are almost wholly unsupported by clear Patristic
authority. The evidence, therefore, is so overwhelm
ingly against them, that we must unhesitatingly dis
miss them. I add that to me the passage in which
they occur seems to gain in logical coherence and force
without them, and that their withdrawal detracts nothing,
on the whole, from the scriptural testimony to the
divinity of our Lord and of the Spirit, a testimony inex
tricably interwoven with the whole tissue of the New
Testament Scriptures.
A variation in the opposite direction occurs in 1 Peter
3 : 15 ; where the common version contains a double
error, one of text, and one of translation. It reads
"sanctify the Lord God in your hearts ; " with its text it
should read, " sanctify God as Lord in your hearts," or
with a better order, "sanctify in your hearts God as
Lord." The more approved text reads, with the Revised
Version, " sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord," much
more in accordance with wonted biblical phraseology.
Another important critical passage is found in 1 John

90 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
2 : 23. The English reader of the Authorized Version is
here stumbled to find the words " but he that acknowl
edged the Son hath the Father also" bracketed and
printed in italics. I cannot stop to explain how this
came about. Enough that the critical authorities fully
vindicate the genuineness of the suspected passage, and the
revision relieves it from the stigma of brackets and paren
thesis, and restores it to its unquestioned rights. It is
found in the four best uncials, and in a large number of
cursives, some of them very valuable. In Jude 4 the
omission from the best manuscripts of the second "God,"
improves the rhetoric, without detracting at all from the
real -weight of the thought. It runs in the Received Ver
sion : " denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus
Christ ; " in the revision, much more neatly and ele
gantly, "denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus
Christ." In Jude 22 the common version reads alike
awkwardly and obscurely : " Of some have compassion,
making a difference." The text is not without difficulty ;
but the revised text, sustained by the best authorities,
which changes the reference of the participle, makes a
great improvement : " On some have mercy who are in
doubt," or (with the margin), " while they dispute with
you." The suggestion of the Appendix seems well
worthy of consideration : " Some refute while they dis
pute with you." It is not exactly a matter of difference
of text, but many readers of Jude will be grateful to the
revisers for having brought under the form of "Korah"
the utter stranger " Core " into the circle of their Old
Testament acquaintances. In James 4 : 4 the revised
text instead of " adulterers and adulteresses" reads sim
ply " adulteresses ; " a change the scope of which may
not be immediately apparent. It in fact determines the

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 91
reference of the epithet to be to spiritual whoredom, God
being the husband, and his rebellious people sustaining
the relation of the adulterous bride. In 1 John 4 : 3 the
reading of the revision, " every Spirit that confesseth not
Jesus is not of God," besides its greater intrinsic neat
ness, has (though opposed by the Sinaitic) the prepon
derance of testimony in its favor in the Vatican, the
Alexandrine, and the very best cursives.
I pass to mention in the order of their occurrence a
few of the many changes in the translation, which do not
depend on differences of text. They are, of course, of
various degrees of importance.
In James 1 : 1, for the "" tribes which are scattered
abroad," andin 1 Peter 1 : 1, for " the strangers scattered,"
the revision reads, " tribes which are of the dispersion,"
and " sojourners of the dispersion," " the dispersion "
being (as in John 7 : 35) a sort of terminus technicus for
the extra-Palestinian Jews. In James 1 : 1 for " greet
ing " the revision gives in the margin, " wisheth joy,"
which reproduces the fine verbal play of the original,
" wisheth joy. Count it all joy, my brethren." It were
better, perhaps, to transfer the margin to the text. In
verse 2 " manifold " is better than " divers ;" and in verse
3 " proof" (or " proving," as recommended by the
Appendix) than " trying," which ordinarily represents a
different word. The noun here used answers to the word
"tried" ("when he is tried" of verse 12), which the
revision rightly changes to " when he hath been ap
proved" (more simply, "becoming approved"). In
verses 4 and 5 the words " wanting " and " lack," of the
Authorized' Version, answer to the same Greek word.
The revision renders more faithfully and forcibly, " lack
ing in nothing. But if any of you lacketh wisdom." I

92 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
adduce this and the above, " wisheth joy," not as in
themselves specially important, but as examples oi paro
nomasia not infrequent in the New Testament writers,
almost invariably disregarded in the common version,
and not uniformly observed in the revision. It is
among the most familiar figures of energetic writing ; as
in Romans 1 : 28 : "As they did not approve to hold God
in their knowledge, God gave them over to an unapproved
(worthless) mind."
In verse 6, "he that wavereth is like a wave of the
sea," is unfortunate in the accidental relation in sound of
" wave " and " wavereth " (which has almost the effect of a
pun), and the feeble rendering " wave," which should be
" surge" or " billow." The revision gives justly : " he
that doubteth is like the surge of the sea." In verse 8
the independent sentence of the common version becomes
more elegantly and appropriately an appositional clause :
" receive any thing of the Lord ; a double-minded man,
unstable in all his ways." In verse 12, as remarked
above, " when he is tried " becomes, with improvement
alike in exactness and in the thought, " when he hath
been approved." In verse 15, "Sin, when it is full-
grown," takes the place, with much more truth to the
imagery, of " sin, when it is finished." In verse 17,
" Every perfect boon " seems to me (notwithstanding the
protest of the American Appendix) both more elegant
and truer to the varied and somewhat poetic diction of
the original. In the same verse, also, " variation " is
more exact than "variableness," and "shadow cast by
turning " (though the clause is a difficult one), suggests
a widely different thought from the English " shadow of
turning," and undoubtedly truer to the original.
In chapter 2, verses 2 and 3, the " goodly apparel" and

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 93
" gay clothing" of the common version, represent the
same Greek words rendered " fine clothing " in the revis
ion, while " raiment " (in "vile raiment"), still another
variation upon the one original noun, illustrates the
unwarrantable freedom of the Authorized Version. In
verse 4, "judges with evil thoughts " is far clearer than
"judges of evil thoughts " of the received version. In
verse 5, " Did not God choose " is more exact, though in
itself not preferable to the received, " Hath not God
chosen ? " while " chosen the poor of this world to be
rich in faith " is a decided improvement upon " chosen
the poor of this world rich in faith." The implication of
the one is that the poor of this world are rich in faith ;
the other, that they are chosen to be rich in faith. In
verses 21 and 25 the phrases " when he had offered Isaac,"
and "when she had received the messengers," are
replaced by the rendering far truer to the thought, and to
the Greek, " in that he offered up," and " in that she
received." Their justification was not when they had
done this, but in their doing it. Not, indeed, but that the
aorist participle may well enough be occasionally so ren
dered; but its unwarrantably frequent admission into
the common version comes partly from an imperfect
understanding of the force of the Greek participle, and
partly from the influence of the Vulgate, the rigid Latin
here producing far less flexibly than the English the
Greek idiom. In verse 19 the received rendering " trem
ble " gives way to the much more exact and picturesque
"shudder." In chapter 3, verse 2, the obscure " we offend all " is
replaced by the perspicuous " we all stumble." In verse
3, by a like change of text as in Romans 2 : 17 (" if thou
b'earest the name of Jew"), and in Corinthians 15 : 44

94 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
("if there is a natural body " ) we have in the revision, " if
we put the horses' bridles into their mouths we lead
about their whole body." In verse 5, for " matter," we
have in the revision, with far more probable correct
ness, " wood," or (in the margin) " forest."
In chapter 4 : 5 is found the perhaps most important
corrected rendering of the Epistle. The Received Version
reads, " Think ye that the Scripture saith in vain, The
spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? " The origi
nal is susceptible of two or three nearly equally probable
renderings, which the revision distributes between the
text and the margin. The reader can consult them for
himself. It is difficult to decide whether " the spirit
that dwelleth in us " is the human spirit that dwelleth in
us, or that God hath caused to dwell within us, or his
Holy Spirit that he hath made to dwell in us; and
whether again that human spirit jealously longeth for
God, its divine husband, or whether the Holy Spirit
jealously longs for us. The rendering of King James's
Version is certainly indefensible.
I must be briefer on the other epistles. In 1 Peter 1 : 11
we have " searching what time or what manner of time,"
as clearly demanded by the original. In verse 17, for
" If ye call on the Father who without respect of per
sons," etc., we have the more exact and much finer " If
ye call on him as Father, who without respect," etc. In
chapter 2, verse 1, for "the sincere milk of the word"
we have the " spiritual " (margin, more exactly, " rea
sonable," "rational;" Appendix: "belonging to the
reason") "milk which is without guile." In verse 9 we
have for "a peculiar people" the far clearer and truer
"people for God's own possession." In verse 12, for
" honest conversation," the revision gives' us the much.

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 95
juster " seemly behaviour." In chapter 3 : 6, for the
awkward "not afraid with any amazement " it substitutes
the exact an d intelligible, " not put in fear by any terror."
The celebrated and difficult passage in chapter 3 : 19,
20, regarding the preaching to "the spirits in prison,"
has not, perhaps, received quite all the healing which
' might be expected from the resources of modern scholar
ship. The clause, " which were aforetime disobedient,"
would be more truly and justly rendered, " though they
had once [or, aforetime] disobeyed." This clause is
vital to the sense, and the right rendering aids much in
determining the relation in time of the preaching and
the disobeying. " Which also after a true likeness " is a
more exact, though possibly not very felicitous, render
ing in verse 21. "The interrogation of a good con
science toward God " (with "inquiry," or "appeal," in
the margin), though still somewhat obscure, is better
than the almost certainly erroneous " answer of a good
conscience" of the common version. In chapter 4 : 6,
the revision renders rightly the gospel (or, margin, "the
good tidings") "was preached even to the dead;"
though in the next clause the sense would be consider
ably aided, I think, by the introduction of the slight con
cessive particle "indeed" (men); reading, "that they
might be judged, indeed, according to men in the flesh, but
live," etc. The sense thus, by a not unfamiliar Greek
construction, becomes " that, though they were (or had
been) judged according to men in the flesh, they might
live according to God in the spirit." The "judgment in
the flesh" (that of the deluge), is thus taken out from
under the catagory of the purpose, and is thrown back to
a time anterior (no matter how long anterior) to the
preaching.

96 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
I pass to the Second Epistle of Peter. In chapter
1 : 5, for " add to your faith virtue," the revision gives us
more accurately, " in your faith supply virtue," etc., and
with certainly no loss to the meaning. In verse 17,
instead of the common version, " When there came such
a voice to him from the excellent glory," the Revisers
have put into the margin " such a voice was brought to
him by the majestic glory," which, I think, they should
have followed the American committee in admitting into
the text with " Majesty glory " as abstract for concrete
(as, " at the right hand of Power "). In verse 19, instead
of " we have a more sure word of prophecy," the revision
gives more exactly, " we have the word of prophecy
made more sure ; " that is, confirmed, the prophetic word
being in this way not set above God's direct utterance on
the Mount of Transfiguration, but confirmed by it. In
2 Peter 3 : 5-7 is a celebrated passage that needed the aid
of a corrected rendering. " This they willingly are
ignorant of" is felicitously changed to "this they wilfully
forget ; " " the heavens were of old and the earth " to
" there were heavens from of old and an earth " (the
indefinite form of the original) ; " earth standing out 01
the water and in the water" (to which scarcely the
vaguest meaning could be assigned) to " earth compacted
out of water and amidst water," yielding thus an easy
and natural sense. In the following verse, too, the words
" by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire
against the day of judgment" are more neatly and
exactly rendered " by the same word have been stored
up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment."
Before leaving this Epistle let me mention two or three
lesser improvements. In chapter 2, verse 1, " there arose
false prophets " for " there were false prophets • " in

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 97
verse 5, "preserved Noah with seven others" for the
unidiomatic and almost unintelligible " saved Noah the
eighth person;" in verse 19, "promising them liberty
while they themselves are bond-slaves of corruption," at
once more scholarly, elegant, and forcible than the
received, " while they promise them liberty they them
selves are servants of corruption."
I cite a very few examples from the Epistles of John.
In 1 John 3 : 2, the text reads, " we know that if he
shall be manifested." The margin, however, gives, " if
it shall be manifested," which, looking at this single
passage, seems far more probable, while a comparison of
some others (as 2 : 28) throws, perhaps, the balance of
evidence in favor of the text (and the common version).
In verse 3, the ambiguous rendering of the Authorized
Version, " every one that hath this hope in him " he-
comes "that hath this hope set on him," and is thus
made perfectly clear. In chapter 4 : 3, the unwarranted
" should come " becomes in the revision simply
" cometh." There are in the New Testament very many
such cases ; as Matthew 11 : 3, " Art thou he that
cometh 1 " for the old, " Art thou he that should come? "
In John 5 : 19, the revision reads, " the whole world
lieth in the Evil One," for the familiar " lieth in wicked
ness." It is not absolutely certain, but altogether prob
able, that both here and in the Lord's Prayer in Matthew
" Evil One " is right, and the principle of evil is regarded
rather in its concrete, than in its abstract, form.
I have thus endeavored to select the most important
points of deviation in the revision from the old and
familiar version, whether founded on textual or gram
matical reasons. Lack of space forbids a more exhaustive
enumeration. University of Rochester, New York.

THE REVELATION IN THE NEW REVISION.
BY CHANCELLOR HOWARD CROSBY, D.D., LL.D.
There are five uncial manuscripts which contain the
Apocalypse; to wit, the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex
Alexandrinus,the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Ephraemi,
and the Porflrian palimpsest. The first of these is sup
posed to be of the fourth century, and the second and
fourth to be of the fifth century. The fourth is ajmlimp-
sest, on which some works of St. Ephraem were written
about the twelfth century. The Porflrian palimpsest is of
the ninth century. Codex B in the Apocalypse is a
different manuscript from that so designated in the rest of
the New Testament, and is assigned to the beginning of
the eighth century.
There are 102 cursive manuscripts of the Apocalypse
of very different dates.
The old versions, which are valuable in ascertaining
the true text are (1) the Latin, namely, the Itala and the
Vulgate ; (2) the Egyptian, namely, the Memphitic and
the Thebaic ; (3) the Armenian ; and (4) the Ethiopic.
The Syriac has the Apocalypse only in a late manuscript.
When Erasmus prepared his Greek New Testament,
he had but one mutilated manuscript of the Apocalypse,
in which the text and commentary were intermixed almost
unintelligibly. So he used the Latin Vulgate for his

THE REVELATION. 99
guide, retranslating into Greek. The last six verses were
wholly wanting in his manuscript. The Complutehsian
editors also used the Latin Vulgate to supply deficiencies
in their manuscripts.
Erasmus's edition was published in 1516, and the Com-
plutensian in 1520.
The statement of the above facts shows the importance
of a new revision of our English version of the Apoca
lypse, now that so many manuscripts and versions may
be used that were unknown or unused in the sixteenth
century, when the basis of our Greek text was settled.
As regards the authenticity of the book, it is sufficient
to say that doubts regarding it took their rise as late as
the third century, when the desire to overcome the Chili-
asts led Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to suspect it.
Whatever changes, therefore, may have been made in the
new revision, have no bearing against the authenticity
and genuineness of the Apocalypse, but are only the
results of a more accurate text in the hands of modern
revisers. The principal changes in the new revision are the fol
lowing :
Chapter 1 : 5, 6 : " Unto him that lovelh us and loosed
us from our sins by his blood ; and he made us to be a
kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father ; to him
be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever." The
changes are marked by our italics. They are all sup
ported by three of the four great uncials, and the
"loveth" is supported by all four. The "by," "his,"
and "the" — "the" are simply better translations of the
old reading.
Chapter 1 : 11 : " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and
the last ; and " — " which are in Asia," is omitted in the

100 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
new revision. Only a few cursives have it. It is bor
rowed from verses 8 and 17.
In chapter 2 : 9, 13 : " Thy works and " is omitted (in
the letters to the churches of Smyrna and Pergamum).
This change is not so authoritative as the others, as the
Sinaitic and Vatican, with the Syrian and Armenian
versions, have the words in verse 9, and the Vatican,
with the Syrian and Armenian, have them in verse 13.
In chapter 4:4: "And round about the throne were
four and twenty thrones : and upon the thrones." The
Greek word is the same in the three places.
In chapter 4:6: Thalassa hualine is translated rightly,
" a glassy sea," instead of " a sea of glass." So chapter
15 : 2. So zoa here and elsewhere is translated " living
creatures " instead of " beasts."
In chapter 5:9: The " us " is omitted with the Alex
andrian codex and the Ethiopic version, although the
Sinaitic and Vatican codices and other authorities have
it. It is omitted because unquestionably the " u? " and
"we " of verse 10 should be "them " and "they."
Inverse 10: "a kingdom and priests "instead of "kings
and priests." The former has for it the Sinaitic and
Alexandrian codices, and the Vulgate and Coptic ver
sions. The latter has for it the Vatican codex, and the
Armenian, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.
In chapter 5 : 14: The last clause reads simply "and
the elders fell down and worshipped." There is no
authority of any value for the rest.
In chapter 6 : 1, 3, 5, 7 : " Come " is written simply
instead of " come and see." The manuscripts' evidence
on this is very evenly balanced : the majority, however,
determining the shorter form.

THE REVELATION. 101
In chapter 6:8:" Hell " is changed very properly to
" Hades," the place of punishment not being intended.
In chapter 6 : 10 : Despotes is translated " master," to
distinguish it from kurios.
In chapter 7 : 14 : " The great tribulation " is written,
recognizing the Greek article.
In chapter 7:15. " Shall dwell among them " is
changed to "shall spread his tabernacle over them."
The latter is the right rendering of skenosei ep' autous.
In chapter 8:3: The marginal rendering " should add
it unto the prayers, etc.," is rightly preferred.
In chapter 8:7: The words "and the third part of the
earth was burnt up," is inserted by overwhelming evi
dence. In chapter 8 : 10: Lampas is properly rendered "torch"
instead of " lamp."
In chapter 8 : 13 : " Angel flying " is changed to " eagle
flying." The evidence here is overwhelming for the
change. In chapter 9 : 10 : " And there were stings in their
tails : and their power was to hurt men five months," is
changed to " and stings ; and in their tails is their power
to hurt men five months." Almost all the evidence sup
ports this.
In chapter 9 : 14 : "In the great river Euphrates " is
changed to "at the great river Euphrates."
In chapter 9 : 15 : For the hour and day and month
and year" is written, recognizing the Greek article, and
thus marking precision, and not duration.
In chapter 10 : 7 : "As he hath declared " is changed
to " according to the good tidings which he declared"
(hos eueggelisen).
In chapter 10 : 11 : " Before " is changed to " over "
(epi).

102 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUDY.
In chapter 11: 8 : "Our Lord" changed to "their
Lord " by conclusive evidence.
In chapter 11 : 15 : " The kingdom of this world is
become" in the singular. Almost all the authorities
agree in this.
In chapter 12 : 6 : " Sign " for " wonder " (according to
margin), making the distinction between dunamis, teras,
and semeion. So in verse 3.
In chapter 13:1: The received version has " and I
stood upon the sand of the sea," the subject being John.
But the new revision makes it " and he stood upon the
sand of the sea," the subject being the dragon, and this
passage belonging to the previous chapter. Tischendorf
reads " I stood," but acknowledges that " he stood" has
the oldest authority. The Vatican is the only prominent
manuscript in favor of "/stood." Tischendorf in this
place departs from manuscript authority for what he con
siders sufficient internal reasons.
In chapter 13 : 4 : " Which gave power unto the beast"
is changed to "because he gave his authority unto the
beast." The " which " has the Vatican only of the oldest
manuscripts, and the omission of " his " is due to Eras
mus, who manufactured the text at this point.
In chapter 13 : 10 : " He that leadeth into captivity
shall go into captivity" is changed to "If any man is
for captivity, into captivity he goeth." This is a very
uncertain passage, most authorities having only the con
ditional sentence, " If any man goeth into captivity," or
" If any man leadeth into captivity." The Alexandrian
is the authority for the new reading. Only two cursives
have the received reading.
In chapter 13 : 14 : " Miracles " changed to " signs "
(semeia).

THE REVELATION. 103
In chapter 14 : 1 : The new revision reads " having his
name and the name of his Father." This addition is in
accordance with almost every authority.
In chapter 14 : 5 : " Before the throne of God " is
omitted with overwhelming evidence for the omission.
In chapter 14 : 6 : The new revision reads " having an
eternal gospel." The Greek has no definite article here.
In chapter 15 : 2 : " And over his mark " is omitted,
and the rest reads " come victorious from the beast, and
from his image, and from the number of his name."
In chapter 15 : 3 : "King of nations " instead of " King
of saints."
In chapter 15 : 6 : " Clothed in pure and white linen "
is changed to " arrayed with (precious) stone, pure and
bright." The reading lithon for linon is preferred with
the Alexandrian and Ephraem manuscript. The Vatican
has linon, as also the Porfirian palimpsest of the ninth
century, and many cursives. Certainly lithon is the
harder reading, but I doubt whether in this case it is the
best. In chapter 15 : 7 : " Vials " is correctly changed to
"bowls," and so passim.
In chapter 16: 5: "And shalt be'" is changed to "thou
Holy One." There is no authority for the former.
In chapter 16 : 7 : "I heard another out of the altar
say " (which has no authority) is changed to " I heard
the altar saying." The Vatican has " I heard out of the
altar saying."
In chapter 16 : 14 : " Of the earth and " is omitted, as
having no authority.
In chapter 16 : 16 : " They gathered" with the Sinaitic.
In chapter 16 : 17 : "Of heaven "is omitted with the
Sinaitic and Alexandrian. The Vatican has it.

104 THE NE W REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
In chapter 17 : 6 : " Admiration " is changed to "won
der " its old meaning being obsolete.
In chapter 17:8:" And yet is " is changed to " and
shall come." The common reading is wholly unsuppor
ted. In chapter 17 : 14 : Read " and they also shall over
come that are with him, called and chosen and faithful."
In chapter 17: 16: " On the beast " is changed (with
every authority) to " and the beast."
In chapter 18:3: " Have drunk of" is changed to
" have fallen by." (pepokan, Porfirian and most cursives ;
peptokan, the great uncials. The versions are divided.)
In chapter 18 : 13 : " And spice " is added after " cin
namon." The Vatican omitted it by homoeoteleuton
(kinnamomon kai ambmon).
In chapter 18 : 17 : " All the company in ships " has
no authority. It rightly reads " every one that saileth
any whither."
In chapter 18 : 20 : Read with Sinaitic, Alexandrian,
Vatican and Porfirian, "ye saints and ye apostles ; " " ye
holy apostles " is the reading of the Ephraem.
In chapter 19 : 1 : " And honour " left out, with most
manuscripts. In chapter 19 : 13 : " Dipped in " is the reading of the
Alexandrian and Vatican. The Sinaitic and Porfirian
have " sprinkled with."
In chapter 20 : 10 : " Shall be tormented " is plural,
and does not refer to the devil as its nominative. Hence
" they " is inserted rightly.
In chapter 20 : 12 : "The throne " has all the uncials,
instead of " God."
In chapter 20 : 14 : Read (with all the uncials) " This
is the second death, even the lake of fire."

THE REVELATION. 105
In chapter 21 : 23 : " And the Lamb is the light thereof"
is changed to the literal "and the lamp thereof is the
Lamb." Unfortunately the English has a paronomasia,
which the Greek has not ; kai ho luchnos antes to arnion.
In chapter 21 : 24 : " Of them which are saved " has
no authority, and is omitted. " Honour " is found in the
Vatican, but omitted in the other uncials.
In chapter 22 : 1, 2 : " Pure " having no authority of
weight, is omitted.
The phrase "in the midst of the street of it " is to be
attached to the first verse, and a full stop made. The
river is in the midst of the street.
In chapter 22 : 5 : " And there shall be night no more,"
instead of " and there shall be no night there," with all
the uncials.
In chapter 22: 6: "The Lord God of the holy
prophets" is changed to "the Lord, the God of the
spirits of the prophets," with the mass of authority.
In chapter 52: 14: The Vatican (with the Coptic,
Syrian, and Armenian versions) has our received read
ing, " Blessed are they that do his commandments ; " but
the Sinaitic and Alexandrian codices (with the Vulgate,
one of the Armenian and both the Ethiopic versions)
have " Blessed are they that wash their robes," which the
new version adopts. The two sentences in Greek could be
readily mistaken for one another, as witness : *
oi Ttoiowrtc rac evroXac avrov
oi ¦k'X.vvovtcc rac aroXac avruv
In chapter 22 : 19 : " Tree of life," instead of " book of
life," has all tbe uncials and nearly all the cursives.
* In uncial characters the correspondence is much closer than that
exhibited here.

106 THE NEW REVISION AND ITS STUD Y.
In chapter 22 : 21 : The Alexandrian has " be with
all." The Sinaitic has " be with the saints." The Vati
can, with forty cursives, and the Coptic, Syriac, and
Armenian versions have " be with all the saints " which
is probably the true reading. The new version, however,
prefers the Sinaitic. " Be with you all " has very slender
authority. In no book of the New Testament are the various
readings so many and important as in the Apocalypse,
and that for the reason already given ; and yet the reader
of this sketch will see how very slight are the changes
that are made, and how far they are from any doctrinal
value. Indeed, the study of the various readings of the
New Testament only confirms the student in the integrity
of God's word as we have it, revealing a providential
care to present to the church of all ages the same inspired
record. Men have not been allowed to alter it ; and the
proof of this (paradox though it be) is in the various
readings, so many and yet so trifling.
In our list we have given only the most important
changes, and yet who could attach importance to any
one of these ?
The more minutely we study God's word, the more
clearly we see its divinity, all supposed discrepancies
disappearing, and its various readings only sufficient to
incite research and so to diffuse the truth. We may com
pare the contrast between God's word and human writ
ings with the contrast between a photograph and an oil
painting. If we use a microscope with the latter we see
the coarseness of the paint and the deformity of the
lines, but with the former the microscope only reveals
more and more of its perfection. So while men's books
cannot bear a close criticism, God's Book invites a micro-

THE RE VELA TION. 107
scopic scrutiny. This principle applies even to the mat
ter of the text and its various readings, from a careful
examination of which the student rises with profounder
reverence for the holy volume, that has come unharmed
through the storms of ages and the fierce attacks of its
enemies. University, New York City.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05047 6424