U£*ErvErUT£^ YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL ENGLISH REVISERS' GREEK TEXT DEC 1 3 1916 SHOWN TO BE UNAUTHORIZED EXCEPT BY Egyptian Copies Discarded by Greeks AND TO BE OPPOSED TO THE HISTORIC TEXT OF ALL AGES AMD CHURCHES G. W. SAMSON Former President of Columbian University, Washington, D. C. now of Bible Workers' College, New York CAMBRIDGE, MASS. MOSES KING, PUBLISHER Harvard Star are Copyright, 1882, By G. W. SAMSON OCCASION AND PROMISE OF TfllS REVIEW. THE British revisers of the English Scrip tures, and their publishers, have shown a natural interest in the reception given to their work on the New Testament by the American public. The same royal patronage of James I. promoted Bible revision and fostered settlements of his Bible-loving subjects in American Colonies ; and nearly three centuries have witnessed the suc cess of both these noble endeavors. A century ago, March 22, 1775, in the British Parliament, Edmund Burke maintained the political loyalty and religious integrity of the colonists, then 3,000,000 in number, by this statement : " I have been told by an eminent book-seller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of pop ular devotion, were so many books as those on law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for themselves. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries jj PREFACE. (issued six years earlier) in America as in En gland." A century of independent growth since Mr. Burke thus spoke, with a population of in telligent readers of every nationality, who com pare notes as they study both law-books and Bible translations, has but intensified the truth thus early apparent to the great British states man. As to the version itself criticism has been specially impartial and appreciative. As was natural, eminent American scholars and pub lishers have met native demands for editions in which the suggestions of the American revisers have been made to appear in the text ; but in this no rivalry has been intended. Criticism of the translation has been ready and spontaneous. A deeper study, that of the text translated, has been delayed only that it might be intelligent. When the sheets of this review were ready for the printer the exceptions taken to the altered text by the Bishop of St. Andrews were made public. As its last pages are coming from the stereotyper the article in the London Quarterly for October, 1881, has met the writer's eye. The text of the revisers, published by Westcott and Hort, may seem to be severely criticised; but certainly there has been occasion for review. Certainly, too, a lesson is to be learned from Christ's apostles as to the purport of His maxim : PREFACE. iii " Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." The oft-rebuked Peter commends sincerely the misinterpreted epistles of his " beloved Brother Paul " ; and declares them as authoritative as the Old Testament Scriptures. Earnest Jude writes to his fellow-disciples : " Ye should con tend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints " ; while, on the other hand, gentle John, in his last epistle, enjoins as to his juniors in age and his uninspired fellow-laborers in a field remote from his : " We ought to receive such that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth." The differing views of Christian schol ars and workers are needed to furnish both sides of counterpoising convictions essential in the quest for truth. The practical wisdom of the Bishop of St. Andrews, in his responsible charge, was designed to offset the speculative judgment of the scholar Tregelles formed in his cloistered study. The review not only has an occasion, but also a promise. TABLE OF CONTENTS. of second The writer's early conviction, The issue taken by the Revisers, . The leading examiners of the manuscripts, The "koine ekdosis " or "textus receptus," The uncial or stichometric manuscripts, The uncial and stichometric manuscripts value The cursive manuscripts and the printed editions, Translations in Oriental and European languages The Latin versions and their authority in the Roman Catholic Church, .... The Gothic or old German version, Rules for deciding on the true text of the Greek New Testament, Tregelles' rules for determining the text, Six passages in Matthew's Gospel omitted by the un cials, . . Five passages omitted in Mark's and Luke's histories, The three passages omitted from John's writings, The countless variations of the three leading uncials, Inequalities and imperfections in the work of Tre gelles 83 5 9 1318 2333 38 41 47 525359 63 70 74 79 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Grounds for review of the revisers' changes in the Greek Text, ........ SS General reasons for undue trust in the uncial manu scripts, . . . .... 93 Unscientific criticism the main source of error as to the Egyptian uncials, . . . . 102 Scientific defence of faith in the truths of natural re ligion, ...... . 106 Scientific defense of faith in the Christian revelation, . no Objections to the fact of Inspiration, .... 113 The manner of the fact of Inspiration illustrated by analogy, ... ..... 120 Trie common text of the Greek New Testament sus tained, ......... 126 Prospective confirmation of the integrity of the New Testament Greek Text, 129 New Testament Greek Text. THE WRITER'S EARLY CONVICTION. The early reading of Jahn's " Introduction to the Old Testament " and of Hug's " Introduction to the New Testament," both biblical studies of old Catholics, fixed the conviction that the in tegrity of the original inspired text of the Old and New Testaments would alike, each " in due time," be satisfactorily established. Prof. Jahn, of the University of Vienna, Austria, wrote when German Rationalism, opposed alike by Evangelical Protestants like Tholuck and by conscientious and comprehensive Roman Catho lic scholars, had commenced the effort to under mine the divine inspiration of the Old Testa ment by the search for imperfections, first in its statements, and then in its text ; which un founded criticisms Jahn met by most exhaustive historical and critical research. The translation of this voluminous work by Dr. Turner and Rev. Mr. Whittingham, of the Protestant Episcopal Seminary in New York, and its publication in 6 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. 1827, marked an era in American biblical scholar ship. Hug, writing, like Jahn, when the spirit of inquiry, which led to the French Revolution, awakened all the true guardians of the Christian faith to meet by newly-stated evidence the as saults on the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament records, traces back to the apostles' time the proofs of the integrity of the " koine ekdosis " of the Greek Church, the " tex- tus receptus " of the Latin Church, and the " common text " of German and English trans lators. He quotes Origen's citing of the fact, that the integrity of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was, in the second century, so established as to forbid doubt alike among Jews, Christians and the oppbsers of the com mon faith ; while also, alluding to errors of copyists, akin to_ typographical errors of our day, which were magnified by opposers, Origen was confident that the Greek text of the New Testament was guarded by both divine and human sanctity as the " new covenant " made by God with man. Hug had before him all the important ancient manuscripts called " uncials," now cited, except that obtained in 1859 at Mount Sinai by Tischendorff; and he subjected these manuscripts to the most thorough and impartial personal examination. Of his work Gesenius .said, and Stuart repeated the statement: "He EARLY IMPRESSIONS CONFIRMED. 7 excels all .his predecessors in deep and funda mental investigations." Perhaps the word "suc cessors " might be added. In the years 1847-8 these early convictions were personally confirmed. In the Karaite synagogue of Cairo, Egypt, whose succession dates back to the age of Alexander, who, B.C. 332, invited Jews to settle, for commercial reasons, in Egypt, while the patriarch read from one of the oldest manuscripts preserved among the Jews since Christ's day, the boys were seen to follow the patriarch with small, bound copies, prepared from manuscripts kept among Euro pean Christians, and published by the British and Foreign Bible Society at London. Im mediately the conviction was formed that the agreement between these copies demonstrated the perfect integrity of the Hebrew text ; a con viction confirmed, when subsequently a decree of the head patriarch of the Jews at Salonica, the ancient Thessasolica, Greece, commended these copies of the British and Foreign Bible Society's issue as strictly conformed to the manuscripts preserved among the Jews. The possibility of a like demonstrative proof as to the manuscripts of the New Testament grew up between Alexandria, Egypt, and Athens, Greece. In the convent at Mount Sinai there was exhibited to a large and wealthy English 8 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEX7\ party the manuscript coveted by Tischendorff in 1844; whose first-glance impression was, in 1866, confirmed by scrutiny of the fac-simile, sent by the Emperor of Russia to the U. S. Govern ment. On the Nile several convents visited be tween Alexandria and Syene were known to have libraries unexplored, where might yet be found not only other Egyptian uncial copies, but also the originals from which those oft-cor rected copies received their numerous insertions. That these originals, from which all the im portant ancient manuscripts were corrected, would prove to be the " common text," was veri fied in the University of Athens ; when a keenly critical native Greek professor, with a brow per fectly Platonic, was listened to as he comment ed on the original text ; which text was pre cisely that followed by the Protestant translators of England and Germany at the era of the Reformation ; which text, again, is found to have been followed in the main by the earlier and later Oriental versions from the Syriac, of the second century, to the Arabic, of the eighth century ; and which text, yet again, received by the Roman Church at the same era, was es tablished in the Latin Vulgate with few excep tions. Every successive review, following up the researches of Tregelles and Tischendorff, has added new confirmation to early-formed REVISERS' POSITION AS TO TEXT. g convictions. The appearance of the work of the Canterbury revisers, in which, for the first time in the history of the Christian Church, the uncial manuscripts, made in Egypt by copyists, many of whom were ignorant of Greek, have been followed as supreme authority in a version of the New Testament — this crisis certainly calls for a review of the grounds on which de cision as to the integrity of the inspired original text must be made to rest. THE ISSUE TAKEN BY THE REVISERS. When the revision of the received version of the English Scriptures was proposed in England by the Canterbury Convocation, when a minority ¦representation of scholars outside of the Estab lished Church of England was admitted to its counsels, and when an American representation was invited to make suggestions, though with out any voice in the final decision, few, if any, outside of the original and controlling majority had the conception that anything more than a revision of the translation of the text generally ¦ received in all branches of the Christian Church, Greek and Oriental, Catholic and Protestant, was proposed. The fact is now made public that some, in the company of revisers selected from 10 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. the English Church itself, were, from the first, as much surprised as the Christian world at large have been ; for the Bishop of St. Andrews, in his late charge to his synod, states, as to his own impressions of the revisers' work during its progress : " The more I saw of the work, the more it appeared to me that we were going beyond the purpose for which, as I understood it, we have been appointed." Going further, and citing omissions like that of the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, whose form is used in all branches of the Christian Church, except the Roman, as a part of Christ's words, the Bishop of St. Andrews declares : " I was unable to discover .... any actual consensus of scholars to demand the changes that have been made." To careful students of the history of the New Testament the preface of the revisers at' once hinted that the first object was a revision of the received Greek text rather than of the received English translation. The casual first glance over the entire work showed that that revision was confined almost exclusively to omissions from the received Greek text ; which omissions were justified only by a class of manuscripts ancient, indeed, and valuable as relics, but hav ing the following peculiarities, as every testimony of their admirers, as well as of their original possessors, shows. CHARACTER OF STICHOMETRIC MSS. i t The small collection of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament followed, as authorita tive, in the new English revision, have, as the best authorities state, these characteristics.' They were transcribed by Egyptian copyists, most of whom were ignorant of Greek, in fhe age just after Constantine, and thence onward for three centuries ; a period when the demand for copies was pressing. They were modeled strictly after Hebrew rather than Greek manuscripts; having these two peculiarities. They are in square capitals, called " uncial," without accents, punc tuation marks, or even spaces between the words. Again, they are arranged in narrow columns, with the same number of words in each line, called " stichometric," or line-measured ; while, unlike the Hebrew, which, by an expan sion of the width of certain letters, made the ends of the lines to be parallel with the line of their commencement, these lines have the ap pearance of English blank verse ; the columns being plumb on the left side, but irregular on the right. Since these peculiarities are unlike the Greek of their day, and especially Oriental, they deserve careful notice. Again, when in the hands of Greek scholars for several centuries before they came to the libraries of Italy, Germany, France, and England, they were cor rected as imperfect by the insertion of numerous 12 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. omitted lines; these corrections being found in all the principal manuscripts ; while Tischen dorff states that the Sinaitic was thus corrected at te,n different eras in different centuries. Yet, again, while nearly-all these manuscripts are frag mentary, or partial, only three containing origi nally all the books of the New Testament, two of these, by the portions lost, show plainly that they were esteemed of little value by their Greek possessors. Yet, again, the only two which retain the concluding books of the New Testament, so as to allow additions, include, added to the inspired records, writings of the early Christian fathers, showing that the copy ists did not discriminate between the inspired and uninspired writings ; a fact which Tischen dorff, apparently unconscious of the necessary inference which must be drawn from his state ment, cites as proof of the particular era when his manuscript had its origin. That the true relation of the text of these uncials to the Greek " koine ekdosis," or" com mon text," may be seen, the following order of survey seems to^be required : first, a mention of the most thorough examiners of the manuscripts who have recorded matured convictions, especi ally as to their numerous omissions ; second, a notice of the " common text," and the history of the earlier and later Greek manuscripts,' of LEADING EXAMINERS OF MANUSCRIPTS. 13 versions Oriental and European made from the "common text " rather than the Egyptian un cials ; and, lastly, the contrasted weight allowed to the uncials by the Canterbury revisers and the two scholars whose new view controlled their •judgment. THE LEADING EXAMINERS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. The impression has been recently encouraged that the manuscripts at issue were unknown to, or were unexamined by, philological students until within the last forty years. On the con trary, these facts are. historically sustained : first, that all of them were known for centuries to Greek scholars, by whom they were examined and corrected ; second, that Roman Catholic and Protestant translators had before them most of these manuscripts, as well as the " com mon " Greek text, at the era of the Reforma tion ; third, that of the uncial manuscripts most relied on by the present revisers, the Vatican was used by the Roman revisers of the Greek text ; the Alexandrine, sent to Charles I., was thproughly examined by Poole, under Charles II. ; while it is the Sinaitic, the one most mani festly erroneous in its omissions, and the most corrected by Greek scholars, which has led to r4 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. the newly controlling impression as to their authoritative value. The four examiners, whose thorough explora tions, so harmonious in their record as to the character , of the manuscripts, entitles their work to special consideration, are Poole, Hug, Tregelles, and Tischendorff. Poole was an eminent Presbyterian scholar, a leader in thought during the Commonwealth, whose conscientious convictions would not allow him to conform to the ecclesiastical polity and the rit ualistic service of the English Church as ordered and enforced under Charles II. His recognized eminence and his civil loyalty, however, though necessarily depriving him of his State support and of his parish, led Charles to favor and even to court his services. Devoting himself to the life-work of bringing together in his " Synopsis Criticorum " all known authorities as to both the text and the interpretation of the text of the Old and New Testaments, collating with care the accordant Catholic and Protestant revisers of the Greek text, and associated with Walton in his Polyglot Bible, and with Castell in his Heptaglott Lexicon, Poole's recorded researches on disputed portions of the text bear favorable comparison with even the recent labors of Tregelles, while his decisions are in accord with the whole Christian world. In his HUG, THE COMPREHENSIVE CRITIC. [5 loyal dedication to Charles II. he expresses in debtedness to his sovereign for having put- at his special disposal the valuable manuscripts (Chartas) within the reach of Government authorities. On the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi. 13, and on the recognition of- the Trinity, I John v. 7, he quotes the early fathers far more fully than even Tregelles ; his citations of the versions are more complete ; and his allusions to the " Britannic " and to the " Parisian Codices " show clearly that the Alex andrine, as well as other uncial manuscripts, had been his study. The most comprehensive and specially im partial examiner of the uncial manuscripts was Hug, a German Catholic of the early part of the present century ; who devotes more than 250 large octavo pages to a complete statement concerning the Greek text as established by -manuscripts, by the versions, and by the early Christian writers. He lived and wrote when the truly Catholic spirit so triumphed that the early Roman Catholic versions made at the era of the Reformation were sustained' and copied. As an instance of this fact, a German version of the New Testament, published at Carlsruhe in 1815, read daily by children and youth in the public schools in Catholic Germany, makes the following statement in a note on Matt. xvi. 18: [6 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. that Christ did not refer to Peter the man, but to the sentiment he uttered ; as the word " petra," in the feminine, alike in the original Greek and in the Latin Vulgate, clearly indi cates. Of Hug's thorough examination Gesenius wrote : " He excels all his predecessors in deep and profound investigations." Of his impartial spirit, Stuart, who supervised the translation of his " Introduction to the New Testament," and its issue from the Andover press, in 1836, makes this statement: "Hug is a Roman Catholic with a kind of Protestant heart." Hug's state ments as to the uncial manuscripts, all of which of any importance, except the Sinaitic manu script, were subjected to a thorough examina tion, are the fullest accessible to modern students. The two authorities who guided the Canter bury revisers are Tregelles and Tischendorff. The former has given his life to the collation of Greek manuscripts, of versions and of quota tions from the New Testament made by the early Christians down to Eusebius, the historian of Constantine's age. Tregelles began his labors in revision and collation of ancient manuscripts in 1844. The first issue of his work was in parts, Matthew and Mark 'appear ing in 1857, Luke and John in i860, then the Acts and Catholic Epistles, in 1S69 Paul's Epis- TREGELLES AND TISCHENDORFF. \j ties, and last the Apocalypse. As his work was continually progressive, as Tischendorff's manu scripts did not enter into his first collation, and as a comprehensive collation of all authorities could not be made in any one man's lifetime, the latest edition in his declining health was made by another hand. Under the auspices, and for the benefit of his widow, the final work, in one large volume, appeared in 1872. No mind that has any esteem for honest and earnest thought and research can fail to appreciate .the work to which Tregelles gave his years ; and no heart, touched by Divine grace, can fail to be moved by the pious devotion with which he made his last dedication of his life-work. But, no one who thoroughly examines the character and his tory of the uncial manuscripts, to whose author ity Tregelles gave implicit confidence, can fail to recall many another noble mind liable to be misled. Tischendorff, the contemporary of Tregelles, from the first an explorer and collector, having first seen in 1844, and finally in 1859 having obtained the .Sinaitic manuscript, has devoted his later years to a collation of varied manu scripts, including fragments gathered by himself. While admired by Tregelles for his enthusiasm ' as a collator, Tischendorff's judgment as to the comparative- value of his personal contributions 1 8 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK 'TEXT. was not shared either by Tregelles or by othei collators. The work of Tischendorff of chief value in tracing the history of the text adopted by the Canterbury revisers, is his edition of "The Authorized English Version," issued from the famed Tauchnitz press at Leipzig in 1869; in which the numberless omissions from the "common" Greek text, followed by King James' translators, which are found in the Alexandrine, Vatican, and Sinaitic manuscripts, are brought together and are- presented in foot-notes. THE " KOINE EKDOSIS " OR " TEXTUS RECEPTUS." It has become an unwarranted custom to allude to the text used by both Catholic and Protestant translators at the era of the Refor mation, styled in Latin the " textus receptus," as if it were made up at that time ; whereas it was then found as the universally received text of the Roman, the Oriental, and especially of the Greek Church, which Church still uses the original Greek as their vernacular. The history of this text, traced by Hug at length, may be briefly summarized. During the life of Christ's apostles, " Paul's epistles," designed as truly for all the churches COPIES AS RELIABLE AS ORIGINALS. 19 as were Peter's " Epistles General," — the epistles of Paul were so numerously copied, so exten sively distributed, so generally read, and so independently interpreted, that Peter declares (2 Peter iii. 15, 16) they were like the Scriptures of the Old Testament, already 7«2/interpreted. The vital point as to the preservation, in copies, of the original text of the New Testament is thus established. A recognized copy of an in spired epistle had, in the writer's own day, the accuracy, and hence the authority of the orig inal manuscripts ; a principle which deserves special consideration. No men more fully than Tregelles and Tischendorff, in common with all thorough students of historic records, declare: that "no documents have been guarded with such care as the Old Testament Scriptures, or have been preserved with more accuracy than the New Testament records." Christ alludes .to the care with which the Hebrews copied the manuscripts of the Old Testament when he said : " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." In this a double safeguard is indicated : first, the care of men, in the past so unparalleled, would -prevent the omission of the minute letter " yod," or even of the " little • curve" which distinguishes one letter from another, as, for example, the Hebrew d from r ; 20 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. second, there is promised for the future a Divine watch-care, alike applicable to the revelation then given, and to that which through His apostles He would subsequently give. The Apostle Paul, referring to a truth familiar to human legislators, writes as to the new covenant, given before the old covenant, though fully re vealed only in the New Testament : " Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed no man disannulleth or addeth thereto." Bible scholars, who are at the same time jurists, such as Grotius and Greenleaf, observe that while poems like those of Homer and Virgil, orations like those of Demosthenes and Cicero, histories like those of Herodotus and Tacitus, come down from past ages wonderfully preserved, law codes still authoritative, like that of Jus tinian, never have the genuineness of their oft-copied records brought into question. What , Englishman or American, however much inter pretations may differ, ever dreams that the " textus receptus " of " Magna Charta," or of the American Constitution, will in any future day, any more than in the past or present, be called in question simply because the original documents may be lost, and only copies remain ! Hug has rendered special service in tracing the history of the " koine ekdosis " or " com- HUG ON THE "KOINE EKDOSIS." 2\ mon edition " (vulgaris editio) in the early centuries back to the apostles' age. Stating the liabilities to error in copying, which the works of Homer illustrated, observing that the same liability applied to the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was not regarded as sacred, Hug is assured that till the third century, when the first " recensions " were made, the " koine ekdosis " or " common edi tion " was recognized and authoritative. His comparison of the Egyptian and Palestine copies at this period deserves special considera tion, since the preference given to the former is only expressed when the Latin Vulgate demands his acquiescence. At that era, because of de signed misinterpretations by men who, like Marcion, specially theorized as to the Divine nature of Jesus as " the Son of God," and also by carelessness in inexperienced copyists, differ ent readings were quoted ; while, nevertheless, as these were citations of the supposed sense rather than of the words of the text, even Marcion is defended from unjust aspersion by Hug. The contrast between the New Testar ment Greek and the Old Testament Greek translation, is noted by Origen thus : " In the copies of the Old Testament, indeed, with the help of God, we have remedied this confusion," and in apparent confidence in a like Divine aid 22 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. he attempted his " recension " or revision of the text. As to the centre where copies were chiefly made, Hug says: "Alexandria had long supplied the West with Greek copies of all learned works, and the West obtained from the same source manuscripts of the New Testa ment," and he cites Suetonius (in Domit. c. 20) in confirmation. The " recensions," to which the age of Origen gave rise, like those of the age of the Reformation, indicate, as Hug shows by an extended collation, that a theological bias, especially as to Christ's Divinity, as rife and as decided as that of our day, controlled the revisers ; those of Hesychius and Lucian especially, revealing that a prejudice because of a prejudgment influenced the revisers in com paring copies. This difficulty was afterward aggravated by the political dissensions of the Eastern and Western Empire, which culminated; when Constantine fixed the seat of Empire at Constantinople. The act of Constantine, recorded by Euse- bius, in causing a large number of copies of the Greek Scriptures to be made by authorized writers, and to be distributed throughout the Empire, but especially in the East, doubtless fixed the "koine ekdosis " as it now maintains in Greece and in every part of the Oriental Church. It was this text, still ruling undis- UNCIAL OR STICHOME TRIC MANUSCRIPTS. 23 puted in the Oriental Church; that was adopted in the Protestant, and substantially in the Roman Catholic, versions made at the Refor mation. It is this to which Tregelles refers occasionally, as on 1 John v. 7, as the "codices Graeci hodierni," or the Greek codes of to-day. It should be distinctly observed that this text of the ages, preserved by the Greeks themselves, is like Justinian's " Institutes " in all Europe, and like Blackstone in England and America. It is the "common law text "; and therefore on every critic, who in Germany, England, or America disputes its authority, the " burden of proof" rests. THE UNCIAL OR STICHOMETRIC MANUSCRIPTS. The classification of manuscripts thus desig nated by Tregelles is minutely and discrimina- tively made in Hug. Tregelles, referring to the square capital letters used in the ancient Greek manuscripts, calls them " uncials," dividing them into two classes : first, " the most ancient," or those " prior to the seventh century"; and second, " later uncial manuscripts of special importance." Hug, referring rather to the " line-measure," called " stichometric " in the Greek, divides them into " stichometric " and " non-stichometric." Though the principle of 24 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. classification is distinct, the general result of these divisions is substantially the same. Hug's description of the two leading manuscripts which rule the decisions of Tregelles as to the text, is specially minute. Hug introduces his description of these two, the Vatican and Alexandrine, by stating that their designation of priority, as indicated by A for the Alexan drine, B for the Vatican, and C for the Parisian, is " probably more from accident than anything else "; though to men of less secluded habits it is apparent that England's leadership in bibli cal translation, like her leadership in navigation, has allowed her classification of these manu scripts, as it has allowed her fixing of Greenwich as the unit of longitude. Hug, as a Catholic scholar, placed the Vatican manuscript first in his investigation. The Vatican is on fine parchment ; the letters are square and perfectly uniform, the initials included ; the letters are equidistant, with no separation between the words; there are no punctuation-marks; the lines, as in blank verse, are irregular in the line of their ending, showing that the copyist followed the Hebrew, not the Greek idea ; the columns are narrow and the lines short, and there are six columns on each sheet of parch ment, or three lines when cut into two, the sheets being necessarily limited to the size of THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT. 2$ the skin. Among the minor corrections, in serted at later periods by Greek scholars, are these : the writing of large initials where Greek taste required ; punctuation-marks afterward introduced, but only seldom ; Greek accents sometimes, but not always, added ; besides nu merous other indications, detailed by Hug, which prove that the manuscript was orig inally "written by an Egyptian calligraphist," whose work required correction. Hug had the personal privilege of a thorough study of this manuscript. Tregelles makes this statement as to his own work : " This manuscript, which is of the greatest importance, is cited from the col lations of others, in consequence of permission having been refused to use the manuscript it self." This statement occurs in his first issue, made in 1857; subsequent to-\vhich era it was open to Protestant scholars. Tregelles regards. the Vatican as a manuscript of the fourth cent ury, and the Alexandrine of the fifth ; which, according to his own rule of superiority, makes the Vatican manuscript, as Hug decided, the first in order of age, and, as Tregelles' rule indi cates, the first in authority. That it was re garded by its Greek possessors imperfect is in dicated by Hug's citation of insertions made in a different hand at two successive eras. As to carelessness in its preservation, Hug states : 26 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. " It contains .... in the following order, the Gospels, Acts, the Catholic and Pauline epistles as far as Heb. ix. 14. The Epistles to Timo thy, Titus, Philemon, together with the Apoca lypse, have been destroyed by time." Tischen dorff states that an edition begun in 1828, by Mai, afterwards Cardinal, was not published till after his death in 1857; and his own examina tion in 1867 showed that the work of Mai was " extremely inaccurate " ; and he adds, " many hundreds of his errors are corrected by the present writer." The thoughtful reader may well ask : if many " hundreds of corrections " were required in this modern copy, may not the hundreds of departures from the universally " received text " found in this old Egyptian copy manuscript, which are noted by Tischen dorff in his English Testament, have also needed the corrections made by Greek schol ars centuries before it was studied at Rome by modern scholars ? The second manuscript in importance, ac cording to Tregelles as well as Hug, is the Al exandrine ; so called by English scholars be cause it was brought from Alexandria, Egypt, by a bishop of the Greek Church to Constanti nople ; where it was made a present to Charles I., and came into the British Museum. It is doubtless this manuscript to which Poole, writ- THE ALEXANDRINE MANUSCRIPT. 27 ing under Charles II., alludes, on 1st John v. 7, as the " Britannic " ; as Hug, nearly two centuries later, refers to it under the name of the Mu seum, where it is guarded as the " Britannic." The characteristics of this manuscript are the following: Its letters are square, larger than those of the Vatican manuscript ; the words are not separated; initials are of larger size; sec tions are indicated by blank spaces ; there are neither accents nor punctuation-marks ; all in dicating, Hug states, that it " was written in Egypt," by a copyist not a Greek. There are two, instead of, as in the Vatican, three, or six columns to the page; the lines are not "sticho metric," but continuous ; while, however, in serted dots indicate the ends of the lines in the earlier manuscript from which it was copied. This later device, like the paging of earlier edi tions of the Greek and Latin fathers, and of the Law Commentaries of Blackstone and Kent, in serted in later editions, manifestly indicates that the stichometric arrangement of Hebrew manu scripts, and of the Greek translations made by Hebrews, was designed for convenience of refer ence; made necessary before the division into chapters and verses had been introduced. Hug reckons this manuscript, therefore, among the stichometric ; as it is also uncial so far as the form of the letters is concerned. As to care in 28 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. preservation, all examiners mention that the former portion, unlike the Vatican, which lacks the latter portions, is lost up to Matt. xxv. 6 ; as are also the leaves constituting John vi. 50 to viii. 52, and 2 Cor. iv. 13 to xii. 2. This was the chief manuscript personally examined by Tre gelles. Tischendorff makes this fuller historical statement : " The Alexandrine Codex was pre sented to King Charles the First in 1628 by Cy ril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, who had himself brought it from Alexandria ; of which place he was formerly Patriarch, and whence it derives its name." Tischendorff adds this more important statement: "The manuscript con tains the Epistle of Clemens Romanus (the only known copy), a letter of Athanasius, and a treatise of Eusebius on the Psalms." The thoughtful student would -naturally be prepared for the suggestion of Tischendorff as to its fel low manuscript, the Sinaitic, that this addition is proof that the copyist did not discriminate between the inspired and uninspired writings ; and so could not have been an intelligent guardian of the sacred text. The third and most important of the three manuscripts regarded by both Tischendorff and Tregelles as of supreme authority in fixing the Greek text of the New Testament is the Sinaitic. It was discovered by Tischendorff THE SINAITIC MANUSCRIPT. 29 when at the Greek convent at Mt. Sinai in 1844, in a manner which indicated the little value placed on it by its Greek possessors. In a waste basket his eye rested on a leaf of parchment ; which on examination proved to be a portion of the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Farther search revealed other leaves ; the monks on being questioned and promised a fee produced others ; but, while Tischendorff was occupied in assorting and ar ranging them, the monks suddenly interposed and would permit no farther examination. It was not until fifteen years later, in 1859, that, furnished by the Russian Government with means for the purchase, and commended by the authority of the associated convents of Egypt, whose interposition was prompted by the patronage of the Emperor of Russia, Tisch endorff succeeded in purchasing the entire man uscript of which those leaves were a part. The manuscript meanwhile had been examined by different visitors to the convent ; among others "by a learned English party with which the writer was temporarily associated in 1848. In 1862 the Russian Government issued, and sent to leading allied Governments, fac-similes of this manuscript ; one of which was long un rolled in a central case of the main gallery at the Smithsonian Institution, and was subject to 30 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. the inspection of scholars. The main charac teristics of this manuscript, as stated by Tisch endorff, are these : It is written in four columns to a page. The New Testament portion is complete, " without the loss of a single leaf." Yet more, as Tischendorff, unconscious of the inference necessarily following from the fact, states : " In addition it contains the entire Epistle of Barnabas and a portion of the Shep herd of Hermas ; two books, which, down to the beginning of the fourth century, were looked upon by many as Scripture." This manifest contradiction to Tischendorff's later statement led Tregelles so to doubt the accuracy of Tischendorff's judgment, that he manifestly undervalued the Sinaitic, which alone contained all the New Testament writings, as compared with the Vatican and Alexandrine manuscripts. The statement itself of Tischendorff convinces every impartial student of the demonstrated fact : that the copyist of the Sinaitic manuscript was like those of the Vatican and Alexandrine, an Egyptian mechanical transcriber; who was ignorant of the nature of the work which he was tracing in mere outline. The dependence of the convent at Mt. Sinai, where the manu script was found, upon Egypt for all its sup plies, makes the origin of this manuscript as clear as that of the two associated manuscripts IMPERFECTIONS OF THE SINAITIC. 31 already considered. As to its imperfection, ap parent to the eye and recognized by its Greek possessors, Tischendorff states that at no less than ten successive eras, as the changed hand writing shows, this manuscript was corrected by Greek revisers. Some of these corrections, in dicating the grossest carelessness, are the fre quent omission of entire lines, afterwards in serted ; and sometimes the insertion of the same Jine a second time, the pen of the Greek reviser having erased the careless insertion. No thoughtful student can avoid the question, "From what were the corrections made?" The fact is -demonstrative, — it is seen in every insertion cited yet rejected by Tregelles, — that the " koine ekdosis," the common text always recognized, — as Hug traces it and as Tregelles admits its history, — was in the hands of the Greek revisers of the Sinaitic manuscript. The suggestion is a natural one, which may hereafter be verified, that the original from which these corrections were made, and which a Greek con vent would never surrender, is still in the hands of the monks ; and it may yet be brought to light. Tischendorff proceeds : " All the consid erations which tend to fix the date of manu scripts lead to the conclusion that the Sinaitic Codex belongs to the middle of the fourth cent ury. Indeed, the evidence is clearer in this case 32 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. than in that of the Vatican Codex ; and it is not improbable (which cannot be the case with the Vatican manuscript) that it is one of the fifty copies of the Scriptures which the Emperor Constantine in the year 331 directed to be made for Byzantium under the care of E.usebius of Csesarea. In that case it is a natural infer ence that it was sent from Byzantium to the monks of St. Catharine by the Emperor Justin ian, the founder of the convent." This amiable admiration for his own discovered and secured ancient treasure every earnest explorer can ap preciate ; while at the same time all his brother explorers, like Tregelles, regard it as an amiable weakness ; since the evidence is clearer than in the case of the other two manuscripts that no Greek at Byzantium, but that an Egyptian hand at Alexandria made this copy; though, in the cloisters of St. Catharine at Mt. Sinai, the manuscript from which Tischendorff's Egyptian copy was corrected may be still hid ; while, too, this original, from which the correc tions were made, may be one of those executed' at Byzantium by order of the Emperor Con stantine. To every scholar familiar with the traditional claim to the succession to the old Greek Empire made by the Russian Imperial family, a tradition which has preserved to this day the names Alexander and Constantine as a MINOR UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. 33 household inheritance, — to such scholars the re sult of this claim for his manuscript may be seen in the added statement : " The entire Codex was published by its discoverer, under the orders of the Emperor of Russia, in 1862, with the most scrupulous exactness, and in a truly magnificent shape ; and the New Testa ment portion was issued in a portable form in 1863 and 1865." The Republic of Letters re joice in this result ; whether the authority of the manuscript be of the highest or lowest order. THE UNCIAL AND STICHOMETRIC MANUSCRIPTS OF SECOND VALUE. As heretofore observed, while Hug makes the distinction between the stichometric, or " line- measured," and the " non-stichometric " manu scripts, Tregelles makes his division between " uncials prior to the seventh century " and those of later date. It is sufficient for the present survey to allude to the chief manu scripts of this class as described in common by these two, the German Catholic and the English Protestant examiners. After the Alexandrine, marked A, the Vatican, marked Bf and the Sinaitic, marked with the Hebrew letter Aleph, because the Roman letters were previously ap propriated, come the following. Codex C is 3 34 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. called " Ephrseem " because on selected leaves of an Egyptian uncial manuscript there had been copied some treatises of Ephrseem, a Syrian Christian writer of the age succeeding Constantine. These selected leaves, embracing a considerable portion of the New Testament, were written after the Greek manner, across the page, and not in columns ; the manuscript was uncial, though not stichometric ; and the por tion preserved is styled a " palimpsest," or erased manuscript, because the inked lines of the New Testament Greek had been partially obliterated in order that the new work might be written on the parchment. This manuscript is in the Royal Library at Paris ; it was referred to by Poole as the Parisian ; it is fully described by Hug; it was edited by Tischendorff in 1841 ; and it was examined by Tregelles. The reason of its being used thus Hug finds to be the little value placed on it by its Greek owners ; his statement being: "The ancient characters had become obsolete ; people had become accus tomed to the cursive hand with all its reading- points and division-marks ; and they seized upon an old manuscript to apply them to a better purpose." It contains, with considerable breaks, the entire list of New Testament writings in the order of the Vatican and Alexandrine copies ; its letters are handsome uncials ; it had none of THE BEZA MANUSCRIPT. 35 the Greek accents, and few punctuation-marks ; and the words are not separated. That it was a copy made in Egypt Hug declares : " This, Codex, likewise, was written in Alexandria or somewhere in Egypt " ; and cites characteristics which so prove. That it was, like all the others named, corrected as imperfect by Greek revisers, Hug twice states ; remarking as to inserted punctuation-marks : " a later hand has almost invariably written in different ink," etc. ; and declaring as to general corrections : " In com paring this manuscript with the Alexandrine we find it has not so many additions attribut able to a later hand." Codex D, containing the Gospels and Acts, is stichometric; and it has the Latin of Jerome in parallel columns ; it has no Greek accents ; and it lacks some leaves. From Alexandria it mani festly passed into Latin hands ; it was used by Robert Stephens in 1550 in preparing his text ; it passed into the hands of Beza and went to the Cambridge Library under his name in 1581. As to the copyist, Hug says : " The calligraphist knew but little of Greek and as little of Latin. Unskilled in these languages, he wrote his manuscript in his professional capacity. He was an Egyptian or Alexandrian." Of these facts Hug cites proofs ; as also as to pages lost from the manuscript and supplied from other 36 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. sources. It should be observed that this manu script is the one held in chief esteem by those who regard the uncial manuscripts, because of their antiquity, to be special authority. Codex E contains only the Acts, and lacks some pages ; it is uncial and stichometric ; it has no Greek accents ; and it has the Latin of Jerome. Hug says: "It is the second known Greco-Latin manuscript which is of Alexandrian origin." Prior to the eighth century it was known in Sardinia ; coming to England it was presented by Archbishop Laud to the Bodleian Library ; and its character, as well as history, is familiar in the Oriental, Roman, and Reformed Churches. Codex D, consisting of the Epistles of Paul, sometimes regarded as a continuation of the Codex Beza, though in a very different hand-writing, has the Greek and Latin text ; it is uncial and stichometric ; it was copied by different hands ; it has many later corrections; and some portions have been retouched with ink. It is in the Paris Library. Codex F was formerly at Reichenau, Switzerland, in a Bene dictine monastery ; but it passed to Cambridge, England. It has the Greek and Latin in uncial letters and in stichometric lines ; the Greek having no accents, though the words are sepa rated. Codex G, sometimes regarded as a copy of F, Hug shows to have been a copy, as F, CONCLUSIONS AS TO UNCIALS. 37 from an earlier corrected manuscript ; some of whose corrections were omitted by each. Both these are in Germany. Codex H, now at Metz, France, is traced by Hug to Mt. Athos, Greece. It is uncial and stichometric. As indicating that it was regarded by Greek scholars, in the centre of Grecian culture, as of no intrinsic value, Hug states: " In earlier times this Codex was on Mt. Athos ; where it was used for old parchment to cover books in 1208; as appears from a note in the book which it was used to cover." Thus ends Hug's list of stichometric uncials. All the important ones are traceable to mere mechanical Egyptian copyists at the seat of the first cosmopolitan Christian school at Alexan dria; all were regarded by Greeks as uncon- formed to their own " koine ekdosis," and hence were repeatedly corrected ; all were esteemed of no value except as relics; and as such, mere relics, their Greek owners parted with them as fit collections only for a museum. As these most ancient of the list, called "stichometric" because conformed to Hebrew ideas in their line-measured columns, are all of the character thus indicated, the later manuscripts of the class, some fragments of which, since Hug wrote, Tischendorff has discovered and added to the collection, need not be farther considered. 38 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS AND THE PRINTED EDITIONS. Of these the most laborious collators like Hug and Tregelles could examine only a few ; and those which they have regarded the more important. The number known to the Re formers, at the era when Protestant and Catho lic presses published the first printed editions, which are so nearly alike and especially free from the appalling omissions of the uncial manu scripts—the number is so variously stated that it is manifest local examiners have known only a few of the multitudes that exist ; the few which came within their individual notice. • Hug specially refers to only six or eight ; the first being marked No. I at Basle, Switzerland, and the last No. 579 in the Vatican Library at Rome. Tregelles quotes but few numbers; sometimes using the abbreviation rel. for " rel- iqui " ; which indicates that the rest, or the cursive manuscripts generally, are in accord. The important fact to retain in mind and to hold in thought is this: that all these cursive manuscripts known to European scholars are but the rescripts from copies which the Greek Church have furnished from their numberless stores ; for, while monks of the Latin Church have devoted their lives for centuries chiefly to PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK TEXT. 30 the works of the fathers, the monks of the Greek Church and of its Oriental branches have devoted themselves specially to copying the Sacred Scriptures. From these cursive manu scripts, made by native Greeks from their " koine ekdosis," which, like the common-law, has come down from time immemorial — from these cursive Greek manuscripts, as opposed to the uncials of Egyptian copyists, most of which were in their hands, both Protestant and Roman Catho lic scholars made up the text, which, when the art of printing was invented, became the editions which appeared at the age of the Reformation. "A beautiful invention," writes Hug, "released the copyists from their laborious occupation ; and who would not imagine that it would very soon have been applied to the documents of Christianity?" This natural outburst of a rev erent and devoted Catholic in the beginning of ' the 19th century is followed by the statement that the art of printing was first applied to classic authors, and then to " the Latin and Ger man Bible," before it was used in multiplying copies of the inspired Greek New Testament records. The complete history of editions, down to his time, then follows ; beginning with that of Cardinal Ximenes, begun 1502 and finished 1 5 14, called the Complutensian ; associated with which was that of Erasmus, begun later, but 40 NE W TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. published earlier. Ximenes had the "use of the oldest and most correct manuscripts .... from the Papal Library." Erasmus had Greek and Latin manuscripts and also collated quota tions made by early fathers as Origen, Chrysos- tom, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, and Augus tine. Robert Stephens followed ; with editions published in 1546, '49, and '50; to which was added one by his son in 1569. The only pas sage, whose omission has become marked in later discussions as to the uncial manuscripts, that called for special defence by Ximenes and Stephens, in these earliest printed editions of the Greek New Testament, is that found in 1 John v. 7. Of these early editions, so far as their authoritative originals are concerned, Hug says : they " possessed inestimable value in their day " ; while, so far as the collation of manu scripts and the " critical stores which were with in their reach in the obscurity of libraries " are concerned, their resources did not compare with modern research. It is certain, however, that these editions did not make a text ; and that which they found in the cursive manuscripts at hand was, as a careful comparison now shows, the "koine ekdosis," which has come down through the ages unchallenged in the Church x which still uses only the Greek Scriptures. As to the Egyptian uncial manuscripts, since the AUTHORITY OF VERSIONS. 41 Vatican manuscript was in the catalogue of that library published in 1475, it must have been among those " oldest " manuscripts used by Cardinal Ximenes in 1502-14; while both Eras mus and Stephens had some of the more im portant uncials. TRANSLATIONS IN ORIENTAL AND EUROPEAN LANGUAGES. While translations from the Greek only indi cate indirectly and by inference what the original text was from which the translation was made, and while therefore all scholars place versions as second in authority to Greek manuscripts nevertheless, as the translations of Justinian's Institutes ate just as authoritative as the origi nal Latin on the bench of the U. S. Courts in the Gulf States, so is it with early translations of the New Testament. The versions of the New Testament, as the Syriac and Latin, made prior to the age of the earliest known Greek manuscripts, have an authority superior to the uncial manuscripts so far as antiquity is con cerned. And, it is specially to be observed, that the supposed authority of the earliest uncia^ manuscripts is made by their advocates to rest 42 NE W TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. on priority of existence. In his logical discus sion of this point Hug says: " We are in posses sion of documents which are much more ancient than the oldest manuscripts " ; and he adds : " so far as the antiquity of the testimony merits regard some of them will even surpass the manu scripts in authority." The, oldest among the Syriac versions, as all agree, is the " Peschito," or " Literal "; to which, as Hug shows, Hegisippus, a writer in the latter part of the second century, refers. This version, then, was made only a century after John wrote his Gospel and Epistles ; and was translated from manuscripts used two centuries before the oldest uncial manuscripts existed. This version, Hug shows at length, was made from the Greek; and it therefore gives the testimony of the second century as to what the Greek text of the then received "koine ekdosis" was. Hug fills several pages with proofs as to the history and the authority of this earliest version. The second Syrian version of note, called generally the Philoxenian, but styled by Tregelles the " Harclean," has its history fixed by the post script ; which states : " This manuscript was translated from the Greek into the Syriac .... in the year of Alexander 819 (a.D. 508) in the day of Philoxenus It was afterwards col lated, with care, by me, poor Thomas, with two SYRIAC AND ARMENIAN VERSIONS. 43 very excellent and correct copies, in the Anto- nia at Alexandria." The translation was not by Philoxenus ; though dedicated to him as bishop. The collation by " poor Thomas," a monk of Kharkel, written in German " Charkel " and in English " Harkel," was made A.D. 616. This, and other later Syriac versions, as Hug shows, were tinctured by the doctrines of the Syrian Church ; still exemplified in the creed of the Nestorians of the Persian mountains, who, at this day, use a Syriac version. The third Syriac version, called by Hug the " Palestino-Syriac," and by Tregelles the " Jerusalem " version, con tains only the Gospel selections of the Syriac liturgy. The Armenian version, contemporary with the invention of their alphabet, appeared early in the fifth century. Prior to this time the Ar menian Christians had used the Syriac transla tion. The first effort at translation was made from the Syriac ; but two Armenian scholars, who met the Ephesian Synod A.D. 431 and brought home a carefully copied Greek manu script, afterwards determined to master the Greek language at Alexandria, Egypt, and from it to make a version. Their work shows, as Hug indicates, that these Armenian translators fol lowed sometimes the Ephesian manuscript, con formed to the " koine ekdosis," and sometimes 44 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. an Egyptian manuscript having the omissions found in Codex D, the Cambridge uncial. The Egyptian versions have an uncertain his tory. The Egyptians, who after the age of Al exander spoke a language into which many Greek terms had been introduced, are known to have had a version in their tongue early in the fourth century, prior to the age of Constan tine ; and Hug thinks such Egyptian versions existed at a yet earlier period. Tregelles cites the Memphitic, of lower Egypt, as a work of " the third century " ; and the Thebaic, of up per Egypt, as " probably older than the Mem phitic." The former, called by the Arabs " that of the coast," Hug states is conformed to the older uncial manuscripts ; as was natural from the location where it originated. The latter, regarded by Tregelles as the older, and of course having its origin prior by more than a century to the oldest uncials, follows, as Hug states, the text of the " koine ekdosis." The Ethiopic version is of especial interest; since after the Greek conquest of Egypt, the Greek language, as Cicero (Orat. pro Arch.) states, was the classic tongue of the world. From Gaul and Britain, where Caesar in his Commen taries says its letters were used by the Druids, even to Central Africa, the Greek was read ; as is illustrated in the book of Isaiah, read by the ETHIOPIC AND ARABIC VERSIONS. 45 Ethiopian treasurer of Queen Candace, whose quotation by Luke follows word for word the Septuagint version. This fact is farther con firmed by the Yoruba vocabulary prepared by Bowen, now in the Smithsonian collections ; which vocabulary contains Greek terms still fa miliar west of the Niger. Hug states that the Ethiopic version was made by a young soldier of Constantine's day, named Frumentius, who was taken captive by the Ethiopians, but made a favorite ; and who, after years of preparation, inaugurated the work of Bible-translation into the Ethiopic tongue. Hug finds by examina tion that the gospels must have been translated from a variety of authorities, specially from the Egyptian text ; that the Acts was rendered into Ethiopic from both the Latin and Greek of the age; while the Epistles were conformed spe cially to the Greek "koine ekdosis." The Arabic versions appeared very much la ter than the other Oriental versions. They were made when the Muhammedan power had been established by the Arab race throughout Northern Africa and Southern Spain ; and when A.D. 718 the Caliph Al-Walid prohibited Ara bian Christians from using any other language in their worship than the Arabic. The ad vanced culture of the Arab race, which culmi nated only fifty years after this era under Ha. 46 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. roun el-Rashid, led to the preparation of several Arabic versions, whose history is fully traced by Hug. The first was made from the Latin of Jerome, then current in Spain ; the second from the Syriac Peschito ; whose Greek original, as we have seen, was the koine ekdosis of the sec ond century ; while the third was from the Coptic. These three versions, however, as Hug exhaustively shows, were preceded by a version made for the Arabs south of Palestine ; who, under Valens, less than thirty years after Con stantine's day, became Christians. This ver sion, though interpolated afterwards by adher ents of the later versions, was, Hug states, " translated from Constantinopolitan or Pales tinian manuscripts ; which are," he adds, " the basis of the text we are discussing." This text, then, substantially the " koine ekdosis " of Con stantine's Greek transcribers, is, to those seek ing the true inspired originals, of the utmost im portance. It is worthy of special note, there fore, that, while the Arabic version is given in full by Walton in his Polyglott under Charles II., while also Walton's researches are quoted by Hug as confirming his own, and while, too, that version sustains in the main the koine ekdo sis as employed by King James' revisers and as still authoritative in the Greek Church, Tregel les makes no use of or reference to this impor tant authority. LATIN VERSIONS. 47 THE LATIN VERSIONS AND THEIR AUTHORITY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. While Hug is, as Gesenius states, the most exhaustive and impartial of investigators as to the "Greek text," he is also most discriminating as well as comprehensive in his researches and his statements as to the Latin versions. There were in existence, from the second to the fourth centuries, various Latin versions in different parts of the Roman Empire ; as Hug shows, by quotations made from Latin fathers of different lands and ages. His citations are made from Irenaaus of the second and Hilary of the fourth century, whose field was in central Gaul, now France ; again, from Ambrose at Milan in Northern Italy near the close of the fourth century ; and yet again, from Cyprian of the middle of the third, and from Augustine at the opening of the fifth century, both of whom were bishops at Carthage in Africa. Of all these early and widely scattered Latin versions Hug says : " The period at which these versions arose (the latter half of the second or the com mencement of the third century) was .... the period of the koine ekdosis." It was at the opening of the fifth century, — just when the Roman Church was contending for an author ity supreme in the Christian Church, as against 48 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. the Greek Church whose claim was a double one, first as heir to the language of the inspired New Testament, and second as living at the new seat of the Empire fixed by Constantine, — it was at this era that Jerome, who spent thirty years in Palestine, the land of the Sacred Scrip tures, gave his amended version to the Roman Church. As the several Latin versions then ex isting had been prepared from manuscripts and versions so distant in location, Jerome, as Hug states, " was careful in the selection of his man uscripts." Hug adds, " He therefore employed only copies of the period of the koine ekdosis ; and scrupulously avoided the editions of Lucian and Hesychius." The character and comparative authority of the Greek manuscripts at his day is fully stated by Jerome. Then, as at a later period, the three recensions of Hesychius, Lucian, and Ori- gen were brought into contrast with the " koine ekdosis " ; and then, as afterwards, copyists and translators, as Hug's careful examination shows, were controlled in their judgment, more or less, by a preference for one or the other of these guides. Jerome's own statements as to the Old Testament (adv. Rutin L. II.) are as follows: " Alexandria and Egypt prize (laudat) Hesy chius as authority in their Septuagint versions. Constantinople, as far as Antioch, approves JEROME'S GREEK TEXT. 45 (probat) the copies (exemplaria) of Lucian the martyr. The provinces intermediate between these read (legunt) the Palestine codices ; which, elaborated by Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilus made common (vulgaverunt) ; and the whole world (totusque orbis) is at strife (compugnat) among themselves over this triple variation." As before observed, variations in the Greek translation of the Old Testament were not vi tal; since the Hebrew text was preserved with unquestioned accuracy. As to the New Testa ment manuscripts, regarding whose character as inspired, decision between contending authori ties was vital, Jerome writes (Praef. in IV. Evang. ad Damasum) : " Now I speak of the New Testament ; in which, as in the entire Old Testament, a record fixed after the Seventy in terpreters, it was not lawful (licuit) to emend anything, so in the New it was not good (profuit) to have amended, since the Scrip ture, before translated into the tongues of many nations, might teach those things to be false which have been added." Here two facts are noteworthy. In the age and under circum stances to form the best possible judgment, Jerome teaches : first, that the recensions of Hesychius and LuCian, specially relied on at the two extreme points farthest from the home of Jesus, were not reliable ; second, that the early 4 jo NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. versions were authoritative in fixing the Greek text. Hug, as a Catholic, regarding as " popes " the early " bishops " of the Roman Church, in dicates how slowly Jerome's version gained con fidence ; while, nevertheless, it was at last so re ceived as to become the foundation of the Latin Vulgate. Hug states : " In the fifth century the Supreme pontiff at Rome, Leo the Great, still used the ancient version ; and not the purest even of the copies of that." Hug adds: "The authority of Gregory the Great in the 6th cen tury, first decided in favor of the edition of Je rome." The close resemblance to other Latin ver sions of Jerome's version in most respects, as is true of all manuscripts and versions of the New Testament, which are the same in most of their pages, permitted designed or undesigned errors to creep in through copyists. Hence in the 8th century, when a new demand called for it, a re vision was called for and was made. Christian ity, which ruled Gaul, Britain and Ireland through the Franks, who from the East of the Rhine had taken possession of the country which from their name came to be called France, had at this era gradually penetrated into Ger many. The Saxons resisting its spread, Charle magne determined by force of arms to extend its sway. Alcuinus, called from Ireland to ALCUIN'S LATIN REVISION. 51 found the schools which have since become leading Universities in France and Germany, felt himself called to prepare a revised edition of Jerome's Latin version of the New Testa ment. Hug minutely describes an early manu script of this, "king Charles' emendation," which he had examined. By numerous ex amples Hug proceeds to show that " Alcuin in tended nothing more than to restore Jerome's Bible as accurately as possible." This edition, introduced " bf royal injunction," became the authorized version in France till the Council of Trent. Various discrepancies in the manuscript copies, pointed out by Robert Stephens and others, led to the discussions of the Council of Trent ; in which, Hug states : " it was even se riously proposed to make use of a particular Hebrew and Greek manuscript and to translate it into Latin." In view of the renewed " con troversies and innovations" which would be thus encouraged, says Hug: " It was most pru dent to confirm the authority of the received Church-version." This decree of the Council of Trent Hug justifies, in a long discussion, on this ground : " As in civil affairs an authentic instrument is valid evidence, so in public relig ious matters the Vulgate is a document from which valid argument may be drawn ; without prejudice, however, to other documents. But 52 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. this is not a prescription of doctrine, and from its nature could not be; it is a decree on a point of disciplitie, having reference to the cir cumstances of the times in which it was is sued." THE GOTHIC, OR OLD GERMAN VERSION. With a spirit of romance like that of Tischen dorff, Hug traces the history of an ancient man uscript " written in an old German dialect in letters of silver," long treasured, though un read, at Prague ; which was captured by the Swedes, carried to Stockholm, and after varied fortunes began to be studied by Swedish schol ars ; whose royal house, like that of the Danes, still boast their Gothic descent. Hug's long and graphic history of this manuscript brings him back to the origin of the Gothic version ; several copies of which have since come to light. ' After the Council of Nice, under Con stantine, the Christian faith began to prevail among the Goths bordering on ancient Scythia. Under Valens, about A. D. 370, Ulphilas in vented an alphabet and translated the Old and New Testament into his native Gothic. While evidence of connection with Latin versions occa- RULES FOR DETERMINING THE TEXT. 53 sionally appears, which fact Hug illustrates by numerous citations, he adds: "The translation is made from the Greek text ; . . . . from a Greek manuscript belonging to the Constanti- nopolitan recension." Though corruptions have crept into some copies of this version, it is one of special authority, in the main, as sustaining the generally received Greek text. RULES FOR DECIDING ON THE TRUE TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. Three of the leading writers, whose combined . researches must guide the impartial student, namely, Poole, Hug and Tregelles, state the principles which have guided Christian schol ars of all ages in the determination of the true text of the New Testament Greek Scriptures. The grounds of Poole's judgment, though not formally brought together, are learned from his repeated arguments in discussing especially the omissions in certain Greek uncial manuscripts and in some versions. Thus as to the omission of the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, found in the uncial manuscripts, now indicated as C. and D., which he had examined, as also in the Latin of Jerome and of the Vulgate, Poole states 54 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. these principles. The doxology is found in the " mother language " ; meaning in the Greek text as received to this day in the Greek and Ori ental Church. As to the omission of the dox ology in the uncial manuscripts, he argues that an insertion in the sacred text necessarily im plies studied invention and designed alteration ; while an omission implies merely unintentional neglect. As to the versions the Latin is but one of many " daughters " ; and that one more remote from its " mother " than the Oriental versions which retain it. As to the Latin fa thers, who omit the doxology in quoting the Lord's Prayer, it may have been, he suggests, Luke's briefer statement of that prayer which they had in mind ; while, on the other hand, he urges that the quotation of that doxology by leading Greek fathers is positive, and not like the Latin omission of it, mere negative testi mony. Hug presents more formally his " Principles of Criticism " in a chapter following his ex haustive discussion of the Greek manuscripts and of the varied ancient versions. He is em phatic in rebuking those who, from doctrinal or philological prejudice, fix on a class of manu scripts or on a selection of variations in differing classes of manuscripts of versions and of patris tic citations which chance to favor their previ- HUG'S ELABORATE RULES OF JUDGING. 55 ous opinions. He says : " It has ceased to be the case that a scholar, irresolute which of the multitude he should follow, can, according to his taste, or his preference for a particular manu script, or a liking for some peculiarity, some new various readings in a particular Codex, or other grounds not at all better, select and form a text which may be destroyed by the next editor; who does it only to see the same right ejxercised upon him by his successor." Hug classifies all the authorities, including Greek manuscripts, versions and patristic cita tions, under four heads ; those following (1) the koine ekdosis, (2) the Hesychian recension, (3) the Lucian recension, (4) the recension of Ori gen ; and he enumerates the manuscripts and the versions or parts of versions which respect ively follow these four classes of authorities. Among these the following are important as guides in forming a just decision as to the omis sions found in the Canterbury revision. The text of the " koine ekdosis '' rules the Gospels, Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles in the codi ces D, Cambridge and Parisian ; it prevails throughout the Syriac Peschito and pervades the Syriac of Charkel ; and it controlled in the early Latin versions. On the other hand the Hesychian recension guided the Egyptian copy ists in the Gospels of codices B and C, or the 56 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Vatican and Ephraeem manuscripts ; and also in the Acts and in all the Epistles of codices A, B, C ; or the Alexandrine, Vatican and Ephraeem manuscripts. Thus, according to this most com prehensive as well as logical collator, the uncials, now trusted as supreme authority, were made from a text which Origen, and after him every branch of the Christian Church has regarded as influenced by doctrinal views opposed to the Divine nature and to the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Hug had not the third of the three most complete uncials, the Sinaitic ; but Tischendorff's collation of the three shows their common character. Recurring to the " common text," Hug says : " The koine ekdosis, as we have shown, exhibits the ancient text ; but with many alterations which it underwent during the second and a part of the third century." This statement, as to the " koine ekdosis," the unbiassed student perceives, has received from Hug this qualifica tion only to prepare the way for the author's defence of the omissions incorporated into the Latin Vulgate ; which, as we shall see Hug tacitly admits, follow the Egyptian uncials and the Hesychian recension. The three recensions of Lucian, Hesychius, and Origen were all made nearly at the same time, at the close of the third century. The settled judgment of the HUG ON ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS. 57 Greek Church, in the beginning of the fourth century, established the text of the manuscripts prepared by Constantine's order ; and that early decision as to the respective merit of each recen sion as compared with the "koine ekdosis," is still authoritative in all branches of the Oriental Church. With great elaborateness Hug lays down rules to guide in deciding as to interpolations and omissions in the true Greek text. He recog nizes as undeniable the fact that the " koine ekdosis " was the standard when the several recensions and versions were made ; and that, therefore, when all agree, which is the case in the great body of the different manuscripts, the true text is assured. Interpolations, which are rare, have arisen mainly from " harmonies "; in which the fuller text of one evangelist might come to be inserted by a careless copyist in another ; while, in cases very rare, marginal notes, not belonging to the text, may have been incorporated. A careful comparison of the Egyptian uncials reveals cases of both these kinds; though they are so infrequent in com parison with the omissions as to give special weight to Poole's rule on this point. The causes which have led to the numerous omissions are mainly these : First, where one clause ended with words similar to those in a clause follow- 58 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. ing, the eye of the copyist, especially of the me chanical Egyptian copyists, wandered past the intervening clause. Second, omissions were made intentionally, when synonymous expres sions followed each other and were regarded by the copyist as expletives. Third, tautological expressions, common to Hebrew writers, seemed to Greek copyists, of limited experience, to be unimportant, and so were omitted. To every thoughtful student it must be apparent that these causes for omissions would be specially operative in the Egyptian copyists, as they are faithfully characterized by Hug ; men ignorant of both the subject and wording of. what they transcribed ; not discriminating between the in spired and uninspired Christian writings ; and working as paid laborers on what had for them no interest, since even the language of the rec ords was not understood by many of their num ber. Hug's rules for restoration of such omis- < sions are substantially these : In the first case " what is omitted must be restored to the text," without hesitation. In the second and third cases, the omission of one copy must be re stored from an accordant text in other copies. The elaborately considered and for the most part impartially balanced decisions of Hug, the Roman Catholic, so in keeping with those of the earlier judgment of the Protestant Poole, RULES FOR DETERMINING THE TEXT. 59 must rule in the close of the nineteenth cen tury ; for their rule has been legitimate alike in Origen of the third, in Jerome of the fifth, in Poole of the seventeenth and in Hug at the opening of the present century. The legitimacy of this ruling is made demonstrative by the fact that the " common text," subjected in every im portant age of the Christian Church to precisely the same tests which now are trying it, has con stantly received new and growing confidence among the earnest Christian scholars of each succeeding era of investigation. TREGELLES' RULES FOR DETERMINING THE TEXT. The carefully considered rules of Tregelles are laid down under nine heads; the sixth of which has six subdivisions. These are stated in his own words where their ruling is at variance with those of other judges. (1) Where authorities agree the text is assured. (2) If authorities differ but slightly, assurance is little shaken. (3) " If the reading of the ancient authorities in general is unanimous, there can be little doubt it should be followed, whatever may be the later testimonies ; for it is most improbable that the independent testimonies of early man- 60 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. uscripts, versions and Fathers should accord with regard to something entirely groundless." (4) A reading found in versions alone can claim but little authority. (5) A reading found in pa tristic citations alone is of still less authority. (6) Where authorities are divided, " other things being equal," these rules must guide. (a) An early citation, in express terms, may alone be decisive. In cases where decision can not be thus assured, the following guides may be successively sought and trusted ; (b) if one of two readings accords with a parallel passage ; (c) if one gives an amplification found elsewhere ; (d) if one of two seems to avoid a difficulty; (e) if one reading has been copied by others ; (/) if well-known principles of variation can be ap plied. (7) When certainty is unattainable, the doubtful passage should be retained, but put in brackets. (8) When it is certain that a reading was received in the second or third century, this outweighs all later authorities. (9) Readings sustained by the larger number of authorities may be unsustained by the superior authorities. These rules of Tregelles call for attention less in their statement than in their application. Rule 3 is at variance with Poole and Hug when the oldest existing Greek manuscripts, seen to be the Egyptian uncials never trusted by the Greeks themselves, are accepted as supreme au- APPLICATION OF TREGELLES RULES. 6 1 thority. Under rule 6, item a, such students ( of the early Christian writers as Poole and Hug think they have found in early Christian writers express quotations from the New Testament records which would on Tregelles' principle set aside the authority of the Egyptian uncials. As to rule 6, item e, it should be carefully ob served that while Tregelles applies it to hun dreds of cursive manuscripts, which he regards as copied one from another, he forgets to apply it to the Egyptian uncials ; all of which Hug finds to be but copies of a class. Under rule 8 the argument of Poole and Hug, based on the acceptance " from time immemorial " of the "koine ekdosis," or "common text," by the Greek as well as the combined Oriental and Western Churches, is a testimony which the Egyptian uncials have never been supposed to countervail ; and these testimonies show that the reading of the second and third century is preserved in that "common text." As to num ber 9,- where the reference to the numberless "cursive" Greek manuscripts is apparent, this fact is specially to be noted. Hug, as before mentioned, specially describes six only ; begin ning with the commonly recognized No. I and ending with No. 579. Tregelles cites in his rules only Nos. 1, 33 and 69; whose original text, though oft corrected, as his use of them 62 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. shows, seems to sustain his view of the Egyptian uncials as authoritative. As to cursive No. i, the only cursive manuscript cited in common by Hug and Tregelles, Hug traces its history; showing that the copy was made in the time of Leo V. ; who, though he ruled as Pope only a few months, had special influence at the close of the 9th and at the beginning of the 10th century. Of its text, conformed manifestly to the spirit of the age, Hug says: " The text of the Gospels is very different from the text of the rest of the manuscript." Tregelles states as to it : "A manuscript in the Library at Basle,' con taining all the N. Test, but the Apocalypse; .but only of importance in the text of the Gos-_ pels. Of the tenth century: examined by many, and collated independently by Tregelles and Roth ; when these collations disagree iRor iT indicates the respective collators."- As to the text to which this cursive manuscript was orig inally conformed, Hug states that in "the Gos pels " it followed the " koine ekdosis." Its use by Tregelles is illustrated on Matt, xviii. 11; where it is indicated that the statement, " For the Son of man is come to save the lost," is omitted from the original text of this cursive manuscript, but was afterwards inserted by a second corrector of the manuscript. The fact that Tregelles differed from Roth in his reading ' OMITTED PASSAGES IN THE UNCIALS. 63 of the manuscript as a collator shows how liable to err the modern examiner as well as the orig inal copyist may prove. The setting aside by Tregelles of the authority of the hundreds of cursive manuscripts trusted as reliable by the' world of Christian scholars in the past, the spe cial devotion of such a mind as that of Tregelles to three selected copies regarded by him as sup porting the Egyptian uncials, and the fact that the judgment of Hug as to the actual character of that special cursive manuscript differs so ma terially from that of Tregelles — these facts jus tify certainly the doubt expressed by the Bishop of St. Andrews as to the actual " consensus of scholarship " v/hich now demands the omission of this and other passages. SIX PASSAGES IN MATTHEWS GOSPEL OMIT TED BY THE UNCIALS. As intimated, the common reader of the Can terbury revision is specially arrested by the omission of passages familiar in the reading of the New Testament in the received version pre pared for and accepted by that. people who un der James I. had a specially independent, criti cal, intelligent and earnest body of Bible stu- 64 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. dents as leaders. Yet more, the thorough stu dent of Hug, the most logical as well as com prehensive examiner of the ancient authorities which fix the text, is specially intelligent as to the origin of these omissions ; finding them mainly in the Egyptian uncials. Still yet more the casual reader of Tischendorff 's reprint of the common English version finds that all the omis sions introduced by the new revisers, and'very many more, are those as to which the three leading uncials, the Sinaitic, the Vatican and the Alexandrine, are frequently not in accord. And, yet once more, the careful analyzer of the omissions and notes of Tregelles in his revised Greek text will observe when .and where his conscientious and often perplexed mind sought a consistent judgment in cases when and where > trust in the uncials forbid the attainment of consistency. Among the very numerous omissions found in the three leading uncials, the following four teen are specially important for consideration. The utter impossibility of harmonizing author ities, and of securing consistency in the omis sions allowed by Tregelles and the revisers who have followed him, appear at every step in the consideration of these leading and larger omis sions. These omissions are (i) Matt. vi. 13, the Doxology in the Lord's Prayer ; (2) Matt. xii. • LIST OF PASSAGES OMITTED. 65 47, the statement of a bystandef as to Christ's mother and brethren; (3) Matt. xvii. 21, the declaration, " This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting"; (4) Matt, xviii. 11, the statement, " The Son of man is come to save that which was lost " ; (5) Matt, xxiii.- 14, the statement to the Pharisees, " Ye devour wid ows' houses," etc.; (6) Matt. xxiv. 35, the dec laration, " Heaven and earth shall pass away," etc.; (7) Mark vi. 11, the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah; (8) Mark xiii. 14, the reference to the prophet Daniel; (9) Luke iv. 18, the clause " to heal the broken-hearted " ; (10) John v. 4, the record as to the angel's disturbing the pool; (n) John vii. 53 to viii. n, the account of the woman taken in adultery ; (12) Acts viii. 37> the confession of the Ethiopian at his bap tism; (13) Acts ix. 6, the words "It is hard. .... What wilt thou have me to do?" and (14) 1st John v. 7, the declaration, "There are three that bear record in heaven," etc. The testimonies of the leading authorities as to these fourteen passages are as follows : First, the "koine ekdosis," or "common text," now recognized in the Greek and Oriental Churches, which guided both the Roman and Protestant revisers and translators at the Reformation, re ceives them all as belonging to the inspired original text. Second, the uncial, or oldest 5 66 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Greek manuscripts, seen to have been mainly a class of copies made in Egypt, have this testi mony. Of the six in Matthew the Alexandrine, regarded by Tregelles as properly ranked first in authority, gives no testimony ; since that portion of the manuscript was" lost before it came to the British capital. Their varied testi mony as to the other eight will appear, each in its place. Matt. vi. 13 is omitted by the Vatican, Si naitic and Cambridge manuscripts, D, and by Jerome and the Latin Vulgate ; while it is re tained by all the cursive Greek manuscripts, one excepted, No. 33, which generally follows the Egyptian uncials, and by the Syriac Peschito, made in the second century. It is omitted by Tregelles and the Canterbury revisers. Beside the testimony of manuscripts, versions and- ancient citations, the doxology in the Lord's Prayer has a transcendent interest and importance, as well as an historic confirmation, from its connection with forms of prayer as used in all ages and branches of the Christian Church, except the modern Roman Catholic Church. It is found in the liturgies of both Chrysostom and Basil, used from time immemorial in all the branches of the Greek and Oriental Churches ; it was incorporated into the forms of prayer of every branch of the Protestant Church ; it is in- OMISSIONS IN MA TTHE W. 6y serted in the liturgy of the English Church in all services in which the people join, even in the 'communion service ; while in private services, as_ baptism, it is omitted in conformity with the abridged form given by Luke. There is ground for belief that its omission from the Latin Gospel and Roman liturgy arose because of the exclu sion of the people from a share in the public services, especially in the eucharist. Matt. xii. 47 is omitted by the Vatican and the later Parisian manuscript, L, and also by the original Sinaitic manuscript, though inserted by its Greek correctors. It is found in all the other important uncials, and in all the cursive manu scripts ; as also in the Syriac Peschito, in Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. It is retained, contrary to his own rule followed elsewhere, by Tre gelles ; and also by the Canterbury revisers. Matt. xvii. 21 is omitted in the Vatican man uscript, also in the Sinaitic before correction, and in cursive No. 33. It is retained in the early Parisian, C, and in the Cambridge, D, un cials; also in all, save No. 33, of the cursive manuscripts ; as also in the Syriac Peschito, in Jerome and in the Vulgate. Though retained and put in brackets as doubtful in his first and latest collations by Tregelles, it is entirely omit ted from the text of the Canterbury revisers. Matt, xviii. 1 1 is omitted in the Vatican and 68 - NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Sinaitic manuscripts; in the later Parisian, L, before correction ; in cursive 33 and cursive 1 before correction. It is found in the Cambridge manuscript, D, in Tischendorff's fragments (Greek Pi) in the later Parisian, L, as corrected; also in the cursives generally; and also in the Syriac, in Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. It is omitted by Tregelles and by the Canterbury re visers. Matt, xxiii. 14 is omitted by the Vatican, the Sinaitic, the Cambridge, D, the later Parisian, L, uncials; also by cursives 1 and 33, and by Je rome ; it is found in not less than eleven later uncials and in the cursive manuscripts generally,' even in 69 cited by Tregelles ; also in the Syriac Peschito and the Latin Vulgate. It is omitted by Tregelles and by the Canterbury revisers. Matt. xxiv. 35 is omitted only by the Sinaitic among the uncial manuscripts, and that before correction: It is found in the Vatican manu script, and in Jerome and the Syriac and Latin Vulgate. It is retained by Tregelles and the Canterbury revisers. No thoughtful and impartial student, in this survey, can fail to note these facts ; and facts must decide conclusions. First, these six of the fourteen larger omissions found in the Egyptian copies are met in the early chapters of Mat thew ; at the beginning of the work of copy- DOUBTFUL GROUNDS FOR OMISSIONS. 69 ists ignorant of the Greek language; and just where they would be most likely to fall into er ror from inexperience. Second, all these omis sions are incapable of confirmation from the Al exandrine manuscript, which Tregelles regards the most authoritative, since that portion of the manuscript is lost. Third, five only of the six omissions occur in the Vatican manuscript ; showing that either the Sinaitic or Vatican, which are at variance, is in error. This fact in dicates the unreliableness of both these manu scripts at the very beginning of the work of in competent copyists. Fourth, two out of six of these omissions in the Sinaitic manuscript were corrected by insertions, made while the manu scripts were in the hands of Oriental Greeks. Fifth, the later uncials, in one case at least, are at variance with the older. Sixth, all the cursives, save three which Tregelles alone cites, and evi dently because of their conformity to his pre judged conclusion, namely, Nos. 1, 33 and 69, have in their text these omitted passages ; and one of these, as Hug indicates, was made under circumstances which throw doubt on their excep tional character as a class. Seventh, the oldest translation, the Syriac Peschito, in four at least, if not in all of the six passages, is opposed to these omissions. The manuscripts from which this ver sion was made were two centuries older than JO NE W TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. the oldest uncials ; and, therefore, on Tregelles' own principle, are of superior authority. Eighth, in three out of six of the omissions cited, the passages are found in the Latin of Jerome ; and in four out of six in the Latin Vulgate ; indi cating the final decision of Roman Catholic scholars down to the Reformation. Ninth, as the corrections made by early Greek scholars in the Egyptian copies are in accord with the " koine ekdosis," followed by the translators of the Reformed Church, and still authoritative in the Greek and Oriental Churches, there is rea son for the conclusion : that, as now, so in the age when those corrections were made, the text used in King James' version was in all ages au thority among Christian scholars, to whom the original Greek of the New Testament was ver nacular. FIVE PASSAGES OMITTED IN MARK'S AND LUKE'S HISTORIES. In the specially full, though concise Gospel of Mark, two marked omissions occur; while in the two longer and specially historic records of Luke, which were the standard with Marcion in the second century, only three extended omissions call forth discussion. OMISSIONS IN MARK AND LUKE. 71 Mark vi. 11, found in the cursive manuscripts which have guided all branches of the ancient and modern Church, is found also in the Alex andrine uncial and in the Syriac Peschito ver sion. It is omitted by the Vatican and Sinaitic uncials, by Jerome and the Vulgate, and by Tregelles and the Canterbury revisers. The fact that the Alexandrine manuscript has it in the text of the Egyptian copyist, and not in serted alone by a Greek corrector, is in the line of Hug's positive proofs that it belonged to the original " koine ekdosis " ; whose readings are unquestionable authority when thus attested. The acknowledged testimony that the three most complete Egyptian uncials, the Alexan drine, Vatican and Sinaitic, belong to a class, coming under the ninth rule of Tregelles, is proof positive that the omission of Mark vi. 1 1 from two of these was an error of the copyist ; for the insertion by one shows that it was in the text from which the copyist transcribed ; while its omission by two shows oversight in these two copyists. Mark xiii. 14, precisely like Mark vi. n, is found in all the cursives accepted in the Greek and all other branches of the Christian Church ; it is in the Alexandrine uncial ; and it is incor porated into the oldest version, the Syriac Peschito. It is omitted by Jerome and in the 72 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Latin Vulgate; and also in the Vatican and Sinaitic uncials. The conclusion is precisely the same as that necessarily following from the same testimonies relating to Mark vi. II. Tre gelles and the revisers, who follow him, omit it. Luke iv. 18 has, with a single marked excep tion, the same testimony, as the two passages omitted in Mark's Gospel. It is in the "com mon text," generally followed in all the branches of the Christian Church. It is omit ted by the Vatican and Sinaitic uncials, and by Jerome. It is found, however, in the Alexan drine uncial, and in the Syriac Peschito ; and also in the Latin Vulgate. It is omitted by Tregelles, and in the version which follows his text ; though the omission unquestionably comes under his rule 6, item d. The " diffi culty," which the omission seeks to " avoid," is the fact that the clause " to heal the 'broken hearted " is not in the Hebrew text, though it is found in the Greek translations from which Luke, as a Greek scholar, almost always quotes. The explanation, cited in every age by Christian scholars, is legitimate ; that Luke, like Paul, quotes for two reasons from the then univer sally read version of the Old Testament ; first because it was authoritative with the Greeks whom both Luke and Paul addressed ; second because in this, as in many like citations of OMISSIONS IN THE ACTS. 73 Luke and Paul, the Greek translators by their amplified statement presented really the senti ment condensed in the words or context of the concise Hebrew ; using a paraphrase essential in order that the Greek might gain the Hebrew idea. Acts viii. 37, omitted from the Alexandrine, Vatican and Sinaitic uncials, and by Jerome, is found in the universally received text of the cursive manuscripts and in the text of the Greek Church. It is quoted by Irenaeus, the Greek writer of the second century, and by Cyprian, the Latin of the third century; and it is a part of the text of the Latin Vulgate as well as of all Protestant versions. Yet Tre gelles and the revisers omit it. The important omission in Acts ix. 6 has its main support in the Egyptian uncials ; as the Alexandrine, Vatican, Sinaitic and Ephrseem ; and the Syriac Peschito. It is found in the "common" Greek text, in the cursives gener ally, in 31 before correction, in the Latin Vul gate, etc. Here Tregelles quotes Griesbach, in dicating the leader in the school of modern ad vocates for the Egyptian uncials. Tregelles and the English revisers omit the passage. 74 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. THE THREE EXTENDED PASSAGES OMITTED FROM JOHN'S GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE. As already indicated, while six of the ten omitted passages are from Matthew's Gospel and two from Mark's Gospel, the most impor tant of all are from the Gospel and principal epistle of John. The contrast between these eleven omissions and the three in Luke's writ ings has a cause. A peculiar significance is here suggested as to the statements of Hug that the early variations of manuscripts, noted in Origen's replies to Marcion and his followers, arose in part from philosophic objections to the Divinity of Christ, and in part from an effort to harmonize the Gospels ; especially to conform Matthew's Gospel to Luke. The student of Tregelles will perceive in the application of his rules to Matt. vi. 13 as compared with Luke xi. 4, and again of Matt, xxiii. 14 with Luke xx. 47, the influence of this doubtful principle of harmonizing other Gospels with Luke ; an idea urged by Marcion in the second century. In each' of the three omissions, found in John's writings, the ruling spirit of Alexandria in the fourth century, when these copies were made, as it has been apparent to both Roman and Protestant Bible students amid all their disa greements since the Reformation — the Alexan- OMISSIONS IN JOHN'S GOSPEL. 75 drine controversies as^to the supernatural in Christ's person and work must be kept in mind. John v. 4 is the first of these omissions. It is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican manu scripts, by the older Parisian before correction, by the Cambridge, D, and by cursive 33. It is retained in the Alexandrine uncial, in the cor rected older and in the later Parisian, in the Tischendorff fragments, in all the cursives ex cept 33, in the Syriac Peschito, in Jerome and in the Latin Vulgate. Yet it is omitted by Tregelles and by the Canterbury revisers. John vii. 53 to viii. 11 is the second and most extended omission from John's Gospel. It is omitted by the Sinaitic, the Alexandrine, the Vatican, the older Parisian, and four later un cials, and by cursive 33 ; but in the Alexan drine and older Parisian and two of the later uncials, that is in half of the uncials which omit the passage, there is a blank space indicating that something is omitted ; the text being erased or its copying deferred. It is found in the Cambridge, D, and other uncials, in the cursives generally, in the Latin Vulgate, as it is in the "koine ekdosis" of the Greek Church ; while Greek and Latin fathers, cited by Poole and Tregelles, refer to the omitted narrative as found in John's Gospel. It is omitted as y6 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. spurious by Tregelles ; and it is put in brackets as doubtful by the English revisers. I John v. 7 is the most disputed of the omis sions of the uncials and of the new English re vision. The passage is omitted in the Alexan drine, Vatican and Sinaitic uncials ; from two later uncials, K and L; from some cursive man uscripts ; from the Syriac Peschito and some other Oriental versions ; as also from some of the early Latin versions. It is found in most of the cursive manuscripts, in the " koine ekdo sis" as preserved by the modern Greek Church; in the Latin Vulgate ; and in all the Protestant and Roman Catholic versions called out at the era of the Reformation. Several of the Greek and Latin fathers before Constantine's day, cited by Tregelles, quote the passage with more or less distinctness. Since this latter passage was brought into dis pute before the translations by Protestant Re formers were made, it is fitting that the argu ment of Poole should be cited in brief. The survey may indicate that the revisers of that earlier day had in possession authorities more complete, as Poole's statement shows, than many scholars of the present day have sup posed. Poole presents first the evidence cited against the passage, thus : " This verse neither the Syrian nor the ancient Latin interpreters OMISSION IN JOHN'S EPISTLE. jj nor many Greek codices, read ; nor many of the ancients, as Nazianzen, Athanasius, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Hilary, Augustine, and Beda; who, since they were writing against the Arians, would not have omitted this passage if they had believed it to be genuine. Also the Council of Nice, when it proved the Trinity against Arius from John x. 30 and 1 John v. 6, yet omitted this verse 7, which is most in point. Either they did not read it, or they passed it as sus pected and of doubtful reliableness." In reply ing to this argument, Poole presents these facts : " The most ancient and approved copies (exem- plaria) read it"; meaning by "exemplaria" doubtless the accepted cursives. He proceeds, stating among these exemplars: (1) "All the Greek codices in the time of Jerome, he attest ing this in prolog. Epist. Canon ad Eustochi- um." (2) The "codex Britannicus " ; whose au thority led Erasmus to restore it in succeeding, though omitted in former editions. (3) The " codices which the authors of the Complu- tensian edition used A.D. 15 17." (4) "The cod ices of Laurentius Valla." (5) " The codices of Robert Stephens," most of which had it. Poole then cites the fathers who quote the passage ; among whom are Cyprian, "who wrote before Arius was born, in the third century " ; Tertul- lian contra Praxeam ; Athanasius ad Theop. on 78 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. the "united deity of the Trinity, lib. I."; to which list Poole adds several later fathers, in cluding Jerome. He adds: "These words could have been omitted by oversight, through a mistake of the copyist; whose eye, when he had transcribed the passage up to these words, 'there are three that bear record,' — whose eye, wandering, might have passed over to v. 8, where the same words are repeated ; and so from want of care he might have passed beyond this verse. Yet more, as to the question whether this verse was taken out by the Ari- ans or added by the Orthodox, the latter is much more probable." In a long argument he sustains this latter proposition ; the main points of evidence being these. First, to omit implies only excusable oversight, while to insert implies designed deceit and direct invention of a human statement as God's word. Second, the opposers of the doctrine had more reason for omission than its upholders for addition, since enough other texts remained to support their view. Third, the opposers, regarding the New Testa ment as only human, did not feel the motive to fidelity which inspired believers in the Divine authority of the Scriptures; and hence they did change the text, as is attested by Ambrose De fide 5, 7 and De Spiritu Sancto ; also in Socrates Hist. Eccl. vii. 32 and Tripart. xii. 4. VARIA TIONS IN THE UNCIALS. 79 Fourth, the political power, under Constantius and Valens, gave popularity to the text which favored Arianism. This lengthy statement of Poole, founded on testimonies to which the re searches of Tregelles have added little and from which much has been omitted, call for a careful consideration of the real claims of this most dis puted passage to still continued confidence. As one among many general testimonies which sustain the " common text " in retaining all the fourteen passages above considered, Rev. Garabed Kaprielian, for several years a native pastor near Constantinople, states : that the an cient Armenian version, used now by the Cath olic Armenian people, omits only the two cited in Mark's Gospel ; while the modern version has restored those two passages. THE COUNTLESS VARIATIONS OF THE THREE LEADING UNCIALS. The most superficial reader of Tischendorff's edition of King James' version will observe that at the bottom of every page there are generally noted a score or more of variations from the re ceived text found in one or more of the three leading uncials, the Sinaitic, the Vatican and the Alexandrine. Choosing his own mode of 80 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. indicating these manuscripts, since the old des ignation controlled by English scholars gave no place in the English alphabet for his newly dis covered manuscript, Tischendorff reverses the order of Tregelles, making his own first in au thority and the Alexandrine last ; indicating always the agreement of these three most com plete as well as most ancient uncials by the first letters of their names ; writing S. V. A. where they are all agreed. As a sample of these numberless .variations, and of the disagreements of the three among themselves, the following illustrations may be traced and weighed. Passing by the Gospel of Matthew, where because of the loss of the Al exandrine only two can be compared, and where as we have observed six out of ten omit ted verses occur, these may be noted. In John, ist chap., there are ten clauses omitted; in the 6th chap, seventeen. In Acts, ist to loth chaps., there are 180 variations; of which 105 are marked S. V. A. ; while, of the remaining 75, all are marked S, 40 are marked V, and 55 A. In John's ist Epistle 58 variations are found in the Sinaitic, 45 are found in the Vati can, 56 in the Alexandrine ; while the varia tions in which the three agree are but 19 in number, including the disputed passage 1st John v. 7. It would be hard to conceive a TISCHENDORFF'S ADMITTED ERRORS. 8 1 stronger testimony that these Egyptian-copied Greek manuscripts are utterly unreliable as au thority in deciding on the true Greek text. Yet more ; nearly all these variations are omissions. There are a few variations in the form of words ; as in that cited by the Bishop of St. Andrews where in Luke ii. 14 " eudo- kias," the genitive, is used for " eudokia," the nominative ; making the angels' chant to be " peace on earth to men of good will," instead of "peace on earth, good will to men." The addi tions, on the other hand, are so few that pages may be scanned before one is met ; and then it is of a kind that implies carelessness rather than designed invention. The most marked testi mony, supporting Poole's view as to the prior judgment that additions have not been made in the common text, but that omissions have oc curred in the uncial manuscripts, is Tischen dorff's own ingenuous admission. Thus on Acts xxiii. 16, where the Alexandrine has "synagogue " for " castle," Tischendorff writes : "a mere error." Again, on Acts xxvii. 37, where the Vatican has " two hundred " only, and the Alexandrine has " two hundred and fifteen," while the Sinaitic, his own, has " two hundred and sixteen," in accord with the com mon text, Tischendorff writes : " a mere error." So in ist John, 5th chap., all studded with va- 6 82 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. riations in Tischendorff's margin, the Alexan drine omits the entire clause i John v. 15 •' " And if we know that he hear us " ; on which Tischendorff, all unconscious of its bearing on the omission of the 7th verse just above, writes : " a mere error." Chiefly, however, in the text of the Revelation his admissions as to errors of the three leading uncials are perfectly destruc tive of their reliableness as authority. Thus at Rev. iii. 15, where A. omits the clause: "I would thou wert cold or hot," he writes: "a mere error." Again at v. 4 his note is: "A. omits this verse: a mere error." Again at vi. 8, in which vicinity the cited variations are like the " hail-stones," there referred to, in number, Tischendorff notes as follows one of the rare ad ditions of the uncials: "A. was called Immor tal; an error." Again at xiii. 7 is the note: " A. omits, ' And it was given .... to over come them ' ; an error." Having thus found the Alexandrine manuscript, most trusted by Tregelles, so unreliable, Tischendorff comes to a portion of the Revelation where his own man uscript must, for consistency's sake, be made to suffer lack of authority more than the Alexan drine. On Rev. xviii. 21 he has the note: "A. An angel took up ; S. And an angel took up a mighty stone like a great stone ; an error." Again at xix. 2 comes the note : " A. which TREGELLES' INCOMPLETE WORK. 83 judged ; a mere error" Finally, as if the woe on the one " adding " or " taking away," re corded Rev. xxii. 1-8, 19, began to rise to view and to denounce these manuscripts, the work of inexperienced Egyptians, as coming under its malediction, Tischendorff ingenuously, if not reverently, makes this note, as to a whole verse omitted from his admired manuscript : Rev. xx. 5 : " S. omits But the rest .... were fin ished ; a mere error." It is almost incompre hensible, when on almost every chapter Tisch endorff has noted a score or more of like varia tions and omissions in the three trusted uncials, that their real character had not dawned on his mind. Nothing but the utter blindness that takes possession of ambitious explorers in the fields of science, so often unveiled in the French Academy by Humboldt and Cuvier, and in the American Academy by Henry and Agassiz, can account for the ingenuous frankness andthe un conscious inconsistency of the Sinaitic explorer. INEQUALITIES AND IMPERFECTIONS IN THE WORK OF TREGELLES. The labor of exhaustive collation attempted by Tregelles was exhausting, and necessarily so, to its author. Many portions of his work 84 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. show that his collation was left incomplete, and his judgment therefore immature. At some points, as the works of Poole and of Hug attest, the research of Tregelles fell behind that of his predecessors, as also behind that of Tischendorff, his co-laborer; certain portions of whose conclusions Tregelles approved, while much of his labor he appropriated. While many passages illustrate these facts as to the work of Tregelles, a single example must suffice for illustration. In i Cor. xi. 24, the word " klomenon," broken, is omitted by Tregelles, and by the Canterbury revisers. The authorities cited by Tregelles are as follows : The Alexandrine and Vatican, also the Sinaitic and early Pa risian before correction, among uncial manu scripts, also, one cursive manuscript, 17, with one Armenian version, omit the passage. It is found in the common text, the " koine ekdosis" of the ancient and modern Greeks. It was restored in the uncials cited by early Greek revisers in two cases ; by the third of ten succes sive correctors of the Sinaitic, and by the third corrector of the early Parisian. It is restored and made emphatic by the term " thruptomenon," crushed, inserted by the second Greek corrector in the manuscript of Paul's epistles, marked D, because, as we have seen, it was, for a time, OMISSION IN i COR. xi. 24. 85 supposed to be the continuation of the manu script of the Gospel and Acts, also marked D, in the Cambridge Library ; a manuscript fully described by Hug, and briefly mentioned by Tregelles, and a manuscript now well known for centuries in the Royal Library of Paris. It is found, also, in the following later uncials : in F, in Trinity College, Oxford ; in G, in the Dres den Library ; in both K and L in the Library of Paris; in the important cursives, No. 37 and 47; in the two Syriac versions, the Peschito and Harclean ; and in the Gothic and one Armenian. Jerome found it, as he did other passages, omitted in the uncials made in Egypt just before his thirty years spent in Palestine ; and, restoring it, he rendered it " tradetur," shall be delivered. The Latin Vulgate retains it, and renders it " traditur," is delivered ; not " trade tur," as by oversight or misprint it appears in Tregelles. The Arabic, never cited by Tre gelles, prepared, as Hug shows, from the Greek, but with Latin and other versions guiding the translator, has " tekeser " ; a verb which in meaning shows that the Greek term " klomenon " was the translator's guide ; while its, form throws light on the two forms " tradetur " and " tradi tur" in the Latin. The Arabic verb, " keser," the third person singular of the preterit, is rendered by Freytag in Latin, " fregit," he 86 NE W TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. broke; while by French lexicographers, now in Algiers, it is rendered by the familiar term " casser." The augmented tense, " tekeser," called in Hebrew and the cognate Arabic either "future "or "present," represents, like the Greek aorist, the act unlimited as to time ; though while the Greek aorist represents the act as past, the Hebrew and Arabic repre sent the time as incomplete, though the act may be past, present, or future, according to the connection. The Greek "klomenon" admitted this indistinctness as to time ; since Jesus in uttering the word used it as to what was to occur the next morning. That He did utter the term is indicated by several considerations. First, Luke, who wrote his Gospel as Paul's companion, and with the Epistle to the Corin thians for some years before him and his readers, represents Christ as usingthe word " didomenon". (Luke xxii. 19) ; whose correctness no authority has ever questioned, though it is omitted in one Syriac version, showing that omissions crept in that were unauthorized, by error of copyists. Luke's statement (xxii. 19) is, " And taking the bread he broke it (eklasen, the aorist tense), and gave it (edoken, also aorist) to them, saying, this is my body given (didomenon) for you." Luke represents Christ as drawing His participle from the second verb, "didomi"; REASONS FOR RETAINING "BROKEN." 87 but Paul's is from the first verb, " klao." Sec ond, thephrases of Luke and Paul, " to soma mou to hyper hymon," — the body of me, that for you — are precisely the same, the participle only excepted. If, now, Paul did not add, like Luke, a participle, there was a hiatus unex pected, an omission the reader must supply if the writer did not. Third, the " koine ekdosis," in use " time out of mind " among the Greeks, the cursive manuscripts generally which guided the Roman and Reformed editors at the Refor mation, attest that the word belongs to the original text ; while the Greek revisers of differ ent ages, better judges than any modern scholars can be, inserted the word in the Egyp tian-made uncials, regarded by all Greeks, in all ages, as incorrect. The rejection by Tregelles, not only of the text received by all the Greek guardians of the New Testament given in their vernacular, but also of that inserted by all the successive revisers of the Egyptian uncials in ages and by men best qualified to judge of their imperfections — the fact that he shrank from following Tischendorff in adhering to the view that these manuscripts because very old were therefore supreme as authority — yet more, the incompleteness of Tregelles' research as to this and other like changes made in the Greek text — all these facts, as the Bishop of St. Andrews 88 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. intimates, justified the Canterbury revisers in hesitating to follow Tregelles, as he had hesi tated to follow Tischendorff. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF THE REVISERS CHANGES IN THE GREEK TEXT. The facts thus traced as to changes in the Greek text, followed by the revisers, affect but indirectly the changes in rendering given by them to the great body of the New Testament as universally received. With most of those changes the English-speaking Christian world has felt and expressed special satisfaction. It is the unexpected change made in the Greek text which has awakened the solicitude even of the revisers ; more than one of whom speaks through the Bishop of St. Andrews. As a matter of translation only he feels the utterly changed aspect of the petition : " Deliver us from the evil one," i. e., from an enemy without, as com pared with the deeper conviction which prompts the cry: "Deliver us from evil" the traitor within ; but he dwells chiefly on the implied de nial, indicated by its omission of the Divine sanc tion for the ascription : " For thine is the king dom, the power and the glory forever " ; an ascription, which, in the prayers of Christian wor- DOUBT OF A LEADING REVISER. 89 shippers in every portion of the world, has from time immemorial been made a part of " the Lord's prayer," Yet again, as a matter only of changed translation the Bishop of St. Andrews sees a doctrinal lack in the angels' song when it is changed, by the addition of a single* letter in the Greek, from the universal promise, " good will to men," and made to assume the limited pledge to the few self-supposed "men of goodwill." It is, however, the authority found in any " real consensus of scholars " for the change in the Greek text, that the good Bishop doubts. And well may any earnest Christian inquirer thus hesitate ; for, these are the stated authorities. The Alexandrine uncial in this passage, the Vati can before correction, and the Latin and Gothic versions add " s " to the Greek word " eudokia " ; while the Alexandrine in its added " Natal Hymn," the Vatican as corrected by its second native Greek revisers, the old Syriac and the Oriental versions generally, the cursive manu scripts, the Greek " koine ekdosis " of to-day, are all in accord with the versions of scholars of the Reformation. To this testimony, cited by Tregelles, Tischendorff now adds : that, while the Sinaitic manuscript originally inserted the "s," it was erased by an early Greek reviser ; the whole phalanx of Greek authorities thus sustaining the' integrity of the received Greek text and de- go NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. claring the error of the uncial manuscripts, as well as the inconsistency of their special advo cates. It is not the hesitancy of the original revisers, however, that constitutes the main demand for an impartial review of the changes proposed in the Greek text of the New Testament. These changes, especially the omissions from the re ceived text, have led to the extreme of sceptical objection. The class of " Liberal Religionists," ' who accept only the teachings of natural as dis tinct from revealed religion, affirm : " The Catholics rely on an infallible Church as the interpreter of revelation ; and the Protestants rely on an infallible text as the revelation to be interpreted." These objections cannot be met in argument if the Egyptian-made uncial manu scripts — full of errors, as even Tischendorff allows and rejected as unreliable by the Greeks themselves — are the only trustworthy guides to the true text. Again, the large class of " Liberal Christians," who accept the Scriptures, but seek to find the proofs of a human rather than of a Divine origin, argue, and conclusively : " On the same grounds that the Canterbury revisers have made a few changes in the text, and Tregelles more, while Tischendorff consistently goes to the extreme of all the omissions and vari ations found in the Egyptian uncials, — on these REASONS FOR THE REVISER'S DOUBT. 91 same grounds the whole fabric of the claim to an infallible text is made to be a fallacy ; and our claim is established that the book is human and its text and its interpretation are to be ac cepted only as each man's individual reason makes it truth for himself." Here the hesitating admission of the Bishop of St. Andrews as to his own reasons for yield ing to changes which Christian judgment re jected, demand again a most careful considera tion. In his charge to his diocese the Bishop thus writes. After declaring : " the more I saw of the work the more it appeared to me that we were going beyond the purpose for which we were appointed," and again stating as he refers to the omissions above cited : " I did the best I could to resist alterations of the authorized version such as these," the Bishop adds : " So far as I could judge I was unable to discover in either case any real necessity of faithfulness to justify, or any actual consensus of scholars to de mand the changes that have been made." It is this latter fact, apparent to the Bishop as one of the original Board of revisers, which has been brought to view in the history above traced. There is no " actual consensus " of scholars in any age or branch of the Christian Church that has justified these changes. As the manuscripts themselves attest, the Greek 02 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Church, in whose language they were written, were either indifferent to the Egyptian uncials as superannuated, or they sought to correct in them errors which to their superior judgment were palpable ; thus making them conform to the " koine ekdosis." Yet more ; the most in telligent and conscientious scholars of both the Eastern and Western Churches never regarded them of any value except as collateral testimony to the " textus receptus " ; with which in the main they accord. Still yet more ; no class of scholars has ever proposed that the " common text " should be set aside ; for even Tregelles would only have that text modified when all the leading Egyptian uncials are found to vary from it. The mere individual aspirants for per sonal originality in philological research, so fitly characterized by Hug, have proved that they are but mutually-conflicting and reciprocally- destructive critics. The inquiry, therefore, is not only legitimate, but imperative : " What has given origin and growing prevalence to this new, this unprecedented, this inconsistent and this self-destructive devotion to the Egyptian uncials?" To refer it mainly to blind enthusi asm for mere antiquity, to suppose that antiq uity has been mistaken for authority, though this is really the character of these manuscripts, as their former possessors have attested, does AUTHORITY OF GREEK CHURCH. 93 not cover the ground of actual misleading causes. GENERAL REASONS FOR UNDUE TRUST IN THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. There are general causes for the fact that the Egyptian copies of the New Testament, so nu merously made during the century which fol lowed the accession of Constantine, should have been unduly estimated by European scholars ; who, in comparatively modern days, have first met with the manuscripts which after a thou sand years of possession had ceased to be of any practical value to their Greek possessors. First, there is a natural admiration for archae ological relics ; most worthy when confined to its proper limit. But, as one of the early re prints of Tyndale's, or even of King James', version, made by English or American printers in the early haste after the Revolutions- under Charles I. and George III., are now prized as museum-relics, though untrustworthy as author ity, so a discriminating judgment must decide as to the prized uncial manuscripts of the New Testament. Second, the authority of the Greek revisers of those manuscripts has naturally been under valued. There is a national pride, truly patri- 94 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. otic, that places a high estimate on national prominence in power ; and which by this stand ard estimates the treasures of other nations ac cording to their present political eminence. The treasures, however, of early Greek Chris tian scholarship are coming to be more and more prized by German theologians like Dorner and Ritschl ; and the faith of the Greek Church, more primitive than that of the Roman Church, is finding constantly a larger place in German writers on Ecclesiastical History. The . unwa vering confidence of the unbroken line of Greek Christian scholars in the integrity of the " com mon text " of the original New Testament, their vernacular,— embodied for ten centuries in their corrections of the Egyptian uncials, — • is one of the characteristics of modern research. This was specially illustrated in Professor, after wards President, Felton of Harvard University. When studied at a distance, the modern Greek people seemed to his view to have no claim to authority as guardians of the literature of their noble ancestry. When afterwards studied for a few weeks at Athens, in their Court and their University, and amid their classic surroundings, the modern Greeks seemed in themselves to be worthy of their inheritance and of a voice as in terpreters of the ancient classics. Third, the claim of the Oriental Church has A U THORITY OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES. 95 long been overlooked : that of the Armenians of ancient Eden and Ararat ; that of the Nes- torians whose line is traced to the apostle Thomas ; that of the Syrian Christians who justly claim direct lineage with the disciples of Jesus' day, and whose were the " Palestinian codices" cited by Hug; that of the Copts of Egypt who go' back in their claim, past Clement and Origen, to Mark the evangelist ; and lastly that of the Abyssinian Church, who speak still, as Bishop Gobat states, of their relation to the treasurer of Queen Candace. All these, be cause of their political subordination for ages, have been lost from view as having no voice of historic authority. But Chateaubriand, Lamar- tine and even Renan of France have succes sively caught the new spirit inspired amid the scenes of Jesus' life. DTsraeli, in his " Lothair," recognized its legitimate sway when he made his young hero, sighing for the earlier tradition, fail to find satisfaction at Rome; while he seemed to breathe a purer atmosphere as in Syria he roamed and communed with a Chris tian of the Eastern Church, and as, with him, he went back, past mediaeval traditions, rituals and decree's, to the words of Jesus, read on the soil hallowed by His footsteps and studied amid the scenes yet vocal with His utterances. The decadence of the military power which has 96 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. made the people of Western Asia seem, but only seem, to have accepted the Mohammedan faith, will bring a new people into the alliance of Christendom ; whose line of guardians of the New Testament will be seen to have a ' higher honor than the Jewish Church ; whose fidelity in preserving the integrity of the text ot the Old Tes'tament,. the earlier " lively oracles,' drew forth the sincere commendation of Paul, though he went beyond his countrymen in ac cepting the " new covenant " ; a covenant which its author will not permit the negligence of care less and indifferent transcribers to " annul " by omissions, or to overlay with additions. Yet more ; the Coptic convents on the Nile, de scribed by Lane and Sir Gardner Wilkinson, and visited by occasional Western scholars, whose libraries are carefully locked through fear of plunder under the name of research, may yet be entered ; and Christian grace, though not Christian gold, may yet unlock those libraries and reveal rare copies of the Greek New Testa ment. Then the originals from which Greek scholars of ten centuries have corrected the Egyptian uncials — the originals may perhaps be found. Fourth, bondage to ecclesiastical precedents, seen even in Hug, has doubtless been a cause of error as to the Egyptian uncials. Nothing A UTHORITY IN THE ROMAN CHURCH. 97 j j j could be more significant than Hug's statement as to the Latin Vulgate ; that it is authority "in discipline," but is not supreme in doctrine. Nothing could be more emphatic and full than his classification of the leading Egyptian un cials ; which, as he declares, follow the text of "the Hesychian recension," known to have been controlled by the teachings of Marcion. Nothing, therefore, to the impartial scholar, could be more significant than this, his own statement, after having accorded superior au thority to the Palestine, as compared with the Egyptian manuscripts : " The manuscripts of the koine ekdosis in Syria contained, notwith standing, several important readings which we seek in vain in the Egyptian manuscripts " ; and then he cites Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xx. 22; Mark ,vi. 13; Mark xiii. 14; Luke iv. 18; the very passages which we have seen to be omit ted from the Latin Vulgate. That such a scholar as Hug could find no other authority than the Egyptian uncials, whose integrity he had before in every respect disproved, — that Hug found no other resort than these rejected manuscripts for these omissions is proof de monstrative that they do not err who on Hug's own statement deny the authority of the Latin Vulgate, when on such grounds it departs from the common text. 7 98 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Fifth, the adoption of the rule, opposed by Bacon, that " individual opinion " as opposed to " uniform historic testimony," began the lean ing to the authority of the Egyptian uncials which has now culminated. Dr. Edward Rob inson, in his edition .of Hahn's Greek New Tes tament, published at New York in 1842, thus states this rule of criticism : " Lower criticism occupies itself only with external evidence ; and employs it to distinguish between what is genu ine and what is spurious and corrupt, whether in respect to a whole book or a collection of books, or also to a single passage or word. Higher criticism, on the contrary, rests only on the internal evidence; and determines either a whole book, or single passages to be genuine or not, according as they agree or disagree with the character or style of the writer to whom, and with the. genius and history of the time to which, they are ascribed." That expression " rests only on the internal evidence " is calcu lated to awaken thought. As applied to Gre cian and Roman historians and poets, to Ho mer and Herodotus, to Virgil, Livy and Pliny, this rule, adopted more than a century ago in Germany, like much of German philosophy, has been "weighed in the balance" of practical judgment and has been " found wanting." It is nothing else than the statement that a single AUTHORITY OF HISTORIC TESTIMONIES. 99 modern student, in the seclusion of hi's study, has better means of judging of the " character and style " of an ancient writer and of compre hending the " genius and history of their times " than had all the contemporaries and immediate successors of the writer criticised. Discoveries of imperfections in the text of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and of the Greek and Latin classic authors, which escaped the ken of their contemporaries and of generations of native scholars for ages since, have somehow been re vealed to a speculative critic in the 18th and 19th centuries ! Surely this savors of the self- idolatry indicated in the " idola tribtis, speeds, fori et theatri," which Bacon hunted down to their secret shrines. It certainly comes under Hug's just condemnation above quoted. And the result proves Hug to have spoken not simply from conviction as to principle, but also from experience as to the fact. The four editors who followed the rule above cited are Griesbach, Knapp, Lachmann, and Scholz. No two of these agreed ; Griesbach changed his de cisions in successive editions ; Scholz is incon sistent with himself ; and Hahn restored much that his predecessors had discarded. Turning to the eighteen passages omitted from the Egyptian uncials, citing with Hahn and Robin son the editors by their initials, G, K, L, S, H, IOo 'new testament greek text. and indicating passages omitted as unsustained by om., those regarded by the editor as doubt ful and hence enclosed in brackets by dub. or doubtful, and those retained as belonging to the true text by ret., the following is the record. Matt. vi. 13 G S L om. K H dub. ; Matt. xii. 47 all ret. ; Matt. xvii. 21 all ret.; Matt, xviii. II all ret. ; Matt, xxiii. 14 L om. G K S H ret., but transpose vs. 13 and 14 ; Matt. xxiv. 35 all ret. / Mark vi. 1 1 G om., K L H (S not cited) dub. ; Mark xiii. 14 G om., K L H dub. ; Luke iv. 18 G om., K L H dub.; John v?4 all ret.; John vii. 53 to viii. 11 all ret. ; Acts vii. 37 G S L om.,K H dub. ; Acts ix. 6 G K S L om., H dub. ; 1 John v. 7 all om. The annals of editorial criti cism can hardly furnish a parallel to such incon sistency in decisions formed from " individual opinions," and which " rests only on internal evidence." When it is considered that all these editors belpng to the same school, Hug is more than justified in his condemnation of the rule of judgment. When it is added that the Egyptian uncials and the Hesychian recension, on which those uncials were founded, are the guides of these editors, American scholars cannot be re garded as untrue to the rules of just criticism if they adhere to the " common text " of the Greek New Testament. Sixth, unconscious partiality for a preferred PARTIALITY FOR FAVORITE EDITORS. i0l class of authorities, also alluded to by Hug, has been, as in Tregelles, a fascinating leader. This tendency, charity admits, has unconsciously led to the preference for the three special cursive manuscripts, Nos. I, 33, 69, styled "important " by Tregelles. This doubtless led, in Tregelles' citatiori from Armenian versions, to the use of. copies which at many points are not in harmony with the now received version of the Armenian Church. This,, again, doubtless influenced the omission of important authorities on such pas sages as Matt, xviii. II, Matt. xxiv. 35 and 1 John v. 7, which are cited by Poole. This un conscious partiality, yet again, doubtless led to the selection of the " version of Jerome " placed side by side with his amended Greek text by Tregelles ; as its selection and foot-note refer ence to other " Latin versions " show. While Hug, specially competent to decide, traces the whole history of Latin versions before and after Jerome, and affirms that the text of Jerome was much corrupted by his successors, that it was not fully received till the sixth century, that Alcuinus " intended nothing more than to restore Jerome's Bible as accurately as possible," and that the received Vulgate, whose history he traces, was, as adopted at the Council of Trent, substantially the " received Church-version," Tregelles alludes to four versions, and selects an 102 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. edition of Jerome called that of Amiatinus, at Florence, of the' 6th century, for prominence. His use of this, as compared with the others cited, seen especially on Luke iv. 18, Acts viii. 37, ix. 6 and 1st John v. 7, betrays his predi lections. Its departures from the received Vul gate, styled by Tregelles the " Clementine " edition, have been already noted. UNSCIENTIFIC CRITICISM THE MAIN SOURCE OF ERROR AS TO THE EGYPTIAN UNCIALS. The parallel between unscientific methods in physical induction and in philological criticism, linking themselves as both do with materialistic theories, has become so palpable as to call forth the animadversions of such a critic as the Amer ican Ripley and of such a scientist as the En glish Lewes. In his address at the inauguration of the statue of Franklin in front of the Tribune Building, New York, George Ripley, ripe and rich in both the experience and the criticism of every phase of "liberal thought" in America, after tracing the pervasive tendencies of mate rialism in the popular literature of the day, de clared that its rule had reached its climax ; from which a reaction was sure soon to begin. SPECULATIVE THEORIES RULING CRITICS. 103 Writing' the Life of Goethe, Lewes, the En glish 'materialistic evolutionist, after tracing the „ speculative tendencies that controlled German idealistic evolutionists, like Oken and Haeckell, based on the poetic fancies of Goethe, — Lewes cites the following supposed case to illustrate the'differing methods of logical induction and of speculative deduction. Supposing that an international prize for the best essay on the two- humped camel were offered, he gives this pic ture. The English explorer would visit the mountain regions of Bactria and Thibet, in or der that he might study the camel itself in its " environment " ; the French scientist would 'resort to all the Libraries of Europe, and would collate all that had ever been written on the subject ; while the German student would sit down in his study and " evolve the animal out of his own consciousness." This parallel as to method pursued in scien tific and literary criticism, thus observed by the veteran Ripley and the satiric Lewes, is seen in the common result, reached by both, the denial of all supernatural spiritual agency ; a result at tained by proceeding from the opposite ends of a common chain. The scientist, predisposed to reach such a result, begins by collating facts which indicate that the origin, as well as the continuance, of the mechanical order and of the 104 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. organizing forces of the material Universe, re quires no supposition pf an infinite designing mind ; and hence he is prepared to deny all re-. ceived truths in both natural and revealed relig ion. The Biblical critic, more unconsciously predisposed to the same tendency, beginning with the Christian revelation, denies first, be cause he has not experienced it, that Divine regeneration which gives the " eye," as Jesus taught, to " see " spiritual truth ; second, inspi ration, given by the same Divine power to reveal the truth to be seen ; and third, the Divine nat ure, works and mission of Christ as the mediator in man's redemption. Unable, because it would be illogical, to pause here, when he passes to the truths of natural religion, this Biblical critic denies, first, the efficacy of prayer, except as a moral influence on a misguided imagination ; second, Divine Providence, which, if real, makes' trust in prayer to be anything else than a mental delusion ; and third, creation, which of course, if admitted, demands at the outset as many and as repeated Divine interpositions as there are distinct types and orders in plant and animal organism ; and that, not only in any one, but in each successive geological age. The fact, so palpable, that no Biblical critic who denies the first of these six principles can maintain logic ally either of the other five, shows the natural REASONING OF RATIONALISTS. 105 and necessary tendency of this school in Biblical criticism. The 'process pursued under their method by this school, generally styled " rationalistic," in Biblical criticism, deserves notice ; since its whole theory is proved to be illegitimate, if the text of the records, claimed as inspired, is shown to have been guarded by a Divine as v/ell as by human watch-care. The claim of " inspiration " is declared to be an a priori assumption, rather than an inductive and demonstrative conclusion ; it is asserted that real contradictions in history, i and inconsistencies in science, as well as errors in the text are found ; and it is contended that the believers in Divine inspiration " argue in a circle," in denying without proof these errors on the ground of inspiration. If the claim of inspi ration for the Old and New Testament records is but an " a priori assumption," and if the de fence of the supposed errors is simply a special plea to maintain that assumption, then these critics are right. As, however, the defenders of the truths of natural religion have included the best and ablest men of India, Greece and Rome, and as the demonstrators of the truths of re vealed as well as of natural religion have em braced the ablest scientists and jurists, as well as.biblicists, successively eminent in all the most advanced nations of Europe, — while, moreover, 106 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. the Old and New Testaments have ruled the convictions of the common mind wherever their teachings have been known, — the " burden of proof," of course, rests on the denier. When, then, the reliableness of the received text of those records is called in question, the review of the steps which have led to the new issue may be legitimately retraced. Though it may be sufficient to have shown the inconsistent con clusions drawn from misconceived facts in the few scholars who have rejected the " common text," yet to see as plainly the unsustained foundation, in science as well as in criticism, on which the unsubstantial superstructure stands, may aid to the establishment of " the truth as it is in Jesus " in Christian confidence. SCIENTIFIC DEFENCE OF FAITH IN THE TRUTHS OF NATURAL RELIGION. All effective defence of truth, as Jesus no less than Socrates illustrated, must begin with show-, ing the fallacy of opposing conclusions ; its next step must be to show that the very premises of the opposition sustain the contrary conclusion ; and it must close with the direct and demon strative proof that the new conclusion thus reached is practically the only truth that CHRIST'S METHOD IN REASONING. 107 human wisdom can accept. The first proposi tion of Euclid begins with the " reductio ad ab- surdum " ; it urges next, from the absurdity of the opposing conclusion, the truth of the stated proposition ; and it cites, last, the first-stated and the necessarily accepted axiom, that " two things equal to a third are equal to each other," as the demonstrative proof of that conclusion. So when the truly supernatural agency of Christ in His miracles was denied, and hence His Di vine nature and mission were called in question, Jesus himself pursued this natural order of ef fective reply. First, by the " reductio ad ab- surdum," He premised : " If Satan cast out Sa tan, he is -divided against himself ; how, then, shall his kingdom stand?" Second, by the "argumentum ad hominem," He controverted : "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges." Third, by direct and demonstrative argument, He urged: that the power which dethrones must be superior to that of the enthroned ; that nothing but Divine power could interpose supernatural agency ; that therefore " the kingdom of God was come " to them ; and finally He declares, that to deny the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit was to be controlled by a spirit so opposed to the Divine Being as to shut off forever acceptance IQ8 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. with God and spiritual association with the pure and true around the Divine throne. In defence of Christ's truth, it is enough that the disciple follow his Master. Theories of material and ideal evolution were rife among the Brahmins of India when' the Vedas, which preceded the day of Moses, were written; they are analyzed in the Institutes of Menu, the last of those Vedas ; they were stud ied by Moses in Egypt, and are apparently al luded" to in this declaration (Deut. iv. 8) as to the superiority of "the statutes" (hoqim, or laws of nature, Job xxviii. 26; Prov. viii. 29, etc.), which he received from God ; and, in his account of the origin of all things, he asserted that Divine " creation," not self-evolution, was " the truth " in nature. Such theories, much more subtle, were rife among the Greeks arid Romans before Jesus appeared ; they are al luded to by Huxley and Haeckell, the former of the school of Democritus and Lucretius and the latter of the school of Xenophanes; they were replied to by the analysis of Socrates, by the logic of Aristotle and by the learning of Cicero ; they are alluded to by Paul as natu rally linked to and parallel with " mythical " lit erary interpretations at Ephesus, the centre of Grecian speculative thought in his day ; and the great Christian apostle shows (1 Tim. i. 4 and CUVIER AND AGASSIZ ON EVOLUTION. T09 vi. 20, 21) that " the truth as it is in Jesus " re veals the baselessness of the fancies on which both are made to rest. So, in modern times, Cuvier, in the French Academy in 1830, showed that the school of Goethe and Oken, then rep resented by St. Hilaire, presented ho fact, but only a theory; and, more, that the contrary truth was revealed by the monuments of Egypt, which .pictured horses and donkeys, wheat and barley, 4,000 years ago growing side by side as now, while in all succeeding ages no trace of change of type, nor intermediate link, nor' progress in evolution had appeared. Just so, too, Agassiz, in the American Academy and in lecture-halls, declared that not one fact cited by Darwin the materialist or by Haeckell the idealist, justifies their evolution theories ; and, yet more, that all the facts in embryological development, and in geological succession, were opposed, instead of favorable, to the idea of evolution. Moreover, nothing is so appar ent to practical fruit-growers and cattle-breeders as this: that the seed of improved varieties, con trary to Darwin's theory, degenerates instead of improving; and that because the vital energy is exhausted in individual improvement, while the power of reproduction is correspondingly impaired. The starting-point of this class of scientists, whose auxiliary support alone sus- HO NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. tains the parallel school in Biblical criticism, is in itself as opposed to all rules of induction as the reasoning of their coadjutors in literary . criticism is opposed to the laws of legitimate deduction. It is this latter fact, it should be observed, which serves as the unsatisfactory postulate on which their reasoning is made to rest. SCIENTIFIC DEFENCE OF FAITH IN THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION. The starting-point of argument against in spiration, that it presupposes Divine interposi tion and is therefore a mere a priori assump tion, is the opposite of fact. If the Divine Be ing has interposed in creation, again and again putting forth His direct energy to originate new, and to human conception insignificant, types of plant and animal organism — and Agas- siz, like Socrates, could believe nothing else — then the expressed conviction of Confucius, Socrates and Cicero, that that same Divine Creator would interpose to give an infallible moral guide for man His highest creature — that conviction is as reliable a starting-point in the search for a true revelation as the conviction that universal order has an adequate cause is a TESTS OF RE VELA TION AS. A FACT. IU legitimate starting-point in the search for natural law. But this prior conviction is only an incentive to search. The universal belief in revelation, somewhere to be found, is, in the next place, a just cause for search ; for as the existence of false coin proves the prior existence of true coin, so is it with a Divine revelation of needed spiritual truth ; and yet, as intimated, this con viction is only a cause for search. The univer sal conviction that if a supernatural revelation of spiritual truth be given it will be attested by supernatural manifestations of interposed mate rial power, called " miracles," — this conviction "is, in the third place, the guide to investigation of the claims pf any professed revelation ; for, men can judge of the real supernatural in mate rial' interposition addressed to the eye ; and this, according to even materialistic induction, is the only possible demonstration that a reve lation has been given. But even this prior con viction is not in itself relied on as if it were a realized fact. It is historic testimony, which is but a record of facts observed by reliable men in other ages, which, in the fourth place, is relied upon as the legitimate proof that such material interpositions were manifested in the case of Moses and of Jesus. As to Moses, living at the culminating era of Asiatic science, and "learned " in Egyptian art, even Pliny, like 112 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Paul, names the Egyptian " wise-men " (or " hakim," a name still heard in Egypt and cog nate, as Fuerst states, to " hoqim " in Deut. iv. 8) who sought to disprove by art the real super. natural. As to Jesus, the most acute Greeks and the most careful Romans, at the very age when under Augustus ancient European phi losophy reached its climax, carefully examined and then accepted the facts. Moreover, from the first, the cultured Arabian mind has ac cepted Mohammed's own repeated assertions in the Koran, that while no other professed Asiatic revelation, his own not excepted, could claim the test of seen " miracles," the facts as to both Moses and Jesus were undeniable. Hence, in all later days, even to our time, when studying amid the local traditions of Palestine, whose historic verity is like those of every other land, not only Chateaubriand and Lamartine, Dr. Robinson and Dean Stanley, but men like Strauss and Renan can no more deny the reli ableness of native historic tradition than they can deny like traditions which each accepts as reliable in his own native land. It is, then, no a priori assumption when it is claimed that the books of the Old and New Tes taments are inspired Divine revelations. This claim rests on precisely the same evidence as the claim to genuineness of the historic records OBJECTIONS TO INSPIRATION. 113 of Herodotus ; whose statements as to Egypt, as Daniel Webster used to argue, only seemed to be myths until the explorations begun by Napoleon in 1798 revealed the correctness of their detail. For, grant, as it must be granted, that a revelation is to be expected as a needed moral guide, — grant, as it must be granted, that the Divine Being has interposed to create at many an era a comparatively insignificant new plant or animal — then the testimonies to the acts and teachings of Jesus, which assert and attest Divine interposition, must be accepted on precisely the same ground as the testimonies to the occurrence of eclipses of the sun and moon ¦whose record Newton accepted as the data for his inductions. He who denies here does vio lence to all the la,ws of inductive science. OBJECTIONS TO THE FACT OF INSPIRATION. The testimony to the fact that a Divine reve lation has been given, is, as we have seen, de monstrative. The fact that the records which embody that revelation are Divinely inspired is another and distinct question for consideration. Here 'it should be observed that the conviction that the Old and New Testaments are inspired and the conception of the nature of inspiration are II4 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. not to be confounded. Every one is convinced that the action of the vocal organs in the utter ance of words is necessarily associated with the exercise of the mind which forms the thought to be put into words ; while no one ever yet has gained a clear conception of the nature of this associated co-operation between thought and muscular action. Objections to the fact and to the manner of the fact are to be kept distinct In their consideration. So far as the Old Testament is concerned, modern objections to its inspiration may be classed under three heads : those drawn, first, from the words used in its statement, or its vo cabulary ; second, from its statements of fact, or its historic records ; and third, from its state ments of principle, or its allusions to physical and its teachings in moral science. Specimens of the first are so-called Chaldseisms ; found in its poetry, as in Exod. 15th, Ps. 103d and Isa. 40th ; and urged as evidences that these portions were written, not in the age when they profess to be, but during the Babylonish captivity, when Chaldee 'words naturally came into the language. This suggestion, rife a century ago, has led the ablest Hebrew scholars, especially those who as Israelites still read the Hebrew as vernacular, to note these facts. The original language of Abraham, the head of the Hebrew nation, was CHALDEE AND HISTORIC STA TEMENTS. "5 Chaldee ; and just as old Saxon and even Celtic. words are kept alive by English poets in suc ceeding ages from Chaucer to Cowper, so Moses, David and Isaiah kept alive old Chaldee terms in their poetry. The demonstrative proof of the legitimacy of this conclusion is this : that, as the old Latin term " arare," meaning to plough, appears in the English words " ear, ear ing and eared," whose English grammatical structure shows that they were early domesti cated, and are not, like " data," etc., of late in troduction, so the Hebrew grammatical form given to these old Chaldee words, entirely un like in grammatical form to the later and pure Chaldee terms introduced into the book of Daniel, proves that the writers of the earliest ' Hebrew ages not only might, but as history affirms did, use the older Chaldee. Specimens of the second class, or supposed ^historic errors, every one of which have been fully elucidated by scholars like Poole, are such as these. Sennacherib, of Assyria, is said to have invaded Judea some years before he was king. The reply is manifest ; first, that Isaiah (xxxvi. i) and Ezra (2d Chron. xxxii. 1), who would be quite as likely to know the fact as a modern critic, state the same fact as it is found 2d Kings xviii. 13 ; while any student of com parative history will recall that just so Titus the Il6 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. Roman, as a General, some years before he was Emperor, invaded Judea. Again, the statements (2d Kings viii. 26) that Ahaziah was " twenty- two years old," and (2d Chron. xxii. 2) that he was " forty-two years old " on coming to the throne, are met by Poole's reference to I Sam. xiii. 1. The phrase "son (or heir) of one year in his reign " was necessarily varied in the En glish version from the rendering of the same form of expression repeated constantly as to subsequent kings ; and found in the two state ments as to Ahaziah. To suppose that the two Hebrew writers of the Kings and Chronicles would contradict each other, and that no He brew reader for centuries, until the rise of mod ern criticism, would detect the contradiction, is certainly an a priori assumption of that school of criticism which awakens attention to their claims to profoundness. The explanation, there fore, intimated by the Greek translators and by Josephus, is not only natural, but demonstrative ; that Ezra, full of the thought., as he writes the history of the line of Judah's kings, that the Messianic succession was to be traced in its special links down to Zorababel, the leader in the return and restoration of the Jewish State — Ezra goes back to the succession of Ahaziah's father, the son of Jezebel's daughter ; in whom the seed of the royal line took on such a taint SCIENTIFIC STA TEMENTS OF MOSES. 117 that it constituted a new heirship ; making Ahaziah " the son (or heir) of forty-two years in his reign." This thought of Ezra, indicated in every portion of his historic record, has its par allel in Matthew's note that the blood of the incestuous Tamar, of the Can-aanlte harlot Ra- hab, of the Moabitess alien Ruth, and of the adulteress Bathsheba, tainted the line, yet made the succession of the true Messiah take in the three families of mankind. The expe rience, of Bunsen, the Egyptologist, is in all this class of objections most instructive. After twenty years in the ambitious search through all Grecian and Roman histories, and through Chaldean and Egyptian monumental records, to find something that might throw discredit on the Hebrew historians, retiring from the storm of German denunciation which he was likely to encounter, — Bunsen, in his " Egypt's Place in Universal History," exclaims, " History was born the night when Moses with the law of God, civil and moral, in his heart led Israel out of Egypt- Specimens of the third class of objections are found in the statements of Moses in the opening chapter of Genesis. Theory after theory in violation of the laws both of science and of philology has arisen, has had its day, and has declined. The supposition that Moses, like Lu- 1 1 8 'NE W TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. cretius, drew but a picture of the imagination gives the radical German evolutionist Haeck ell an opportunity, which he coveted, to dis close the speculative errors of rationalistic Bible interpreters ; and he writes in his " History of Creation " (Appleton's Edit., pp. 38, 39) : " The hypothesis of Moses is surprising in its clearness. .... In his theory lies hidden progressive de velopment." So far, then, from being a poetic fancy, like that of Lucretius, Moses, even ac cording to Haeckell, belongs to the advanced school of true science. Turning then to inter pret, as scientific, his statement, the suggestion arose that by a " day" is meant a " geological age " ; a suggestion which the speedy after thought rejects' as in itself unscientific ; for, then, there have been just "six" geological ages ; just " six," no less and no more. - Driven from this position, the fact is recog nized : that Moses, by his qualification, " The evening and the morning were the first day," etc., forbids any other than a literal interpre tation of the word " day." The natural and consistent interpretation, heard by the writer from Prof. Hitchcock as a school-boy in 1834, and quoted by Hitchcock as the suggestion of Chalmers in 1814, is this. Moses in Gen. i. I refers to the origin of material existences ; in i. 2 he states all he has to reveal of geological INTERPRETA TION OF MOSES' GENESIS, t ig ages ; and in i. 3 he begins at the point in earth's history, when, in accordance with Agas- siz's later glacial theory, the earth by cooling was prepared for the condensation of vapor which permitted the sun's rays to break through the mist ; so that the light which man calls " day " could through that mist reach the earth ; a view which Moses' own second state ment (Gen. ii. 4-6) confirms as his meaning. The work of the third day is the origin of the three species of vegetation adapted to the new animals and to man, who were to be formed ; while the work of the fourth day is, not the creation of the " sun and moon," but their ap pointment to the new office which the clear at mosphere and the new plants, for the first time in the earth's history, now permitted. That this general view is correct, especially as it re lates to the brevity of the statements in Gen. i. 1, 2, and to the sudden transition at Gen. i. 3, is confirmed by the opening of John's Gospel (i. 1-6); where "the beginning" and "the light " are spiritual, earlier than the material described by Moses ; where the brevity is as marked ; and where the transition at i. 6 is as sudden. The objections to the fact of the inspiration of the New Testament are kindred to those made as to the Old Testament. They relate to 120 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. supposed conflicting, historic statements ; re peatedly and fully replied to by jurists like Grotius, Greenleaf and others; who have ap plied to these objections the laws of evidence which guide in the court-room as to the testi mony of witnesses only seemingly in conflict. They seek, again, disputed readings in the text ; which have been above considered. They orig inate, however, in objections to Divine interpo sition ; which are met, as observed, by the de monstrative proofs of the Divine existence, providence and creation. THE MANNER OF THE FACT OF INSPIRATION ILLUSTRATED BY ANALOGY. , The Grecian Socrates showed, both that the facts of religious conviction are demonstrative, , and that the manner of the fact is only approx imated by analogy; and the same reasoning makes demonstrative the received truths of re vealed religion, while it also illustrates their nature. When, seeking to show that the ac- .. cepted faith in the several principles of natural religion rested on testimonies precisely like those of mathematical calculation, Socrates asked how we know the first mathematical ax- MATHEMATICAL AXIOMS "A PRIORI." 12 1 iom, that " two things equal to a third are equal to each other " ? The reply being given, " we see that two things are equal, and that each is equal to the third," holding up his two fore fingers, he urged that the more we scan things supposed to be equal, the more* we see that they are not equal ; and he satisfied his hearers that the supposed seen fact of " equality " is really an a priori idea of the mind, which we only apply to observed objects. Our ideas, like wise, of cause, of design, of duty, and of fu ture spiritual existence, are, he urged, as legiti mate as the idea of equality ; and our applica tion of them in reasoning leads to corfclusions as demonstrative as those attained by the math ematics. Sir Isaac Newton recognized this fact in the a priori arguments of Samuel Clarke, not only for the existence and character of the Di vine Being, but also for the fundamental truths of Christian revelation. The world can never outgrow this truth : that the existence of a Di vine revelation is a demonstrated fact ; as reli able as is the fact of planetary motion or of plant organism. The manner of these facts, however, will without doubt always elude human ken ; and so with the manner of the fact of inspiration. It is only by approximation that science traces the nature of the forces called gravity and vi- 122 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. tality, by observing their witnessed operation ; and so the nature of inspiration is only traced by progressive approach. Here facts must be observed and accepted ; then theories must be modified so as to accord with accumulated and ever- accumulating observations; while, how ever, each new shifting of the point of the ob server's view adds new confirmation to the fact, the manner of whose operation still eludes hu man comprehension. Looking at the books of the Old and New Testaments, three facts are palpable. First, the records are made up in part from human mem ories, prpserved in oral traditions or written rec ords. This is apparent in the scrap of Antedi luvian poetry, and in the genealogical table quoted at the opening of Moses' record (Gen. iv. 23, 24 and v. 1) ; it is stated in the books of Kings by references to national " chronicles-"; it is a testimony appealed to by Luke as his au thority (Luke i. 1-4) ; and it is alluded to by Paul as the testimony to which the facts of the Gospel history and the teachings of Christ were for many years left after His personal life had ended (2 Thess. ii. 15). Second, the uninspired statements and reasonings of men are incorpo rated into both the Old and New Testament rec ords ; as is specially marked in the earliest po etical book, that of Job ; and as is illustrated ANALOGY ILLUSTRATING INSPIRATION. 123 in the letter of the Roman captain at Jeru salem sent to the Roman governor then at Cass- area (Acts xxiii. 26-30). Third, the partial views and personal opinions of the writers are found wrought into their records as a part of the inspired statement they wire called to make. Thus Moses and Paul record their own errors and faults ; John states misunderstand ings of Christ's statements which all His disci ples entertained ; and Paul interweaves through out an entire chapter'(i Cor. vii. 1, 6, 10, 12, 17, 25, 26, 40) his personal " advice " with " com mandment received from the Lord " ; declaring even that on some points (v. 40) he was not certain from which of the two the suggestion came. These palpable statements as to the nature of inspiration, however, but set off the fact of inspiration as a necessary Divine provision ; while they impress the analogy between Divine interposition in tlie physical universe, arid es pecially in spiritual regeneration, as directly cited by both Christ and Paul. This analogy Christ intimates by the associated statements (John iii. 3-1 1), " Except a man be born again (revis. anew) he cannot see the kingdom of God," and " We speak that we do know and testify that we have seen " ; and, again (John xiv. 26; and xvi. 8, 13), "When he is 124 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. come he shall reprove (revis. will convict) the world of sin," and " He shall bring all things to remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you ; he shall guide you into all truth." It is a nec essary a priori conviction, a demonstrative con clusion that confirms as well as illustrates Christ's words when these essential elements in the nat ure of inspiration are thus coupled in His own statement. It was essential that the memory of John (xiv. 26) should be Divinely aided when he was called to the double duty, first of selecting from the mass of incidents and sayings of Christ's life (xx. 30 and xxi. 25), and then of accurately reporting, some sixty years after they were uttered, statements which were not under stood when they were heard. It is an equally logical and demonstrative conclusion that noth ing but the teaching of the Divine Spirit could lead unlettered Galileans into "all truth" needed to satisfy and guide the most cultured and advanced minds of all subsequent ages. At the same time the entire analogy between the co-operative action of human and Divine influence in individual spiritual guidance is made by Paul, the specially inspired apostle, to introduce (1 Cor. 2d chap.) his own statement how there came from his pen, now his personal " advice," and now the Lord's " command ment " (chap. 7th). If deep spiritual truth can INSPIRA TION MADE CLEAR B Y OFF-SE TS. 125 be revealed only by the Divine Spirit, certainly no man could speak or write that truth but " in the words " taught by that Spirit. Yet more, if human imperfection may co-exist and consist with Divine influence in spiritual redemption in the individual, it may also co-exist and con sist with Divine inspiration ; as the analogy be tween the two, both intimated and declared by Jesus and His apostles, teaches. Still yet more, it is when the two are brought together in im mediate contrast, as in 1 Cor. 7th chap., that Divine infallibility is most clearly seen to rule human fallibility in essential spiritual truth as distinct from mere rules of expediency ; just as the true miracle of Paul was illustrated in its es sential nature by the contrasted pretence of the sons of Sceva (Acts xix. 13-20). The inspira tion of the entire record is seen most in its or daining that this contrast be made a part of the Divine teaching. In like manner the nature of the inspiration of the Old Testament writers is set forth by Peter; who like John heard Christ's statements. From the analogy of the manner in which he and his fellow apostles received and wrote what they had " seen and heard," and yet did not at all comprehend, Peter declares (ist Peter i. 8-12 and 2d i. 16-21 and iii. 2) that the same immediate guidance must have been given to prophets who " searched what and what man- 126 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. ner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should be revealed." THE COMMON TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW ¦ TESTAMENT SUSTAINED. The modern doubt thrown on the integrity of the "textus receptus" has been met at every point by German, French, English and Ameri can scholarship in each of the several depart ments of investigation which reveal the grounds of that doubt. Studied effort to undermine the integrity of the " textus receptus " began in Germany, among the rejectors of the supernat ural interposition clearly manifest in the Old and New Testament records ; whose verity was maintained by evangelical as distinct from ra tionalistic interpreters. It was fostered by Ger man speculative tendencies of thought ; and has' unconsciously pervaded the minds not only of a large class in the State Churches of Germany and of England, but has stolen into the Scot tish Presbyterian State and Free Churches, and has also influenced a large class of American Biblical students who have over-estimated the comparative value of German philological re search. FULL SUPPORT OF GREEK TEXT. i2y The speculative tendency of German intellect, already alluded to in physical science as hinted by Lewes, has been manifest to the acutest and most comprehensive scholars in every depart ment of research. Guizot, in his " History of Civilization in Europe," cites the speculative tendency of German statesmanship as compared with the practical advance of English, American and French jurisprudence. Presidents McCosh, Porter, and others, have pointed out that tend ency in the century of philosophic development since Kant ; and no pages of the history of man form in this respect such a contrast as the his tory of French and English as compared with German philosophy. Greenleaf, Fisher, Peabody and others have revived the age of Grotius and Poole in meeting the assaults of speculative theorizing as to the authenticity and genuine ness of the Old and New Testament records. Tholuck in Germany, and such pupils of his as the American Sears, early warned evangelical students for the Christian ministry of the insid ious undercurrent that was sweeping so many a brilliant scholar from his moorings. The Amer ican Theological Seminaries, such as those of Andover and Newton, of New York and Prince ton, brought forth men equal to the occasion ; and translations from the truer scholars of Ger many itself went to the root of the misleading 128 NEW TESTAMENT GREER TEXT. tendency. Within the last twenty years Dorner in his exhaustive treatise, and Ritschl by his keen supplementary analysis, have shown, from their native point of view in German theology, how the " subjective " tendency to individual specu lation has overruled "objective" devotidn to the impartial interpretation of the teachings of Jesus and of His apostles ; while their American auxiliaries, Hodge, Shedd, Washburn and others, have in " evangelical alliance " been led to new and successful vindications of the " faith once delivered to the saints." Meanwhile the quiet work of undermining the foundations of the whole fabric of the Christian faith, the integrity of the text of the New Testament, has gone on ; and that through the. " subjective " rule of " internal evidence " unconsciously accepted as legitimate by editors of the Greek New Testament, like Griesbach and Hahn ; and as unconsciously received by American' and English as well as German Bible students. Its culmination, in the misleading of Tregelles and the ambition of Tischendorff, its realized outcome in the omissions of the Can terbury revisers, call attention to the fact that the Egyptian uncials have been the blinding guide. Germany itself, in her own Hug, has furnished the master watchman who has sur veyed the whole field. From the successive PROSPECTIVE SUPPORT OF GREEK TEXT. T2C, guardians of the Greek " koine ekdosis " of Origen's day to the Oriental, Roman, German and English translators, the " watchmen," who, in all ages and on all the encompassing battle ments, have guarded " the truth as it is in Jesus," have " seen eye to eye." American Christians, under the shelter of whose institu tions inquiring minds of every nation and from all the continents are gathering — Ameri can Christians, who need more than any people of any age to know and hold, the truth, have learned from Germany itself how the " true light " shining from heaven is to be distin guished from the " false lights " that have been kindled along their shore. PROSPECTIVE CONFIRMATION OF THE INTEG RITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. The fact realized by Origen in the second century has been re-confirmed ; and that through the indirect agency of the British and Foreign Bible Society. As Paul affirmed in his day, so in the second and the nineteenth centuries the fact is confirmed, that the chief honor of the Israelite Church is this : the " lively oracles " of the Old Testament, given to Israel in their r30 ' NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. own tongue, have been preserved in their integ rity from the day that Jesus sanctioned that preserved record as God's revelation. It is to the honor of American Bible and Mission Soci eties that the Divine origin of the New Testa ment has been attested as never before in Christian history. That the truths of natural, and revealed religion are in harmony, and that' both alike are from man's Maker, has been demonstrated by this fact : not a nation or tribe, however rude, has ever been found whose ideas and words, beforehand conceived and put in form, have not ' permitted the transfer and' translation of the ideas and words embodied in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Certainly the book is Divine ; God's own gift, inspired by Him, to be man's guide ; and surely He who gave it will influence His own servants to guard it. The chief boon bestowed by the band of En glish and American scholars who have given a version of the Sacred Scriptures in the language now read by nations encircling the globe will be twofold. Many a new light will meet the eyes of deeply yearning readers, as the words of the great body of the New Testament records are drunk in by spirits longing to find the truth there revealed. But this accomplished end, in estimable because of its wide extent, will prove but secondary. As for the first time since the RE VISION A DO UBLE BOON. j 3 [ days of the apostles this widely-read version reveals chasms, unknown to Greek and Oriental to Roman and Protestant readers, the causes of the omission will be sought. What Lewes hinted as to the spirit of English research, the zeal which Robinson and others have* illustrated in American Biblical research, may be awakened and stimulated. Instead of the mountains of Bactria and Thibet being filled with camel hunters, the " famine for the word of God " may, as in Amos' day, prompt the search for new fields where the uncorrupted " seed," which as Christ said is " the word of God," may be found. The un explored convent-libraries along the Nile, men tioned by Lane and Wilkinson, may be searched ; the originals from which the uncial manuscripts were corrected may be found ; and the versions really used and therefore regarded authoritative in the Abyssinian, Coptic, Syrian, Armenian and Russian Churches may be studied and col lated. Most of all, the real grounds for the adherence of the Greek Church, the natural guardian of the sacred text, to their " koine ekdosis" may be examined and weighed. It cannot be that the Divine Author of the New Covenant, after guarding so carefully the Old Testament, will suffer the imperfection of man to " disannul or add to " the New Testament, His perfected revelation of His will for man. Fresh confirmation of the occasion and prom- !32 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. ise of the foregoing Review comes to hand as its last pages are stereotyped. The London Quar-^ terly for October, 1881, reviews four works: the Revised Version, issued by the Cambridge and Oxford presses ; the Greek Text of Dr. Scrive ner of Cambridge, that of Dr. Palmer of Oxford, and that of Drs. Westcott and Hort of Cam bridge and London. The writer declares that the Revision is " founded on an entirely new re vision of the received Greek Text," and de nounces it as a "serious" assumption thus to commit the English Universities. He urges that the "common text" has been Divinely guarded in numberless Greek copies, in ver sions and in early Christian citations. He shows that it is the Egyptian uncials which have misled Tregelles and Tischendorff; and declares they have " established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imaginations of the critics." He fills pages with illustrations of their disagreement among themselves ; and dwells on the doubt thrown on the last twelve verses of Mark's Gos pel ; on the conforming of the Lord's prayer to Luke's abbreviated abstract of the Sermon and Prayer ; and on the change in the angel's song over Bethlehem. He traces the errors of the uncials to four classes and causes : accident, de sign, assimilation and mutilation. The Divine Providence which has permitted this revived discussion saw its need and foresaw its end. PUBLICATIONS OF Moses King, Publisher and Bookseller, HARVARD SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. The folio-wing publications can be bought of book sellers throughout the United States ; or they will be sent, free of postage, to any address, on receipt of price. True Womanhood; or, Hints on the Formation of True Womanly Character. By Rev. Franklin Johnson, D. D. 140 pp. Cloth. $1.00. With por trait of author. The title explains the object of this book. Its contents comprise ten thoughtfully written chapters, showing, in an intelligent, instructive, and en tertaining manner, the true course for any young woman to pursue in order to attain the highest and noblest development. The author is one of the most eminent clergymen in the Baptist denomi nation, and is esteemed by clergymen of all denominations as one of the ablest pastors in New England; and the volume here offered to the public is the re sult of forty years' constant pastoral work. No one, young or old, can read the book without being materially encouraged in the light path. Any one can well afford to present a copy of this admirably written book to every girl or young lady in whose welfare he is interested. It is a little classic in its line. One Thousand American Poems by One Thousand Living American Authors. 600 pp. 100 portraits. Cloth. $3.00. It is intended that this work, when issued Oct. t, 1882, shall be one of the most remarkable poetical collections of the present time. The one thousand se lections are by one thousand different authors, all Americans and all living on the first day of March. 1882. The selections are made from books, maga zines newspapers, scrap-books, and mss. in the publisher's possession. Ac companying each poem is the author's full name, birthplace, date of birth, and present address whenever they can be obtained. The work will be printed on fine paper and handsomely bound It will be illustrated with one hundied porlrnits of authors wh .se poems are used. MOSES KING'S PUBLICATIONS. Benjamin Peirce. Memorial volume. i6mo. 64 pp. With portrait finely engraved on wood. Cloth, $1.00; paper, 50 cents. This little volume has received the warmest commendation of the friends of Benjamin Peirce and of Harvard University and of science the world over. It was designed simply as a token of the compiler's gratitude to the late pro fessor, who for half a century served the university as one of its most faithful officers, and who fdr two generations did as much as any one of his colleagues to add lustre to the institution with which he was so long identified. The contents, besides a good portrait as a frontispiece, include Four Ser mons, by the Rev. Drs. A. P. Peabody, James Freeman Clarke, Cyrus A. Bartol, and Thomas Hill; Three Poems, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Thomas W. Parsons, and George Thwing; Resolutions of the President and Fellows, the Faculty of the College, and the Social Science Association; Biographical Sketches, reprinted from " The Harvard Register," " Boston Daily Adver tiser," " Boston Journal," "New York Tribune," "The Nation," "Spring field Republican," " Woman's Journal," " Boston Evening Transcript," " Journal of Science," t( London Nature," " Journal of Social Science," etc. The volume is printed on heavy calendered paper, with wide margins and untrimmed edges. The English Reviser's Greek Text. Shown to be unauthorized except by Egyptian copies discarded by the Greeks, and to be opposed to the historic text of all ages and churches. By George W. Samson, D.D., LL.D., Ex-President of Columbian College, and President of the Bible Workers' College. 132 pp. Cloth, 75 cents ; paper, 50 cents. The author endeavors in this work to prove that the " Revised Edition " of the New Testament is less authentic and less preferable than the King James translation. The treatment of the subject is mild, but positive, and the evidence brought to bear shows the result of long and earnest study. Dr. Samson's position as an Orthodox clergyman, is sufficient guarantee that the discussion has been undertaken in good faith, and in the hope that it will be serviceable in determining which is the "inspired text." The style of the book has been made simple enough for laymen as well as clergymen, and any one who pretends to make a study of the New Testament, will find in this little work much to remind him of what he has forgotten, and not a little that he has never known . King's Handbook of Boston. Fourth edition.— twelfth thousand. 330 pp. 200 illustrations. Cloth. $1.00. This work contains 330 pages, illustrated with 200 steel and wood engrav ings, and albertype and heliotype-p holographs. It is a comprehensive history and description of Boston, serving also as a guide-book. It has received the approbation of residents and strangers. The press have been unanimous in its endorsement. The"Post" says: " It has long been recognized as the best description of the city that has been published." The " CongregationaHst:'* " The best guide-book to the city of Boston ever issued " The " Christian Register:" " Mr. King deserves a seat at" the Lord Mayor's table." The "Commonwealth:" "Everything is tasteful about it." Notwithstanding its size (330 pages) ; its many illustrations (200): its handsome printing; its neat cloth binding; its completeness, and its accuracy, it is sent post-paid, to any address, on the receipt of one dollar. MOSES KING'S PUBLICATIONS. Selections from the Scriptures. By Rev. David Greene Haskins, D.D. i6mo. 402 pp. Cloth The object of this book is to enable even the youngest mind to read and understand the teachings of the Bible. It brings together an outline of the important events of sacred history in their proper order and in the closest con nection, omitting the divisions of chapters and verses, making an interesting daily reading for families and schools. The Boston Public Latin School. An historical and descriptive sketch. By Henry F. Jenks. i6mo. 9 illustrations. 24 pp. Paper. 15 cents. This is a brief and authentic sketch of the oldest preparatory school in America; the school having been founded in 1635. The Revolutionary Movement in Russia. By Ivan Panin. 32 pp. Paper. 20 cents. This is a clear and able statement of the. present epoch in Russia, — chiefly a reprint from " The New York Herald," but edited with preface and notes by an educated Russian. Waltham— Past and Present. By Charles A. Nelson. With $$ photographic illustrations. 150 pp. Cloth. $2.50. Without photographs, $1.00. No city in Massachusetts has a neater, more accurate, or more interesting small historical and descriptive volume than Waltham has in this work. Its fifty-five illustrations are genuine photographs, thereby preserving, without modification or error, the different views of places now to be seen, including schools, churches, public buildings, factories, scenery, etc. The contents in clude an historical sketch of early Watertown, many queer stories of olden times, succinct accounts of the creditable part Waltham and its people took in the Revolutionary and Civil wars, graphic accounts of the industries, good sketches of the religious and other organizations, and references to every thing usually found in small local histories or guide-books. The index i.s 'exhaustive and well arranged. Only one thousand copies of the book were printed; and no more will be printed, for the type has been distributed, and no electroplates were made: Harvard and its Surroundings. By Moses King. 100 pp. 70 illustrations. Cloth, $1.50; paper, $1.00. This work is copiously illustrated with heliotypes, engravings, and etched- plates, and is printed on good paper. The subject-matter is so ingeniously ar ranged, so accurately collated, and so complete in its way, that the book at once becomes a useful reference book, guide-book, and history of Harvard University and its historical vicinity, which includes the many noted places of Old Cambridge. There are nearly seventy illustrations, about forty of which are heliotype-photographs, all numbered and arranged in the order of the text and of the route laid out on the key-plan. The revision of the text has been made by the officers in charge of the various departments, and is trustworthy in every particular. a MOSES KING'S PUBLICATIONS. Cambridge in 1882. 64small pages. Paper, iocents. This is a unique tiny pamphlet of sixty-four pages. It is small enough for any one to carry in an ordinary pocket-book without any inconvenience; yet it contains a vast amount of information, constantly useful to the visitor or resident in Cambridge. Its contents relate wholly to this city and include concise paragraphs on the city's history, statistics, schools, colleges, courts, steam and horse railroads, bridges, police, fire and water departments, omni buses, elevated railroads, herdic phaetons, cemeteries, mayors from 1846 to 1882, city government, representatives, libraries, manufactories, ward boundaries, distinguished people, national and savings banks, post-offices, mails, fire-alarm boxes, 'school signals, public halls, chimes, churches, parks and squares, charities, statues, drinking fountains, newspapers, distances, eclipses, festivals, cycles, seasons, calendar, etc. Worcester Vest-Pocket Guide. 80 small pages. Paper, to cents. This is a handy reference book to all interesting features of Worcester, Mass. It is very small, and printed on tissue paper, so that it may readily be carried in anyone's pocket-book. Its contents are arranged in alphabetical order, and comprise short statistical, historical, and descriptive paragraphs on every important place or institution In Worcester. _ It contains also lists of banks, insurance companies, fire-alarm boxes, charities, schools, churches, etc. Poets' Tributes to Garfield. i6mo. 160 pp. With steel portrait and biography of President Garfield. Cloth. $1.50. A new edition, bound in cloth, has just been issued of this beautiful memorial volume, containing a steel portrait and biography, besides a hundred and fifty poems by one hundred and fifty 'authors, including Henry W. Longfellow, Will Caileton, H. H. FSoyesen, Thomas Bailey Aldrich, A. Bronson Alcott, George Parsons Lathrop, Frances Hodgson Burnett, John Savary, Abraham Coles, Louis Dyer, Peleg McFarlin, Martin F. Tupper, David Swing, Paul H. Hayne, John Owen, Barrington Lodge, Alfred Nevin, Charles J. Beattie, A. A Hopkins, Elizabeth Yates Rich mond, Thomas Nelson Haskell, Fannie Isabelle Sherrick, Thomas Mnc- kellar, George Francis Dawson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Joaquin Miller, Walt Whitman, H. Bernard Carpenter, Hezekiah Butterworth,. Louisa Parsons Hopkins, Julia Ward Howe, John Reade, D. Gilbert Dexter, Charlotte F. Bates, George A. Parkhurst, Thomas H. Chandler, Henry C. Dane, John Boyle O'Reilly, W. D. Kelly, J. G. Holland, Charles T. Dazey, MinotJ. Savage, Lilian Whiting, Marie E. Blake, Kate Tannatt Woods, Francis A. Nichols, Caleb D. Bradlee, Anna Ford Piper, Eric S. Robertson, and others. This is one of the finest memorials yet issued of our late President. The hundred and fifty authors are scattered over the United States, Canadas, and England, making this somewhat of an international tribute. King's Pocketbook of Providence. 64 pp. Cloth, '50 cents ; paper, 25 cents. This is a dictionary of the city of Providence, R. I., containing historical, descriptive, and statistical paragraphs about everything worthy of note in and around the city. It is an A B C guide and history, thoroughly and accurately compiled, carefully and neatly printed. It contains about 400 paragraphs. MOSES KING'S PUBLICATIONS. e King's Pocketbook of Cincinnati. 80 pp. Cloth, 35 cents ; paper, 15 cents. This is a history and guide-book of the city of Cincinnati, O. It is made on the dictionary plan; the 500 paragraphs being arranged in alphabetical order. No point of any importance was omitted. It was thoroughly revised by the most competent persons, and has been highly approved and liberally patronized by the citizens of Cincinnati. Our French Visitors. By William R. Thayer. Sketches by Charles A. Coolidge. 32 pp. Paper. 25 cents^ " This is a humorous little brochure, containing documents of extraordi nary interest relating to the magnificent reception of our French visitors in Boston and their delightful tour. The racy compilation is made by William- R. Thayer, and the many unique sketches are drawn by Charles A. Coolidge. Its perusal will cause many an audible smile." — Boston Home Journal. Dean's Interest and Equation Exponents. By Albert F. Dean. 40 pp. Leather and cloth. $5.00. After seven years' constant trial, accountants in every part of the United States are assured that no work of its kind is to be compared with " Dean's Interest and Equation Exponents," for rapidity and simplicity in averaging accounts, or for finding the interest either of items or accounts. By means of this work, the interest of any sum, at any rate, for any time, can be ascertained almost at a glance. The average date, or due date, of any simple or com pound account can be arrived at with fewer figures and with considerably less work than by any* other method or book ever issued. The interest-balance of an account that is generally computed by means of an average d.ite can be found more readily than the average date. The time-tables show the number of days between any two dates, the day of the week and day of the month of ¦ the maturity of any bill, whether falling due in an ordinary or leap year, " Dean's Interest and Equation Exponents " are sold with the privilege of re turning if not satisfactory. The price, post-paid, is $5.00. Over 5,000 copies — seven editions — have been sold, and are now in use in every part of North America. Many orders from Europe have been filled. St. Louis Temperance Monthly, ioo pp. Quarto. Cloth. $1.00. This is the bound volume f the first six numbers of the " St. Louis Temperance Monthly," — from November, 1872, to April, 1873— at that time > " the handsomest magazine in the West." It is Moses King's first attempt in the publishing business. Vest-Pocket Map of Boston. Leather covers. Small. 15 cents. This convenient little map serves as a good strangers' directory for the public and noteworthy places in Boston. 5 MOSES KING'S PUBLICATIONS. Poems of the Weird and the Mystical. By Wm. Sloane Kennedy. 48 quarto pages. Paper, ' in box, $1.00. These pieces are regarded by authorities as thoroughly original and truly poetic. Some of them have been printed in leading magazines, some have been widely circulated, and some appear here for the first time. , This work is worth its price as a specimen of American typography. It comes from the Franklin Press of Rand, Avery, & Co., and, although very plain, it will bear comparison with much more pretentious specimens of printing. The Harvard Register for 1880. 254 quarto pages. Illustrated -with portraits and views. Half morocco. $3.15. The thirteen issues during the year 1880 have been bound with title-page and index. The contents include, among other matter, the President's report' for 1880, the speeches in full of the New York Harvard Club dinner, the com plete exercises of Class Day in 1880, the speeches in full of the Harvard Com mencement dinner, biographical sketches, with portraits, of the Rev. Dr, A. P. Peabody, Professor Benjamin Peirce, Frederick H. Hedge, Louis Agassiz, Ex-Librarian John Langdon Sibley, Librarian Justin Winsor, Prest. Thomas Chase, Jones Very, Alexander Agassiz, and Jonathan Brown Bright; illus-' trated descriptions of Sever Hall, Hemenway Gymnasium, Phillips Exeter Academy, Cambridge High School, Haverford College, Boston Public Latin ¦ School, Roxbury Latin School, many obituary sketches, educational essays, university news, ete. The Harvard Register for 1881. 440 pp. Por traits and views. Half morocco. $3.00. This bound volume comprises the seven issues in the year 1881, including the quadruple "final issue." Its contents are varied, and include biographi cal sketches, with portraits, of Henry W. Longfellow, Henry W. Bellows, Edward E. Hale, Robert T. Lincoln, Francis Bowen, John O. Sargent, Charles Chauncy, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, illustrated sketches of the Newton High School, Phillips Andover Academy, Mount Auburn Cemetery, Hollis Hall, Stoughton Hall, Harvard Divinity School, and other buildings and institutions. The biographical paragraphs are numerous, and were prepared with much cost and labor. The university news is also full of interesting matter of permanent reference value. King's Dictionary of Boston. Cloth, 75 cents; paper, 50 cents. This is the most exhaustive account of Boston of the present day. Up wards of 200 solidly packed pages of small type, describing in ABC order everything of any importance in or around the city, and giving quasi?diction- ary definitions of words and phrases peculiar alone to Boston. This work has been in preparation for m-re than two years, and when it appears in the sum-, mer of 1882, it will be the most thorough book of its class ever made. It is - a compilation slmihr to Dickens* Dictionary of London, King's Pocketbook of Cincinnati, Appleton's Dictionary of New York, etc. It is chiefly the work of Edwin M. Bacon, Editor of the " Boston Daily Advertiser." MOSES KING'S PUBLICATIONS. y Index to North American Review, 1815-1880. By William Cushing. 170 pp., including supple ment. Cloth. $3.50. _ With this Index the "North American Review" for 65 years becomes m itself a valuable library for reference and for entertainment. Its stores of literary wealth are readily referred to through the index, either to authors or to subjects. Dr. Q.W. Holmes speaks of Mr. Cushing's work as follows: "I might almost dare to parody Mr. Webster's word^s in speaking of Hamilton, to describe what Mr. Cushing did for the solemn rows of back vo'umes of our honored old Review, which had been lying fossilizing on our shelves: " he Louched the dead corpse of the North American and it sprang to its feet. A library of the best thought of the best American scholars- during the greater portion of the century was brought to light by the work of the index maker, as truly as were the Assyrian tablets by the labors of Layard.'' Handbook of Mount Auburn Cemetery. 32mo. 100 pp. 31 illustrations. Paper. 30 cents. This is a little guide to Cambridge in general and to Mount Auburn Cemetery in particular. It contains a history and description of the Ceme tery, and many views of its monuments, and biographical notes of the noted people buried there. It is the only guide-book of its kind now published. Cambridge High School History and Cata logue. By William F. Bradbury, principal, and ' Elbridge Smith, former principal. 60 pp. 3 illus trations. Cloth, $1.00; paper, 50 cents. This work contains the full names and present addresses of all the School's past and present teachers and graduates, besides its history from the beginning to this time. The lists of graduates are arranged, first by classes, and afterwards in alphabetical order. The occupation is mentioned, and whenever a graduate simply entered or graduated at any advanced education al institution, the fact is indicated. Whenever a female graduate has been married, the name and address of the husband are .given. Comparative courses of study at different periods are inserted, and the list of text books now used is included. King's Petite Guide to Boston. 128 small pages. Paper. 15 cents. This little guide is on tissue paper, designed to be easily carried in pocketbook or vest pocket. It contains alphabetically arranged descriptions of all the important places in and around Boston. Its mntter is such as is usually found in guide books: its chief features being its compactness, terse ness, fullness and convenience. Back-Bay District, and the Vendome. 32 PP- 30 illustrations. Paper. 2$ cents. A neat pamphlet, describing and illustrating the many noteworthy features of Boston's famous Back-Bay district, including the palatial Hotel Vendome. 3 MOSES KING'S PUBLICATIONS. MEDAL AND DIPLOMA AWARDED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS CHARITABLE MECHANIC ASSOCIATION, TO Moses King, of Cambridge, FOR BOOKS, INTEREST TABLES, ETC. The Keport of the Judges was as follows : " Ingenuity, originality and enterprise are apparent in.every item of this exhibit. It combines the-results of the tact of the skillful editor with the discrimina tion and good taste of the successful publisher. It is entitled to honorable mention, as being in some respects one of the most praiseworthy exhibits in this department of the Exhibition." Bronze Medal. fl®*A specialty made of supplying residents in any part of the world with new and second-hand books, particularly those in fine bindings, and those of great value by ^reason of age or rarety. Any book written by a Harvard graduate, or used in Harvard University, can generally be obtained here, if obtainable anywhere.